Master of orion 4

civvver

Deity
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,855
Technically it's called conquer the stars, it's out on steam and gog. For $49.99 you get moo1,2,3 and early access to conquer the stars.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/298050/

I made it's own thread so anyone who gets it can give us updates! From all accounts it looks good but probably going to let some fans down, I guess we'll see how polished they get it. Like civ5 eventually was good but on release had so many bugs, it couldn't win over many civ4 fans.

The one thing I'm leery of is someone mentioned real time battles... not sure how I feel about transitioning from turn based to real time battles, but I don't really know anything about how it works.
 
It's already in a thread in 'Other Civ-Related Games'.

Just started it today - they've been surprisingly faithful to the ship design, overall structure, and tech upgrades (though not the constrained tech tree) of MOO 2 (while the game is notionally a 'reimagining' of MOO 1, it has a MOO 2 style planet management system with mobile workers, rather than MOO 1's sliders). The voice acting is irritating (at least for the Alkari), though.

For a game in Early Access it seems surprisingly well-polished, I have to say. And while there a few modern touches (strategic resources other than artifacts, ability to build asteroid bases, exploration rewards - though it's ironic to consider the latter modern, pioneered as it was by Civ I), it seems very much a classic space 4x.

I've only been involved in one battle, with a frigate vs. pirates, so it's hard to draw conclusions. It is real-time, but not fast-paced, and all it seems there is to do (unless later techs unlock activated abilities) is click on the area you want to go to and the ships you want to attack. Battles will presumably become quite large over time - 'Frigate x5' is a default build option (though you can build them individually if you want) and I haven't seen anything like a fleet or unit limit.

The change a lot of people have taken issue with is star lanes. I don't like them - I'm not rabidly opposed to them, but they're no dealbreaker. In the new MOO, however, I don't really see the sense of this design decision. The fuel cell system was just a better way of limiting expansion. Also, freighters are gone. That's a real shame since that was a very subtly significant difference between MOO and its imitators - a level of empire management (and again constrained expansion) that improved the game while never really being thought of as a key feature.
 
I actually think i might quite like this new MOO from what i have seen of it. I am not opposed to star lanes. But like Phil i think fuel cells are a better way of limiting travel.

Disagree with Phil though that freighters in MOO were a good thing. They totally werent. They were just a pain to build when you ran out of them. So you queued up about 3 or 4 of them, everyone on production, 4 turns later you didnt have to worry about them for another 5 turns or so. Only area they were slightly relevant was in blockading, which was a viable tactic if you didnt have enough muscle to actually attack a colony. But you can build something in to the game for a blockade. You certainly dont need freighters.

I am a bit disappointed that there seems to be a limited set of ship customization. I am also a bit disappointed that there isnt turn based combat. IMO its a difficult one. Because literally translating MOO2 combat would be too bland. It was never that good in the original. But mechanically it was part of the game and an updated rehash might have been a good thing (like a heroes of might and magic battle in space). And although i loved the customization options in MOO2, it was totally totally broken. Creative was massively overpowered as a trait; choice in the tech system was an illusion - realistically there were few choices once you knew which ones were decent (automated factories ftw); and ship design in its MOO2 sense was interesting, but a bit too complicated and busy for todays tastes.

I think i might get the game though. It looks like as long as you are not too hung up on the whole nostalgia thing, can take it on its merits, then you might enjoy it. In some ways I dont think they are actually massively helped by the name in the title. When you do that you basically get a load of people who want a carbon copy remake of the original. And when they dont get it, they accuse you of ruining the franchise, betraying the ideals of perfection etc. But on the flip side those people tend to forget how bad certain aspects of the original were and how they might look to the modern player (like when XCOM dropped the idea of time units for a 2 move mechanic. There were some who screamed blue murder).
 
I actually think i might quite like this new MOO from what i have seen of it. I am not opposed to star lanes. But like Phil i think fuel cells are a better way of limiting travel.

