then you have the gauss-phaselane exploit.

Heh, SotS star map was definitely not disorientating unless you have a deficiency... Or you have created a 50+ stars galaxy. Not to mention that BoB expansion can show you a 3D zone of influence - something other space games will have problems finding an answer to.

Sins is definitely not a game I'd try for it's star map. So far the developers have shown nothing except constant simplifications. I'm just waiting for an anouncement that the game will use sprites only because 3D ships could confuse 2 years old players. Come on, devs, retain some 3D content with 3D tactics. Otherwise the game will be another Warcraft without the visible ground...

an intelligent and informed critique of contemporary deficiencies.

So you limit yourself to a galaxy below 50 stars? Thats not a very fun game. (In my opinion.) It appears that the 3d galaxy map does affect game play for you. I have SOTS and BoB by the way and I never play on such a small map. I like the galaxy to be realistic as the game will let it. I want as many stars as possible.




Yeah... who in their right mind would want to. On the games own forums a lot of people have asked for a 2d galaxy right after SOTS came out and long afterwards. Many said they did not like the 3d map. Some did not have kind words for it.



Do you do any programming? I assume you don't have GalCiv2 or DA because these "devs", (those that work for Stardock) made those. Just so you know in those two games every ship is 3d on the galaxy map all the time the way it is in the battle viewer. All the planets are 3d, the stars, diplomacy, everything. Unless you zoom out to view the whole galaxy then everything goes 2d otherwise you wouldn't see anything that far away. SINS seems to operate the same way. In close up everything is 3d and when you zoom out to the solar system view the jump lanes are laid out flat, with 2d representations of facilities and ships.

SOTS and BoB are only 3d in battles, the map (just a bunch of colored dots in 3d space.), and the tech screen. (Yea! I can go in circles on the tech screen and simulate spinning.)

No asteroid mining. No fighters. No "a bunch of stuff" (unless you get a mod that still has trouble because the devs of SOTS didn't want fighters, or anything else realistic that might make it too complicated; the devs made a comment of concern about frame rates with mods on their forums.)


SINS is a RTS. It's eye candy that actually works. I've never had a problem with the SINS system zoomed out map. Everything is 3d all the time, while moving, fighting, building; except for diplomacy. Players also don't want to move the map around by rotating, panning on all axises so they can get in position to click on a planet or another star to move their ships to. It is a complex game set up in a simple way so it can be used by everyone who wants to play it. Unlike SOTS and BoB the star map is not the main feature of SINS. It looks a lot better and it can actually be modded.

sins is almost completely 3-D, yes you have the "option" to send your ships upwards in the "sphere" that is the gravity well, but the game has been so rediculously simplified that there is really no point to it. in fact the only thing 3-D about this game whatsoever is that the ships, structures and planets are 3-D. I dont even need 3-D galaxies or 3-D solar systems, I just want to fight in 3-D. well unfortunately that has been quashed.

Its coming on Monday! Sprites FTW!

Sprite games were the stuff (don't want the devs yelling at me). I miss the days when games were sprite driven. 3D is cool and all, but sometimes old school is better.

I played bigger maps, no worries. But the game looses a lot of it's fun after the whole tech tree is "spent". And if you choose a map with 30 stars you can finish it, so I usually limit myself to that number. After that it's just a lot more of the same. This is the usual problem with games though. Total war balanced M2TW nicely with all the updates so that you are unable to upgrade all cities to the full as in RTW. The player must have something to look forward to, something new. That's the reason for me prefering smaller maps.

And it's understandible that there will always be players who will want things simpler. Those are the players that should most likely look at other games, like Pacman. Space is not Space for it's flatness! And if you set out to make a 3D game, make it a 3D game. GC for instance doesn't even try to go in such details. Yes, you can design your 3D ships, but that's it. It's a candy. All the rest is a chessboard and the game is a 2D strategy. I have no problems there. But when a game calls itself a revolutionary RT4X, new era of space strategy games (I made this one up, although official ones weren't much shabbier) and fancy names like that you don't expect to get a flat space.

Let's make things clear... There are strategy games with the strategy part much deeper than Sins will have. There are games with space combat MUCH better than Sins will have. So neither is the reason for me hanging around. I saw a promise of nice rounded combination of both, something that is VERY rare. But if Sins will have very stripped strategy to make RT possible and than the map AND the fights will happen on a 2D plane with practically no influence from Space, you may as well turn the ships into Orcs and draw the surface beneath them. The lines are passages through forests and mountains and let's stop the masquerade.

I promise to stop the trolling (I guess this post could be thrown into that category easily). If I'll see the game is turning into something just not for me, I'll leave and not spoil the fun for others who want such a game, naturally.