Is Stellaris what sots 2 should have been...

[blizz]

The similarities between sots and stellaris are actually pretty obvious now that I look at it. And this isn't a knock against stellaris in any way just my thoughts...

I mean...

1. randomized tech tree
2. 6 generalized species
3. monsters (grand menaces in sots)
4. streamlined economy / trade
5. ship designer looks identical

These were pretty obvious just wondered if anyone else might think stellaris is a successor to sots in the most complimentary way possible.

 

[praftd]

The similarities between sots and stellaris are actually pretty obvious now that I look at it. And this isn't a knock against stellaris in any way just my thoughts...

I mean...

1. randomized tech tree
2. 6 generalized species
3. monsters (grand menaces in sots)
4. streamlined economy / trade
5. ship designer looks identical

These were pretty obvious just wondered if anyone else might think stellaris is a successor to sots in the most complimentary way possible.

Eh, a lot of the things that you mentioned are in tons of other games. It's not like SotS invented any of them. Like, I can name 5 other space 4x's that have ship designers.

 

[Joe Joerson]

No, I think Stellaris and Sots are actually very different as the points you turn out are not all actually similarities. As well there are more differences.
1. Random Tech Trees? Stellaris has a much more random and unique card system while Sots had and was well founded in a semi-random tech tree. Not the same or really all that similar.
2. In Stellaris there are 6 phenotypes and the species within them vary wildly depending on portrait and traits. Sots had 6 very distinct species not at all Generalized.
3. Monsters in Stellaris are actually similar to Sots's Menaces but not really that close.
4. While the economies are both streamlined, Stellaris is much much more so than Sots, no trade ships, zones or stations. Simply resources to Empire.
5. It may look similar but it is not so. In Stellaris the different modules are more slot basedd while the Sots's modules varied wildly in function compared to other modules, Tanker vs Armor?

Also praftd I think he meant not so much that SotS invented them or they are not in any other but that he meant that Stellaris and SotS were very similar in how they implemented said characteristics and mechanics.

 

[blizz]

Eh, a lot of the things that you mentioned are in tons of other games. It's not like SotS invented any of them. Like, I can name 5 other space 4x's that have ship designers.

my point wasn't to bash stellaris or imply sots invented anything... just asking an open question for anyone else familiar with sots if they also feel stellaris is what sots 2 should have been. considering paradox is the publisher of sots this isn't too far fetched...

 

[Beric]

I still have to say that the game Stellaris is closest to is Distant Worlds. IMO Distant Worlds has a lot of flaws (and I wouldn't recommend it as a game), but I still think it's done more to innovate in the 4X genre than pretty much any other game since MoO. What Stellaris is doing is taking the lessons learned from Distant Worlds and making them into a game that is actually playable.

 

[Joe Joerson]

I still have to say that the game Stellaris is closest to is Distant Worlds. IMO Distant Worlds has a lot of flaws (and I wouldn't recommend it as a game), but I still think it's done more to innovate in the 4X genre than pretty much any other game since MoO. What Stellaris is doing is taking the lessons learned from Distant Worlds and making them into a game that is actually playable.

I'd have to agree with that. The general sentiment I feel about that is that Stellaris is like Distant Worlds but actually is good in it's execution.

 

[patrikn]

What makes it close to distant worlds compared to sots? I didn't play much of either of those games so can't really tell.

 

[Beric]

What makes it close to distant worlds compared to sots? I didn't play much of either of those games so can't really tell.

When Distant Worlds came out it was frequently described as "Europa Universalis in space". A few things come to mind:

• The scale of the game - over 1000 stars, each with potentially multiple planets.
• Pausable real-time gameplay
• A large number of races that can rise (often from nothing) and fall over the course of the game
• A character system very similar to Stellaris
• 3 types of research, which can be guided according to strategy (still tech tree-based though)

 

[Joe Joerson]

What makes it close to distant worlds compared to sots? I didn't play much of either of those games so can't really tell.

For one Distant Worlds is a pausable real time 4x game which is similar to Stellaris' pausable real time grand strategy game. Both are different from SotS turn based Strategic 4x with Real Time Tactical Combat.

As well Distant worlds is much more similar to Stellaris with races that are semi random and will have different Ethos or Governments.
And Distant Worlds and Stellaris both have groups of races with different sub sets under that, although how they are categorized is different and Stellaris is significantly more customizable.

SotS on the other hand has only 6 races with specific tech and ship types and designs. Although some variance was there.

Also semi ninja'd by Beric, he covered a lot of what I didn't.
Still so far none of these games has slaves shields.

 

[Asiak]

I still have to say that the game Stellaris is closest to is Distant Worlds. IMO Distant Worlds has a lot of flaws (and I wouldn't recommend it as a game), but I still think it's done more to innovate in the 4X genre than pretty much any other game since MoO. What Stellaris is doing is taking the lessons learned from Distant Worlds and making them into a game that is actually playable.

For the love of god this.

Distant Worlds is a beautiful game. They have indeed learned the best lessons from Distant Worlds and wrapped them in a much more refined Paradox package.

