oooo aaron! - looks like moo3 is flopping... ;) do se5 faster? [Archive]

Fyron

February 27th, 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Cirvol:
unfortunately, yes... se4 is a niche

there was never a store release
(which, today is better than even a year ago)

but still bad imho - aaron / malf. needs to call up eb and see if they can get some copies put onto shelves with 'new release' stickers and maybe a follow up review on game review sites that have just finished doing moo3 reviews http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

(hrm, should i be running malf? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif - they should call me for consulting work or sumsuch)Probably not. Going retail brings very little to no profit to the game developer. This is why MM never took SE to retail. MM would most likely end up losing money if that happened.

Originally posted by dogscoff:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
I'm not buying, I'm happy with the Proportioned SE4.
I agree completely. Someone bought me MOO2 a few years ago. Never even installed it.<hr /></blockquote>You missed out on a lot then. MOO2 is essentially a better game than SE4. The only downside to it is that it lacks the moddability of SE4. This is the only reason why SE4 is currently a better game than MOO2. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Well, that, and you can't do as many varied stellar manipulations as in SE4, but that is a minor point. It is kind of like the difference between nVidia and ATI video cards. The ATI card is a better designed card, but the nVidia has far superior drivers, which make it outperform in the end. If only MOO2 was merged with SE4, then we would have one heck of a game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 27, 2003, 17:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Aloofi

February 27th, 2003, 07:38 PM

I haven't played any of the MOO games, so I can't compare SE4 to them, but compared the games I have played, SE4 beat the hell out of them in everything but diplomacy.

Fyron

February 27th, 2003, 07:40 PM

You can get MOO2 for rather cheap nowadays. I only payed about $10 for it a few years back. I suggest you try it out. You won't regret it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

spoon

February 27th, 2003, 08:05 PM

MOO series = good single player
SE4 = good multiplayer

I probably won't play MOO3 multiplayer, and, lord help me, I won't play SE4 single player.

Fyron

February 27th, 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
MOO series = good single player
SE4 = good multiplayer

I probably won't play MOO3 multiplayer, and, lord help me, I won't play SE4 single player.It is good to see that I am not alone. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Well... except that there is no "lord help me" part for me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ February 27, 2003, 18:16: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Baron Munchausen

February 27th, 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Cirvol:
http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?s=83f44a9ede437d97 b7070a21ea7e5a13&threadid=267505 (http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?s=83f44a9ede437d97b7070a21ea7e5a13&threadid=267505)

thats a thread about many new moo3 owners that are dissatisfied - you all might want to point them to se4gold http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

anyway, i'd like to know what you all think?Unfortunately, the mis-adventures of the MOO series might hurt all 4X games rather than help its rivals. Most people are hypnotized by eye-candy 'real time' 3D games these days, you know. Hearing that MOO 3 was 'a flop' might convince them that 4X games aren't any good and they should stick with the click-fest eye-candy type games. Then Galactic Civilization and other pending 4X games will get much less chance to prove themselves.

I'm sure MM will be reading reviews and listening to opinons about MOO 3 to learn what they did wrong, though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 27, 2003, 18:26: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

David E. Gervais

February 27th, 2003, 08:27 PM

One thing that makes a big difference, Moo2, Moo3, Alpha Centauri, Gal Civ etc are all 'retail' products as in 'on the shelves of many stores out there.' SE4 as far as I know has only been available through Online purchase. That makes a whole lot of difference in how visible a product is in the public eye. I would be willing to bet that if SE4:Gold hit retail shelves sales would dramatically increase. Heck if it was able to top $500,000 sales just through the net, I'd say it still has lots of potential.

..just another of my humble opinions..

Cheers!

P.S. I really hope that SE:5 hits not only the Online stores, but also makes it's way into the retail outlets. There's a whole new audience out there, and that means a lot of sales potential!

Fyron

February 27th, 2003, 08:31 PM

Yes, and that would make lots of money for the retail stores, and for the retail distributers. But not much for MM at all. This is why SE4 was not taken to retail. The developers pretty much get the shaft when their games' are sold retail.

gregebowman

February 27th, 2003, 08:38 PM

Yeah, I didn't even know of the Space Empire series of games until I read a review in PC Gamer. I then went to Electronic Boutique, where I seem to get the majority of my games, and they had never even heard of it. I then checked out the website, downloaded the demo, played it and became so damn frustrated with not knowing what the heck I was doing that I ordered the game, figuring the manual would explain all!! Ha, ha, little did I know....

sachmo

February 27th, 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by gregebowman:
Yeah, I didn't even know of the Space Empire series of games until I read a review in PC Gamer. I then went to Electronic Boutique, where I seem to get the majority of my games, and they had never even heard of it. I then checked out the website, downloaded the demo, played it and became so damn frustrated with not knowing what the heck I was doing that I ordered the game, figuring the manual would explain all!! Ha, ha, little did I know....Ouch! Bad assumption! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Cirvol

February 27th, 2003, 10:24 PM

lol, ya but now you luv se4 eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

i just wish aaron fixed general ai and combat resolution/strategy/initiative issues - imho the 2 weakest parts of se4gold

David E. Gervais

February 27th, 2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes, and that would make lots of money for the retail stores, and for the retail distributers. But not much for MM at all. This is why SE4 was not taken to retail. The developers pretty much get the shaft when their games' are sold retail.My main point was 'visability' products that are only available through the net have a much more 'limited' audience. (compared to retail!) As to getting the shaft, I'd say it all depends on the contract between the developer and the publisher. Yes in general the developer gets less than publisher, but in most cases it's the publisher that is paying for the packaging/duplication and responsable for finding a distribution network. So, if it costs approx $5 per copy (CD, CD case, box, manual, all rwapped up in a neat package) the developer might only see $5-$10 per copy. The publisher will most certainly take as much (after expenses) or slightly more for his share. For example, $5(dev), + $15(pub $10 after expenses), + $5(dist), +$24.95(retail profit) = sale price $49.95 So, in this example as you can see the 'Retailer' gets the best deal/profit. In the case of a developer like Blizzard, they demand $20/copy and their publisher in turn asks for $25 and the distributors ask for their $5 then the retailer (who payes $50 for the game feels it necessary to make less profit in order to sell the game...Final price $79.95 to $89.95) Retailers don't like the 'big' companies mainly because they are forced to lower their profit to ensure the sale of the game... but I digress..

You must remember, the sales potential is much greater in retail, and the $5 the developer gets per/copy can end up being much more in the long run than a net only product. In this case I suggesteds that the game be available in both mediums. SO Aaron or MM wouldn't be making less, they would be opening up a new source of revenue in addition to the net only route!

In effect, If Aaron/MM want $12/copy He/they can get that, the only drawback is this will push up the final retail price. But if the game is good most consumers will be willing to pay the price.

Nuf said!

Cheers!

[ February 27, 2003, 20:36: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

Atrocities

February 27th, 2003, 10:42 PM

I don't think we should compare SE:IV to MOO:3 or any other game...

...We should devote our energy towards making suggestions and coming up with new ideas to make Space Empires V the best game it can be. What other game do we the players have a chance to really make a difference in how it's put together? There are many of us here that have had suggestions directly put into patches for SE:IV already. Now let's flex our consumer muscles and gaming brains and make sure that Space Empires V will be a great game!
DITTO

Atrocities

February 27th, 2003, 11:10 PM

You know, I have seen forums bLasted many O'times by fans who feel cheated, disapointed, or out right ticked off about a new sequal to the game they love.

Tribes 2 was by far the worst. But hey, the game proved itself within a few months, and so will Moo3.

When SEV comes out, the same thing will happen, but on a much more profession level. We love this game, and only want it to succeed. So when SEV comes out, I won't be surprised to see some constructive feed back.

It always happens. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Atrocities

February 27th, 2003, 11:53 PM

When the people who LIKE the game admit it takes awhile to learn the interface, something is wrong with the interface. Too many bottons to get somewhere.How bout opening the planet screen, then the finacial screen to get to the build que. Whats it doing in the finacial screen and not the design screen.Then if you want to go to another planet, you have to shut down all the prevous screens before you go to the next planet or the screen won't open. Not obvious in manuel or game what is going on at any one time.Too many times it took like 10 min to figure out how to do something, if at all. And the game pace is bad. I mean I would build 3 cruisers. By the time the second cruiser came out, it was obsolete. I would have 3 or more ship techs by the time it came out. Rendering alot of techs useless.JUST NOT FUN TO ME. I'm going back to space empires 4 .
Damn, he should have put a link there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There forums are ablaze with upset fans. I hope the fans will give the game a chance, but I can also understand peoples anger toward poorly implemented games. (SimCity 4 was one for me.)

