Recycle Old Threads Drive Canceled!

[Taz-in-Space]

I have decided to buy a new 'space game' and wanted some input on wether to buy Galactic Civ or MOO 3. Or possibly some other game I've never heard of. (YES, I HAVE SEIV Gold)

So what do you gamers like better?

[ June 01, 2003, 04:01: Message edited by: Taz-in-Space ]

[Knightsaber]

As it stands, Galactic Civ is far superior, but will still pale next to SEIV.

However MoO3 can still be the next big thing...just not right now. However, if you read their forums, the list of things they have put in the badly needed patch are exactly what they needed to do for a great game. I think they've done 140 odd fixes at this point, and they're almost halfway finished with the patch.

Just get all of them like I did http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Mephisto]

Easy, take GalCiv. It's much better then MOO3 (as if this would be hard...).

[Unknown_Enemy]

Depends. If you are speaking about the SE4 PBW game Master of Orion 3 then it rocks before anything else.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
If you speak about the sorry excuse that is sold as MOO3 brand, then run for galciv.

[maud'dib]

if you love pushing next turn, wading throught vast amounts of useless site rep information, and have horrible diplomatic communications... buy Moo3!!!

[Fyron]

GalCiv is hardly comparable to SE4 or MOO3; it is not in the same genre. SE4 and MOO3 are 4X games, GalCiv is a Civilization-type game. Direct comparisons between them don't work very well (either way).

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
GalCiv is hardly comparable to SE4 or MOO3; it is not in the same genre. SE4 and MOO3 are 4X games, GalCiv is a Civilization-type game. Direct comparisons between them don't work very well (either way).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmmm. I always thought Civ(1or2) is a classic 4X game !
If not, please define 4X in a way Civ would not be included.

[Fyron]

IMO, one of the major aspects of a 4X game is critical design decisions. Civ-type games do not have these. You research tech, and your units are always the same. Maybe I mean Space Opera and not just 4X in general...

[oleg]

There is no X in ship design http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Fyron]

So? That is irrelevant. There is more to a 4X game than just the X's...

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
So? That is irrelevant. There is more to a 4X game than just the X's...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, real time combat for example.

[Suicide Junkie]

Real time combat?

Combat in almost any form would do...

Besides, Fyron is one of the people who understand the difference between continuous combat simulation (good realtime), and literal "realtime" clickfest combat (bad realtime).

[ April 15, 2003, 21:27: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Fyron]

Yeah, what SJ said. A game doesn't have to have real time combat to be 4X. SE4 is a 4X game. Do you see real time combat in it? Cause I certainly don't.

Of course, that was probably some lame attempt at sarcastic humor, but I'll just pretend it wasn't, for both our sakes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Lemmy]

By any general standard, GalCiv and other Civ-games are 4X games. They may not have as much micromanagement as SE or MOO, but they are still 4X games. But the 4X genre is large enough to have big differences in them.

[ April 15, 2003, 21:43: Message edited by: Lemmy ]

[raynor]

With respect to the question of Gal Civ vs. Moo3, I just have one simple comment to make about MOO3:

They designed the game so that the real time combats go until they are finished or until 10 minutes have passed--whichever comes first. Let me just say that I had a TON of combats where they had to run the full TEN minutes.

Lots and lots of people will tell you many, many things about MOO3. I can't tell you yes or not on any of them. I found myself rebooting my computer to get out of MOO3 rather than wait 10 tedious minutes while two ships that couldn't hurt each other circled the screen staring at each other.

Until the developers make the 'General Retreat' work better or create some sort of acceleration feature, I would stay far, far away from MOO3.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
GalCiv is hardly comparable to SE4 or MOO3; it is not in the same genre. SE4 and MOO3 are 4X games, GalCiv is a Civilization-type game.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I dare to disagree http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

MOO3 is not comparable to SE4 or even MOO2. It is a sim-type game. If you have fun playing SimCity or stuff like that, play SimGalaxy = MOO3.

If you are looking for a game where your actions have a significant influence on gameplay, where you are able to estimate what actions have what results, and where you want to be able to try out something even it it is considered a stupid mistake by the AI (but just may be a genius strategy not foreseen by the designers limited minds), FORGET MOO3. Well, someone will say "it's not a micromanagement game, its all about macromanagement" - nonsense. The most basic tools and overviews for macromanagement are missing. You have some very basic features to vaguely direct the AI, and most of your orders there aren't even taken into account if you do not correct them by manually micromanaging - and this is painful, because the game has been designed by haters of management of any kind. Normal playstyle: you watch, the AI does. Period. Enjoy your sitrep, press next turn.

