victor_D85 wrote:All of this could be mitigated to a certain degree if there was tactical combat; perhaps a skilled player could in fact defeat a larger fleet by employing brilliant tactics. Alas, there is no such option, so you watch the AI lose all your ships because its inner spreadsheet told it that more ships beat fewer ships.
This makes the game basically unplayable for me; I am not allowed to play as *I* want to play a 4x game. I am forced to either constantly expand, even if I don't want to, or... well, lose the game first time I get attacked by a slightly stronger enemy. The game says it is a Grand Strategy game, but there is no strategy in it. Strategy, tactics, focus on quality and technological superiority is what allows countries like Israel to beat enemies outnumbering them 20:1. It should be possible to do this in space, but Stellaris doesn't let you.
tl;dr: I am grateful for Stars in Shadow and other indie games trying to give player control and challenge that doesn't seem unfair or unbalanced. Keep up the good work guys, I am going to buy your DLCs or expansions rather than the ten thousand expansions Paradox will release for Stellaris without fixing the lack of strategic depth.
zolobolo wrote: snip
Another interesting route is taken by Endless Space 2, where only high-level decisions are made via "cards".
\snip
blazenclaw wrote:zolobolo wrote: snip
Another interesting route is taken by Endless Space 2, where only high-level decisions are made via "cards".
\snip
If it's anything like the first Endless Space, it's basically a 4-5 sided rock-paper-scissors game played 3x per combat where winning can up to double your fleet's efficacy. Of course, if you outnumber your enemy by 3 times or so, it doesn't really matter other than slightly reducing losses taken which does kinda make sense.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests