Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Imperium Galactica 3 or Hegemonia?
Faylorn
Elite Ranger
in Zocalo v2.0
Thoughts:
-the [Hegemonia] trailers crappily imitate crappy (all) Hollywood trailers. I think they were made by the same guy that made the IG2 trailers
-both games look similar 'cept IG3 will be 'an adventure home' while Hegemonia will be IG3 if IG3 wasn't 'an adventure home'
-I hate the Hegemonia trailers
-anyone gonna buy one of these? Graphics aside, gameplay looks crappy. As the industry progress it seems some devs are getting the quaint notion that naval battles, between similarly scaled opponents, are a huge exchange. This is only somewhat true. Ya see, it only takes 1-3 shots for about any WW2 vessel - what people think when they think naval battles, of course sometimes they think nineteenth to seventeenth century vessels aswell, anyway - to knock the dingus out of another. There's such a huge exchange because of unknown winds affecting trajectory and such and such causing a miss. My point is that tactical combat is dulled when the extra time and effort for ambushing/flanking dimwits gets you a 5% edge in hull strength -- a dubious increase of battle favorability. THEY SHOULD BE HANGING ON BY A THREAD AND LAUNCHING ESCAPE PODS!!!
-if a naval battle took place today it would almost be over before it started (those cruise missiles smart!)
-what's your take?
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-21-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-21-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-21-2002).]
-the [Hegemonia] trailers crappily imitate crappy (all) Hollywood trailers. I think they were made by the same guy that made the IG2 trailers
-both games look similar 'cept IG3 will be 'an adventure home' while Hegemonia will be IG3 if IG3 wasn't 'an adventure home'
-I hate the Hegemonia trailers
-anyone gonna buy one of these? Graphics aside, gameplay looks crappy. As the industry progress it seems some devs are getting the quaint notion that naval battles, between similarly scaled opponents, are a huge exchange. This is only somewhat true. Ya see, it only takes 1-3 shots for about any WW2 vessel - what people think when they think naval battles, of course sometimes they think nineteenth to seventeenth century vessels aswell, anyway - to knock the dingus out of another. There's such a huge exchange because of unknown winds affecting trajectory and such and such causing a miss. My point is that tactical combat is dulled when the extra time and effort for ambushing/flanking dimwits gets you a 5% edge in hull strength -- a dubious increase of battle favorability. THEY SHOULD BE HANGING ON BY A THREAD AND LAUNCHING ESCAPE PODS!!!
-if a naval battle took place today it would almost be over before it started (those cruise missiles smart!)
-what's your take?
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-21-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-21-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-21-2002).]
Comments
Personally I would go with Hegemonia, it seems like the game that will have the longest life span and it also has more depth (researching technology, capturing planets and such).
It also has multiplayer, which although some people say is not as important as singleplayer, it adds life to the game...I have had some great games of Homeworld: Cataclysm online, some even more intense than singleplayer.
Worf
------------------
"Have you ever wondered why there are so many dead worlds out there? Let me tell you why. It's because despite the best advise of people who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things." -Galen
Shields nothing! The defensive capabilities of craft in both cases is vastly disproportionate to the weaponry. Why not with naval vessels take some of the power out of shields and put it into weapons? Every hardcore strategy gamer knows offensive capability is more valuable anyway. Furthermore, because of this some craft are completely useless. For example, check out the bombers in the demo. They fire a bomb which does nothing and then get shot and die horribly. Why, in the context of the game, would commanders decide it necessary to have such a useless craft? These games are supposed to be fun and they make me want to cry. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
[WORF]Personally I would go with Hegemonia, it seems like the game that will have the longest life span and it also has more depth (researching technology, capturing planets and such).[/WORF]
IG3 is supposed to be as 4X than IG2 with enhanced diplomacy so it'll include "tech research", and "such" [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img] but capturing planets will be reduced to winning battles within a certain region around the planet. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img] I so liked the infantry, tanks, and air support part of invasion. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
[WORF]It also has multiplayer, which although some people say is not as important as singleplayer, it adds life to the game...I have had some great games of Homeworld: Cataclysm online, some even more intense than singleplayer.
Worf[/WORF]
I think that's the first I've heard of people that openly tout single player as important. Hence, those people and I are of like mind. Thanks for bringing it up! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] Most people I've seen say single is nothing more than a fancy demo to them and they buy games for the multi. Bah!
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-21-2002).]
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
------------------
"God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Being lazy this weekend,
=-Rigs-=
------------------
"Now, we gave you a promise and we are bound by that promise and damn you for asking for it! And damn me for agreeing to it! And damn all of us to hell, because that's exactly where we're going! We talked about peace. You didn't want peace. We talked about cooperation. You didn't want cooperation. You want war! Is that it? You want a war? Well you've got a WAR!"
- John Sheridan, Babylon 5
most likely I will download the games,illegaly (or download the demo if it exists) and the buy the one I like..if I like any of them.
*downloading IG3 demo*
Biggles: Strategy games reknowned for their excellent combat systems have a realistic offense to defense ratio per unit -->(offense/defense)/unit. I know it's idealistic to demand a large amount of realism but I don't think I'm doing that, am I? Consider that the tactical aspect is a primary focus of both games. Nothing wrong with getting it as close to real as possible, eh?
TheSaint: Okay, I guess I was exaggerating... but still, compare the real thing to IG3 or Hegemonia or subsitute 1-3 "shots" with "exchanges". It takes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than a dozen shots to destroy the crappiest ship in either game. Kinda saps the edge out of any ambush if you ask me. However, who knows? Perhaps, as Worf suggests, futuristic combat will be like that but, for the sake of fun, should it be in these games? That's all I'm asking.