I am sure in a month, all the folks saying bad things will come to enjoy the game. Or perhaps they will invest in SEIV, and be around for SEV. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[ February 27, 2003, 22:03: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

gregebowman

February 28th, 2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Cirvol:
lol, ya but now you luv se4 eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Yeah, I do luv this game. I'm just surprised of all the companies that are like this that I still don't know about. I bought a war game that sounded interesting after reading a review from PC Gamer. It was another net only product. I tell you, if it wasn't for PC Gamer and some of the other magazines of that ilk, I wouldn't know of many of these products. And games like SE4 need to be promoted more than a 2 or 3 paragraph review in a magazine. But I know ads costs money too, so what you gonna do?

Fyron

February 28th, 2003, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by David E. Gervais:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes, and that would make lots of money for the retail stores, and for the retail distributers. But not much for MM at all. This is why SE4 was not taken to retail. The developers pretty much get the shaft when their games' are sold retail.My main point was 'visability' products that are only available through the net have a much more 'limited' audience..... In effect, If Aaron/MM want $12/copy He/they can get that, the only drawback is this will push up the final retail price. But if the game is good most consumers will be willing to pay the price.<hr /></blockquote>MM decided to go with Shrapnel precisely because they could not get a reasonable deal with any retail game publisher. Blizzard is not just a game developer, they are also a game publisher. There is a significant difference between the two things, and MM is not a game publisher.

Charging something like $60 for a niche game will drive sales down quite a bit, and would cause MM to make very little money.

Originally posted by Atrocities:
You know, I have seen forums bLasted many O'times by fans who feel cheated, disapointed, or out right ticked off about a new sequal to the game they love.

Tribes 2 was by far the worst. But hey, the game proved itself within a few months, and so will Moo3.

When SEV comes out, the same thing will happen, but on a much more profession level. We love this game, and only want it to succeed. So when SEV comes out, I won't be surprised to see some constructive feed back.

It always happens. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif This happened with SE4 when it came out too, you know. In fact, I was one of the people that did not like SE4. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I wasn't very vocal at the time, but the spirit was there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ February 28, 2003, 00:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

CNCRaymond

February 28th, 2003, 04:52 AM

Ok, I have played the game for about three hours now. What do I think so far? It is a tremendous let down. Space Empires IV should never be compare to Masters Of Orion 3 ever simply because SEIV is a far superior game in every single aspect and regard.

I would fire the entire MOO 3 development team, and hire Malfador to design MOO 4. Great God almighty I can not believe that MOO 3 costs $50.00 bucks. The game is only worth about $10.00 dollars at best.

The graphics are pale, the UI is crap. The planets look like something you would see being displayed on an old 486. Hell the equipment at work has better looking graphics than the "System" display of newest Masters Of Orion game. And the equipment at work is circa 1980's.

For a complete review of MOO3, check the http://astmod.com web site on Sunday. I will be posting my thoughts, and a nice honest review of the game.

Cirvol

February 28th, 2003, 05:00 AM

wow, forums moving fast today here;)

so, out of curiosity, who's played moo3 so far?

Tenryu

February 28th, 2003, 05:21 AM

I talked to a buddy of mine that bought MOO3 yesterday. His opinion: "Whoa! Does it suck!"

He says it has a few cool features but all in all, a big disappointment. I am, by the way, not gloating, as I had hoped it might be good, sigh. HOI was a major let down also. MTW, not too bad.

"Where have all the good games gone? Long time passing..."

SE4 is still the best game I've bought in the past few years.

[ February 28, 2003, 03:21: Message edited by: Tenryu ]

CNCRaymond

February 28th, 2003, 05:29 AM

I have, and I had to stop before it put me to sleep. What a crappy game. God this game sucks so bad it has the gravitational pull of a mega super dupper galaxy sized black hole.

And I am usually very kind to games, but this game is just plain awful.

[ February 28, 2003, 03:30: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

tesco samoa

February 28th, 2003, 07:29 AM

well atleast their is

UFO: Aftermath

O.R.B.

IG3

Homeworld 2

Chrome

or worst case

UnderDogs.Org for some abandon ware.

And hopefully someone somewhere in the summertime *1 will release Super Nova...

*1 Simple Minds

dominion

February 28th, 2003, 07:47 AM

Galactic Civilization is coming out next month (3/25). It is also published by Infogrames. Hope that game is much better than MOO3.

raynor

February 28th, 2003, 08:39 AM

It looks like Master of Orion III is designed in such a way that you as the player will never need to or be able to control what is being built on the individual planet. In fact, there are many, many facilities that you absolutely must rely on the computer to build automatically. If you are looking for a game where you can tweak each planet, this is not that game.

I bought the game, and I don't like it. I want to be able to control what is built on each planet. But in this game, that just isn't possible. Oh well...

[ February 28, 2003, 06:54: Message edited by: raynor ]

Talenn

February 28th, 2003, 12:39 PM

Let me start off by saying that I have been looking forward to MOO3 for a long time. I've followed the Boards and read all the hype. I'm not one of those folks who thinks that you cant like a variety of games about the same subject (4x in this case). I enjoy SE4 a lot, but the lack of AI and 'chrome' were things I hoped MOO3 would remedy.

But, after almost 12 hours of playing/fighting/reading/fighting with Moo3, I can say that the game is NOT fun. Its not rewarding. Its not addicting. The UI is TERRIBLE. Its meant to encourage 'macromanagement' by making 'micromanagement' almost impossible. Even tasks you'd expect to be fun like designing ships are a chore and filled with tedium and unintuitive menus.

I could go on and on about how frustrating the game is to play when you try to manage things and how empty it feels when you give up and play the way they intended you to. But what it all comes down to is whether or not the game is enjoyable. At this point, the verdict is a resounding "NO!". I'm not even sure patching would help. Its that bad....

Believe me, I tried to like it and I WANTED to like it, but in the end, I DONT like it. MOO3 is easily the most disappointing title I've played in a LONG time.

If you are thinking about picking it up, my recommendation would be to buy it from a retailer who allows open returns. There are some features that are really neat, but they're buried in a morass of contradictory info and needlessly difficult input screens.

Just my $.02 on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Talenn

PsychoTechFreak

February 28th, 2003, 12:54 PM

Restricted planet micromanagement I think is bad enough. I guess I would not even like to test it in this case...

Are you able to change AIs and similar things like game physics in MOO3?

EDIT: At a german CIV forum I have seen a mod has been about to close the MOO3 forum after 2 days of the game has been published. It looks like too many are disappointed and want their 50 bucks back. Infogrames strategy to publish MOO3 before GalCiv obviously has been correct from a capitalistic point of view.

[ February 28, 2003, 11:53: Message edited by: PsychoTechFreak ]

klausD

February 28th, 2003, 03:52 PM

What are the good things in MOO3 and what could be translated into SE5 and what shouldn't ever? I played the game 10 hours or so, then I pressed the uninstall button.
The good things of MOO3?:
-assembling of fleets (good for big numbers of ships)
-assembling of ground force armies
-possiblity to travel along star lanes or without them
-the orion senate system with bills and advantages if you are a member - similar to the board game twilight imperium
-ground combat system and the way ground combat units are handled (they are units similar to SE3)

the bad things of MOO3
cannot tell them all, too many. but the main thing told alreay Talenn in a post below. (inability to do much)

klaus

PS: I sell my copy for 20 euros or so at ebay

PsychoTechFreak

February 28th, 2003, 04:23 PM

Micromanagement should be possible from what I can hear out of the MOO forums, it seems you just have to click through zillions of windows to get down to e.g. planet facility level. And, it seems to be possible to change a facility in the AI queue and the AI changes the rest to match with this change (like build a research planet in case of the ruler spits in a comp. complex or similar).

klausD

February 28th, 2003, 04:28 PM

psycho freak.
every detail of your explanation is correct.

klaus

raynfala

February 28th, 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by gregebowman:
Yeah, I didn't even know of the Space Empire series of games until I read a review in PC GamerSame story here. After I read that review by Trotter in PC Gamer, I fired up Google, went SE-IV huntin', found the Shrapnel Games web site, and the rest, as they say, is history.

I remember playing Reach for the Stars way-back-when on my Macintosh SE... remember those? The ones with the 40MB hard drives? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Then, years later, when I finally restored my sanity and bought a PC, I bought Master of Orion and rejoiced. I shied away from MOO2 for fear of just buying into the "same ol' same ol'". Besides, X-COM had started siphoning off all of my free time.

It's been a long time since I've had a chance to buy into a good 4X-style game. But now, I, like many others, am firmly Aaron's *****, and quite happy about it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I'm enjoying the opportunity to kick back and watch the cat fights on that MOO3 board, while wrapping myself up in the warm, snuggly blanket of gaming goodness that is SE-IV.

You may puke now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

--Raynfala

raynfala

February 28th, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Tenryu:
"Where have all the good games gone? Long time passing..."Two games that, I am convinced, could still do quite well today with just a graphics face-lift and a serious round of bug fixes:

* Master of Magic
* Magic Carpet

The presence of "Magic" in both games is purely coincidence. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

--Raynfala

Tampa_Gamer

February 28th, 2003, 05:34 PM

Well, it looks like I posted my thoughts in the wrong thread, here they are for what they are worth
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=008017

Although there is a lot of modding potential in MOO3 (not as much as SE4), it has some pretty big flaws. I do not think Aaron has anything to worry about. Whereas, MOO2 was the standard by which most space 4x games were compared too (prior to SE4), SE4 is the new standard in my book now that the MOO series put out this flawed piece...

