Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- blog:revamping_first_strike_why_stellar_commanders_better [2026/08/21 08:41] – ultracomfy
+++ blog:revamping_first_strike_why_stellar_commanders_better [2026/08/21 08:53] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 So, what's this about? Well, I think that First Strike is a great game, but that it has a few problems. I've thought about these for a long time and I think the best way to talk about these problems is by talking about some potential solutions. Basically, what would I do with the game if I was in charge?
-  - Problem: Gameplay is strenuous and primarily dictated by the player ability to perform actions per minute
+  - Problem: Gameplay is strenuous and primarily dictated by the player ability to perform actions per minute (ie. based on how fast the player can click to give orders)
   - Intended design goal: First Strike should be focused on strategy and decision-making
-  - Solution target: Change the mechanics of the game to not be limited by actions per minute, by identifying the mechanics that are limited by it. Do not remove the ability to do a lot of things at once and instead make actions per minute limited naturally by strategy. In other words, it should be better/more strategical to do things slowly rather than all at once in rare but spiked bursts.
+  - Solution target: Change the mechanics of the game to not be limited by actions per minute (click speed), by identifying the mechanics that are limited by it. Do not remove the ability to do a lot of things at once and instead make actions per minute limited naturally by strategy. In other words, it should be better/more strategical to do things slowly rather than all at once in rare but spiked bursts.
 What do I mean? In First Strike, players can use their owned territories to take actions: Build rocket, destroy rocket, acquire a neighboring territory, research, shoot rocket, defend against incoming rocket, build superweapon, deploy superweapon. The //problem// here is that there is nothing stopping you from doing all of these all at once. This, in my mind, disrupts the strategy aspect of the game because your primary ability in the game is to //do// all of these things at once. No amount of strategy will beat a player who is capable to click through all the menus so quickly and do everything at once. There is no cost involved with most of these actions so the only cost is your willingess to sacrifice your hand and finger muscles to play "faster".
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 Oh, research! Of course research should cost money. Superweapon research should cost money too and constructing the superweapon should cost as well. Right now, superweapon research and construction is a no-brainer, but by tying it into the money system there is a tradeoff when thinking about building a superweapon each time you want to build it.
-I will say that if you think about the money system I'm talking about, it will remind you a lot of Stellar Commanders, and I assume that's because Blindflug had similar thoughts when they thought about how to evolve the First Strike game. My idea is essentially like the Iridium bar from SC: You get more money constantly and you can invest it to build various forms of infrastructure. You can build a superweapon in SC but it requires you to sacrifice Iridium every time you do. Expansion in SC requires Iridium and is a lot more strategic because of the different ways the game lets you expand, each with their advantages and disadvantages. Defending in SC is done automatically but it too requires you to invest into defenses.
+If you haven't noticed yet, this kind of system I am proposing should remind you a lot of what Stellar Commanders tried to do. I assume that's because Blindflug actually had very similar thoughts when they thought about how to evolve the First Strike game. //My// idea is essentially like the //Iridium bar from SC//: You get more money constantly and you can invest it to build various forms of infrastructure. You can build a superweapon in SC but it requires you to sacrifice Iridium every time you do. Expansion in SC requires Iridium and is a lot more strategic because of the different ways the game lets you expand, each with their advantages and disadvantages. Defending in SC is done automatically but it too requires you to invest into defenses.
-I really think that my design pitch for what the problems are and which focus to have when solving them is going to be really similar to BF's pitch when they thought about Stellar Commanders. It really is a straight evolution from First Strike and, in terms of design, in many ways //is// the better game.
+I really think that my design pitch for what the problems are and which focus to have when solving them is going to be really similar to BF's pitch when they thought about Stellar Commanders. It really is a straight evolution from First Strike and, in terms of design, Stellar Commanders //is// the better game.
-I think there is a variety of reasons for why Stellar Commanders didn't land, one of which I think is particularly the fact that it is a deck/card builder and not First Strike. That makes it not First Strike. May sound dumb, but it really is that by making it a deck builder you are removing it from the freeform nature that First Strike gave you. Stellar Commanders is very different because it basically has "counters" and "win conditions" and preset strategies and dynamics with how each card interacts with the enemies' cards and synergizes with your own other cards. The First Strike-like elements in SC are now mostly accidental.
+Unfortunately, Stellar Commanders wasn't very successful. I think there is a variety of reasons for why Stellar Commanders didn't land, and I think one of them is that Stellar Commanders is a deck/card builder - **not** First Strike. This may sound dumb, but by making it a deck builder you are removing it from the freeform nature that First Strike gave you. Stellar Commanders is very different because it basically has "counters" and "win conditions" and preset strategies and dynamics with how each card interacts with the enemies' cards and synergizes with your own other cards. First Strike had none of these kinds of interactions, and so the similarities between Stellar Commanders and First Strike are now mostly incidental.
 First Strike is good because it lets you have access to this big sandbox where you can do all kinds of things, it's basically a grand strategy sandbox game in that sense. In comparison, Stellar Commanders is essentially just the weak points (and only the weak points) of First Strike, made them better, and then added a deck builder.
 Obviously that's not all the reasons for why SC didn't land and, also obviously, all of this is easy for me to say after the fact. I don't mean to be shitting on SC with what I'm saying here. In fact I really hold it in high regards for how it approached the attempt to take First Strike, take it away from sandbox and move it towards a proper, strategical game that you could genuinely play in multiplayer and have some genuine strategical gameplay in.