Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by kalbear
    In short, you have the option to use it or not. You can give them hints as to how you want the world built, let them manage it on their own, or do whatever you like in between. It's up to you.
    But I don´t want it to be up to me.

    I want the game to simulate friction:

    'Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen war. Suppose now a traveller, who towards evening expects to accomplish the two stages at the end of his day’s journey, four or five leagues, with post-horses, on the high road -- it is nothing. He arrives now at the last station but one, finds no horses, or very bad ones; then a hilly country, bad roads; it is a dark night, and he is glad when, after a great deal of trouble, he reaches the next station, and finds there some miserable accommodation. So in war, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark. A powerful iron will overcomes this friction; it crushes the obstacles, but certainly the machine along with them. We shall often meet with this result. Like an obelisk towards which the principal streets of a town converge, the strong will of a proud spirit stands prominent and commanding in the middle of the art of war.

    Friction is the only conception which in a general way corresponds to that which distinguishes real war from war on paper. The military machine, the army and all belonging to it, is in fact simple, and appears on this account easy to manage. But let us reflect that no part of it is in one piece, that it is composed entirely of individuals, each of which keeps up its own friction in all directions. Theoretically all sounds very well: the commander of a battalion is responsible for the execution of the order given; and as the battalion by its discipline is glued together into one piece, and the chief must be a man of acknowledged zeal, the beam turns on an iron pin with little friction. But it is not so in reality, and all that is exaggerated and false in such a conception manifests itself at once in war. The battalion always remains composed of a number of men, of whom, if chance so wills, the most insignificant is able to occasion delay and even irregularity. The danger which war brings with it, the bodily exertions which it requires, augment this evil so much that they may be regarded as the greatest causes of it.

    This enormous friction, which is not concentrated, as in mechanics, at a few points, is therefore everywhere brought into contact with chance, and thus incidents take place upon which it was impossible to calculate, their chief origin being chance. As an instance of one such chance take the weather. Here the fog prevents the enemy from being discovered in time, a battery from firing at the right moment, a report from reaching the general; there the rain prevents a battalion from arriving at the right time, because instead of for three it had to march perhaps eight hours; the cavalry from charging effectively because it is stuck fast in heavy ground.'
    -Clausewitz: On War

    A Computer Strategy Game would be able to simulate this concept, but none do. I had hoped for Moo3 to be the first. But it was not to be, because, apart from Emrich and Stormhound, no one else at QS understood the WHYs of the original design.
    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


    • Of course it would have been possible to replace IFPs with something else to achieve a similar result: Let´s say you have an Imperial Organisation Value. This Value goes down whenever you do something. Low Organisation means Production goes down, Troop Morale decreases, the chance of Catastrophes increases. This would serve the same function as IFPs: To give you a penalty for doing anything, because every action will disturb business-as-usual, and should therefore carry a cost. In short: The player is not God-almighty, and should not feel as if he were.

      This would go a long way to remove the game from mickey-mouseyness.
      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 played a game on my Atari ST which imitated this in some ways. Every time you created a new prototype ship, the first one cost double to build. When you changed what a factory was producing its first unit was always double cost (so switching to a prototype made it 4x cost in total.) The same sort of inefficiencies could be applied to anything. Thus the micromanagers could still plan to tweak in an optimum way but the emphasis was sticking with any decisions you made because changing the same stuff every turn was bad.

        Would you rather have one brand new warship or five that were almost as good? Do you switch all factories at the same time or slowly phase in new designs? Nice idea and one I wish had been followed up by later strategy games.
        To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
        H.Poincaré

        Comment


        • To give you a penalty for doing anything, because every action will disturb business-as-usual, and should therefore carry a cost. In short: The player is not God-almighty, and should not feel as if he were.
          No I'm the Silicoid Uni-mind located deep in the recesses of the silicoid homeworld were I with my unmeasurable cognitive capabilities can control every aspect of the silicoid collective. ( Should I desire to do so ) After that I may be the "Supreme Unquestionable Unimpeachable Emperor of the Human Democracy"

          Come on, most strategy games, Civilzation ... SimCity 4 ... are all about playing god. Controlling an empire or building a world which in reality would beyond the ability ( and lifespan ) of any one individual to accomplish.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by booklord
            Come on, most strategy games, Civilzation ... SimCity 4 ... are all about playing god. Controlling an empire or building a world which in reality would beyond the ability ( and lifespan ) of any one individual to accomplish.
            I agree with your point insofar as Empire Building Games, by necessity, let you play a whole succession of rulers, not just one, which is a bit unrealistic.

            This problem is unavoidable, but it should **NOT** be compounded by giving the ruler godlike powers.

