MOO 3 is brilliant, but ahead of its time.

[Zanman]

The harsh critics of MOO 3 should have a bit more patience in my opinion.

It is one of the most subtle games I have ever played, except perhaps for Chinese Go and I would bet a dollar MOO 3 is based in part on some of the concepts in that great game.

I almost gave up too. For several hours I didn’t know what I was doing, why I was doing it, why things were happening, even how to navigate the interface, and the manual is not a great help. Nothing seemed to make any sense.
But having played on, I am beginning to understand its depth and complexity and have found that MOO 3 is truly HUGE intellectually.

Those who have been weaned on the so called “Real-Time-Strategy” games (a term which has always seemed oxymoronic to me) will be disappointed, as will anyone wanting to hurl plasma particles at marauding waves of the enemy fleet. It ain’t gonna happen. In fact, you may have to wait 50 turns for anything to “happen”, but what is really happening is happening behind the scenes, and is not at all obvious, which is why MOO 3 will appeal mainly to the real strategy freaks, who live on pizza, beer and C++.

All that said, the interface is difficult and does not always seem logical. For example, shouldn’t I be able to build ships in the Shipyard rather than the Military sub-screen of the Planetary Economics screen? Just wondering. Regardless of purist theory it would make it easier on us newbies if things were where you expected them to be.
Also, I DO NOT LIKE IT WHEN A VICEROY CHANGES MY ORDERS WITHOUT WARNING. Any viceroy who did that in real life would soon find himself orbiting a distant planet! There could be just a tad more micro-management.
The game screams for a real tutorial - the Masters pop-ups look like an afterthought thrown in when someone noticed that this is the Mother of all Interfaces.

Otherwise, it’s a great game truly is ahead of its time.

[duodecimal]

Yes, it is.

About two years ahead of its time, by Rantz's estimation.

[darcy]

Chinese Go

That comparison makes me wonder if you have ever played Go.

Go has exactly three rules. You can learn these three rules in five minutes. And then you can spend the rest of your life improving your play.

Moo3 is the exact opposite. It has zillions of opaque, hidden and confusing rules, or rather formulas. You can spend weeks trying to figure them out, and once you do, you'll see how hollow the game truly is strategically. Please don't mistake lots of rules with complexity.

Go: A minute to learn, a lifetime to master
Moo3: A lifetime to learn, a minute to put it away

And by the way, Go is the Japanese name for the game. If you want to point out its Chinese origins, it would be better to refer to it as Wei Qi.

on the so called “Real-Time-Strategy” games (a term which has always seemed oxymoronic to me)

Now I must really question your expertise when it comes to games in general. People who look at RTSs for the first time often think they are playing a clickfest devoid of strategy (funnily those are the same people who whine when an RTS expert mops the floor with them ).

That's because they expect the strategy to be in the military operations. That part is indeed nothing more than "lasso troops, hurl at enemy" in RTSs. The strategy however lies entirely in the economy. Build queues, resource control etcetera. Those very things that Moo3 automates for you.

If there's one game that doesn't deserve to have "strategy" in its name it's MoO "watch your AIs play for you" 3.

[CharlesBHoff]

In real life than viceroyal can change or disobey than order would cause great harm to the overlord greaster purpose. In world war II Churchhill order the viceroyal of India to murber Gandhi . The viceroyal total disobey this supid order.
The reason this was than supid order is that England needed troop from India to fight in North Africe. It Gandhi was murber India people would have resolt against England
right way and the troop England needed would have to stay
in India to end the revolt of the people there.
Plus only the King have the authoreity to order the viceroyal any way. When Churchill found out that the viceroyal disobey him, Churchill went to the King to have the viceroyal command to obey the King refuse Churchill request
on the sport as being supid and illegal.

[Zanman]

Darcy, the word you are looking for here is “pedantic”, and it is better not to be, especially when you don't know your facts.

Chinese players, at least in Melbourne, refer to WeiChi as Go. Baduk is also referred to as Go. I would be happy to play you sometime.

That said, you say, “…you'll see how hollow the game truly is strategically. Please don't mistake lots of rules with complexity.”
Well … could you give me an example of what it is that makes the game so hollow? Especially in later turns?

As for RTS games … they have their place but they are hardly for deep thinkers. C&C type games when well-done can be fun, but they don’t require much thought, unless you think so ... "build queues"? ... please ...

[Zanman]

CharlesbHoff mate whatever you are smoking please quit immediately 'cos its bad for your brain!
Churchill never ordered the murder of Ghandi. He was annoyed by Ghandi, he was amused by him and perplexed by him, but he never ordered Ghandi killed!
If you have evidence to the contrary please post it. I would like to know your source.

[darcy]

What makes Moo3 hollow is the lack of interesting choices for the player. Neither early nor late in the game do you get to make important decisions that have any kind of impact.

Enemy is spying? Increase Oppressometer.
Found magnate? Click on "Colonize".
New technology popped up? Make ships obsolete, auto-build new ships.

and the ultimate one....
Talking to Sakkras? Click on tone "Demand".

