Galactic War and the methods of novelty.

Here are the listed details of Galactic War from the stretch goal.

Features include:
Procedurally generated galaxy map, play a different galaxy every time!
Single player and co-op for local play
Online multiplayer mega-battles. Join a faction and plunder the universe!
Clan wars servers for fighting the galactic war between clans
Dynamic story system that logs your fight and generates exciting counter attacks and special missions that up the challenge level.

I gotta say, the galactic war campaign idea was the thing that really was selling it for me. Skirmishes are fun, but nothing's more fun than having that big ol' galaxy, and getting to watch your forces spread across it like a cancer, consuming until you have spread across an entire galaxy.

But how do you keep it from being 'just' a series of skirmish missions? There's nothing wrong with that, certainly- But what can be done to make things more flexible? In cases where I think the example given may not be very self-evident, I'll try to cite other games with a system similar to what I'm thinking.

Differentiation in maps: Well, this one is a given. Before you invade a map, it'd be nice to have an idea of what planets incorporate the system, like 'Lava Lava Gas Metal', or somesuch, what level of enemy forces are present there- What worlds they have taken, how fortified they are- And possibly a chance to determine what world you want to start on? Do you start on the metal-rich metal world that's been fortified to high hell and risk getting kicked in the teeth, or do you claim the relatively untouched gas giant for yourself? Further, what about a difference in unit caps? Presumably there'll be different levels of unit caps available for skirmish games, what about incorporating that into maps? Some systems- Probably based on the number of planets and asteroids- having smaller caps than others, forcing you to use a smaller cap, etcetera.

Objectives: Let's face it- It's just not that fun to mindlessly grind through every single last enemy system. So, how about the option for some objectives? 1: Capitals. The classic- Every player starts with a capital. Whoever holds them all is in control. 2: Assassination. Every player has a mobile-or-immobile Headquarters or Cloning Center or somesuch, which when destroyed, cannot be rebuilt. Either destruction wipes out the side as a whole, or it means that they can no longer win- The former would probably be wiser, since, you know, players are probably gonna stop playing when they lose anyway. 3: Artifacts. Random planets start with artifacts. If one player captures them all, that player wins.

Diplomacy: Having team mates is always important. Being able to change this isn't so important, but it'd be interesting to have more than one player at a time attacking a particularly well-fortified system. Additionally, the question should be asked of whether, in multiplayer and single-player, you have a Star Wars: Empire at War style system, where everyone starts with a proportionate slice of the galaxy in their control, and must capture exclusively from other players, or if there are neutral systems, ala Sins of a Solar Empire or most 4x games, where the players start out with a fairly small starting area, and must fight neutral, unaligned forces to expand.

Advancement: A minor power, composing a couple of systems, has far fewer resources, and much less impressive abilities than a faction that controls seventy percent of the galaxy. How to properly implement this is the question, of course. 1: Greater forces at the start of a mission. This is the style used by Rise of Nations, Rise of Legends, and the Warhammer 40K Dawn of War 1 games, where taking different nations will give you access to more forces at game start- Not enough to bulldoze fortified enemies, but enough that you have a strong defense starting out. This is probably the most easily implemented. 2: Research advancements. This avoids the whole 'We lose all technology every time' thing that some games experience. However, this is not the sort of thing that Total Annihilation or Supreme Commander ever really had to worry about- There wasn't really a research tree, and units were predictable in their power- No upgrades. This seems fine to me. 3: Planetary bonuses. Specific planets give you different bonuses across the entire galaxy. This is the system that's used in Dawn of War 1, and Star Wars: Empire at War. The difference is that since this map is going to be about two orders of magnitude larger than anything they used in those games, such 'special worlds' should probably be relatively rare, compared to other worlds. This will serve to concentrate fighting around these planets, giving players direction in the way they want to attack. Might encourage single-unit or -type armies, though, so balancing might be a bit trickier. 4: Artifacts and Super-Weapons: This is the idea of significant non-numerical bonuses. A new unit type, ideally strong-but-expensive-but-not-gamechanging, nuclear weapons, orbital lasers, etcetera- These are similar to planetary bonuses, you get access to them by capturing a given world, but have a more focused effect. Could be fun, but probably the most difficult to balance.

Random events: A bit of unpredictability in the conditions that will come in the future can be useful. For example, on a given turn, all aircraft and orbital units may have a 25% decrease in cost- The reasons aren't important, but it'll encourage the player to focus on systems heavy on gas giants. This random event would apply no matter where you invade, and would affect both any counter-attacks and any normal attacks.

That mostly covers my thoughts. The purpose of this post, then, is to discuss three things, in decreasing order of importants. First: Desirability of inclusion. Second: Feasibility of inclusion. And third: Method of inclusion.

