Brad's interview with TalkStrategy.com

Nice interview, but why the hell do you think Galciv2 is like Star Wars: Empire at War,lol.

Yeah, I agree that was a rather odd comparison. One's an RTS, the other is a TBS-4x game. At least comparing GalCiv 2 to Sword of the Stars made a little more sense, since it's also a 4x game (even though it's in real time). Ah well, some people can't seem to help but compare apples to oranges, I guess. [shrug] Still, I enjoyed the article overall.

What did Brad mean by his comment that SEV and GalCiv2 appeal to different players? They are both TBS 4X Space Games.

I can understand that comment. I've never liked SE games -- they are hideously micromanagy and just not fun for me. But I love MOO1/2 and GalCiv and Civ4, etc. So I don't know what that says about me. Either I'm not "hard core" enough to love the SE games, or I'm a normal person who gets bored managing enormous spreadsheet empires...

Oh, and technically, SOTS is taking the same road that MOO3 did -- TBS strategy portion and real-time battle resolution. I guess it's also like the Total War games, but I don't know if that's entirely fair. I could be wrong, but SOTS feels like it will be heavier into the turn-based strategy side of things than any of the TW games I've played. If SotS ends up more like Rome: TW, then I'll have to say it's not really a competitor with GC2. Whereas GC2 is explicitly NOT about the tactical battles, SotS explicitly IS about them.

What did Brad mean by his comment that SEV and GalCiv2 appeal to different players? They are both TBS 4X Space Games.

Yes, both games fall in the TBS 4x sub-genre, but they definitely take different approaches to it. At least to me, the Space Empire games seem to be geared a bit more towards the hardcore wargamer that likes to manage every little thing. The SE games have "more" of everything: more races, more ship types, more ship components, more planet types, more buildings, more technologies, etc. I remember downloading the demo for SE4, and that I was absolutely overwhelmed with all the choices I could make. There was literally an over-abundance of "stuff", and I realized it was simply too much for me. For those strategy-gamers who love micromanaging, however, Space Empires is probably their wet dream.

Oh, and technically, SOTS is taking the same road that MOO3 did -- TBS strategy portion and real-time battle resolution.

Where did you see that, Apoc? I've visited the SOTS site, but I haven't seen where it says the game is actually turn-based.

What did Brad mean by his comment that SEV and GalCiv2 appeal to different players? They are both TBS 4X Space Games.

Well, unless I ma mistaken, but from various posts on the topic, I have understood that:
- Galciv is oriented toward single player, allowing a strong AI
- Space Empire is oriented toward multiplayer since only human can make a good advantage of all the things that are in.

And not all people are interested to play a lengthy 4X multiplayer game

Hi!

For those strategy-gamers who love micromanaging, however, Space Empires is probably their wet dream.

I am a MM freak, but SE4 is waaaaay to much for me to be playable. In mid-game, when I get a tech level about each turn or two it is literarily impossible to keep pace with that. Redesigning ships, weapon platforms, satelites, fighters, mines, starbases, drones, ground units almost each turn, then discard old ones from queues, put newer ones in, organize distribution of them... That is a tedious task I'd like to avoid even if I'd be paid for it. Too much of everything indeed.

technically, SOTS is taking the same road that MOO3 did -- TBS strategy portion and real-time battle resolution

True. TBS part can be limited to set amount of time per turn (for MP), or unlimited for single-player. Combat resolution part can be up to 5 minutes per battle. And if you miss your turm the AI should seamlessly take over your race. At least that's how developers explain how game plays.
BR, Iztok