MoO vs MoO 2

[Urban Ranger]

Since MoO 3 is on the way, I guess we could use a section similar to that of CtP 2 Since I can't tell if the gods will grant us that, we might as well start a discussion on the MoO games.

So which one you like better, MoO or MoO 2? Which aspects in MoO 2 do you consider improvements, and which aspects don't you like?

[Ari Rahikkala]

I would be fitting to answer the question if I just had MoO 2 .

[Shadowstrike]

MoO2....

Its much more realistic and more strategic....

And the rock-people are so easy to win with...

[ravagon]

This isn't an easy question as both have their strong points. Moo had a much greater scope and a better (IMHO anyway) production/tech development system that Moo2 was never able to match. This was also "The one that started it all" and should be judged as such, similarly to civ/civ2.

Moo2 OTOH had a far superior combat system, diplomatic model, and had much more detail with the professions for individual colonists ala civ/colonization, multiple planets per system, increased starship design options and detailed colony management, not to mention custom race design.

Moo ... Moo2 .....
Moo2 ... Moo .....
Aaaaargghh!

Overall I'd have to say Moo2 came out on top but only just and mostly because in Moo I wound up on the receiving end of 32000 enemy heavies just once too often!

PS: Really dislike those rock people!

[Urban Ranger]

You mean the Silicoids? Yeah, I suck at playing them. Whenever the computer plays them they always get big and nasty. I have no idea why. I could do well with all the rest of the races. All right, almost all the rest

IMO, the Silicoids are severely weakened in MoO 2. A lot of their early disadvantagers have lost.

[Ari Rahikkala]

Well, if we're talking about the silicoids here, I love them. I just build the smallest colony ships I can, and send them to every planet without using any scouts, then boosting the better planets with colony transports and planetary reserve.

Though I guess everybody knows that tactic...

[Urban Ranger]

Hmmm, I always use scouts in the beginning, since colony ships are a lot more expensive than scouts. There is always a chance that it will be destroyed by the Guardian, a space monster, or another player. Though I guess the chance of a colony ship gets destroyed is smaller in MoO as there aren't monsters guarding certain star systems.

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by ravagon on 12-02-2000 09:47 PM This isn't an easy question as both have their strong points. Moo had a much greater scope and a better (IMHO anyway) production/tech development system that Moo2 was never able to match. This was also "The one that started it all" and should be judged as such, similarly to civ/civ2. [quote] When you mentioned scope, do you mean the size of the Universe? I can't remember how big the one is in MoO now (gotta play that again soon ). Though I guess if the Universe is smaller in MoO 2 the reason is multiple planets per star system. As for the production/research system, I agree with you. I much prefer the system used in MoO, where there are multiple queues for research, and amount of reseach an empire could do is directly tied in with its production capabilities. I can't tell if MoO is the one that started the space 3X games. SSG's Reach for the Stars came out earlier... [quote]Originally posted by ravagon on 12-02-2000 09:47 PM Moo2 OTOH had a far superior combat system, diplomatic model, and had much more detail with the professions for individual colonists ala civ/colonization, multiple planets per system, increased starship design options and detailed colony management, not to mention custom race design.

Combat system: yes, MoO 2 has a better one. Though I miss some of the really cool weapon systems we could have in MoO, such as the Blckhole Generator I also like the way that older starships can be refitted instead of being scraped. This lets you conserve resources and keep the experienced crews.

Starship design: Hmm, can't tell which one is better. While the addition of freighter fleets is decisive, I found the one-size-fits-all colony ships leave much to be desired. I much rather have the older way of adding a colony base to a ship, and advanced colony base types require research.

Outposts: a step in the right direction, though I can't tell why outposts aren't installations in deep space, a la Star Trek. That would make a whole lot more sense.

quote: Originally posted by ravagon on 12-02-2000 09:47 PM Overall I'd have to say Moo2 came out on top but only just and mostly because in Moo I wound up on the receiving end of 32000 enemy heavies just once too often!

Speaking of heavies what you think of the addition of Titans and Doom Stars to MoO 2? IIRC the biggest ones in MoO are battleships. At any rate, even though the older game has a lower resolution I miss its colourful designs of ships. They simply look cooler

Any thoughts on the leaders in MoO 2? IMO they just add to the randomness. I wish there were a way to disable them.
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited December 03, 2000).]

