A handful of MOO2 questions...
I'm a MOO2 enthusiast, who have barely scratched the surface of the game (I've played it on and off for years)... I'm not any good, but I really enjoy it...
I only play as humans... Felt like the most natural race the first time and I just keep sticking to it... Maybe because the other races' leader images look ridiculous compared to Yul Brunner?!
I have some difficulties playing... First of all, the beginning. It seems to be a lot less to do compared to Civ 2. I often find myself hitting enter with nothing to do and it feels as if I'm missing out on the important early game...
The first few times I played, I always went for space travel technologies to be able to expand to other systems...
Now, I favour automated factories and research labs and always build them on Sol before researching the travel techs... Otherwise, building colony ships takes forever and meanwhile I have no research...
How fast do you expand? Do you go via colony ships and grab systems, or do you use colony bases and claim whatever planets there are in the home system first? I suppose it depends on their type, size, gravity etc?
Plenty of more questions, but it's getting late here...
Carolus
Regarding ship techs, I assume you play pre warp age?
UniAqua 2prod large rich hw can produce Cships without autofacts. Otherwise the opportunity costs are too high. Even for the other uberprodrace uni tol 1prod large hw. If I understand correctly, you play the humans - stockrace. Of course you need rlabs and autofacts before you expand. With fast techraces like demo lith arti I would even wait for robo miners (you have them roundabout turn40 in prewarp) before you build cships.
"Football is like chess, only without the dice." Lukas Podolski
Uhm...
Yes, I always play pre-warp and as the humans. You use a lot of abbreviations that I don't understand...
What is UniAqua? I've only come across planets classified as "ocean"...
hw = Homeworld?
What is uni tol 1prod?
Stockrace?
demo lith arti?
A question about rich and poor planets... This influences worker penalties, right (or is that gravity)? How do the penalties work? If it says 50 %, does it mean that it takes 50 % more turns to build an item there? Because the cost to build it is higher or because the workers are less productive?
And - 50 % means that it's faster to build?
Carolus
"Carolus Rex"
Note that you can play with any custom traits and still use the Human portrait to represent you.
"What is UniAqua? I've only come across planets classified as "ocean"..."
Uni is short for Unification. It is one of the forms of governments you can select.
Aqua is short for Aquatic. This trait allows them to treat Tundra and Swaps as Terran and Swamps and Terran as Gaia worlds for the purposes of population.
"hw = Homeworld?"
Yes
"What is uni tol 1prod?"
Well we already covered Uni. Tol is short for tolerant. Allow them to be tolerant of hostile environments. This means that planets that most could only get 25% out of they can get 50%.
They do not need pollution controls.
"Stockrace?"
Those the races provided and the traits they have.
"demo lith arti?"
Demo is short for Democracy.
Lith is Lithovore.
Arti is short for Artifacts.
These traits can be seen in the race screen.
"A question about rich and poor planets... This influences worker penalties, right (or is that gravity)? How do the penalties work? If it says 50 %, does it mean that it takes 50 % more turns to build an item there? Because the cost to build it is higher or because the workers are less productive?"
Planets have a unit per labor value. Ultra Poor is 1 and Poor is 2, Abundant is 3, Rich is 4 and Ultra Rich is 5. This is one determinate of how much you can produce on the planet.
So yes the Poor will take longer to make a structure or unit than a Rich, if all other facotrs are equal.
"And - 50 % means that it's faster to build?"
Not sure in relation to what? You can have -50 on food or growth and some other things have a minus value. For food or growth it will mean you will have a slower growth rate and less food means slower growth as well. Actually I guess it only means you will need to offset the food production to get to the same level.
So to start the game it effectively means planets will have less food to feed the pop and hence it will be harder to grow.
Some races are never possible to establish treaties with. However, in some games I've entered trade and research treaties with the Trilarians.
But in a recent game that option was not available in the diplomatic dialogue menu... I could not even propose it, why?
Carolus
If either you or they have the Repulsive trait, you cannot make treaties. You cannot trade, only declare war and maybe peace, I forget if that is allowed.
Yeah ok, but do the traits change from game to game? I haven't customised or changed anything from one game to another... I thought the default traits remained the same unless you actively changed them?
Carolus
A question about assessing the combat strength of fleets.
Sometimes I enter a starsystem early on with, say, two battleships. There is only a starbase, yet my two ships are destroyed. On the other hand, whenever an enemy fleet (or a single battleship) enters one of my systems, everything I have is destroyed. Not once have a starbase of mine defeated enemy ships...