            I don´t want godlike powers! (Because they take away from my feeling of achievement.)
            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


            • Well, as I've said before:

              The choice is largely there for you. You still have to manage your ships - because almost unanimously it was found that people hate the AI doing part of it - but you're free to let governors deal with planetary and system-wide settings, as you pick.

              How much MM you use is entirely up to you. If you want limitations, SET THEM YOURSELF.

              This is a much more desirable situation in my mind than having a game where the limitations are set in stone and you have no way around them.

              Want more thrilling achievment when you win this game? Play it on the hardest setting, using an Ithkul-based race, and remove all their bonus picks. Give them a huge penalty, and there ya go. And only allow yourself the luxury of modifying 5 planets every turn.

              You have the power to give yourself that friction, if you so desire.

              Oh, by the way - the strat guide and other BTs have indicated that massive quick changes cause unrest and therefore inefficiency in the manner you talk about. Changing governments does this as well. But if you adjust tax settings, war settings, migration settings too much too soon, it causes unrest. Sounds a lot like the IOP settings.

              Finally, it's ludicrous to me to simply discount the reports of beta testers, playtesters, and designers in talking about the game and what cuts were made and why. Did that whole 'even knowing the formula didn't help us show the causality of these things' bit mean nothing to you? Things were taken out because they did not add anything to the game. Not a little bit of complexity, not a lot of complexity - they basically simulated you adjusting a slider.

              If you want a game like that, that's your decision. I like games where my doing something in the game has some relevant bearing on it.

              Comment


              • Even if you rationalize it by saying you play a succession of rulers, it must be godlike line of rulers. They would be rulers that are the mayors of a thousand colonies, emperors, admirals, administrators, diplomats, spy masters, scientists... :P
                Last edited by RolandtheMad; January 22, 2003, 14:09.

                Comment


                • *SIGH*

                  Max number of ships in a TF reduced to 18



                  Originally posted by apoc527
                  Number of ships has been reduced to 18 per task force. Now it's been confirmed. Fnord.

                  I have to agree with this person -

                  Originally posted by Lillith
                  i second that thought on the limit of 18 ships per TF,
                  though i fear it is just another flaw in a long line of set backs.

                  now

                  18*12 = 216
                  216*2 = 432

                  well where has the main argument for the limited battle grafics and visual ship designs gone now? it poofed, 'cause we don't have those really big scale battles anymore.
                  Last edited by RolandtheMad; January 22, 2003, 17:44.

                  Comment


                  • 216 ships/battle is ok with me.

                    But I want to organize them without artificial limits.

                    If I want to place them all into just 3 taskforces -or just one!- that should be possible.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by kalbear
                      How much MM you use is entirely up to you. If you want limitations, SET THEM YOURSELF.
                      Of course I want the same limitations on everybody.

                      Or we can forget about Multiplayer.
                      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


                      • Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
                        But I want to organize them without artificial limits.
                        Because *regardless* how large my fleet is, I *never* want to have more than 5 TFs. ==> Idiotic Clickfest

                        If you want complex battles, make them turn-based.

                        The more I learn about Moo3, the less I like it.
                        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


                        • My thoughts exactly. I don`t want artifical limits on my fleet groupings either. Looks like they`ve made task forces more like real life task forces though, no more fleets or armadas for us.

                          Personally I don`t get the whole small TF idea anyway unless it is early in the game and you can`t afford an armada. My strategy has always been to build a few armadas for each corner of the empire... overwhelm them with numbers.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RolandtheMad
                            ... overwhelm them with numbers.
                            Yep; Zorgling Strategy works fine for me.

                            But even World War II task forces could be composed of more than 18 ships. I´d say a Murmansk Convoy had certainly more.
                            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


                            • ARRRRRRRRGH!

                              Originally posted by kebzero

                              Currently; no reinforcements for ongoing battles.

                              If you have more TFs than the limit, the TFs up to that limit join the battle. The rest do nothing that turn. Should some of your battling TFs be destroyed, and the battle continue next turn, repeat.

                              SO MUCH FOR MY SWARM STRATEGY!

                              THIS HAS LONG BEEN UNDERSTOOD TO BE IN THE GAME!
                              Last edited by RolandtheMad; January 22, 2003, 16:39.

                              Comment


                              • That truly, truly s**ks. So instead of one decisive battle that will be heralded through out the ages, we're stuck with an eighteen on eighteen battle over and over and over again until we run out of ships (TFs, excuse me). Didn't the Spanish Armada of the fifteen hundreds have around five hundred ships? Are we to believe that futuristic space travelling races can cross the cosmos at will but can't organize more than eighteen ships at a time?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X