[Garth Vader]

I am a big fan of both games. I liked the tech system of MOO the best. Random tech choices made each game truely different.

Ship design was better in Moo2 mostly because you could have more special devices. Oh, and you could get a black hole generator in Moo2, it just wasn't as good because ships aren't stacked.

Actually most other things are better in Moo2 but thankfully they will be going to a tech system more like what was in MOO.

[Lord Silvi]

In MoO with the silicoids as your neighbor, you can bet he will attack early with a lot of small ships.

In MoO2 it is barely possible to have a large fleet with plenty of small ships.

In MoO you have to colonize a planet with the right equipment/technology. MoO2 has one colony ship for all planets.

But most things are better in MoO2

[ravagon]

UR,

I think the (max) size of the universe is the same in both games but Moo1 basically had a bigger feel to it. More ships, higher production, increased finances to maintain larger fleets, etc. I thought that the limit of one of each building in a colony in Moo2 was just too restrictive.

W.r.t. the starship design system, Moo2 was light years better. Firing arcs, weapon specials (penetrating, enveloping, point def., eccm, etc.) and the slots for special equipment increased from 3 to 8 made a phenomenal difference and gave just so many more options IMHO. Not to mention the upgrade facility.
How many people remember having to scrap hundreds of ships in Moo just so as to enable a new design, and having a hole in their defensive lines until the replacements started coming in?
Then we have the ability for marines to capture/raid enemy ships/stations and to obtain new tech from captured vessels.

I didn't really miss any of the superweapon types too much either as they just unbalanced the game.
The teleporting cruiser-type with super shields, cloak, maxed engines etc, and having only a bhg as a weapon could slaughter 50+ stacked enemy battleships with a lucky hit and was just too much of an advantage for the player when used as a suicide ship.

Have to love those Doomstars. Even if they all looked the same. With heavy armour/hull, shield damper and auto-repair they were all but unstoppable (drool)...
I agree completely about the ship designs. Even with the graphics upgraded the Moo2 ships just didn't look as impressive.
I thought the leaders OTOH were a good idea as the AI seemed able to use them to good effect with their single super-fleet tactic.

Darnit, now I can't stop thinking about Moo1/2. And I've got a good few hours of work left ....


Actually this mightn't be such a bad thing ....

[kcbob]

Prior to discovering a game called Civ2, MOO2 was the game IMHO. Never had an opportunity to play MOO, though.

Two aspects of MOO2 that I never got a handle on were designing your own craft and the hands-on combat. If I were to revisit MOO2, would these two things (good technical term, huh?) be sufficient to cause a dent in my playing time of Civ2?

------------------
Frodo lives!

[Lord Silvi]

In one discipline MoO2 is the best of all times:
Background music.

MoO2 was the only PC game I played with music.
I never turned it off.

[Garth Vader]

kcbob: Those were the two best aspects of MOO2, IMO. Although the AI isn't as good at designing ships as a human you can still encounter a threat that takes some work to defeat.

Designing of ships is what gives the game it's replayability. Although the tech system of the original is best for this. Basically you get a situation where you have to constantly try and make the best ship with the tech available to you and to counter the ships attacking you. Keeping in mind racial specials as well.

[Father Beast]

I loved MoO a LOT! It was the only game I was more addicted to than civ, although I don't play much any more (the addiction has worn off).
I remember playing one time from 5 am to 1 am the next morning, and only quitting then because I finished the game. My kids were screaming for food periodically and I would rush into the kitchen and throw some at them. They even put themselves to bed after a while, letting me clobber the universe in peace.



uhh.. MoO vs. MoO2? let me think. I liked the multiple worlds per system in MoO2. The combat was better, ship design was about the same. I wasn't fond of having the basic colony ship, like most of us.
in MoO, I paid out of my treasury for ship maintenance, and these accursed "command points" in MoO2 were annoying as heck. so also were the Heads in your colonies you set to different tasks, instead of the sliding bar settings which were so much easier in MoO.

Personally, I don't play MoO2 that much, because I was just dissapointed. it looks like they meant to make it like civ, and ended up just making it like the moojr. civ scenario. it's just not moo anymore.