[MoO] Master or Orion 4
- Thread starter Horizon
- Start date
Well I started on Moo1 and still play it. I also still play Moo2. I vacillate from Moo1 being my fav to Moo2. The graphics do not bother me, just having to use DosBox for both does.
Ascendancy came out soon after Moo1 with much better sound and graphics. Just not better on much else. BTW Ascendancy has star lanes.
Ascendancy came out soon after Moo1 with much better sound and graphics. Just not better on much else. BTW Ascendancy has star lanes.
neilkaz
King
I played some Ascendancy but didn't find it to be as good as the two MOO's and really didn't like star lanes.
I still just love the plasmatrons firing on ships or bases. If the AI would have had a little bit of a clue, it would have been good for the time. The lanes did not bother me, but did cause more work.
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
I never played MOO1 (is it free on GOG or something?), but really loved MOO2, even though she was already a 10 years old lady when I met her the first time (she was premium with a PC games magazine). First I didn't understand her and she made me angry very quickly 
so I left her for some weeks. When I calmed down I gave her a second chance with more patience, and what could I say? It's true love ever since 
My expectations about MOO4:
so I left her for some weeks. When I calmed down I gave her a second chance with more patience, and what could I say? It's true love ever since My expectations about MOO4:
- MOO2 as much as possibly (I don't know MOO1, but if it is like Civ, that's good frame too, I guess)
- ALL races from MOO2, please! My favorites are the Elerians and the Psilon.
- Star lanes? - No! NO! NOOOO!
- Be it mod-friendly, like Civ4.
- Allow (virtually) infinite number of races like Civ4 does.
- More racial traits to pick from. E. g. Klackons should have an "Organic Ships" trait (ship require food or are built with food and also regenerate)
- Make it no MMO. - I should be able to play it if I don't have an internet connection at all.
- Make it for no NASA machines. - Sure it needs better graphics and so, but it should be running on a bit older machines too.
Rocco.40
King
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 652
http://www.pcgamer.com/wargaming-on-master-of-orion-this-is-a-passion-for-us/
http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/11/8765643/master-of-orion-reboot-wont-be-free-to-play-will-incorporate-best
We got the original producer, [=Jeff Johannigman]
original art director, [Jeff Dee?]
the original composer is doing the music for the new game, [=David Govett]
a couple of designers as well. [?]
http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/11/8765643/master-of-orion-reboot-wont-be-free-to-play-will-incorporate-best
We got the original producer, [=Jeff Johannigman]
original art director, [Jeff Dee?]
the original composer is doing the music for the new game, [=David Govett]
a couple of designers as well. [?]
Holy crap. That PC Gamer article was amazing. I was thinking, wow, this guy is really one of us. He freaking understands why anyone with programming skills and experience with MOO1/2 always toys with the idea of writing a new one himself because NO ONE ELSE has recreated the formula.
I was seriously sold.
Then it said no tactical combat and I thought, wtf?
Rocco.40
King
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 652
was my first reaction too.
but they wouldn't be designing these detailed space ships if there is no tactical combat?
or at least, maybe tactical combat is visible but will auto-resolve?
in MOO2, tactical combat a.i. is not very good, resulting in human player advantage, so an auto battle would be more fair.
if it is a choice between a good strategic a.i. vs a good tactical a.i. then I would prefer the first option.
on the other hand, how hard could it be to create a tactical a.i. that is better than what we have today?
This is a very strange remark.
but they wouldn't be designing these detailed space ships if there is no tactical combat?
or at least, maybe tactical combat is visible but will auto-resolve?
in MOO2, tactical combat a.i. is not very good, resulting in human player advantage, so an auto battle would be more fair.
if it is a choice between a good strategic a.i. vs a good tactical a.i. then I would prefer the first option.
on the other hand, how hard could it be to create a tactical a.i. that is better than what we have today?
It is probably 10% that does not play tactical.
This is a very strange remark.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
[*]Star lanes? - No! NO! NOOOO!
Why are you so strongly against star lanes? Just curious.
