After years of lurking in game-specific sites and forums finding this site has been a huge call-to-arms for me. Here, instead of criticize other works, it is possible to dream, discuss and sometimes even plan the future of 4X Space Strategy Games, a much more positive approach that has moved me, finally, from lurking to posting.

While a sometimes avid 4X gamer my roots are more in SciFi literature and pen and paper role-playing games that I am collecting for a number of years bigger than I care to share. Project management, software and data analysis knowledge come from my more obscure side: my daily job as a Database Administrator.

While I really love 4X games I always felt that something was missing in the experience and here on Space Sector I’m actively searching what was that.

In this first article I will put under the lens the starships combat system, I hope you will enjoy the view.

About starships, combat and conundrums

In 4X turn-based or real-time grand strategy space games conflicts resolution can be done in various systems ranging from the economical to the diplomatic but, more often than not, it will be decided in the cold space with starships that will use every technological advantages they have in store to erase the competition from the skies.

While this can be a quite gloomy view of our future it is also exciting and very appropriate for a game genre that proposes eXtermination as one of his four salient points.

How much importance and depth this system should have in relation to the rest of the game? Well the rule of the thumb says that as eXtermination is just one on four goals of a 4X game and there are other way to accomplish that like the even more bloodier planetary invasion (or bombardment) system or the more civil economic buyout system linked to the diplomatic one then it should not take more than one eight of the time.

Well, that happens rarely. It seems that our players really like the sound of the exploding ships in the void (pun intended) or, at the least, the game designers think so.

It is the very same game designers that, when they will work on space combat, will be confronted with some difficult choices:

The 2D vs. 3D conundrum

The problem here lies in the sad fact that a two dimensional map is barely sufficient for the simulation of nautical engagement and space battle are a completely different beasts. Even most SciFi movies who tried to visualize a modern 3D combat had to revert to something at the most similar to in-atmosphere dogfights than what can really happen in space. At the core of the problem is that nobody really know what can really happen in space because for now we managed to keep this kind of activity here at home.

So let’s let fall any realism problem and let’s define the main characteristics that a space combat should have.

While not realistic it should feel credible: the player is staking the future of his civilization on it and a too cartoonish resolution will not cut it.

It should be comprehensible: even accepting a learning curve the player should not need to have a couple of degrees and a jet fighter patent to understand it.

It should be elastic enough to let strategies and technology developments play a visible part in the outcome.

If it is possible to cram all of this in a 2D environment probably this will be the best choice and has been in most of the previous designs. If it is possible to do that in a 3D one that will be a serious breakthrough in the 4X game scene.

The 1,255 Km/h vs 1,080,000,000 Km/h conundrum

This is also known as the 760 mph vs. 671,000,000 mph conundrum. This is an exaggeration: no combat will ever take place at the full speed of light but even 0.5 c is an enormous and more possible speed, especially for an incoming fleet from the deep space.

The problem here lies with the fact that for our day to day experience the Mach speed is already enormous and, unless you are one of the few people who lose time on 4X games and that at the same time had the luck to flight on the Concorde, practically impossible to really experiment.

Even jet fighter pilots are nowadays depending a lot on their computers. That kind of speed is really over the human reactions capability.

In space speeds are much higher, very much higher.

From Wikipedia: time (1.255 sec.) for a light signal to go from Earth to the Moon showed in correct proportion.

This can be safely ignored when you move, let’s say, from one planet to another in a planetary system: extremely high speed is tempered by enormous distances and well defined game time.

It can be much more a chore in space combat: at that kind of speed the fleets of the opposite factions will have fractions of second when they can exchange punishment one to the other.

As you can see I’m carefully avoiding the pesky problem of the relativistic effects that kicks in at a certain speed point. I’m sure that it would be considered overkill for a game.

It is difficult to extract the needed drama from battles that are resolved in fractions of a second.

What we are usually seeing are sluggish battles between practically immobile behemoths with a spat of, relatively, snoringly slow fighters or other light shipping that zips around them.

At this we have to add weapons who, to simulate the much bigger targeting difficulty of a 3D environment, have an atrocious low hit rate.

What all of this means is that the combat system is at best a metaphor of a real space combat and as any metaphor all that it say or in this case display, should have a meaning over the directly visual one.

