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

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
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'.

Amen. But, on the bright side, with Moo3, we will be getting the '10th Z' instead.
(As in )

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
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.

Ah, sorry, but have you every played Civ and Moo? Comparing them would be like saying that checkers and chess aren't *that* different because both games involve boards with checkered patterns and pieces that move across them!

SMAC and MoO are *only* alike in that they are turn based, deal with empire building and managing population/production centers and units. Contrary to what you may think games can be totally different even with the same basic foundations, just as automobiles can be totally different even though they have 4 wheels an engine and require a driver.

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

Good AI

We are talking about SMAC here, there is no such thing as "Good AI" when discussing that game.

Good Diplomacy system

Agreed on this one, I particularly like how you can ask your "friends" to stop fighting another group.

Effective and unbiased Combat system

Hmm, effective and unbiased? As long as you like 32,000 ship stacks for MoO and never use any helo/air units in SMAC.

Mod-ability (scenario and customization)

Funny, it's been awhile sine I last played MoO but I can't seem to remember being able to make or play *any* scenario's with that game.

Multiplayer modes (sans SP gurus)

I don't think original MoO had MP.

Enchanting, yet adequate, graphics and sound

Enchanting graphics in SMAC? Sure, if you liked seeing only red and green for terrain.

Intelligent Interface

As long as you liked wading through multiple menu's in SMAC.

Micro-management assistance (AI governors, etc.)

AI govenors which were as stupid as the regular AI (in SMAC). Were there even govenors in MoO, I sure don't remember any.

And of course fun units and technologies

Technologies partially yes, but it took quite awhile to get used to the technologies in SMAC. I liked how MoO handled technology better, you could research some stuff but all of it wasn't always in the same list and you often had to get the next tech to be able to compete with other tech's. The tech race was truly a rock-paper-scissors act, which was nice because one unit type couldn't always win vs. another unit.

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'.

Otherwise known as a "back story". Most of the good games used to include a little history bit with their games, but all of them didn't feel compelled to force the player to act in a certain manner towards other players. One of the problems with SMAC was that unless you did play MP, you pretty much knew exactly how all the other factions would act in every single game. Not very appealing for the replay value.

Of course, both Civ2 and MoO2 didn't appeal much to me because I had spent hundreds and thousands of hours playing the originals so was jaded on the rehash of the "same old thing" that the sequals did. I am glad that MoO3 seems to have expanded the dynamics of the game as Civ3 did with resources, culture, armies, etc.

[Sarxis]

Geezuz Ozymandous, all you had to reply with was "Pfft.. Whatever".

I wasn't actually trying to compare the two series with that list btw, just pointing out the things that are worth comparing.

Again, I just don't find the the games so different that they can't be compared. Well wait a second! You just did compare them with that last post, didn't you?

[Ozymandous]

Actually...

The first part of the post I said that you still can't compare them just because they have basic similarities, the gameplay and strategies, i.e. "the feel of the game". The rest of the post was simply stating the problems I had with all that you listed.

Any comparisons to the games was a reflection of your comparison earlier, but to me you still can't compare the games since they are totally different entities.

A better example of how games can be in the same "genre" but totally different is Quake and Theif. Both were FPS, but the gameplay and objectives of each were vastly different.

[Grumbold]

In one S stood for Shooter and in the other Sneaker. Not even populist magazines like PC Gamer put those two in the same category.

There are fundamental similarities between Civ, SMAC, MoO and others but areas where they are different too. That is a good thing

[Arnelos]

Man... a lot of people are strategy gaming newborns

Being the owner of and having played Civilization, Master of Orion, Master of Magic, CivNet, Master of Orion 2: Battle at Antares, Civilization II, Civilization II Multiplayer Gold, Alpha Centauri, Alpha Centauri: Alien Crossfire, Civilization III, and Civilization III: Play the World....

