Space Empires V Review

Like Triton, it's big, icy and short of atmosphere.

Version tested: PC

If you're looking for the sort of review that compares Space Empires V to Space Empires IV then the following is going to disappoint (This is my first foray into the series). If, on the other hand, you're looking for the sort of review that compares an ambitious space colonisation strategy game to a dead badger and mentions gnat testicles and solid gold hats then you're in luck.

Starlight Hexpress

'Ambitious', as every seasoned review reader knows, is almost always a euphemism for 'over-ambitious'. SE5 tries to do a hell of a lot on a titchy development budget, and unsurprisingly winds-up weak in several departments (the most obvious weakness should be evident from the screenshots). The basic premise is turn-based intergalactic imperialism. You're a race - one of a possible 14 - that's out to colonise a vast, randomly generated galaxy of interconnected star systems. The more planets you can occupy, the more resources you'll have at your disposal and the more room you'll have to build the facilities that gather and store those resources, and construct and service your conquest fleet.

'Space Empires V' Screenshot 1

Shouldn't the planets move round those big glowy things?

It sounds straightforward enough and, initially at least, it is. For a game that's up there with the likes of Paradox's Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron series in terms of breadth and depth, SE5 is remarkably easy to get to grips with. Digest the text contained in fifty short tutorial messages (a painless 20 minute task) and you're ready to embark on your first domination bid. It's only when you're a few hours into that first marathon that you realise that you know nothing about crucial game aspects like tactical combat, trade, satellites, mines, and drones, and have to go rummaging around in the manual and in-game encyclopaedia.

Lots of space, little opera

The logical way to have introduced topics like these would have been through a gentle introductory mission sequence. SE5 is without such a sequence. In fact, it's without missions of any kind. All Malfador's efforts have gone into a giant freeform campaign mode. While this offers endless replayability through its numerous configuration options, it provides none of the short-term incentives or careful pacing you'll find in scenario-based campaigns. Without a story or optional side missions, every game boils down to roughly the same thing - a relentless rush to expand and consolidate, expand and consolidate, expand and consolidate...

'Space Empires V' Screenshot 2

I'm planning a Diplomat variant of the Europa with squash courts and massage parlours instead of plague missiles and napalm.

Thankfully enlarging your deep-space dominion isn't just a process of churning out starships and sending them further and further afield. Unlike most strategy fare, SE5 puts a big emphasis on bespoke units. Every planet-smiting super-dreadnought, every humble minesweeper, expendable fighter and bog-standard sputnik is based on a grid-based design drawn-up personally by the player. With hundreds of different components, and dozens of different chassis available by the later stages of a game, your systems can end-up swarming with a startling range of marques and models. Sculpting, testing, tweaking, and naming this exotic shoal is probably the most interesting aspect of the game.

At times you'll be developing new weapons, armour, engine or sensor techs every turn. To take full advantage of these inventions it's necessary to amend ship designs after each discovery. Though upgrading involves just a few button presses per blueprint, the process can get pretty tiresome after a while. There's a similar laboriousness to some other management tasks like rearranging production queues, but overall the interface is more aid than obstruction. Running a large complex empire and operating hundreds maybe thousands of different ships at the same time is made much easier by the presence of silicon ministers - AI entities that can take over the running of vessels or colonies - and a sophisticated fleet system. By concentrating your tubs into flotillas and assigning them roles and behaviours within those formations, you're far less likely to get bushwhacked by every wandering Tom, Dick, and Xyyh'ari.

Dot polka

'Space Empires V' Screenshot 3

A crippled carrier limps home.

When two opposing craft or fleets end-up in the same hex the action shifts to either a tactical or a strategic combat resolution screen (your choice). Go with the strategic option and you get to watch coloured dots the size of gnat testicles dancing around on a scanner screen for a few minutes. Marginally more engaging is the tactical option. A kind of down-at-heel Starfleet Command, this mode allows you to conduct skirmishes in real-time on a 2D plane. The scraps are passably entertaining (when the enemy doesn't head for the hills) but visually and aurally drab. There's no sense of scale or drama, no sense that crews are fighting for their lives.

The lack of atmosphere and drama isn't just a problem in the battle layer. The whole game though deep and riddled with potential play paths, often feels as stiff and lifeless as a roadside badger. One turn you destroy a green fleet, invade a brown planet, and get a narky message from the pinks. The next you collapse a blackhole, conduct some espionage, and launch seven new Quark Royal class carriers. You're writing history with a giant fiery pen but somehow there's no sense of moment, no feeling that entire populations are in peril. Shouldn't games about galactic conquest make you feel especially powerful, especially cruel? What does it matter how many planets you've got under your thumb if you can't tour those planets, throttle underlings on a whim or stand on a balcony in a solid gold tricorn hat while millions of people chant your name?

If you're committed enough to provide your own atmosphere and fill in the emotionless blanks with your own imagined stories and power fantasises then Space Empires V is worth a look. Those with less animated imaginations, less patience, and lower tolerances of fusty graphics and long turn resolution times should probably stick with Civ and Total War.

5 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (17) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • MyPointIs #1 5 years ago

    Why did someone like you review a game like this?
    Oh why?
  • The_Rat #2 5 years ago

    I think the review misses the point of strategy games, the whole point of games like civilization and space empires etc, is that you use your imagination, you make up your own story, and take revenge on the other races, its a kind of roleplay, thats why they don't force a storyline or campaign on people, otherwise it would get boring after you completed the missions.

    without a fixed storyline, everytime you play the game you can invent a new reason for galactic conquest.