On the other hand, if you enjoy watching the unfolding of a galactic empire, enjoy being able to look at the tinest detail of the whole economy even if you do not want to influence it, then MOO3 is definitely your game. Just do not expect a space strategy game.

[Fyron]

I will restate my comment, since the terms I have used have caused people to go off on irrelevant (to my point) tangents:

SE4, MOO3 and GalCiv are not games of the same class. Direct comparisons between them do not work because they are all different types of games. You wouldn't compare SE4 to Half-Life, would you?

[Wardad]

They are of the same GENRE...

eXplore
eXpand
eXploit
eXterminate

[Roanon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
SE4, MOO3 and GalCiv are not games of the same class.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Agreed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I just couldn't let a comparison with MOO3/SE4 on one side and GalCiv on the other stand there. As you said yourself:
IMO, one of the major aspects of a 4X game is critical design decisions.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...and exactly these I'm missing in MOO3. You may have a few decisions, but not critical ones. Its like you are sitting in a rowboat tied to a supertanker. If you want to head in the same direction as the captain (=AI) of the tanker, fine, you will find that the tanker is actually helping you to reach your destination as fast and as efficient as possible. Just do not try to steer a different course...

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Wardad:
They are of the same GENRE...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is why I said class... genre is too large a Category. They are also of the strategy genre. But you can't compare them absolutely as just strategy games.

Roanon:
MOO3 has the potential for critical design decisions, they just have to let you take it out of empire simulation mode. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif GalCiv, on the other hand, does not have that potential. Its units are static, noncustomizable.

[ April 16, 2003, 01:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Roanon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
MOO3 has the potential for critical design decisions, they just have to let you take it out of empire simulation mode. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif GalCiv, on the other hand, does not have that potential. Its units are static, noncustomizable.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, have to agree again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .
Too bad they didn't hire you and me do the final design http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

WMG in half-life.

[ April 16, 2003, 05:47: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Taz-in-Space]

Thanks guys! I take it the consensus is to buy Galciv and wait until the patches are out for MOO3 to see if it can be retro-engineered into a good game.

[Lemmy]

GalCiv, on the other hand, does not have that potential. Its units are static, noncustomizable.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I beg to differ, units are indeed customizable, through your actions in game, by customizing your civ, by researching specific technologies, by conquering military resources.
A peaceloving race will have much weaker units then a warlike race, even with the same units.
You can build starbases to enhance your units or increase production in a sector.
There are plenty of critical decisions in GalCiv, and unlike in other games, these decisions can come back to haunt you on the long term....*looks at the time*....gotta go now...maybe more later.

[Atrocities]

I want to show you something that I feel is a very accurate dipiction of how people rate games. (How I also rated them)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1050478245.bmp
Masters Of Orion
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1050478293.bmp
Galactic Civilizations
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1050478372.bmp
Space Empires IV

Nuff Said.

[ April 16, 2003, 08:36: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[QuarianRex]

Taz,

Back to the original question... if you don't already have it I would suggest getting "Stars!". Granted, it is a rather old game and she ain't the prettiest girl at the dance, but it is quite sweet.

It also has several options that aren't available in SEIV, like orbital colonies and stargates (warp-point openers just aren't the same). It can be quite soothing to finally do something that you have spent the Last few months (unsuccessfully) trying to mod.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Lemmy:
I beg to differ, units are indeed customizable, through your actions in game, by customizing your civ, by researching specific technologies, by conquering military resources.
A peaceloving race will have much weaker units then a warlike race, even with the same units.
You can build starbases to enhance your units or increase production in a sector.
There are plenty of critical decisions in GalCiv, and unlike in other games, these decisions can come back to haunt you on the long term....*looks at the time*....gotta go now...maybe more later.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That does not make the units themselves customizable. A defender is always a defender. A freighter is always a freighter. I don't really have any sort of direct choice in what bonuses the ships get. Researching a technology always provides the exact same benefit. I have no choice as to what I add that benefit to. There is no tradeoff to use the benefit between space used, other benefits, cost, etc. This is why I said there are no critical ship design decisions. You can not design your ships. You can not directly control the strength or ability of your ships, except with those global all-encompassing bonuses. There is no decision on where to use those.

