MOO3 finished! [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

b00tch

January 24th, 2003, 11:14 PM

Thought this would be something everyone in here would like to know, even if it's not directly SE4 related . . .

Masters of Orion 3 has gone gold (released to manufacturers to produce copies of the finished product, wrap it up and ship it to stores)!

More info here: Yahoo Press Release (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030124/242237_1.html) and of course on the MOO3 official homepage. (http://moo3.quicksilver.com/main.html)

Maybe I should put a warning so noone has a heart attack from playing MOO3 and SE4 at the same time... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

- b00tch

mlmbd

January 24th, 2003, 11:23 PM

Damn, just missed being in the LURK REPORT! But it is great to see it finally has been released!

mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Fyron

January 25th, 2003, 12:40 AM

The moo3 homepage goes nowhere but to the Gone Gold image, which only has a Buy link. What kind of practice is that? They have disabled the rest of the site! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

MacLeod

January 25th, 2003, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The moo3 homepage goes nowhere but to the Gone Gold image, which only has a Buy link. What kind of practice is that? They have disabled the rest of the site! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Click the buy link then you can browse the rest of the site.

Agreed, that's pretty screwy.

sachmo

January 25th, 2003, 01:05 AM

Good luck with the game guys. I hope it delivers on it's promise and that it was worth the wait.

Ed Kolis

January 25th, 2003, 01:11 AM

... holy smeggin' frick!!!

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I thought I'd be playing Starfury before this... I was just at the MOO3 forums a few hours ago (and almost got myself Banned, IIRC)... MOO3 here I come!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Now if I only had some money... Mom, I know it's not October yet, but can I have my birthday present early? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

that antaran wearing gold is just a bit... freaky, though... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

hey, I used up my quota of 8 smileys per post exactly! :insert smiley here I ran out: crud!

Ragnarok

January 25th, 2003, 01:21 AM

Hmm, I'll have to buy it when I get some cash. (Couple weeks I get a nice check coming to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

But I have never played any of the MOO games so I have no idea what to expect. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Baron Munchausen

January 25th, 2003, 02:39 AM

I wouldn't buy it for at least a few months... Think of every other major game release you can recall. Were any of them successful immediately or were there a jillion bugs that had to be corrected before the majority of people could play the game and enjoy it? When you buy the first release of anything you are a beta tester. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Look at the "OT: Do Not Buy Warning" thread just posted here to day about SimCity 4. I bet there will be a similar thread about MOO 3 next month. Summer is likely to be the earliest that a 'non-beta' MOO 3 is available.

couslee

January 25th, 2003, 02:50 AM

I agree baron. i also am waiting for player comments (not rag-mag reviews). With no demo, and all the delays, I choose to be cautious in this one. I try to not spend 50 bucks to beta-test a game. If they want me to beta test their game, then....well, you know (avoids rant).

Instar

January 25th, 2003, 02:55 AM

as to the rag mag reviews, get PC Gamer
they are hard core gamers, and from my experience, they give a very fair and true game critique

Phoenix-D

January 25th, 2003, 03:29 AM

I'll be avoiding this one. No demo + several questionable features in preview =no sale.

Phoenix-D

couslee

January 25th, 2003, 04:41 AM

I got free subscription to computer gaming world, and after "round filing" the renewal over a year ago, and still I get it. it's really the only one I look at. Good bathroom reading. I have heard people say they all suck but this one, or that one. But it has been my experience, there is no more accrutate of a review, than the players who have bought the game, and felt strongly enough to post on a BB about it. I know some people hate a paticular game, when others like it. I am not talking about that. i am talking about bugs. I can decide for myself if a game is enjoyable, and no one can tell me that anyway. But if the game is broken, completly unbalanced, in desperate need of a patch, and missing key features, this will be apparent in short order by the sheer number of Posts about it on said BB. I don't mind waiting. I have been there/done that with getting a game as soon as it is released, and it turning out to be "unfinished". And all things being equal, I don't mind the wait. If they want more first-day customers, put out a demo.

Graeme Dice

January 25th, 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
[QB]I wouldn't buy it for at least a few months... Think of every other major game release you can recall. Were any of them successful immediately or were there a jillion bugs that had to be corrected before the majority of people could play the game and enjoy it?Let's see, a short list of major games released in the Last few years that are perfectly playable right out of the box:
Warcraft III
Neverwinter Nights
Medieval: Total War
Morrowind
Age of Wonders II
Freedom Force
Civ III
Starfleet Command III

MacLeod

January 25th, 2003, 08:25 AM

NwN had a few mega issues with it's copy prot software that for a couple months could only be fixed by downloading a crack, or not updating past Version 1.18 (and thus being unable to multiplayer).
Think it was a fairly sizable group of the playerbase.

I do however have to say it's rather unfair to compare a game to an EA game without playing it first. EA is the MS of the gaming world as far as I'm concerned.

I rarely buy games without playing the demos first, with few exceptions. There's just no way to really know how the game will feel to you til you can play it.

Fyron

January 25th, 2003, 11:11 AM

Civ III was most certainly not perfectly playable right out of the box, especially later on in the game.

Egregius

January 25th, 2003, 03:54 PM

Actually I would say Microprose is the MS of the gaming world.

Anyone remember Xcom and UFO? You couldnt even finish UFO unless you got the patch! And Xcom had a habit of it's own in crashing.

But Infogrames has a better reputation, right?

AJC

January 25th, 2003, 04:27 PM

so is star fleet command III worth buying?

I have al the others... so I was pondering buying it.. is the ship customizing very well done?

[ January 25, 2003, 14:28: Message edited by: AJC ]

Graeme Dice

January 25th, 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Civ III was most certainly not perfectly playable right out of the box, especially later on in the game.Considering that I played an entire game before I applied any patches, I don't think that's true. Are you talking about stability or playability here?

Graeme Dice

January 25th, 2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by MacLeod:
[QB]NwN had a few mega issues with it's copy prot software that for a couple months could only be fixed by downloading a crack, or not updating past Version 1.18 (and thus being unable to multiplayer).
Think it was a fairly sizable group of the playerbase.That was a hardware problem with people who have sub-standard hardware, and not really a problem with the game itself.

MacLeod

January 25th, 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MacLeod:
[QB]NwN had a few mega issues with it's copy prot software that for a couple months could only be fixed by downloading a crack, or not updating past Version 1.18 (and thus being unable to multiplayer).
Think it was a fairly sizable group of the playerbase.That was a hardware problem with people who have sub-standard hardware, and not really a problem with the game itself.<hr /></blockquote>Hmm, I must not know much about computers, guess my 486 here can't handle it. Thank you for assuming I'm an idiot.

I happen to have a rather well designed system that has handled EVERY other game in the universe without trouble. When I do have the slightest bit of trouble I can typically fix it rather quickly on my own.

I do however agree it wasn't a problem with the game itself (rather in the 3rd party libraries used to copy protect it) however it was a support disaster as nothing was accomplished to fix it in a reasonable time. Also NwN had a game-breaking bug in the scripting that prevented the completion of the second act through gameplay. It required intervention by switching onto gamemaster mode.

Many many games come out perfectly playable on day one, NwN wasn't one of them.

Moving on.....
I wouldn't call Microprose the MS of gaming, they just aren't big enough a company, that's why I put the bullet on EA. EA is huge, the largest of game companies and they are a disaster.

sachmo

January 25th, 2003, 05:56 PM

The playability of Civ III out of the box has is a debate that will run on for ages. I thought that many of the bugs that were in the initial release really killed the game. That's just my opinion. I think the point that is being made here is that there seems to be an alarming trend over the past few years of game companies releasing...well, utter crap, to the public and then coming back and patching the game later, after the profits have been made. If the game doesn't do well, they might not patch it at all! I know the current climate has completely soured me on buying any first release game from a major publisher.

To those who are going to buy it right away, I really hope that it is a great game and that you enjoy it. I would like to see nothing more than the delay turn out to be the software companies desire to squash any and every bug they could find before release. I am a cynic, however, and believe that this might be a major turkey.

capnq

January 25th, 2003, 07:23 PM

I got free subscription to computer gaming world, and after "round filing" the renewal over a year ago, and still I get it. Check your credit card statements carefully. I've had several "free" subscriptions that were automatically renewed for a year after the "free" sub ran out, unless you explicitly told them not to renew it.

Phoenix-D

January 25th, 2003, 11:14 PM

"That was a hardware problem with people who have sub-standard hardware, and not really a problem with the game itself."

Why is it people always blame the ones having issues, and not the sub-standard program causing it?

Fact is, many copy-protection schemes are crap. Removing the copy protection from Morrowind can give up to a 20FPS improvement! And given the fact that it CAN be cracked, and was done so quickly after the game was released, it isn't stopping pirates at all.

Another time this happened was MechCommander 2. Everyone assumed since they had no problems, no one else did either. Heh. As it turned out, the game had an odd issue that resulted in two files being made. When those files were present, performance went in the toilet. My 1.5 GHz Geforce 4 system got MAYBE 5 FPS with everything turned off. Then I removed those files and got over 30 with everything on. If that isn't a game programming issue I don't know what was..

Phoenix-D

Fyron

January 25th, 2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Civ III was most certainly not perfectly playable right out of the box, especially later on in the game.Considering that I played an entire game before I applied any patches, I don't think that's true. Are you talking about stability or playability here?<hr /></blockquote>Were you around Shrapnel when Civ III came out? If not, try searching for threads about it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I don't even remember what was wrong in the initial release anymore, cause I stopped playing the game after a short while. Even now, with all these patches, it still has many major problems.

Egregius

January 26th, 2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by MacLeod:
Moving on.....
I wouldn't call Microprose the MS of gaming, they just aren't big enough a company, that's why I put the bullet on EA. EA is huge, the largest of game companies and they are a disaster.[/QB]Well they've released their fair share of bugged games. Problem is that their games are almost always great to play as well. For example, the greatest game ever produced (after SEIV of course..) Masters of Magic was a Microprose release as well. Playable, but bugged as hell. Good thing they released a zillion patches for it heheh.

Graeme Dice

January 26th, 2003, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Were you around Shrapnel when Civ III came out? If not, try searching for threads about it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I don't even remember what was wrong in the initial release anymore, cause I stopped playing the game after a short while. Even now, with all these patches, it still has many major problems.[/QB]I don't see any problems. It's an expanded and much improved Version ov Civ I, which is looking really dated now. Expanding on what I said, absolutely nobody out of a half dozen people I know who bought the game and didn't patch it right away had no problems whatsoever.

Edit: I've read the "DO NOT BUY Civ 3" thread, and basically, it comes down to Atrocities complaining that he only got a month's worth of play out of a game. If you get a month out of any game before getting tired of it, then I would think it's up there as one of the best of all time.

Then you have people copmplaining about micromanagement. Well, that's what automating your workers is for. They are perfectly capable of handling any and all improvements by themselves.

Further, aside from the crashes which only a minority of people reported, the only real bugs were with precision bombing and air superiority, neither of which were game breakers.

The complaint of the AI producing masses of weak units comes from not realizing that the AI never gets rid of its ancient units that guard its cities, so when trouble comes, you get plenty of warriors and spearmen that have been sitting around for a few milennia.

It's also certainly not infeasible for militarily trained soldiers without firearms to defeat modern armour, especially in a large city, because while they may not have guns, they aren't bronze age people. Unless of course, you think that they have somehow survived for 6000 years.

[ January 26, 2003, 04:28: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

Graeme Dice

January 26th, 2003, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Why is it people always blame the ones having issues, and not the sub-standard program causing it?Because it _is_ the hardware of those having issues as the other people don't have those issues.

Fyron

January 26th, 2003, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Were you around Shrapnel when Civ III came out? If not, try searching for threads about it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I don't even remember what was wrong in the initial release anymore, cause I stopped playing the game after a short while. Even now, with all these patches, it still has many major problems.I don't see any problems. It's an expanded and much improved Version ov Civ I, which is looking really dated now. Expanding on what I said, absolutely nobody out of a half dozen people I know who bought the game and didn't patch iot right away had no problems whatsoever.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>See... that is part of the problem. The game is not Civ 3, it is Civ 1.5. Most of the best changes in Civ 2 (hit points and firepower, for example) were thrown out.

Did any of your friends buy the game on the weekend it came out? Cause I did, and it crashed, a lot.

MacLeod

January 26th, 2003, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Why is it people always blame the ones having issues, and not the sub-standard program causing it?Because it _is_ the hardware of those having issues as the other people don't have those issues.<hr /></blockquote>Exactly, that's because of substandard programming and testing. Just because Joe's computer runs the game fine, and Bob's doesn't, doesn't mean Bob's hardware sucks. Bob might be able dozens of games that Joe's computer can't.

If I made a game on my computer, and tested and debugged it on my computer to the point of it being bug free, I could then bring it to a very new machine made with top quality parts and experience bugs that never existed.

This is because I was stupid and assumed if it worked right on my computer it must work well on everyone's. This is how bugs are born.

Of course there are ways I can program it to reduce the chances of incompatabilities by making less assumptions on my target audience's hardware and reusing older, 'tried and true' libraries where possible, but in the end TESTING is the key.

And that still doesn't account for gameplay bugs which have nothing to do with the hardware (i.e. the old bug at the end of Act II in NwN).

This isn't to say that poor hardware configs don't cause problems, but they are by NO MEANS the only source of problems.

As Pheonix-D pointed out, problems with copy prot schemes aren't limited to the stupid, or to those with poor system configs (or to pirates for that matter), they WILL screw all of us at least once as time goes on, give it time, they'll get you too!