[ February 28, 2003, 15:35: Message edited by: Tampa_Gamer ]

raynor

February 28th, 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by klausD:
psycho freak.
every detail of your explanation is correct.

klausI'm not sure that is true. As a player you can add Manufacturing/Mining/Farming/Research/Govt/Recreation to a DEA. But you can *never* add facilities that enhance the facility or DEA. Examples include:
Hydroponic Farm
Soil Enrichment
Spaceport
Deep Core mining

oleg

February 28th, 2003, 08:08 PM

Just for fun, I went to ebay and found 28 Moo3 for sale. Three days after release !!!
When I look for Space Empires - zero. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Cirvol

February 28th, 2003, 09:35 PM

lol oleg http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

thats just hillarious

i can't believe the large number of beta testers didnt yell and scream about moo3...

seems like an old fashioned major screw up

poor resources, poor management, poor beta testers = major flop?

to be fair, there are a few of the beta testers that really like the game, they see the beauty in the spreadsheets...

**note to self**, never hire accountants to be beta-testers for games

Aloofi

February 28th, 2003, 10:24 PM

Is it true that none of the MOO2 team was in MOO3?

oleg

February 28th, 2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Is it true that none of the MOO2 team was in MOO3?Yes.

Ed Kolis

February 28th, 2003, 11:02 PM

So, does this mean we should all replace our Death Shrine pictures with Rantz Hoseley's (or other appropriate MOO3 designer's) face? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Baron Munchausen

February 28th, 2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
So, does this mean we should all replace our Death Shrine pictures with Rantz Hoseley's (or other appropriate MOO3 designer's) face? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I suppose someone will lift some of the race pictures from MOO 3 soon, and maybe even the ship styles. It will take some re-editing to make the right images for the clases in SE IV but we could be playing against MOO 3 races by April or so... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

February 28th, 2003, 11:55 PM

If I had the game, you could expect that sooner than April. But, I don't have the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Atrocities

March 1st, 2003, 12:50 AM

Tampa, good to see you again, and nice review as always. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It's been a long time since I've had a chance to buy into a good 4X-style game. But now, I, like many others, am firmly Aaron's *****, and quite happy about it

I'm enjoying the opportunity to kick back and watch the cat fights on that MOO3 board, while wrapping myself up in the warm, snuggly blanket of gaming goodness that is SE-IV Very well said.

I read the review CNC did, http://astmod.com/moo.htm and felt he was really dissapointed by the game. I have to agree that the game is not what I hoped for. I Thank God for SEIV, and the work Aaron has done in keeping it current.

Think about it, SEIV is a better game just in nearly every regard than Moo3, and SEIV is over two year old. I sincerely hope that those dissapointed folks over at the Moo3 forums discover the bliss of SEIV.

Mephisto

March 1st, 2003, 02:58 AM

What are the good things in MOO3 and what could be translated into SE5 and what shouldn't ever?

oleg

March 1st, 2003, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
I suppose someone will lift some of the race pictures from MOO 3 soon, and maybe even the ship styles. It will take some re-editing to make the right images for the clases in SE IV but we could be playing against MOO 3 races by April or so... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [/QB]Just to start ball rolling... I never really liked Angelican Regency race portrait, so i replaced it with this Moo3 Elerian Girl:
1046486973.ZIP (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1046486973.ZIP)

Unknown_Enemy

March 2nd, 2003, 02:45 AM

is MOO3 bad ?
The other side of the hill.

http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?s=4422bcd54137c9bf2c12c73927e5f380&threadid=267518

Problem is, I LOVE micromanagement.

geoschmo

March 2nd, 2003, 03:03 AM

Before I even think about buying the game I'd like to hear someone's impressions of the multiplayer. Is the tcp/ip the only option? Is there a PBEM option at all?

Geoschmo

StarJack

March 2nd, 2003, 03:06 AM

Here is another thread listing the bugs, and design problems with MOO III. I have it, I have about 12 hours into it, and I'm greatly saddened so far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=267663

Unknown_Enemy

March 2nd, 2003, 03:15 AM

My feeling is that most of SE4 fans will totally/fully/completely hate MOO3.

So geo, save your bucks !

oleg

March 2nd, 2003, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Before I even think about buying the game I'd like to hear someone's impressions of the multiplayer. Is the tcp/ip the only option? Is there a PBEM option at all?

GeoschmoNo PBEM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif I read carefully all negative and positive reviews and I will buy Moo3 but few months later. At discount prize and after at least one patch http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Arezz

March 3rd, 2003, 03:21 AM

I like MOO 3 and am a die-hard strat fan, having played all the CIV's and the previous MOO's (to death!). I think it's much better than previous MOO's. My only real complaints are I wish I could micromanage more easily. There ARE ways to micromanage just about everything once you learn the ropes. Also I wish the AI was tougher, but as we are finding out you CAN mod moo 3's AI via text files (among other things). Do I like MOO 3 more than SE IV? They are both different enough for me to want to play both. SE IV is a faster paced game, whereas MOO 3 takes more time in my opinion (I've been playing MOO 3 constantly for about 5 days). The diplomacy is much better than SE IV (which is my biggest gripe with it), no cheap loop holes like simply ignoring the AI (I hate that in SE IV) when you want to avoid war or making lop-sided trades (the 2 empty frigates for a colony ship come to mind). But anyway, aside from a few minor complaints, I recommend MOO 3.

Fyron

March 3rd, 2003, 03:30 AM

The diplomacy is much better than SE IV (which is my biggest gripe with it), no cheap loop holes like simply ignoring the AI (I hate that in SE IV) when you want to avoid war or making lop-sided trades (the 2 empty frigates for a colony ship come to mind). But anyway, aside from a few minor complaints, I recommend MOO 3.If you don't like those things, don't do them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Or better yet, play with other humans. It is much more enjoyable that way.

oleg

March 3rd, 2003, 03:33 AM

Glad to see a positive comment about Moo3 from a person who likes SEIV !
Just one question - does it have a big replay value or you can follow the same routine every time you play ?

What I mean is for example if I play one game against Organic race I'll design ships with armor skipping weapons and put twice as many PD, if next time I play against Temporal I will not bother with shields on my ships, etc. These are crude examples but you understand what I mean.

Atrocities

March 3rd, 2003, 04:36 AM

The one thing that I think really sets MOO3 off is the star map. Just fantastic. Three Dementional with starts located as they would be in a true galaxy. Very cool.. Not just starts sitting on a flat surface, but actually 3D is. I will take a screen shot and show you. Very cool to move through a galaxy and twist it and rotate it and zoom in and out. Very cool.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1046659910

[ March 03, 2003, 02:53: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Arezz

March 3rd, 2003, 05:42 AM

Oleg-

Big replay value and many different ways to win. The tech tree is never quite the same every game, they made it slightly random every game. So far playing several different games I have actually missed certain techs, and gained new ones. I personally like to blow everyone away as the Ithkul (which is tough, even though they are a "super" race...everyone hates them), but am in the process of trying other ways to win (senate win/discovering the X's). Insane tech tree. So far what I do is colonize like mad and go heavy research (like I do in SE IV). I try to grab a huge area early on and hold choke points, then colonize by "backfilling". I HIGHLY recommend building spies early on (as many as you can afford), for defense & to steal tech esp. research spies. It's hillarious to send 4 research spies against somebody and steal techs right & left, and to stunt their research by sabotage.

Atrocities is right, the star map is awesome. Some people say the graphics suck, but I disagree. The combat graphics are good in my opinion (could be better, but then again the game was largely designed several years ago), but not on par with say a CIV III. I DO recommend a good graphics card (I have a GeForce 3 Ti500, and the game rocks) and a fast processor/decent memory (I have a P4 1.8 GHz w/512MB DDR-333 RAM). That is one downside to the game is the somewhat high system requirements. The only other thing is it gets to be a headache to micromanage once you get 20+ planets (which at that point you should be using the AI to help out). I'm still a die-hard perfectionist and I have a hard time giving control over to the AI, but it does a decent job and I am slowly getting used to it.

Hey Atrocities, I play fair against the AI in SE IV (really I do,lol) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I just think it's a minor thing (diplomacy) that could be fixed in a later patch.

Fyron

March 3rd, 2003, 06:16 AM

Civ III does not have very good graphics, so comparing MOO3 to it does not bode well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Hey Atrocities, I play fair against the AI in SE IV (really I do,lol) I just think it's a minor thing (diplomacy) that could be fixed in a later patch. I didn't realize that Atrocities and I had merged into the same person. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 03, 2003, 04:17: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Arezz

March 3rd, 2003, 08:06 AM

DOH!!!!

