MOO2-style unit design and combat

[vesuvius_prime]

Hi guys,

I have always thought that one of the most interesting aspects of MOO2 was the unit design, fleet formation, and the tactical combat.

How do you feel about having these in Civ3? I know that in the early ages unit design will be really very limited (only things like stone/bronze/iron weapons, weapon crafts, small improvements in siege machines, etc.). The various civlilizations could retain their special abilities in some particular weapon or armor.

But I think that the combat system can gain a lot from "zooming in" the battles. We could group units together that could complement/balance themselves and we could avoid much of the frustration caused by the random-number-based outcome of the current battles.

For example, I have always resented the fact that armies (or at least the first army) can be created only by a Military Great Leader. I would much prefer to be able to create armies at my will, while the Great Leaders could simply bring benefits to the armies (just like the leaders in MOO2) -- increased attack/defense/initiative/whatever.

What do you think? Should there be tactical combat, unit design and the ability to create arbitrary armies (and upgrade them)?

 

[ummmm........]

ummmm........ What's moo2?

 

[toh6wy]

Master of Orion 2.
I've never played it or even seen it myself, so I don't know what it looks like. But it sounds like a good idea. I would make it optional, though - some people would probably rather just have combat like it is now instead of fighting every single one out in a "zoom in" style. Maybe a dialog box could come up and ask you whether you want to command the battle personally or leave it up to your generals.

 

[vesuvius_prime]

Just a quick clarification:

Yes, MOO2 = Master Of Orion 2.

You could design your own ships there. There were things like weapons, armor, computers, shields, specials, etc.

You do not research *ships*, you research ship components. Like, for example, you could have researched Zortrium Armor, Disruptor Beams, Merculite Missiles, Fighters, Positronic Computers, Class III shields, Battle Pods, and the like. There are numerious different military techs. You may be very advanced in weapons, but not advanced in shields. While you advance in research, the older technologies get smaller and less expensive. So, you can put more Phasors on a ship (due to miniaturization of older techs), after you have researched several "better" techs. One more thing: you could re-design a certain ship and then upgrade the existing ships to that design.

In Civ3 terms this means that you do not research "tanks". You research weapons, armor, etc. And then you design your own tanks. You can put various weapons in a tank but you should be aware that there's only so much space in the tank. You can put a lot of small weapons or fewer bigger weapons/computers. It's up to you. Furthermore, some weapons are more "expensive" and take more time to build than others.

The added bonus is that if you have had tanks for 100 years, your tanks will certainly be better than the tanks of another civ who has just reached the point where it can build tanks too. The way we have it now is: "all tanks are equal, no matter what". In fact, in Civ3 ALL units of the same type are equal.

This whole MOO2 concept may sound complicated but in reality it's not. I remember that Alpha Centauri had something similar but not as well implemented as in MOO2. One of the things that made MOO2 a classic is exactly Unit Design & Tactical Combat. There are numerous guides on "Best Ship Design" and, of course, the designs changed considerably as the game progressed.

 

[ummmm........]

No, I think they tried something like that in Alpha Centauri. It was pretty cool.

 

[Shyrramar]

I think that this is an interesting idea. I would be careful with it, though. If done properly, it could bring a whole new dimension into Civ without adding to the complexity too much. On the other hand, it could seriously ruin the game if done sloppily.

I really enjoyed the Moo-styled unit design and combat. It was fun and you had the feeling that you were in the reins. Nothing beats the sight of your newly designed Doomstar kicking the crap out of the enemy fleet! But I think they messed it up in Moo3 (they did that to many features of the game... ). I totally grew bored of updating all my 50 ship designs (different sizes and different purposes) as there was no automatic update whatsoever. If I didn't upgrade them myself, I would either be flying with an obsolete fleet or with an AI-designed fleet (I would rather die! :suicide: ).

If there were a working automatic update system (like: "upgrade all my phasors with tachyon beams" or "upgrade all my engines while maintaining the speed-ratio" or "add gyro destabilizers to all these designs [...]. Take the needed amount of space from weapons"), it could be fun. I would enjoy making my own designs if I could trust that they would be upgraded properly - I would not want to micromanage all my units whenever I discover something.