[ January 26, 2003, 04:33: Message edited by: MacLeod ]

Graeme Dice

January 26th, 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
See... that is part of the problem. The game is not Civ 3, it is Civ 1.5. Most of the best changes in Civ 2 (hit points and firepower, for example) were thrown out.And so what? Why should it have to make huge improvements on Civ II to be a good game? A game only has to provide five hours of enjoyment to be cost-effective, and anything on top of that is a pure bonus.

The game is still better than it's immediate predecessor SMAC, which has the ridiculous unit design mechanism that allows you to kill attackers armed with the best weapons by putting better armour on you units.

Did any of your friends buy the game on the weekend it came out? Cause I did, and it crashed, a lot.Yes, we all did, and it didn't crash at all. Bear in mind that I have no idea what you mean by "crashed a lot". I'd look at a game that crashed once an hour as being perfectly stable, although a little bit annoyning. It's only when crashes start to occur every ten or fifteen minutes that it gets aggravating.

Graeme Dice

January 26th, 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by MacLeod:
As Pheonix-D pointed out, problems with copy prot schemes aren't limited to the stupid, or to those with poor system configs (or to pirates for that matter), they WILL screw all of us at least once as time goes on, give it time, they'll get you too![/QB]Doubtful. I've got over 100 CD-Rom based games sitting in my room right now, and not one of them has ever caused me problems due to copy-protection.

MacLeod

January 26th, 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MacLeod:
As Pheonix-D pointed out, problems with copy prot schemes aren't limited to the stupid, or to those with poor system configs (or to pirates for that matter), they WILL screw all of us at least once as time goes on, give it time, they'll get you too!Doubtful. I've got over 100 CD-Rom based games sitting in my room right now, and not one of them has ever caused me problems due to copy-protection.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>How many have copy protection schemes?
Copy Protection schemers are looking more and more outside the CD to determine if their CD is 'legit' or not. Last time I checked (admittedly, about 6 months ago), SecuROM refused to allow it's games to run on a wide variety of CD burners or on systems featuring certain burning software and *gasp* virtual drives.

My cynical dispositions are telling me this is the beginning of a trend. Also, please note the Last part of the sentence you quoted wasn't entirely serious.

[ January 26, 2003, 04:56: Message edited by: MacLeod ]

MacLeod

January 26th, 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Yes, we all did, and it didn't crash at all. Bear in mind that I have no idea what you mean by "crashed a lot". I'd look at a game that crashed once an hour as being perfectly stable, although a little bit annoyning. It's only when crashes start to occur every ten or fifteen minutes that it gets aggravating.We seem to have different standards, I expect my games to run for several hours on end (assuming I don't Alt Tab excessively or have any invasive programs running in background). Almost all my games meet this standard of mine.

I personally would have to describe once an hour as pretty unstable, especially since you may lose at least 15 minutes of gameplay since your Last save (and I've had a few games that didn't even have a save).

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Edit: I've read the "DO NOT BUY Civ 3" thread, and basically, it comes down to Atrocities complaining that he only got a month's worth of play out of a game. If you get a month out of any game before getting tired of it, then I would think it's up there as one of the best of all time.In that case it would be more economical to Subscribe to a porn site for $10-$15 a month than shell out $50 for a game. I expect at least 2 months, but 3 is what I'd rate a good game. Truly great games Last years.

I've played UO for 5 years, and back in my younger days Doom, and it's extreme editability Lasted me about 3. SE is also another long Laster, though I'm too tired to remember how long ago it has been since I started playing SEIII.

Graeme Dice

January 26th, 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by MacLeod:
I personally would have to describe once an hour as pretty unstable, especially since you may lose at least 15 minutes of gameplay since your Last save (and I've had a few games that didn't even have a save).Like anything else you do on a computer, you should be saving no less than every five to ten minutes. If it's word processing, I save every thirty seconds.

I expect at least 2 months, but 3 is what I'd rate a good game. Truly great games Last years.I expect no more than a week of play from a game that is a true classic, because that's all the time one can spend on a game if you wish to play more than one a month.

I've played UO for 5 years, and back in my younger days Doom, and it's extreme editability Lasted me about 3. SE is also another long Laster, though I'm too tired to remember how long ago it has been since I started playing SEIII.Sure, a really great game gets more play time, but that doesn't make one that only Lasts a weekend a bad game, just a normal length game.

Phoenix-D

January 26th, 2003, 07:33 AM

"Like anything else you do on a computer, you should be saving no less than every five to ten minutes. If it's word processing, I save every thirty seconds."

Some programs don't -let- you save this frequent, or become unstable if you do. And frankly one crash per hour is pretty bad. Most games I've played do -far- better than that. Metroid on the gamecube has crashed about as much as some of the better PC games I've played. Twice, and I've played it for twelve hours.

Phoenix-D

Fyron

January 26th, 2003, 08:23 AM

One crash is too often.

Graeme Dice

January 26th, 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
One crash is too often.So you've never had an RCE from SE4? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

ZeroAdunn

January 26th, 2003, 08:29 AM

I wouldn't call it substandard, if we tested till all bugs were gone on all machines, games would never get released.

See that is the problem these days, computer technology has diverged so much, and evolved so quickly, all systems are just way too varied.

Dobian

January 26th, 2003, 12:07 PM

Stability: I consider a game to be very stable if it crashes once for every ten hours I put into it. And I have a lot of games that meet this standard (including SE4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

Value: I picked up Might and Magic 4-8 a year ago for a grand total of 11 bucks. To date, I've logged somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 hours on MM6-MM8. Now that's value. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

couslee

January 26th, 2003, 01:59 PM

" The game is still better than it's immediate predecessor SMAC, which has the ridiculous unit design mechanism that allows you to kill attackers armed with the best weapons by putting better armour on you units. "

Oh horsepucky. I played SMAC for a couple of years. Civ3 Lasted about 2 games before getting deleted. And yea, gee, it's amazing that if you put your best armor on your units, you have a greater chance of defeating an attacker.

You love Civ3, that is apparent, I hated it. so what. Opinions are like a**holes. every has their own, and it's usually full of crap.

When you talk about value in a game, value in an item is based on a standard that people are use to. A good meal at a nice restaruant can cost $20 a plate, and your done eating in 30-60 minutes. If you compare that to a $20 game you play for a whole day, then the meal looks like a bad value and the game looks like a good value. That, is comparing apples to oranges and is no basis for comparison. $20 for a one day game is poor. $20 for a tasty meal is not. Stick with apples and apples and leave the other fruit in the fridge.
Customers have come to expect games, esp in the 4x genre', to have months and months of enjoyment. If the game playability is bad because of bugs, balancing issues, hardware issues, ect to the point it is not worth the effort loading up, and you just bought the game, it's not a good value.
You talk about playing several new games a month. At $45-50 a copy for new games, you must have an unlimited game budget. Must be nice. I, and the majority of gamers do not have that much money to burn. We expect value (meaning dollar spent, per game hour enjoyed, per industry standard). And lately, most games have fallen short of that mark. imnsho

[ January 26, 2003, 12:15: Message edited by: couslee ]

Egregius

January 26th, 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Like anything else you do on a computer, you should be saving no less than every five to ten minutes. If it's word processing, I save every thirty seconds.
DUDE!

You need to get a better computer! How on earth do you want to get any play done with saving every 5 minutes, or any typing done with saving every 30 seconds?!?
Heck, saving in Baldur's Gate 1 cost me 5 minutes each time, having to save every 5 minutes is flat out ridiculous.

DavidG

January 26th, 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I expect no more than a week of play from a game that is a true classic, because that's all the time one can spend on a game if you wish to play more than one a month. Sure, a really great game gets more play time, but that doesn't make one that only Lasts a weekend a bad game, just a normal length game.Man you have intensly low expectations!! And one crash per hour is terrible!!! I'm amazed anyone could describe that as pretty stable. Game manufacturers must love you! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Graeme Dice

January 26th, 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Egregius:
You need to get a better computer! How on earth do you want to get any play done with saving every 5 minutes, or any typing done with saving every 30 seconds?!?There's a reason that quicksaves exist, and in Word you just press ctrl-s after every paragraph. It takes about one second to save your average text document, so I don't see a problem there.

Heck, saving in Baldur's Gate 1 cost me 5 minutes each time, having to save every 5 minutes is flat out ridiculous.Then you must have a slow harddrive. BG1 takes 10-30 seconds on my machine to make a quicksave.

Graeme Dice

January 26th, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by couslee:
Oh horsepucky. I played SMAC for a couple of years. Civ3 Lasted about 2 games before getting deleted. And yea, gee, it's amazing that if you put your best armor on your units, you have a greater chance of defeating an attacker.
No, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You don't need weapons of any kind on defensive units, which is ridiculous. You can place the best armour on themn and punch airplanes to death.

You love Civ3, that is apparent, I hated it. so what. Opinions are like a**holes. every has their own, and it's usually full of crap.
Please keep the insults out of this forum.

$20 for a one day game is poor. $20 for a tasty meal is not. Stick with apples and apples and leave the other fruit in the fridge.Wrong, $20 for a one day game is excellent value, $20 for a meal is an utter waste of money.

Customers have come to expect games, esp in the 4x genre', to have months and months of enjoyment. If the game playability is bad because of bugs, balancing issues, hardware issues, ect to the point it is not worth the effort loading up, and you just bought the game, it's not a good value.Which is not what I ever claimed. Please learn to read before you start making claims about what I said.

You talk about playing several new games a month. At $45-50 a copy for new games, you must have an unlimited game budget.No, I'm simply a student who knows where he wants to spend his entertainment budget instead of wasting it on food and booze.

Must be nice. I, and the majority of gamers do not have that much money to burn. We expect value (meaning dollar spent, per game hour enjoyed, per industry standard). And lately, most games have fallen short of that mark. imnshoPlease name these "most games". I at least have named games that did not fall short.

DavidG

January 26th, 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
[QB]
Wrong, $20 for a one day game is excellent value, $20 for a meal is an utter waste of money.
[QB]Wrong, $20 for a one day game is an utter waste of money. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Ragnarok

January 26th, 2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

Wrong, $20 for a one day game is excellent value, $20 for a meal is an utter waste of money.
Wrong, $20 for a one day game is an utter waste of money. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>Yup, I agree. If I'm going to buy something for $20 I want to enjoy it for awhile. $20 for a meal is high but I'd pay it if it was all you could eat steak. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Of course that's what Golden Coral is around for. You pay $10 but all you can eat buffet. And it includes all you can eat steak. You just go up to them tell them how you want it cooked and presto, steak all night. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Excellent buy in that deal I say.

[ January 26, 2003, 17:08: Message edited by: Ragnarok ]

Suicide Junkie

January 26th, 2003, 07:25 PM

I expect no more than a week of play from a game that is a true classic, because that's all the time one can spend on a game if you wish to play more than one a month.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif You must go through games like toilet paper!

If it is a true classic, you should be playing it until the CD/Floppy wears out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Not to the exclusion of everything else, of course, but Classics are the ones that keep you coming back!

Dobian

January 26th, 2003, 07:26 PM

I agree with Couslee. I have SMAC, and it was my favorite TBS game until SE4 came along.

You may think the unit design in SMAC is flawed, but it's still fun. And Civ 3 doesn't even have unit design. SMAC also has a complex tech tree that keeps the late game intersting with all the facilities and units you can build. Contrast that to the tedious late game of Civ 3. Like SE4, factions in SMAC are unitque with their own strategies. Miriam plays different than Deirdre, who plays diferent than Morgan, etc. In Civ 3, the strategies among the diferent civs isn't as diverse. SMAC also has a complex government and social model that doesn't exist in Civ 3. What are there, four government systems in Civ 3?! In SMAC, you have abou a half dozen government types, and social and economic models to choose from. SMAC also lets you play the game how you want, just like SE4. You can be a reckless expansionist if you want. You can also be like Israel, a tiny little powerhouse. In Civ 3, you have to play every game the same, as an expansionist. Don't expand, and you're finished. Again, makes the games too similar and repetitive.

I don't totally dislike Civ 3. I give it kudos for its random resources concept, which is well implemented. I also like the idea of the cultural borders. Diplomacy is very well done, too. Too bad the AI cheats when it comes to tech trading, though (civs will trade with everyone else except you, unless you want to pay up the nose). The AI in Civ 3 is also more aggressive than in SMAC. Civs will actualy attack you with an *army* (especially those Persians!), and not just a few units, like in SMAC. I like the look and style of the game. It's okay. But SMAC is better, IMO.

Fyron

January 26th, 2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
One crash is too often.So you've never had an RCE from SE4? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>Only once or twice from the demo, and from poorly written mods. Of course, I didn't get se4 until it was at like Version 1.41 or so.

Similarly, SE has improved over the years. I still play that too - obviously!
Unfortunately, Civ 3 still has most of the major balance problems and issues that it had when released. Sure, it doesn't crash as much anymore, but it is still a bad game.

...

Civ 3 has nothing to do with SMAC. It should not necessarily be SMAC 2, but more the Civ 3 it claims to be.

[ January 26, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Graeme Dice

January 26th, 2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Unfortunately, Civ 3 still has most of the major balance problems and issues that it had when released. Sure, it doesn't crash as much anymore, but it is still a bad game.
But what _are_ these balance problems? Everybody here complains about them, but nobody's mentioned what they are.

Fyron

January 26th, 2003, 11:29 PM

Yes I did. They got rid of the hit points and fire power scheme. So, medieval musketmen can now defeat modern Tanks, a lot. That is completely absurd. If it happens once after playing for like 100 hours, that is fine, and assignable to an anomoly. But if it happens a lot, then there is a problem.

They killed off Civ 2 ToT, which was the best thing to happen to Civ since the original release of Civ 1. There were so many awesome advancements made in the genre with ToT that they dropped completely. Thanks to the egomaniac otherwise known as Sid Meier.