[raynor]

I agree with Imperator Fyron. In my opinion, for you to say that you can design your own ships in Gal Civ, you would need to be able to pick and choose offensive power, defensive power, speed, hit points, sensor range etc. You just can't do that. Also, you would need to have different weapons that might do approximately the same damage but have different graphical effects and sounds. You would need weapons that have different firing rates, different ranges, etc, etc.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

I bought MOO3 and a week later I bought SE4 and have never looked back. SE4 is the game I've always wanted. GalCiv is next on my purchase list. I promise to pay more attention to reviews this time and not buy something just because it's predecessors were good. Moo 3 maps is beautiful but MOO3 needs a "fun" patch. GalCiv sounds a little more on the beer and pretzels side and also sounds fun but different. In other words save your money on MOO3!
Whatever happened to Stars:Supernova?

Live Long and Conquer

[Cyrien]

Stars! SuperNova is pretty much dead. A shame.

They ran out of money and don't have a publisher to foot the bill to finish the game. It doesn't seem likely that anyone is going to buy into it either. Damn shame.

[ April 16, 2003, 23:48: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

let's hope it doesn't stay dead forever.

[Wardad]

Another good review for GALCIV:
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/games/galactic_civilizations_review/default.asp

They Say:
"GalCiv is easily the best 4X game right now and the best that we’ll see for years to come. "

THEY HAVE NOT REVIEWED SE4!!!

[QuarianRex]

I just might have to go out and buy GalCiv now.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

doesn't seem to have a demo, though.

[Fyron]

If you didn't like the Civilization series of games, you will not like GalCiv, as it is basically Civilization in space. Conversely, if you did like Civ, you should like GalCiv. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And, of course, it has nothing on SE4 as the best 4X game.

[zen.]

Having played a few dozen hours of both the unpatched original Galactic Civilizations and the current patch, I must say that it is shaping up rather nicely. Within the Last few weeks of release, it's had two patches which have added many new things and tweaks which are nice. Even the original release is nice and playable...I finished two games on that alone with no issues. The promise of additional tweaks and patches and added support is always a good thing (as we all know http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Apparently there is a customization option available where you can add new ship designs and such, but I haven't looked into it yet. On their website (www.galciv.com (http://www.galciv.com)), there are already several user-made events you can throw in there.

There are a few things I miss in GalCiv that SEIV provides plenty of, such as ship design and combat. It is very strategic and simplified, with units attacking one-on-one (a stack of fighters will die against something bigger unless you have enough to whittle away at his hit points). Everything is streamlined and straightforward, including the interface, making it easy to access everything and anything you want with as few clicks as possible.

On the surface, it doesn't seem very deep, and advancement of your two dozen or so statistics of your empire/race is strictly in new structures/abilities that affect percentages a few points at a time. Although by the end a Dreadnought may totally outclass those Defenders you had at the beginning, it doesn't bear as much impressiveness. It leaves a sort of ho-hum-it's-a-REALLY-upgraded-starfighter feeling.

Mostly where it shines is in the AI. They're smart, efficient, and remember things. I was surprised when I got a message from a race groveling for peace, saying that they know they started the war, but didn't know I'd fight back so hard. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Diplomacy and trade is very well done, and they consider these things before invading your systems. There is a little bit more of tweaking and optimizing economic stats than I'd like, but it is also intuitive and eventually becomes second nature to keep yourself in the black.

It was definitely worth my money, because it does have a lot of replayability. I have a few games going because it's interesting to see how the stats I chose and AI settings I have (they're increasing as I get better...I'm not good enough to play it on anything higher than 'normal' right now) affect the game.

I agree with Fyron, though, SEIV is still better. For me, it's about the fact that when I go into battle, it's with MY ships that I handcrafted through the years that I'm kicking alien butt, and not some generic ships with my att/def/hp bonuses. SEIV lets you win your way, and GalCiv lets you win one of their 3 ways (although provides you with a very wild ride in the meantime).

Sorry about the lack of MOOness...I'm not touching that one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

zen

[Saint_Rukus]

Don't buy MOO3 till they release 2 patches. I'm a huge fan of both MOO1 and MOO2, and I even kinda like MOO3, but I haven't touched it after the first week it came out. There is a good game somewhere underneath the horrible UI, and I am sure a couple of patches will help me find it.