Worse, if I have ships in the system they just die too... Only once did I have a defense worth the name... Some race sent in wave after wave of ships and I won all the time, but have no clue why...
In other words, I find the combat system somewhat random and quite hard to predict (I don't play in tactical combat mode).
In Civ 2, the icon of the units reveals some information about attack and defense values. When I see a phalanx, for example, I know it has two as defense value. True, I don't know if it's a veteran or not, but I have a fair notion of its strength.
I've sent in large fleets and they just die. Then I'm wide open and lose the game a couple of turns later. How do you assess whether you have a fair chance of winning in battle in this game?
Carolus
Strategical Combat is very rarely played.
But maybe this table here can help you:
ftp://ftp.sff.net/pub/people/zoetrop...s/original.rul
The last columns in Armor, Shields, Computers and AFAIK the last both columns in Ships and Specials are related to strategical combat.
"Football is like chess, only without the dice." Lukas Podolski
Diplomacy & Race Picks:
I don't know what difficulty you're playing at, but at Impossible (and maybe at lower levels?), the AIs get additional race picks. Repulsive is the only trait that I know of that would prevent you from making treaties. It may be that the Trilarians (or whoever you're dealing with at the time) have taken Rep and some other combination of traits. There's a game info screen that will tell you the characteristics of any race you've encountered. If you take Rep, you'll only be able to declare war and make peace, iirc.
Fleet strength:
My advice: play tactical combat. Otherwise, you're stuck with stock ship designs. They stink compared to what you can design yourself. That will also give you the ability to scan their ships, for example before beginning your attack, so that you can see how they've outfitted their ships. I find the tactical part of MOO2 to be one of its best features. Not only can you design your own ships, you can put them in drydock and refit them. It's great fun.
The race you choose will stick with the default traits, unless you customize it and you should. Those traits will not be exactly the same at all level for the AI as it can have more pick than normal at impossible leve and I cannot remeber the lower levels any longer.Originally posted by Carolus Rex
Yeah ok, but do the traits change from game to game? I haven't customised or changed anything from one game to another... I thought the default traits remained the same unless you actively changed them?
Carolus
Go to the race screen to see the traits for the races that are in the game.
As has been said, tactical is the only way to play, unless you just want to see what the other looks like or an added challenge.Originally posted by Carolus Rex
A question about assessing the combat strength of fleets.
Sometimes I enter a starsystem early on with, say, two battleships. There is only a starbase, yet my two ships are destroyed. On the other hand, whenever an enemy fleet (or a single battleship) enters one of my systems, everything I have is destroyed. Not once have a starbase of mine defeated enemy ships...
Worse, if I have ships in the system they just die too... Only once did I have a defense worth the name... Some race sent in wave after wave of ships and I won all the time, but have no clue why...
In other words, I find the combat system somewhat random and quite hard to predict (I don't play in tactical combat mode).
In Civ 2, the icon of the units reveals some information about attack and defense values. When I see a phalanx, for example, I know it has two as defense value. True, I don't know if it's a veteran or not, but I have a fair notion of its strength.
I've sent in large fleets and they just die. Then I'm wide open and lose the game a couple of turns later. How do you assess whether you have a fair chance of winning in battle in this game?
Carolus
You can scan ships and planets to see what they have. The main thing is that if they have inititive and better stuff, you get hurt. So if they have a starbase with better armor and or shields and well as a good missle and you have little, then you get whacked.
It does not mean much to me, if you have battleships or not. It is what they are packing and what you are facing. 2 BB's with lasers and crappy computer are not going to get very far.
You will have crappy computers, if you are not creative as you will have to pick other things most of the time.
Some of us have played this game since it came out and do not have to think about what can be beaten and what cannot. You just have to design good ships and you have little to fear.
Try to not pack them with lots of specials. Get reinforced hulls and use the best comp you have with your beams. Do not add mods to the beams as they just take up room that could give you more guns.
Early look to nuke missle boats to hit and run. Those do get improvements such as armor and mirv. Do not put them all in one bay. As you get better features, put the first slots with the lowest missles to go out and get the PDS fire and the better ones after to get past the defenses.
Thanks to all for your advice!
I guess I have to go tactical then... In fact, I've tried a couple of times now. I noticed there are some new techs available, interesting...
And yes, I still get my behind handed to me...