I'll rank them as follows:

1. Master of Orion
2. Alpha Centauri: Alien Crossfire
3. Alpha Centauri
4. Civilization III
5. Civilization II: Multiplayer Gold
6. Civilization II
7. Master of Orion 2
8. Master of Magic
9. Civilization
10. Civilization III: Play the World
11. CivNet

The original Master of Orion may not have been terribly high graphics or terribly high tech, it may not have been as intellectually satisfying as SMAC or as customizable as Moo2, but it was just a hell of a lot of fun in a way that I've never really experienced with any other game in the entire genre. I still go back to play the original Moo even after all these years. I even made sure I got a sound card for my new computer that could emulate SB16 sound in DOS just for the original Master of Orion.

I agree with the relative newcomers to strategy gaming at the top of the thread that SMAC is an incredible game and it's by far one of my favorites and one of the ones I most anticipated (I was an avid poster on the Firaxis SMAC boards for a FULL YEAR before the game came out ) and it strikes a great balance between micromangement, queue use, and grand strategy.

But for just pure fun without all the fixings, nothing beats the original Master of Orion.

My hope for Master of Orion 3 is that it won't be the let-down I thought Master of Orion 2 was... Moo2 was great for multi-player and customization and graphics, but it just wasn't FUN the way Moo1 was and it didn't have the same level of grand strategy. It was more of dealing with thousands of build queue's and micromanging colonists than it was about grand strategy.

SMAC is so good because it strikes a nice balance between grand strategy and micromanagement. My hope is that Moo3 does the same.

I've played 'em all and I know what I want

[moomin]

MoO over MoM?

Taste sure differs.

[Grumbold]

Civ III over any of the rest mentioned?

It sure does.

I'd echo the comments about the original MoO though. Had I got a system that could play it I would still be returning to it from time to time.

[Kc7mxo]

I honestly don't understand what people find fascinating about the original moo. Certainly, it was a great game when it came out, so was civilization. But I never played civ after I bought civ 2. There's a lot of fond memories there, but you just can't go home again. Its like trying to play dune 2 after you've played starcraft or red alert 2.

Moo2 is above and beyond moo in so many ways, I cannot understand why people continue to prefer it. I've got a good buddy who's like that, the only thing he's ever been able to put his finger on is that he prefers moo's simplicity over moo2's complexity. For me, complexity is almost always BETTER than simplicity. I want more options, more abilities.

Consider Axis and Allies. Sure, its a fun board game. Plenty of strategy availble in it. But after I bought the added unit expansions, I just couldn't play the orignial anymore. It just felt so small.

Its like a childhood playground. You just can't go back.

[Sarxis]

Its nostalgia; really, it is.

[kalbear]

It's not just nostalgia - MOO had a lot going for it that got obliterated by the MOM-like Moo2.

Tech trees were randomized, multiple trees could be researched at the same time. You didn't get every tech every game. Ever get stuck not being able to get Deuts? That sucked hard, but made some games hugely challenging.

Auto-updating your colonies with the latest factory/terraforming deal. This alone made me miss MOO, more than virtually anything else. If you get autofactory 2, you can say 'yes, I want all my colonies to use it, duh'.

Ease of dealing with colonies. No build queues. They could indeed be building ships, factories and terraforming all at the same time, and you didn't have to MM them to death.

There was a lot to like. I also liked the massive amounts of ships you could produce. I miss megabolt cannon. I miss that biological warfare did matter on occasion. Admittedly, MOO2 is in most ways a superior game, but I can't say that it's simply better - unlike, say, Civ2 vs. Civ.

Then again, I don't understand why anyone would play Civ2 once they played SMAC, but hey, whatever floats yer boat.

[Harry Seldon]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
I honestly don't understand what people find fascinating about the original moo.

Three words, baby... Black Hole Generators. There's nothing I enjoyed more than watching that crappy fleet of 4000 destroyers with one laser a piece vanish in the space of five turns.

That's revenge for my fleet of Doomstars, you Infidels!

[Arnelos]

kalbear hit the nail on the head...

What makes the original Moo stand out is that it had a lot of features that Moo2 (for some god-awful reason) took OUT.

For instance:

- Empire-wide production goals... you just discovered Automated Factorires level IV or whatever... you can tell the ENTIRE EMPIRE to devote a given percentage of its production toward the factory automation before completing other tasks.... same thing went for new planetary shield advances, soil enrichment advances, terraforming advances, etc.

- A MUCH MUCH MUCH better spy game that was a ton of fun compared to Moo2... I was highly disappointed by Moo2's spy system, which gives you far less things to do and requires more micromanagement build building individual spies. Moo used a slider... it cost more to have more spies... simple. And the meat of the spy game was in what you DID WITH YOUR SPIES rather than the annoyance of what you had to do to build them. Moo2 will just let you stick them on "espionage" or "sabotage" and hope they do something randomly nice every once in a blue moon. How disappointing!

- Revolutions. Let's face it, one of the things that made the original Moo so much fun was causing Emperor Sauron of that annoying Sakkra empire you'd been fighting to get overthrown by his own people and replaced by some Pacifistic Ecologist who'd actually sign treaties with you ah, the glory of creating satellite regimes

- The randomized technology tree. This is one of the things that made the original design for Moo3 sound so good compared to Moo2... the original Moo HAD a randomized tech tree so that every game didn't play out the same way No matter how many times I play Moo2 with my friends, we always end up researching the same techs over-and-over... Moo2 tried to create different paths by forcing you to make a choice between 3 different techs, but most people agree on which of the three techs are clearly superior and it takes 3 human players working in cooperation to make sure you get all of the techs (or just bribing the AI for ones you'd like). In the original Moo, the techtree was randomized such that you couldn't anally plan out your future technology the way you could do in Moo2 and you might actually have to use some neat new tools you didn't use in the your last 12 games.

- Sheer scale. One of the more annoying aspects of Moo2 was that your entire empire's fleet was a few ships and entire galactic conflicts could be decided by a single battle between a few cruisers on each side. What the original Moo had going for it was sheer scale. You were moving around armadas of fleets and worrying about supply lines and fleet gathering points and strategic fronts and large-scale battle attrition, etc. etc, etc. Moo2 just doesn't have the same level of grand strategy.

- Not being excessively anal with colony micromanagement. The system of managing individual colonies was simple and workable. It used these wonderful things called SLIDERS. Moo2 dropped this for a lame attempt to use concepts developed from the Civilization games and adapt them to a space strategy game... it just doesn't work. Most games of Moo2 end up being large micro-management fests. You spend too much time worrying about how many workers Denzab IV is going to put on industry rather than science rather than worrying about larger issues.

I could list more, but there's little need. I like Moo2 and I think it's a good game, it's just that Moo1 was more FUN because you didn't have to deal with all the micromanagement and you got more of the grand strategy and epic scale. As many game designers have lost sight of over the years, GAMEPLAY matters more to many gamers than graphics or sound effects or even multiplayer capability. If you make a good GAME, people will play it and like it.

[campfreddie]

MOO2 woul've been great if:

1) the tech tree was randomised (each advance could randomly appear in the level above or below its default) and 'creative' made less powerful.

2) Instead of 'autobuild' have 'use default queue' and 'set default queue'. If you could set a list of building priorities and just say to all your vanilla colonies 'build things in this order'. It was just too painful to build a new colony and be presented with 50+ build options and have to select the same old queue again. Or to have to edit all your build queues whenever you researched something new.

On the issue of complexity, MOO2 had lots more decisions to make, but most of them were 'duh' type decisions, selecting build queues and shuffling workers around. MOO1 had less to do but the things that you could do were more fun.

[Grumbold]

People have covered a lot of what I prefer about MoO. I would add that I never felt that a single ship strategy was all-powerful. Go for a big ship strategy and you could be defeated by the 2,000 strong scout force armed with bioweapons because you couldn't shoot them all before they reached your planet. Go for destroyers and the BHG could neuter you.

MoO2 reduced that scale down to a couple of dozen warships per side and eliminated some of the alternative strategies. I will also never forgive it for automatically upgrading all your ground batteries and space stations to the weapons which have no effect against space monsters and Antarrans just because they are higher in the tech tree than the other weapons you've researched. Duh!!