[Xiodos]

Try Alpha Centauri by Sid Meier. ITs been around for a while, so you can prob pick it and its expansion up for pretty cheap. Its similiar to Civ games, but it has the important note that you still design the units... no prefab units, which is nice.

It also has an excellent political engine, and in my eye it is one of the greatest games ever made, and I also believe it would fit into the 4X genre...

I strongly reccomend you atleast try it. Many a night was completly lost playing this game.

[Xaren Hypr]

Originally posted by Xiodos:
Try Alpha Centauri by Sid Meier.... Many a night was completly lost playing this game.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Many a night, eh...try many a week on my end http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

It's also relatively easy to modify (i said, relatively...) as it's data files are aldo in text format. I still lose a few weekends to it every so often.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by zenbudo:
Mostly where it shines is in the AI. They're smart, efficient, and remember things. I was surprised when I got a message from a race groveling for peace, saying that they know they started the war, but didn't know I'd fight back so hard. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">WOW! Finally an AI that does not have the usual style of "I hate you because you are nonAI and will attack you any time I like without any reason even if I have less chance than an ant trying to strangle an elephant"

[Fyron]

but it has the important note that you still design the units... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, but you always end up with the same small set of units anyways. The design process in SMAC isn't really very broad.

[Chronon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> but it has the important note that you still design the units... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, but you always end up with the same small set of units anyways. The design process in SMAC isn't really very broad.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's true in comparison with SEIV or the MoO's, but in comparison with the other Civ's SMAC is light years ahead.

I'm not sure I'd put SMAC in the 4x genre (just one planet), but it is still the best Civ game to date (in my view, anyway). SEIV gets my vote for best 4x game, but I haven't played GalCiv, and have only a couple of hours of MoO3 under my belt (I'm still trying to figure out how to do things. The UI doesn't make it very easy... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ) I had high hopes for Stars! Supernova Genesis, but that project seems on permanent hold.

[raynor]

In space-based 4x games with tactical combat, designing ships is a lot of fun because you can actually see and hear the different weapons and so forth. In a terra-based 4x game with no tactical combat, IMHO, a primary advantage of designing units is to tweak the unit cost to suit your individual strategy. So, instead of building one unit that is strong in both attack and defense, you can instead build a couple of good defenders with no attack rating and a whole bunch of units with a strong attack. So, I would say that SMAC is going quite well in the unit design arena. Given that SMAC doesn't have tactical combat, I think they did quite, quite well with their design choices.

[oleg]

I am still very puzzled why so many people here believe 4X means interstellar games only !!! Where did you get this idea ? For God sake, SMAX is arguably the best 4X game ever. Civ2 is a classic 4X game. MoM too is a perfect example of 4X game for me!

[Fyron]

Originally posted by raynor:
In space-based 4x games with tactical combat, designing ships is a lot of fun because you can actually see and hear the different weapons and so forth. In a terra-based 4x game with no tactical combat, IMHO, a primary advantage of designing units is to tweak the unit cost to suit your individual strategy. So, instead of building one unit that is strong in both attack and defense, you can instead build a couple of good defenders with no attack rating and a whole bunch of units with a strong attack. So, I would say that SMAC is going quite well in the unit design arena. Given that SMAC doesn't have tactical combat, I think they did quite, quite well with their design choices.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So? You get the exact same thing in the Civ games. Units with high attack and low defense, and units with low attack and high defense. It all boils down to the same thing. The unit design choices are not much of a choice at all in SMAC.

Oleg:
SMAX has nothing on SE4 for the best 4X game ever. And, I would have to disagree that it is the best Civ game. Civ 2 ToT is a much better game in almost every way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Now if Civ 3 had been ToT + SMAX, it would have been a good game. Hopefully Sid Meier gets shot or something so he can't destroy any more classic game titles...

[Loser]

MoM? What is that?

I had never heard, outside of this board, the idea that 4x is innately interstellar. Civ, as far as I know, was the first true 4X game, though there is no 'research' requirement in the four Xs, so Empire may well be the first. (Not sure about 'eXploitation' in Empire, though. As I recall, you just took neutral cities that were already there.)

How about the Might and Magic series. I have no affection for this game, but they too seems to fit the 4X requirements, the ones I can remember anyway.

Even Civ involves micromanagement, compared to any non-4X game on the market. I suspect that micromanagement is a symptom of a strong 4X game, as it may not be a requirement (see M&M and Empire).