Sorry about that Imperator Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

You don't like civ 3's graphics? Yeah, compared to the first person shooters they suck, but I am more forgiving with strat games http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

But then again, I also liked the graphics on Star Wars Rebellion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

March 3rd, 2003, 08:24 AM

Civ 3 graphics are not all that great compared to games that have good graphics. But, that does not matter, and strategy games don't need (and should not have) excellent graphics (especially at the expense of gameplay). I think that the Civ 3 team forgot this and spent way too much time on graphics and not enough time on making a good game.

[ March 03, 2003, 06:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Atrocities

March 3rd, 2003, 01:29 PM

I have been repeatedly asked to post my opinion/review of MOO3 and I am reluctant to do so. However, I would like to do something similar, and point out some things that I liked about MOO3, and that I would like to see added to SE V if it is ever developed and released.

Some things that I would love to see transferred from MOO3 into Space Empires 5.

1. The 3D star map.
2. Moveable windows.
3. Wheel mouse support.
4. Construction Planner System.
5. Retreat from Battle option.

SEIV offers far better game play IMO. MOO3 is set up to start the player off as if they know nothing about game play. The AI will do it all. As the person learns the game, they begin to take more and more responsibility away from the AI and do thing more themselves. This is good, as the AI will effectively run your empire. The bad thing is, you never know why the AI is doing what it is doing.

That is where the Planner comes in. A very cool concept and I have to say that I was rather impressed by this. You set a course of action that you want the AI to follow when developing new worlds. It is kind of like what SEIV does, but instead of you having to manually edit the files, as you do in SEIV, you can set up a "shell" out line for the AI to follow in game.

This would be a great addition to SEV, but in great detail. (Allow the player to set TYPE of colony (-IE Resource X, Research, Construction Yard, etc -) and then set up a building plan for that type that the AI will follow every time you choose that TYPE of colony. The AI could also be set up to "choose" needed facilities first, IE via your "COLONY PLAN" out line. This Colony Plan out line would be basically a second layer to the TYPE colony that a player allows the AI to prioritize needed facilities. For example, if your race requires a Space Port, the AI would FIRST build a Space Port on the first inhabited planet. It would then follow your colony TYPE until it ran out of space. If your colony is near an alien controlled system, the AI would also build a Spaceyard, Resupply base, and defenses in order of priority. (You establish the priority in the Colony Plan. So basically you would have the ability to let the AI do all the building without intervention, leave it the way it is, set a Colony Type up, (Basically what you want built on those type of planets each time a that type is selected as the colony type) and the Colony Plan to establish priority facilities, and such. Again this can be left to the AI to determine, but the player can also choose and edit the list.

SE IV is without a doubt a better game, but MOO3 has many good points that can give SEIV a run for its money. Intel, although nowhere as near SEIV levels, it still offers the ability to TRAIN specific types of spies. A cool feature only if you had INTEL projects to go along with them. A counter Intel and Intel cost slider would also be a welcome addition to both SE V and Moo3. I like the idea that they had used for BOTF in that regard. Your generated Intel points could be used for Counter Intel operations as well as Intel operation. With the addition of the spy system, you could gain extra points for having trained spies for a specific expertise in Intel and counter Intel.

I do not really like the 3D battle system for Moo3. I think it is lacking over all. However, games such as Rebellion (1997) and BOTF (1999) had semi good 3D battle engines, and both allowed for rather large fleets. However the trade off was the resource hogging and lock ups caused by these systems of combat. MOO3 system is an interesting concept, but needs to be hashed out over time and will benefit from improvements in later patches. Of this I hold sincere hope.

SEIV makes excellent use of ICONS and the flow of the game is fluidic. Nearly any information you want is a left or right click away. This is one of the reasons SEIV is such a wonderful game. Right Click feature. MOO3 would have done very well for its self if it had incorporated this into system.

The best feature of MOO3 is without a doubt the 3D star map. My god the thing is a work of art. I absolutely love it. If SE V were to have a similar system, while improving INTEL, POLITICS, DIPLOMACY, and keeping the other great aspects that make SEIV a great game, then SE V will be the game of 4 x gamers for the next decade.

In closing I would like to say that SE V does not need 3D space combat. I think the game would work well with the current system. But the addition of extra option for combat would be a godsend. The option to Retreat, or Avoid battle. The option to VIEW the enemy fleet prior to making any combat decisions is a must have. And the ability to pause, or instantly resolve a combat encounter are must haves.

The addition of a better ground combat system would also be a neat feature. Have the combat take place near the planet capitol. If the players attacking Ground Forces are successful, they take the planet. If they are repelled, they loose the planet. Again, it would be a nice addition, but not a necessity.

I would rank MOO3 at about 2.5 on a scale of 5.0 while SEIV is a solid 5.0. MOO3 is a better game to MOO2 than Civ 3 was to Civ 2. So if you want to buy the game, and are willing to invest the time to learn the game, then I would support your decision to buy it. But remember, it is NOT SEIV, so don't expect the same type of game play as your used to.

Atrocities.

[ March 03, 2003, 11:30: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Ed Kolis

March 3rd, 2003, 09:37 PM

You liked the 3D starmap? Huh, I just found it confusing... sure, it's novel, but when you're used to Zed Prime being to the left of Antares and now when you rotate the map it's down and to the right and you can't figure out how to get the map back to normal... and stars can be farther away then they look on the map, too! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Tampa_Gamer

March 4th, 2003, 12:00 AM

Some good thoughts Atrocities - I agree. I gave MOO3 another 15+ hours of my time this weekend, still trying...

Atrocities

March 4th, 2003, 03:23 AM

Ed your right. But in future patches, and hopefuly if Aaron chooses to do something simular, this problem can be fixed with a simple "Return to Home View" option. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The problem is, we all have gotton so used to thinking in 2D that when faced with a 3D map, it defies our ability to comprehend. Kinda like skiing.

For example when you first start to learn how to snow ski, your legs are sending odd Messages to your brain that say "Hey WTF is going on? We are moving, but I am not causing it!" which causes your balance to falter thus resulting in you falling down and being laughed at by a six year old. But after a while, the legs begin to understand the stimuli, and the mind becomes balanced, and addicted. Then you hunt down that little snot nosed brat and throw high powered snow balls at him causing him to fall down. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 04, 2003, 01:24: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Phoenix-D

March 4th, 2003, 03:39 AM

"1. The 3D star map."

What would this add to the game? How is it an improvement?

"2. Moveable windows.
3. Wheel mouse support."

OK, good things.

"4. Construction Planner System."

Err..what? EDIT: Ah. Eh, ambivalent.

5. Retreat from Battle option.

Would depend on how it is implimented.

Phoenix-D

[ March 04, 2003, 01:43: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

Bralth

March 4th, 2003, 04:02 AM

I'm not sure that MOO3's 3d map is the way to go, but a 3D map with better controls, visiblitiy would be very nice.

Would it add a whole ton? Most likely not (3d combat would of course but thats a different issue) but I've always had a fond spot in my heart for space games that used a 3d map over a 2d one.

Atrocities

March 4th, 2003, 04:55 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Like I said, I am sure if Aaron uses such a map system, it would be far better than anything QS has done.

"1. The 3D star map."

What would this add to the game? How is it an improvement?

"2. Moveable windows.
3. Wheel mouse support."

OK, good things.

"4. Construction Planner System."

Err..what? EDIT: Ah. Eh, ambivalent.

5. Retreat from Battle option.

Would depend on how it is implimented.

Phoenix-D
1. Having this map would really be a cool feature. Your right, it would not be an improvement persay, but it would be a cool feature that give SE V a more [i]real]/i] feel to it. If you could see how your star systems play into the bigger picture in a real space, then perphas it could offer you a differant point of view. That system that looked weak and un-important in one view looks a lot more inviting as a strategic point in another. I like the map system, granted its needs a lot of improvement, but it still is one of the best additions to 4 X gaming in a good long time.

2. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Glad you agree.
3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Glad you agree.

4. "ambivalent" You got me. I have no idea what that means.

5. Agreed. That feature is very important both before you agree to enter into battle, and after you commit to battle.

Phoenix-D

March 4th, 2003, 05:41 AM

"4. "ambivalent" You got me. I have no idea what that means."

It means I'd have to see it in action to have an opinion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

PHoenix-D

tesco samoa

March 4th, 2003, 06:20 AM

AT how was the manual ????

I was hoping for a good old fashioned gaming manual ?

Is it up to speed Janes or Sierra style ??

Atrocities

March 4th, 2003, 07:20 AM

The manual in my opinion is not very helpful. It is full of the back story of the Orion game, but does not really give you any more information then a breif description of what things are. It does not really go into detail about how they work, or why.

Rantz at the moo3 forum said they are working on a new manual for the website. That it should offer a few more answers.

Time will tell. But in the mean time, your best bet is to read the player FAQ's, and the Readme file.

dogscoff

March 4th, 2003, 12:37 PM

I'd love to see some stats on how many new players Moo3 has sent to SE4.

