Moo vs. Moo2

[Urban Ranger]

One thing good in MoO 2 is you can incorporate other races. In MoO you just wipe them out.

[ravagon]

I still use both on a semi-regular basis. Too hard to pick between them wrt which is better. Both have their strong (and weak) points.

One thing I like about Moo is the few, what I term, "super techs". Those which can allow a race a long way behind to catch up.
I'd class robotic controls, cloning, gaia transformation, atmospheric terraforming and the HE focus as such techs. Maybe auto-repair too in the earlier stages and the black hole generator right near the end.
All of these are far more powerfull than their Moo2 counterparts and, with the odd weapon or shield, can completely shift the balance of power.

[vmxa1]

There are many tactics to be used, that is for sure. I stopped using Blackhole, just don't need it by the time you get it. The AI uses repulsor beam effectively at times, when I do not have 2 movement ships or range 2 weapons and it is hard for me use on the ai as they seem to have the heavy weapons.

[Urban Ranger]

I love the repulsor beams. When you combine it with a torpedo weapon, you can defend a planet with a very small fleet.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I like MoO more. Simpler, more elegant.

I agree completely.

MOO2 was nothing more than "Civ in Space". I know a lot of people like that, but MOO was definitely one of a kind.

MOO wins hands-down in my book. MOO2 is clear proof that more is not always better.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by ravagon
I still use both on a semi-regular basis. Too hard to pick between them wrt which is better. Both have their strong (and weak) points.

One thing I like about Moo is the few, what I term, "super techs". Those which can allow a race a long way behind to catch up.
I'd class robotic controls, cloning, gaia transformation, atmospheric terraforming and the HE focus as such techs. Maybe auto-repair too in the earlier stages and the black hole generator right near the end.
All of these are far more powerfull than their Moo2 counterparts and, with the odd weapon or shield, can completely shift the balance of power.

I agree. Combined with the restrictions of the tech tree, watching your opponent increase his production by 50% or start building ships with a BHG can really put you in a panic if you do not have access to those techs.

[vmxa1]

I thought Moo was the best for about 8 or more years, but have switched to Moo2 as of late. All of the points are valued, but the retro fit of ships, the custom races coupled with the options for the maps make it so it is not the same game all of the time. I still play Moo, but in truth it is the same game most of the time. Hey I love them both.

[nato]

This thread is very on topic for me. I just rediscovered MoO and have been trying to decide whether to spend time playing 1 or 2.

Here are the things in favor of each I can think of:

MoO 1
--------
1. Simplicity and elegance
2. Less micromanagement!
3. Unique planet management (sliders instead of build queue)
4. Different and unknown tech lists each game. Races being better at some fields is very cool and in character (like Alkari - propulsion)
5. Needing techs like "tundra environment" makes early expansion more interesting
6. Spying seems more effective / worthwhile
7. Visible relocation lines on map let you set up visible "regions" and regional capitals (a role playing thing I guess, but I enjoy it, kind of like naming features)
8. Huge fleet sizes
9. By forcing ships to be stacked, you have only 6 ships (and a planet) to move, so even large combats are quick. No huge wait for the computer to move
10. Also due to forced stacking, you get an extra strategy dimension: anti-stack weapons or one-big-ship type things
11. Special techs are more fun, like black hole generator


MoO 2
--------
1. Custom races!
2. Multiple planets per system
3. Outposts for laying claim to planets and extending ship range. Also can make planetless systems useful if they have asteroids or gas giant
4. Barren / Radiated worlds are more differentiated because they can't grow food / high upkeep costs
5. Solving the food problem can be interesting early game (go with one or two breadbasket worlds or try to get all planets self sufficient?)
6. The spreadsheet is wonderful (too bad its so vital)
7. Leaders are a lot of fun
8. Star ship design! 8 specials instead of 3 lets you make so much more fun ships, mods like AP and auto fire etc. are great, also doom stars are available
9. Ships are not forced into stacks of all the same kind, which is very silly in MoO1. This allows for more maneuver and tactics, and more realism
10. Obsolete ships don't have to vanish to make room for new. Much better and more realistic
11. Boarding parties and marines help make ground combat a little more important, and gives more options, like capture ships
12. Starbases are cool
13. AI will actually send its big fleet and attack you, and not run away instantly from a missle base
14. Can conquer other races and have a multi racial empire. This is huge if you feel uncomfortable playing a genocidal ethnic cleanser (which I can't stand feeling like)
15. Cool spacey music