Another thing is how it would fit into Civ. I think that it could be done while others may disagree. You could have the normal warrior in the beginning (with sticks and rocks, I presume). By researching iron working, you could make units that have higher attack rate (3, perhaps), but not higher defence rate. By researching shields, you could add shields that would increase your defence value to two. And so on.
You could also make a combat-worker, a unit that has defence value and worker-properties. Later in the game you could make fast-moving units with high attack and low defence to swift and deadly strikes.

The problem that arises from this is the fact that Civ as it is now has very little possibilities for different units. Sure, you could make an ancient unit with 2/2/2 that is not there already, but that it not very interesting in my opinion. In Moo you had starships that you could fill with all kinds of things: direct-fire weapons, missiles, fighters, point-defence, shields, hull, engines and so on. In Civ this is severely limited as it is. And, of course, Civ is a game about the history of civilization - not all combinations would be historically acceptable.

You also had the good point about the armies, and I wholeheartedly agree. Call to power had stacks of units, but I think that they were too powerful and should be toned down a bit. But as it is now, armies are ridiculously powerful. Right now I have conquered two and a half civs almost solely with my armies. First with one, then with more when I won some elite-battles. The AI has absolutely no chance against a pair of armies. If armies were available to all, as you said, it would IMHO make the battles more realistic. The idea about military leaders giving bonuses is good, but the bonuses should be more decisive than in Moo2. The bonuses could vary from increased hps, attack, defence to movement and perhaps even enslavement...

Another idea would be to combine these two. Perhaps the units should be made into armies themselves. You could choose how many hps the unit would have (the size of it) and perhaps the amount of artillery accompanied with it, the amount of defensive and offensive units. You could have different sizes of units (as in Moo) that you could design yourself. Of course, in ancient times only smallest units would be available and later on bigger and bigger. This could even create a use for radio tech: it could allow larger units due to better communications. The cost of the units would vary according to what you put into them. Say: horses would cost less than motorized units whereas motorization would make the units move faster.

All in all, this is full of possibilities. I am afraid, though, that this will never be implemented into Civ. It would change the game perhaps too dramatically. (On the other hand, resources and luxuries were a major change compared to earlier civs). It would be good if more people would take notice of this and post their comments and suggestions. It is the only way for the game designers to see if this sort of change would be good or bad. As they are perhaps even now designing Civ4, these major changes should be brought forth right now.

So, I like it, but I have some reservations. The complexity is the greatest enemy here. Civs are simple games to learn, but (at least they should be ) difficult to master. As they should be. IMHO, this would not be too complex, but I am afraid that there are many disagreeing voices about this... If they perhaps would make themselves heard?

 

[Dann]

Ship design was the best part I liked about MoO2! The possibilities are endless. Ever tried designing "Antaran kamikazes"? If you're lucky enough to get Quantum Detonator off a scrapped Antaran ship, you could build frigates with augmented engines, defensive systems ONLY and a Quantum Detonator. In battle, zip these speedy babies right into the middle of the enemy fleet, then press the self-destruct button. Explosions all around and instant carnage. Send the rest of your fleet in afterwards for mopping up. Bwahahaha...

But I think everyone's favorite will be a Stellar Converter armed, fully upgraded Doom Star with the best armor, Class X shields and fighter-bombers. Never mind if that weapon takes up a ridiculously large amount of space, the planet-destroying animation alone makes one feel just like, well, Darth Vader. Mwahahaha...

It will indeed be cool to incorporate this detailed level of unit design in Civ, particularly in the later eras. However, I fear things might get too complicated and the game might get too intimidating. Besides, we know how good the AI is when it comes to designing stuff on its own.

 

[Shyrramar]

Ship design was the best part I liked about MoO2! The possibilities are endless. Ever tried designing "Antaran kamikazes"? If you're lucky enough to get Quantum Detonator off a scrapped Antaran ship, you could build frigates with augmented engines, defensive systems ONLY and a Quantum Detonator. In battle, zip these speedy babies right into the middle of the enemy fleet, then press the self-destruct button. Explosions all around and instant carnage. Send the rest of your fleet in afterwards for mopping up. Bwahahaha...

