What Moo3 looks like from a SMACer's perspective..

[Hendrik]

I was drawn into the strategy game genre by SMAC. I still play it, I love it, I still find it compelling. I bought Civ3 when it came out - and was completely disappointed. I didn't think that such a step back from SMAC was possible with the much larger budget Firaxis and Infrogames had.

I have never played Moo2, but I did download Space Empires IV, and found it to be a micromanagement hell. Control of the macro aspects of your empire was much more limited- no social engineering. Instead I found myself bogged down by endless amounts of micromanagement- controlling huge numbers of planets and ships. The combat model was much more advanced, but didn't really add as much to the game's fundamentals. The tech tree was bland and uncreative, do we really need depleted uranium cannons levels 1-5? Managing an empire was boring and tedious.

I originally had high hopes for Moo3, what with the complex social model (IE more than just the oppressometer) and the interesting strategic possibilities created by upgrading/degrading starlanes and having strategic interdictors.

Now a lot of this has been cut, the economic model is severely dumbed down.

I also think I won't find the storyline as compelling compared to SMAC, Brian Reynolds crafted seven faction ideologies that are real and believable, and seven faction leaders who are believable and interesting. Different factions have significantly different playstyles.

My view on Moo3 right now is to wait for community reviews... after seeing Civ3 get high reviews I am not going to listen to the mainstream media as I am much more of a strategy nut than those reviewers. I really would like to see a new game that is less buggy than SMAC and doesn't have SP play that is crippled by the terrible AI... but I don't really expect it from Moo3.

Does anyone here see something in Moo3 that I am missing? Is there a gem hidden beneath a game that is increasingly looking more and more like Civ3?

[kalbear]

Good post, Hendrik.

I was also a big big fan of SMAC, for many of the reasons you named. I loved the storyline and the feel of the factions. I liked the government types, the borders, some of the diplomacy, the planet interaction, the tech tree...there was a lot to like.

There was a lot to dislike as well.

From what I've seen of the social and economic perspective of Moo3, it is at least as complex as SMAC, and in many areas much more so. You have fine-tuned control of taxes, oppression, happiness/recreation, industrial/research spending, and the amounts of development both short term and long-term you can spend on planetary infrastructure. In addition to this, you have planetary, system, and empire-level control of these policies. You have very different government types, slavery/forced labor policies, spying policies...again

Compare to SMAC's very rudimentary social structure, based almost entirely on CIV, and there's a lot to like.

One thing we haven't been privy to so far, at least not very much, is the story elements of MOO3. From what I've read and what's been hinted at, it looks far deeper than any space 4X game so far released. We don't know about the harvesters. We have no idea what the 5 Xs are or how they let you win. Or what the New Orions do. Or why the Mrrshans, Elerians, Alkari and Darloks aren't playable races but can be found. There's a lot of info that simply hasn't been released, and I suspect strongly that much of it is due to it being under massive NDA.

That's a step in the right direction.

Add to that a far better combat and military system than Civ of any kind, including SMAC ever had. With the ability and reason to not have massive micromanagement if you so desire - or to do it all yourself. To have better diplomacy and more options in the Senate - and actually not be the one that always has the votes. An espionage system that can be very effective, and not just by buying the opponent's units in cheesy ways.

And customizable races. Oooh, that's a big, BIG plus. As cool as the factions were in SMAC, I always wanted to be able to pick things as I saw fit with something other than a text editor.

The main thing that SMAC had? Wonders. Those wonderful, overbalancing yet totally cool wonders. MOO3 has not much similar to this. They have planetary specials, system events, the 5 Xs, but nothing like the 40+ wonders that I've seen. I'm not sure how much that makes sense in a game like this, but I bet they'd be fun to do.

And that's what I find missing - the wonders. That's really it.

You know what excites me a lot? The idea that if you declare war against a country that was a good ally or was well-liked by your people, unrest increases more than the normal amount that war causes. Whereas if someone attacks you and betrays you, unrest is much lower than normal war. Little things like that, that make sense and feel right, but haven't been seen in any Civ-style game I've ever played.

That's pretty cool.

And the graphics don't suck, either.

[moomin]

SMAC was a great game for reasons already mentioned here. But really, being light on MM isn't one of them. You've had the misfortune of bumping into SE IV, which is the one spae 4x worse than SMAC in this regard.

By all means, check out Moo for an enlightning lesson on the beauty of MM minimalism in 4x gaming.

[Kc7mxo]

Hmmm. A lot of people complain about micromanagement. Personally, I have some rather bad experiences with AI governors and subordinates. The Governors in Civ3 drove me up the wall and onto the ceiling!

Hopefully Moo3 will have much better governors. (Rumor says they're great, so I'll keep hoping). Its not that I mind letting them make decisions, as long as they DO EXACTLY WHAT I WANT!!!!

Hmm, I guess I don't much care for sharing of power.