Agreed, Galactic war sounds like it has lots of potential. To address your initial points:

• Various maps: as you said, a given.
• Objectives: Capital (planet)? annihilate it! This is literally the name of the game! Assassination? I think this mode is called "kill the commander". Artifacts? Eh, I'm not sold, but it could be interesting.
• Diplomacy: I'm going to have to say "pass" on this one. While I love the concept, I don't think PA is the game for this.
• Advancement: Lots of ideas in here, not sure how to address it. Let's just say, I'm trusting the UE team to make it awesome.
• Random events: As long as they are somewhat forecast-able and unilateral (affect both sides equally) this could add some strategy-shakeup and flavor.

And now, a few of my own ideas! Actually there's just one.

• Stealth: When entering a new system, perhaps the enemy already has a presence. Defeating an entrenched enemy is extremely difficult, unless the enemy doesn't know you're there! This would require a vastly different tactic, perhaps only building on the "dark side" of a tidal-locked moon around the foe's planet. Perhaps building up a fleet of killer asteroids far out of sensor range before dropping them on the foe all at once. Whatever the tactic, the idea would be to avoid alerting the enemy that you had arrived... until it's too late.

I like this idea. Perhaps it could function as a no-rush timer over a large area, like a moon or the outer rim of a system. The defending AI won't bother you until either time runs out or you leave the safe-zone.

Stealth would probably be best served as a sort of 'No-rush' on the AI- Simply, until you either move out of a predetermined starting section- The dark side of a moon, or some out-of-the-way gas giant- or a certain amount of time passes, the AI won't respond to your presence. This could, if need be, be simulated with the AI running scout patrols around the various planets in the system. That'd seem like the kind of thing they get up to.

As far as diplomacy goes, we know that there will be a system of having allies, because they've promised you can have co-op- Presumably, that means that two human players can, potentially, win together. If this is the case, then having neutral systems- IE, a 'player' who will not counter-attack or respond to their worlds being taken with greater defenses- would make sense. It allows for more strategic maneuvering before striking.

There's a reason most games start with each of the players controlling only a small section of the map. Exploration, exploitation of resources, and expansion are important parts of a strategy game, because they allow you to build up and avoid a cold war stalemate due to even matching. In the same way, not having to compete immediately with other active players in the beginning of the galactic war will allow you to shape your world more significantly, and play to your strengths- and suffer from your weaknesses. It also means that you can slowly 'get used' to all of your bases. When you've built a base from scratch, you'll know where everything is, rather than having to figure out where everything is. In the same way, a Galactic War campaign that lets you feel out the structure of each world by having personally conquered it will create a much closer feeling, and give you more experience with the weaknesses and strengths of a given world.

Imagine having a particularly valuable world, which is contested, over and over again, much more than valueless border worlds that see barely any action. You may have mission after mission on this map, learning its quirks and scarring it permanently.

Which is another thing to consider, along the values line- Long-term consequences. If you launch an asteroid and destroy the world with that ultra-advanced factory that gives you that bonus, will that wipe it out? What if the enemy player manages to do that? This could really suck, if you lose something that's very valuable to you- Or it could make the game much more strategic, with the decision between capture, or denial.

Just some more thoughts.

I would really like to see significant variety in the Galactic War. Space stage was supposed to be the biggest part of Spore, but trying to get to the center of the galaxy got boring for me, because it was just the same thing over and over again, and then extremely difficult near the center. Anything more to change the Galactic War from just a series of skirmish matches would be great!

That's an idea for another Objective style- King of the Hill. Fighting against a superior enemy, trying to fight your way from the edge of one of the rims, to the galactic core, to produce a generator to take advantage of the colossal black hole in the center of the galaxy theoretically, to harness its energies, and become capable of destroying your enemies/warping space and time/becoming a post-physical god, or whatever. With, naturally, a suitably set-piece-y final battle.

I would like that Galactic war is more SP focused, of course it is fun to play with other friends but I think it should have something which is worth playing alone and for times where there are no friends to play with.

it should have definitely prebuild bases of AI enemies and some kind of elements of surprise like a new force comes in or a new metal planet appears something like that. I also want it to be possible that even if every beginning is different there should be the possibility to have the exact same distribution or whats or ever once again if you want to.

I really do not like the idea that galactic war is again something for multiplayer. I think it would be just unfair.

I see no reason why it should be too tough to make it both a satisfying single-player and multi-player experience. The primary difference is in the need to program an AI. It hardly needs to be Deep Blue, with an exquisite knowledge of strategy and fakeouts, it just needs to be able to target the places where your defenses are weak, or your structures are highly valuable. A simple priority list would work fine there.

Otherwise, you can have Player v. Player, Player v. AI, and Player+Player v. AI- A competent artificial intelligence can be very fun to play against with a human friend.