Disagree with Phil though that freighters in MOO were a good thing. They totally werent. They were just a pain to build when you ran out of them. So you queued up about 3 or 4 of them, everyone on production, 4 turns later you didnt have to worry about them for another 5 turns or so. Only area they were slightly relevant was in blockading, which was a viable tactic if you didnt have enough muscle to actually attack a colony. But you can build something in to the game for a blockade. You certainly dont need freighters.

I am a bit disappointed that there seems to be a limited set of ship customization. I am also a bit disappointed that there isnt turn based combat. IMO its a difficult one. Because literally translating MOO2 combat would be too bland. It was never that good in the original. But mechanically it was part of the game and an updated rehash might have been a good thing (like a heroes of might and magic battle in space). And although i loved the customization options in MOO2, it was totally totally broken. Creative was massively overpowered as a trait; choice in the tech system was an illusion - realistically there were few choices once you knew which ones were decent (automated factories ftw); and ship design in its MOO2 sense was interesting, but a bit too complicated and busy for todays tastes.

I think i might get the game though. It looks like as long as you are not too hung up on the whole nostalgia thing, can take it on its merits, then you might enjoy it. In some ways I dont think they are actually massively helped by the name in the title. When you do that you basically get a load of people who want a carbon copy remake of the original. And when they dont get it, they accuse you of ruining the franchise, betraying the ideals of perfection etc. But on the flip side those people tend to forget how bad certain aspects of the original were and how they might look to the modern player (like when XCOM dropped the idea of time units for a 2 move mechanic. There were some who screamed blue murder).

Actually, it is more or less a carbon copy except for the combat - and later on there are constraints in the tech tree (never the relevant mechanic some are now making out, since you could always trade for the techs you were locked out of) - when you research some techs, mainly energy techs, you have to choose which upgrade you unlock.

They went too aggressively about cutting 'micromanagement', which I always found an odd complaint - at the sole difficulty available in Early Access there's no real need to care about striking workers and the only management you'll need to do is to pollution. Really all there seems to do is spam colonies, mainly because colonies provide space bases that increase your fleet limit (yes, it does exist), and then spam ships. Biggest disappointment so far is that the colony module techs are gone - you can colonise any planet type at any game stage. And while I appreciate the nostalgia of the world types, I've been longing for a MOO game that incorporates more recent ideas about exoplanetary systems.

Had a large combat that destroyed the main Sakkra fleet - with large fleets it gets very confusing trying to see what's happening, and there's not much way to influence it. Also warp dissipators don't seem useful since, unlike MOO, the enemy never retreats from battle if they're losing.

As for freighters, the important thing is that they're a supply system - something both the new game and nearly every other more recent space 4x lacks. I think if you ran the sort of food deficit that required spamming them the way you suggest you were playing very differently from me. The new game's civil transports - which are single-use and are moved as fleets - are more tedious and require more micromanagement, in part because the starlane system requires more involved travel than free movement (if there's a hostile system you need to route around, for instance).

Certainly it would be nice if colonising inhospitable planets was more difficult than landing and instabuilding fungal farms (which may not work correctly, as they seem available for radiated etc. worlds while the tooltip suggests they should only be available on barren, arid and tundra worlds). Blockades in the new game don't appear to do anything except prevent production.

Overall, MOO(4) feels like a MOO game as the races, their traits, and the techs are all there, but it feels more like a simplified version of MOO 2 with an interface lifted from Civ V (right down to the settler icon on the colony ships) rather than a game that's doing anything new. I'm enjoying this playthrough but if its time in Early Access isn't used as an opportunity to add depth it may just leave me pining for Distant Worlds.
 
Oh my bad, thanks for pointing out that thread.

Real time combat sounds like the sticky point for me. Dunno how I'll like that. At least game isn't real time.

Really the big issue with moo1 for me were only three things, the tech tree randomness, the AI being incompetent with their tech and AI being incompetent in battle. You could really abuse them. Like you would have planetary shields X plus shields V and they would not research bombs or whatever, even though no beam weapons around that tech level could penetrate your shields anymore. They'd basically have to "luck" their way into the right techs to siege your planets. Same with fighting your fleets, you could build a couple hundred small ships and they wouldn't counter with black hole generators or tachyon beams for example.