Bombardment hardly does enough to matter. I have watched 32 bombers bomb a city, and do a total of 1 point of damage. That, again, is absurd.

The AIs cheat way too much to be enjoyable. They trade their techs with each other really cheaply, so you have a very hard time keeping up, esp. at higher difficulty levels.

Shall I continue?

Puke

January 27th, 2003, 12:05 AM

could someone please take a break from bickering over the CIV/SMAC serise and the failings of games that crash every 10-100 hours, and give me an SE4 player's perspective on MOO3?

lets face it. tons of people left se4 because they thought that even a year after its release, it was still in 'beta.' it has given me tons of RCEs from the unmodded game and integer overflow errors, until some very recent patches within the Last year. the strategic combat still has some problems, and the simulator is still useless. and frankly, i dont care if you spend $2 on a meal, or $50.

please put that aside for a second, and if anyone has the game, shell out some facts about the gameplay. how are the features? how is the combat, and economics, and politics? can it be played well multiplayer, without realtime connections? can games be saved so realtime games can be continued later? how is the AI, and minister control? how is the customization? how does it stack up to SE4?

I care only a little bit what reviewers say. I want to hear the real story from people here, because as SE4 players, your oppinions count more.

Graeme Dice

January 27th, 2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes I did. They got rid of the hit points and fire power scheme. So, medieval musketmen can now defeat modern Tanks, a lot. That is completely absurd. If it happens once after playing for like 100 hours, that is fine, and assignable to an anomoly. But if it happens a lot, then there is a problem.
It's hardly absurd that musketman can defeat modern tanks, especially in a good defensive position. Unless, as I've already said, you somehow believe that those are the same exact soldiers that you trained several hundred years before. Modern tanks are still vulnerable to infantry, and molotov cocktails will still cause them plenty of problems.

Bombardment hardly does enough to matter. I have watched 32 bombers bomb a city, and do a total of 1 point of damage. That, again, is absurd.
And how many structures and population points were destroyed during this bombardment? Military units are not likely to be severely damaged during a bombardment from bombers, as that represents WWII level technology. The whole city of Berlin was nearly destroyed but the military still was functional. The point of bombardments is to destroy the population and improvements of a city so that your units can overcome the defenders.

The AIs cheat way too much to be enjoyable. They trade their techs with each other really cheaply, so you have a very hard time keeping up, esp. at higher difficulty levels.
The AI's are quite willing to trade those technologies with you, which is the best way to keep up with them. After most of them have a technology, the price is low enough that you should be able to afford it. Once communism is researched, you can switch to democracy and blow past the AI in research as it starts to conscript troops for its defense.

Shall I continue?The things you've pointed out are fairly minor gripes.

Fyron

January 27th, 2003, 12:34 AM

It's hardly absurd that musketman can defeat modern tanks, especially in a good defensive position. Unless, as I've already said, you somehow believe that those are the same exact soldiers that you trained several hundred years before. Modern tanks are still vulnerable to infantry, and molotov cocktails will still cause them plenty of problems.Please explain to me how men armed with arquebuses can defeat tanks, with anti-personal machine guns on them. Modern tanks are not vulnerable to men with arquebuses.

And how many structures and population points were destroyed during this bombardment? Military units are not likely to be severely damaged during a bombardment from bombers, as that represents WWII level technology. The whole city of Berlin was nearly destroyed but the military still was functional. The point of bombardments is to destroy the population and improvements of a city so that your units can overcome the defenders.[/quote]All the bombardment did was 1 damage to a unit. Nothing else was destroyed. No population, no buildings. This happens a lot, with all types of bombardment units. Catapults, cannons, ships, everything. I sit there, bombarding with tons of units, turn after turn, and nothing gets done, except maybe 1 or 2 points of damage to a unit, or population.

The AI's are quite willing to trade those technologies with you, which is the best way to keep up with them.No, you misunderstand. They are only willing to trade them to you for a lot more than the worth of what they are trading. But, they are always willing to trade for little to other AIs, even on the turn they receive the tecnologies.

After most of them have a technology, the price is low enough that you should be able to afford it. Once communism is researched, you can switch to democracy and blow past the AI in research as it starts to conscript troops for its defense.The price goes up with every tech you trade for, regardless of who you got it from. I have never seen them ask less for a tech that they all have.

The things you've pointed out are fairly minor gripes.Only in your opinion. They are mostly severe flaws in the combat system (or lack thereof) that make the game less than fun to play.

Graeme Dice

January 27th, 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Please explain to me how men armed with arquebuses can defeat tanks, with anti-personal machine guns on them. Modern tanks are not vulnerable to men with arquebuses.
Yes, modern tanks are vulnerable. In order for musketeers to have a 10% chance of defeating a modern armour unit while defending, you have to have the unit in a metropolis, on a montaintop, river square, and be fortified. This multiplies its defense by 2.5 times. In a situation like this, where a single combat Lasts for four months(three attacks per turn for the tanks), there are plenty of occasions for a musketman to kill the soldiers, or disable the tank. After all, the attackers don't spend their entire lives inside the tank. The terrain is also completely unsuited to the tank, and perfectly suited to the infantry. In open terrain, you have tank traps, mines, and everything else the game abstracts away.

All the bombardment did was 1 damage to a unit. Nothing else was destroyed. No population, no buildings. This happens a lot, with all types of bombardment units. Catapults, cannons, ships, everything. I sit there, bombarding with tons of units, turn after turn, and nothing gets done, except maybe 1 or 2 points of damage to a unit, or population.I highly doubt that this is the case, unless you are trying to use low-tech units to bombard high-tech ones.

No, you misunderstand. They are only willing to trade them to you for a lot more than the worth of what they are trading. But, they are always willing to trade for little to other AIs, even on the turn they receive the tecnologies. The price goes up with every tech you trade for, regardless of who you got it from. I have never seen them ask less for a tech that they all have.Then you have not actually attempted this strategy. It works, and is one of the standard methods to play. You can play an entire game where you perform no research, and simply buy tech advances.

I assume that you never play on a difficulty level less or greater than monarch then, so that the AI doesn't get production bonuses, and you don't either? Otherwise, what you are complaining about is that the AI makes the game too hard, which is easily remedied by choosng an easier difficulty level.

Only in your opinion. They are mostly severe flaws in the combat system (or lack thereof) that make the game less than fun to play.In my opinion, they are what make the game worth playing. It is unrealistic to assume that high-tech units will _always_ beat low tech ones.

Fyron

January 27th, 2003, 01:50 AM

Yes, modern tanks are vulnerable. In order for musketeers to have a 10% chance of defeating a modern armour unit while defending, you have to have the unit in a metropolis, on a montaintop, river square, and be fortified. This multiplies its defense by 2.5 times. In a situation like this, where a single combat Lasts for four months(three attacks per turn for the tanks), there are plenty of occasions for a musketman to kill the soldiers, or disable the tank. After all, the attackers don't spend their entire lives inside the tank. The terrain is also completely unsuited to the tank, and perfectly suited to the infantry. In open terrain, you have tank traps, mines, and everything else the game abstracts away.What you are trying to do is rationalize the absurdities in the combat system. It doesn't work. These are not men with low grade rifles, they are men with arquebuses. One small round bullet, which you have to pack in with the gun powder to the gun. Such guns can not penetrate a tank's armor, period. Sure, it is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. The tanks get defeated on open terrain too. These musketmen don't have mines and such.

I highly doubt that this is the case, unless you are trying to use low-tech units to bombard high-tech ones.Nope, trying to bombard equal and lower tech units. It happened all the time when I tried bombarding, even with absurd numbers of units.

Then you have not actually attempted this strategy. It works, and is one of the standard methods to play. You can play an entire game where you perform no research, and simply buy tech advances.Ok, so unless you spend all your trade on taxes and then buy everything, you fall behind. Sounds like fun to me.

I assume that you never play on a difficulty level less or greater than monarch then, so that the AI doesn't get production bonuses, and you don't either? Otherwise, what you are complaining about is that the AI makes the game too hard, which is easily remedied by choosng an easier difficulty level.I am complaining that the AI cheats too much. Not a simple bonus to remain competitive, but cheating. I stopped playing the game long ago because it was no fun. So, of course the rampant cheating is insurmountable with my skill at civ 3. Had the game been fun, I could probably have played enough to learn how to cope with the cheating. But, it wasn't fun, so I stopped playing.

In my opinion, they are what make the game worth playing. It is unrealistic to assume that high-tech units will _always_ beat low tech ones.It is unrealistic for large numbers of high tech units to be required to defeat low tech units. The problems happen with things like Pikemen too. Tell me how men armed with Pikes (and nothing else) can defeat tanks? They simply can't, unless you artificially create a lot of bizarre circumstances in their favor. In 99.99% of situations, the pikemen would be slaughtered without any danger at all to the tank. But in civ 3, they can defeat the tanks.

steveh11

January 27th, 2003, 02:35 AM

Well, this thread doesn't have much to do with MOO3 anymore...

I own and still play SMAC, especially the expanded variant (Alien Crossfire). I played Civ2 for years. I never bought Civ3 because of gameplay issues I'd read about - this is the first I've heard of it having other problems. But I had been considering getting it despite these because:

I own and still play Europa Universalis - more recently EU2 - and that definitely had bugs and 'features' that needed work, but it was a fun thing to play even out of the box, and Paradox worked hard with the user community to improve it.

Similarly, SE has improved over the years. I still play that too - obviously!

Even a hard-core wargame such as Uncommon Valor from Matrix Games is now up to Version 2.20, having fixed many gameplay issues, and some more serious faults. (I don't own this yet but I'm likely to buy it in the next couple of months or so.)

So I think that in general it's wrong to think that you'll get a finished, polished product at first issue. As complex as games like these have become it needs 'road testing' to fix it within the limited resources of the companies we buy from. Yes, even EA - Last I looked they didn't have the budget of the US military, and look what they sometimes come up with! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Steve.

Graeme Dice

January 27th, 2003, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
What you are trying to do is rationalize the absurdities in the combat system. It doesn't work. These are not men with low grade rifles, they are men with arquebuses. One small round bullet, which you have to pack in with the gun powder to the gun. Such guns can not penetrate a tank's armor, period. Sure, it is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.And if you understood the combat system at all, you would realize just how unlikely it is. Without any modifiers, a modern armour will defeat a musketeman 98.64% of the time.

The tanks get defeated on open terrain too. These musketmen don't have mines and such.Ahhh. So what you are saying is that these musketmen are actually 400-1000 years old by the time they fought your tank. Why don't they have mines and such? To say that they don't is to be irrational.

Ok, so unless you spend all your trade on taxes and then buy everything, you fall behind. Sounds like fun to me. I am complaining that the AI cheats too much. Not a simple bonus to remain competitive, but cheating.There is no difference between a bonus to production and trading research. Both are cheating.

I stopped playing the game long ago because it was no fun. So, of course the rampant cheating is insurmountable with my skill at civ 3. Had the game been fun, I could probably have played enough to learn how to cope with the cheating. But, it wasn't fun, so I stopped playing.
So basically, you couldn't beat the game at as high a difficulty level as you could play the other games, so its obviously the games fault that you don't understand the game.

It is unrealistic for large numbers of high tech units to be required to defeat low tech units. The problems happen with things like Pikemen too. Tell me how men armed with Pikes (and nothing else) can defeat tanks?This is an artificially constructed dilemna that you have built for no reason other than to convince yourself that the combat system is severely flawed. Pikemen can defeat tanks in several ways that I have already explained. If not, then apparently the Russian civilians in Leningrad didn't actually manage to defeat a single German tank. You cannot explain away the fact that a single attack from a tank represents an entire four month campaign.

They simply can't, unless you artificially create a lot of bizarre circumstances in their favor. In 99.99% of situations, the pikemen would be slaughtered without any danger at all to the tank. But in civ 3, they can defeat the tanks.BZZZT. In Civ 3 they are defeated 99.5% of the time.

What you see as a "severely flawed" combat mechanism, I see as standard, and expected, statistical variation.

Rollo

January 27th, 2003, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Puke:
could someone please take a break from bickering over the CIV/SMAC serise and the failings of games that crash every 10-100 hours, and give me an SE4 player's perspective on MOO3?

lets face it. tons of people left se4 because they thought that even a year after its release, it was still in 'beta.' it has given me tons of RCEs from the unmodded game and integer overflow errors, until some very recent patches within the Last year. the strategic combat still has some problems, and the simulator is still useless. and frankly, i dont care if you spend $2 on a meal, or $50.

please put that aside for a second, and if anyone has the game, shell out some facts about the gameplay. how are the features? how is the combat, and economics, and politics? can it be played well multiplayer, without realtime connections? can games be saved so realtime games can be continued later? how is the AI, and minister control? how is the customization? how does it stack up to SE4?

I care only a little bit what reviewers say. I want to hear the real story from people here, because as SE4 players, your oppinions count more.Well said, Puke. So are there any news about MOO3?

Graeme, Fyron, please stop the bickering (or make a new thread for that). You both have to realise that none will convince the other.
Agree to disagree, give a hug, and be happy...

Rollo

Phoenix-D

January 27th, 2003, 03:15 AM

"Ahhh. So what you are saying is that these musketmen are actually 400-1000 years old by the time they fought your tank. Why don't they have mines and such? To say that they don't is to be irrational."

Because they're not armed with such. I have only simple knives for weapons; this does not imply I have been around since the knife was invented!

Why WOULD they have mines? They're main weapon certainly doesn't indicate they would.

Phoenix-D

Baron Munchausen

January 27th, 2003, 04:11 AM

The bombard problem at least is easily solved. Use the editor to change the power of the bombarding units in the .mod file. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif With some thought you might be able to re-value the attack and defense of the whole collection of units in a way that makes things work better. Is the maximum combat attack and defense value known? It might be 255. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Desdinova

January 27th, 2003, 06:12 AM

phoooey. moo3 still not out. not until 2/25/03. but a least it sounds like it will make it out this time.