The point is that tactical combat is precisely what makes ship design so enjoyable. YOU get to use the very weapons and ships that you designed, and YOU get to see if they failed or succeeded first hand. You are not just automatically placing the biggest, newest goodies on a ship because they are mathematically superior for some auto-resolver. You are designing ships that have synergies in combat that allow you to pursue different tactical strategies and potentially outsmart and defeat a technologically superior AI force.
I hate to sound so dogmatic about it, but tactical ship combat is like a litmus test between MOO and other space TBS games.
edit: Holy cow, the commenting section in the PC Gamer article is all saying the same thing.
Well every game I have tried the auto combat, resulted in horrible out comes. Currently playing Stardrive 2 and it has very poor resolve. I can go into a battle and not move my fleet and take no losses. If I auto it I lose several ships vs just a star base.
Galciv 3 has no combat, just a viewer like Stars!. Even Stars! has step by step viewer. That may be a deal breaker for me, have to see.
Galciv 3 has no combat, just a viewer like Stars!. Even Stars! has step by step viewer. That may be a deal breaker for me, have to see.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Excellent point! I still remember when I would play MOO2, the feeling I would get when I got a new ship class like the titan and I would carefully design my new mega ship and try it out in combat to see if it was good enough to turn the tide of war. You get a great feeling when you are losing a war and then you roll out a new ship class and it makes a difference and you win an important battle for the first time in a war. Of course, you could get really bummed out too when your new ship class that you think it is so powerful, still is not good enough. Then, you have to go back to the drawing board and redesign your ship.
I do think that the designer make a good point though that the game should not focus so much on the tactical combat that it neglects the strategic layer. MOO is after all a 4X game, meaning the main focus of the game should be on building a galactic empire. So I think MOO4 will need to have good balance where there is a strong emphasis on the strategic layer but also a really cool tactical combat layer.
Of course, the tactical combat layer can make or break the game. If the tactical AI is bad, if the tactical combat UI is confusing or difficult to control, if there is too much micro, if the combat is boring, it can really ruin the whole game by taking the player out of empire building mode where they forget what has going on in the strategic layer because they got bogged down in a confusing tactical combat.
Interestingly, lead design Chris Keeling replied to the comments in that article here:
http://www.pcgamer.com/wargaming-on-master-of-orion-this-is-a-passion-for-us/#comment-2075612539
Posting as "ChrisK", he said
I wonder how much of this was an honest misrepresentation in the article vs. an honest miscalculation by the devs and they realize now that tactical combat is not something they can exclude without some blowback from fans.
Either way, this is a positive turn of events.
http://www.pcgamer.com/wargaming-on-master-of-orion-this-is-a-passion-for-us/#comment-2075612539
Posting as "ChrisK", he said
So, what I meant was (guess I needed to be more clear) was that we weren't diving too deep on tactical combat and ship design at the expense of the core gameplay, as has been done by other games. We're focusing on core strategic gameplay first (because it's the most important), but we're also having extremely fun and deep tactical combat with a lot of cool features, as well as ship design more in line with the MOO2 level of control.
We're not abandoning these aspects of the game by any means, we just recognize (and yes, we have done our research) that focusing on parts of the game used by only 10% of the players isn't the way to make the best game, it's the way to ensure that the primary gameplay - conquering the galaxy through strategic decisionmaking and resource management - would not be up to par.
Don't worry, we've got this. More to come.
I wonder how much of this was an honest misrepresentation in the article vs. an honest miscalculation by the devs and they realize now that tactical combat is not something they can exclude without some blowback from fans.
Either way, this is a positive turn of events.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Indeed. If they can pull off both "core strategic gameplay" and "fun and deep tactical combat" that is faithful to the MOO series, then MOO4 should be a great and worthy game in the franchise.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Tactical combat is MOO, to a large extent - not because it was the core of the game, but because it was the main feature of MOO that hasn't really been incorporated into subsequent space 4xes.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Even stranger is the remark that this is the area subsequent 4xes have followed. From GalCiv to Endless Space and Distant Worlds, almost all of these games have no player-controlled tactical combat at all, even those which have ship editors (which suggests a misunderstanding on the part of people like Stardock and Matrix as to exactly why players liked the customisation. It's not just to get a stat bonus a la Alpha Centauri's unit workshop - missiles vs. gauss vs. beam promotes different types of tactical play; tractor beams and black hole generators do interestingly cool things that rely on where you position your ships and what you target).
