The OpenMoO Project

[dexter4dxm]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yes, I think that's called the stamap. Okay, so which one is better: the MoO starmap or the MoO 2 starmap?

The MoO2 StarMap was better because it allowed easy system viewing and an easy way to zoom in on a certain area of the map. Of course, we can make any adjustments we want, but I suggest we start with MoO2's map in mind.

640x480? We can always see how it turns out before we decide. It's easy to go to a higher resolution if VGA resolution isn't good enough, correct?

You'd be surprised at how many games run in that resolution. I'm just saying we should have 640x480 be the default resolution for compatibilty reasons. If the player would like to increase the resolution to 1024x768 (or possibly 800x600), then they can do that, and it will allow them to see more of the StarMap (among other things).

[Proxima]

I was able to find two different groups doing what you guys are proposing. I think you guys might want to check with these guys to see if sharing of resources might help actually finish this project.

http://free-orion.sourceforge.net/

http://roo.sourceforge.net/

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Proxima
I was able to find two different groups doing what you guys are proposing. I think you guys might want to check with these guys to see if sharing of resources might help actually finish this project.

http://free-orion.sourceforge.net/

http://roo.sourceforge.net/

Thanks for the heads-up. IIRC all projects on SourceForge is copylefted, meaning that we are free to copy their code if we want

Our project is probably going to land on SouceForge one day. Soon I hope.

[DaveV]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
DaveV,

Okay, if you are now asked to improve upon MoO, what game elements will you add, and what will you remove?

Adding and removing game elements is a Pandora's box. Once you start fiddling with the game, you run the risk of losing what made it a great game in the first place. So my vote would be for spiffing up the interface, buffing up the AI, and otherwise adhering as closely as possible to the original.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

An AI engine that could be adapted is certainly a great idea. One need not reinvent the wheel every time for a new game. I also happen to be interested in AI (just because existing computer players are rotten). Have you sketched out how this engine could work, other than on a very high level?

At the top end, and at the very bottom end, where I worked out the basis for how a composite unit of infantry would deploy it's maneuver elements, and for the formation evolutions of the individual maneuver elements.

Think infantry brigade and regiments in a War of Yankee Aggression battle. Despite the rather specific origins of that idea, it's not that much of a reach to think about deploying formations of ships in space. The basic principles of multiple-unit combat (screening, concentration, applying strength against weakness) aren't any different. The overlaying strategic imperatives (think orders from a higher HQ) aren't any different - direct attack, maneuver and attack, concentrate on priority targets, general attack, delay and withdraw, etc. etc. are all adaptable.

Even weapons types are adaptable - think point defense weapons (bayonet, pistol, saber), main weapons (musketry), long range weapons (skirmishers), high power/ slow reload weapons (artillery).

Having a ship design workshop where you could tweak things like maneuverability, the ability to orient shields and armor (like MBTs) would give you some incentives for maneuver warfare - the ability to get in flank hits, and enfilading attacks - it's all universal.

For a given unit/ship, you have four tables/arrays/whatever that describe it:

An attribute table, which gives what it can do, and what can be done to it. (capabilities);

A leadership/experience table (modifiers to action intent and execution);

A tactical assessment table (unit view of situation - basically, fight or flee, maneuver, etc. - whether or how to fight, given the choice.);

and finally, a strategic override table, which contains the urgent ramblings of the REMFs who dictate things like hold to the last man, or wipe 'em out on site.

If there's nothing set in the fourth table (all settings are optional, and some not applicable to different ships/units), then the first three lead to an action result - the unit/ships tactical assessment of what it should do.

If the fourth table is set, the unit/ship has to carry out that ordered action (possible to modify the leader/experience table to allow for errors in carrying out orders), but the results of the first three tables lead to the means by which the unit/ship carries out that action.

For example, in a situation where the defender is badly outnumbered and would withdraw on it's own, hold at all costs orders from on high would override that decision, but the defender would assess the tactical odds as being against it, and would react accordingly.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Dedicated OpenMOO forums?

I already talked to Mark, who has no problem with it.

Before this weekend is out, I'll have a new forum up and running at www.freefirezone.net

One of the forum groups will be scratchware/freeware game development.

If we really get a FreeMOO project off the ground, I can create forums for game ideas, and a developer forum for the game - either public or private (however, anyone who volunteered to join the development team would have access if it was private). People can also upload files, etc., for graphics, code, game builds, etc.

Let me know here if you're interested.

[Urban Ranger]

I was also thinking of asking for a OpenMoO forum too, but you beat me to it. I am interested of course, so we'll see how big a group we can attract.

[J.C.]

MP .. suggestions

Well of course.. you want to make it so that all of the micro can be done "off turn". Address the lag issues as much as possible... anyone who has played both MGE & TOT knows that lag is much worse in TOT .. I am not sure why.. but I was told it was in the way the packets are sent out.

Finally...the issue of tactical combat needs to be looked at.. to keep the game from dragging... the best resolution..I think ... would be some sort of simple ( very simple ) formation.. task force .. slow RTS thing. You could take the tactical game out, but I would not recommend it.

Finally, as I assume you know .. MOO2 hit the period during the transition from DOS to Windows.. & uses expanded memory ( I think ).

Dog

[Urban Ranger]

I guess the best course ahead is to set up a separate forum and start the project underway.

[dexter4dxm]

besides my Alt-Civ game, I have begun coding for another project that I'm doing with some other people. i'm pretty sure now that i can't help work on this MoO project, but i wish u guys the best of luck

[Urban Ranger]

Hello? Anybody left here?

[Zealot]

I'm here.

[fanatic civver]

I'm just wondering - has anyone seen a fan project for an old game that has ever been finished?

As to my own ideas, I agree with DaveV. Basically, just build MOO1 with better AI and multiplayer, and fix up a few things here and there. You could probably add a few more races too. But then you have to ask the question, "is it worth it?".

[Sarxis]

I think it is great that these open source projects exist (FreeCiv, etc.).

But personally, I don't have the time to be involved with them.

However: keep up the good non-commisioned work!

[tonic]

What's the latest with the Project - no news for some 5 months now? Is it worth while canvassing ideas here for improvements to the extant game(s) in the meantime?