Carolus
Glad to help. Keep us posted. It's nice to see a little activity in here.
I think I'm about to win my first game at Impossible (and no tactical combat)...
I haven't finished it yet... Some other race will probably soon send 47 battleships to mop up my systems...
Anyway, some more questions...
Do you micromanage a lot? I check the "colonies screen" (where all the colonies are listed) and if an item is one turn from completion I shuffle workers around to maximise science output (mostly) while still being able to build the item next turn... After a while this becomes quite boring... How do the pros micromanage? Or don't you? As the science output needed for a break-through isn't exact, perhaps noone cares?
Do you lose production "shields" for the next item if you have created a build list and you shuffle workers around to maximise science output? Suppose I don't shuffle them around... Are the extra "shields" (i.e. production units beyond the ones needed for the completion of the item) wasted or are they used to build the next item?
Is there an optimal way to cycle through systems or colonies? I don't know why, but I quickly lose track of my empire...
Is there a strategy to grow your planets quickly? For example, I build hydroponic farms and clonic centres to speed up population growth. However, it seems unintelligent to build these on every planet (well, the clonic centres at least), so I've tried to do it in a few places and then transport colonists to other systems... I'm not sure, though, whether I should do it on the planets that are Gaia/Terran and ship people to more sterile systems or the other way around (after all, you empty the good planets, at least initially)... The former way seems better... Is there a consensus on how to do this, or a better way?
I terraform quite a lot as I like to have perfect planets... It takes some time and often I neglect my military capacity... Which planets do you choose to terraform? The ones that need it once or twice and then are quite good, or the really bad ones? Or not at all?
Carolus
Last edited by Carolus Rex; December 10, 2006 at 20:20.
"Carolus Rex"
"I think I'm about to win my first game at Impossible (and no tactical combat)..."
Congrats
"Do you micromanage a lot? I check the "colonies screen" (where all the colonies are listed) and if an item is one turn from completion I shuffle workers around to maximise science output (mostly) while still being able to build the item next turn... After a while this becomes quite boring... How do the pros micromanage? Or don't you? As the science output needed for a break-through isn't exact, perhaps noone cares?"
I tend to do it for the early part of the game, say till turn 80 or so and then not much. Unless you are trying to do something special, it is more work than is required.
"Do you lose production "shields" for the next item if you have created a build list and you shuffle workers around to maximise science output? Suppose I don't shuffle them around... Are the extra "shields" (i.e. production units beyond the ones needed for the completion of the item) wasted or are they used to build the next item?"
I do not queue things up, as I want to see what is needed after each item. It makes more work, but ....
I only shuffle in the early part of the game. I think hey are rolled into the next project, unless you go to wealth.
"Is there an optimal way to cycle through systems or colonies? I don't know why, but I quickly lose track of my empire..."
I use the colony view where yu can see all the colonies at once or scroll up and down to see them.
"Is there a strategy to grow your planets quickly? For example, I build hydroponic farms and clonic centres to speed up population growth. However, it seems unintelligent to build these on every planet (well, the clonic centres at least), so I've tried to do it in a few places and then transport colonists to other systems... I'm not sure, though, whether I should do it on the planets that are Gaia/Terran and ship people to more sterile systems or the other way around (after all, you empty the good planets, at least initially)... The former way seems better... Is there a consensus on how to do this, or a better way?"
I may not have cloners, or have them soon enough to matter to me. If the planet is not going to be sending pop off and is at max cap when I get teh tech, I won't add cloners.
Shifting pop is a matter of need. Most of the time I don't bother after the conquer phase starts. Just one to get the trait benefit for the most part.
It i smore useful in Moo1 than Moo2 imo, but not useless. It is just more work that I can get by without.
"I terraform quite a lot as I like to have perfect planets... It takes some time and often I neglect my military capacity... Which planets do you choose to terraform? The ones that need it once or twice and then are quite good, or the really bad ones? Or not at all?"
It is fine either way. I like to do it on the strong planets that can gt large production and add ships to the fleet. If you have nothing better to do on the planet let it rip.
First, congratulations!
Truthfully, I don't micromanage nearly enough, which probably explains why I don't consistently win at Impossible. For a very long time, I played only huge galaxies. Micromanaging with that many planets is a nightmare. It's been a while since I played and I can't remember right now if there's carryover of production or not, so I'll have to defer to someone else to answer that one.
