Should a new Star Control contain strategy elements?

I think your insight is dead on -- strategy could be really interesting if done in a way that makes it feel like there are consequences for the player's decisions.  Especially if there's a plot, and the direction it takes depends on the strategy you've chosen, either directly (the Umgah revolt after forty weeks of game time if you don't build a DNA lab in their space) or indirectly (if you haven't built enough starships in Sector Y by the time the Giflinnor invade, the plot moves down branch 1; if you successfully repel the invasion, the plot moves down branch 2; if you repel the invasion, but the Supox sustain heavy losses, the plot moves down branch 3).

Most of all, I'd avoid a strategy that depends on waiting.  You had to do this in Star Control 3 to refuel your flagship.  Part of what made Star Control 2 interesting was its sense of urgency, even though it was kind of hinted at (remember the Melnorme's MetaChron?) until the eventuality was revealed that the player must prevent.  Turning waiting into a game mechanic frustrates that urgency.

I'm having trouble thinking of a game that integrated strategy with a plot well; the problem doesn't seem to be an easy one.

At the very least, it would be cool if you could send other fleets or tasks forces off on missions. Even if it's just salvaging or scouting missions.

Honestly, I think it'd be nice to have a strategy element to the game.  I think that SC3 was always intended to have a strategy element, however, the way it was enacted was atrocious.  There was, essentially, no difference in how different races established colonies, or in what planets were ideal to what species.  There was one resource.  There was no choice in how a colony developed.

Most attrocious, enemy colonies didn't expand their power.  They didn't expand their control.  And, if you were unlucky enough, it was possible to strand yourself indefinitely, without fuel, if your colony was too poor.

I think, ideally, a new Star Control game ought to have a colony mechanic, but it'd be nice to also have freighters (non-combat squad ships that boost resource collection at colonies via trade) outposts (populated bases focused on producing minerals / fuel in an inhospitable environment), or other elements.  I've played with 'how would I do that' for years, and would have had colony ships, freighters, and multiple classes of combat ship.  Probably enjoyed X-Wing too much.  It would give you choices how your empire developed.

I like the idea of the game changing in response to your actions.  I'd also like the idea of having the ability to upgrade ships based on what sort of alliance you form - similar to the precursor artifacts in the Star Control 1 game, but generated by races, and exclusive, rather than random.

I very much agree with the idea that waiting shouldn't be a game-mechanic.  Things do need to seem well paced.  I think, to some extent, that is where crippling space travel in Star Control 3 destroyed the game - there was no consequence with failing to deal with an alien race or presence - no buildup, expansion, or threat.

yes

I kind of like the idea that you, the player, are in charge of ONE fleet (like in Star Control 2) but that you could potentially send your lieutenants out on missions (ala The Old Republic).

Though my gut tells me we need to start very carefully and then expand on that as we go on.  I.e. A Star Control game should be a Star Control game (if that makes any sense).

i would say improve upon the colony aspects of SC3 i loved that maybe have it generate funds and fuel like in SC3 and also maybe research into new flagship modules/ship upgrades and build ships.

also you could have it so you may need to protect them from enemy encounters and improve defenses so they have a better chance at fending off assaults by themselves.

another thing it would be amazing if you brought back the SC1 strategy mode for a mini side conquest like side game mode

i also like all the other suggestions made so far in this thread for what little my suggestions mean

Meh, I was perfectly happy NOT managing colonies in SC2. I want to explore, not baby sit

nothing wrong with having both elements and if you can increase their defenses enough you wont need to babysit i think elements like this will add depth having both "babysitting" and exploration

To some extent, Star Control 2 still had that sort of colony management, but it was based around defending certain alien races from threats, making alliances, or making war.  I agree, though - if you try to manage the entire front, you might wind up with the entire game being bogged down in micromanaging resources, or have the game depart too far from its core.

Colonies would almost seem to work better in a long-term multiplayer mode rather than a central story arc.  Unless, say, you combine Star Control's gameplay with something similar to Risk or the old Command and Conquer games, where you take over segments of the map by accomplishing missions within them.  Who knows?