  • jlaakso #3 5 years ago

    I haven't played SE5 but as a SE4 veteran I feel this review is just wrong. I do agree it's difficult to get into, but I find it hard to believe that anyone who's played an entire game of Space Empires would put it down this much. It's an acquired taste and should maybe be reviewed as such.
  • Dizzy #4 5 years ago

    Damn.. I am a BIG fan of space combat / civ games... a pity. I just want to add that these kind of games are usually slow, deep and indeed lack a certain "story" since it is very hard to have an open design like this on a galactic scale AND have some teenage drama build in ;)

    I think the graphics look nice anyway.... games like this have a very bright future (procedural generated content) but maybe they still have some way to go before they close in on mainstream players. Still a nice writeup with a sadly low score.

    BTW how does it compare to GalCiv???
    Edited by 1 at 07/03/07 @ 09:08
  • Hog-lumps #5 5 years ago

    The_Rat said;

    ...the review misses the point of strategy games, the whole point of games like civilization and space empires etc, is that you use your imagination,you make up your own story...

    The review Says;

    If you're committed enough to provide your own atmosphere and fill in the emotionless blanks with your own imagined stories and power fantasises then Space Empires V is worth a look.

    Sounds similar to me?
    Edited by 1 at 07/03/07 @ 09:12
  • MadMirko #6 5 years ago

    Everyone liking the principle of SE V but not neccessarily the game itself should check out Galactic Civilizations II
  • Lacero #7 5 years ago

    Compared to galciv2 it's a lot more detailed, and a bit fiddly. The tech tree is especially good.

    galciv2 has a maximum range that each ship can travel from a base, sev has supplies that you use up every time you move. And you can resupply ships in the middle of nowhere if you have another with enough supplies on board. You also resupply in systems you own if you build a resupply point on a planet, but larger ships may need multiple resupply points in the system to get their supplies up quickly enough.

    galciv2 has 3 numbers for weapons and 3 numbers for defence. sev has fire rates, and weapons that do different damage at different ranges. sev also has carriers and fighters, and the large ships feel large compared to galciv2.

    galciv2 has a much cleaner design and the AI is much much better. I think sev is too complicated for any AI to be very good, but then it's also multiplayer.

    sev allows you to build a ringworld and a sphere world, which makes it slightly better imho but I own both and am happy with both. I've not played the new expansion to galciv2 as until recently galciv2 didn't work on nvidia cards in vista systems, that was fixed with the last beta drivers from nvidia but I'm busy playing supcom now :)

    Edited by 2 at 07/03/07 @ 09:20
  • MadMirko #8 5 years ago

    I've not played the new expansion to galciv2

    You definitely should, then. Asteroid mining, spies, more flexible diplomacy (mutual research, f.ex.), new combat system, even better AI, and more.
  • MrChuckles #9 5 years ago

    Yeah, seems that review could have been written about any space conquest game released in the last 15 years.

    Still, MOO2 is still by far the best imo, still on my hard drive after all these years.
  • Schiraman #10 5 years ago

    Not a very useful review. I'd rather see strategy games evaluated on their merits within the genre rather than being criticised for poor graphics and story when those elements simply aren't important to most strategy games.
  • Clive_Dunn #11 5 years ago

    "Still, MOO2 is still by far the best imo, still on my hard drive after all these years."

    I'd like to marry Mr Chuckles, in a civil partnership type way.

    Moo2 still miles ahead of everything in my opinion, great at the strategic level and brilliant space battles that hold up today. Ph33r my death-ray Doomstars of win !
  • WrongShui #12 5 years ago

    Will Sins of a Solar Empire be awesome?

    I hope so, SEV was good, just not great.
  • Waldo #13 5 years ago

    Can't wait for the next XBLA two-pager. ;)
  • AOFanboi #14 5 years ago

    I want a remake of Ascendancy dammit.
  • OliverClare #15 5 years ago

    MyPointIs, jlaakso, ManicMinerUK, MrChuckles, Schiraman, Toast...

    Any of you prepared to dispute the core criticisms in the review?

    *Lack of motivational modulation/sophistication ('Everyone in the galaxy is out to get you' doesn't do much for me I'm afraid)
    *Dull tactical layer
    *Lack of atmosphere
    *Little sense of subjects/citizens as anything but numbers
    *Lacklustre visuals
    *Inadequate tutorials
    *Absurdly long turn resolutions
  • Schiraman #16 5 years ago

    @OliverClare

    (Having re-read the review again, I think the post I just made is a bit unfair. So this is my do-over.)

    The reason I didn’t like the review is not because I have some fixed view on or vested interest in SEV. I’m just a gamer who read the review because I wanted to know if the game might be worth buying. And unfortunately the review didn’t give me that information.

    I don’t think the bullet points you list in your above comment come across clearly in your review, and even if they did I’m not sure I’d consider them to be especially damning criticisms of a strategy game – since it’s hard to think of a game in the genre that wouldn’t qualify for most, if not all, of those problems.

    I’m not especially interested in the graphics or the atmosphere – what I want to know is whether it’s a good strategy game or not, perhaps with reference to other key games in genre such as Civ IV or GalCiv 2. Some insight into the quality of the AI, diplomatic options, general strategic depth, etc. would be nice, for example.

    And if you can defend the following quote as being a fair in-genre criticism then I’ve obviously been playing the wrong strategy games – which one was it you were thinking of where you can do all those things?

    “What does it matter how many planets you've got under your thumb if you can't tour those planets, throttle underlings on a whim or stand on a balcony in a solid gold tricorn hat while millions of people chant your name?”
    Edited by 3 at 08/03/07 @ 14:11
  • Xinch #17 5 years ago

    Love MOO2 too. My two cents.
    Was playing it last month.