Can it get any more simplistic?

[RolandtheMad]

Mmmmm redundancy..

[vee4473]

hmm...i think a detailed political simulator, if even possible, is something that only really really hard core sim fans could appreciate.

Not to say it is bad, it would be most interesting actually.

But, I don't think MOO was ever about being a political sim. It seems like a conquest game to me. Why not follow along those lines?

But I have limited experience with MOO.

[vee4473]

sorry wrong place to post my last post

[vee4473]

hmm...i think a detailed political simulator, if even possible, is something that only really really hard core sim fans could appreciate.

Not to say it is bad, it would be most interesting actually.

But, I don't think MOO was ever about being a political sim. It seems like a conquest game to me. Why not follow along those lines?

But I have limited experience with MOO.

[vee4473]

my post was intended at CT.

i got all confused! too many beers..

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Rantz
because feedback and enduser experience isn't relayed in formulas. In a HUGE amount of the cases, formulas remained the same, the depiction and feedback mechanism changed.

I was mostly thinking of items like in this screen. How could the formulas stay the same, if you dropped most of the content?

[Straybow]

Hmmm, for once I agree with CT… tentatively. I don't see how the feedback can be one dimensional without the effect being one dimensional.

Unless QS finally took my suggestion to "hide the numbers from the players."

[raghar]

Originally posted by vee4473
you know,

I never got a response to whether "rantz" and "chantz" is a coincidence



anyone know?

Chantz said he used it before he knew Rantz, and Rantz used it probably well before too.

[Jack Frost]

I'm so sick of the EU/HoI games getting labeled as "amazingly deep" and the "rebirth of strategy games".

They are neither. Neither are suited for RT, they would play far better as a turn based game, and the interface might have worked better. It is a pure attempt to appeal to a broad audience at the cost of ... gameplay for these games to be real time.

But the engine for EU is probably one of the simplest game engines I've ever seen. In reality, WC3 is far deeper in what you can do, and the decisions more meaningful.

HoI is deeper, but still isn't that deep. After picking the country you want to go to war with, there isn't much to do except beat them up and pick the next. Until you are at war with all of them, in which case you are just beating up everyone. Sound dull? Well unless you are planning on recreating history while roleplaying your nation it is. I got bored with each of the games after 2 sessions because honestly, there really wasn't much strategy required to consistantly win the game.


PS: a lot of what old schoolers consider 'strategy' games have died due to the lack of actual strategy and reliance on artificial depth (like HoIs needlessly pointless tech tree). The bottom line is that if a game is played at all competitivly by even a small community charts containing cost/benifit will be overly available for those who want to know what the 'best' decision is. As it would only take a hard core player about 6 hours with a calculator to find ideal paths. After that it retains far less depth then Civ3s... unless you are a total n00b who just stares at the screen lost in the 47 different choices you have at any given time.

[TheMaestro]

Go download Strategic Command, it's cool. Simple, old-school graphics, but mega-fun TBS!

Nations of Europe fight one another in WWII.

Still waiting on MOO.

[TheMaestro]

[Rantz]

Originally posted by Straybow

Unless QS finally took my suggestion to "hide the numbers from the players."

In many cases, that's exactly it, in other cases (like slaves for example) the controls and feedback were placed in areas where there would be logical association.

And Rantz and Chantz is a coicidence. The name on my driver's liscence and Soc. card reads Rantz A. Hoseley.

Chantz = Constantine Hantzopolis compressed version of his name.

(Funny aside, at the first E3 promoing MOO, Con didn't believe my name was really Rantz until I showed him my driver's liscence. He thought it was my 'stage name' lol...)

[RealTimestopper]

Originally posted by Rantz


In many cases, that's exactly it, in other cases (like slaves for example) the controls and feedback were placed in areas where there would be logical association.

And Rantz and Chantz is a coicidence. The name on my driver's liscence and Soc. card reads Rantz A. Hoseley.

Chantz = Constantine Hantzopolis compressed version of his name.

(Funny aside, at the first E3 promoing MOO, Con didn't believe my name was really Rantz until I showed him my driver's liscence. He thought it was my 'stage name' lol...)

We kantz believe it in Frantz
nor while we dantz
nor at the point of a lantz
nor while we farm our plantz
nor while we get our government grantz
We kantz believe it anywhere.

Sorry Dr Suess.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DeadDireWolf]

Originally posted by Jack Frost
I'm so sick of the EU/HoI games getting labeled as "amazingly deep" and the "rebirth of strategy games".

They are neither. Neither are suited for RT, they would play far better as a turn based game, and the interface might have worked better. It is a pure attempt to appeal to a broad audience at the cost of ... gameplay for these games to be real time.

But the engine for EU is probably one of the simplest game engines I've ever seen. In reality, WC3 is far deeper in what you can do, and the decisions more meaningful.

HoI is deeper, but still isn't that deep. After picking the country you want to go to war with, there isn't much to do except beat them up and pick the next. Until you are at war with all of them, in which case you are just beating up everyone. Sound dull? Well unless you are planning on recreating history while roleplaying your nation it is. I got bored with each of the games after 2 sessions because honestly, there really wasn't much strategy required to consistantly win the game.


PS: a lot of what old schoolers consider 'strategy' games have died due to the lack of actual strategy and reliance on artificial depth (like HoIs needlessly pointless tech tree). The bottom line is that if a game is played at all competitivly by even a small community charts containing cost/benifit will be overly available for those who want to know what the 'best' decision is. As it would only take a hard core player about 6 hours with a calculator to find ideal paths. After that it retains far less depth then Civ3s... unless you are a total n00b who just stares at the screen lost in the 47 different choices you have at any given time.

Well said. Very well said.

[Grumbold]

EU and HoI did their bit to revitalise the grand strategic level strategy game market. They're real time to make them more suited to multiplayer but in SP mode you can make them as turn based as you like by changing any or all events to pause the game. Nobody is saying they are perfect, but they are distinctly better than the majority of "strategy" titles that have been released in recent years and personally I include Civ III in that.