Rob Zacny

Episode 415: Endless Space 2 Revisited

Recommended Posts

Three Moves Ahead 415:

Three Moves Ahead 415


Endless Space 2 Revisited
We put the call out to our Patreon backers: What game would you like us to circle back on? The winner of a heated battle was Amplitude's Endless Space 2. Released in May of 2017, Endless Space 2 took some of the learnings of a 3MA favorite, Endless Legend, and applied them to their original dust-using space 4X Endless Space. How has the game fared since launch? What is the Academy? Do we really need it? What does Amazon buying Whole Foods mean for hero availability? And, seriously - where are these pirates getting all this tech?

Endless Space 2, Endless Legend, Stellaris

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised by universal acclaim of Endless Legend. The game is gorgeous and innovative but, like Endless Space 1, it felt like a basis for a great game. And they never delivered. Those maps are beautiful but they never made them functional: I could only look at them in schematic mode, and even then it's hard to see anomalies and many features. UI is broken in many regards. AI is bad.

 

But you're right about solitaire feel being one of the biggest problems. It feels more like a simplified Anno game sometimes than a 4X. Or a Colonization game where you rarely care about other colonies. It's a common problem in 4X games that you don't care about other people other than the size of their armies, but here they're complete black box. At least they have personalities. But you don't care about their resources (it's more convenient to trade on the market), you don't have about their tech outside of the power of their military (and it's mitigated by the power of military not being as defined by tech as usual, ground troops have separate pseudotechtree, many modules are found through exploration), combat plays by some arcane rules so it's hard to do something about countering their armies apart from adjusting your kinetic/energy attack/defense ratio. Those huge dividing quests sort of help, as well as special planets - those are nice, those give a galaxy some structure.

 

Still, even in Civ5 I often think "this guy sells me Ivory and it helps my happiness so I have to maintain those relations". I don't think there's anything apart from military considerations forcing me to maintain peace. Maybe few of those political bonuses. They were supposed to add something to help this, but I rarely saw those agreements. The most interesting interactions with other empires come when you get several of those planets and you get lots of new citizens with a specific ideology. And their quests start to trigger. So when Cravers attack you it may also mean that you'll have to somehow handle that planet eating population, keep them from spreading, send them to frontier or something. It's more interesting than Stellaris where it's rarely beneficial to move your populace: here it's a huge part of the solitaire.

 

My other problem with ES2 (as well as EL) is what Rob mentioned - even when systems work they feel like systems. You don't get the feeling of progress. It's a narrative story, your people are changed by the quest story and inclusion of new people with different ideas. There's no feeling of progress or change with the times. Techs are interesting and unlock new stuff like market trading or planet destroying, the economy goes into a singularity phase so you have to change your playstyle... But it's boring compared to Civilization or Stellaris where you feel everything changed. Really only numbers change. In Stellaris you may end up with genetically modified race of galactic overlords facing interdimensional invasion. In ES2 you fight other people same way on turn 200 as on turn 30 but with bigger ships and numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice episode, I liked the discussion about a sort of 'League of Nations' idea. I can see why this is hard to get right in Sci Fi as it implies all the species in the game have some sort of shared language, culture, ideals etc. and are both aware and communicating with on another before even exploring space!

 

I think it worked well in Alpha Centuri where all the factions were descended from the crew of one ship and could work in a 'Foundation' like setting where the galaxy was once one great empire now fallen into barbarism and faction fighting allowing you to choose whether to recognise the authority of a 'Galactic Parliament' or not.

 

On the subject of exploration; I think a lot of these games are too eager to provide information about other faction's government, leadership style, wealth power, appearance etc. immediately after first contact.

Looking at 'King of Dragon Pass' there is no fact sheet or database than you consult to find out about neighbouring tribes, you build up your understanding through snatches of gossip from traders, reports from emissaries, rumours from other clans etc to slowly build a picture of the world around you in a much more rewarding fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's in vogue, but I really agree with Kroem that a designer that used King of Dragon Pass as a basis for a space 4x game would be doing well.

 

I enjoy Stellaris - it's my NCIS of games right now- but am completely underwhelmed that the extent of the challenge is YOU NEED MORE MINERALS where the true challenge would be balancing internal politics, choices about what the newly colonized planets are, and other political/society decisions.  Why should we spend a huge amount of resources to go over to another planet when we have problems of our own is a very very reasonable stance to take.

 

I think that Endless Space 2 solves this problem by giving each faction a storyline and making it more like an RPG- even if it takes away from the core 4x game.  The discussion on diplomacy will keep me from coming back to this one after I watch the trailers one last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I largely agree w/ this re-review. ES2 feels like you are competing against a database. There is little or no room for good counter-play outside of the somewhat sterile combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only encountered Endless Space 2 recently, after the big Statecraft update, so I cannot comment on how the game has evolved. But I have played it enough that I some of the criticism feels way off.