Overall, here is what I think it comes down to:

MoO2 has more and better features, the big ones being:
1. Race customization
2. Starship design and combat
3. Multi racial empire, don't have to annihilate

However, all those great features come at the heavy, heavy price of much increased micromanagement tedium.

So the question is are the great features worth the increased micromanagement? Better simulation or more fun game?

I myself still can't decide. If only they had added the features, but kept their cool elegant slider system for MoO2 instead of making yet another city build queue civ clone. That was my very first reaction years ago, and I still feel the same way today.

Sorry for the long post, I've just been having a hard time deciding.

[vmxa1]

Nice job of defining the issue. It is a very hard call and I play both. When I have had enough of one, I go back to the other. This after nearly 10 years of Moo and about 2000 games. I have in recent times put Moo2 ahead of Moo, but will accept either postion.

[wervdon]

Boarding parties and marines help make ground combat a little more important

Actually, Ive always thought that ground combat was more important in moo1 than moo2. But mostly cause its easier to just wipe them out from orbit I guess.

I _think_ id rate moo1 as better though because of the following:
1) All your ships in moo2 use your best drive system. That is they
automatically upgrade. It maybe convenient, but it just doesnt seem as much fun to me really.
2) Stargates are automatically built in moo2. It may reduce the micromanagement, but well its no where near as satisfying as actually building the things in strategic locations
3) Leaders with galactic lore early on can ruin the whole exploration thing. My solution has always been refuse to hire them though ;P
4) Racial customization actually seems to reduce variability for me. Its too cool not to use, but then I almost always end up building the same 2 or 3 races This is more my problem though than the games, as I could just make myself play with the in game races if I wanted ;P
5) Moo1's research tree is just a lot more fun. The random research tree aspect rocks. You could be uncreative in moo2, but its not the same, and it just puts you at a severe disadvantage to the ai which isn't uncreative
6) The different colonization techs added a strategic element somewhat lacking in moo2.
7) Units stack in moo1, battles are faster

In moo2's defense:
1) Starbases are cool. You should of been able ot design them though
2) Multiple planets per system is cool.
3) The diplomacy is better in moo2.
4) The ship designs other than the armor and engines being locked to the best you have is much better in moo2
5) Units don't stack in moo2, battles are more interesting

----
Im undecided, Im currently playing moo1 alot, but they are both in the top 5 games of all time as far as im concerned, and its definately too close to call. If I had to pick right now, though, id say moo1 is slightly better. If you had asked a month ago, id of said moo2 is slightly better

[vmxa1]

Seems fair to me, I could accept either position.

[Yolky]

Yes in MOO2 when ship designing you get the best drive and armour but if you click on the armour or engines or computer for that matter you can downgrade them to what ever you want. I believe they have the best system automatically since most people want them when making new ships or they progamers beleived that is what people wanted, but to my knowladge you can change them.

Davor

[wervdon]

Actually armor and engines are locked at the best, you can't downgrade them in moo2. You can, however, downgrade your shields, battle computer, etc. Just not armor and engines.


However, one thing I had thought (not sure where I got the idea) was that all your ships automatically upgraded engines when you got them, but I just checked and it seems that only the designs are upgraded not existing ships.

[GePap]

I don't see why not have the best in new ships: I have never seen a significant space difference having newer armor versus older ones. The same with the engines.

[Yolky]

I didn't know that Wevdorn. I thought it was all since I never adjust the engines or the armour. Always wanted the best for them. Thanks for the correction.

Davor