 

[Alexander Seil]

When Distant Worlds came out it was frequently described as "Europa Universalis in space". A few things come to mind:

• The scale of the game - over 1000 stars, each with potentially multiple planets.
• Pausable real-time gameplay
• A large number of races that can rise (often from nothing) and fall over the course of the game
• A character system very similar to Stellaris
• 3 types of research, which can be guided according to strategy (still tech tree-based though)

The bolded point really should be emphasized. I don't understand why game designers so often fail to grasp how important emergent factions are in big, sprawling strategy games like this. One of the things that made games like Medieval Lords (which I played only in the 2000's) and Rise of the West* feel incredibly cool is that nations would just pop up from the chaos of "unowned" territory, making it feel alive. Or, sometimes, they'd just collapse into nothing.

*Apparently, Rise of the West is so obscure, even MobyGames is not aware of it. Also, if anyone never played Medieval Lords: Soldier Kings of Europe, you have missed out on one of the greatest games ever made, and an ancient ancestor of CK (though I doubt anyone at Paradox ever seen it).

 

[kreissig]

Well Blizz, its true that there are similarities between SoTS II and Stellaris because SoTS was listed long ago as one of the inspirations for Stellaris. It makes sense, since that game was also umbrella'd by Paradox. Ship design is very close and none of us know how much under-the-hood stuff from ship combat was considered - as in....we don't know all of the calculations they are using for Stellaris.

 

[Bacus]

Sots was a lot more Battle oriented that what I've seen from Stellaris.
the ship designer was also a lot more robust, but that is about it

 

[Asiak]

3 types of research, which can be guided according to strategy (still tech tree-based though)

Kind of off topic and I'm sorry for this.

But this post made me realize that Distant World's tech tree, or even Stellaris' tech system is what Civilization Beyond Earth's tech wheel should have been.

 

[Drow7]

SOTS 2 had formable provinces, but with different function compared to Stellaris sectors, and governments changing depending on your actions. Also it had integration and management of other species into your empire but nowhere as complex as Stellaris.

SOTS is more like space version of Total War series, SOTS 2 tried to be much more but had its problems.

Don't know much about Distant Worlds, its hands off approach is not appealing to me.

 

[Zaaldar]

The similarities between sots and stellaris are actually pretty obvious now that I look at it. And this isn't a knock against stellaris in any way just my thoughts...

I mean...

1. randomized tech tree
2. 6 generalized species
3. monsters (grand menaces in sots)
4. streamlined economy / trade
5. ship designer looks identical

These were pretty obvious just wondered if anyone else might think stellaris is a successor to sots in the most complimentary way possible.

I totally agree. They took a lot of SOTS .I also noticed that many of the technologies are very similar to the sword stars. And ship designer.
As far as I understand, they also own the rights to these games. So they have the right to use some of the content of their previous games =)

 

[Alexander Seil]

I know Paradox forums are populated by total weirdos, but did not one of you play Master of Orion? It had all of that. These are basic genre staples, except 4, and Stellaris has plenty of planet micro.

 

[Zaaldar]

I'm talking about the fact that they are not just similar. And they are identical. If you have played SOTS you will see how the designer ships alike! The ship of three sections. which may be substituted and have slots for guns.

 

[Summin Cool]

SOTS has a few things better than Stellaris and vise versa.
From what it looks like:


- Stellaris has a race generator for a more roleplaying experience where it is far more flexible than SOTS which has 8 predefined species.

-SOTS looks like it has a better tech system with a large predefined tree which adheres to its strength in ship combat, its less dynamic than Stellaris, but different races have different chances for techs.

-SOTS appears to have a more specialized ship system where the mission section defines the limits this ties in with the points above as SOTS is less about empires and more about conquering the map.

-SOTS has firing arcs and better tactical combat with the specialized ship sections, while Stellaris (Does this have firing arcs?) appears to not have firing arcs and has a more generic molecule system, but you can specialize just as well if you want I reckon.

-Stellaris has a far more developed diplomacy system and resource system, but SOTS has a better Trade system as you can raid and defend trade routes


To summarize, Stellaris has similarities with SOTS but it focuses more on being a space empire and diplomacy while SOTS is all about ship combat with a sprinkle of empire management on a strategic and tactical level Although lots is improved in A Murder Of Crows (AMOC).

However, keep in mind that SOTS is from 2004-2008 ,going by the expansion packs, ie in the golden age of vidya while Stellaris is a long awaited Space game during the miserable dark ages for 2007 onwards.

EDIT: Zaaldar, While they look the same, I think the modules dictate the amount of specialization in Stellaris, I won't deny that they are not similar however. Probable inspiration there.

 

[Drow7]

-SOTS appears to have firing arcs(Correct me on this please, will make my day) and better tactical combat with the specialized ship sections, while Stellaris has a more generic molecule system, but you can specialize as well if you want.

SOTS Prime shows firing arcs in designer, while SOTS2 doesnt but it does have firing arcs making battle positioning very important.