Will it be possible move all this in a more sensible and speed appropriate direction? Possibly but in any case all the choices made to simplify and made it more playable should have solid explainable foundations and reasons.

The Videogame vs. Newton conundrum

We have already told that Einstein relativity is possibly overkill (at the least for the moment) for a starships combat system so what about poor old Newton?

The guy had spent a good portion of his life to fight against differential calculus to the point that we are all using Leibniz notation even if Newton invented it first. The result of that David vs. Goliath struggle is that all the gravitation and movement equations are simple and clear.

And then we have 4X space combat systems who completely ignore it. No gravity, no inertia, no giant planet slingshots, no catastrophic failure to move from harm way. Somehow I think that taking away Newton from space combat is a little like taking away Shakespeare from the theatre story: a lot of the drama is gone.

The usual question is: why? Mind well: a good answer with its roots in playability, storyline and advanced speculative technology is fine but at the same time an answer like “because that is what my development environment let me to do” it is just not cutting it.

The TBS vs. RTS conundrum

The starship combat phase can have a completely different system than the one of the game: turn based games often revert to real time for the tactical military systems. So, what will be the right way to do it?

RTS, and I have to stress that the R for real is quite the misnomer here, have on its side the immediateness feeling, the sport watcher feeling: the stakes are made more real and close. I object the R for real just because it is rarely one to one with real time. I would have called it CTS: continuous time system.

TBS is more for the chess players, the strategy perfectionists. Adrenaline is substitute by dopamine and the pleasure here is to devise and execute the perfect plan. In reality there is always a lot of time to devise a plan, unfortunately the poor baby almost never survive the encounter with the enemy and then there no more time to spare.

Against intuition probably TBS system are in this case more realistic than RTS ones. In space the combat will be a series of manoeuvres to get the best possible passage in the combat envelope with long wait interval between each other and a final, violent and flashing quick moment of real combat.

As usual the choice will fall more on what system is conveying more the point that the designer want to make than realism. Sometimes (let’s say often) spectacularity is more important, its results are more poignant and that is all that count.

The ZFSM vs. DWCM conundrum

OK, I just created a couple of acronym on the flight, so sue me. ZFSM stand for ‘Zoomable From the Star Map’ and DWCM stand for ‘Dedicated Window Combat Map’. Both systems have been used in 4X space games with more or less success.

One of the most visible problems of the ZFSM system is the starships to astronomical objects proportion. Even a tiny planet like Earth is massively bigger than any starship will be put in operation during the game.

The reverse problem is the empty space feeling: in a DWCM often the starship are alone in a depressing dark environment with maybe a planet and a couple of satellite.

The consequence is that ZFSM can be more cartoonish, a little like the giant archer that is defending the Civilization city from a giant war chariot. After a while the metaphor become clear but it will always be worth a joke.

The consequence of a DWCM system is that combat seems to happen in a different place, a parallel universe dedicated to kill and destroy (now that I think about it quite a sad place) and a limited, claustrophobic one to boot.

How to compromise between the two? Is it just a problem to be able to invest a lot of time and money to become able to render an enormous space and number of planetary systems needed in a Grand Strategy game at such zoom level that ships become in scale? Or better and simpler answers are out there?

The ship to ship vs. fleet to fleet conundrum

Can the same system bring justice to engagement of such different order of magnitude? If the system is designed to bring justice to the details of single ship to ship engagements that will be prevalent at the start of the game will it scale correctly to the end-game fleets to fleets levels?

I have serious doubts about that.

What will be the choice the designer will make?

A usual one will see something that will sadly solve the one to one in a non-satisfactory way, will shine in the group vs. group to one big fleet vs. one big fleet and will fall again trying to manage more, possibly putting hard-coded limit to escape crashes.

Another solution can be to have more than one system but the development costs will become probably prohibitive.

Moving the not well managed type to engagements to the automatic resolution (see immediately later for more on this) can also be an expedient but…

When the player fleet is composed by just one colony ship armed with just a multifunction laser communicator and on the other side there is a pirate patchwork courier it is quite a pity to leave the quite important resolution (a new colony established or not?) to a couple of flashes and a result message.

When the player Joint Fleets Task Force will finally arrive in the Bad Guys planetary system for the Final Confrontation will he want to follow the momentous struggle in all his nuances?