And then in combat if you had that beam repulsor thing they had no counter to it.

The tech tree randomness was just annoying cus it would ruin games sometimes to not have a robotic controls show up between like 3 and 7. Or not get any of the planet techs like fertile and atmospheric.
 
Oh my bad, thanks for pointing out that thread.

Real time combat sounds like the sticky point for me. Dunno how I'll like that. At least game isn't real time.

Really the big issue with moo1 for me were only three things, the tech tree randomness, the AI being incompetent with their tech and AI being incompetent in battle. You could really abuse them. Like you would have planetary shields X plus shields V and they would not research bombs or whatever, even though no beam weapons around that tech level could penetrate your shields anymore. They'd basically have to "luck" their way into the right techs to siege your planets. Same with fighting your fleets, you could build a couple hundred small ships and they wouldn't counter with black hole generators or tachyon beams for example.

And then in combat if you had that beam repulsor thing they had no counter to it.

The tech tree randomness was just annoying cus it would ruin games sometimes to not have a robotic controls show up between like 3 and 7. Or not get any of the planet techs like fertile and atmospheric.

AI seems poor at combat teching right now - neutron blasters and some missiles, but everyone's approached me asking for my fighter bays, either because they haven't teched down that route or because they took battle pods instead, and in my war against the Sakkra I'm facing isolated frigates and a destroyer or two in the largest battles, where I build frigates in fives and operate multiple cruisers. Though the simplified upgrading system seems designed to be more AI-friendly - no levels of ECM, shields regenerate slowly so that even heavily-shielded ships can be overwhelmed (no hard shields that can't be knocked down - they're a secondary HP reservoir of the sort typical in RTS games).

Again, though, Early Access has only one difficulty setting, and will presumably correspond to one of the lower difficulties in the final game. The game also supports multiplayer, which the original games never did.

There's also no miniaturisation mechanic - everything takes the same amount of space it does when you first research it, and ships don't get any bigger without new hull designs or battle pods. So you don't get to cram fighter bays into frigates. Of course this removes a lot of the fun and variety from MOO's ship design, but all of these changes seem unquestionably better for balance, while allowing ship loadouts to vary from one another more meaningfully than the simple stat boosts of games like Endless Space (and I think also GalCiv).
 
And diplomacy, diplomacy atrocious in the first one, marginally better in the 2nd. Biggest problem in 1 was if you were growing nicely, holding down the number 3 spot in population, the top two guys would always split votes. If you suddenly jumped into second place but didn't have enough to stop the vote (1/3rd of pop) then suddenly all those guys who split vote all vote for AI. It's really hard to keep AI happy if you aren't human.
 
And diplomacy, diplomacy atrocious in the first one, marginally better in the 2nd. Biggest problem in 1 was if you were growing nicely, holding down the number 3 spot in population, the top two guys would always split votes. If you suddenly jumped into second place but didn't have enough to stop the vote (1/3rd of pop) then suddenly all those guys who split vote all vote for AI. It's really hard to keep AI happy if you aren't human.

Diplomacy is just a trade screen, with all the default options, plus a 'don't settle near me' demand. Map trading is in and so is tech trading - which brings with it all the exploitability of tech trading in other games (though it's a bit more justified in MOO as there are techs/upgrades you will be cut off from by tree constraints and can only get through trading. Espionage isn't yet implemented in Early Access). Also, asking people to declare war is bugged - to bring the Humans into my ongoing war with the Sakkra they requested only that ... I declare war on the Sakkra.

So far I've found engaging in diplomacy optional until the council vote came up - when I tried (unsuccessfully) to ally with the Psilons and successfully with the Humans. In both votes so far - one with the Bulrathi vs. me, and one with the Bulrathi vs. the Psilons - all other powers abstained. Since they exhibited the same behaviour with two AI factions as they did with human vs. AI, at least at this stage it doesn't seem they're biasing their responses against the player.

