MOO II vs SMAC

[FullMetalJack]

I'm posting this here 'cos I'd probably be lynched in the MOO forums! Sorry.

Still looking for that 'ultimate' TBS game and read lots and LOTS of very positive reviews about MOO II, so I got hold of a copy and played it (after reading the manual ALL the way through first).

I couldn't really believe it was the same game that these people were raving about!

Where is the strategy?

After a few games, all I can see is a fancy Lego substitute for designing ships with ever fancier weapons.

A complex tactical game, yes, but a strategy game... I don't think so?

Comparing this to SMAC or even Civ II / III it seems as exciting as designing wallpaper.

What do (did) you SMAC veterans make of MOO II especially when compared to SMAC?

[Hydro]

I think you need to recall that MOO2 is an even older game than SMAC. It was very innovative for its time and was a nice expansion of Moo1 (some may disagree, of course). Even so, I do think Moo2 has aged fairly well. Of course, SMAC has aged much better! Not that I'm biased or anything.

Hydro

[Kataphraktoi]

I'm posting this here 'cos I'd probably be lynched in the MOO forums! Sorry.

Dont be afraid to raise controversy

Anyway, galciv2 is like that. Formula game with lego like ship building. I wasvery disapointed when i learned planets=win. :/ besidesthat, it uses the same pathetic tile system instead of system based combat. its like playing SMAC and only allowing sea bases....

I too am searching for the ultimate TBS game...in vain i suspect

[Aabraxan]

Well, I'm one of those old gomers who still has MOOII on his computer and still plays from time to time. But no, I'm not going to try to have you flogged for not liking MOOII. I'm just going to disagree.

I don't recall the exact release year, but it's got to be something like 8-10 years old at this point. That's downright ancient in computer game years.

MOOII is not the same game as SMAC, never will be. But I do think it has aged well. I'd be curious to know what strategic elements you think are missing.

[FullMetalJack]

Well, I don't mean to step on anyone's toes of those who like the game, I was sorta seeking some reassurance that I hadn't lost my marbles in respect of the above summary i.e. the lack of any real (strategic) depth.

Kataphraktoi seems to agree, so that was a relief.

It's probably because I assumed that it had some depth that I was so disappointed and surprised by the game.

If you turn off tactical combat, what are you left with then?

The biggest section of the game, deals with technology, and the bulk of that deals with weaponry and countermeasures. So, we have a war game set in space with elements of spying. Any social elements seem to be cannon fodder.

So, when you ask what strategic elements are missing, I can only really reply, what strategic elements are actually included?

You can't win diplomatically - only by domination.

There's no sense of purpose for that domination either. You do it because you can.

There's no sense of history.

Of course, this is from a pretty cursory few goes at the game.

I don't think its age is that important as I'm not comparing it to modern games and to me it's brand new, as SMAC was a year ago.

Notice that I made no mention of graphics just gameplay.

Thinking back to Civ II which I did play when it came out, that seems to have much more depth to it than MOO II?

SMAC seems to have that much more depth than Civ II. So, the gap between SMAC and MOO II is even bigger?

Perhaps it would be fair to say that I've looked at MOO II from the wrong perspective then and judged it accordingly?

[Aabraxan]

Well, first of all, my toes are well intact and I don't think you've lost your marbles. Your contentions are fair enough. I still think MOO II is a great game, though.

I can't speak to what you have left if you turn tactical combat off, because I haven't done that in years. I get way too much satisfaction out of designing and refitting ships.

I'd also agree that the social and diplo elements are much less prominent than the military ones. While a diplo win is possible, I haven't gone for one in years. IIRC, the number of votes you get is based on your population and how much of the galactic population your race makes up. IOW, you can increase your chances of winning by beating up the other races. Further, if you take the "repulsive" trait, you can't make trade treaties, research treaties, or alliances.

History is a story element. While I like having a good backstory, I wouldn't call it a strategic element.

Nor can I speak to how it stacks up against Civ II, because I never played that one. I've only recently gotten Civ III, so I'm somewhat ill-prepared to debate that either, though I will admit that the social/diplo/trading aspect of CivIII is much more of a factor in the game than that of MOOII.

What strategic elements are included? You can enter into long-term treaties and alliances with other races, planets must be developed, decisions must be made as to which improvements to build and which technologies to research.

I like it. Don't give up on it just yet. Give it few more tries.

