Can it get any more simplistic?

[kalbear]

It wasn't 'already done'. The _MENUS_ were done. Ever heard of concept cars? A screenshot implies nothing about the underlying code or implementation.

Which again, doesn't matter. I'm not sure how you can see the current version of the game, see the ridiculous amounts of options, features, and complexity, and call it a game for the feeble-minded and slow-witted.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by kalbear
It wasn't 'already done'. The _MENUS_ were done. Ever heard of concept cars? A screenshot implies nothing about the underlying code or implementation.

Which again, doesn't matter. I'm not sure how you can see the current version of the game, see the ridiculous amounts of options, features, and complexity, and call it a game for the feeble-minded and slow-witted.

I remember them saying most of it was already coded, including the parts they decided to cut.

Where are those ridiculous options and features? IFPs are gone, most government policies are gone, the multi-layered leader system is gone, the spying subgame is mostly gone, religions are long gone, all the really interesting things are gone. I see no real improvement over Moo2, can´t remember anything innovative that is still in. Why not play Moo2 instead; where is the justification for a new game, if they cut everything that was new and interesting? As I see it, Moo3 is now =

[ashbery]

I agree this is just moo2.5 the only thing left from alans design is economic system.The leader system's now a step down from moo2 they dont even command battlegroups anymore while in alans design you had a realistic leader system with a chain of command etc.

[Trifna]

Everything is already coded. It even is in the MOO3 that's coming out, except it is underground, not shown. They said it more than once in interviews and messages.

[Wahngrok]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


I remember them saying most of it was already coded, including the parts they decided to cut.

Do you really believe that? Think about how long it takes to cut features... certainly not a year. (Also imagine how long beta-testing would have taken if all features were in the game. )
And all this without a mass-market because they would have made a game with an appeal to just the hard-core strategy gamers? Sorry, but QS (and IG) is not producing the game to lose money. And if you want a space sim game you have two options: a) write your own and b) pay someone to write it?

Don't have the money? Then organize it! Maybe you could even get Stars! Supernova get back on track. (you can read what happend to them here ).

As I see it, Moo3 is now =

If that's your opinion why don't you take the consequences and simply don't buy this game. But please do me a favor and stop whining like a kid who didn't get what he wants.
Life's sometimes unfair but it does go on, you know?

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Do we really know what 'the market' wants? There are lots of games already that cater to the lazy and slow-witted, but I suspect most of them don´t like TBS games at all, so why not cater to the hardcore gamers for a change? EU does this, and is quite successful (would be even more successful if it were less buggy.)

Come on, CT. Were not talking about slowwitted people here. Were talking about average people, living average lives, doing normal things. The people whose lifestyles dosn't allow them to spend 30+ hours per week, playing strategy games. Please don't make the mistake of calling them dumb.

Asmodean

[DarkCloud]

They seem to be wanting to make the game more mainstream...

Although I thought that the old design (a la the old star trek RTS game) looked much better than the newer one- the newer one seems vacant and empty... less decisions

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Come on, CT. Were not talking about slowwitted people here. Were talking about average people, living average lives, doing normal things. The people whose lifestyles dosn't allow them to spend 30+ hours per week, playing strategy games. Please don't make the mistake of calling them dumb.

Asmodean

But this is what I am saying. Normal people play Combat Mission, Europa Universalis, Matrix Games, ...

Why do you think average people must be lazy? I don´t have much respect for companies that prefer to cater to the lazy and superficial...

As I see it, Mr. Emrich had a higher opinion of normal people than the QS management...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Wahngrok
If that's your opinion why don't you take the consequences and simply don't buy this game.

I probably will not buy this game. They just want to cash in on the success of the earlier Moos (which were original), why should I support a cheap strat like this?

And yes, additionally I am in the mood to trash this game. After all, they promised a lot, data dumps and all, and kept none of it. How much of what was in the data dumps is now in? 20%? 10?

[kalbear]

There's a post on 'hype me' that iterates the amount of features you have in Moo3, but it doesn't do a comparison relative to Moo2, so I'll do that instead.

Ground combat is vastly more complicated than either Moo. Multiple troop types, multiple stats per troop, actual important choices regarding weapon types used, actual strategy regarding what to hit, where to hit, how to hit it.

Space combat has a big overhaul. Real time instead of turn-based, task-force based (and thus more strategic) instead of the one ship moves. Fighters are actually useful and designable. As are star bases, system boats. Gone are boarding actions and the ability to micromanage each ship.

Governments have multiple subtypes with their own pros and cons. They are switchable and cause unrest when you do so. Compare to Moo2 with it's one type only government.

Speaking of, unrest is in the game, and is modifiable by oppression, slavery, taxation, too rapid change, government type, leader type, war standing, and race. And citizenship, I suppose.

Good gods, this is going to take a while.

Research has the reability to research multiple fields, like Moo did. Those fields have non-linear dependencies and not all technologies are accessible in the game.

Spying has a ton of differences from Moo2. You train spies for missions - 6 different kinds vs. the 2 original. Spying can actually do a lot of damage to an opponent, and is an important factor in the game. Spying is also centralized, instead of being manufactured throughout your government.

Trade and diplomacy have changed quite a bit as well, though I'm not the most knowledgeable at all of the differences.

The orion senate has been introduced, with all its wackiness.