The same seems to happen in warfare, incidentally - it's not yet clear whether the AIs have distinct personalities (as this is my first game), and as most of the 6 races unlocked so far are described as nonaggressive it may just be that the AIs aren't primed to go to war often (a strange decision for a very combat-based 4x). Still, no one declared war on me or has taken advantage of my war with the Sakkra to attack - but the Sakkra and Mrrshan have gone to war with each other. Though I haven't witnessed invasion or enemy troop transports yet.
 
The same seems to happen in warfare, incidentally - it's not yet clear whether the AIs have distinct personalities (as this is my first game), and as most of the 6 races unlocked so far are described as nonaggressive it may just be that the AIs aren't primed to go to war often (a strange decision for a very combat-based 4x). Still, no one declared war on me or has taken advantage of my war with the Sakkra to attack - but the Sakkra and Mrrshan have gone to war with each other. Though I haven't witnessed invasion or enemy troop transports yet.

In my first game, the AI human empire declared war on me after I refused to give the AI a tech. I am playing as the Psilons on the galaxy seed 0 map where the humans and Psilons are right next to each other. When the AI declared war on me, I immediately brought my entire fleet back to my home system but after about 10 turns, the AI did nothing at all. The AI literally just moved scouts and a couple destroyers back and forth between two systems next to me. The AI could have easily take out one of my military outposts at least but it did nothing. Finally, after 10 turns, I sent my fleet in and utterly decimated the AI. It is early access so there is still time for the devs to improve the AI.
 
Well thanks guys, doesn't sound enticing enough to get early access for me, I will wait for that first 50% off sale.
 
In my first game, the AI human empire declared war on me after I refused to give the AI a tech. I am playing as the Psilons on the galaxy seed 0 map where the humans and Psilons are right next to each other.

Is that what 'Big Bang seed' is? Are there no random maps, all are pregenerated?

When the AI declared war on me, I immediately brought my entire fleet back to my home system but after about 10 turns, the AI did nothing at all. The AI literally just moved scouts and a couple destroyers back and forth between two systems next to me. The AI could have easily take out one of my military outposts at least but it did nothing. Finally, after 10 turns, I sent my fleet in and utterly decimated the AI. It is early access so there is still time for the devs to improve the AI.

I think AI tends to be a priority for developers to address in early access, so there is cause for hope in that regard. I think this may also be more amenable to multiplayer play than many 4xes, and seems fairly quick relatively speaking. Turning down deals does seem to upset AIs quite a lot - I quite like this, as it means balancing a relationship penalty against the downside of trading a tech.

In my Sakkra war the Sakkra had a single fleet containing nearly all their force (can't fault them - I did the same) - it was guarding a star base at the planet I wanted to attack. So instead of taking them head on, where odds would be slightly against me, I moved to the warp point, trying to lure the fleet away to attack me as I headed to Sssla. The AI fell for this, and my faster ships were able to sit on guard at the warp point. The Sakkra fleet was wiped out, compounded by the apparent lack of a retreat option (or at least the AI's inability to use it).

Things the AI appears not to appropriately consider include specific tech levels, rather than just odds (plus it appears not to use either ECMs, anti-missile rockets, or point defence weapons - in fact I suspect it just uses the default build for each class, which is going to be worse than anything the player is doing - not because the default build is bad per se, but because where you're going to change it you're going to do so to get a better ship), flight times (the AI would have known I'd reach the target point first) - and, in my specific case, the fact that the Alkari have the best ships in the game (as - with Mrrshan getting a different bonus - they're the only race whose trait gives a space combat bonus, plus not only are they one of the factions that starts with neutron blasters their artifact homeworld helps them tech faster than other factions).
 
Is that what 'Big Bang seed' is? Are there no random maps, all are pregenerated?