Call me a purist, but there's enough games out there with those RTS elements. I can go play Civ 5 or Sins, or one of the other 500 clones if I want colonies. Not that there's anything wrong with those, or a strategic game couldn't be added/modded on later.

Just exploration, dialogue, and adventure for me please. That's all SC2 needed.

strategy elements does not mean RTS

If I remember correctly Star Control 1's Campaign wasn't too bad. Some of the maps were completely unbalanced. I spent days trying to beat the map that had Shofixiti Scouts verses Ur-Quan Dreadnaughts. I don't think I had the skill at the time to beat that...might need to find my copy and try again. 

 From Frogboy's previous postings, the new Star Control is going in the direction of a series reboot; with emphasis on the "First Contact" era, when the Chenjesu (as representatives of the Alliance Of Free Stars) first made contact with humanity.

 Based on established cannon, the Chenjesu & Mmrnmhrm formed the administrative/economic core of the Alliance, with the Yehat filling combat roles, the Shofixti serving as scouts, and Earthlings filling an exploratory role. The Syreen never had formal membership in the Alliance; they were caught between a Mycon & a hard place when the Ur-Quan showed up, and chose to fight with the Alliance.  The Arilou's role in the Alliance organization was never truly explained in Star Control I or II. According to cannon they show up without warning shortly after humanity joins the Alliance, and request membership; but the role of the species was never clearly defined, and leaves tons of room for interpretation and/or adaptation within a new continuity.

 With this in mind, I would like to think that, at the time the Chenjesu contacted Earthlings, the Alliance already has an organizational structure, so there would already be an existing "Fleet" with established commanders. Cannon suggests there was a level of mutual respect between the Yehat & Earthlings due to both species having achieved significant advancement (interstellar travel) without being "uplifted" in the way that the Yehat influenced the Shofixti. Based on the martial nature of the Yehat, it would make sense for a strong Yehat influence in the upper echelons of the Star Control fleet command structure. It was also noted (I think by the Melnorme in SCII) that the Mmrnmhrm had several minor border skirmishes with the Ilwrath, prior to the Ilwrath becoming battle thralls, which would indicate some level of defense-mindedness on the part of the Mmrnmhrm. Given the loose affiliation of the Syreen, I wouldn't be surprised to see a bit of disdain towards their species from the full-member species; nor would I expect to see Syreen officers in positions of significant authority within the Star Control chain of command. If playing as an Earthling (an assumption I believe we've all been making), I could well imagine some of the senior officers/officials of senior Alliance members taking umbrage with the "new guy" coming on the scene and making waves within the organization.

 If this is going to be the prelude to the Ur-Quan conflict, a cold war if you will, between the Alliance and Hierarchy, than strategy elements would be great. While some races should, for story purposes, be dedicated members of the Alliance and/or Hierarchy, it would be great to see new/expanded races choose their alignment based on player decisions. A great example lies in a potential change to Star Control II history: The Fate of The Zog-Fot-Pik.

 What if, for whatever reason, the player had chosen to ignore the distress signals from the Zog-Fot-Pik in SCII? We know the answer: the species was history. However, what if the player HAD decided to aid the beleaguered frungy lovers, but put it off for a time in favor of higher priorities, and upon arrival was faced with the newest, albeit most-reluctant addition to the Hierarchy of Battle Thralls? Granted, it would likely have been a slave shield, but stranger things have happened...just ask a Spathi.

 The SCI method of building bases and/or outposts also has merit. Since fuel is a finite resource, having a place to hang your hat while the ship is refueled makes sense, and provides for an interesting place to pick up story/side-quest options. If you want to recruit a new species to the Alliance, but said species is afraid to commit due to a lack of Alliance resources in the area, and a homeworld in close proximity to Battle Thralls, what could be more comforting (or threatening, if we're talking about "convincing" a member of the Hierarchy to switch sides) than putting down an outpost/starbase/battle-station in their backyard? However, with resources being finite, players should have to choose carefully where and how to assign them. Reinforcing the "core" species sphere's of influence/homeworlds may keep the major power centers relatively insulated from conflict, but it would come at the expense of fringe elements (allies who's sphere is out-of-the-way) who may reach a tipping point where the benefits of Alliance membership are outweighed by having to constantly bear the brunt of enemy forces. However, spreading the fleet across the entire alliance may leave the heart of the Alliance vulnerable. Again; player choice is paramount.

