<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts: Mars Horizon</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-mars-horizon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-mars-horizon/</link>
	<description>Science, gaming, and all things in between.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 22:05:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.7.36</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-mars-horizon/#comment-60867</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2022 18:11:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=6363#comment-60867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The repetition is indeed a major problem. Past the early game, I auto-resolve all missions and stick mostly with standard rewards.

However, the different space agencies and rockets are not as similar as you suggest, especially as the game gets more difficult in the midgame. For example, China has reduced building upkeep and building cost and the difference can be a lot of money. Japan has really powerful contractors that either boost science or save a lot of money on rockets, allowing you to throttle up or down to match your available mission slots. Mars Horizon doesn&#039;t let you fail outright, but especially in the midgame, playing to the agency perks is critical to not stalling out.

The rockets are also not as similar. It&#039;s true that the tech tree is quite similar for all agencies, but looks are deceptive. USSR gets to launch all early game payloads with one set of components, but pays for that convenience when the R7 overperforms for the mission requirements. The agency-specific rockets also have different build times and costs. The most extreme example is China, which can farm manned moon missions easily with their Long March 2F. It doesn&#039;t seem like much on first glance, but the price and time difference between a Saturn, N1, and the Long March 2F makes a huge difference in how much the mission is worth. The Jupiters and Delta IVs, while available to everyone, are actually suboptimal choices, costing more and taking longer to build.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The repetition is indeed a major problem. Past the early game, I auto-resolve all missions and stick mostly with standard rewards.</p>
<p>However, the different space agencies and rockets are not as similar as you suggest, especially as the game gets more difficult in the midgame. For example, China has reduced building upkeep and building cost and the difference can be a lot of money. Japan has really powerful contractors that either boost science or save a lot of money on rockets, allowing you to throttle up or down to match your available mission slots. Mars Horizon doesn&#8217;t let you fail outright, but especially in the midgame, playing to the agency perks is critical to not stalling out.</p>
<p>The rockets are also not as similar. It&#8217;s true that the tech tree is quite similar for all agencies, but looks are deceptive. USSR gets to launch all early game payloads with one set of components, but pays for that convenience when the R7 overperforms for the mission requirements. The agency-specific rockets also have different build times and costs. The most extreme example is China, which can farm manned moon missions easily with their Long March 2F. It doesn&#8217;t seem like much on first glance, but the price and time difference between a Saturn, N1, and the Long March 2F makes a huge difference in how much the mission is worth. The Jupiters and Delta IVs, while available to everyone, are actually suboptimal choices, costing more and taking longer to build.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-mars-horizon/#comment-60653</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2020 17:02:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=6363#comment-60653</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think the saddest thing with this game is the repetitive nature of missions, if they could have made some minigames different the game would have been leagues above what it curently is. I.E they could have made liftoff a kind of fly trough the rings minigame where stuff tend’s to either set you off course or break part of your spacecraft. They could have made docking into a timing and alignment minigame where if you fail your astronaut need to spend another orbit in space and perform poored during subsequent task’s. The reentry could halso have been a game of balancing heat with direction so you don’t drift too far from the landing site.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the saddest thing with this game is the repetitive nature of missions, if they could have made some minigames different the game would have been leagues above what it curently is. I.E they could have made liftoff a kind of fly trough the rings minigame where stuff tend’s to either set you off course or break part of your spacecraft. They could have made docking into a timing and alignment minigame where if you fail your astronaut need to spend another orbit in space and perform poored during subsequent task’s. The reentry could halso have been a game of balancing heat with direction so you don’t drift too far from the landing site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