These are the challenges Moo3 presents to you, and every Pawlovian dog can master them. All the interesting things like research, migration or Senate bills are either randomized or automated.

[vee4473]

RTS games are no more strategically devoid than a TBS game.

It's just that in a RTS game, you just have no time to spend on weighing every possible option. You need to assess the situation, make a decision and act.

Now, if you think that makes the game less deep or for idiots, then whatever.

The strategy is there, you just need to be faster in conceiving you startegy, something that I think makes RTS strategically harder than TBS. Not in all respects, but in that specific way.

I prefer to think that those who talk down RTS games just aren't used to thinking that fast and assume it's no deeper than "build 20 of the same unit and hurl them at the enemy."

Which I think can be said about early stages of TBS games as well. RTS has rushes of units and so can TBS.



If you think that the later stage of an RTS game is as simple as "buiild 30 units and rush the enemy" , then you will get beat every time by an experienced player.

And sit there wondering "How did this inferior thinking, unable to understand truly deep games type of person just beat me?"

[mactbone]

Starting off by saying that you have an intellectual superiority because you enjoy the game isn't a good way to endear youreself. Yes, the game is complex - but so is chess and yet I know how to play, I may suck at it, but I understand most of my actions and the reasoning behind them. With MoO3 I'm still wondering why they have DEA improvements if the AI researches them and builds them - I have no influence over them at all. Basically this is a game that plays itself (which isn't fun) and doesn't give immediate feedback after you make a decision.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by vee4473
"RTS games are no more strategically devoid than a TBS game."
True some RTS games are no less strategical than some TBS, but no RTS game is as strategical as most good TBS games, not enough time for it.

"Now, if you think that makes the game less deep or for idiots, then whatever."
What does this mean? If we disagree and have valid points you will dismiss them? The term whatever is for children and other less thought full people.

"The strategy is there, you just need to be faster in conceiving you startegy, something that I think makes RTS strategically harder than TBS. Not in all respects, but in that specific way."
This is not correct. You play a C&C game a few times and you have learned all you need to know to win. You play Moo2 a few times and you will not have figured out all the things that could be done. You will not have seen all the tactics that can be used.

"I prefer to think that those who talk down RTS games just aren't used to thinking that fast and assume it's no deeper than (build 20 of the same unit and hurl them at the enemy.)
This facetious, I will say right now, I can think as fast as 97% of the people alive in the USA according to the census. You are mistaking fast thinking for fast reacting.
It is a bit deeper than building a lot of units, but not much. BTW I love RTS games and played them from C&C up to Warcraft III. If you are a Zerig you are not doing a lot of strategical planning believe me. You are boosting some structures and cranking out units for a mad rush.
Maybe a terran may need some planning, but nothing that will tax anyone (starcraft reference for those that hav not played it).

"Which I think can be said about early stages of TBS games as well. RTS has rushes of units and so can TBS."
Finally something that makes sense.

"If you think that the later stage of an RTS game is as simple as (buiild 30 units and rush the enemy) , then you will get beat every time by an experienced player."
That may be true, but has no bearing on the topic as experienced players will beat non experienced players in any game or endevor, by and large.

"And sit there wondering (How did this inferior thinking, unable to understand truly deep games type of person just beat me?)
You are the one that is saying that only inferior people play RTS, not me. But reaction times will play a part and it will be at least as large a part as their IQ, same as a shooter.
Anyway I did not post this to discredit your views, but felt they should not go unchallenged. I think you were just a bit to vociferous.

[vee4473]

We will agree to disagree on RTS games vmx.

I posted what I did because I was the one who was getting sick of hearing the same old implication about how someone who doesn't like moo3 probably is a mind numbed bonehead who was "spoon-fed" RTS for so long.

That kind of attitude , that I was responding to, has a condescending tone that bugs me.

And by the way, I was directing my post at zanman, not you vmx.

[Zanman]

Vee4473, I did not imply that anyone who dislikes MOO3 is a “mind numbed bonehead”, as you put it, though some may be.
What I implied was that if you are looking for instant action, and (most) RTS games deliver in that respect, you will not find it in MOO3.

[vee4473]

ok ok

maybe i took it the wrong way. sorry

friends?

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by vee4473
We will agree to disagree on RTS games vmx.

I posted what I did because I was the one who was getting sick of hearing the same old implication about how someone who doesn't like moo3 probably is a mind numbed bonehead who was "spoon-fed" RTS for so long.

That kind of attitude , that I was responding to, has a condescending tone that bugs me.

And by the way, I was directing my post at zanman, not you vmx.

No sweat, I would take exception to the statement of boneheaded spoon fed RTS as well, since I like them almost as much as TBS. I have been known to act boneheaded once in awhile, but not as a rule.

[Zanman]

Yes of course Vee4473. I have no problem with what games people play, on the PC or in real life, unless of course its with Lisa ...