What is the one thing that you are most lookinf forward to in this game. Only state one item, the most important to you. For me it is being able to micro manage everything and anything if i so wish on a galactic scale.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Moo3 Dreams
Collapse
X
-
I really loved moo2, the only thing that bothered me was that the game wasnt bigger. I wanted everything to be bigger, more stars, more to research, more everything. So I could keep playing the same game for a longer period of time. And as far as I know, it seems to be just what moo3 is, BIGGER in every aspect. Thats what im looking forward to, everything is grander, bigger and hopefully better.
-
Re: Moo3 Dreams
Originally posted by Master-Mike
What is the one thing that you are most lookinf forward to in this game. Only state one item, the most important to you. For me it is being able to micro manage everything and anything if i so wish on a galactic scale.
You might have problems with multi-player then if the host decides to set a time limit for the turns. Other than that, with IFPs gone, you might be able to do that in single player.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Craig P.
I'm looking forward to being able to NOT micromanage everything.Xentax@nc.rr.com
Comment
-
Same here, I do not like the micromanagement at the planet level. That is what made MoO1 better than MoO2.
.
.
.
.
I'm sorry, I started drooling again.
Yes and bigger than MoO2 is another plus (Why do these games have limits so small...is memory really an issue?).We're sorry, the voices in my head are not available at this time. Please try back again soon.
Comment
-
Well, there's an upper limit on how big a game "map" (no matter what the game is) can be, and still have the game be compelling, win-able, etc.
As cool as a 10,000 star galaxy in MOO3 might sound, it would take forever to win, or you'd not become anything like a "Sole Superpower" to win, or the value of an individual system would diminish to practically nothing. None of those is exactly ideal, IMHO.Xentax@nc.rr.com
Comment
-
I would be looking forward to MOO3 being more of a true EmpireSim than other strategy games like, say, CivIII.
I don´t hold my breath, though, since I am still suspecting the reason why management fired Emrich was managament wanted LESS of a simulation.Now, if I ask myself: Who profits from a War against Iraq?, the answer is: Israel. -Prof. Rudolf Burger, Austrian Academy of Arts
Free Slobo, lock up George, learn from Kim-Jong-Il.
Comment
-
I love micro mangaging games on single player but multiplayer is different. I like to know every little facet of the game. Such as if i do this what is its effect in 20 turns from now. I got a good mate who i can play moo3 with all day on our days off so long games spanning days if not weeks are no problem for me, the longer the better.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Master-Mike
I love micro mangaging games on single player but multiplayer is different. I like to know every little facet of the game. Such as if i do this what is its effect in 20 turns from now. I got a good mate who i can play moo3 with all day on our days off so long games spanning days if not weeks are no problem for me, the longer the better.
Btw, there will certainly be micro-management in Moo3, and probably more interesting decisions than in CivIII, for that matter.
However, this is still not quite what I call 'Realism(tm)'. OK, so what do I mean by 'Realism(tm)'?
My definition of 'Realism(tm)' in a strategy game is to purposefully include those aspects of reality most people tend to not understand or dislike.Example: Vicious circles where, once you turn the wrong way, the situation gets worse all by itself. ('And it went downhill from there.') Such things abound in reality (think epidemics), but they never occur in strategy games, because such games are created for a mass market, and the market department forbids designers to frustrate anybody. Out of the window goes Realism!
The only exception to this rule is Chess. This game does not soften up the blows -because it was not created for a mass market-, but it is still vastly successfull. This may mean that the marketing people are wrong, and (at least some) people WANT a game to be (somewhat) frustrating. But marketing people are too stupid to understand that, and ultimately it is NOT the market that calls the shots but the marketing people.Now, if I ask myself: Who profits from a War against Iraq?, the answer is: Israel. -Prof. Rudolf Burger, Austrian Academy of Arts
Free Slobo, lock up George, learn from Kim-Jong-Il.
Comment
Comment