 

Most of my games are played in large galaxies, ring shaped, with all the major factions in, medium density and many constellations. I also play on "It's like you have guns and they have better guns". Grabbing good ground is very much needed, especially when it comes to unique planets that can sustain certain system builds (mainly for science and influence, with my playing style), even if terraforming becomes important later on and can make it easier to boost even bad planets. Wars and conflict with other empires are mostly based getting the best systems and making sure that they are somewhat defensible. The fact that new resources are popping up as the game progresses also means that interactions with other races become important and sometimes wars are required to get access or to deny them to others. I never felt lonely in the game, even if the AI is kinda weak during the mid-game. It can pose a challenge if it creates a solid alliance and I have had games where I had to scramble to beat back determined attacks.

 

Politics can be managed and there's no inevitability to the rise of the Militarists. I won as the Sophons while mostly keeping the Science party in power by carefully building out systems and making sure that I had the population and the heroes. Did the same as the Lumeris alternating between Pacifists and Industrialists. I won as all versions of the United Empire, while making sure that the party they quoted in the fiction as being in power actually was leading.

 

In my games the pirates serve as a check on dumb expansion moves and a way to make sure that the player does not commit to stupid wars early on. Normally it only takes a fleet of 10 ships, with two cruisers (or equivalent, depending on race), led by a hero, to stop most pirate fleets, which means only ring 3 research, which is mid-game. Their growth could be tweaked a little and it might be a good idea to introduce a way to bribe them in order to keep away, the system can clearly become better.

 

There are some valid points that the 3MA crew brings up, including the fact that there's a big gap between what diplomacy can be and is and the fact that the various factions are not as unique as they could be. At the same time I feel that there are plenty of critiques that apply to the genre rather than the Endless Space 2 implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The terrain problem in space games is an old one. If the designers have no terrain,  the distance between stars and ship range is the only limiting factor to player actions. As the game plays out, and the ship ranges increase, the map becomes less interesting. Player ships can reach so far that all star systems are threatened at all times. By the time a player pushes the enemy systems far enough away to create a buffer, the game is over. Mater of Orion 2 (1996) uses this system. This is the old Populous (1989) problem of the game becoming less interesting as you get more powerful. If the designers add space terrain that effects movement rates, etc, then the game becomes a terrestrial game, a re-skin of Interstel's Empire(1987-ish) or SSG's Warlords(1989), with star systems as cities and asteroid fields as mountains. Some players want terrain but hate space-lanes. Space lanes are abstracted terrain. Ascedancy (1995) used space lanes. 

 

All of these terrain ideas are well known by designers, and all work. So what is the real problem with Endless Space's generation of space 4x games? Is it the terrain model, the tech tree, or the quest rewards? The clue is that Master of Orion 2 is still a standard by which all 4x games have been measured since it's release in 1996. In the mid-1980s, when the Amiga was in homes with its bigger memory and faster processor, and games were made for these new abilities, an article was written wondering if with the increase in hardware capability, will the consumer get better games than Wizardry and it's 10 level dungeon, or simply get Wizardry with 1000 levels. Space 4x games since MOO2 reflect that concern.

 

The problem with space 4x games,  and strategy games, in general, is the computer opponent. The computer plays turn-based games about as well as it did in 1996. The RTS was created to combat this weakness, creating games that play to the computer's strengths of instant reaction to events. The RTS genre thrives with simpler designs because the player gets to play against a good opponent. Master of Orion 2 is filled with good ideas in a good package with the same level computer players as you get today. That games made today with similar ideas seem lesser is understandable. The agon and arete are what drives the strategy game, and no matter the depth of the system design, or the ease of the interface, or the scope of the setting, without a good opponent, any game will suffer. Master of Orion 2 will cast a long a shadow until the sun rises on the day of good computer opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played ES2, but to me the biggest problem with the original Endless Space was that it only ever provided you the illusion of choice.  There was an optimal choice for each decision. It took me a few plays to realize it, but you always need to hit the same critical set of technologies as quickly as possible (the casimir drive primarily, and then the various colonization technologies so you don't lose a system to another empire just because you couldn't colonize the planet types there). You always hire heroes as fast as you can and you always make them governors because the multipliers they offer and the rate at which they level up means they account for a significant percentage of your overall production and science output.

 

There is no point in Endless Space where you face a decision that matters in any meaningful way; either one path is clearly superior, or none of the choices matter.  It's pretty, it has a nice UI, but it's arguable whether it's really a game or just a hand-cranked ant farm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hexgrid, ES2 is much better in that regard. Maybe too good in fact. There's so much choice it doesn't feel like there are important ones. Plus exploration is much more important and random. Feels more like Civilization 5 where you're reacting to the environment. Maybe more so due to resources. There are 2 of those in early game and you'll probably only find 1 of those nearby and it would mean you'll concentrate on specific ship modules, for example.