Suicide Junkie

January 27th, 2003, 06:42 AM

I would like to know how a Battleship can attack a coastal city with Phalanx guarding it, and LOSE.

I mean, seriously!

Pointy sticks vs Steel Armor ship floating far enough away to fire shells.

When I lost two battleships in a row that way, I'd had it, and just nuked the freaks, half expecting the nuke to lose too.

Krsqk

January 27th, 2003, 06:58 AM

According to my Civ2 docs, they introduced the hitpoint thingy because of such freak accidents. Now it seems they've taken it back out? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Graeme Dice

January 27th, 2003, 08:20 AM

Well, on the subject of silly combat results. I once heard that in Civ 1 a fortified rifleman in a city successfully defended itself from a nuke. The nuke did explode, but it lost its combat round.

Fyron

January 27th, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
According to my Civ2 docs, they introduced the hitpoint thingy because of such freak accidents. Now it seems they've taken it back out? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Yes, that is one of the worst problems with Civ 1.5 (or Civ 3 as they claim it to be).

Graeme:
I understand how the combat system works, and it is not very good.

Ahhh. So what you are saying is that these musketmen are actually 400-1000 years old by the time they fought your tank. Why don't they have mines and such? To say that they don't is to be irrational.Because THEY ARE MUSKETMEN, not modern units with mines. Saying they have mines is highly irrational, and an attempt to explain the absurdity of the combat system.

So basically, you couldn't beat the game at as high a difficulty level as you could play the other games, so its obviously the games fault that you don't understand the game.No, I understand the game perfectly. The AI cheats more in Civ 3 than Civ 2, which requires different tactics. I simply did not spend the time developing them, because the game is not any fun. I resent your accusation that I only see problems with the game because I suck, and am whining about that. I think an apology would be in order for that.

This is an artificially constructed dilemna that you have built for no reason other than to convince yourself that the combat system is severely flawed. Pikemen can defeat tanks in several ways that I have already explained. If not, then apparently the Russian civilians in Leningrad didn't actually manage to defeat a single German tank. You cannot explain away the fact that a single attack from a tank represents an entire four month campaign.I don't need any convincing. Russian civilians did not fight like medieval pikemen, nor have the more limited knowledge of them.

BZZZT. In Civ 3 they are defeated 99.5% of the time.

What you see as a "severely flawed" combat mechanism, I see as standard, and expected, statistical variation.Seeing it once is a minor irritation. Seeing it repeatedly is a flaw.

Lemmy

January 27th, 2003, 10:04 AM

I'm sceptical about moo3, it has very low requirements:
Windows� :

300 MHz Pentium II or better
128 MB RAM
8X or faster CD-ROM
400 MB Hard Drive Space
Direct X 8.0 Compatible Video Card (must be able to display 800x600x16bit)
DirectX 8.0 Compatible Sound Card
8 Player Network Play via TCP/IP (LAN or Internet)
Windows 98/ME/XP
Macintosh� :

G3 Macintosh - 300 MHz or Better
Macintosh OS 8.6 or Better
128 MB RAM
CD ROM 8X or Better
TCP/IP Internet capable connection for Multiplayer Play

Which could be seen as a good thing off course, but the main thing that interests me, is the AI, and consequently the wait between turns, and those usually need more processing power.
And then there is course this minor thing about he reolution being fixed at 800x600....i hope it can run in window, so it will still look sharp on the bigger monitors http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 27, 2003, 08:06: Message edited by: Lemmy ]

couslee

January 27th, 2003, 10:50 AM

this is turning into a real troll thread.
two quotes
"keep off the grass"
"don't feed the animals"
two more
"never enter the arena of debate with those unwiling to learn"
"never enter into a battle of wit with an unarmmed person"
take them any way you like.

BACK TO THE TOPIC.

Has anyone actually bought MoO3 and if yes, how is it?

I really hope it's a good game. I have friends that raved about MoO2, but I could never find a copy. It was too old by the time I heard of the series. I found an old Version of MoO(1) Online and DLed it, but never got it to work. (some extended memory issue that I have no idea how to work around. no biggie). I really like the 4x TBS genre' but there is a lack of new games in that. I am really hoping MoO3 is not garbage. I am also looking forward to Stars! Supernova also. I heard that is being released soon too.

[ January 27, 2003, 08:53: Message edited by: couslee ]

couslee

January 27th, 2003, 11:00 AM

Lemmy, I read at the MoO3 forum they intentionally tried to keep the requirements low, but still add some nice 3D effects. The target group for this genre' is mostly older gamers and they usually have older or lower end machines. If you play a game for it's playability and not eye candy, then you don't need all the newest hardware.

Fyron

January 27th, 2003, 11:12 AM

MOO3 is not out yet. You can't buy and play it.

couslee

January 27th, 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
MOO3 is not out yet. You can't buy and play it.Your right. So I jumped the gun a little with the question. Wouldn't those that pre-ordered it have it yet? No issue. at least the question is there when it does hit the shelves. lol
my bad

Fyron

January 27th, 2003, 11:43 AM

Pre-ordering just means that they will be able to pick it up from the store they pre-ordered from on the release date. Or, if they pre-ordered from a web store, copies will be shipped to them first, but still not before the release date.

Graeme Dice

January 27th, 2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Because THEY ARE MUSKETMEN, not modern units with mines. Saying they have mines is highly irrational, and an attempt to explain the absurdity of the combat system.You're the one who has the problem understanding how high-tech units can be defeated by low-tech units over the course of a battle that Lasts an entire year or longer, not I.

DavidG

January 27th, 2003, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Because THEY ARE MUSKETMEN, not modern units with mines. Saying they have mines is highly irrational, and an attempt to explain the absurdity of the combat system.You're the one who has the problem understanding how high-tech units can be defeated by low-tech units over the course of a battle that Lasts an entire year or longer, not I.<hr /></blockquote>Actually I think he understands it perfectly. It's a flaw in the game. A phalanx attacking a battleship should lose 100% of the time. Why can't you just admit the game has a few flaws that just don't happen to bother you?

Perrin

January 27th, 2003, 05:30 PM

http://www.imagemagician.org/images/perrin/postfu/moo.gif

I have been waiting for this for quite some time.

Ragnarok

January 27th, 2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Perrin:
http://www.imagemagician.org/images/perrin/postfu/moo.gif

I have been waiting for this for quite some time.Look! A cow!... Oh wait, wrong thread... Sorry...

Puke

January 27th, 2003, 09:17 PM

perhaps this thread should be renamed to

ARGH! Musketmen sank my battleship!

Lemmy

January 27th, 2003, 10:50 PM

If you play a game for it's playability and not eye candy, then you don't need all the newest hardware.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif[/img] ]
Having higher requirements DOESN'T mean the game is all graphics! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif
Higher requirements can make the game a lot better by having a complexer and more advanced AI.
I'm so tired of TBSers accusing anyone who even comments about low requirements of being a teenage kid playing Doom3 on their 2.4 Ghz computer bought by their parents, e.g. a graphics hippie.
These low requirements are either unplayable, or are seriously holding the game back a lot. Traditional AIs (which Moo3 has) NEED procesor power if it wants to be any good, how can a game be playable if the AI sucks, because the are keeping the requirements down

Background info on rant:
The other day on i was on IRC with a computer game reviewer, and we started talking about Moo3.
Well...here's the log.
It starts with me commenting on the fixed resolution:
[21:35] Lemmy> ugh...800x600 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
[21:35] JonahFalcon> Tough noogies, Lemmy
[21:35] JonahFalcon> This is a strategy game, not DOOM III
[21:35] JonahFalcon> I still have fun with MOO2.
[21:35] Lemmy> smac is strategy, which is 1024x768
[21:35] JonahFalcon> And features lower res, too
[21:36] Lemmy> yes, but moo3 is 800x600 max
[21:36] JonahFalcon> I hope you don't think strategy games need hot graphics to be good. LOL
(this is when i sort of annoyed...assuming i only care about graphics because i think 800x600 is a low resolution)
[21:36] Lemmy> resolution isn't about graphics
[21:37] Lemmy> il ike SMAC, smac has arguably the worst graphics of ant strategy game
[21:37] Lemmy> bigger resolution = more info = less windows
[21:38] Lemmy> less windows to click through
...
[21:46] JonahFalcon> If MOO3 is DESIGNED for 800x600, your argument about interface are invalid
[21:46] JonahFalcon> Plus, much more visibility with 800x600
[21:50] Lemmy> ehm, i'd say much more visibility at 1024, 1280
[21:50] Lemmy> or*
[21:50] JonahFalcon> Says who?
[21:50] Lemmy> you could see a lot more of the map with a higher res
[21:50] JonahFalcon> This isn't HOMM4
[21:50] JonahFalcon> Says who?
[21:51] JonahFalcon> You do understand the concept of resolution, RIHGT?
(had absolutely no idea where he was trying to go with this...)
[21:51] JonahFalcon> 800x600 does not mean "less info".
[21:51] JonahFalcon> It only means "less detailed"
[21:51] Lemmy> yes, as a computer science student, and programmer, i understand the concept
[21:51] JonahFalcon> As in, the # of pixels used to create an object
[21:51] JonahFalcon> Obviously, you're getting an "F" in classes LOL
(so now he's trying to be funny..without even reading my arguments)
[21:51] Lemmy> with more pixels, you can show more objects
( ^ see, my argument)
[21:52] JonahFalcon> I've been reviewing games for 15 years, and playing them for 25.
[21:52] JonahFalcon> How old are you?
(and that is his defense!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif )
[21:52] Lemmy> lol..
[21:52] Lemmy> i'm 20
[21:53] JonahFalcon> So, I've been reviewing games since you were in preschool?
(by now i just wanted to end the conversation, since this obviously wasn't going anywhere, but i didn't want to give him the satisfcation of feeling like he was right, so...)
[21:53] Lemmy> and...?
[21:53] Lemmy> you can't deny that a higher resolution can show more objects, at the same detail level
[21:53] JonahFalcon> No
[21:53] JonahFalcon> Wrong

well, after this the conversation just went downhill...but it did annoy me, since i was disconnected, and he left after some great monologue...and now he thinks he's right about the resolution thingie, and that i'm just a 20 year old scriptkiddie who plays Doom3.

(sorry for the long post)

[ January 27, 2003, 20:52: Message edited by: Lemmy ]

Fyron

January 27th, 2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Because THEY ARE MUSKETMEN, not modern units with mines. Saying they have mines is highly irrational, and an attempt to explain the absurdity of the combat system.You're the one who has the problem understanding how high-tech units can be defeated by low-tech units over the course of a battle that Lasts an entire year or longer, not I.<hr /></blockquote>Actually I think he understands it perfectly. It's a flaw in the game. A phalanx attacking a battleship should lose 100% of the time. Why can't you just admit the game has a few flaws that just don't happen to bother you?<hr /></blockquote>Yeah... that part is even worse than musketmen defeating tanks. So what if the battleship is in harbor? What are pointy sticks going to do to it? Nothing. Those phalanx have pointy sticks and some primitive armor, nothing else. Otherwise, they would have been upgraded to different units.

Krsqk

January 28th, 2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yeah... that part is even worse than musketmen defeating tanks. So what if the battleship is in harbor? What are pointy sticks going to do to it? Nothing. Those phalanx have pointy sticks and some primitive armor, nothing else. Otherwise, they would have been upgraded to different units.Umm...They're swimming in the harbor, and their pointy sticks are, umm, armor-piercing, and they happen to get a couple thousand lucky hits below the waterline? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron

January 28th, 2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yeah... that part is even worse than musketmen defeating tanks. So what if the battleship is in harbor? What are pointy sticks going to do to it? Nothing. Those phalanx have pointy sticks and some primitive armor, nothing else. Otherwise, they would have been upgraded to different units.Umm...They're swimming in the harbor, and their pointy sticks are, umm, armor-piercing, and they happen to get a couple thousand lucky hits below the waterline? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>Those are some sharp sticks!

Mephisto

January 28th, 2003, 12:35 AM

Yea, well, I think we all know the CIV3 combat system by now. How about discussing MOO3? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Suicide Junkie

January 28th, 2003, 12:44 AM

The other day on i was on IRC with a computer game reviewer, and we started talking about Moo3...Hehe what a stubborn, deluded fool.
Next time, ask him if he thinks a 27" screen shows more detail than a 14" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Or ask him to set his desktop rez to 640x480 and tell you with a straight face that he still fits the same amount of info on the screen http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Desdinova

January 28th, 2003, 12:51 AM

what http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif ?!? you mean it doesnt? oh well so much for buying a 42 inch screen just to play video games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif guess i will just have to stick with my 10 year old 21" screen and upgrade the rest of the system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fian

January 28th, 2003, 01:59 AM

In regards to the questions about comparing MOO3 versus SE4, I can give you what I have heard from the MOO3 beta testers and my couple of days experience with SE4.

The big complaint about SE4 that I have heard is that it requires lots of micromanagement. MOO3 is supposed to minimize this. This can also be a drawback, however, as MOO3 apparently doesn't offer as wide a variety of options as you find in SE4. For example, you won't find Dyson Spheres or ring worlds in MOO3.

MOO3 offers an engaging storyline (I imagine like Alpha Centauri) that SE4 lacks. The AI is supposed to be good, while most seem to feel that the SE4 AI is weak (I have only played it personally on its easiest setting).

