That is horrible. That prevents long in-depth games that I like. Doesn't this make the epic map size pointless?
In addition, I'd like to be able to turn individual victory conditions on or off (for both player and ai). I love the game, but this seems like a big shortcoming that shouldn't have been hard to work around. Why limit your choice to a specific victory or all and not have that choice impact the AI? From what I remember, I don't think the aviv games work that way, so why impose those limitations here?
I don't think this is entirely true. I've heard of players setting the game to a Domination victory and then they themselves winning via Wonders. Something is funky there.
It's too easy to win. Take over your enemy's home world and you get every planet that's part of their society. Do that once and next turn you'll probably have enough whatever you need to buy a wonder victory.
I hope so too although It's pure speculation on my part. Being partially programmed by Sid himself and watching the numerous videos before and after release with Firaxis pushing this as hard if not harder than their major titles on their YouTube just makes me think it's more his baby than Civ Rev 2 which had a lot less Firaxis involvement I believe.
story? Game looks good and I'm a big fan of turn based games. What's the story like on this though. As I think a good story would push me to the buy button!
Very basic story. Your civilization has prospered on an alien planet and they discover a signal of other signs of life among the stars. You discover it was a distress signal which prompts your civilization to arm their starships to venture forth to answer the call and in turn discover other civilizations in your journeys. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OXVM0u7zpHc In this respect it follows Civilization with just a starting story for backdrop rather than X-Com which has more of a unfolding story as you progress.
The game feels like a early alpha version than a finished game. Hope there gonna be some patches to make up for the lack of depth.
I hope so too but I seriously doubt it. It's clearly done the way he intended it to be, and adding other gameplay systems would make it a totally different game and a lot of work to hammer in at this stage. Maybe in Starships 2.0 it can be planned from the ground up to be deeper lol Maybe I am wrong, if he hasn't got anything else to work on, he might find the way to rescue it!
Congratulations, that is the most absurd comment I've seen regarding this game yet. It's fine if you don't like it, or wish the design had been different, but to compare it to an early alpha is ridiculous. It is exactly what it intended to be.
Man. I've only played a few missions which means I'm not a good judge but I think Starships is pretty good. But For sure it isn't this bad. http://www.pcgamer.com//sid-meiers-starships-review/
I agree with the second part of the OP [lack of depth]. I've played through about 20 times on various difficulties, now, and the outcomes are getting very predictable... Go right, left, up or down... Get a couple planets... Make peace with everyone... Upgrade fleet to max... Maybe take the marauder or pirate homeworld ('cause they're the only ones left)... Break peace treaty and take one or two enemy homeworlds (never a non-homeworld)... Win a population/wonder/domination victory... Repeat.
Finally got this game last night and happy to report it's a pretty good version of what I wanted, which is a lightweight turn-based strategy game. Definitely needs a tutorial, though, and they need to fix the awful map scrolling that causes you to move ships when you don't mean to. I'm sure they'll fix the scrolling in an update. If you're wanting Civ in space then this isn't it. But if you want a simple turn-based shoot-em-up with some resource management then this will probably give you what you're looking for.