For growing planets, you're on the right track. Build "breeding centers" and ship the colonists out. You'll hear a lot of the pros talk about "one-pop housing." Somewhere I've seen the equation for how the program calculates pop growth and it is at its most efficient if there's only one colonist on the planet. So when I settle a new system, I claim the best planet first. Then maybe an automated factory. Then a couple of colony bases (if there are other planets to colonize). The first planet begins building its infrastructure or ships, as needed. All of the other planets are set to housing. Every time one of those planets gets one new pop, I immediately move it to my primary planet, until it reaches max population. Then the second planet begins building its infrastructure. Rinse and repeat. Obviously, that's under ideal conditions. If I'm under heavy pressure from a war, for example, I can't do that.
As to which planets to put the breeding centers on in any given system, as always, it depends and your results may vary. Generally, I'll colonize the most mineral rich planet as the primary, and the most habitable becomes the first breeding colony. So If I have: (1) a medium rich barren; and (2) a small ocean ultra-poor, the first gets settled first and the second becomes a breeder. On the other hand, if I have: (1) a tiny ultra-rich barren; and (2) a large abundant tundra, I'll settle the tundra fist and use the barren as the breeder, just because a tiny world fills up so quickly.
Terraforming: I like terraforming. Not because it has any special military applications, but just because I want my people to have the best. As I don't even settle things like tiny ultra-poor toxic planets, they obviously don't get terraformed. Otherwise, I'll terraform almost any planet, under the right circumstances . . . and that's the key. What do I need my empire to have? In a tiny or small galaxy, you're looking at early conflict and a fast race to fill space. By the time you get to battleships, the game may be in the bag, so no time for terraforming. In a huge galaxy, I'll terraform almost any huge planet because I can almost always use one more breeding colony or one more world of 30 working on trade goods.
I prefer soil enrichment to hydroponic farms, so I rarely build the latter. Frankly, it's usually one of the first things I destroy when I take over a planet. Cloning centers rock, especially for the breeding colonies, but don't forget to scrap them once they're no longer useful. You're paying upkeep, after all. And you'll get a few BC back from scrapping.
Edit: And the colony view will let you sort colonies by name or by production item, which is very handy.
In the main you should always take Bio over hydro as 2 more pop is beter than moe food. it won't be long and you will have more food than you can use.
Hm... I've almost always picked hydroponic farms between the two...
But many (almost all) of my planets usually do not allow farming until I've terraformed them... And without farming I'm often experiencing negative population growth (unless I produce housing)...
Hydroponic farms seem like an ok option early on (and they are built fast)... Why build biospheres if there isn't enough food to grow the current population? Or do you rely on a good farming planet and freighter fleets to meet food demand?
Perhaps I colonise lousy planets (but that's what I usually have to deal with)...
A question about managing the population... At first I closely followed the growth rates of all planets, making sure I didn't lose newly acquired population units... In Civ 2, a food deficit is devastating as it empties the food storage box (IIRC), unless you have a granary, and it takes some time to build the city back up...
In MOO2, I've noticed that should a planet lose a population unit, it only loses the amount stated (50k, for example) so it grows right back the next turn. If left unchecked the cycle then continues (lose population, regrow, lose population, regrow), so the planet hovers around that population number... It doesn't seem to make much difference and perhaps doesn't need monitoring?
I also thought that negative growth right away will kill your newly established planet... So I've always first produced some housing (until I'm close to 2 million people) and then I switch to automated factory... However, yesterday I noticed that the first million people cannot die due to negative population growth... But it's still recommendable to produce housing, I suppose? I don't like producing housing very much... Feels like the colony is idle...
Do you rushbuy a lot? I do it all the time, except perhaps in the beginning when I want the cash to hire colony leaders...
Are there any tricks/exploits that have been agreed upon as ok?
Thanks for your interest!
Carolus
IIRC, hydros go up against biospheres. Unless you're creative (a very expensive race pick in the grand scheme of things), you won't be able to research both. Later in the tech tree, but in the same category (again, IIRC), soil enrichment competes with cloning centers.Originally posted by Carolus Rex
Hm... I've almost always picked hydroponic farms between the two...
But many (almost all) of my planets usually do not allow farming until I've terraformed them... And without farming I'm often experiencing negative population growth (unless I produce housing)...
Hydroponic farms seem like an ok option early on (and they are built fast)... Why build biospheres if there isn't enough food to grow the current population? Or do you rely on a good farming planet and freighter fleets to meet food demand?