[Asmodean]

Plus...the fact that the beta testers of MoO3, most of whom are avid strategy fans, all say they like MoO3. You could argue that they're under orders not to bash the game, but I have seen them lavish a great deal of praise on MoO3. So I figure that's something to go by.

Asmodean

Edited because beta testers are a lot of things. But one thing they are not is bets testers.

[TheMaestro]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Plus...the fact that the beta testers of MoO3, most of whom are avid strategy fans, all say they like MoO3. You could argue that they're under orders not to bash the game, but I have seen them lavish a great deal of praise on MoO3. So I figure that's something to go by.

Asmodean

Edited because beta testers are a lot of things. But one thing they are not is bets testers.

That's true! A lot of Beta testers are told to say, "say nice things, we gave you a free game."

Trust me, I learned that when I got to Beta test that FPS Command and Conquor, they would say if there's anything good...spread the word. All bad remarks in the game, please E-Mail Westwood studios, and inform them of what you dislike.

[Kc7mxo]

That's true! A lot of Beta testers are told to say, "say nice things, we gave you a free game."

Trust me, I learned that when I got to Beta test that FPS Command and Conquor, they would say if there's anything good...spread the word. All bad remarks in the game, please E-Mail Westwood studios, and inform them of what you dislike.

And thats really as it should be. After all, the good things will be staying in the game, while the bad things will, theoretically, be fixed. Why tell people bad things if they're not even guarenteed to be in the game after all.

[Mellian]

Also, the Beta testers were saying that a lot of their suggestions and what they disliked got fixed by quicksilver.

-Mellian

[DeadDireWolf]

@ Kalbear

Thank you for your optimism. You actually made me feel better.

If we sit and dwell on what isn't there any longer we'll all get pissed because I'm sure everyone had something cut that they desired.

However, just like you said, there is a lot we don't know and I'm feeling optimistic (today anyway) that there are some very good surprises in store.

Being human, I am becoming impatient for the game. But it won't be much longer now.

[Kc7mxo]

If we sit and dwell on what isn't there any longer we'll all get pissed because I'm sure everyone had something cut that they desired.

MONSTERS!

[Sarxis]

Re: What Moo3 looks like from a SMACer's perspective..

Originally posted by Hendrik
I didn't think that such a step back from SMAC was possible with the much larger budget Firaxis and Infrogames had.

Its called a 'Brain Drain'... I mean Brian drain

Btw, don't even ask about PBEM in MoO3. Looks like MoO has gone to the cows.

[DeadDireWolf]

Re: Re: What Moo3 looks like from a SMACer's perspective..

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
Looks like MoO has gone to the cows.

How about a 'Quack that's gone to the dogs'?

[Ozymandous]

Re: Re: What Moo3 looks like from a SMACer's perspective..

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba


Its called a 'Brain Drain'... I mean Brian drain

Btw, don't even ask about PBEM in MoO3. Looks like MoO has gone to the cows.

Well... Since SMAC was supposed to be "Civ" in space, and MoO has never BEEN Civ in space, to compare the two is exactly like comparing apples and oranges.

While both games are 4X type games and supposedly in space comparing them would be like complaining that the VW jetta you drive can't haul a heavily loaded trailor like the Dodge RAM truck I drive can. After all they are both vehicles used for transport, they both have 4 wheels and require fuel to drive but the similarities pretty much end there.

Besides, SMAC was more a "political" type game with the SE aspect and the drone stapling, where as Civ and MOO was always more concerned with how extrernal enemies fight more than the "Why". Who care about the "why" they are fighting, you just have to defend yourself or take what you need, that's what any conflict boils down to in the end.

Thankfully, Civ3 and apparently MoO3 LACK the idiotic SE aspect. I know some love it but if I want to study Poly Sci and how to govern people I'll do that in college, thank you very much.

[Sarxis]

You can compare the two, as they aren't so different as you are trying to make them out to be. Sure, the story settings and many of the particular game mechanics are different, but you can definately compare them.

The things worth comparing, and what most hardline 4X TBS gamers are looking for:

Good AI
Good Diplomacy system
Effective and unbiased Combat system
Mod-ability (scenario and customization)
Multiplayer modes (sans SP gurus)
Enchanting, yet adequate, graphics and sound
Intelligent Interface
Micro-management assistance (AI governors, etc.)
And of course fun units and technologies

BTW, one of the reasons SMAC is beloved by so many fans even now, is because it does give a 'Why' factions are fighting or are at peace/odds with one another. Heh, some might call that the '5th X'.

[Hendrik]

Actually the quicksilver site calls Moo3 a 5x game, with the 5th X being experience.

I have been playing Space empires IV in order to understand some of the basics of space combat, I am looking forward to the combat model in Moo3.

I think Moo3 will end up being an enjoyable game, but I know it will not replace SMAC in my heart.