Combat is also an interesting feature of MOO3. While MOO3 is a turn-based game, the actual combat is real-time. It isn't supposed to be a click fest, however, as you have already divided your forces into multiple fleets before combat, and only give commands to fleets during combat. Combat also seems to have an interesting tactical mix. Like SE4, you have missles and fighters, plus you need ships equipped with point defense to defend against them. MOO3 also introduces two other styles of combat - short range versus long range beam attacks. Short range attacks are much more deadly than long range attacks, however the drawback is that you must get close to use it. To help you get close, stealth plays a major factor in battles. You don't see everything in the battle automatically, but you have to scout to see where the enemy ships are located and plan accordingly (helped by having scout ships with good scanners).

Graphics and sound will be, of course, much better than SE4, although people aren't exactly writing rave reviews about the graphics. Part of this is due to the game taking so long to develop. If this game was released when it was originally slated (2 years ago? I don't know to be honest), the graphics would have been better received.

Btw, you don't need a big computer to run a powerful AI. Chess programs have been beating me regularly with 1 second to think since at least the 486, so a Pentium 300 should present a decent AI. In fact, I have heard a lot of good things about the AI (like it was too tough and they had to tone it down for the easier settings). Of course, until people play it, we won't know for sure how good the AI is.

As for the CIV3 game conversation, I played the game a couple of times, and then got bored of the game. I won't say it was a bad game, but I certainly played CIV2 and SMAC much more. I didn't have crash problems with it, although there were balancing issues that they had to address in later patches like corruption penalties being too steep. I do find the Pro-Civ3 person's argument's lacking. I find one crash a week acceptable, maybe more if I play it tons, and most applications that I use meet that expectation. The arguments used to explain how a phalanx guy can ever defeat a tank are also quite lacking. It doesn't take a tank 4 months to defeat one phalanx unit. While the phalanx might not be 1000 years old, the technology that they are using is. On the other hand, if you said that 10 phalanx units managed to defeat a tank, I would believe it, due to running out of ammo and guns overheating. Russians and Chinese tried that tactic with a little success I think, but for the most part even the zerg style approach failed.

DavidG

January 28th, 2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Fian:
MOO3 offers an engaging storyline.
Awww Crap!! Based on the games I've played computer programmers seem to confuse the term "engaging storyline" with "Intensly lame story that makes me want to jab an ice pick into my brain." The classic example of this being Metal Gear Solid. I hope they don't bombard us with 30 mintues story line clips (or more) like Metal gear does. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Edit: Wow do people actually complain the SE4 has too much micromanagement? I thought it was pretty low for a 4x game which is one reason I like it.

[ January 28, 2003, 00:48: Message edited by: DavidG ]

DavidG

January 28th, 2003, 02:48 AM

oops (see what happens when you try to edit a post so Fyron won't give you hell http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif )

[ January 28, 2003, 00:49: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Fyron

January 28th, 2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
oops (see what happens when you try to edit a post so Fyron won't give you hell http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif )Great, now you are making me sound like some sort of post-nazi or something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif j/k

[ January 28, 2003, 00:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

DavidG

January 28th, 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Great, now you are making me sound like some sort of post-nazi or something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif j/kOoops sorry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Well what do I know, I can't distinguish the 'Quote' button from the 'Edit' button

[ January 28, 2003, 03:47: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Fian

January 28th, 2003, 06:21 PM

No, I don't think the storyline will be like Metal Gear Solid. I expect it to be more like the storyline you had in Alpha Centauri. Personally, I think it is a great idea, but unfortunately when it comes to a strategy game, you play the game countless times, but get the same story each time. Maybe they will figure out some way to present slightly different stories based on how you progress in the game.

Lemmy

January 28th, 2003, 08:09 PM

but unfortunately when it comes to a strategy game, you play the game countless times, but get the same story each time. Maybe they will figure out some way to present slightly different stories based on how you progress in the game. GalCiv has found a way to do that, by some sort of random events, but not random events like in SE4.

Gargantua

January 28th, 2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Fian:
No, I don't think the storyline will be like Metal Gear Solid. I expect it to be more like the storyline you had in Alpha Centauri. Personally, I think it is a great idea, but unfortunately when it comes to a strategy game, you play the game countless times, but get the same story each time. Maybe they will figure out some way to present slightly different stories based on how you progress in the game.Actually, its already been figured out, there's a great strategy game that generates different stories everytime you play : King of Dragon Pass (http://www.a-sharp.com/kodp).

spoon

January 28th, 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
Based on the games I've played computer programmers seem to confuse the term "engaging storyline" with "Intensly lame story that makes me want to jab an ice pick into my brain.".Amen. I suspect, though, it will be more like Starcraft where you have the option to play through the story (campaign) but the replay comes in with storyless mayhem..

Originally posted by DavidG:

Edit: Wow do people actually complain the SE4 has too much micromanagement? I thought it was pretty low for a 4x game which is one reason I like it.There is a lot, I think, but it's avoidable by shying away from Large galaxies and units... Man, I hate it when I have to spend like 15 minutes launching mines. I'd rather have my worlds destroyed, I think...

-spoon

Desdinova

January 28th, 2003, 09:35 PM

there was also a microprose game called Darklands that was fun to play. it had random encounters and even the main story lines did not always appear in the same locations. it was an adventure/phantasy rpg game base in ancient germany i think.

Wardad

January 28th, 2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Fian:
MOO3 offers an engaging storyline.
Danger! Danger! Will Robinson!!!

They could be saying: The game play is lame, but you can amuse yourself by using our eyecandy to prop up a daydream.

If I wanted a lame story line with eyecandy I'd rent a movie for 3 bucks!!!

PvK

January 28th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Gargantua:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Fian:
No, I don't think the storyline will be like Metal Gear Solid. I expect it to be more like the storyline you had in Alpha Centauri. Personally, I think it is a great idea, but unfortunately when it comes to a strategy game, you play the game countless times, but get the same story each time. Maybe they will figure out some way to present slightly different stories based on how you progress in the game.Actually, its already been figured out, there's a great strategy game that generates different stories everytime you play : King of Dragon Pass (http://www.a-sharp.com/kodp).<hr /></blockquote>Yes, this is a very well done and unique design!

PvK

Puke

January 28th, 2003, 10:14 PM

gonegold links to several good previews. while i think the whole 800x600 thing is retarded, and the irc chat with the developer displayed complete asinine immaturity on behalf of the developer, the game its self shows promise.

it looks like they kept the cultural / political system that they had originally proposed, where different government types can do different things with their domestic / forign policy.

it looks like the orion senate gives you alot of international relations and trade options, which sounds cool.

it looks like planets have alot of detail

i like the whole warp lanes idea, and it looks like they kept that.

on the down side, it looks like you have to play head to head, no emailing turns. no auto-resolving combat, as far as i can tell. fleet combat looks to be structured well though. build fleets, and give orders to them rather than to ships.

on the weapons front, there are missiles, fighters, short and long range weapons. thats all you REALLY need in life. a balance between short and long range, and a few different types of things to create a rock-paper-scisiors effect. stealth / ecm is supposed to play a big role in those ships being able to get up close to use the short range weapons.

no word on mod-ability, or customization outside of the in-game options. without the ability to play via email, i dont know if i will ever get to play this one multiplayer. without the ability to customize or mod the game, i dont know if i will play it longer than a month or two. might be one of those that you keep coming back to after periods of shelf time.

Baron Munchausen

January 28th, 2003, 11:47 PM

Best of all, they DROPPED QUICKTIME! No hard choice of whether to give up an entire machine to be a QT player just to have MOO 3. It's got plain old Bink video like many other games.

Shadowstar

January 29th, 2003, 02:37 AM

The best storylines have always been, and always will be, those that are created and continually orchestrated by a human gamemaster. If you want to create a game where people can participate in an ongoing plot that changes as they play, and adapts to them and what they do, design the game to allow for a gamemaster who can have complete and total control over the universe, so that he can tell the story and the players can participate.

That's the one thing my Starscape mod does that no other mod does. It was designed from the ground up to be more of a Gamemastering (or storytelling) tool. The gameplay and strategy is the surface, the game that the players play, but beneath it, and at the heart of the experience is the story, being told in real-time by the game-master (I like to use the term "host"), who interacts with the players through roleplaying to create a plot no script-based or AI-based game could ever hope to.

All this in the comfortable environment of SEIV, too.

Sorry for the shameless plug everyone, but it seemed somewhat relevant to the current conversation... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Captain Kwok

January 29th, 2003, 08:32 AM

Shadowstar:

I agree. One of the directions for the Star Trek mod website once the actual mod is released and doing well is to add a large section dedicated to a storyline based on actual events in an 'official' game of some sort.

oleg

January 29th, 2003, 03:54 PM

I just visited Moo3 forums. They are debating why Moo3 will be released in England one month later. The consensus is the time needed for translation. For example, they have to change Evon, Psilon, and Klackon to Evoun, Psiloun, and Klackoun... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ed Kolis

January 29th, 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
I just visited Moo3 forums. They are debating why Moo3 will be released in England one month later. The consensus is the time needed for translation. For example, they have to change Evon, Psilon, and Klackon to Evoun, Psiloun, and Klackoun... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ROFL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I must have missed that thread! Not to mention Phasours, Disruptours, and Fusioun Cannouns http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ... and you forgot something with Evon, it's not Evoun, it's Aevoun!

Fyron

January 29th, 2003, 11:36 PM

Well, if they want to spell a lot of words wrong, they can go right ahead. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Puke

January 29th, 2003, 11:56 PM

Aluminium, anyone?

Shadowstar

January 30th, 2003, 12:30 AM

Who says the U.S. is the one who's spelling is all wrong?

Heh heh... Now the Brits gotta throw u's into everything to make themselves special! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

DavidG

January 30th, 2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by Shadowstar:
Who says the U.S. is the one who's spelling is all wrong?

Heh heh... Now the Brits gotta throw u's into everything to make themselves special! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You sure it ain't the other way around? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif With the US removing the U's. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the Brits were speaking English long before anyone in the US. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

jimbob

January 30th, 2003, 01:24 AM

I'd think that the americanisms such as color and lite are introduced for two reasons. With the dropping of the "u" in many words (including but not limited to honour, colour, neighbour...) the americans were distinguishing/distancing themselves from their british "overlords" who spoke the same language. I'd imagine that had the lower colonies not had the rebellion/revolution, they'd be using the "u" just as much as their less independent neighbours to their north. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

As to lite, defense (instead of defence) etc. I'd imagine that these are more the result of simplification for the sake of commercialism. The brits, having a major economic downturn combined with a weakened but significant aristocracy (which favours the status quo) have not embraced this whole-sale linguistic simplification scheme. We canadians have likely (through osmosis) taken the british lead without even realizing it!

Fyron

January 30th, 2003, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Shadowstar:
Who says the U.S. is the one who's spelling is all wrong?

Heh heh... Now the Brits gotta throw u's into everything to make themselves special! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You sure it ain't the other way around? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif With the US removing the U's. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the Brits were speaking English long before anyone in the US. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>Yeah, and they grew decadent. Americans have moved on from the ancient forms of the language. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

DavidG

January 30th, 2003, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yeah, and they grew decadent. Americans have moved on from the ancient forms of the language. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Well I guess it's a start. Now if you can get rid of the K in knife and the P in pneumonia I'll be really impressed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Krsqk

January 30th, 2003, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
Well I guess it's a start. Now if you can get rid of the K in knife and the P in pneumonia I'll be really impressed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif No, those need to remain as impediments to keep "furriners" from learning English. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Ruatha

January 30th, 2003, 09:13 AM

As a person having learned english in school, speaking a totally different language usually.
I think the British spelling looks nicer, aswell as their prononcuation (difficult word) sounds better than the American Version.

Fyron

January 30th, 2003, 09:21 AM

Their spelling has more useless letters in it. The (marginally) shorter Americanized spellings look much nicer.

Accents are completely subjective, so I won't comment on that one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Kamog

January 30th, 2003, 09:21 AM

The American spelling is more efficient. You save a character by not having the extra 'u' in those words. Think of the time you save by not having to type or write the u's. Over your lifetime, it adds up. The American Version also saves 1 byte of memory each time it is used.

Shadowstar

January 30th, 2003, 01:43 PM

It's commercialization. As a business-owner I know the value of shorter words. You place an ad just about anywhere and they charge by the letter, not the word. Cutting out unneccessary letters saves the company money, savings which can then be passed on to the customer.

But, I was referring to the "British-ized" proper nouns. It doesn't seem to make much sense to change the spellings of the proper names of the races of MOO3, does it? After all, MOO3 was created in America and thus the "proper" names for the races should remain the same no matter where it goes. After all, you don't see Mexicans or Spaniards tossing o's and a's onto the ends of American proper names do you?

Just imagine: Presidente Georgeo Busho...

Let's see, in British that would be: President Geourge Boush?

Hey this is actually kinda fun... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

E. Albright

January 30th, 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
As a person having learned english in school, speaking a totally different language usually.
I think the British spelling looks nicer, aswell as their prononcuation (difficult word) sounds better than the American Version.If I may make a few presumptions...

Based on the fact that you're claiming Sweden as your location and have stated that you learned English in school, I'm inclined to presume that you learned British English in school. Thus, 'tis only natural for you to find that we 'Merkins tawk funny.

I'm saying this as a Yank teaching English in France; i.e., a speaker of the Standard (mid-Western) American dialect of English (or as some of my students emphatically insist on asserting, American, as in a different language than English) trying to teach young-ish Francophone whippersnappers who cut their teeth on (theoreticaly standard BBC) British-dialect English. Ugh. They're not the same, and the difference runs deeper than extra u's and "funny pronunciations"; they're bloody well distinct dialects, and not just "regional accents", as some of my compatriots have asserted (though not here, mind you). Mais c'est tout, cela: elles ne sont pas des langues differentes non plus...

Uh, [/RANT]...