In answer to thread's post: do not buy MoO3 any time soon. It is very disappointing right now. It is like seeing your kid sister, the one who was so promising, the one who excelled in athletics and academics and debate in Junior High, like seeing that kid sister drop out of high school, knocked up by her drug dealer, hooked on smack, dirty, hopeless, and coming to you for money.

[Wardad]

MoM is Masters of Magic.
As old as MoO and by the same people. Microprose and Simtex.
"MoM can be called Fantasy Civ."
It has cities with build ques instead of slider bars.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/sheet/gameId=200/

[ April 22, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[Fyron]

Well... I really meant Space Opera, which is a Category of 4X, in my first post about it... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[raynor]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
So? You get the exact same thing in the Civ games. Units with high attack and low defense, and units with low attack and high defense. It all boils down to the same thing. The unit design choices are not much of a choice at all in SMAC.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't forget Clean Reactor, Bombard, Nerve Gas Pods, ECM, etc. There were a significant number of extra design choices to make. Once again, given the limitation of Strategic Combat only, I was pretty happy with the relative plethora of design choices.

I have heard that the primary reason for Civ III was to create a Civ game with absolutely astounding AI.

Master of Magic. I remember playing that game before they disemboweled it trying to give it decent AI. It was fun at first but, oh well...

[Cyrien]

I have heard that the primary reason for Civ III was to create a Civ game with absolutely astounding AI.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If that was the purpose of Civ3... they failed.

The only times I have ever found the AI in Civ3 or its expansion difficult are when they get massive "cheat" style bonuses. Even then it is pretty darn easy to get them to do stuff that is just retarded.

[Xiodos]

I have to disagree Cyrian... The AI of CivIII is actually really quite good, and it doesnt cheat at all. (ok, im sure it does, but not in a large way)

Im gonna go out on a limb and publically disagree with Fyron tho... Civ ToT sucked. Man It sucked. It was awful. I own every Civ game, and every Civ-like game (MoM was good... But Colonization? Man, that game is STILL installed) CivIII was in my eyes a great game, but fell because of its predefined units, which Fyron has spent so much time argueing about.

In my opinion, SMAX was the be-all-end-all of 4X games. Actually, for me, its is the only game I need. You know how people always ask "If you were stuck on a desert island, what would you have?" Mine would be SMAX, although SEIV would be duking it out for the spot. The only other game even close to those 2 would be Jagged Alliance 2, and thats completly different.

So theres my total fanboy opinion... and remeber, Opinions are like noses... everyones got one, and they all smell.

Im gonna go play Colonization now...

[Fyron]

Why is Civ2 ToT a bad game? It had everything Civ2 Gold had, plus lots of cool new features that Sid's ego axed for Civ3.

The Civ3 AIs cheat as much as the AIs in other Civ games do, actually. Maybe even more so. And either way, Civ3 is still the worst thing to happen to Civ games ever...

[Xiodos]

You know what, I went back and checked, and turns out I was complaining about the wrong game. You're right Fyron, Civ ToT WAS a great game... I was talking about Call to Power. Sorry.

As for CivIII, I still stand by it. Certainly, it wasnt my favorite Civ game, but the worst? Not at all. The engine is very good and the graphics are crisp, and the political model is unparalled. As for the AI cheating, I can only assume you're talking about the differences between the difficulty levels. Just like SEIV, the higher difficultly you select, the more "Bonuses" the AI gets... but aside from that, there isnt any cheating. My stealth units stay hidden, comeplete with enemy units wandering by. I didnt see anything to say the AI cheats, and certainly nothing to the extent that you obviously believe it does.

[Fyron]

The AI in Civ3 cheats exactly as much as the AI in Civ2 does (plus more, because the AIs freely exchange their techs at low cost with each other, while charging you an arm and 2 legs).

What engine in Civ3? The graphics engine? Fah! Graphics do not make a game. In fact, graphics are the _least_ important factor of a game. Crisp units = irrelevant. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The political model of Civ3 is much weaker than in a fairly large number of games, actually. It is certainly not unparalleled. And a decent political model means little with rampantly cheating AI.

The difficulty level of the AI in SE4 does _not_ cause them to cheat. The bonus does, but the difficulty level does not. This is the crucial difference between SE4 AI and Civ AI: SE4's AI can be played on high difficulty levels without any bonuses given to it. In Civ, you have to suffer with rampant AI bonuses at higher difficulty levels.