Also, Shrapnel should run a special offer: a $10 discount off se4 Gold for anyone who sends in an original moo3 CD=-)

trooper

March 4th, 2003, 12:55 PM

Is MOO3 customizable like SE IV ?
If it isn't, I think they can't be compared...

Mondu999

March 4th, 2003, 01:28 PM

geoschmo:

I'm a noob here, so I'm not entirely sure I can answer the question as to why SE4 isn't compared to other 4x games, but here goes:

It ain't commercial. The graphics don't compare. Most players 'talk' about how graphics don't matter in strategy games, but that's a lie. Its nice to have bells and whistles.

Gameplay in SE4 is great (having only played the demo), but most are unwilling to give it a try because its made by an independent (meaning thats its not carried by a huge publisher). They just don't consider SE4 in the same 'league' as those other games (even tho I as play SE4, I think !!! This could be a Moo game if it had prettier graphics!). No offense, but u see what I mean?

Mondu999

March 4th, 2003, 01:30 PM

Oops...I'm reading this thing backwards, aren't I...ignore me as I run into hiding.

klausD

March 4th, 2003, 03:48 PM

I am glad that there are different opinions about the qualities of games.

With MOO3 it seem that players which like to play realtime games or at least do have basic tolerance (although no specific love) are not so harsh with MOO3 than the turnbased purist (like myself) which find this game not worth playing.

But it has some interesting points. (no I dont mean such unnecessary "cool" features like some 3D map or realtime combat or other eye candy)

I mean Spies. The basic idea of MOO3 spies is a very good one. Of course there are intelligence and counterintelligence spies missing but thats only typical for the bad and halfhearted approach of QS. No, this failure should not detract from the good basic idea of handling spionage and assassination.

The same with Moving ships and fleets. No ship can be moved or is in existence without a fleet. Thats it. No fuzzying around with single ships or multiple ships with or without taskforce. Thats I mean is a clean design. there are other good ideas like mouse support if the pointer goes over a fleet. (the icon grows and gets bigger)
The same mouse idea is with system icons. A excellent ergonomic idea.

These 2 above things are the best in MOO3 IMO. (other goodies are ground combat options etc.)

I would appreciate if the ergonomic and interface of a 4x game like SEV would be streamlined and improved. Some of the MOO3 ideas could be at least taken in a closer selection.

Unknown_Enemy

March 4th, 2003, 07:39 PM

just went late here, so I want to comment about the MOO3 map. Looking at it, you really feel in the galaxy, as the 2d maps of SE4 is sort of artificial.

Aloofi

March 4th, 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Mondu999:

It ain't commercial. The graphics don't compare. Most players 'talk' about how graphics don't matter in strategy games, but that's a lie. Its nice to have bells and whistles.

Its not a lie!
When a player say that graphics don't matter is not saying that SE3 looks better than SE4, but that graphics are SECONDARY!
I can live perfectly well without good graphics, but I CAN'T live with bad gameplay!
For some odd reason, games that focus in graphics ALWAYS lack in gameplay and are anything but deep, especially in the 4x genre, and in Strategy in general.
So yes, graphics DON'T matter.

phaet2112

March 4th, 2003, 10:09 PM

so what is the proposed release date of se5? How different/better will it be than se4 gold?

oleg

March 4th, 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by phaet2112:
so what is the proposed release date of se5? How different/better will it be than se4 gold?Read this thread: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=008344

There are words from MM himself it will come next summer !

henk brouwer

March 4th, 2003, 10:17 PM

Aaron just gave a rough estimate earlier today:

Originally posted by Malfador Machinations:
Hi All!

Too optimistic? No, its true, we're shooting for a summer 2004 release date for SE5. That may be unduly optimistic at this point, but what the hell. We have begun design of the game and are working out the UI as we speak.

Starfury should be out by July!

AaronEdit: Aack!! Oleg beat me in answering by a minute.... Seems the forums are picking up some speed since MoO III flopped...

[ March 04, 2003, 20:20: Message edited by: henk brouwer ]

phaet2112

March 4th, 2003, 10:23 PM

*sigh* another year of waiting....I had waited a long time for MOO3, after playing alpha centauri and moo2 a lot, and enjoying them (as well as medieval tw). But after a while onteh Boards when MOO3 came out, it is clear to me that I wouldn't enjoy it.

So I read atrocities' post about se4, and clicked on over here. I am definately intrigued enough to warrent a purchase, but I had some slight reservations depending on when se5 was coming out. If it is a year off, then I might go ahead with se4 gold.

Modding doesnt scare me- Im modding morrowind right now, so that isnt a huge thing for me to work on. But I would likely be playing this single player, and wouldn't want to put too much effort right out of the box altering the AI to suit my tastes. After a while Id probably go nuts and bolts with it, but what about the initial sp play?

henk brouwer

March 4th, 2003, 10:28 PM

For single player you should make sure to upgrade to the latest seIV Version and to download and install the TDM-MOD, not much work, but a huge difference in AI performance. with those alterations the game is great for SP. (some of the mods out there also have very decent AI : [proportions for example)

[ March 04, 2003, 20:29: Message edited by: henk brouwer ]

oleg

March 4th, 2003, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by phaet2112:
*sigh* another year of waiting....I had waited a long time for MOO3, after playing alpha centauri and moo2 a lot, and enjoying them (as well as medieval tw). But after a while onteh Boards when MOO3 came out, it is clear to me that I wouldn't enjoy it.

So I read atrocities' post about se4, and clicked on over here. I am definately intrigued enough to warrent a purchase, but I had some slight reservations depending on when se5 was coming out. If it is a year off, then I might go ahead with se4 gold.

Modding doesnt scare me- Im modding morrowind right now, so that isnt a huge thing for me to work on. But I would likely be playing this single player, and wouldn't want to put too much effort right out of the box altering the AI to suit my tastes. After a while Id probably go nuts and bolts with it, but what about the initial sp play?No problems - just download the latest TDM mod (the one on your CD would be already out of data) and you will get quite a tread from AI with medium/high bonus !

P>S> the latest SE patch (1.84) imporoved AI as well.

phaet2112

March 4th, 2003, 11:18 PM

Cool cool...
sounds neat...see you guys have already picked up another recruit through atrocities' post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Aloofi

March 4th, 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by phaet2112:
But I would likely be playing this single player, and wouldn't want to put too much effort right out of the box altering the AI to suit my tastes. After a while Id probably go nuts and bolts with it, but what about the initial sp play?One word: Proportions! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Captain Kwok

March 5th, 2003, 12:26 AM

I've been posting around some of the star trek Boards for my mod, hopefully a few BOTF fans will see the value in SE:IV and buy it!

Ruatha

March 5th, 2003, 02:22 AM

As most other things, with SE4 the forum is made another way aswell http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I'd love a 3d map as that which seems to be in Moo3.
It will propably not add much to the game but I could propably sit a long time and zoom around in a 3d map.
In Elite II Frontiers there was a 3D map and I loved it.
It makes me feel like it's actually stars we're dealing with. Not a 2D gameboard.

tesco samoa

March 5th, 2003, 02:58 AM

Mondu999.

I understand what your saying and agree with you.

The only reason I touched it was because it involved space and the 4x.

But that simplicity has an added bonus. It is easier to mod for people who are not graphically inclined http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

THis is the reason I have not touched the Dungon game. I would rather play Bioware games.

Hiruu

March 5th, 2003, 05:56 AM

Disappointed!!! Darn Disappointed!!!

Okay, I've not even posted on the MOO forum yet because I'm so disappointed. MOO3 brought up visions of Reach for the Stars II for me, after years of loving the original, in MOO's case, the first two...MOO3 was a huge letdown. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

I was actually bored in playing this ugly duckling, without much of chance of turning into a Swann. 4 years for a game with seriously outdated graphics and interface, and a primitive AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Okay, when is SEIV 5 due to be released! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

tbontob

March 5th, 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by phaet2112:
*sigh* another year of waiting....I had waited a long time for MOO3, after playing alpha centauri and moo2 a lot, and enjoying them (as well as medieval tw). But after a while onteh Boards when MOO3 came out, it is clear to me that I wouldn't enjoy it.

So I read atrocities' post about se4, and clicked on over here. I am definately intrigued enough to warrent a purchase, but I had some slight reservations depending on when se5 was coming out. If it is a year off, then I might go ahead with se4 gold.

Modding doesnt scare me- Im modding morrowind right now, so that isnt a huge thing for me to work on. But I would likely be playing this single player, and wouldn't want to put too much effort right out of the box altering the AI to suit my tastes. After a while Id probably go nuts and bolts with it, but what about the initial sp play?phaet2112 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

According to Aaron's own words on the SE4 thread, it will be well over a year till SE5 will come out.

Ragnarok

March 5th, 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Hiruu:

Okay, when is SEIV 5 due to be released! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Hiruu: As was said it will be out next year. Aaron is shooting for a summer '04 release of SEV. Notice SEV, not SEIV V. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Just joshin ya man.

