Yeah I think it is too rigid as well. I'd like to be able to queue up multiple missions if the supplies are available. I like the idea of naval bases as rally points. On the other hand, I don't like being able to relocate a fleet to an undeveloped system.
I find that ships are expensive enough that I only build them in a few key node systems, where I also get the construction bonus for the naval base. All the other systems are dedicated to trade.
Yeah maybe once they can get the game to run reliably, they can go back to making the game changes. I hate the new fleet system it's way too cumbersome. I think I'll go back to Distant Worlds and AI Wars for now.
New update, Jan 24:
+ Fixed AI from taking control of players in slots other than slot 1
+ Fixed upgrade missions from using the wrong system to populate upgrade options
+ Fixed issues with upgrade missions.
+ Fixed missing start node lines for Humans
+ Fixed an incorrect calculation for ship construction that caused the player to have less production then they were supposed
+ Fix missing Battle Cruiser and Battle Ship Categories
+ Fixed module weapons
+ Fixed spectres not being attacked by planetary beams when merged with planets
+ Fixed some animations for Liir battleriders
+ Fixed minor projector bugs
+ Fixed the order of fleets in all mission screens
Other Changes and Additions:
+ Minor tech tree and ship tuning changes
+ Launcher not properly reflecting game version number
I'm afraid your arch-nemesis beat you to the punch this time, Grifman.
The fleet stuff was supposed to make things a bit more 'formal' I would guess. However it has turned things a bit tedious , surveying is also a mechanic that isn't really needed if you ask me.
Simpler pool of ships, fleets should be able to do like Shogun 2, gain ships from the pool every so often to replace losses.
CNC ships was a weak spot in SOTS 1 too, idea is good, execution so and so, I would remove them personally and instead just have a 'lead' ship.
Yep surveying is different from the previous game. Personally I don't build surveying fleets, I build general purpose combat fleets which I use to survey, defend, and attack.
I like the Shogun idea of unit replacement. Something like that is kind of already in the game. If you task a fleet with a mission and you don't have a required ship you'll automatically build that ship and add it to the fleet.
IMO the fleet system is a good concept yet to go through some playtesting / iteration cycles. Hopefully they're open to making adjustments after the bigger issues are tackled?
After playing a bit more the last few days and fighting a few battles I can really see the charm of the fleet system, but it needs a few tweaks to be a little less annoying. I think one of the biggest things in it's favor is, because battles now tend to be fleet vs. fleet, you get a lot more battles that are roughly even instead of being able to build a giant fleet and rely on the bonus outnumber ships to win.
Primarily, I think they need to add the ability to let a fleet relocate at any time. It's really frustrating to have a fleet on a mission in a system right next to another system where you want to rebase them, but the fleet has to travel back to it's previous base before you can give them the relocate order. It would just save some hassle and time if I could tell that fleet to relocate the instant they are done with their mission... or even better, add to the mission creation interface the ability to select an alternate system to return to.
As I mentioned above another option that would streamline things a lot is letting ships transfer from one reserve to another without having to join a fleet. Sometimes I need to spread my construction out through multiple systems to speed it up a bit, but then I'm left with having to send a "ferry" fleet around to pick up the new ships and gather them together. That's just annoying micro management that slows things down. At the very least being able to give a rally command to order all new ships to gather at a certain system would also probably help.
I think the main thing annoying me at the moment is an odd issue on the main map. Is anyone else getting an issue where sometimes a fleet in a system is placed "on top" of the system, so when you try to select the system you only get the lone fleet? You can usually click around and eventually get the system selected, but it sometimes takes a lot of clicking and rotating the camera to work and it's really irritating.
I would imagine the blasting you'd get would be a lot less nowadays, but one can only guess. At least think about posting over there and letting the fanboys chew on it for old time's sake.
Yea I'd recommend posting it on the suggestions forum.
Well, 200 + turns out, really stable, 6 player DISC, turn times are good, I'm happy.
AI is somewhat weird, sometimes he gives me absolute hell, I can't get off the ground, other times he leaves me alone..
Combat in space works, however I keep wondering if they ment for their space combat to contain a lot more ships than it does now.
Woah, what firepower on my new War Dreadnaught, I could sit in design and watch that thing fire on those targets ALL day...
Holy crap what a game it would be just to play one of them...
Last edited by Janster; 01-25-2012 at 04:35 PM.
I know one of their goals was fewer, more important, and less disposable ships.
Did someone say how to change combat distance, I often find my pursuit ships not closing in enough to give proper fire to the enemy.
<shrug> There are still a ton of people who never saw a refund like me, and for them to continue to market the game on Steam while talking about how much of a 'failure' it is, is hypocritical in the least, and unethical at the most. Why would they even say that at this point, such a slap in the face.
It's nice that he's taking responsibility, but it doesn't exactly explain where the failure happened. The reference to changes in contracts seems to support the idea, to me, that Kerberos was beyond an agreed upon release date and beyond Paradox funding agreements and thus both sides were stuck.
Yeah you'd think the normal route would be to fund the completion of the game, in exchange for Kerberos getting a smaller slice of the sales income. That or just drop the game entirely if the expected costs of completion were too high.
I'm wondering if that whole renegotiation broke down? I guess 'who owns what' if the game isn't ready on time is the critical part of the contract.
Well, for what it's worth, he says they've changed the way the do contracts with third parties so that might be exactly what they're going to do in the future. It's still a little mind-boggling that people weren't able to come up with that in time to stave the disasterous release that this was. Then again, one thing I've seen with mismanagement is that there's always enough blame to go around when it comes right down to it. It's good that Wester took full responsibility for the release, but I doubt we'll ever know for certain what the nitty-gritty details were.
Thing is in the end I guess it doesn't matter too much on the consumer side: we're waiting for the game to be completed (or waiting for a refund that is proverbially forever in the mail for Lorini). At least it's shaping up to be pretty solid and I'm looking forward to seeing the whole package when they're done. And yes, they're still selling it at full price. At least anyone looking to buy it will have easy access to reviews or message boards explaining the state of it. That said, it seems like a worthwhile purchase at this point (at long last)
IMO it's pretty fun to play now and it's shocking to see how far it's come from launch state. I hope that this has gone some way towards mending the relationship between Kerberos and Paradox; sounds like it's a risk that comes with working with the smaller dev teams.