Announced revisions to Moo3

[ChaotikVisions]

hmm

Last I had heard it wasn't going to be in it, but this was several months ago. It was going to be you design taskforces based on various thing, then comp fights for you. I never let the comp fight for me in moo2, it was always dumb. But as for it being real-time, how would that make formations better? Real-time stuff always seems to get jumbled and just become a fist fight of the better units(not saying I don't like it, its just i'd perfer tactical combat for moo3). But I dunno, best thing to do is just wait till it comes out and test it, then if its worth it, i'll buy it.

[Sarxis]

Yeah, the biggest trouble I have with any sort of 'auto' combat is the consistantly dumb AIs.

I like the control. Plus, that's half the game~!

[Comrade Tribune]

What you don´t see is: With conventional real time combat, the game will be far too easy. (Everybody can go to slow speed, micromanage everything and win all battles!)

[Comrade Tribune]

And another thing: Without IFPs, how are they going to manage things that were paid for wholly in IFPs, such as: The Speech?

[Straybow]

And another thing: Without IFPs, how are they going to manage things that were paid for wholly in IFPs, such as: The Speech?

My guess: Events.

[Lemmy]

And another thing: Without IFPs, how are they going to manage things that were paid for wholly in IFPs, such as: The Speech?

maybe make it less effective if you also do a lot of other things in your turns?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Lemmy
maybe make it less effective if you also do a lot of other things in your turns?

That would be the IFP concept again; only more complicated. If they are planning to do that, why kill IFPs in the first place?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Straybow
My guess: Events.

That would be terrible: Making something a random event that should be a player decision.

Though you may be right; after all, if they fire the lead designer just before completion, nothing would much surprise me any more.

[Tuberski]

Geez, people have gone from excited about this game, to fearful that it will be crap. Why don'y you wait and see?

[player1]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
That would be the IFP concept again; only more complicated. If they are planning to do that, why kill IFPs in the first place?

Maybe it's killed because it was ARTIFICIAL restriction.

And thus, not FUN. (at least QS said that was reason for removal)

But making someting less effective if overused, instead of simlply restricting it, is much better idea.
HFOG looks like possibile mechanic for that.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by player1
Maybe it's killed because it was ARTIFICIAL restriction.

It was not an artificial restriction.

You can only do so many things in one day/year/decade/game turn. That´s the most commonsensical restriction I can think of.

[TCO]

Yes. Which is why socialism fails. It is too dependant on command.

[Straybow]

Event driven Speech

That would be terrible: Making something a random event that should be a player decision.

When an event occurs you have options how to respond. The Speech would be an appropriate option for if the people are uncertain about their direction and motivation.

[Rantz]

Re: hmm

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
Last I had heard it wasn't going to be in it, but this was several months ago. It was going to be you design taskforces based on various thing, then comp fights for you.

No, you are completely capable of going toe-to-toe with your enemy in battle. It's playable, ran through a bunch of battles yesterday. Actually *fun*... crazy thought

personally, I can't imagine letting the comp do battles. What's the point?

RE: the dumbing down issue. It should be noted that what's going on is focusing the game on actually having a gameplay experience. If you asked someone 'ok, what do you *do* in MoO2 (or moo1 for that matter) they'd say something like 'I researched technology, I conquered aliens, I ruled the galaxy, etc.'

In the early builds, with IFP and all features in the general reaction was that 'ummm, these are all very good ideas, but I have *no* idea what the hell I am supposed to be doing...'

Ideas are great, and yes it is best to cut non-functional or unclear ideas or concepts early, but unfortunately some ideas/concepts weren't clear on whether it would work or not until it was actually *in* the game as a whole.

Being bombarded by a white noise wall of information with no significance on *any* piece of it isn't a fun game for even the most hardcore strat players. Heirarchy of importance and impact is essential for the player to have feedback ( both positive and negative) on the results of their actions.

IFP removed a LOT of that, and for no good reason. The micromanagement nightmare of middle and late game can be handled in other ways and it KILLED the early game.

Ok, I'm rambling and I have to get back to it. No matter what vine-borne fruit of a tangy nature is offered, what we are doing is making a better game.

[Lemmy]

hey, how come Rantz hasn't got a subtitle saying he's from the MOO3 team?