Tbontob, you make it sound so grim by saying well over a year. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Hiruu

March 5th, 2003, 08:39 PM

HEHEHE!!!

Yeah, at this point anything SEIV Release 5 would be better than MOO3 1... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif but you're right it's SEV...I hope that game kicks butt!!! More of SEIV with updated tech (real world) and more updated Tech in the game as well.

I've being playing MOO3 over the past 3 days...extensively, and it's not too bad a game, it's just simply not groundbreaking...so why the heck did we have to wait so long for this outdated game!!! That's my major beef with MOO3.

I'm also looking forward to this new 3-D game for SE.

phaet2112

March 5th, 2003, 10:58 PM

So what about gal civ? What are your opinions about that game? From the stuff I read on the forums, they consider themselves less mainstream than the MOO franchise, and admit that it isn't necessarily the MOO3 that people want, but it is much more focused and a more polished interface/AI than MOO3 currently is.

What are the impressions here about gal civ?

Lemmy

March 5th, 2003, 11:40 PM

I tihnk GalCiv will be great. Especially the AI.
I haven't heard anything bad about it yet, and unlike with MoO3, the betatesters aren't under any NDA, so if there's anything they don't like, they can say it without breaking any contract.

Btw, GalCiv has gone gold a few days ago. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Atrocities

March 6th, 2003, 12:01 PM

GalCiv has no multiplayer. So after you learn to beat the AI, well, you have learned to beat the AI, and you'll have to play worse.

raynor

March 6th, 2003, 05:22 PM

Gamespot.Com took their time and posted their review of MOO3.

Gamespot Review of MOO3 (http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,19577,00.html)

(They rated it 6.7 out of 10)

[ March 06, 2003, 15:23: Message edited by: raynor ]

Talenn

March 6th, 2003, 08:33 PM

The thing that is telling is the Player Review average score...4.4. And thats with 7 reviews so its not just one person. 6 of the 7 totally panned the game.

raynor

March 9th, 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
GalCiv has no multiplayer. So after you learn to beat the AI, well, you have learned to beat the AI, and you'll have to play worse.Yes, this is true. But imagine, if you will, how much better the AI of SEIV might have been if it had no tactical combat, no multiplayer support, no support for modding, no realistic strategic combat, no ship designs, etc. The developers of Gal Civ said they left out multiplayer so that they could focus all their time on a truly outstanding AI. As such, the game will succeed or fail based upon the strength of their AI.

The goal of Gal Civ was to create a multiplayer experience while playing the single player game. The developers coded six AI's largely from scratch.

Here is an interview with the developers that talks more about that:

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/games/galactic_civilizations_interview/

[ March 09, 2003, 08:44: Message edited by: raynor ]

Fyron

March 9th, 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Atrocities:
GalCiv has no multiplayer. So after you learn to beat the AI, well, you have learned to beat the AI, and you'll have to play worse.Yes, this is true. But imagine, if you will, how much better the AI of SEIV might have been if it had no tactical combat, no multiplayer support, no support for modding, no realistic strategic combat, no ship designs, etc. The developers of Gal Civ said they left out multiplayer so that they could focus all their time on a truly outstanding AI. As such, the game will succeed or fail based upon the strength of their AI.

I am *hoping* that the AI will be truly awesome and that it will take geometrically longer to master than, for example, the AI of SEIV.<hr /></blockquote>But if you take all of those things out, it is no longer a very good game. A 4X game without those things has no replay value (and quite possibly no first play value http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

raynor

March 9th, 2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
But if you take all of those things out, it is no longer a very good game. A 4X game without those things has no replay value (and quite possibly no first play value http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).You may be right. If I had my preference, I would ask for challenging AI plus all of those things. It may very well be that the lack of all those things will detract so much from the game that I won't like it.

On the other hand, it may turn out that the AI is absolutely fantastic. It may turn out that it is 100x better than any other game that claims to be part of the space 4x genre. In that case, I may be willing to put up with a game that doesn't have those features.

Fyron

March 9th, 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
But if you take all of those things out, it is no longer a very good game. A 4X game without those things has no replay value (and quite possibly no first play value http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).You may be right. If I had my preference, I would ask for challenging AI plus all of those things. It may very well be that the lack of all those things will detract so much from the game that I won't like it.

On the other hand, it may turn out that the AI is absolutely fantastic. It may turn out that it is 100x better than any other game that claims to be part of the space 4x genre. In that case, I may be willing to put up with a game that doesn't have those features.<hr /></blockquote>The only reason why most games have poor AIs is because they have features. GalCiv is looking to have no features, so of course good AI can be written for it. Look at Chess. It has no customization possible (the pieces are always the same, the board is always the same, all of the rules are always the same, there is no advancement required to get better pieces...). You get so many of each piece, and you can't build more (well, you can convert pawns into other things, but that is not at all the same). There are many challenging Chess programs out there because there is a lack of features in Chess. The lack of possibilities (as compared to most 4X games- not saying that Chess has no possibilities in it, just speaking in relative terms) is what allows good AIs to be written, as they do not have to be anywhere near as flexible. But, does computerized Chess eat up all of your free time like SE4, MOO 2, Civ 2 (and other good games) do? Probably not. In order for these types of games to be good ones, there needs to be more features, not fewer features. I am not saying that GalCiv will not be a good as an advanced Version of Chess; it very well might be. But, it does not look like it has much to offer in comparison to more "complete" 4X games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 09, 2003, 09:50: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Atrocities

March 9th, 2003, 12:33 PM

I am just sick, physicaly sick over the Last few games I have boughten. They claim to be the best thing to ever happen to PC Gaming, but they have all flopped horribly.

Moo3, a nice try, but falls way way short.
SC4, A major let down for me personally.
UR2, A major let down.

I am looking forward to GalCiv, and even though it is only SP, I still hope that it will offer me a lot of hours of game play. I really need something new to play. I have been relagated back to playing older games just to have something new to play.

No offense, but SEIV has lost a lot of its appeal for me recently, I still love the game, but I seldom play it any more. (SEIV Blues http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif )

It will pass I am sure.

But in the Last two months I have forked out nearly $150 bucks for games that are worth less than their $10 predacessors sale price. That is very sad to me.

I really have no games that I am looking forward to playing at all any more. I hope that something comes along and snages my interest.

Fyron

March 9th, 2003, 01:10 PM

Starfury? SEV? Why don't you look forward to them? I am sure they will be great games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

klausD

March 9th, 2003, 04:13 PM

I really have no games that I am looking forward to playing at all any more. I hope that something comes along and snages my interest.
A tip: Try The war engine from Shrapnel. A wonderful game with a lot of modules. And it has nice modifications.
One of my long term Favorites. It has even a tactical spaceship combat mod.

If you like excessive micromanagment and if it does not matter when the game is WWII then try Uncommon Valor from Matrix games. The best pacific wargame in operational scale ever. Water ships instead of space ships. But you have carriers, logistics and even ground troops up to battallion level.

tsch�ss
Klaus

Gryphin

March 9th, 2003, 06:17 PM

Who knows, maybe the various companys will read this forum and get "heads up". Maybe they will change their style.

There is plenty of room for other tactical and stratigic *X games on various themes.

hmm, maybe Arron can make a bundle and sell them the code to SEIV, (with certain limits). Na, too many potential problems.

raynor

March 10th, 2003, 12:59 AM

The only reason why most games have poor AIs is because they have features. GalCiv is looking to have no features, so of course good AI can be written for it. I think it is funny that you brought in the chess angle. I was thinking of mentioning that myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You may be right. I will definitely miss designing my own ships and fighting tactical battles. On the other hand, it *does* look like Gal Civ might include just enough cool features to make the game a bit more appealing than chess.

If the AI presents enough of a challenge, Gal Civ may be the space game I play single player while SEIV is the game I play multiplayer.

Master Belisarius

March 10th, 2003, 04:27 AM

I agree with the Fyron's argument too...
A challenging AI for a complex game is a lot more complex to create.

A feature that some beta testers (like me), suggested to Aaron, was to include some kind of language that we could use to "programm" the AI ourselves...
Can remember that "Stars! Supernova" was moving in that direction, and also their creators said that the AI had learning capabilities (God, really would liked to see this game in my HD!), and know that an underground game named "Solar Vengance" (http://www.silicmdr.com./solven.htm) have the feature to program the AI.

Really I would love to have a tool like this... and know that many people would be happy to create a more complex scripts to improve the AIs.

Fyron

March 10th, 2003, 06:51 AM

If you have direct access to the AI routines, then it becomes possible to mod good AIs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But since we don't in most games, the AIs remain poor. That would indeed be a great feature for SE5.

[ March 10, 2003, 04:54: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

MythicalMino

March 10th, 2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by klausD:
psycho freak.
every detail of your explanation is correct.

klausI'm not sure that is true. As a player you can add Manufacturing/Mining/Farming/Research/Govt/Recreation to a DEA. But you can *never* add facilities that enhance the facility or DEA. Examples include:
Hydroponic Farm
Soil Enrichment
Spaceport
Deep Core mining<hr /></blockquote>There is a mod out now, that lets you build those buildings....i know first hand, cause i use it....

