Will you purchase MOO3 or Civ3?

[loinburger]

Best moderately-low tech weapon in MOO2 was a missile with Emissions-Guidance. Knock down your opponent's shields a bit with some non-EMG missiles (which also act as decoys so that your EMG missiles will have a better chance of hitting their target), and you can take out any ship with only one or two EMG missiles. Great against Antarans raids, too, since the Antarans don't use shields.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by technophile
Best moderately-low tech weapon in MOO2 was a missile with Emissions-Guidance. Knock down your opponent's shields a bit with some non-EMG missiles (which also act as decoys so that your EMG missiles will have a better chance of hitting their target), and you can take out any ship with only one or two EMG missiles. Great against Antarans raids, too, since the Antarans don't use shields.

Now use those EMG missiles on the guardian! And right after you have fired the EMG missiles, fire some MIRV missiles! Now don't tell anyone I told you this!

You might not make it, since I didn't tell you how many misssiles you need, nor the tactics needed. Maybe next time!

[loinburger]

The Guardian is a bit of a pain to hit with missiles since its got a lightning field, but it's not so bad since it just means you need to double the number of missiles used. If the enemy is using pulsars or, worse, spatial compressors, then forget it; stick with lasers and torpedoes.

It always made me angry that I couldn't set my pulsars or spatial compressors to auto-fire. Then again, I can see why they had this restriction; my ships would have been immune to missiles and assault shuttles with auto-fire pulsars. Still, wouldn't that be grand?

[Urban Ranger]

EMG only damage the warp engines, you're still dead from the death rays, plasma torpedoes, and what not.


Zealot,

I'll believe your assertion after I see it.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
EMG only damage the warp engines, you're still dead from the death rays, plasma torpedoes, and what not.


Zealot,

I'll believe your assertion after I see it.

Ok, ok! Here are the weapons of the ships. Now you only have to figure how many should you have.

First cruiser has:

4 2-shot ARM merculites
7 2-shot MIRV ECCM merculites
battle pods

Second cruiser has:

1 2-shot ECCM ARM FST merculites
4 2-shot ARM merculites
6 2-shot MIRV ECCM merculites
battle pods

Frigates have:

1 2-shot MIRV ECCM EMG merculite
battle pods

[Grumbold]

Well, this poll just proves why the game development company suits think they can just sail along churning out mediocre bug riddled game after game after game. Over 70% of respondents have declared they will buy one or both games no matter what.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Well, this poll just proves why the game development company suits think they can just sail along churning out mediocre bug riddled game after game after game. Over 70% of respondents have declared they will buy one or both games no matter what.

Good point! Sad, but true

[Earwicker]

Just Civ3. I can barely find the time for that. I've had friends show me MoO and I am intrigued but have never played it myself.

[markusf]

Anyone here have moo2? I would like to try it multiplayer sometime. I love the special races\bonus's

moo2 was relatively bug free where as civ2, well it has hundreds of bugs. You can bet that civ3 is just going to be infested.

Really cool thing about moo2 is when you capture a ship you can take it back to a ship yard and scrap it. And you get all tech you don't have!. (well tech they used to build that ship)

[BeBMan]

I´ll buy Civ3 of course.

[Admiral PJ]

theres nothing wrong with RTS and strategy mixing, as MOO3 is meant to be doing

The Realtime style is a great way to simulate battles, where actions and reactions can be best simulated and its more fun.

I'd buy civ3 for sure, not so sure about moo3 .. i hope its not like birth of the federation too much - which had good points like minor races and computer naming of ships(not editable tho) n 3d battles

MOO2 was excellent for its day, with a better richer graphics etc i'd buy it.

yes, i'l have to buy moo3 if not just for research for my own 3d rts massive strategy game

and i'm DEFINITELY buying Neverwinter nights- baldurs gate3
its getting near to virtual reality

Firaxis DON'T neglect the graphics and sound of the game,
human instinct is to like this things and react to them, adds more culture too

AdmiralPJ

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll definetly buy Civ3. Firaxis has impressed me with Gettysburg! and Antietam as well as SMAC.

Moo3, while intriguing, has to be examined further. I've never played a game from this Quicksilver group and am worried about if the concepts are sooo ambitious that it might ruin the game (CtP comes to mind).

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Moo3, while intriguing, has to be examined further. I've never played a game from this Quicksilver group and am worried about if the concepts are sooo ambitious that it might ruin the game (CtP comes to mind).

ALthough I am in the buying both games camp, I agree with the above statement... However if they impliment half of what they are intending, MOO3 will most certainly be excellent... but, yeah, there is potential for too much innovation, if that is indeed possible.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Warm Beer
ALthough I am in the buying both games camp, I agree with the above statement... However if they impliment half of what they are intending, MOO3 will most certainly be excellent... but, yeah, there is potential for too much innovation, if that is indeed possible.

Of course it is possible to be too innovative. Black and White comes to mind. While, I personally liked the game, I did not play it to long. It certainly was innovative and took gaming to a new platform but was it fun?

Many would say no.

They may have been to ambitious and did not focus on what makes a game a game - the amount of fun you have playing it.

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by tniem


Of course it is possible to be too innovative. Black and White comes to mind.

Point well taken. I had about the same experience with Black and white. But from what I have seen, Moo3 seems to be making innovation in a positive direction, still keeping to some basic gaming principles (yes I know many of their chainges are quite controversial).

Civ3, on the other hand, seems to be focused on mainly improving on the previous Civ series ideas as opposed to making an entirely different game that's inspired by the earlier titles.. not that that is a bad thing. But, what do we really know about Civ3 at this point? Not to beat a dead horse or anything....