E. Albright

ps: To keep this "on topic", I'm worried by MOO3's real-time combat, and justifications be damned; OTOH, as a low-end user who's seen simple, compact and well-written AI perform very well in the past, I'm not at all troubled by the low requirements. Tho' being stuck at 800x600 is strictly non-ideal...

[ January 30, 2003, 14:24: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

oleg

January 30th, 2003, 06:53 PM

Since it appears that americans are actually proud of their "simplification" and "clarification" of English, it may be a good time to repost an old joke about "better english":

________________________________________________
Better English

Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC, the European Parliament has commissioned a feasibility study in ways of improving efficiency in communications between Government departments.

European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is unnecessarily difficult; for example: cough, plough, rough, through and thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of course, be administered by a committee staff at top level by participating nations.

In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using 's' instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, sivil servants in all sities would resieve this news with joy. Then the hard 'c' could be replaced by 'k' sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters kould be made with one less letter.

There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year, it was announsed that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'. This would make words like 'fotograf' twenty persent shorter in print.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are possible. Governments would enkourage the removal of double leters whish have always been a deterent to akurate speling.

We would al agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the languag is disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop them and kontinu to read and writ as though nothing had hapend. By this tim it would be four years sins the skem began and peopl would be reseptive to steps sutsh as replasing 'th' by 'z'. Perhaps zen ze funktion of 'w' kould be taken on by 'v', vitsh is, after al, half a 'w'. Shortly after zis, ze unesesary 'o kould be dropd from vords kontaining 'ou'. Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a reli sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls, difikultis and evrivun vud find it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drems of the Guvermnt vud finali hav kum tru.

Fyron

January 30th, 2003, 07:22 PM

That joke is still funny. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Too bad it doesn't contribute anything to this discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Desdinova

January 30th, 2003, 08:41 PM

ok, so here a the new alphabet
a b d e f g h i j k l m n o p r s t u v w z

i have removed the c as it can be represented by the k or s, q replaced by kw if necessary, y replaced by i or e, x by z or ks.
and here is how some of the current words can be respelled
quick - kwik xylophone - zilofone recess - resess hungry - hungree hex - hecks
ok so not every word gets simplified.

[ January 30, 2003, 18:42: Message edited by: desdinova ]

Shadowstar

January 30th, 2003, 11:03 PM

I saw a similar joke where the modifications to the English alphabet eventually ended up with the article being written in German...

To really get to the bottom of this whole language thing, consider that English came from Latin, just the same as American English came from British English. Nobody speaks Latin anymore (except for arrogant college kids)...

Wardad

February 25th, 2003, 12:25 AM

So, Has anyone bought it? played it?

Baron Munchausen

February 25th, 2003, 01:11 AM

It goes on sale tomorrow... if you have heard of anyone who already has it they are either reviewers or beta testers or pirates.

The reviews are out, though. Of the good ones, all admit that the game is difficult to learn. The negatives think the game is more about 'AI management' than playing the game, and the AI is not manageable. There are also apparently some serious bugs in the UI department, like major graphical glitches. Not surprising given the sheer variety of motherBoards, graphics cards, and drivers out there. How could they possibly test every combination before release?

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Shadowstar:
I saw a similar joke where the modifications to the English alphabet eventually ended up with the article being written in German...

To really get to the bottom of this whole language thing, consider that English came from Latin, just the same as American English came from British English. Nobody speaks Latin anymore (except for arrogant college kids)...No, English came from Germanic Languages. It is an amalgamation of the Languages spoken by the native peoples of England, that spoken by the Angles when they took over, and that spoken by the Saxons when they took over (and some Celtic thrown in for good measure). All of these Languages are Germanic Languages. Some French (which is latin-based) made its way in when the Normans (who were Vikings-turned-Frenchmen) conquered England in the 11th century AD. French words were used mostly by the upper ruling classes, and English was used by the lower classes. So, most of English is still based off of the ancient Germanic Languages, with a splash of French thrown in. Scientific terms are usually derived from Latin, but they are not really a part of the common everyday English language.

[ February 25, 2003, 00:04: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

CombatSquirrel

February 25th, 2003, 02:40 AM

MOO3 is supposed to go on sale tomorrow... or at least the pre-sales are supposed to ship tomorrow. I do not know yet if any local outlets (Best Buy, EBgames, etc.) will have it in.

A few Online vendors have still not definately commited to ship times, so I do not even know if copies have arrived at the distribution warehouses yet.

Anybody got anything definate and dependable?

CombatSquirrel

raynor

February 25th, 2003, 03:06 AM

Adrenaline Vault gives the game three out of five stars--mainly because the AI is so incredibly poor.

http://www.avault.com/reviews/review_temp.asp?game=moo3

Baron Munchausen

February 25th, 2003, 05:46 AM

You know what I find impressive is that there are no copies floating around on the P2P networks yet. I browse both the Kazaa/Gnutella network and the WinMX network on a semi-regular basis. Normally you can find a game Online well before you can find it in the stores because someone at the CD plant will leak it. There's usually a lead time of two weeks or more. They must have resorted to some extra-ordinary security to prevent it from leaking.

Puke

February 25th, 2003, 06:12 AM

from the avault review:

Once you know what you should be doing, MOO3 is somewhat curious to pin down in terms of gameplay; at first, I wasn't sure if it was anything more than a spreadsheet with a graphical interface. It's obvious that Quicksilver gave a great deal of thought and effort to the economic and scientific aspects - even including a Planetary AI to deal with mundane tasks. What is equally obvious is that combat is often quick, dull and very dumbed down. The combat engine is not basic in its underlying design; Quicksilver took into account sensor ranges, weapons ranges and other factors as never done before in the MOO series. However, once in combat, there is little strategic gameplay present. You simply point your Task Forces in a direction until you spot the enemy, hit the attack button, and let the AI do the rest - making combat little more than a light show. Even intercepting enemy fleets is no longer that important, as every ship you build automatically goes into your empire's Reserves upon completion. From there you can create a Task Force at any system capable of building the same ships in only one turn - even if your vessels were created many turns travel away on a distant world. With the ability to instantly generate battle fleets just about anywhere in your empire, the Last tactical area of combat has been eliminated. Unfortunately, I found that the AI only loosely follows the guidelines that you set. For instance, even though I set Mining as the highest DEA priority for Mineral Rich worlds, I often caught the AI building mainly Farming zones instead (despite the fact that Farming wasn't even in my Development Plan). In addition, I found that if I set the AI not to colonize worlds on its own, it would do so anyway - even if the planet was toxic to my race.

In terms of difficulty, Master of Orion 3 falls totally flat, especially compared to its predecessors. I was hard pressed to tell the difference between the Easy and Hard levels of difficulty, as both played nearly the same. In fact, it's not uncommon to see AI players actually bring a fleet to one of your systems, then do nothing. The enemy will simply sit in orbit of a system until you send in an opposing fleet and destroy them; they won't even press an advantage. The only real challenge posed by MOO3 is with the Antarans and the various Guardian battleships, each of which takes aggressive action.maybe i wont buy it, afterall. Theres always Galciv. maybe X2 will come out in a couple months.. maybe i'll finish the GritTech mod, and play more PBW.

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 06:30 AM

Maybe it will be better after many patches a year from now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Wardad

February 25th, 2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Puke:
...maybe i wont buy it, afterall. Theres always Galciv. maybe X2 will come out in a couple months.. maybe i'll finish the GritTech mod, and play more PBW.hmmm... play more PBW.

Ed Kolis

February 25th, 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
You know what I find impressive is that there are no copies floating around on the P2P networks yet. I browse both the Kazaa/Gnutella network and the WinMX network on a semi-regular basis. Normally you can find a game Online well before you can find it in the stores because someone at the CD plant will leak it. There's usually a lead time of two weeks or more. They must have resorted to some extra-ordinary security to prevent it from leaking.Either that or it sucks so bad nobody WANTS to pirate it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

(And I was looking forward to MOO3 too... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif )

klausD

February 25th, 2003, 09:21 PM

Nobody mentions that the combat system of MOO3 is only real time. Is this real time crap so much accepted in this forum, that no one is complaining about this important issue?

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 09:29 PM

KlausD, MOO3 combat is designed so that you do not control the units directly. You give orders to task Groups and such before the battle, and watch them fight in real time. The pace of the battles is supposed to be such that the real time does not matter, and you have enough time to give whatever sparse orders you will need to give during combat. SE4 strategic combat is very similar, in that it is designed such that you give orders before combat, and then watch the results as the combat unfolds. This is not really a bad thing. In fact, real time combat for 4X games is far better than turn based, because it eliminates all of the unrealistic problems that come with turn based combat. In fact, I hope SE5 has well-implemented real time combat (and I am fairly certain that it is going to anyways http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

[ February 25, 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

raynor

February 25th, 2003, 10:23 PM

Even if Moo3 was unplayable, typically there would be enough people looking for it that at least someone would pirate it. I'm brand new to P2P networks such as Kazaa. But I think they use some sort of ranking so that people who have UP-loaded lots of stuff can get faster downloads somehow. I think...

Mephisto

February 26th, 2003, 12:51 AM

Another not so positive test:
http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/feb03/master_of_orion_3.html

Seems tester feel overwhelmed with details that have no real or only minimal effect.

klausD

February 26th, 2003, 01:09 AM

Imp Fyron
Sorry, but I dont share your view of RT not at all. (think, you guessed it already... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

You tell me that RT combat is much better for 4X games than turnbased. I am playing 4X games (board and computer) for nearly 20 years since I was a teenager and for me RT combat is something more ...what can I say...fashioned. I mean it appeared just several years ago. All the great classics of 4X (formers like CIV, MOM, MOO and some of todays like the SE series) are turnbased. Thats why your argument above (RT is better than turnbased for 4X) is not really valid for me. The problem is that most of the younger gamers today dont even know about something like "turnbased". (and they did not accept turnbased games because they grew up with RT games)

I did spend some time to inform myself about the MOO3 tactical combat system the Last few months, and I am not convinced at all. Let me explain why:

1. Personally I dont like any type of RT games. I dont even play medievial, harpoon or star fleet battles (the computer game) because they have RT system or a tactical combat system in RT.(although I tested each of them at least several days)

2. You mention that MOO3 is a "soft" form of RT combat. Maybe. But nonetheless even such a "soft" form of RT combat as in MOO3 has one important unacceptable feature. The guy which has a better hand-eye coordination wins more battles than others. Why? Well, simple. In MOO3 you can give orders at any time. (mainly moving taskforce orders) If 2 guys with exactly the same fleets and the same tactical abilities battle another, the guy which is used to play RT games and has a good hand-eye coordination will click at more optimized time moments at this "move taskforce" button and will have an advantage to the guy who just clicks later on it. It plays no role if this advantage is high or not. Its enough that there is an edge to the coordination guy. A good 4X game should be a contest of the minds not a contest of coordination. It should be FULLY FREE of honoring a players clicking abilities.

3. Maybe you claim that Quicksilver introduced a RT system because they have so many ships in their combat that a normal turn based system would not possible.
But to stay with the truth:

-In effekt now in MOO3 there are in about 200 Ships max per side per battle. I had some epic (and very amusing) SE4 Battles with more ships.

-if this 200max are so many ships that the average MOO player cannot handle them with ease in a traditional turnbased manner, they could reduce the amount with some economical or military restraints (making the single ship much more expensive or introducing some fleet point rules like in MOO2) Just a matter of game design.
NO they did not want to make the engine turnbased because they want to make more money if they design a mainstream product like shogun or medievial with a mixed system.(see above my rant about the likings of gamers of today)

4. A further problem is that many people do make the assumption that a 4X game is a simulation of beeing a leader in a pre-specified environment like sim-city in space or so. This is not my opinion. In my opinion a good 4X game is a a computer aided board game and not a simulation. And board games have a long tradition beeing turnbased. Several thousands of years.

I am not totally against sims or RT games. They should have their followers and their share of the big video gaming market. But I dont like if they do occupy every aspect of computer gaming. (especially the 4x games which I really like to play myselfes)

So I am riding against windmills once more....

KlausD

PS. sorry for my bad english

Baron Munchausen

February 26th, 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
Even if Moo3 was unplayable, typically there would be enough people looking for it that at least someone would pirate it. I'm brand new to P2P networks such as Kazaa. But I think they use some sort of ranking so that people who have UP-loaded lots of stuff can get faster downloads somehow. I think...The latest Version of Kazaa (only) has a sort of 'exchange ratio' rating, yes. But other clients which can use the same network do not. So it's only Kazaa Users who stick with the latest thing who are currently limited. I guess as new features are added the old client will be less attractive and people will start to get sucked into the participation control system. Of course, if you just recently joined up you probably downloaded the 'latest' one, like me... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But I've got a pretty hefty 'erotic images' collection, so I can get plenty of credit by just leaving my system Online. I've hit 1000 (the max) credit/rank more than once in the past couple of months. Even with my current rating of 800+ I don't see anything but the MOO 3 'demo' that that stoopid Australian IG exec gave to a magazine Last year. I have been searching every day for the past week. That says to me that it isn't out there yet. I expect it will show up in a few days though. But it'll be a 600+ MB CD image, a bit large for 56k connections. I'll probably wait for the patches and then actually buy it -- if the word-of-mouth is not too ugly and the patches improve on the commonly reported faults.

klausD

February 26th, 2003, 01:20 AM

mephisto:
IMO this is rather a bad review. I know Brett Todd from other reviews in GD but I never liked his approach to games very much. He often scratches only on the surface of a reviewed game. Significant for this is that he dont even mention the RT tactical combat system, spies etc. but many thanks for the link.
KlausD

PS. Kriegt Ihr Deutschen jetzt eigentlich kubanische Zigarren billiger? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Baron Munchausen

February 26th, 2003, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by klausD:
Nobody mentions that the combat system of MOO3 is only real time. Is this real time crap so much accepted in this forum, that no one is complaining about this important issue?Everyone who had issues with 'real time' has already vented on the MOO 3 forums. Everyone. Believe me, there can't be a person left on earth who resents real-time and has not posted a rant to the MOO 3 forums.