The automatic resolution conundrum

While the resolution of the first engagements will be probably something that a player want to see and influence closely after a while it will become boring and time consuming. When the player is at the head of a sprawling interstellar empire it is doubtful that he will have the patience to follow and direct every little engagements that are going on. More probably he will follow the bigger and/or more strategic ones and leave the rest to automatic resolution.

Here comes the real problem: will the presence of the driving hand of the player change the outcome radically?

If the answer is yes then the automation system will be seen as broken and ineffectual, the player will try to follow as many combat as he can and a huge amount of time will be dedicated to this activity.

If the answer is no the interaction capability will be seen as weak and pointless. The space combat system will become just a button to press.

There are already experimented middle of the road choices like to strongly link the combat with the character system. The player will not manage directly the fleets but he will manage the admirals who will command them, their inherent bonuses and their combat philosophy.

Fleet postures are another way to let the player pre-interact with the engagements and also the starship design system can be a way to externally influence the final outcome of a battle.

One problem I did not see solved in any of the 4X games that I know is what happens when an automatic resolved engagement has a much unexpected result. Be it good or bad the player will need to know why and in the real world that, except extreme cases, should not be a problem.

Conclusions

I have introduced here a lot of non-answered questions.

I think that every game will have its solutions but my point was that all these questions are on the table when their designer will start his work and I am positive that a personal, being it original or not, answer is needed for each of them.

My personal preference is always toward realism but at a certain point, perhaps ironically, reality strikes and simplifications are needed to have a playable game that can be developed in this decade.

The race is open to find the most evocative, original ‘simplifications’ and to be part of the evolution of the 4X space gaming field.

bertipa is a frequent poster in the Game Design forum here on Space Sector. This is his first foray in real article writing but he is already looking ahead for a Nobel Prize in literature in few years. He is a voracious reader of Science Fiction and has a vast collection of pen and paper role playing games. Being allergic to ever finish any serious work not linked to databases he is now considering a carrier as biographic blurbs writer. Come to read and comment his posts here.

Lately I’ve been quite interested in understanding how games work and so I’m reading the book: “The Art of Game Design: A book of Lenses” (excellent book by the way for anyone interested in designing games of any kind). And it seems that we like to play games, in general, because they provide a problem solving activity that is ultimately fun to play. Sure, now this seems obvious right? (after being read and said) but what is “Fun” anyway? Now this is something really not so easy to grasp. I mean we know when we are having fun but we cannot really explain why. But I will not disclose in this post what is “Fun” and why it is such an important factor for making good games, for that you will need to read the book, otherwise I will uncover a key aspect of the Author’s work :)

But getting back to the point, why do we like to play space strategy games in specific (being those 4x, RTS or TBS, or a mix of these)?  Well after thinking about it for a while I came to the conclusion that we like to play them due to 4 main reasons. It’s not that there are not more, sure there are and possibly even equally important and more important reasons, but in my conclusion we like to play these type of games because:

1. We like to be in control, to feel a sense of being powerful
2. We have a natural disposition to be curious
3. Because we like surprises
4. Because we love sci-fi

We like to be in control, to be powerful

This  is probably the main reason why we like to play this kind of games. Strategy games normally gives us the building blocks, the power and the motivation to work in behalf of an Empire, a Tribe, a Race, or whatever society form the game provides. It is then up to us to manage all the empire resources to protect, nurture and evolve our Tribe. In space strategy games normally we manage a Race or a Species and are given the full responsibility to be in charge of developing a space faring civilization. Now what more stimulating job could there be than that right?

Now this seems to be kind of non-sensical because normally people are not really keen on taking great amounts of responsibility in real life, and would probably find overwhelming and way too complex of task to be in command of millions of people in hundreds of solar systems with thousands of spaceships right? Well the trick is that in games you can have these experiences in a decent controlled environment. The game only gives you the good and entertaining side of the coin. As it is only a simulation so the boring and painful parts this type of  “job” would require are not present.  So you have it. Being in control, to feel powerful without having the burden to worry too much about it and only take pleasure for that. Now this is a dream come true to all strategists right?

When the game is really good at providing enough complexity and elegant design the player can have wonderful experiences will being in control of huge fleets, of technology research, full scale invasions and epic space battles. It feels really good to have the feeling of power and to feel that all the empire hopes and dreams depend on your well judged decisions.