Yes, I was referring the big bang seed. Seed 0 is the default. Yes, I think the maps are pregenerated, although it is possible that they are randomly generated and just saved as a new seed number. There is that little dice icon next to the big bang seed which let's you randomly pick another map. The devs talked about how maps are saved as seeds so that players can "share" maps. For example, if I played a good game on the seed 1 map, I can actually tell a friend about it and they can play the same map. It is a pretty neat feature.

Turning down deals does seem to upset AIs quite a lot - I quite like this, as it means balancing a relationship penalty against the downside of trading a tech.

I like this too. It does add a nice downside to trade deals. Trades are more interesting if you know there is the real possibility of war if you say no too often.
 
Well thanks guys, doesn't sound enticing enough to get early access for me, I will wait for that first 50% off sale.

That would be my recommendation from what I've seen so far unless you want to pay a premium to get the original trilogy on Steam (and even then they use DosBOX). Strip away the nostalgia of getting to see these races and familiar-named techs again, and the basic game is only a slight improvement over Endless Space (which for comparison I consider the worst moderately high-profile space 4x of recent years) and, much like that game, it feels closer to a turn-based version of Sins of a Solar Empire (a traditional RTS in 4x clothing) than a true MOO successor (in fact its space factories and asteroid bases make it seem even closer to Sins). As it currently stands - not least because multiple difficulty levels haven't yet been implemented and the default AI seems so poor - I can't see MOO having much replayability. War is all there is to do and there isn't a lot to it.
 
I do think MOO4 has a more fun, lively, feel to it than ES which felt kinda lifeless to me. MOO4 has a lot of charm that ES lacked.

I definitely agree there - the real killer for ES was its blandness. If you set out to make the world's most generic space 4x mechanically, the last thing you want to do is make it feel like the world's most generic space 4x. Evidently this was a sufficiently common concern that they overloaded Endless Legend on the character it oozes at - frankly - the expense of gameplay.

If all MOO gained over it was character it would be a better game; as it is I'd say planetary management, diplomacy and ship design are all superior - and while combat may not be mechanically, it's a lot more fun than a tedious, repetitive, gameable card game existing for the sole purpose of exploiting the predictability of the AI.

Still, character may be somewhat subjective - I'm playing with characters I know from childhood so of course the appeal's there for me. It might not be so much for someone just picking up the game, although the leader screens and GNN should enliven it. I love the way the GNN droid is portrayed, and you've got to love a galaxy with a "worst hive of scum and villainy contest".

And deep down that may be all that was missing - we always want to find mechanical reasons why our beloved games of yore are still our gold standard, but in a genre that for two decades has been characterised by games as functional and generic as their titles (Space Empires, Galactic Civilizations, Endless Space...), somehow the character you get from something as simple as dressing the aliens in animal costumes and giving them names that barely avoid infringing copyright on half a dozen sci-fi franchises has been hard to recreate.
 
Can't say I'm impressed.

MoO4 brings absolutely nothing new to the genre and it's all spreadsheet and no strategy.
 
Can't say I'm impressed.

MoO4 brings absolutely nothing new to the genre and it's all spreadsheet and no strategy.

While it has a fair few issues at this stage - and lack of strategic depth is certainly one of them, if not one of which MOO 1 and 2 were exactly innocent (and however much anyone loves the games, you have to concede that compared even with the Civ games of the day ultimately MOO at its highest difficulties was easier and strategically simpler than its contemporaries at comparable levels, being much more focused on tactical warfare) - what exactly "new" were you expecting it to bring to the genre? It's quite explicitly and unashamedly a nostalgia exercise - even though the developers steered clear of calling it a remake, preferring to consider it a 'reboot', they were open that the primary audience was fans of the originals. In the end they seem to have decided to move more firmly in the 'MOO 2 remake' direction, making it even less likely to try anything new.

And the more I play with, and unlock of, its ship design options, the better-implemented the system seems - it's not new because MOO was doing it 20 years ago, but it has a cleaner interface, gets away from more fiddly and pointless micromanagement issues (a thousand ECM and scanner upgrades that each needed incorporating manually into every design), and is an improvement over every recent space 4x's unit design systems save Distant Worlds' (while avoiding the interface problems which make that nearly unworkable).
 
