-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Not so, as the messages would be pop-ups that can be ignored. Just like what you have in CK II, HOi series....ect...
I agree OP. Even traveling at the speed of light, some solar systems should take decades to reach at the start of the game. In-game time ticking by one hour at a time is probably waaayyyyyyy too slow. As a sci-fi game, I'd like it to at least cover 2,000 years. After all, we're populating an entire galaxy from scratch. That seems like it'll take quite a bit of time =)
I am pretty sure that every single interstellar travel technology wildly exceeds the speed of light.
Although a game where it takes upwards of ten years to travel to your average neighboring star would be interesting, I don't think that's what Paradox is going for. You don't create a galactic empire when it takes a good chunk of a lifetime to travel between stars. Kind of hard to bother with trade. It'd take a decade or longer to respond militarily to an invasion unless you already had a fleet there. Which is absurd.
If you think about it, the only way a galactic empire type game makes sense is if people can navigate the stars in the same way we navigate the earth; relatively quickly.
The only real issue with a short timescale is population growth. Which, if they did the game the way I think they ought to, would not be a big deal, because the game would be more about manned outposts and moving pops off of your overpopulated home planet rather than like, rapidly growing colonies everywhere. Growth should be relatively slow outside of habitable planets, and most new pops in colonies, especially in the start, should be emigrating from your homeworld. It should take about 15-20 years before any newly generated pops on a new colony appear. The rest should come from the homeworld, based on how attractive colonial life is, and how unattractive your homeworld is.
Although a game where it takes upwards of ten years to travel to your average neighboring star would be interesting, I don't think that's what Paradox is going for. You don't create a galactic empire when it takes a good chunk of a lifetime to travel between stars. Kind of hard to bother with trade. It'd take a decade or longer to respond militarily to an invasion unless you already had a fleet there. Which is absurd.
If you think about it, the only way a galactic empire type game makes sense is if people can navigate the stars in the same way we navigate the earth; relatively quickly.
The only real issue with a short timescale is population growth. Which, if they did the game the way I think they ought to, would not be a big deal, because the game would be more about manned outposts and moving pops off of your overpopulated home planet rather than like, rapidly growing colonies everywhere. Growth should be relatively slow outside of habitable planets, and most new pops in colonies, especially in the start, should be emigrating from your homeworld. It should take about 15-20 years before any newly generated pops on a new colony appear. The rest should come from the homeworld, based on how attractive colonial life is, and how unattractive your homeworld is.
@Harle I did say at game start. IMO, taking that long to colonize your first couple systems is pretty realistic. It's no different than how it takes 1,000 years to found your first couple cities in a game of Civilization.
But time can't go at different speeds for different players, so if it slowed down to accommodate a fight between two players everyone else has to wait until it's done before time can accelerate again.
True. I believe how its handled in SoTS II is that there is a waiting screen where one waits for the combat to finish. Now...in that game battles could be played out vis-a-vis Total War series. However....here, I understand that we will have no direct control over combat, so it would play out as an "auto-resolve" would in SoTS II. I really think that is what the Dev's are going for here. I could be wrong, but I have a really strong feeling that this is what's in store.
The time thing for me is during travelling between stars.
Ship travel times usually will be days/weeks, even FTL travelling can take a day or so depending where you go. I have Trek reference in my head of course, where the galaxy being what it is, many places are days/weeks away, even at warp 9 etc.
So how are distances scaled? And how much distance/hour are the methods of FTL travel covering ? Will it feel "authentic" (note i didn't say realistic, it just has to feel like it makes sense)
Ship travel times usually will be days/weeks, even FTL travelling can take a day or so depending where you go. I have Trek reference in my head of course, where the galaxy being what it is, many places are days/weeks away, even at warp 9 etc.
So how are distances scaled? And how much distance/hour are the methods of FTL travel covering ? Will it feel "authentic" (note i didn't say realistic, it just has to feel like it makes sense)
For those saying that the time-scale is not realistic, remember that 200 years ago it took almost a month to go from the East to West coast of the USA, now you can do that in 6-7 hours depending on the direction. It's not unthinkable that we can cross the entire galaxy in a matter of days in 200 years. If FTL exists, it might be able to transport us anywhere instantly in fact (like the wormhole mechanics in this game).
i was very surprised when they talked about how the leader would die, implying the game speed is slow enough for human micromanagement
I don't mind fast travel, I mind excessive population growth to match gameplay going too fast compared to the time.
It absolutely could be possible that travelling that fast became doable. It also could be possible that it didn't, and that even FTL involves wars taking several years or even decades to settle.
The only way that will ever be a problem with immersion is in-system battles but with time progressing on a daily basis that wouldn't be a big problem either. CK2 and EU4 battles were often a wee bit longer than they would have been realistically, but it wasn't a big immersion problem.
I think my ideal timespan for the game would be about 300 years. You could have shorter or longer periods, but that feels about right to me for a long sweep of history. If the game represented anything less than 100 years or so, it would feel a bit cramped to me. Not because of travel time (imaginary FTL can be any speed we wish). Even population is something you could work around if you start with a lot of population on the homeworld.
Rather just the amount of things I envision happening in the game would be a lot to cram into less than a century. I want grand alliances, new races to rise and fall, stupendous technological developments and movements of people's, developments of ethics, terraforming of world, primitive species brought into the space age, etc. Less than a century would seem like too small of a canvas.
Rather just the amount of things I envision happening in the game would be a lot to cram into less than a century. I want grand alliances, new races to rise and fall, stupendous technological developments and movements of people's, developments of ethics, terraforming of world, primitive species brought into the space age, etc. Less than a century would seem like too small of a canvas.
It won't slow the game anymore than in CK II or the HOi series, as the combat plays out in the time set by the multiplayer session. There is no change.