 

As for tech they did good. There are few linked techs and you always have a lot of choice. There are techs you take no matter what but no tech you're required to take ASAP. Most of undoubtedly useful stuff is turned into tech tiers - i.e. after you research N techs of specific field you get bonus like better detection of anomalies, defensive buildings, economic upgrades etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure I can agree with a lot of criticisms in this podcast and thread. Maybe it's because I'm playing the game on Normal? First three games - of course I play it on Normal.

 

1. Starlanes. You don't need to use Starlanes. The Starlanes allow the ships to go much faster, but you can direct your ships to bypass them entirely so long as you have vision of your system destination. Once you have full vision of the galaxy, the starlanes are strictly optional.

 

2. I've had to choose between approaches and techs in ES2 that made it appear as if I had several equivalent choices. The podcasters had boasted about their power with Beam weapons, but those generally generate numbers much less than the stuff you can get with Kinetic Weapons. And it's not like Kinetic Weapons don't offer longer range options. A mixed loadout of guns and missiles can approximate the output of an all-Beam ship, and it'll punch right through the Shields of Pirates. Speaking of...

 

3. I didn't really have a problem with how strong Pirates were? Maybe it's the Normal setting. Pirates will generally field at best, 1 or two Medium ships and 2 or 3 Small ships. And their loadout is completely predictable. You can even just click on them to find out, yeah? Shields counter their Beam weapons, Kinetic weapons punch through their Shields. Autonomous Construction from Military gets you to 7 Command Points, Efficient Shielding gets you Attacker and Defender ships. These are usually the only techs I need to fend off Pirate attacks indefinitely. I might be bothered to get Advanced Fusion Power, for a net of 4 techs in Military.

 

4. I'm three games in and in all three games, I was part of an alliance and won that way. Victories are by alliance, and not individual, so you only need to be allied to everyone and have everyone complete the necessary techs to get a vic. In addition, the first part of the Heretic quest gifts a pretty strong Cleaver beam weapon and a very strong Lodestone system improvement to whoever completes it to advantage. Since there are nine lodestone locations, your faction only needs 5 to win. In the second part of the quest, factions need to hold the involved locations with Hero-led fleets.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with pirates is that it means you are pushed into a militaristic way early on AND AI can't do anything about pirates. As someone mentioned when you beat pirates you now have a great fleet and other factions are probably still struggling fighting off those guys. So military victory practically begs to be won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilitarist said:

The problem with pirates is that it means you are pushed into a militaristic way early on AND AI can't do anything about pirates. As someone mentioned when you beat pirates you now have a great fleet and other factions are probably still struggling fighting off those guys. So military victory practically begs to be won.

 

I did not find this to be true on my Normal playthroughs. It may be true on higher difficulty settings.

 

On Normal, Pirates do not possess significant ground attack forces and cannot take planets. So long as you settle on systems away from them, you don't really need to engage them at all. Fleets disbanded into the shipyards cannot be attacked by Pirates, and I note that if they can't attack or blockade anything, they tend to move on. Once you have 7 Command Points and either an Attack or a Defense Medium ship, you can deal with most Pirate attacks fairly handily. I've beaten Pirates on Normal and NOT been the most militarily threatening empire.

 

In addition, most homeworlds are located deep into enemy territories, and holding onto that many planets requires advanced Empire techs. You could easily plunge your empire into neverending Anarchy if you take too many planets too fast. This assumes that you have a ground force capable of invasion. You need ground force technologies, upgrades, and Manpower to do that effectively. It is by no means assured that being able to deal with Pirates in space equips you to invade every empire in your game.

Edited by LarryC
grammar corrections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2017 at 9:44 AM, ilitarist said:

Surprised by universal acclaim of Endless Legend. The game is gorgeous and innovative but, like Endless Space 1, it felt like a basis for a great game. And they never delivered. Those maps are beautiful but they never made them functional: I could only look at them in schematic mode, and even then it's hard to see anomalies and many features. UI is broken in many regards. AI is bad.

 

 

 

 

Yes, the whole episode I was thinking to myself "Doesn't Endless Legend have most these issues?" Don't get me wrong, I enjoying playing around with EL, it's a fun toy with a pretty map. But it's a pretty terrible strategy game, and I've never figured out what the appeal is beyond some pretty graphics and cutesy lore.

 

Thanks for saying doing a better job of saying what I was going to try and say myself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that the one guy says he's sick of single tech slots and wanting sliders and yet that's exactly what the original Master of Orion had.  Six techs researched at the same time with sliders denoting how much goes to which. 

This single tech stuff comes from Civilization, and its unfortunate that MOO2 decided to copy it or go that way because it's laid out the structure for games decades on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now