Since it's only combat it's not such a problem, really. You expect combat to be hairy, and many people have also complained about how unbalanced 'I go U go' combat has been. Many people here want to see SE V move towards 'impulse' combat with lots of tiny 'sub-turns' anyway. Add some way to execute blocks of 'impulses' automatically, as some people will want to speed things up, and you're almost running real-time mode. It's just interruptible.

Of course, it looks like MM has already decided to go real-time for SE V combat anyway...

klausD

February 26th, 2003, 01:31 AM

Everyone who had issues with 'real time' has already vented on the MOO 3 forums. Everyone. Believe me, there can't be a person left on earth who resents real-time and has not posted a rant to the MOO 3 forums.
I know - I have posted there myself http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I was wondering just about this forum.

Of course, it looks like MM has already decided to go real-time for SE V combat anyway... Sorry to hear this. Are you sure? (it would be a significant reason for me not to buy the game) I am glad that there is SE2-SE4 for people like myself.

Since it's only combat it's not such a problem, really. For me tactical combat is VERY important in SE4. At least so important as the tech or economical system.

klausD

Gryphin

February 26th, 2003, 01:37 AM

Real Time Combat
What does that mean?
I infer from the conversation that it means:
I give instructions while combat is taking place.
Currently I give various Strategies to my ships and fleets and they do more or less what I want.

If RT Combat is going to require I need to react as fast or faster than my opponent I will not buy it.

Baron Munchausen

February 26th, 2003, 01:37 AM

The point is that tactical combat is only part of the game. The clock is only ticking when you're watching ships shoot at each other, not while you're choosing facilities to build on your system garrison world, composing diplomatic Messages, designing ships, etc. It's only the one part of the game where real time can have a positive effect that it is being applied. Sure, there are problems with it. Many people would prefer an elaborate initiative/impulse system like many table-top miniatures games have. But that would require learning more complicated rules and interfaces, which would limit the market for the game. Not everyone is a micro-management fanatic like us nerds on these forums. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif So I can see why they went with real time.

[ February 25, 2003, 23:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Fyron

February 26th, 2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
Even if Moo3 was unplayable, typically there would be enough people looking for it that at least someone would pirate it. I'm brand new to P2P networks such as Kazaa. But I think they use some sort of ranking so that people who have UP-loaded lots of stuff can get faster downloads somehow. I think...This is not just directed at you raynor, so don't take it personally, but... let's stop discussing illegal activities such as software piracy on Shrapnel.

KlausD:
The main game should be turn based. That was not my point at all. But, real time for combat (with slow rates) is better because it eliminates a huge number of problems that are inherent in turn-based combat. Some examples are the complete lack of realism of one side always being able to fire all of their weapons at once, then the other side fires all of their weapons. Some games (not SE4) make some attempt to fix this by using initiative systems (like MOO3) so that some of a players ships go, then some of the other side's go, depending on whatever is used to determine initiative. But, that is still a flawed system. You can not fix the inherent flaws with turn based movement unless you have an absurd number of initiative increments to get very fine gradations, and it is just like real time combat at that point. MOO3 combat is not going to be like Starcraft or anything like that.

2. You mention that MOO3 is a "soft" form of RT combat. Maybe. But nonetheless even such a "soft" form of RT combat as in MOO3 has one important unacceptable feature. The guy which has a better hand-eye coordination wins more battles than others. Why? Well, simple. In MOO3 you can give orders at any time. (mainly moving taskforce orders) If 2 guys with exactly the same fleets and the same tactical abilities battle another, the guy which is used to play RT games and has a good hand-eye coordination will click at more optimized time moments at this "move taskforce" button and will have an advantage to the guy who just clicks later on it. It plays no role if this advantage is high or not. Its enough that there is an edge to the coordination guy. A good 4X game should be a contest of the minds not a contest of coordination. It should be FULLY FREE of honoring a players clicking abilities.With how combat is supposed to be implemented in MOO3, faster hand-eye coordination is irrelevant because a few seconds of delay are supposed to make no difference at all. I agree that this can be a problem. But, proper balancing and mechanics can very easily eliminate any hand-eye coordination benefit. And, combat in multiplayer games (esp. with multiple human players) should always be done in strategic mode with no additional input from the players, so that it does not slow down the game for players not involved in the battle, and so that PBEM is possible. These very well eliminate any issues with hand-eye coordination.

NO they did not want to make the engine turnbased because they want to make more money if they design a mainstream product like shogun or medievial with a mixed system.(see above my rant about the likings of gamers of today)Maybe, but that is probably not the main reason why they went with real time. Well-done and slow-paced real time combat is better than turn based combat in pretty much every way. The main reason that older games were not ever real time is that it requires more CPU clock cycles to execute real time combat as opposed to turn based. So, computers of the old days could not run real time very practically, so it was not used.

4. A further problem is that many people do make the assumption that a 4X game is a simulation of beeing a leader in a pre-specified environment like sim-city in space or so. This is not my opinion. In my opinion a good 4X game is a a computer aided board game and not a simulation. And board games have a long tradition beeing turnbased. Several thousands of years.I hope that was a general statement and that it was not directed at me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif MOO3 will be turn-based like a board game. It will just take the initiative systems that the better board games use to the next level, using continuous initiative intervals.

PS. sorry for my bad english There wasn't really much bad English. Maybe a few punctuation errors, and a few cases of "k"s instead of "c"s, but other than that it was good English. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 26, 2003, 00:09: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob

February 26th, 2003, 06:13 AM

Real time combat? I wish MM would reconsider.

However much I have complained about "Strategies", I would prefer our present way of determining a battle than real time combat.

Much better IMO would be for MM to give us a better method of programming our fleets/ships and then let the game decide the outcome.

Fyron

February 26th, 2003, 06:25 AM

Its kind of funny to see people scoff at the first mention of real time combat. It solves so many problems of turn based combat, and can very easily be set at such a pace that you don't even notice it is real time instead of turn based, while still being fast enough to not keep you waiting for ever.

Phoenix-D

February 26th, 2003, 06:31 AM

"Much better IMO would be for MM to give us a better method of programming our fleets/ships and then let the game decide the outcome."

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Phoenix-D

tbontob

February 26th, 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Its kind of funny to see people scoff at the first mention of real time combat. It solves so many problems of turn based combat, and can very easily be set at such a pace that you don't even notice it is real time instead of turn based, while still being fast enough to not keep you waiting for ever.Yes, RTC may be the wave of the future. And while it does solve many of the problems plaguing turn based combat, there is the issue of getting the participating players together in a timely fashion to play out the combat.

For those players who do not "live" on-line, we can expect the game to take longer to play.

tbontob

February 26th, 2003, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"Much better IMO would be for MM to give us a better method of programming our fleets/ships and then let the game decide the outcome."

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Phoenix-DLOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Quite right.

Suicide Junkie

February 26th, 2003, 06:39 AM

I think the point has been made many times, but not quite understood.

In any PBW game, you have ZERO influence on combat once it has started.
Your effect during the battle is the same whether combat is computed using a turn based system, a real time system, or simply flipping a coin and killing ships randomly.

Obviously, flipping the coin gives you a very unrealistic outcome.
Turn based more accurately simulates the "real thing"
Real time simulates it even more accurately than turn based would.

The only hand-eye coordination involved here is the simulated coordination of your AI ship's gunners. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Gryphin

February 26th, 2003, 06:39 AM

If I understand this,
Real Time Combat can not be done in PBW or PBEM so it seems as though there will still be a Stratigic combat.
Am I right?

Suicide Junkie

February 26th, 2003, 06:44 AM

Strategic combat = humans give all orders BEFORE combat, and none DURING combat.

Whether that fully automatic cambat is "real time" or turn based has no effect on the skill or coordination required.

Fyron

February 26th, 2003, 08:16 AM

Yeah... I thought I was clear on that. MP games would have to be done with strategic combat (no player input-mid combat) either way, except for hotseat games. Otherwise, the game would get bogged down very easily. There is a good reason why there is no tactical combat (human controlled) in all non-hotseat MP games of SE4.

Hotseat games probably aren't how most MP games of MOO3 will be played. They certainly aren't for SE4 for most people (at least from what I have heard).

Single player games benefit equally from properly implemented real time combat, as I have explained already.

Wizarc

February 26th, 2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by desdinova:
ok, so here a the new alphabet
a b d e f g h i j k l m n o p r s t u v w z

i have removed the c as it can be represented by the k or s, q replaced by kw if necessary, y replaced by i or e, x by z or ks.
and here is how some of the current words can be respelled
quick - kwik xylophone - zilofone recess - resess hungry - hungree hex - hecks
ok so not every word gets simplified.Here in Hawaii there are only 13 letters in the alphabet. Then of course we have two new Languages blending into American English: Ebonics and Pigeon. It is unbelievable how society goes with the flow...probably in 100 years there will be major differences in the English language and the dictionaries of the world keep getting bigger when new Languages are accepted.

But to keep on what I thought this topic was about. What does anyone think of MOO3. All the reviews are extremely negative, negative, negative!?

Aloofi

February 26th, 2003, 04:04 PM

About the real time thingy:

Me think that the best way to do real time combat would be with "action points".
I.e: You have a ship with 5 action points. The ship would use those points to either move or fire, or a convination of both. If movement cost one action point per sector, and firing two action points, a ship could could move 5 sectors, or move 3 sectors and fire once, or move 1 and fire 2, and then it would have to wait for action points to replenish, not completely, but at least one point to move again.
This way manouvering and reloading would be simulated, and the real time thing would be slow enough for slow players like myself.
But I still think I'll prefer turn based...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

oleg

February 26th, 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
About the real time thingy:

Me think that the best way to do real time combat would be with "action points".
I.e: You have a ship with 5 action points. The ship would use those points to either move or fire, or a convination of both. If movement cost one action point per sector, and firing two action points, a ship could could move 5 sectors, or move 3 sectors and fire once, or move 1 and fire 2, and then it would have to wait for action points to replenish, not completely, but at least one point to move again.
This way manouvering and reloading would be simulated, and the real time thing would be slow enough for slow players like myself.
But I still think I'll prefer turn based...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif This is something close to Age of Wonders II combat model. And I should say I liked it very much !

Suicide Junkie

February 26th, 2003, 05:03 PM

You're just watching the combat replay anyways, so there is no reason why there can't be a full set of VCR style controls, including slow-motion!

Mephisto

February 26th, 2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by klausD:
Kriegt Ihr Deutschen jetzt eigentlich kubanische Zigarren billiger? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Na ja, irgendeinen Nutzen m�ssen wir ja aus der Politik unseres Kanzlers ziehen. Sonst kommt ja nicht so viel r�ber. Ich f�hle mich hier in D wie auf der Titanic und die Kapelle spielt munter: "Alles wird gut!".

Aloofi

February 26th, 2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
This is something close to Age of Wonders II combat model. And I should say I liked it very much !Yeah, I love that game too. The best game out there to build a War of the Ring scenario.
But I got the idea from Fallout Tactics, were the real time combat uses action points for firing, reloading, etc.
They just left the movement out. A mistake, me thinks.

Aloofi

February 26th, 2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by klausD:
kubanische Zigarren ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .Aren't they illegal there? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Suicide Junkie

February 26th, 2003, 10:50 PM

But I got the idea from Fallout Tactics, were the real time combat uses action points for firing, reloading, etc.
They just left the movement out. A mistake, me thinks.Not really.
In turn based mode, moving takes up action points.
In realtime mode, the character's movement uses up action points at the same rate as they recharge, and the speed on screen is scaled appropriately. Just makes things more convienent for the user to read the status, and avoids fractional AP usage.

Mephisto

February 26th, 2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by klausD:
kubanische Zigarren ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .Aren't they illegal there? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif <hr /></blockquote>Nope, in the US IIRC but not in Germany. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

oleg

February 27th, 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by oleg:
This is something close to Age of Wonders II combat model. And I should say I liked it very much !Yeah, I love that game too. The best game out there to build a War of the Ring scenario.
...<hr /></blockquote>Actually, Age of Wonders I is better suited for that purpose, IMHO. There was one particular good Middle Earth map, you would like it.

rextorres

February 27th, 2003, 01:06 AM

based on what i've read moo3 probably is finished. . .

oleg

February 27th, 2003, 02:30 AM

I read another Moo3 review
http://www.quartertothree.com/reviews/moo3/moo3-1.shtml
Now I reaaly in doubt should I bother with Moo3. Here is why:

""In addition to being maddeningly inscrutable, MOO3 completely misses the point of the previous games' appeal. The ship building in Master of Orion 1 and 2 was a large part of their personality. You designed space ships by stuffing their hulls with nifty little devices, maybe tweaking them to make them fit better or hit harder or skew further to the side to draw a bead on more nimble enemy ships. At its best, it was like building model spaceships. It was one of the signature elements of Master of Orion.

And MOO3 fails completely to recreate it. Ship building here has all the excitement of letting the AI draw up a laundry list of the most advanced components. Sure, you can get in there and do it yourself, futzing with the inconsistent interface and trying to decipher unexplained numbers and statistics. But don't expect any payoff, because you use your ships as fleets built according to esoteric rules that seem to have been inspired by Harpoon. This downplays your individual ship designs by forcing you to use them in clusters that are utterly devoid of personality. And then you get to the wretched tactical combat.""

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

tbontob

February 27th, 2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
based on what i've read moo3 probably is finished. . .Yeh, it seems that way.