Vis a vis the idea of factories, with specific upgrades...

This would be a really interesting way to implement Experimentals. Neutral structures that must be captured. Maybe make them incredibly hard to destroy- Though not impossible, since, y'know, asteroid impacts- and capable of building such experimental devices. It adds an interesting new element of control.

There's also the possibility of having them linked to specific types of worlds- An experimental tank only buildable in the vast gantries of a metal world, a tremendous orbital Doom Fortress that requires the vast sources of He3 available on a gas giant, an ultra-carrier that requires a water world for its first floating...

Additional idea for entering the system

Asteroids. You've got an asteroid which flies into the system, setting up an orbit around a planet of your choice. This has a few advantages.

It explains the limited number of units you can bring with you- There're only so many people that can fit on an asteroid.

It gives you an area guaranteed to be free of enemy troops early on.

Justifications, vis a vis 'travel time' concerns, and teleportation.

One of the big things is that space travel gets made kind of obsolete, at least on interstellar scales, by teleportation. Well, how about if the problem with teleportation is less 'energy concerns', and more 'disruption of things travelling through it.' Commander has extremely advanced phlebotinum shielding to prevent it from going haywire. Other units would not be so lucky. Asteroid is teleported into the edge of the system, and sent into an orbit around a planet.

This gives the ability to have a guaranteed source of resources before you enter the system, without having to worry about clearing out a space for yourself in a system swarming with enemies.

The main problems are thematic. I've outlined a possible solution, there, but I don't know how persuasive it is.

You didn't exactly say it, but I envisioned a sort of time limit as the asteroid approached orbit and once it reached the orbital vector in system you are detected by the enemy and they respond. I'm trying to think how this could be made to work well in multiplayer. Perhaps from the opposing players standpoint they don't see the asteroid approaching at all. However whats to stop them from building up during this time also. This also depends on the amount of real estate on an asteroid. Just looking at the PA presentation I really don't think there is much for actual base building on asteroids. It looks like those are more for landing an engineer with supplies and they start building engines and that they are more meant as a late game endgame component as a strategic weapon or perhaps as a mineral resource. Not that this couldn't change, but they seem to have a fairly fleshed out vision for some things already.

It all seems cool and all, but I think probably it could be a more streamlined system where the stealth approach person just spends points to purchase their initial starting units and then cherry picks their initial assault point and the game begins. However I still struggle with the actual point of this, in relation to Galactic War. Perhaps it's an assault option for only certain planet types? This would also depend on how the game is going to handle galactic war from a persistence standpoint. If you attack a system and win and later your opponent attacks the system to take it back, in what state is the system going to be? The way it was at the end of the previous conflict or what? The answer to this question would make a case for whether a stealth or super assault of some sort is even necessary.

Simplest approach is each system is started afresh.

And if an enemy invades a system you already fought on?
did you reconsume all your units and heal the worlds you turned into magma balls?
Gameplay-wise that would be best but what would be the reason?

There might be some bonus for established infrastructure. Possibly something like starting mexes and fabs, giving you the resource base to quickly build a defence.

Conversely, to balance this an attacker will probably need the ability to attack using a forward force of units. Which would in turn need to have a strategic (between-system-battle) cost to the to prevent a suitably overwhelming force to be brought in every time.

Of course, you could play without such perks, but then you might as well go on a server with a full map rotation as you will get the same gameplay experience.

The reason is that once you won in a system, you/the engineers you left behind turned the entire system into a death fortress and a starfleet factory, that no Commander will ever be able to approach. The produced starfleet has tremendous firepower and is the only thing able to attack a system death fortress (being built with a non negligible fraction of the system's mass itself), but are slow and as such can only attack neighbour systems.
Which means that each won battle actually raise your influence in a given sector, "influence" being the control you have on said sector thanks to the number of doom fortresses and starfleets around.
But as even a small fraction of the galaxy has billions of systems, you still always find unoccupied systems that have not been processed and are far enough from doom fortresses and starfleets so you can fight for them unhindered (starfleets are too slow). And the only thing your enemy can do is sending their own Commanders to dispute the system, which will always arrive at the same time because teleportation works by <technobabble>

In fact, not doing it this way would be highly incoherent, as any conquered system can indeed be turned into a giant factory and fortress of doom in a matter of hours by a single construction unit.

This would also be hilariously boring, and could easily be addressed by stating that the range of a commander's military control is system-wide, and that having a large fleet somewhere without a commander would require artificial intelligence of an extremely high degree, which would be untrustworthy and prone to abrupt decisions that it could probably do a better job than you.

The idea of a planetary system being impossible to take back would be kinda annoying. And it's clearly within the ability of the Commanders to forge a world back in place, it would just take a lot of resources and non-military effort.