Yes, I was referring the big bang seed. Seed 0 is the default. Yes, I think the maps are pregenerated, although it is possible that they are randomly generated and just saved as a new seed number. There is that little dice icon next to the big bang seed which let's you randomly pick another map. The devs talked about how maps are saved as seeds so that players can "share" maps. For example, if I played a good game on the seed 1 map, I can actually tell a friend about it and they can play the same map. It is a pretty neat feature.



I like this too. It does add a nice downside to trade deals. Trades are more interesting if you know there is the real possibility of war if you say no too often.

Just said no to the Psilons, who had decided to become hostile as I was expanding too quickly (never mind stripping gas giants bare and squishing asteroids together to make more real estate) and am now at war with them. Interesting to see where that will lead as I'm totally unprepared for a war in that direction - I brought the humans in on my side, but my issues with AI teching may merely reflect how far behind the Sakkra were (which doesn't excuse them sending frigates in ones, twos and sixes against my main fleet instead of building up their own). The Psilons have a lot of destroyers, and seem to be using the same merculite missiles and mass drivers that are my mainstay. Though my suspicion that it uses the default builds seems correct - the destroyers have fusion bombs as well as standard armaments, while I prefer (as I did in the originals) to have specialised beam weapon ships or missile/torpedo boats that load up on those weapons, and bombers without much more than point defence armaments to get to the target.

The latter isn't quite as useful now since planets aren't on the same map and without clicking on the bombers to withdraw them to the back of the map they'll rush headlong into the enemy, so they do benefit from having more defensive capabilities, but I still can't see a capable player running bombers as ships of the line instead of more specialised craft.

Things will get interesting when I have to go toe to toe with the humans, I expect. I've rather been ignoring them, as the furthest power and not seemingly that large, while the Bulrathi have been receiving my attention as my rival on the council. But the timeline graph has the humans almost level pegging with me (possibly because of unwise trade deals on my part to keep them onside).

Never mind that when I move my fleet out to take on the Psilons I'll need to have some way to defend (former) Sakkra space from the Mrrshan, who are also now decidedly hostile.

As you can probably tell, this is really starting to feel MOO-like now - and one area where the original games excelled (relative to, say, Civilization) is that it tended to get better in the late game as you narrowed down to one or two surviving rivals who had spent the game amassing giant fleets and territories.
 
what exactly "new" were you expecting it to bring to the genre? It's quite explicitly and unashamedly a nostalgia exercise

I didn't expect the game to be innovate. So I don't criticize the developer for not keeping promises, I criticize the game for not being that good.

And the more I play with, and unlock of, its ship design options, the better-implemented the system seems.

Ship design is so closely linked to combat so until the tactical combat gets an upgrade I don't really have much to say about it.
 
I didn't expect the game to be innovate. So I don't criticize the developer for not keeping promises, I criticize the game for not being that good.

Well, your primary criticism was that "it brings nothing new to the genre". ("More spreadsheet than strategy" is true of every space 4x out there, including Distant Worlds - which, hidden behind the appalling interface, real time play and bad graphics, is probably the only space 4x produced since 1996 that's objectively better than Master of Orion 2. These games all take inspiration from the MOO games and all inherit MOO's fundamental oversimplification).

Ship design is so closely linked to combat so until the tactical combat gets an upgrade I don't really have much to say about it.

Ship design still influences combat results whether you actively control the units in combat or not, and unlike other games that use it it's actually an enjoyable part of the experience rather than a micromanaging slog through +1 damage/+1 armour upgrades (yes, I am looking at you, Endless Space). The shortcomings of MOO1+2's combat AI are well-established - you didn't actually need tactical combat there (and from recollection could autoresolve, which is basically what both the 'Tactical' and 'Simulate' options in the new game amount to). No modern space 4x has tactical combat, but several have unit design. That MOO improves drastically in one of these two areas is obviously relevant when comparing it with its competitors.
 
Top Bottom