I Once got so into plasma cannons that I build a Doom Star filled with them, minituarized so that I had something like 300 of those. It was a real juggernaut of destruction that Doom Star. Nothing could stand in its path ...not even my computer, sadly: it crashed once in three times I let fly a full load

I believe the AI-problem could be dealt with by implementing ready desings that the AI could use - as well as those players who don't have the interest to design their own units. It shouldn't be too hard (...well, atleast not harder than it is now) to program the AI to make a good use of those ready designs. To let the AI really design something would be foolish and unnecessary.. The AI is stupid enough to try to settle my lands accompanied by one escort during a full scale war. Letting it design its own units would be like trusting a mischievous monkey with a M-16 :soldier:

 

[Dann]

Originally posted by Shyrramar
I Once got so into plasma cannons that I build a Doom Star filled with them, minituarized so that I had something like 300 of those. It was a real juggernaut of destruction that Doom Star. Nothing could stand in its path ...not even my computer, sadly: it crashed once in three times I let fly a full load

Hahaha...

 

[vesuvius_prime]

I wouldn't say that things would become too complex by introducing unit design. They certainly haven't become complex in MOO2. On the contrary, that has greatly enriched the gameplay. Just try to imagine MOO2 *without* unit design and tactical combat.

My personal opinion is that Civ3 would gain a lot from such a system. But it's absolutely true that it should be designed well. MOO2 was near-perfect. MOO3 managed to ruin it completely. But then again, MOO3 ruined just about every good thing in MOO2.

 

[warpstorm]

Just imagine the stupid unit designs the AI would come up with and how long a game would take with tactical combats.

 

[vesuvius_prime]

In MOO2 the AI was doing a very decent job with the unit design. I reckon it won't be overwhelmingly difficult to program some basic design rules. And Shyrramar suggested a very good idea: there can be some ready designs that the AI can make use of. As the developers release patches, they may include additional ready designs to counter the tricks that the humans come up with and brag about in the forums.

As for the time it would take to fight tactical combats, that won't be a problem at all. You may turn them off. That's possible in MOO2. Then the PC will calculate the outcome of the battles for you, just as it is now in Civ3. However, I don't know a single person who has turned off the tactical combat in MOO2. Sometimes, when you have an overwhelming force and you absolutely know that you will win easily, you may press the "Z" key and the rest of the battle will be automatically and instantaneously resolved.

I believe noone who has played MOO2 has had problems with unit design and combat. These were actually good things. I think they made the game all the more interesting.

 

[vesuvius_prime]

And one more thing, actually: if they allow us to stack units together, we would be fighting fewer big battles, not a bazillion tiny "unit.vs.unit" ones. Throughout history empires fought mainly with armies, not with small bands of men. The latter is more suitable for guerilla-style wars, not for major conquests. In MOO2 I wouldn't send many individual single small ships to capture a planet. I would form a fleet consisting of many ships. That makes more sense. The battles (especially the early ones) didn't take that long at all. I could finish a whole MOO2 game on the impossible level in less than 10 hours.

 

[Shyrramar]

@Warpstorm

Vesuvius_prime is correct IMO. The tactical combat can easily be made optional - but I do not know anybody who would turn the tactical battles off either. They bring a whole new dimension into the game. By my experience, the tactical combat and unit design in MOO2 was certainly something that made it more interesting and none too complicated. Anyway, your concerns can easily be addressed with two options: "turn off tactical combat" and "turn off AI unit-design". The latter one would result in the AI using predesigned units much like it is now, and as vesuvius suggested, they could make more of those.

And if you look at GalCiv you notice that they actually do listen to fans "bragging in the forums" and enhance the AI against succesful human players' tactics. It should not be too complicated to program the AI to make its own designs - they succeeded brilliantly in MOO2 many years ago.

Your concerns are well founded, but also easily avoided. With the two options you would have the same situation as in Civ3. And the players could also choose not to make their own designs (as in MOO2), although I believe they wouldn't pass that opportunity.
If the designers are familiar with MOO3, they should know practically all the ways to screw this up and are able to avoid it

 

[Shyrramar]

Oh, and about the games lasting long: the option would of course be a simple solution to this, but even without it, I find it hardly a bad thing that a game lasts long. It's not the time it takes, but how fun it is that counts. People are playing Civ3 even though it takes a whole lot more time than one game in Unreal Tournament. Personally I would like it to last long if that what makes it last long was something interesting - right now the games mostly last long because of the endless worker-herding. I have never found it tedious to fight a long war if the war itself was interesting (both sides are somewhat of even strenght or I am the underdog).

 

[unscratchedfoot]

You people are all wrong or something. MOO2 is the name of a Dairy Farm Simulation where players have to successfully run a milk supply business.