 One of the neat things introduced by the good folks at "we sold millions of units by ripping off Star Control" was the idea of a persistent universe. Performing tasks via an app-store mobile game, or in non-story multi-player in Mass Effect 3 had an effect on the single-player story; it affected the effectiveness of the player's single-player gains, which had a direct effect on the ending.

Our concept is that Star Control 2 will be the guiding design principle. That means an open universe that your actions mean something but that you are, ultimately adventuring in a single ship that you are building up.

From a canon point of view, since it's looking like Activision isn't going to let Paul and Fred participate, we're going to keep the original trilogy in its own canon universe called the Ur-Quan universe and then have the new series create a separate continuity.  But it would start at first contact with the player being in charge of the first ship. This would allow the player to be introduced to the crazy, dangerous and amazing galaxy.

But like Babs says, it should be a universe where the player's choices have consequences.

So are we going to be Commander Rand? Or start as an ensign under him? If we are going back to the past I think the VUX insult would be something that the player would have to experience. Maybe retcon it and have the player choose the particular insult to use. 

You wouldn't have any of that since you'd have a completely different history with different aliens.  The split in continuity would take place long before.

In the Ur-Quan universe, the humans had the Androsynths and revolted in 2085 which is what let to the Earth forming Star Control. About 30 years later, the Chenjesu finally decided contact Earth due to the impending threat of the Ur-Quan.  This is all in 2112.

Now, what most people don't know is that 250,000 years before this time there were the Precursors. The only thing that is officially known about them comes from the Slylandro who said that the Precursors were searching for something and disappeared having found it and all went from there in the Ur-Quan universe.  However, the the Star Control prime (for lack of a better term for the new continuity) something different happened which changed everything (or at least everything that exists in TrueSpace). 

As a result, history went very very differently and we are left with a different universe with a different event occurring in 2085 and another different event in 2112. 

Frogboy you are missing the most important known fact. The precursors are 6 legged cows. People that think Mass Effect's ending was lame should play the SC series and experience the huge letdown that was SC3. 

Anyways, I can't wait to see this reimagining. 

That sounds awesome. I'm glad that this is being modelled after Star Control 2. I didn't really care for the colony management stuff in SC3 that's for sure.. I never played SC1. I feel like there are a lot of strategy type games out there already and don't really see the benefit to adding this sort of strategy element to this game. In my mind, SC2 was always categorized as Arcade/Adventure, not Arcade/Strategy/Adventure. Strategy is the realm of Master of Orion and Star Control is an excellent game without it.

That's going to be odd to have a different history and such with different races and all. Also time consuming rewriting the fiction. Sucks that Activision won't led Paul and Fred partake. But oh well, it seems to me like you guys are heading in a direction to do this game justice! … Is it done yet?

The 6-legged cow thing is a SC3 thing (not canon). They were actually huge, HUGE creatures according to canon lore.

I think we're getting into a bit of a hangup here, and if he'd be so kind, perhaps Frogboy can mitigate some of the confusion. From previous entries, we're getting a game in the SC universe, but split from the main continuity at some unspecified point along the timeline. Check. However, its also been mentioned that we're getting new races, not classic SC races. Personal opinion aside, can we get a fact check, or some kind of clarification on that?

I fully support expanding upon core cannon; Its been a while, and I think everyone can appreciate new ideas, and would enjoy seeing new faces if done well. Also, some of the core species never had a lot of character development; virtually nothing on the Chenjesu, other than they started the Alliance. Ditto for the Orz; other than brief mentions of some Orz/Arilou friction. We never had deep development of many species, and that is something I think a modern game would be great at addressing. However, and this is purely my opinion, it just won't feel like Star Control without some of the classic species, and their beloved stereotypes. Some things just plain work; the crystaline Chenjesu, the evil worm Ur-Quan  (though, according to the Slylandro, they were once brown, and not-evil), hilarious Spathi, etc.