The universe can be 256 stars big, in different shapes, with multiple planets, moons per star. Planets have a load of different specials compared to Moo2.

Starlanes are quite a big difference relative to the first two. Old movement is still in the game (to my knowledge); starlanes allow some very interesting strategic decisions to be made, while taking away a few as well. Blockading key star systems is useful now.

Similarly, wormholes can be useful now instead of being mostly garbage.

Planets can have scripted queues based on what 'type' they are chosen to be.

And there's more, but I'm tired of saying this over and over. Yes, I'm somewhat bummed that they aren't making this game as complicated as they could have. At the same time, I recognize the amount of complexity already in the game. Each major feature of the game - exploration, research, space combat, ground combat, planet growth, government decisions, ship construction - all are easily at least twice as complex as Moo2 was.

Personally, that makes me interested in the game.

[Comrade Tribune]

Yeah, ok, you have summed up about everything that could be said in the defence of Moo3; now to why I believe it doesn´t add up to much:

-Ground Combat: Wrong focus. You are the Emperor, not a squad leader. At this level, ground combat could be as simplified as it was in Moo1, as far as I am concerned. Long term Social Engineering decisions would be a thousand times more appropriate for the role you are playing.

-Real time Space Combat: Bad idea. Simply doesn´t fit with a TBS. Makes Pbem impossible. Makes MP problematic for people with a slow connection. Will crash all the time I bet. And make for truly lousy aesthetics. Of the original Emrich design, two ideas were bad: Real time Space Combat, and the new Races. (The old Races were fun; why fix something that isn´t broken.) They implemented the few bad ideas of Emrich´s, and threw out the many good ones.

Governments, as you describe them, were implemented in CtP. Hardly an original idea, and far from the TRUELY political sim Mr. Emrich envisioned.

Unrest: Welcome to Civ in space: Unrest or no Unrest, no shades of gray, and probably perfectly predictable. Everything straightforward. None of the complexities of real life where decisions have many consequences, some short term, some long term, most of them unforeseen. To create these complexities was the truely wonderful part of Mr. Emrich´s vision, a vision that was cold-bloodedly murdered.

Spying: Good God! You had more Spying Missions in CivII. Do you have an idea what the original Moo3 design wanted to do with this? It would have amounted
to a game in the game.

Everything else: Something added here, something taken away there. Overall: +-0.

And your description is an optimistic one. The completed game could well be worse than your expectation, but, for all we know, it can hardly be better. I see CIVIII DISASTER in large, unfriendly letters written on the horizon.

[SeanV]

-Ground Combat: Wrong focus. You are the Emperor, not a squad leader. At this level, ground combat could be as simplified as it was in Moo1, as far as I am concerned.

Spying: Good God! You had more Spying Missions in CivII. Do you have an idea what the original Moo3 design wanted to do with this?

Wait a minute Comrade Tribune. You don't like the idea of having some small amount of control over Ground Combat, (nothing deeper than Strategic Combat) but you like the idea of having another whole game inside of MOO3 devoted to espionage? Take this for example from the DD.

So, given the circle, and the mission type, the spy now has a potential target list. For example, if the choices were subversion, military, and sports, your spy might work his way into a Sporting event where a likely military officer is also frequently contactable.

They were going to have you acting as a controller (i.e. nursemaid) to your spy force. And you accept that without flinching. On the other hand you rant and rave that ground combat has been given too much depth. What it appears you are arguing for is a game tailored to your particular tastes. Some people might prefer a well developed ground combat system and a espionage system that only let you sabotage military installations, provoke revolts and steal tech. (Not that I am one of those people, I personally prefer espionage to ground combat, but hey, if it is going to have them all they have to be balanced.) In Alan's dream of MOO3 their would have been twenty different games you could play, each one as deep as the Pacific Ocean. (Which would have been the coolest thing under the sun.) People who spent most of their time playing RPGs could spend all their shiny IFPs creating spies and seeding them throughout the galaxy. People who enjoyed galactic politics could spend from now until they died wallowing in the Byzantine depths of galactic intrigue. When IG tried to put it all together they found that it would take 20 years and 500 programmers to put it all together. So things were cut. Some cuts were good and some were questionable. But I am confident what is left is a much improved version of MOO1 and MOO2. Screaming about how they promised to give us ADOM+Hitman+SMAC+Star Wars: Episode 25 won't change anything now.

[moomin]

This entire thread is an illustration of why companies probably shouldn't be too forthcoming with their design decisions.

Those of us who know first thing about software development looked at those design docs, smiles crookedly, and thought it'd be interesting to see how much mad it through the crunch. Apparently this wasn't obvious to the public at large.

Perhaps, as the Comrade would put it, it wasn't apparent to the slow witted.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by moomin
Perhaps, as the Comrade would put it, it wasn't apparent to the slow witted.

How often do you have been told they cut a lot of things that had already been programmed? It´s not me stating this, they themselves said so time and again. If you simply won´t accept things both sides agree upon as given fact -that most of the complexities could be done and were done!-, then discussion with you is a bit pointless, no?!

[BitMaster]

Originally posted by moomin
Those of us who know first thing about software development looked at those design docs, smiles crookedly, and thought it'd be interesting to see how much mad it through the crunch. Apparently this wasn't obvious to the public at large.

Amen. Your words in [deity/similiar concept of choice]'s ear.