MythicalMino

March 10th, 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
My feeling is that most of SE4 fans will totally/fully/completely hate MOO3.

So geo, save your bucks !I am a fan of SE4....and i also really, REALLY like MOO3....with the mods that ppl have released, it fixes pretty much all the ppl's complaints...now, i know that a game shouldn't be fixed by mods...but still, I find MOO3 VERY good...

raynor

March 10th, 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
I agree with the Fyron's argument too...
A challenging AI for a complex game is a lot more complex to create.
This is a given. But you have to admit that there are some folks who bought SEIV thinking it was playable as the single player game. But it just isn't. All those features are great in multiplayer. But, as a single player game, SEIV has no features because it has no AI.

raynor

March 10th, 2003, 08:33 AM

Thanks for the info on the MOO3 mods.

klausD

March 10th, 2003, 12:55 PM

This is a given. But you have to admit that there are some folks who bought SEIV thinking it was playable as the single player game. But it just isn't. All those features are great in multiplayer. But, as a single player game, SEIV has no features because it has no AI. IMO SEIV AI is not so bad. I mean which AI of a 4X game is really that good? Eg I hate all those AI cheats from MOO (triple amount of fleet points and money without even mentioning it in the manual) and CIV. (the same problem with all 3 Versions)

A problem of the AI of SEIV is the immense complexity of the game. The AI has not only to handle the myriard standard game options. It has also to handle all those additional mods. And for this it is quite good I think.
For SEV I would wish a more simple but more effective diplomacy model. This could help to make the AI even better.

tsch�ss
KlausD

Master Belisarius

March 10th, 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by raynor:
But you have to admit that there are some folks who bought SEIV thinking it was playable as the single player game. But it just isn't. All those features are great in multiplayer. But, as a single player game, SEIV has no features because it has no AI.I dissagree 100% with your view that SE4 has no AI.

As I wrote many times here, I'm sure the AI still can be improved, right?

Also, I'm sure that the AI has problems playing in big galaxies, when have many potential places to attack/defend at the same time.
For example, is usual that the AI doesn't know what to do with a big fleet when need to defend 2 systems at the same time.
Usually the AI move the fleets in one direction, and at the next turn to the other direction... then in fact the fleet doesn't do anything!
And finally, I know that the AI doesn't care about many of the Diplomatic options, then, think that playing against the AI, SE4 is mostly a wargame, in the sense that the diplomatic options are less important (in MP is very different of course).

But, to say that SE4 has no AI... well, I'm 100% sure that you're wrong about it.

More than once, I wrote that playing in small galaxies against 3 or 4 TDM AIs (some of the good ones... and these races are mostly warlike) and high bonus (and with AI vs humans if I want more challenge), usually I LOST my games (even toda!).
Trying to be fair with myself, know that I'm not a bad SE4 player and I was playing the game from a long time... then, if still I can lose a game against the AI, think I have good reasons to say the AI is not so bad.

================================================== ====================
I think that the people who believe that SE4 has no AI, is the people that like to play epic games with BIG galaxies (sometimes with 255 systems, and most the time not playing AI vs humans).
================================================== ====================

Honestly would prefer that the SE4 AI could be more strong, or at least could cheat in the high levels like every 4x game (for example, in Moo and Moo2 was pretty obvious that the AI knew my unprotected planets to attack them). But can't to avoid recognize that SE4 has a very decent AI.

IMHO, a more than average AI if I compare this game with other 4x games

raynor

March 11th, 2003, 02:39 AM

When you look at other space games, typically the AI is given less than a 100% bonus at the highest level of difficulty. (twice the production). In Space Empires IV, an easy game is played with that level of bonus. An average game is played with medium bonus. A hard game is played with high bonus (or 5x production.)

At that level, yes, I would agree it is extremely hard to beat the AI--especially in small galaxies.

But I would argue that the very definition of small, medium and high bonus is the strongest evidence of a poor AI.

Similarly, if the game has any AI at all, then it should win just as easily on a huge map as on a small map. Granted, it will take longer. The fact that you say that isn't so makes me think that its wins on smaller maps are more coincidence than anything else.

Let me hasten a couple of things. First, the TDM races are TONS better than the ones installed by default. I think it is a mistake to play the game without them. Second, the AI *is* getting better. I still remember when the AI built mostly research stations on a huge 150% mineral world.

But the AI never has and never will make effective use of half the cool features that are available to the human players in the multiplayer game. In that context, and if Gal Civ *does* turn out to have the AI they are promising, I may prefer a subset of features but an AI that uses all of them to an infinite array of features but an AI that can't use most of them.

[ March 11, 2003, 01:02: Message edited by: raynor ]

Fyron

March 11th, 2003, 03:18 AM

If the game had no AI, you would not be able to play it SP. Saying that it has no AI is, as MB said, 100% wrong. Saying that it has bad AI, on the other hand, could be a valid point. But saying that it has no AI is wholely wrong.

Master Belisarius

March 11th, 2003, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
The fact that you say that isn't so makes me think that its wins on smaller maps are more coincidence than anything else.Coincidence? Really? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Seems obvious to me that you never have played games as I suggested, and must say that these games are really funny to me!

I have played many MP games and in those games, mostly I had the luck to win (for example, I was second in the first Survivor tournament done by GEO). Then, is hard to believe to me, that I lost aprox 50% of my games against the AI by coincidence!!!
But maybe my luck only works with humans! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Or
maybe the game settings that I use against the AI are really hard.

I was not saying that SE4 is Deep Blue. But I'm sure that with the right game settings, a player can have a good challenge.

I don't claim to have the universal truth, and understand that you could think different than me, ok?

raynor

March 11th, 2003, 10:32 AM

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that I didn't believe that you have been beat by the AI. At high bonus on a small map, the game is very difficult to beat. With a 5x production bonus and a computer opponent one system away, you are in for a pretty miserable time if not impossible time.

What I meant by coincidence is that you aren't losing because the AI is trying to beat you. Instead, you are losing because you got in the way of its random movement of ships. If the AI is going to send ships to attack two or three nearby systems every so often, then the AI isn't really going to present much of a challenge on a map with hundreds of systems. But on a map with only a few dozen systems, the 2x, 3x or 5x production is going to wipe you out long before you can acquire enough planets to bring your superior strategy to play.

Lemmy

March 11th, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
If the game had no AI, you would not be able to play it SP. Saying that it has no AI is, as MB said, 100% wrong. Saying that it has bad AI, on the other hand, could be a valid point. But saying that it has no AI is wholely wrong.Liar http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
If it had no AI you could still play SP, but it would really be SP, just you and the universe http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

It's true that SE4 has an AI...but you'd be amazed at what dumb things (i'm not saying SE4 AI is dumb, it's pretty good for a complex game as Se4) can officially be labelled as Artificial Intelligence

[ March 11, 2003, 10:52: Message edited by: Lemmy ]

Master Belisarius

March 11th, 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by raynor:
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that I didn't believe that you have been beat by the AI. At high bonus on a small map, the game is very difficult to beat. With a 5x production bonus and a computer opponent one system away, you are in for a pretty miserable time if not impossible time.

What I meant by coincidence is that you aren't losing because the AI is trying to beat you. Instead, you are losing because you got in the way of its random movement of ships. If the AI is going to send ships to attack two or three nearby systems every so often, then the AI isn't really going to present much of a challenge on a map with hundreds of systems. But on a map with only a few dozen systems, the 2x, 3x or 5x production is going to wipe you out long before you can acquire enough planets to bring your superior strategy to play.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Ok. I understand your view.
But then, what game have a good AI for you??
I can't remember any game that I could think: "Hey, I'm really playing against an smart opponent!" (always talking about to play against the AI of course!).
I hope GC would be. I hope SEV or maybe Stars Supernova would be released some day... but honestly can't remember a good AI with your request (It mean to me: act as an intelligent entity).

raynor

March 12th, 2003, 01:02 AM

*scratches his head*

Errr.... I can't really remember playing any other space games besides SEIV for the past two years.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Cirvol

August 7th, 2003, 08:37 PM

does aaron read this board?

if yes, why does he never bother to reply?

if no, why are we bothering to post this stuff?

it seems a 1.2.5 patch is out for moo3, anyone play with it yet? how is it now? update?

Roanon

August 7th, 2003, 09:44 PM

I have read about a patch that came out about 1 month ago, I don't know which number. Was the Last patch I have read the feedback from, didn't even bother to install, and decided to leave and definitely never return.
Most but not all bugs were fixed, bit the rest of the bugs still make the game near unplayable - in my opinion. Plus, the basic concept, you look and press turn while the game simulates your empire with as many dumb decisions as possible has not been changed. You still cannot turn off your vicerois (=ministers) completely, you still cannot control the most basic functions, and even if you try to control some of the less important functions you will be kicked in the *** by an user interface that forces you to click about 5 to 10 times for every single action you want to make.