But the AI cheating doesn't really matter. Civ and Civ2 were still very fun games with their rampant AI cheating. Civ3 is just a poorly designed game overall, and has many inescapable flaws (which I don't care to enumerate again at the moment), in addition to miserably failing to carry on the Civ legacy. Instead of building upon Civ2, it destroyed nearly all of the improvements that had been made in the Civ2 series (esp. the expansions). And then they have the gall to release the game in a rather early beta stage, and charge us for the rest of the game later on!

Civ3 represents the first Civ game that is all about flash over content. I certainly hope that if a Civ4 is ever made, it takes nothing from the abomination that is Civ3.

And overall, you haven't really given any reasons as to why Civ3 is a good game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Anything other than crisp graphics or political structure?

[ April 23, 2003, 09:00: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Xiodos]

I wasnt talking about the graphics engine. I was refering to the overall engine. But since Im fighting a loosing battle here, Im gonna respond to your particulars.

The AI in Civ3 cheats exactly as much as the AI in Civ2 does (plus more, because the AIs freely exchange their techs at low cost with each other, while charging you an arm and 2 legs).

I find this comment completly unfounded, for a number of reasons.
1) They simply do NOT charge you an arm and a leg for techs. Granted, quite a few times it may not be tech for tech trade, but if you think about it, many times this makes sense. Is gunpowder really worth Animal husbandary? To a military race, it isnt, and the AI takes note of that and deals witht the techs accordingly.
2) The idea that they basically give away their techs to other AIs is just a accusation. In the games of Civ3 that I have played (and that is a lot), the tech levels of the AIs is never uniform, it is always different. This in itself leads us to believe that they simply do not trade off their techs, but horde them like the user does. Again, some techs are fairly common to see, simply because they are such big important techs. But until you can prove this cheap theory to me, Im calling BS.

What engine in Civ3? The graphics engine? Fah! Graphics do not make a game. In fact, graphics are the _least_ important factor of a game. Crisp units = irrelevant. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Couldnt agree with you more.

The political model of Civ3 is much weaker than in a fairly large number of games, actually. It is certainly not unparalleled. And a decent political model means little with rampantly cheating AI.

Give the names of the games, then we'll talk. Unparalleled may have been a fanboy exageration, but it isnt as bad as you play it out to be. Simply looking at the options availible to you shows a decent amount of thought was put into it. YES, i know thats going to annoy you because it IS almost just eye canday, but it is important to note the equations used in the engine to control the demand and dealing the the AI does depending on the worth of certain items.

The difficulty level of the AI in SE4 does _not_ cause them to cheat. The bonus does, but the difficulty level does not.

This could be me simply getting myself mixed up. Yeah, it is me getting mixxed up. The Newbies guide set me straight, on high setting it simply uses all its ministers.

This is the crucial difference between SE4 AI and Civ AI: SE4's AI can be played on high difficulty levels without any bonuses given to it. In Civ, you have to suffer with rampant AI bonuses at higher difficulty levels.

See, the same can be done in Civ3... its called Regent Difficulty (I may be wrong on the exact name.. corret me if im wrong). At that level, the AI is on full steam with no bonuses. Thats high difficulty with NO bonuses. Just what you wanted. Put it up higher, and the AI gets the bonuses as well. Its JUST LIKE SEIV ONLY WITH A DIFFERENT SETUP/NAMING.

But the AI cheating doesn't really matter. Civ and Civ2 were still very fun games with their rampant AI cheating.

Things to note:
1) More wild accusations about AI cheating
2) Accurate note of the fact that AI cheating doesnt matter BECAUSE it is ultimatly controlable by the user, AND because that said user can still beat it.
3) Fyron's got one of those word Calendars, and today's seems to be "Rampant".

Civ3 is just a poorly designed game overall, and has many inescapable flaws (which I don't care to enumerate again at the moment)

You called me on my "Good Engine" comment, im calling you on this one.

in addition to miserably failing to carry on the Civ legacy. Instead of building upon Civ2, it destroyed nearly all of the improvements that had been made in the Civ2 series (esp. the expansions).

See, i just do not agree with this comment. First off, they carry on the Civ legacy simply by making this game. Does this game suck? No. Does it go completly backward? No. Is it Warcraft 2 with nations? No. Like it or not, it DOES carry on the Civ legacy.