As for custom unit making idea, didn't the AI do that in the Alpha Centari game? That was the cool thing about that game although I didn't play it much. Nice concept. I loved Master of Orion original but never played #2 yet. Stellar converter YAH!!

Shrraymar, I like underdog wars myself. Check out my story about one such battle on my thread I just started called @Chieftess (and story likers)

 

[Shyrramar]

You people are all wrong or something. MOO2 is the name of a Dairy Farm Simulation where players have to successfully run a milk supply business.

I always thought that you should be able to micromanage in MOO2; I want to do the milking myself. You could point the grasping point with your mouse and do the milking by pressing two buttons in nice 'n' slow rhytmic movements - you would get extra points for being smooth, and it would also make your cows happier, so that they wouldn't revolt so easily...

Shrraymar, I like underdog wars myself. Check out my story about one such battle on my thread I just started called @Chieftess (and story likers)

Yeah. Nothing beats the satisfaction on beating the AI's stack of doom with unit ratio of 1:7 or some! I practically never have as much units as the AI, and if I do, I rarely play more than a few turns anymore, as it is all too easy. I like to do as much damage as possible with as few units as I can. In some earlier version you could transport eight mech. infs to a mountain in enemy territory and watch the AI spend all of its forces trying to kick their butts That too became a bit boring, though, so now they have patched the AI not to attack without good prospects of winning; which has of course caused the unfortunate side-effect that the AI lets your armies rampage freely... Well, you can't have everything.

Got to check that thread out, thanks!

 

[TerraHero]

Sounds really nice for a RTS game like MoO, or RA or whatever

i know this system from Warzone 2100, so its much older then MoO but this will never work in a game like Civ, where u're army and war is not everything..and as Warpstorm said,,think about what the AI may come up with and how they must fill the Civlopedia with this crap...

And u're juz gona get the same units as now, def/atk/bom/air/naval..

but ppl will make units with 20def and 1 atk, this is impossible to play without getting really pissed at why the hell u cna't kill em...

Also to how far an u stuff units with stats? If u're a rich-basterd and have huge prod u can make a MA with 30/30/5 blitz/bom/stealth/inv etc etc So it will destabilize the entire game

 

[Shyrramar]

@TerraHero

Good points, there. First of all, MoO is not a RTS - except MOO3's tactical battles are, but MOO3 is messed up anyway, and it's just the tactical battles. Second: there would of course be some of the same units, but if it's combined with the also wanted system of all units being armies themselves, it would create more variation. You should design artilleries and such into your armies. This of course is not necessary. What comes to those uberunits, that would of course not happen. As I stated earlier, the stats are comprised of actual weapons. i.e. ancient times units can't have more than three in attack (in the current system), as the best ancient attack units have three in attack (swordsmen). You cannot make a unit with more attack than your weapons dictate. And then there is the army-size thing. You could not make such uberunits in MoO2 either, because the sizes were limited. On the other hand, even if you did, they would cost way too much to be actually useful. And your enemies were as capable of creating its own juggernaughts of destruction.

Right now three armies in the field is enough to destabilize the game. And the enemy has only a small chance of creating its own armies. This system would allow stronger units, but with more cost. If you can have, say, three 8/5/3 units with the price of one 16/10/3 unit, there is no problem. It's all about the choices: you COULD make a strong unit which has it's uses, but most of your armies should comprise of normal units (as they did in MoO2). 16/10/3 unit is wholly destroyable with those 8/5/3 units, so a player who has only those bigger units is going to lose. Strong units should only be used to shatter enemy's defences and attacking towns with strong defenders - as atleast I use my armies now. The normal units make the bulk of your armed forces.

EDIT: Spelling

 

[Arathorn]

Did I play a different MoO2 than the rest of you?

Combat kill ratios of 100:1 or more were very common for me -- I essentially never lost ships, precisely because the AI was so bad at ship design. Interest in MoO2 can disappear very quickly when you realize just how overwhelming the advantage of building your own ships can be -- and just how bad the AI is at it.

It made MoO2 far too easy to dominate from nearly any position -- one planet challenges on impossible were far too easy -- the AI just is horrible at ship design and an intelligent human is just too good.

It made the whole tactical combat feel like an exploit. And since that's what 90% of the game centered around...it made MoO2 unplayable in a lot of ways.

No thanks.

Arathorn