Being in control and being powerful (in a controlled way) managing a space faring civilization is our first reason why we like to play space strategy games. Now, one next reason.

We have a natural predisposition to be curious

Now, this one does not seem so obvious. What does curiosity has to do with playing space strategy games? In a sense this reason is more broad than the first one since it applies to many game styles but particularly it is very powerful in space strategy. Curiosity is what leads us forward, is what makes us look behind a wall, makes us want to peak at something … And this is in my opinion closely related to the sense of Exploration.

Explorers may be driven by many things but one thing probably they all share is an acute sense of curiosity. And in general all of us Humans feel this curiosity intensely, to the point of finding completely unbearable not to know, or understand the unknown and the mystery out there. And so we are almost obsessed with the need to reach the stars and to touch and see them with our own hands and eyes, like in the past our ancestors did when making the navigation discoveries five centuries ago.

So exploration, discovery and curiosity are very much related in a sense. It’s not surprising that the most significant sub category of space strategy games are 4x games (for which you can find a definition here), eXploration is right the first “X”. And curiosity is a major factor that drives you to explore.

That said, when playing space strategy games we have the opportunity to experience curiosity and more important to satisfy this curiosity in wondering what’s out there in the stars. What wonderful planetary systems may be there, what riches and knowledge may be there waiting, what new beings can I find, will they be friendly? or will they be hostile? What is that species planning? What spaceship armadas may be out there waiting in that particular sector?

Another key aspect of space strategy games is that almost all of them provide the player with the ability to conduct research and uncover new technologies. And with respect to technology curiosity also plays a major role in intriguing the player with questions like “what new powers will I have at my disposal after this research?”, “what benefits can I gain to help my race grow”, “what new toys (spaceships, weapons, shields, etc) will I get if I run in this research path?”. Normally technology research trees (the path of technologies) are know from the start but it’s always fun and curious when playing the games the first times. And that is why I defend “Innovative Tech Trees in Space Strategy Games”, a post I wrote some time ago that addresses this issue.

Curiosity is our second reason why we play these games. Now the third reason.

Because we like to be surprised

Now this one is probably more general that the previous two in the sense that it probably more a human quality than a space strategy specific experience but anyway this is another strong reason why we like to play space strategy games.

It is common sense to accept that we like to be surprised positively, but what about negatively? Many people often even say, “I don’t like surprises of any kind”. But guess what, surprises is what breaks the monotony, is what makes you interested and focused in doing something. And when playing a space strategy game we would not want to keep pressing that “end-turn” button or wandering around from place to place, or building stuff continuously without being surprised once in a while right?

Is it not wonderful when we are surprised with a new discovery? What about an unexpected event? Maybe a system has found an ancient artifact buried somewhere that will unlock some ultimate power, Wow! What about if a planet reports that a plague has stroked the population, would not this be a “bad surprise”?, wouldn’t this be bad and make you feel down? Not really, what happens is that the level of stress of the player may rise a bit “NOOoo my best colony has a huge plague, I’ll loose thousands of people and incredible amounts of tax income” and the player may became a bit nervous but guess what this “bad surprise” at least didn’t got him bored.

What I’m trying to say here is that surprises in games, and space strategy games is no exception, makes us feel more engaged, more focused and less bored, which ultimately is what we are looking forward in games right? Now, the final reason.

Because we love Science Fiction

Ok, now this one is easy and pretty obvious you may say. Well I didn’t said all of them would be hidden secrets did I? :) Yes, SCI-Fi love is perhaps the most objective reason why we like to play space strategy games. I don’t say this is a requirement, I’ll just state that it is one reason.

Now the odds are that if you’re a sci-fi fan and you like to play strategy games you probably can’t help it but enjoy space strategy games. Now, Sci-Fi again is a thing you know you like but it is not so obvious why you like it. I will not debate in this post though why some people like Sci-Fi, that would be another subject to address :)

I hope you enjoyed my little essay about why we like to play space strategy games. Now I’d love to ear your comments and your experiences about this topic.

