🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12v5mivpqm8r2fd@corp.supernews.com>, briggs@surewest.net says...
> For the next several weeks I am going to have a lot of free time and I have 
> decided to immerse myself in a 4X Space game.  I thought maybe you guys 
> could help me narrow down an appropriate game.  I am not a fan of 
> micromanagement (though I like that option in specific instances.)  I do not 
> care about graphics though there is plenty of computer horsepower avaiable 
> if necessary.
> 
> I have the following choices readily available for immediate play (I would 
> consider others but these are the games I have available.)
> 
> Reach for the Stars

The last patch at least made this playable. But I just haven't immersed myself 
in it further than to find out that much ... nothing like the original rfts 
(should you have ever played it).

> Gallactic Civ 2:  Dark Avatar

Very good indeed, and no micromanagement from hell. If you are into combat 
heavily this may not be for you, it's mostly about resource balancing, 
exploring, colonizing and empire building if you want to do well. You can win a 
military victory all right but the battles are automatic (if watchable)((you 
can design your own ships)). Very good 4x in my opinion. Best in the franchise 
so far. Been playing this since the late beta stages. (and GalCiv since the 
OS/2 days).

> Space Empires 4
> Space Empires 5

Some people contend that SE5 is worse than SE4 Gold. Certainly took me a long 
time to find my way through the interface on SE5. But it's actually all there, 
even though it's much harder to find. Lots more eye-candy in SE5, especially 
with some of the mods already available (Fyron's beta mod for SE5 from 
spaceempires.net is _gorgeous_). You can get a very very good idea from the 
demos of these games, I'd recommend a download and trial. But until you learn 
the keyboard shortcuts it's the UI from some lesser hell, especially SE5 :-( 
Great scope to immerse onself into a 4x strategy game apart from that.

****
The main difference between the two game systems is that SE is star-lane based, 
whereas in GalCiv you have ships flying through open space. Chokepoints in 
GalCiv only come about through range limitations that are technology dependent.
Range limitations in SE are dependent on how much supplies your ships carry.
Diplomacy is quite extensive in both games, Galciv seems to focus more on one-
off deals whereas in SE you can have re-supply treaties, repair treaties, 
various forms of trade, espionage and political treaties. However, it is opaque 
to me on what basis exactly the AI players react to diplomatic offers in SE.

With Dark Avatar Stardock have taken on board a lot of the things that were in 
SE already, mine-able asteroid fields, different planetary environments, 
limited building space on planets(not new); both have build lists that can be 
saved exist for both unless I am very much mistaken (rarely use that feature) 
and also continuous economic and research treaties (new in Avatar). 

What Galciv does have and SE doesn't is the ability to build starbases that 
enhance trade, production and military prowess over an area of influence, 
galactic resources that can be mined to influence your whole Civ (I suppose one 
could argue that the social research tree in SE has the same functionality as 
the latter), the ability to build culture specific and galactic 'wonders' and, 
not to forget, a much cleaner and easier to use interface.
****

> Sword of the Stars

The combat breaks this game. We've recently discussed this on 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic -- google the thread. 
Well nigh unplayable i.m.o.

> Birth of the Federation (Will this run in Windows XP?)

no idea.

> Stars (will this run in Windows XP?)

It runs fine on my system. I kinda like the game, but I have never yet 
completed a single one. It seems to turn to micromanagement hell the way I try 
to play it and it eventually just sends me to sleep so I've abandoned each and 
every game I've ever tried to play.

> Master of Orion II (will this run in XP?)

The Win95 version runs fine in Win95 compatibility mode. I still play this from 
time to time, I also play MoO 1 in dosbox v0.63 under XP. Great games, both.

> Master of Orion III

Nooooooo! I've never spent a lot of money on a worse game than this. Utter 
crap, I am afraid. Unless you like sitting in front of the monitor and keep 
hitting the enter key once in a while, while the computer plays with itself.
I count myself lucky that I managed to resell it after one week :-)

> Spaceword Ho!

The CD languishes on my shelf, or in the drawer. Despite the good reviews, this 
game just never engaged me. It most certainly never got that "just one more 
turn" button pushed that makes me want to replay a game. 
I've seen it given away on cover-CDs so it may be available for free download 
some place. (re-reads post - oh, you have it available already <g>).

***

You might also consider Space Rangers 2. Interesting mix of trading/rpg with 
adventure type puzzles and even rts (turnable off) thrown in. Not so much 
empire building - but clearing the quadrant of invading alien robots has 
elements of that as well, the way holding certain key positions is important in 
Risk or many other map-based games. I turned the rts off - I hate rts - and it 
kept me very interested for a couple of weeks. The I tired of it and haven't 
been remotely tempted to look at it ever since.

There's another one from Russia, Starwolf or Star Wolves or some title like 
that. Not my cup of tea I decided after a brief look at the demo. My 
superficial impression was that of a cross between Freelancer and Battlecruiser 
f.w.i.w. :-\

Both of these have a strong following however so I thought I'd mention them.


-P.

-- 
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com