[MoO] Master or Orion 4

[Rocco.40]

Diplomacy allows you to open up exploration routes, [...] set up trade deals for specific materials [...] controlling the routes between stars is vital; fortunately, your space factories are ready to produce bases when you need them, in addition to asteroid mines, outposts, and so on. Whether you need to produce materials or establish and defend your borders, space factories manufacture what you need.

Indeed Ray, it has become quite clear now from the various reviews that this game is a new game entirely with its own mechanics and not a MOO1.5 or MOO2.5. The word 'reboot' and phrase 'staying true to the original' are a bit misleading for us old-timers.
I think they are trying to stay true to their view of what the characters/ personalities of the 10 original races are. And the music probably too. Other than that just a new game with many different style elements from various games.

 

[Ray F]

Indeed Ray, it has become quite clear now from the various reviews that this game is a new game entirely with its own mechanics and not a MOO1.5 or MOO2.5. The word 'reboot' and phrase 'staying true to the original' are a bit misleading for us old-timers.
I think they are trying to stay true to their view of what the characters/ personalities of the 10 original races are. And the music probably too. Other than that just a new game with many different style elements from various games.

Well, I didn't want to go that far because I rarely play MOO2 so I am willing to grant that MOO4 may be a reboot of MOO2. But it does sound a lot like Civ to me.

I'll leave that particular dissent to MOO2 players.

 

[PhilBowles]

From the article, snipped:


This is really just a space-themed version of Civilization, isn't it?

Aside from the lack of city-building (intriguingly, there's no mention of buildings here, just "begin producing supplies on your homeworld", which might well be closer to MOO), arguably so was the original MOO.

I have to say this sounds quite a lot more promising than the earlier previews. I'm not a fan of star lanes. They're a flawed mechanic that's much worse at extending the game's exploration phase and slowing colonisation and research than fuel cells, but had - say - Endless Space been a better game on other fronts I'd have stuck with it starlanes or no; they aren't high on my list of flaws with that game. I don't think that by themselves they're a dealbreaker - though the rumoured lack of tactical combat may be. I've found that a lot of modern space 4x games - while all technically flawed to some degree - suffer more from a lack of personality than from their mechanical weaknesses.

Simply having the names and identities of familiar races from my youth (though I much prefer MOO 2's pterodactyl-like Alkari) may be enough to draw me in even if the game isn't that good (not that it was enough to get me into MOO 3).

 

[PhilBowles]

RPS article:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/06/23/master-of-orion-remake/

No new shots and not a lot new, but notable:

- drag-and-drop worker movement interface sounds basically identical to MOO 2. Not sure why they're being so secretive about showing the planet screens, though.

- Random events are in. I hope 'supernova causing a planet to blow up' is clumsy journalism rather than the way the event's described - I like my space 4xes to feel they take place in a scientifically not wholly implausible universe.

- Doom Stars apparently can blow up planets, contrary to other reports.

 

[Ray F]

Aside from the lack of city-building (intriguingly, there's no mention of buildings here, just "begin producing supplies on your homeworld", which might well be closer to MOO), arguably so was the original MOO.

Some significant ways that MOO (1993) was different than Civ (1991+):

1) Civ had citizens that you optimized on city squares, MOO did not

2) Civ had a queue of structures to build to improve your city, MOO did not

3) Civ had different empires with slightly different military units for flavor. MOO had races with completely different abilities that required different playing strategies.

4) Civ had a single, interconnected tech tree that allowed you to research one tech at a time, MOO had 6 different tech ladders that could be researched simultaneously and independently

5) Civ had very simple but progressively stronger military units there were unlocked with techs. MOO allowed you to build customized, complex military units from components that were unlocked with techs.

6) Civ had single-stack vs. single-stack combat that was resolved mathematically. MOO had multi-stack vs. multi-stack combat that was resolved tactically between the AI and the player

7) Civ terrain was divided into squares that units moved occupied, allowing players to create bottlenecks to protect inner cities. MOO space was wide open, allowing players to travel to any colony within range without impedance


MOO1 and Civ are very, very far apart on the 4X spectrum. MOO2 was much closer to Civ. GalCiv is even closer.

The question is where MOO4 is at on this spectrum. It certainly sounds closer to Civ than MOO2, if only because of the star lanes.

 

[PhilBowles]

Some significant ways that MOO (1993) was different than Civ (1991+):

1) Civ had citizens that you optimized on city squares, MOO did not

2) Civ had a queue of structures to build to improve your city, MOO did not

The latter's what I referred to above - that was the major difference. Pop working tiles wasn't there, but the sliders performed the same function.

3) Civ had different empires with slightly different military units for flavor. MOO had races with completely different abilities that required different playing strategies.

There were no uniques in the first two Civ games, but there have been for the last couple of iterations and these lead to much more pronounced differences in strategy than MOO's "Meklar and Klackons build warships faster, Alkari build more agile warships, Mrrshan warships are more accurate, Silicoids have bigger warships, Psilons have higher tech warships, Darloks are better at stealing tech to outfit their warships, Bulrathi have better ground troops for invading after the warships have done their job, Sakkra grow bigger empires faster and churn out more warships as a result, and Humans are best at forcing other races to throw warships at each other".

4) Civ had a single, interconnected tech tree that allowed you to research one tech at a time, MOO had 6 different tech ladders that could be researched simultaneously and independently

5) Civ had very simple but progressively stronger military units there were unlocked with techs. MOO allowed you to build customized, complex military units from components that were unlocked with techs.

Both of which ultimately lead to the same functional results in both games. Customisation doesn't work well in a Civ combat framework - Alpha Centauri demonstrated that.