Rigs: I am also afflicted with chronic laziness. Use either or both methods my friend:
-trial and error
-minimize, open manual, use find function
works for me [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Mundane: I try to do that too.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-23-2002).]
Second of all, why the hell are you talking about realism and a Sci-Fi strategy game in the same sentence ???
Hell, most ships' main defense systems in B5 was the all-mighty plot-device...
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
this of course wouldn't carry over all that well to an actual game, since most players would put all their resources into the said gunboats and leave the vulnerable capships alone completely, thus making it rather [i]dull[/i]...
This is something most people like to call [quotationfingers]"Game Balancing"[/quotationfingers]
Though, your cruise-missile remark sorta intrigues me... A Harpoon/Fleet-Command in space is something I'd like to see....
Oh, and I invented the [quotationfingers] "Quotation Fingers" [/quotationfingers]... or so I [quotationfingers]"Think"[/quotationfingers]....
P.S. I've been playing the IG3 demo a lot as of late and beat it and discovered there are tactics to be employed but it's still no testimony to tactical combat simulation. I might buy the game anyway -- for sure if it's moddable.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-25-2002).]
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
But with current, or even potential future technology (for the next hundred years or so) space battles would be that short, alot like submarine battles
The energy avalible to weapons in space (IE the ability to reach high velocities due to lack of moving through an atmosphere) Will severaly out pace the ability of any currently known potential material of the hull to resist the impact.
Currently most modern subs expect to only take one large torpedo hit then if they arent on the bottom they are "mission killed" meaning they can not continue further operations and must return to base.
Thats why for submarines your weapon is silence and stealth.
Space combat will be alot like that in the forseable future, the first one to detect their opponent and work up a viable firing solution will be the victor.
The inherited flaws are of tactical combat, that is: unit and weapon dynamics. It can be determined, by a unit's tactical features, the tactical solution it best serves. There are, as I define them, three elementary solutions: intercept, assault and fire support. Intercept is for destroying fire support and is fast, lightly armored, short range and heavily armed; assault is for defending fire support and is slow, heavily armored, short to medium range and moderately armed; fire support is for destroying fortified positions and can be slow to fast and is lightly armored, long range and heavily armed. Regard this example of my general categorization of units in Age of Empires II (now in stores!):
Intercept
cavalry
Assault
infantry
archer
anti-infantry siege weapon
Fire Support
anti-building siege weapon
In Imperium Galactica II combat ships were intercept and fighters were assault; fire support was absent or not distinguishable. Unfortunately, this legacy appears to continue in Haegemonia.
Moving on, Haegemonia's combat ships inherit a tactical orientation of strategic rigidity. This may be understood through an inverted example: in reality, the fighter class solutions: intercept and assault are defined by the ratio and configuration of a fighter's tactical features, for example: an intercept fighter has relatively high speed, heavy short range weaponry, and low manueverability. A unit's efficacy in a solution, excluding technological considerations, is consolidation of tactical advantages where required and, hence, strategically flexible. A rich scope of tactical solutions are focussed intercept, assault, and fire support roles which are occasionally per craft of environment type. As simple this is, it is non-existent in Haegemonia.
In addition, a small flaw with probable and significant implications is how, AGAIN, the fighter class has disproportionately little stamina compared to combat ships. The class may still be viable but, at the very least, they are destroyed at such a fantastic rate so as to induce ponderance on the psychological premise of Haegemonia's pilots. Consider the lack of attention as a corollary to the probable non-existence of and a requirement for anti-air weaponry or non-electronic anti-missile countermeasures, and perhaps even a missile that will exhaust or be evaded. An effecacious unit warrants a counter solution and a semblance of realistic interaction between it and its counter. This, except for missile exhaustion, is standard in Masters of Orion II and entirely present in the Imperium Galactica III demo but none in Imperium Galactica II or Haegemonia.
The Haegemonia tactical combat system resembles Imperium Galactica II's in all its horror. There is no mobile fire support, regard for distinguishable tactical solutions or, as in the last case, a sign that the developer in charge of unit design is sober. Before I compared or confirmed suspected observations I noticed a flight of people to the Haegemonia camp. Most were under the false assumption that its arch rival, Imperium Galactica III, put an extreme focus on tactical combat and, thus, lacking in the strategic aspect. This is not so. Here is correspondence between Imperium Galactica III's producer, Axel Rathgeber, and the Imperium Galactica III board administrator, Lucullus, on the Imperium Galactica III board that drives the point:
"Could you provide some information on how extensive the strategy part will be?
- Expect to encounter the entire range of 4X goodness in IG3:exploration, expansion, exploitation & extermination. However, as the goal of the game isn't to conquer the entire universe but instead to find a way back home to earth (and save the rest of the Unverse on the way), certain aspects are weighted different from your garden variety of 4X games. Oh - and let's not forget about diplomacy - we've got a whole bunch of really ... interesting aliens for you guys to not only war but also deal with in other ways The game's scope, however, won't encompass entire Millennia, thousands of star systems and countless fleets sporting astronomic numbers of sheer identical battleships. In those aspects, we focus more on quality than on quantity. Star systems will instead be fleshed out with background information, individual ships of the small fleets will be freely configured by the player and thus actually matter in a battle, and an engrossing storyline spanning a reasonable amount of time will keep you on your toes."
Hence, I offer this admonition: buyer beware the unerring in which the Haegemonia team retraces its footsteps. As a reminder, before making any game purchase: read the feature list, examine the trailers and, if possible download the playable demo or retail game. Good luck!
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live