First, hydros increase food by +2 per planet. Biospheres increase pop max by +2. Typically, you'll be able to get more than the +2 food out of 2 more pop. Biospheres may not be useful in the short run, but you get more out of them in the long run. The 2 extra pop can be 2 extra of whatever that planet needs: farmers, workers, or scientists.
As I mentioned earlier, cloning centers rock, but if you have to choose, I'd go with soil. No upkeep on enriched soil and it gives a huge boost in food production. As fond as I am of cloners, they have a limited span of utility and you pay upkeep.
And yes, I build farming planets and tons of freighters to meet those needs.
It's been so long since I really took a look at the mechanics of pop and housing that I'm going to defer most of your questions in this area. I will say, however, that I cannot recall ever losing the first million colonists to starvation. Perhaps that's because I panic and try not to let colonies starve.A question about managing the population . . . . However, yesterday I noticed that the first million people cannot die due to negative population growth... But it's still recommendable to produce housing, I suppose? I don't like producing housing very much... Feels like the colony is idle...
I don't rushbuy unless it's an emergency, or the game's pretty much over. Primarily that's because I run with an overloaded military that eats up all my BC . . . I couldn't tell you if that's advisable, but that's how I usually wind up playing.Do you rushbuy a lot? I do it all the time, except perhaps in the beginning when I want the cash to hire colony leaders...
"Carolus Rex"
"Hm... I've almost always picked hydroponic farms between the two..."
I would suggest you stop that now as was expalined above. Frieghters until you can get some of those planet to do their own, if that is what you want.
You may be better off feeding them from some place else if they have a bonus.
"A question about managing the population... At first I closely followed the growth rates of all planets, making sure I didn't lose newly acquired population units... In Civ 2, a food deficit is devastating as it empties the food storage box (IIRC), unless you have a granary, and it takes some time to build the city back up..."
This is not civ. A housing planet with 1 pop cannot starve to death. The fastest growth is before you get near the middle of the pop limit, ignoring production boost.
"I also thought that negative growth right away will kill your newly established planet... So I've always first produced some housing (until I'm close to 2 million people) and then I switch to automated factory... However, yesterday I noticed that the first million people cannot die due to negative population growth... But it's still recommendable to produce housing, I suppose? I don't like producing housing very much... Feels like the colony is idle..."
You can send to pop to another colony in that system or to another system. I like to let it get to size 3 before going into production, unless I have reason to start sooner.
"Do you rushbuy a lot? I do it all the time, except perhaps in the beginning when I want the cash to hire colony leaders..."
Yes I tend to buy the first few item, if I have the money. this is because money is best spent, same as Civ.
"Are there any tricks/exploits that have been agreed upon as ok?"
Only if you count moving pop from research to somethign else once you get a high percentage for a breakthrough.
Excess Production Points are stored for the next item. So it doesnt cause further micromanagement.Originally posted by Carolus Rex
Do you micromanage a lot? I check the "colonies screen" (where all the colonies are listed) and if an item is one turn from completion I shuffle workers around to maximise science output (mostly) while still being able to build the item next turn... After a while this becomes quite boring... How do the pros micromanage? Or don't you? As the science output needed for a break-through isn't exact, perhaps noone cares?
Do you lose production "shields" for the next item if you have created a build list and you shuffle workers around to maximise science output? Suppose I don't shuffle them around... Are the extra "shields" (i.e. production units beyond the ones needed for the completion of the item) wasted or are they used to build the next item?
When you have no further item in the build queue it is converted to tradegoods and simultaneously stored for the next item. That was the most important unfixed bug in 1.31. This so called credit cheat is fixed in the 1.4 patch. So vmxa will probably have a lot of extra cash when he plays 1.31.
"Football is like chess, only without the dice." Lukas Podolski
Ah, I didn't know there was a more recent patch (I have version 1.31)... I'll look for it, thanks!
Carolus
There is not a further patch. The patch siron is talking about is a user created one.
Even if LordBrazen is just a user: It is still a patch then, isn't it?Originally posted by vmxa1
There is not a further patch. The patch siron is talking about is a user created one.
It is here in his DL section:
http://lordbrazen.blogspot.com/2005/01/download.html
"Football is like chess, only without the dice." Lukas Podolski
Just so he understood it was not Microprose. I like user patches, Mok made a great one for MM6/7/8 so it works on XP.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks