Worst fears coming true: Quarter to Three Review

[billybaruch1]

I think the player's AI is managed in MoO3 with development plans. The player sets the broad scope of things and the viceroys do the rest. It sounds good to me.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by lockstep
Civ3 may be a bad example, but IMO there could have been some middle ground between 'just watch what the governors do' and 'tell each and every of dozens of cities to add a research lab/mass transit/whatever to their build queue'. Civ3 endgames on large/huge maps are micromanaging nightmares.

I'm really hoping that the Moo3 viceroys and develepment plans will make for a different TBS endgame.

You make good points, however, I think you shouldn´t have so many cities in the first place.

Why shouldn´t 10-15 cities serve to represent a *large* empire? I do not understand this 'quantitative' approach at all.

As an intelligent design, look at Chess, or Avalon Hill´s Third Reich. Uncluttered. But still very deep.

[Infidel]

Originally posted by XentWraith


Now, let's see, I - and I think I'm not alone on this - would be VERY happy with MOO2 style combat (2D turn based) because it's first of all turn based and that means a lot of detail options can exist - remember boarding ships?

Turn based combat with several-hundred ship battles?

Brilliant idea, that.

I think that the new direction of MOO3 required real-time combat. (Pausable would've been nice) The MOO2 system was unfeasible.

And keep in mind, plenty of MOO1 fans were dissatisfied with MOO2...

Anyway, in my estimation, the biggest mistake of the entire project was _Hasbro's_ decision t lock the game into 800x600 - and Infogrames decision to continue down that road...

-infidel

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by kalbear
CT, it doesn't matter what reviewers say at this point. Or even friends. You won't like this game. Even if it did rule and did everything you wanted it to by now, you'd hate it.

This is untrue. (And a bit silly.) Say, someone who I know is rather a sceptic, such as, say, Yin, praised Moo3, this would certainly convince me to give it another look. But that won´t happen, I predict.

And if they now start to totally remake it, with vast complexity, *but* the player making all important decisions, then I certainly will start praising it again.

But that won´t happen, either. So I simply hope the game will not be a success, because then, Moo4 might be different.

[leiavoia]

You guys are getting really carried away here:

the AI does NOT run the game for you - all it does it manage your colonies, and when you've got 6 dozen of them, i say "fine - manage away". You can turn the AI off if you are going to have a fit with it, but you won't. You'll kiss it's feet and shower it with gifts of appreciation for not turning MOO3 into a micromanagement hell. It isn't stupid and does a decent job of running the place.

Also, if all you do is click the next turn button, you will certainly lose. Much of the game needs your attention as it should: spying, diplomacy, anything military related, dev plans, ship building and fleet/TF contruction. etc.

The AI steps in where it should: colonizing (if you specifically tell it it may), colony maintenance (if you let it), ship combat (if you let it), ground combat (if you let it), and technology and research (if you let it).

see the point?

Keeping your empire afloat is the AI's job (if you let it). Winning the game is yours.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Why shouldn´t 10-15 cities serve to represent a *large* empire? I do not understand this 'quantitative' approach at all.

As an intelligent design, look at Chess, or Avalon Hill´s Third Reich. Uncluttered. But still very deep.

Maybe 10-15 cities/star systems 'could' represent a large empire in an intellegent TBS design. OTOH, in the original Civ and in the original MoO - IMO both very 'intelligently' designed - 10-15 cities/star systems did NOT represent large empires on anything but the smallest world/galaxy size.

[kalbear]

On a lighter note:

Jonah Falcon went on a tirade to Brett Todd, talking about his review, right? He said he e-mailed Brett, gave him a piece of his mind, called him a liar. Did the same thing here and on usenet as well.

Well, aside from being rude, it's really funny. Why? Because Brett Todd DIDNT WRITE THIS REVIEW. The writer is Tom Chick.

Brett Todd is one of my fav writers at GamesDomain, and did the bi-weekly column rant for a long time. But he didn't write the review, he hasn't written the review of MoO3, and he hasn't even played the game yet.

So not only did Jonah Falcon misquote me and Tom Chick, he used those misquotes to flame some guy that had nothing to do with the review.

[Bernie Rubber]

I've already argued my position thouroughly.. I don't need to back it up again unless someone argues against what I've written.

[XentWraith]

Originally posted by Infidel


Turn based combat with several-hundred ship battles?
....
Anyway, in my estimation, the biggest mistake of the entire project was _Hasbro's_ decision t lock the game into 800x600 - and Infogrames decision to continue down that road...

-infidel

Good point, it would not work with hundreds of ships, but it wouldn't have to be hundreds of ships. Again, we're going for that entire realism debate. MOO2 tried to restrict the number of ships one had.... not a brilliant idea, but necessary. Personally speaking, later in game it was rather difficult to battle it out with 50 or so ships on each side, but I'm sure that could be addressed.