[IdaGno]

somebody's gotta design wallpaper!

[Leon Trotsky]

I hope the diplomacy in Master of Orion II evolved since the first title - even Civilization was better than that one.

"Ally, attack my enemy."
"Refuse? Now, I will kill you!"

[Darrell01]

I used to play MOOII all the time. What I really liked about it was unless you were "Creative", you couldn't research all the technology, and kind of encouraged tech trading, as well as researching something they don't have on the hopes to trade or steal. I liked the ability to edit your race and whatnot. Everyone here is correct tho. It is a lot like SMACX with only collective sea bases. I did get tired of it after a while. I did play MOO3 a bit, and liked that. It did seem to be rather long, involved, and detailed. I've heard it described as the most fun you'll have playing with a spreadsheet. I also like Pax Imperia. I've never played GalCiv2 tho. Can we talk about other games on this forum? Ever play Ascendancy?

[Sikander]

I have to disagree about MOO2. I still have it loaded on 4 computers, which is high praise indeed. Consider that even here on earth with only one species to deal with we seem as likely to blow one another up as make deals. Those aliens in MOO2 seem pretty damned nice considering that they are aliens and all.

The game is really about which mix of abilities you are going to choose at the beginning of the game and how that jibes with your starting position, competitors and the methods you are going to use to try and win the game. It's more linear than SMAC, but so are a lot of newer games (Civ3 & 4 for instance) that shouldn't have been. There are a wealth of possibilities. Playing each government type is actually quite different. Some race designs are really strong producers, others are really strong in early combat. Some are great at research, others make up for a lack of research by being great spies or by being able to spread and grow at a significant rate. There are a wealth of strategies available in the single player game.

I've made races that are extremely weak (minuses to production, feudal governments), other than the fact that they are set up to take over the ships and planets and technologies of their adversaries with ease (telepathic, good at ground combat, spying bonuses). Then I went conquering, capturing enemy ships in combat, stealing techs and taking over enemy planets. I took over the whole "galaxy" and the only planet with my people on it was my starting planet. All the others were peopled with (much more productive) captured populations which I moved about in transports. That kind of "Ottoman" strategy would not have been possible even in SMAC.

My sense is that you haven't had time to scratch the surface of the game. (The tactical combat is fun too, it gives you a real ship design test bed.) The game can still beat me at Impossible from time to time (significantly more likely than playing Transcend in SMAC), and even more often when I try experimental race designs. A purposefully weak design will lose a majority of the time even in the hands of a very good player.

[Darrell01]

Yes, yes. That is my favorite combination of race to play. I agree its a great game with all that stuff. I just got bored with it. Unfotunately you can't make the other races change.

[Aabraxan]

Ah, but play at Impossible and you may find yourself facing Transdimensional Sakkra. The computer gives them (the AI races) extra race points at that level.

[lord of the mark]

Heres a discussion we had a while back in Other Games.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128351

I shared some of your thoughts - no deep social/political model (a la civ-smac) in exchange for tactical battles and ship design didnt do it for me, though i fully realize that theres depth enough in the resource allocation, research, and the ship design and building for those into that sort of thing.

[Sikander]

Isn't MOO2 about the same age as Civ2? I find them about equivalent in terms of social model complexity, perhaps with the slightest nod to Civ2 in that regard. And Civ2 is the world's worst wargame (barring other games of the genre like Civ1) for no particularly good reason, a model that is only marginally improved upon by SMAC etc. This is the reason why I don't enjoy conquering the AI or playing multiplayer. As an old school board wargamer I just can't devote much time to playing a wargame that is only one notch above Tactics II. Thankfully SMAC's social and economic models are quite deep in comparison, which make all the difference for me.

[Darrell01]

If any of you know of this game, there is a game almost exactly like Civ1 called Masters of Magic, I believe. That had everything like Civilization, except in battles, your units would be on this map and you would have to move them around on a square map. There were races in that game. They were all based off of Lord of the Rings type monsters. On top of having different races, you were a wizard and you had magic spells based on what types of magic you chose from. There was white, black, green, blue, red, and maybe a couple others. It was kind of a mix between Magic: The Gathering and Civ1, come to think of it. I think your research was magic and buildings or something like that. There were also these tunnels you could go thru to go to the surface map and the inner earth map. I didn't get to play it much. My friend showed me it after I told him I liked to play the games on these forums.