Yes, I would have liked to see more improvements, Yes, they could have built on some things, but you make this look to be like Battlecruiser 3000AD when it is most certainly not. Most of the imporvements are still in the game, along with some orginal ones which i very much enjoy. And before you call me out on that comment, just think Culture.

And then they have the gall to release the game in a rather early beta stage, and charge us for the rest of the game later on!

No arguement here, it was dissapointing the amounts of patches and fixes needed, and the fact the PTW was sold as a seperate item when it SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE ORGINAL.

That does anger me...

Civ3 represents the first Civ game that is all about flash over content.

Civ3 does come off like that, I do agree, but if you look deeper, i think it shows its roots and you can see that it truely is a good game.

I certainly hope that if a Civ4 is ever made, it takes nothing from the abomination that is Civ3.

I do hope the Civ4 is radically different, if only for change.

And again, more slander against Civ3.

And overall, you haven't really given any reasons as to why Civ3 is a good game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Anything other than crisp graphics or political structure?

You're right, I didnt, and I hope this reply gives you some pause before you run rampant over me again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Xio

[Fyron]

"I wasnt talking about the graphics engine. I was refering to the overall engine."

The overall engine is fairly poor by strategy game standards, actually.

"I find this comment completly unfounded, for a number of reasons.
1) They simply do NOT charge you an arm and a leg for techs. Granted, quite a few times it may not be tech for tech trade, but if you think about it, many times this makes sense. Is gunpowder really worth Animal husbandary? To a military race, it isnt, and the AI takes note of that and deals witht the techs accordingly."

Yes they do. 1000s of gold for techs is an arm and a leg. 4+ "new" techs for an obselete technology of little value other than a stepping stone is an arm and a leg. The first couple are cheap, but they get exponentially more expensive.

"2) The idea that they basically give away their techs to other AIs is just a accusation. In the games of Civ3 that I have played (and that is a lot), the tech levels of the AIs is never uniform, it is always different. This in itself leads us to believe that they simply do not trade off their techs, but horde them like the user does. Again, some techs are fairly common to see, simply because they are such big important techs. But until you can prove this cheap theory to me, Im calling BS."

Ok... the AIs that make some money are able to purchase techs from each other cheaply. The really crappy empires don't get much of this tech sharing, but the bigger ones do. Every game I have played directly supports my statement. The richer AIs get more techs than they could possibly research in a given time frame, without spending huge fortunes of money to buy them, as the player must do. This is not BS, it is what the AIs did in every game of Civ3 I played.

"Give the names of the games, then we'll talk. Unparalleled may have been a fanboy exageration, but it isnt as bad as you play it out to be. Simply looking at the options availible to you shows a decent amount of thought was put into it. YES, i know thats going to annoy you because it IS almost just eye canday, but it is important to note the equations used in the engine to control the demand and dealing the the AI does depending on the worth of certain items. "

Yes, and it all boils down to the AI always ripping you off by a huge margin, except sometimes in the very early stages of the game.

I am sure others can name many games with good political systems in them.

SE4 has as complex a diplomatic model (if not actually more complex). It just has poor AIs that don't use it well. GalCiv, MOO2, MOO3 all have better diplomatic/political models than Civ3. I am sure there are plenty of games I haven't played with equal to or better than systems than Civ3.

"See, the same can be done in Civ3... its called Regent Difficulty (I may be wrong on the exact name.. corret me if im wrong). At that level, the AI is on full steam with no bonuses. Thats high difficulty with NO bonuses. Just what you wanted. Put it up higher, and the AI gets the bonuses as well. Its JUST LIKE SEIV ONLY WITH A DIFFERENT SETUP/NAMING."

No, all levels except the lowest few have bonuses. The higher difficulty levels in Civ3 are difficulty + bonus. You can not choose one over the other. You have to take both. It is most certainly not like how SE4 handles it in any way.

"Things to note:
1) More wild accusations about AI cheating"

The AIs get bonuses to production based off of the difficulty level. They get bonuses to trade income. They get bonuses to trading with other AIs cause they don't rip each other off like they do humans. They get unseen bonuses to combat that make your units lose more often on higher difficulty levels. All of this is rampant cheating. They are in no way wild. They are based off of observations of the game mechanics.

"2) Accurate note of the fact that AI cheating doesnt matter BECAUSE it is ultimatly controlable by the user, AND because that said user can still beat it."

