The Strategic Differences
While each game shares a similar aesthetic, each offers a completely different strategic challenge, while maintaining a similarity of gameplay.
What makes them so strategically different? The geography of the worlds and eras in which they are set.
‘Into the Void’ takes place in space, with each race starting within a solar system. While planets are dotted about, the real source of strategic power comes from the high-density resource sites of the asteroid belts, and Oort clouds. These provide a natural line of defence against invaders; once turned into space-stations, ports, mines, and temples they become a barrier which must be broken down in order to access the inner planets.
‘Fall to Earth’ takes place on a planet, with large seas and lakes, mountains and hills. Unlike in space where geology is too far apart to impede movement, these natural barriers require time to cross, slowing down expansion in certain directions. Resources too are not clumped into belts, but are more evenly spread, making their defence more of a challenge.
‘After the Fall’ takes place on a ruined world, totally covered in abandoned and decaying cities. As your people emerge from their fallout shelters there are enemies everywhere, few strategic resources, and, unlike in the other two games, finite resources which must be scavenged before the other civilisations can get to them.
To accommodate this, each game’s enemies have different goals and objectives, just like any player will need to have when approaching them.