Based on the reviews, I know I will not be buying it.

Baron Munchausen

February 27th, 2003, 03:45 AM

Don't make up your mind too quickly. Not only has the general public only just begun to use it, but we don't know how much QS can do with patches. They have already stated that they will be adding the ability to retrofit ships in the patch(es). I'm still hoping they will make major additions like space monsters. And of couse they can tweak the UI and the AI in various ways to make it more usable.

And also remember that much of the configuration data is in external, editable files. Who knows what people might be able to do with that.

[ February 27, 2003, 01:46: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

oleg

February 27th, 2003, 04:51 PM

I took a time to read some first player' opinions on official MOO forum and left speechless.
Just take a look here:
http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?s=83f44a9ede437d97b7070a21ea7e5a13&threadid=267505

solops

February 27th, 2003, 05:12 PM

Since I favor spreadsheet style presentations and lots of data, I am intrigued. The gameplay and AI issues sound very bad, as does the AI running your planets for you. I'll probably get it when it hits the $9.99 bargain bin, which may be soon.

Aloofi

February 27th, 2003, 05:50 PM

Thanks for that link, Oleg.
First I was planning to buy MOO3, then I begun to have some doubts, especially after getting SE4 just Last month, but now I'm sure that I'm not gonna get it, at least untill it hits the bargain price.
Anyway, the only think that got my attention from MOO3 was the ground combat, which seemed superior to SE4, but now I just lowered the ground combat turns to only 3 and added a new infantry unit, Heavy Infantry, between Proportions Elite and Regular Infantry, and I'm considering adding "Atmospheric Bombers" to drop like troops..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

February 27th, 2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Don't make up your mind too quickly. Not only has the general public only just begun to use it, but we don't know how much QS can do with patches. They have already stated that they will be adding the ability to retrofit ships in the patch(es). I'm still hoping they will make major additions like space monsters. And of couse they can tweak the UI and the AI in various ways to make it more usable.

And also remember that much of the configuration data is in external, editable files. Who knows what people might be able to do with that.MOO3 is moddable? At least it has that going for it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

You mean to tell me that they cut one of the best features of MOO from MOO3? No monsters? This saddens me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif It can't require too much effort to code them in (just specialized Versions of the code functions that already exist for ships), so that can't be the reason they were cut.

[ February 27, 2003, 17:44: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

gregebowman

February 27th, 2003, 08:20 PM

Yeah, saw the box yesterday at Electronic Boutique. Except for the memory requirement (128 megs), I could have played it on my computer. I'll have to check it out once I can. Looks interesting. I don't think I'll wait so long as to find it in the bargain bin, but EB does sell used games. Maybe I can find it cheaper once I have a new computer.

Baron Munchausen

February 27th, 2003, 08:37 PM

I think monsters were cut due to time and budget constraints, mainly. Remember they had a working game Last year but play testers said it was not 'fun' at all. So they re-worked it to get where they are now. And most of the people trying to play this one say it's not 'fun' either! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I wouldn't completely give up just yet, though. As with all other major software packages, it will take a 'public beta' cycle to get things nailed down. Next fall will be a good time to look at MOO 3 again.

[ February 27, 2003, 18:37: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Fyron

February 27th, 2003, 08:41 PM

I for one am not falling for another Civ 3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

thorfrog

February 27th, 2003, 10:58 PM

Well, looks like they dropped the ball on this game. Why couldn't they just add to MOO2? Keep all of the things that made it great and add a little more. I had a feeling this was going to bomb. I'm so glad I got into SEIV before.

Fyron

February 28th, 2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by atomannj:
Well, looks like they dropped the ball on this game. Why couldn't they just add to MOO2? Keep all of the things that made it great and add a little more. I had a feeling this was going to bomb. I'm so glad I got into SEIV before.They were trying to follow in Firaxis'/Infogrames' footsteps, in the prints set by Civ 3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Baron Munchausen

February 28th, 2003, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by atomannj:
Well, looks like they dropped the ball on this game. Why couldn't they just add to MOO2? Keep all of the things that made it great and add a little more. I had a feeling this was going to bomb. I'm so glad I got into SEIV before.Well, they also faced a lot of pressure to really 'break new ground' in this game. Lots of people said 'Don't make it MOO 2.5!' in the message forums. So it's sort of a double-bind. No matter which way they go lots of people will be upset. From a commercial stand-point it might have been smarter to stick with known principles, but then again as other games continue to evolve they might have gotten laughed at for being so unimaginative.

I guess they waited too long to update it. If there had been a MOO III only 3 or 4 years after MOO II they could have had some feedback, and some experience with smaller changes. Instead they tried to leap 8+ years of game evolution all at once.

Tampa_Gamer

February 28th, 2003, 05:07 PM

Well, at the specific request of some people who know me on this forum, of what my opinion on MOO3 is, here is my post over on the "Gone Gold" forum pasted in its entirety:

The following is a summary if my first impressions of MOO3. I have pretty much bought & own every 4x game that I can think of for the Last 15+ years as well as put probably a couple of hundred hours into MOO games as well as modding and playing SE4 lately. On MOO3 I have put 8-10 hours in playing and a similar amount in reading the entire manual and readme.txt 2x and review numerous Posts on the Apolyton & Infogames MOO3 websites. This is only my opinion and if I criticize something b/c I missed the concept in the manual or readme, I apologize but I think I spent more time preparing and reading in order to play than the average casual gamer. Overall, my attitude is that I will keep plugging away at this game until I understand it.

GAMEPLAY

Having only put 8-10 hours in so far, I cannot comment too much on this. To me, it does feel like a space empire strategy game of the MOO series. After a couple of hours (30 turns), I feel like I have a working knowledge of the economics of my planets (6) now (but there are a lot of subtleties that I still have yet to learn). In order to determine how good the viceroy AI is, I left 1/2 my planets on AI control and I controlled the other 1/2. With the exception of the military build queue, the AI did a pretty good job of building up the necessary items needed to get the planet's economy going and did follow my pre-planned regional zoning. One fundamental concept that took my awhile to understand is that unlike almost all space 4x games now, there are 2 levels of finances to balance - (1) empire, and (2) planetary. It is possible for planetary banks to have an abundance of AUs, but the empire is dirt poor b/c they aggregated like MOO3 - I think this concept works out well and I like it so far (but I have an accounting background, so others may not like the detail).

DOCUMENTATION IN RELATION TO ACTUAL PLAY

Bad - Everybody has harped on this point and I am not the exception. I understand that the manual was printed far in advance of the final gold Version, but with the ease with which text in tooltips and encyclopedias can be modified (see under "modding" below) there was no excuse not to offer more in-game help to Users. I consider myself a veteran 4x strategy player and I dabble in programming myself, so at the user-interface should not have been a problem for me - but it was. Many times I found myself trying to right-click on something or bring up a tooltip to understand something and either (1) there was no tooltip, (2) the text was useless b/c it repeated the name of the variable, or (3) it was downright wrong. The encyclopedia was next to useless b/c at the very least I expected it to have the same information that is in the manual, but it did not. As an example, when I was zoning my regions there was a little colored leaf with a description of the biodiversity of the zone next to it (i.e. arrable, alluvial, etc.) no where does it explain the effect of these different descriptions - optimally it would be in a tooltip on the screen in which you have to make a decision about what to zone the region, but at the very list it should be listed in the encyclopedia.

USER INTERFACE

Good - I like the ability to move the various menus around and they open/close quickly.
Bad - It desperately needs a tooltip overhaul (as discussed above) and some right-click menus. The font was fuzzy to me, but I am probably blind from staring at computer monitors since I was 12, so who knows - I will be modding in a different font. Overall, it seems very unpolished (there were several points where I was trying to modify a slider or button and the menu underneath was reacting instead of the actual one and several icons pop-up as you adjust the economic sliders, but no where does it explain what those icons mean). To me, a good interface design provides the information you need to make a decision on the same screen you need to implement that decision - in this aspect it fails b/c the information (if available at all) is several clicks away. Again, this may be an area where modding will help (see "modding" below).

SOUND & GRAPHICS

Indifferent - Not really necessary to be great in my view as long as gameplay is there (I am an SE4 fan - remember), but I would like at least 1024 resolution (wishful thinking). Menu sounds get a little old after awhile (I will probably mod those as well). Music can be toned down, but it created a good atmosphere. Graphics - what can I say...thank goodness they can be modded as well. Three years and this is the best that they could come up with...

AI & COMBAT

Indifferent - I cannot with comment yet with so little time in, but I can say this - they need to add a "pause" command so that in single-player we can pause to see what the heck is going on or get up to take a pee. I don't know why it was not included. If the concern is multi-player, make it optional.

SHIP DESIGN/TASK FORCES

Good - it does make moving multiple ships easier.
Bad - a lot of people have compared MOO3 to Kohan with respect to task force creation. I would agree to a limited extent. However, Kohan lets you see the stats for each component with a single right-click. If I want to know what weaponry/specials my Hawk avenger class has, I have to travel all the way back to the shipyard design screen and bring up that design - not very user-friendly. There is also no ship/task force experience that I could see. I understand the move from ships to task forces - but why not at least have experience at the task force level until they are broken up and form another task force. The MOO2 ship design screen had a better lay-out as well. In MOO3 you add weapons from a sub-menu which does give you that particular weapon stats, but does not compare it to others (like MOO2).

RESEARCH

Good - I like the matrix effect and fog-of-war type approach. The fact that it will change a bit in my next game is good.
Bad - They should put my current/expected tech level in each field on the slider screen where I make the expense decision, not on the matrix screen.

MODDING

Good - this may be the saving grace of MOO3 and from what I can tell has not been discussed all that much in the reviews (of course, I am heavily into modding SE4 - so I am biased towards this aspect). All of the MOO3 files are contained in .mob files which are essentially archived files and can be unzipped/zipped with any shareware archive program. Once unzipped, you can see that practically all of the text is editable in .txt files with any word processing programs; the sounds files are all .aif files; the cursors are .cur files; the video files are bink video; and the graphics are all .png files. Which means, folks, that we have a LOT of modding potential. They have also set-up the directory structure to accommodate several different data sets (good for using multiple mods with different games). A quick review of some of the files confirmed that we have access to all of the various stats, technology trees, menu graphics (yes - we should be able to make different skins for different races with different sounds - like BOTF). I think I found the ship graphics - but I am not sure. I think even the tooltip descriptions are in .txt format and we should be able to put better descriptions in there as well - especially if a particular mod changes the default meaning of the variable - there are a LOT of possibilities here and so far I am impressed.

Bad - they need to have a launcher so that you can choose which data set you are going to use for a particular game. Hopefully, this will be in a patch.

SUMMARY

I think I was a bit negative overall, but when you pluck down $50 and wait three years, expectations seem to rise (the subtitle name of the game in the box is "the ultimate space strategy game" or something like that). So far it is not. HOWEVER, I think with a couple of patches with some minor features added at the request of fans, some good user-made FAQs and an active mod community, this game could rise to the level of hard-drive staying power that MOO2 did - but I would wait until it comes down in price to the $30s and a patch is released that will address some bugs that are popping up on the main forum.

Atrocities

March 1st, 2003, 01:27 AM

Thank you Tampa. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I have to agree with your thoughts 100%. And I too found the tool tips hard to read. They were bleeding horribly.

minipol

March 1st, 2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I for one am not falling for another Civ 3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif My neither. I'll await the patches and see what happens. I'll play CM4 instead http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
And wait for Lords Of the Realm III

Atrocities

March 2nd, 2003, 01:38 AM

http://www.insomniax.net/downloads/downloads.html#MOO3

A new UI for Moo3, and it was done in 3 days. Same for a new FONT pack.

Wardad

March 3rd, 2003, 04:54 PM

Atrocities,
I looked for you on the MOO3 board. There was a forest of Posts on that board. So what is you Avatar there?

I got a real kick out of those MOO3 threads.
"LOSE A GAME OF MOO3 CONTEST"
"AI WILL NOT ATTACK"

I bet Aaron, our beta testers, and our legion of modders could fix that game up.

Secretly, I have dreamed of making the original MOO multiplayer. It would take such a strong will not to change anything else in the game.

[ March 03, 2003, 14:55: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Aloofi

March 3rd, 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by minipol:
And wait for Lords Of the Realm IIIOh yeah baby, I've been waiting for Lords3 since the expansion came out back in '97.
The bad news is that they went Real-Time, and I fear it is Bad Real Time, not the good one that you can pause and do all the stuff as slow as you like and then unpause.

minipol

March 3rd, 2003, 11:09 PM

Aloofi,

that's exactely my fear. I hope it's every bit they say it will be. I can't wait to kill some peasants!
It looks like the political engine will be largely improved too. Overall i hope it's not going to be another "3th edition of a series is to much" syndrom.

Kammak

March 4th, 2003, 10:54 PM

MOO3 made me fire up SEIV (after several months of it laying dormant). I had a bLast, and it made me remember what a GOOD space empire game is supposed to be.

MOO3 is just...odd. I feel like a real schmuck for not buying it EB so I could take it back. I didn't read any reviews, nor check any message Boards before buying....NEVER AGAIN! I was so dang excited to see it I snatched it right up. Ouch.

I'm staying with SE4 for those times I need a 4x fix. This game rocks!

minipol

March 5th, 2003, 12:49 AM

MOO3 made me fire up SEIV (after several months of it laying dormant). Several months? How did you manage?! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Master Belisarius

March 5th, 2003, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by klausD:
kubanische Zigarren ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .Aren't they illegal there? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif <hr /></blockquote>Nope, in the US IIRC but not in Germany. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif <hr /></blockquote>Un Cigarro Cubano?? My God! Hope you're not a Cuban spy...