Maybe the only game that did marry ship customisation and tactical combat since MOO 2 (MOO 3 lacked tactical combat) was Space Empires IV.
Distant Worlds has tactical combat. You can grab a ship or a number of ships and have them attack a target. That is about all you can do in a real time game with massive fleets.
Nothing like GalCiv, where you can only view the results.
Having say 200 ships on each side in a battle in real time, managing each one would take all day. Remember it is all using 3 dimensions, you you would have to move on all planes. Not like Moo1/2 where it is one plane.
Nothing like GalCiv, where you can only view the results.
Having say 200 ships on each side in a battle in real time, managing each one would take all day. Remember it is all using 3 dimensions, you you would have to move on all planes. Not like Moo1/2 where it is one plane.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Sins of a Solar Empire, an RTS with some 4x pretensions, manages battles with formations of that size - it's true that its tactics are rather crude and don't (for the most part) amount to more than DW's point-and-click at targets, however each unit type (no ship design here) had at least one activated ability representing a special weapon. The RTS tricks of control groups and formations' individual ships displayed in a panel on the interface allow the player to respond in large battles.
DW is closer to MOO 2 than other games in this (and most other things), but there's still no control over individual ship systems to justify, e.g., favouring assault boats over other weapon systems, or to allow you to build 'utlity ships' that can support the rest of the fleet.
Still, my essential point was that - contrary to the designer's assertion - tactical combat of any kind, and fully player-controlled tactical combat in particular, is rare to nonexistent in MOO's successors, making his claims particularly odd and casting doubt on whether his team really understands what's missing from MOO's successors that has prevented them from ever capturing the MOO feel. He's right that the feel of the races is a large part of it (I disliked the Alkari being dropped from MOO 3, quite apart from that other game's failings) - it's remarkable what a leader screen, some generic phrases, a unique ability (MOO was about the first 4x game to use these) and names happily ripped off from other sci-fi franchises with the spelling changed just enough to avoid copyright infringement, could conjure in terms of the sense of the setting and its inhabitants.
But many games have more-or-less equivalent strategic layers, capturing most of what MOO did. Few have the food-transporting freighter system (the food caravans that probably inspired it were themselves dropped from Civ II, not to reappear until Civ V's final expansion), most have restrictive star lanes, and GalCiv has its restrictive building slots per planet, but these differences don't make MOO or MOO 2 strategically so superior to these other games that the series has been unmatched for over 20 years. Looking here to preserve the 'essence' of MOO is the wrong place to focus.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
In my opinion, the best tactical combat for MOO4 would turn-based combat similar to Sid Meier's Starships where your ships are on a hex based map and you move ships and fire weapons on a turn by turn basis.
Rocco.40
King
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 652
A tactical turn-based combat worked really well in MOO1 because of the limited actual ships on screen (stacked ships). In MOO2 I really like that same tactical combat, but up to a dozen or so ships. With higher numbers it becomes a quite tedious process to manage. 50 ships is just no fun anymore, too much micro. And if I have tech dominance, I would just auto the big battles anyway. Tactical turn based with limited ships would be my preferred way of having tactical combat.
I haven't played the Star Drive 2, but that real time combat system where you setup starting positions of your ships after which combat starts, during which you can influence what ships are targeting / or they move faster or slower / or they have a shield boost etc. looks like a nice way of doing it, especially when working with huge fleets. And that retreat with time delay is just cool.
edit:
edit2
let us hope we do not have to wait as long as for MOO3, remember?
...3 years...
I haven't played the Star Drive 2, but that real time combat system where you setup starting positions of your ships after which combat starts, during which you can influence what ships are targeting / or they move faster or slower / or they have a shield boost etc. looks like a nice way of doing it, especially when working with huge fleets. And that retreat with time delay is just cool.
edit:
Absolutely!! Ship Design is essential for a MOO game. Tactical combat could be implemented in a couple of ways, both turn based and real time could work for me if executed well. In any case we need to see the ships in action. "Statistical combat" where you just get a info box with results is really the saddest way to resolve a combat.
edit2
let us hope we do not have to wait as long as for MOO3, remember?
...3 years...
Similar threads
- Locked