Moo2 vs Moo1

Talk about strategy games like MoO series, Civilization, Europa Universalis, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#31 Post by utilae »

What exactly would you have instead of buildings? Even if you have buildings I think you could get around the micro management problem, easy.

Ablaze
Creative Contributor
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Amidst the Inferno.

#32 Post by Ablaze »

utilae wrote:What exactly would you have instead of buildings?
I think PC is talking about a system similar to MOO1, where you have a level of industry but instead of building a robotic factory, the technology raises your industry cap.
Time flies like the wind, fruit flies like bananas.

Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#33 Post by Daveybaby »

I think the moo1 approach is definitely the way to go. Thats the model i'm using for COW... with a few tweaks.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

#34 Post by Krikkitone »

That was one thing I liked about MOO1 the few times I played it. It had the right sense of scale, which the Civ games and MOO2/3 lacked. (although at least MOO3 put some population requirements on your buildings so they Sort of worked, and it also got the best population scale feel). After all a fully populated planet should feel like its in the billions if humanoids, not a little boomtown.

Ablaze
Creative Contributor
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Amidst the Inferno.

#35 Post by Ablaze »

COW? What's a cow?

Maybe, what creates a MOO?
Time flies like the wind, fruit flies like bananas.

Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#36 Post by Daveybaby »

This is a cow

Some discussion over on Orion Sector forums (starts near bottom of first page).[/url]

Impaler
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 12:40 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona USA

#37 Post by Impaler »

Humm seems Daveybaby is in favor of game design Dictatorship, admitadly thats faster and can produce a more focused design. But their are many good sides to group development, the crosspolination of ideas and blending of many talents can be truly inspired if well managed. It all comes down to how ideas are put together to create the whole.
Fear is the Mind Killer - Frank Herbert -Dune

Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#38 Post by Daveybaby »

Heh, dont get me wrong... i'm not saying my way is better - just that its the best way for me to develop the game that *i* want to develop. Besides, you guys are already doing the 'group design' thing - and i wish you all the best. The more Moo thats out there, the better IMO.

I will probably be opening up the design for discussion at some point in the forseeable future (when i get time to produce a proper webby for the project) so people will be more than welcome to comment/criticise/contribute if they want. But if there's something you want in the game that i dont want in there... well, there's only one person that gets a vote, and thats me :twisted: :wink:

And of course... the freeorion team are more than welcome to steal my superior game design ideas :wink:

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#39 Post by skdiw »

And the road stump in FO is...?

I do see buildings being too complicated, but we can think of building more as a symbol of achievement. I like stepped development more than gradual. But that doesn't mean I like buildings per se.
:mrgreen:

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

#40 Post by Krikkitone »

That's what I think buildings should be, Unique acheivement type things that you wouldn't have millions of.

I think this also works with the 'Focus Idea' of having some buildings/capacity improvement techs that only work when a planet has certain focuses (actually each economic tech/building could be given a type (Industry, Farming, Mining, Research) and a level (no focus needed, focus needed, major focus needed, total (major And minor) focus needed)

Anguille2
Space Krill
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 4:08 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Moo2 vs Moo1

#41 Post by Anguille2 »

Impaler wrote:I am wondering, Among thouse who have played both which was better Original Moo or Moo2?

I prefer Original Moo in many ways. The design of Moo2 was rather unoriginal, all of its core changes from original Moo are Civ rip offs such as the managment of food, buildings, money and workers. Original Moo didn't have a lot of these things admitadly but it was clearly not trying to rip off Civ which Moo2 dose shamlessly in every "new" element of the game.

Moo2 probly makes the greatest advance in its space combat engine (Unfortunatly Civ didn't have a space combat engine to rip off). I am not fully desided on my feelings towards Moo2's space combat though as I havn't played enough of it yet.

What are your opinions on Moo1 and Moo2 respective strengths and weakneses, which is better and in what ways. Dont forgeet to mention how much contact you have had with each game and in what order (we tend to be biased to what we played first and I am no exception)

What i like in MOO1 is the spy system...it's the best i've seen yet in a 4x game....the fact that you can choose what type of research has to be stolen or on what planet your spy should destroy missile bases or industry is fantastic. I just don't understand why they couldn't expand this...
Nik Kershaw has a new cd...check http://www.nikkershaw.net to order it!!!!

Gunsan
Space Floater
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Sweden, Europe

#42 Post by Gunsan »

I wouldn't say MOO II ripped of Civ II, at least not primarily. I remember back then there was a series of fantasy strategy games which I unfortunately can't remember what it was called, which Orion II's use of workers, farmers and resources resembled even more.
It was actually early-mid 90's real time strategy. The features were fairly popular and common property in those days.

muxec
Space Kraken
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:55 pm

#43 Post by muxec »

Moo2 is better than Moo3 at all aspects, even visual.

Moo1 is to old... In overal it's as good as MoO3

oolon
Space Krill
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:49 am

#44 Post by oolon »

In the end game of moo2 I liked ships with death rays, teleporters, transporter, stella converters and troop pods, time displacement to get second round was good too. I would just, transport right in front of the enemy ships. Then use death rays, to kill the crew and then transport my guys abord. using this you could even capture antarian ships, dismantling them you get some of the tech you missed out on at Orion. The first time I nuked a planet with a stella converter I laughed so much, of course telepathically taking it over was easier, but now I only play of negative 10 picks.

My biggest problem with moo2 was the size of all the of ships compared to the planet! One little scout ship was larger than a moon would have been!

James

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#45 Post by skdiw »

I liked moo1 slightly better than moo2. I still play moo1 occasionally but the graphics are just totally horrific compared today's standards even though it's a 4X game. Moo2 was too complicated for me. I think it could be simplied quite a bit especially the UI for controlling the planetary builds--in contrast with moo1, you get most information you needed from the main screen.

I like Galactic Civ a lot except for the no combat and no ship design. The sectors and grid could be smaller and just have icons take more than 1 square.
:mrgreen:

Post Reply