In the gaming world “4X” stands for: “eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate”. The ‘4X’ concept is well covered in the wikipedia here. Essentially the games that are catalogued as ‘4X’ must, at least, possess the following characteristics (or provide the following phases):

1. “eXplore”: means is the early phase of the game where the players scout across a map to reveal the surrounding territories.
2. “eXpand”: stands for the phase where the player already knows the surrounding territory enough and is ready to start claiming that new territory by creating settlements, outposts or simply by increasing its influence over that territory like for example by increasing its population, by increasing trade range or map reach.
3. “eXploit”: In this phase the player is ready to start gathering resources from the areas under his control. The idea is to be as quick and efficient as possible to control these resources since they normally are limited and as more you have less your enemies will have left.
4. “eXterminate”: When the territory is almost but claimed and the available resources controlled, the only way to expand is … to get more terrain and more resources and normally this means the need to make war with an opponent in order to subdue him (by turning it into a protectorate or vassal) or to destroy him completely.

Sounds familiar?

Other fundamental characteristics of a ‘4X’ game

The player usually plays the role of a Ruler of some sort normally with absolute power, like a King, Emperor or a Bureaucrat. This ruler stands by a race, country, species, civilization or some nation and his objective is to grow and develop it. The society normally has a humble beginning and part of the excitement of ‘4X’ games is to be able to transform this humble beginning in an ultimate power, where the level of knowledge, technology and expansion becomes so great that the player finally achieves victory.

Victory may come through many ways: By complete annihilation of all opponents; by diplomatic achievement via peaceful agreements with all opponents (through alliances with all other players subdued to a single alliance); by some degree of domination (like 2/3 of a galaxy, map, and planet, whatever the scope, is conquered). Other means to victory may include special achievements like “building the spaceship” in Civilization, or to unlock ultimate technologies (in Galactic Civilizations II) or being elected supreme leader by the majority of the other players due to a very powerful influence.

Research and technology are key concepts in 4X games. Deeply intertwined with the player’s hope to succeed is its unavoidable need to evolve, and normally this means the need to acquire more knowledge and more technology. By allocating resources to research the player can unlock new technologies which will translate in more comfort for its citizens, more resource management efficiency, more speed, more shields, more weapons, units, etc.

Diplomacy is another key aspect of ‘4X’ games. By the time the player is well advanced in its ‘eXpansion’ it will unavoidably bump into a neighbor and after a while into some more neighbors. The ability to make diplomacy with adjacent factions may determine the player’s race future. By “playing the cards right” the player may gain access to more resources by peaceful means which normally is much less expensive. Diplomatic relations like non-aggression pacts, trade, economic or research pacts can normally be established to achieve this. Alternatively the player may decide it’s more profitable to forge alliances with other players and go to war with others to exploit and exterminate them in order to secure their resources and their territory.

Combat is also an important aspect of ‘4X’ games for where it is in combat that normally all is decided. The ability for the player to win battles may decide wars and the survival of the society all together. To be able to wage well in war the player must do well in many areas. Must have a strong economy to support its units, must keep up in technologies not to become obsolete and it needs not only to be an effective attacker but it also needs to be able to defend its settlements well from other aggressive players. Battles can be decided automatically (like in Galactic Civilizations) or be highly tactical that require more strategic decision from the player (like in Master of Orion that puts the player in full command of all units).

What is ’4X’ and what’s not

Although almost ‘4X’ games are of the space strategy kind (like Master of Orion, Space Empires, Imperium Galactica, Galactic Civilizations, and so many others), there are other non-space strategy games that, debatably, are considered ‘4X’. Some of these games are Sid Meier’s Civilization series – undeniably ‘4X’, the Colonization series, Age of Empires, Starcraft, Command & Conquer or the TotalWar Series (among others). These last four are examples of games that are debatably ‘4X’. Some players think they should be considered ‘4X’ because they provide the 4 stages, others tend to criticize that they miss other key aspects (like the ones I introduced before) which leads them to “weak” ‘4X’ or definitely ‘non-4X’. You will find in many places some of these games catalogued as ’4X’ and in another places as non-’4X’.  You will ultimately need to judge for yourself where to draw the line (now you know why I said previously that it could get confusing :) )

‘4X’ Games Lists

You can find good lists of ‘4X’ games in moby games here and in a freeorion forum thread here.

One thing seems undeniable for ‘4X’; being them real time or turn based in terms of gameplay, ‘4X’ games are all of the strategy type. And above all else almost all of them are space strategy games.