Taskforces are nice too, they were meant to do that, would be especially nice to do that with the little ships. Later in the game you probably won't need to use a scout ship individually... a waste. In any case, I think the combat could have been done turn based. There were no technical problems stopping it. Look at it this way, in real time it is more difficult to give orders if you have a hundred ships on screen (that's why they have task forces). Whatever concept they use in real time, I'm sure it could be adapted to turn based game and then given some extra options.

They wanted a multiplayer game too, which is all nice, but - for what I can only call lack of imagination - the developers felt real time combat is the only way to resolve battles quickly enough for multiplayer games. I personally think that is not the case. Just off the top of my head, MOO2 would have been a lot nicer if you could observe other player's battles when you were done with yours. Plus, really, what are they saying now? battles are quick enough so that it won't really disrupt the game? Well what does that mean... that there's not much to them? Also, what about a hybrid real time/tb system where you issue orders and then you click the "turn" button and both sides try to resolve those orders in a quick round of real time battle... then repeat. Doesn't sound awfully bad to me... in any case, it's just wishing at this point.

I suppose you are right about the resolution, not that it would make the game look much better, it's quite bland from the screenshots I've seen. Unfortunately, it is difficult to have 2D interfaces scale across resolutions, so they need to select one (usually). 1024x would probably have worked just fine, and perhaps it would have made things look a bit neater on screen. It's a cosmetic issue mostly, belive me, if the game is good the resolution will be easily forgiven.

Sincerely,
XentWraith

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Infidel
Except for the fact that the IFP version of the game was even MORE unplayable than the current version (according to Chick) is...

I think so-called unplayability wasn´t his point. If it was just a bad interface or something, I can live with that.

But he is stating that the game doesn´t really allow me any more to be in *full* control of even a part of it. In the earlier versions, I hear, if you spent IFPs in one area, you *could* micro-manage that area, to your heart´s content. And your leaders would certainly not over-ride your decisions there, I presume.

Or, if they did, they could be hanged, drawn and quartered, which is a consolation.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by leiavoia
Keeping your empire afloat is the AI's job (if you let it). Winning the game is yours.

Keeping the empire afloat should be the hard thing. If the ai does that for you, winning will be the easy thing (except if opponents cheat like hell).

This is why the reviewer thought the game is no challenge at all.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by leiavoia
You guys are getting really carried away here:

the AI does NOT run the game for you - all it does it manage your colonies, and when you've got 6 dozen of them, i say "fine - manage away". You can turn the AI off if you are going to have a fit with it, but you won't. You'll kiss it's feet and shower it with gifts of appreciation for not turning MOO3 into a micromanagement hell. It isn't stupid and does a decent job of running the place.

Also, if all you do is click the next turn button, you will certainly lose. Much of the game needs your attention as it should: spying, diplomacy, anything military related, dev plans, ship building and fleet/TF contruction. etc.

The AI steps in where it should: colonizing (if you specifically tell it it may), colony maintenance (if you let it), ship combat (if you let it), ground combat (if you let it), and technology and research (if you let it).

see the point?

Keeping your empire afloat is the AI's job (if you let it). Winning the game is yours.

ehh, i guess we will all have to just wait and see whether or not having 6 dozen colonies equals fun in the first place.

I know alot of people want a "deep" strategy game, but having so many colonies/cities to manage, to the point where you "need" the computer to step in, questions whether a game should be that huge in the first place...

I think the civ games kept things fairly easy enough to manage without "having" to resort to the ai to manage things. Civ had governors of course, but you could due without 'em. In moo3, it seems absolutely necessary to use "governers". Bad move i think.

And..keeping your empire afloat was always the players' job in other games i believe...you kinda made CT's point...The game seems too complex to enjoy unless you DO engage the viceroys, which removes the whole reason for playin' an empire building game in the first place..

I will wait to see what you guys have to say after buying and playing!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by lockstep
Maybe 10-15 cities/star systems 'could' represent a large empire in an intellegent TBS design. OTOH, in the original Civ and in the original MoO - IMO both very 'intelligently' designed - 10-15 cities/star systems did NOT represent large empires on anything but the smallest world/galaxy size.

I usually played them on small worlds.

The ideal game is one where you have a quite limited number of options, but have to ponder each of them very long (because it doesn´t forgive mistakes).

[Infidel]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


I usually played them on small worlds.

The ideal game is one where you have a quite limited number of options, but have to ponder each of them very long (because it doesn´t forgive mistakes).

I think you'd find significant opposition to this POV. Most gamers I know ADORE options - the more, the better...

It's something I find very appealing when looking at this title. Options out the wazoo...

-infidel

[kalbear]

So CT: the best game for you would be one with a yes/no button for the question 'do I have an odd number of fingers up behind my back'? Only one option, and presumably you lose if you choose wrong - that's pretty unforgiving...

Yes, I know your statement was a generalization and I took it to an extreme. Spare me that. I think that is a valid opinion - having little choices but much overall strategy - and a good game. But it's not the only option for a good game, nor is it the best option for any individual person.