Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts

[Paddy_]

@CT You should consult your history-books again.
Your comment about the Austrian navy is not correct.
It was quite a reasonable force till and during WW1.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Paddy
@CT You should consult your history-books again.
Your comment about the Austrian navy is not correct.
It was quite a reasonable force till and during WW1.

Nah, you are stretching the definition of 'quite reasonable'. I mean, did we ever project any sea power outside the Mediterranean? No. Even in the Mediterranean, could we compete with the English or the French? Hardly. We may have been able to take on the Italians -with luck!-, but that hardly made us a 1st rate sea power.

[TheMaestro]

Competing with the French? Uh oh!
Checking out the Italian belief of honor in WW1 and 2....they were on Germany's side...saw the allies were winning and "switched."

Hindsight is 20/20 afterall...

[RolandtheMad]

Does anyone recall if we were promised a specific amount of leaders? I`ve learned that we will only have four like in Moo2. I`m not too happy about that myself even though they are global leaders and not planetary ones. In fact I think it is patently absurd.

Hummmm... what to do.. what to do..

Also, does anyone see that I update the list (post #1)? Anyone have anything to add or confirm on it?

[booklord]

The number I believe is four. ( and like Moo2 you won't be
offered new ones when your roster is full ).

Some apparently are poisonessly bad, while others will transform your entire empire. Furthermore they can be killed by enemy spies.

I won't make opinion until I see how they work and how potentially game unbalancing they are.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by booklord
The number I believe is four. ( and like Moo2 you won't be
offered new ones when your roster is full ).

Some apparently are poisonessly bad, while others will transform your entire empire. Furthermore they can be killed by enemy spies.

I won't make opinion until I see how they work and how potentially game unbalancing they are.

Hopefully the "poisonously bad" leaders can be killed by your own security services if necessary.

[warden]

The leaders usually give you a % bonus in one area and a % penalty in another. Loknar is good because he has no drawback.

What's missing is the ship/fleet commanders. I cherish the memory of when Commander Sparky saved the flagship of my fleet in a key battle.

The overall effect seems rather colourless. I' m more impressed by the detail in HoI - lots of leaders at every level with distinctive personalties and doctrines.

Andrew

[campfreddie]

>>Hopefully the "poisonously bad" leaders can be killed by your own security services if necessary.<<

There will be no totally bad leaders, since you can choose to hire them or not like in MOO2. If a leader is bad you just reject him.

Many leaders will have drawbacks though. There's a screeny of a leader that increases trade income but decreases tax income and causes unrest. He may be useful for some empires, but certainly not in all situations.

I'm pretty sure that they can be assasinated by spies and I'm not sure if they die of old age or not.

[Grumbold]

I find it stupid that you still have to keep a slot free if you want to remain open to accepting better leaders or ones more suited to your style. We've also now gone from 8 slots to 4. An entire galaxy spanning empire influenced by only four (five if you include you) people? Bah! Every country in the world has more leading personalities than that who have obvious effects on the policies of their nation.

I'd like to see every system managed by a leader with his/her own personality and the ability to groom new people for these senior roles prior to inserting them. Nobody comes from a vacuum.

[Paddy_]

Dissapointing

After keeping up to date with the development of Moo3 in the last months (years)
its VERY dissapointing to see how a big bundle of excellent ideas is going down the drain.
I agree with comments about too much simplification to meet
the standards of "the average customer" (whatever the definition might be)

The only hope is, that the remaining known and upcoming unknown features will keep the game enjoyable.

We will know it in late February.

[moomin]

While I still have high hopes for Moo3. Rantz, Chantz et al don't strike me as particularly stupid or unreasonable people and IG seems to have learned something from the Civ3 debacle. The after action bt reports seem promising enough.

Sure, it won't be the Game To End All Games, but if it manages to improve on Moo2 and deliver solid gaming fun it should be around on my HD for years. It's predecessor has, after all. And Ghud knows Moo2 has its fair share of stupid design decisions, awkward interface details, cludgy implementations and whatnot.

Some games just have soul. Maybe Moo3 will be among them.

[TCO]

Did Civ3 have soul? How about 2? 1?

[moomin]

Selling that bridge?

[TheMaestro]

Remember, M002 came out in what...96?

And everyone seems to believe the game has only been in development for three years...right....same with Civ 3...it was only developed over three years.....right....

[Harry Seldon]

Originally posted by TheMaestro
Remember, M002 came out in what...96?

And everyone seems to believe the game has only been in development for three years...right....same with Civ 3...it was only developed over three years.....right....

But how many times was the MOO title shuffled when the company that owned it was bought buy another? If it's been owned by three separate companies (I could be wrong on this one; please be gentle), it was probably started several times then scrapped when someone else came along with "fresh ideas" from the new HQ. I have no excuses for Civ, though. I've never played it and from the blistering anger coming from some of the posts I've read, I probably never will.