6) Civ had single-stack vs. single-stack combat that was resolved mathematically. MOO had multi-stack vs. multi-stack combat that was resolved tactically between the AI and the player

A difference that, with unit customisation, reflected the fact that MOO was fundamentally more combat-orientated than Civ; it was also probably the core appeal of MOO over Civ. But the games remained fundamentally very similar regardless - even in Civ war was the primary route to victory in every iteration until Brave New World, and the games' strategic focus reflected that.

 

[Ray F]

But the games remained fundamentally very similar regardless - even in Civ war was the primary route to victory in every iteration until Brave New World, and the games' strategic focus reflected that.

Well, yeah, both games are 4X TBS games. All of the games in the genre share those fundamental similarities.

Even so, there are still significant variations within the genre and they have significant impacts on gameplay. To this day, I can play a game of MOO1 on the largest map, even with the cumbersome and outdated UI in DOSBox, and play the game to completion in a single night.

Once Civ2 came out, I have never been able to finish a game on the largest maps -- not one single time over two decades and multiple versions (including CtP). It's just becomes too insanely tedious for me, which is the opposite of the fun experience I want when I play games. <<< === Also MOO2, to be perfectly honest.

Because it has more differences from Civ than any other space 4X game, MOO1 cannot plausibly be described a "space-themed Civ" -- unless that's a label you want to apply to every 4X space TBS. Honestly, that title belongs to GalCiv, which even has the tiles you move your units along.

I know this is not just me who thinks that.

 

[Rocco.40]

Chris Keeling interview

I like comments on ai diplomacy. Maybe they will be able to create an interesting dynamic here.

Unfortunately there is no support for modding planned atm.

 

[Ray F]

Chris Keeling interview

I like comments on ai diplomacy. Maybe they will be able to create an interesting dynamic here.

Unfortunately there is no support for modding planned atm.

It's very clear now that "Master of Orion" is about the lore and everything is going to be generic 4X. Any nods to the previous games will be to MOO2. Even the specific questions about how the new MOO was going to be different were answered with vague platitudes.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

MOO4 obviously won't be a direct clone of MOO1 or even MOO2 but I think it has potential to be a really fun space 4X.

 

[PhilBowles]

Well, yeah, both games are 4X TBS games. All of the games in the genre share those fundamental similarities.

Even so, there are still significant variations within the genre and they have significant impacts on gameplay. To this day, I can play a game of MOO1 on the largest map, even with the cumbersome and outdated UI in DOSBox, and play the game to completion in a single night.

Once Civ2 came out, I have never been able to finish a game on the largest maps -- not one single time over two decades and multiple versions (including CtP). It's just becomes too insanely tedious for me, which is the opposite of the fun experience I want when I play games. <<< === Also MOO2, to be perfectly honest.

It was perfectly fair to describe MOO as Civ in space, if only because at the time that was the only high-profile point of comparison. Yes, MOO is more engaging in the late game but that's because of the ship upgrades and tactical combat, which isn't really part of being a '4x game'. That's closer to describing Brave New World as a different type of 4x from Civ V because it adds extra late-game playability than it is to saying MOO and Civ occupy any fundamentally different places on a '4x spectrum'.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned at all but was a major change between MOO and MOO 2 - are characters going to make an appearance? I loved the addition of governors (I think reference has been made to governors, but it's not clear if they'll be specific characters with traits) and ship captains, and there's a great model for updating the system in Distant Worlds (but please no heroes with skill trees a la Endless Space).

 

[Rocco.40]

RPS article:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/06/23/master-of-orion-remake/

Really enjoyed reading through the comments of this article just now, some interesting discussion and ideas going around.

 

[Ray F]

Really enjoyed reading through the comments of this article just now, some interesting discussion and ideas going around.

I agree. If the new MOO has accomplished one thing already, it's rekindling the long-simmering debate about MOO1 vs. MOO2.

 

[Rocco.40]

review on a belgium site:
http://www.9lives.be/preview/master-orion

it mentions:

Rechtsboven in beeld op je scherm heb je zeven tabs om je rijk te managen. Dit zijn onder andere een overzicht van je bevolking, gebouwen, ruimtestations, productie, research, nucleaire- en biologische complexen.

= In upper right hand corner there are 7 management tabs: population, buildings, space stations, production, research, nuclear centers/buildings, biological centers/buildings.

(i am unsure if 'complex' in nuclear complexes means a building or a center.)


Also a curious new way of describing the galaxy map:

Die bestaat uit twintig melkwegstelsels met elk nog eens honderd sterren en planeten.

= Space consists of 20 galaxies, each with hundreds of stars and planets.

 

[Rocco.40]

Another article- not too much news in here, but share anyway;

http://stevivor.com/2015/06/e3-2015-preview-master-of-orion/

 

[Ray F]

We need more screenshots!

 

[Rocco.40]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpeHYIhe4vQ

quick interview with Victor.
release planned end of 2015 or early 2016.

 

[Ray F]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpeHYIhe4vQ

quick interview with Victor.
release planned end of 2015 or early 2016.

wow, that's a lot earlier than I expected. They've released so little information that I have assumed it's not that close.

 

[Rocco.40]

Yeah it is really fast.
The screenshots & info we have seen so far suggested an early stage development.
Game has already been in development for 1.5 years and production is nearly finished!
Wow, they have kept the lid on this one for quite some time.

i really like the comment he made on the open end of release date, and he did not want to push the game out before they think it is perfect.

 

[Rocco.40]

some new screenshot: bulrathi ships

http://forum.masteroforion.com/index.php?/topic/164-concept-art-bulrathi-ships/