[ August 07, 2003, 20:46: Message edited by: Roanon ]

Cirvol

August 7th, 2003, 11:06 PM

lol, thats just incredible

*sigh*

i really wanted to love it
with a good ui, i might have loved it

i *like* the idea of macro vs micro...
(esp since my pbw games at turn 150 usually take 4 or 5 hours of contanst detailed orders;)

i might pick up a used copy to play around with for a cheap price if they ever fix the ui problems

Katchoo

August 8th, 2003, 12:51 AM

I don't know if this has been mentioned already here but...

There are apparently large blocks of code in MOO3 which were written by people no longer with the MOO3 Team, and the remaining people don't understand or know how to make heads or tails of these blocks of code to fix any problems which may be hiding in there http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

The general feeling comming out of Atari is that they aren't going to support MOO3 anymore then they already have. People are now clinging to the great white hope that could be MOO4. Atari isn't in any great hurry for another MOO game though...

Ack

August 8th, 2003, 01:31 AM

So I guess it wasn't such a good idea to layoff most of the design staff. Which they did immediately after releasing the game.

The computer gaming industry is in pretty pathetic condition right now. Having both MOO3 and Civ3 flop within a single year...

Loser

August 8th, 2003, 02:04 AM

I will thank the company that made this game simply for bringing to market a game where, purportedly, the AI that controls a Player's units will drop troops on a planet and destroy the planet in the same turn. The Savage in my stands up and cheers (yells incoherently, really) every time I think about this.

Other than that it is a disappointment, of course. A heart breaking disappointment. But the Savage doesn't care. He doesn�t even understand.

Phoenix-D

August 8th, 2003, 03:05 AM

To be fair, SE4 will do that to. Abet only if your troops loose, not while they're on the ground. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Loser

August 8th, 2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
To be fair, SE4 will do that to. Abet only if your troops loose, not while they're on the ground. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Yeah, but that was the important part. That's worth some * on the Genocide rating.

Suicide Junkie

August 8th, 2003, 03:28 AM

How about making a MoO2 mod in order to help draw in some more people?

Plug in the Tech tree, add some shipsets, get new button graphics...

Then when you post a screenshot, it'll really grab them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Cirvol

August 8th, 2003, 02:32 PM

what we really need is to grab moo3's starmap and get that to work inside se4

**drools**

**wipes drool off chin, shirt collar and pants**

(and fix the initiative problem)- then we're all set crazy fun

Atrocities

August 8th, 2003, 02:46 PM

I said that about the map back on the "day" Moo3 came out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Glad someone else agrees. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Voidhawk

August 8th, 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Cirvol:
it seems a 1.2.5 patch is out for moo3, anyone play with it yet? how is it now? update?A little less buggy, but no more fun than before. So much wasted potential... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Atrocities

August 8th, 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Voidhawk:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cirvol:
it seems a 1.2.5 patch is out for moo3, anyone play with it yet? how is it now? update?A little less buggy, but no more fun than before. So much wasted potential... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif <hr /></blockquote>This must be the first time I have seen you post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I do get so depressed when I think of MOO3.

Ed Kolis

August 8th, 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
How about making a MoO2 mod in order to help draw in some more people?

Plug in the Tech tree, add some shipsets, get new button graphics...

Then when you post a screenshot, it'll really grab them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I started on a MOO2 mod once but never finished it, and started on another one just the other day (probably will never finish it either)... want to see what I have so far? (Mostly ideas and a few data files)

deccan

August 9th, 2003, 05:44 AM

I'd like to see a MOO2-mod too. Specifically, in MOO2, ships were tough, took a long time to build and were powerful. In SE4, ships are disposable and a dime a dozen. I'd like to see a MOO2 mod that reflects this.

tesco samoa

August 9th, 2003, 05:54 AM

ed you and i should finsih the t-g-m mod

as i have moo2 , IG2 , and stars in there.

All of it... And We seem to think on the same wave lenght http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron

August 9th, 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
I'd like to see a MOO2-mod too. Specifically, in MOO2, ships were tough, took a long time to build and were powerful. In SE4, ships are disposable and a dime a dozen. I'd like to see a MOO2 mod that reflects this.Double or triple armor and shield strengths, halve weapon damage, and triple all component and ship costs. That would go a long way to making ships less disposable and tougher. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

deccan

August 9th, 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Double or triple armor and shield strengths, halve weapon damage, and triple all component and ship costs. That would go a long way to making ships less disposable and tougher. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Gotta make shield regenerators much, much more powerful too.

tesco samoa

August 9th, 2003, 04:08 PM

best to change to topic to m003 flop. IG3/GA cancelled, Stars gone supernova

Baron Munchausen

August 9th, 2003, 04:39 PM

The real problem is that it's so *^$^&$ easy to concentrate fire in the 'I Go, You Go' combat system. Every single ship you've got can fire on ONE enemy ship without concern for its own tactical situation. Meaning that as soon as you have 5 or more ships of roughly equivalent technology on a side it's 'poof' time.

Real time combat, or at least 'impulse' combat, with very finely divided turns allowing more distributed opportunities to fire on both sides, is the best solution to this problem. Inceasing armor and shield strength will help some but is not a complete solution.

[ August 09, 2003, 15:40: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Ed Kolis

August 9th, 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
ed you and i should finsih the t-g-m mod

as i have moo2 , IG2 , and stars in there.

All of it... And We seem to think on the same wave lenght http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif TGM mod? what was that, I forgot? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Fyron

August 9th, 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by deccan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Double or triple armor and shield strengths, halve weapon damage, and triple all component and ship costs. That would go a long way to making ships less disposable and tougher. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Gotta make shield regenerators much, much more powerful too.<hr /></blockquote>It will take 4 times as many shots to destroy a ship (at least). This means you have more rounds for the shields to regenerate. Of course, doubling their regen rates would be good too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Ack

August 10th, 2003, 01:12 AM

It will take 4 times as many shots to destroy a ship (at least). This means you have more rounds for the shields to regenerate. Of course, doubling their regen rates would be good too. And as a consquence combat will have to be adjusted to 120 rounds max vs 30 for any meaningful result. And then there is an issue with supply usage per shot and for movement. Essentially you'll end up with longer combat sequences that will end essentially the same way.

Yes ships are disposable, but I think it is a result of how other gameplay factors are balanced. You cannot change one factor without affecting the others.

Fyron

August 10th, 2003, 01:29 AM

No, combat should definitely not be increased to 120 rounds... that completely defeats the entire point of slowing it down...

Ack

August 10th, 2003, 02:14 AM

No, combat should definitely not be increased to 120 rounds... that completely defeats the entire point of slowing it down... I agree, but then the probability that combat will end without a clear winner increases dramatically. So ship to ship combat will become a slug fest that Lasts several turns. I'm not sure how this improves gameplay. It would most definately slow the game down and that is the Last thing SE needs.

I remember playing MOO1 years ago and the game was based on fighting for a few planets. No warp points or sprawling galaxies with dozens of systems and hundres of planets. When you gained or lost a planet, it was a significant event. That is what I find most lacking about SE4. If I lose a planet, so what I have 50 more. The same with ships.

But MOO could never match the epic stragies that are the true soul of SE4. True the planets and races are largely interchangeable, but the most fun occurs in planning and executing massive attacks across dozens of systems. Everything about SE4 from the economy model, to research and intel, through the galaxy layout and movement is a part of this overall strategy.

I've more to say on this topic, but I'm being called away. Until next post...

narf poit chez BOOM

August 10th, 2003, 02:52 AM

play with only home planet type and that other only one.

Fyron

August 10th, 2003, 04:20 AM

Ack, I was making suggestions on how to achieve this.... Originally posted by deccan:
I'd like to see a MOO2-mod too. Specifically, in MOO2, ships were tough, took a long time to build and were powerful. In SE4, ships are disposable and a dime a dozen. I'd like to see a MOO2 mod that reflects this.

deccan

August 10th, 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, combat should definitely not be increased to 120 rounds... that completely defeats the entire point of slowing it down...Sorry, IF, but I don't quite agree here. My idea is that ships should be able to take more pounding, so that a ship shouldn't be easily crippled or destroyed in a single attack pass by another equivalent tech / size ship the minute combat starts. I would then agree to increasing combat turns to prevent stalemates.

I do suppose that in terms of overall gameplay the effects would be similar. After all, if a ship is going to die at the end of combat anyway, then it's faster to have it die over 2 rounds instead of spreading the death over 10 rounds.

But for role-playing purposes, it really sucks for me to see ships go down like flies. At least then I can tell myself that the ship gave as good as it got, fought to the Last man, went down in a blaze of glory and so forth. But I do see that this applies primarily to tactical combat instead of strategic combat.

Also, I remember that big ships in MOO2 were bigger than big ships in stock SEIV. Ships in MOO2 could carry a LOT of weapons and lots of cool doohickeys.

[ August 10, 2003, 11:40: Message edited by: deccan ]