are planets 'dynamic'? the planets seem to be a type of MOO type planets, not the dynamic planets in aurora, you know, the type that has ground bases, construction factories, and infrastructure and such? I like games that take the unimportant details and turn them into important details, terraforming is not really mentioned, that I also dislike, I am one for perfection you know.
Well I just got the game so can't say for certain. It seems like planets are pretty static, there is nowhere near the detail they have in Aurora certainly. I don't see any mention of terraforming yet either, but it may be in a higher tech tier than I am in so far.
are the ships as customize-able as in Aurora? that can also be a big down if not, as the style of MOO's ship building is much worse than Aurora's.
I'd say it's a step beyond MOO2 as you do customize what specific components/weapons/etc are in a ship. Again, It does not go into the detail Aurora does. You do not have to specify what size capacitor is in your deathray and how fact it can turn.
the interface might be a big up, but you never know, if Aurora was much more easy to learn, it would be much more popular then it is now.
I have to say, their tools for displaying data in the 1500+ star galaxy are very useful. The expansion planner makes it super easy to find new colony locations and send ships there, and the galaxy map has built-in filter views to highlight resources, enemies, allies, etc.
do the stars affect planets? or move the habitability zone?
Yes, and in fact when you start a game you get to pick the age of the galaxy. Older galaxies have larger established alien empires, older stars, etc. You also get to pick how common independant non-empire aliens are as well as space monster frequency, etc.
RTS is kind of a let down, as turn based games let you think before you act.
You can pause it at any time just by hitting space, issue orders, and resume. I haven't at any point felt rushed.
does combat work the same as a traditional RTS with flying projectiles?
So far combat seems fairly standard. You shoot your guns or lasers or whatever you have on there and their armor/shields absorb hits before the internal systems do.
the reason I'm asking all of this is because Sins was really bad compared to Aurora, and I haven't really bought a game in a while, and I need to know that this game is worth the $40.
I enjoyed SINS for what it is... a game to play on weekends with your friends. It doesn't have Aurora's depth sure but it's not that bad and its a lot of fun multiplayer.
and don't say Aurora sucks without playing it for a long time like I have.
I actually enjoy Aurora a lot, and will be happy when its actually done, a bit less buggy, and has an interface worth a damn. As someone else said, it feels like "playing spreadsheets" a lot of the time. Despite that, Aurora is a lot of fun.
Overall: So far I am enjoying Distant Worlds and don't regret the buy.