Now, within the bounds of strategy elements, I still think giving each species a racial ability/bonus has merit. I wasn't totally disappointed with SC3's colony management, as a concept, it was the horrible execution that made most of us rate it somewhere on the scale of enjoyability between "pet rock" and "football bat". Having to build colony/outposts to exploit resources and/or provide defensive/offensive advantage could be a huge part of having a successful (or not) campaign, as well as having political/story repercussions amongst allies depending on how/where colonies and/or fleets are allocated, especially if different species have complementary racial bonuses. As an example, if a planet has lots of valuable resources, but a climate/composition that would make it inhabitable and/or expensive for Humans, why not drop a Mycon colony? A system that could be used as a jumping off point for an invasion? Park a Chenjesu/Utwig colony/starbase in the neighborhood, and laugh as the Spathi flee in terror.

Just a thought.

Wasn't it the Dnyarri basically controlling them to be evil?

I still don't see the need for strategy elements in the game. I never played SC1, SC2 was AWESOME, and SC3 sucked. I'd rather they focused on getting a solid SC2 experience rebooted before attempting any kind of strategy elements that didn't get implemented well in SC3 at least. It's not like there's a model of success to follow on there. And there are plenty of other games that are strategy, space strategy even.. None of them as good as MOO imo, and MOO would be the reboot i'd like to see for space strategy, not SC2. SC2 is pure arcade/adventure awesomeness.

Just being silly. I actually played SC1 for Sega Genesis then got SC3. I liked it at the time but I was in middle school I think. It wasn't until much later that I played SC2 twice and then went and tried 3 again. Then I realized how terrible it was. 

It can be fun.

There are some element that we can add in here :

1. Design your own ship like lego for both of your flagship and your escorts (like in Galciv series)

2. Recruit and develop your crews like in Starflight 2

3. Exploring the universe, meet new species and find precursor ruin to find new technology. So basically, you help Earth with your exploration missions. The more technologies / artefacts you get, the better the Earth capability in defense, ship building, weapons etc. The escorts ship you design will be used by The Earth Military to defense their interest (including the Earth and the colony / subjudged area that you conquer)

4. Maybe design the interior of your ship, and move your crews in your ship like in Faster than Light game (optional)

5. Moral Choice : Either you want to be a good guy like Picard to explore strange new world, help Aliens and become the heroes of the universe Or you can be a bad guy to conquer the Alien, enslave them, etc

6. You are not the only Explorer from Earth. Just like Space Ranger Game, there are a bunch of your kind out there. There are a rank system to the who's the best explorer in the galaxy, and your aim is to become number one (by either kill them in deep space, or simply out perform them in the mission). Maybe if you want to add multiplayer element to the game.

7. There are also military rank system (from lowly Ensign to a Fleet Admiral) that you can raise. as lowly Ensign, you have limited access to Earth Resource, but as a fleet admiral, you can even design the Earth Cruisers and even send your minions to attack an alien planet.

8. The evolution of ship size : Your flagship will evolve, from an old and obsolute Cruiser into a gigantic Dreadnought Class.

In term of Strategic level, there can be a strategic level in the game. But you, the player won't become the supreme commander of Earth like in Galciv or in Star Control 3.  You just command a single ship, and at max a fleet like in Star Control 2. But your decision and exploration can set the course of the Earth Fate.

So it is an RPG with strategy element.

Since Space Rangers were mentioned, I think one remark is needed. That game is probably one of few if not the only one, where you is just one of ants among many and world does not revolves around you. I'm not sure how to describe it better, maybe "real simulation of life in space"? In theory can could be completed without your active participation, and not in the way some modern games behave. For example, you can choose to be trader, and let other fight. If their numbers are high (and difficulty is low), there is chance they'll win the fight without you. Simply put, world is going to live with your participation, or without it. At some point, game could meet the stalemate, when your colleages' and enemies development are equal, and neither side can do anything to turn the tide in their favor.

For me those games are pinnacle of evolution in this respect. And some other too.