Only if you go with a low difficulty level, as level of cheating is directly intertwined with difficulty in Civ3.

"3) Fyron's got one of those word Calendars, and today's seems to be "Rampant"."

Well sorry if I have a large vocabulary...

"You called me on my "Good Engine" comment, im calling you on this one."

Go search for threads on Civ3 if you want to see them. There were a number of them... if you can't find them, I will find them for you tomorrow after I wake up.

"See, i just do not agree with this comment. First off, they carry on the Civ legacy simply by making this game. Does this game suck? No. Does it go completly backward? No. Is it Warcraft 2 with nations? No. Like it or not, it DOES carry on the Civ legacy."

No it doesn't. It is a deevolution of the Civ series from Civ 2 (and expansions), SMAC, etc. It stripped away all of the great new features of those games. This is why it does not carry on the Civ legacy.

"Yes, I would have liked to see more improvements, Yes, they could have built on some things, but you make this look to be like Battlecruiser 3000AD when it is most certainly not. Most of the imporvements are still in the game, along with some orginal ones which i very much enjoy. And before you call me out on that comment, just think Culture."

No, most of the improvements of Civ2 are not in the game. Firepower + Hit Points, Events, tons of unit abilities, etc.

The culture system of Civ3 is not an improvement...

"Civ3 does come off like that, I do agree, but if you look deeper, i think it shows its roots and you can see that it truely is a good game."

I tried to find the good in it for months. But, there was none to be found.

"And again, more slander against Civ3."

Well there are only bad things to say about Civ3. It is not deserving of praise.

"You're right, I didnt, and I hope this reply gives you some pause before you run rampant over me again."

I wasn't running rampant over you, just posting counter-statements.

Sleep time...

[Mephisto]

Keep it easy, boys. Oh, and... wrong thread, this one is about GalCiv and MoO3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Loser]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Keep it easy, boys. Oh, and... wrong thread, this one is about GalCiv and MoO3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

"Ge'em, Boots! 'E's got bees in thar!"
*loud, lengthy, and resonating snort



[ April 23, 2003, 13:26: Message edited by: Loser ]

[solops]

GalCIv is lots of fun.

Re: Civs....I heartily disliked SMAC. TOT was and is still fun, though the graphics were fuzzy compared to Civ II. Civ III PTW is the best of the lot. The more I play, the better it gets, especially with the Teturkhan mod.

Supernova beats them all. Even the incomplete beta really, really rocked.

[ April 23, 2003, 14:22: Message edited by: solops ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Keep it easy, boys. Oh, and... wrong thread, this one is about GalCiv and MoO3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And Civ3.

[Saint_Rukus]

Whoops, wrong thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ April 23, 2003, 18:41: Message edited by: Saint_Rukus ]

[Loser]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Mephisto:
Keep it easy, boys. Oh, and... wrong thread, this one is about GalCiv and MoO3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And Civ3.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And pie.

Who likes pie?

[CEO TROLL]

GIVE ME PIE!!!!, Cheese Cake!!!, Chips, and a barrel of Diet Soda.

I just want to kick back and watch the flame war.

Bwahahaahahahahahaahaaaa!!!!

[Cyrien]

Flame War? Here? When was the Last time we had a flame war...

I posted my view of Civ3 in another Topic altogether that should be quite evident by its title. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Fyron]

Yeah... where are you people getting a flame war from? There is nothing in this thread that would indicate one, and nothing is going to lead to one.

[Xiodos]

I dont have time to reply right now, but just wanted to say two quick things:

1) This is NOT a flame war. Me and Fyron are simply having a discussion. While we may sling crap at each other occsionally in our Posts, we both realize that it is not a personal assault. NOT A FLAME WAR.

2) Im loosing this arguement bad. I blame it on Fyron's giant vocabulary.

[raynor]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Sleep time...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Finally, I found something that I can call Impereator Fyron on without causing a flame war.

How many of you thing he sleeps?

Yeah, thought so.

In the future, I will thank you very much I.F. if you leave such blatantly false statements out of your Posts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

Raynorr:
Careful, or I might have to send my Antaran friends to glass your home in Texas. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Never sleep... what do you think I am, some sort of robot? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Cyrien]

You mean you aren't?

[CEO TROLL]

No flamer, but it is no lamer either.

[eddieballgame]

("With respect to the question of Gal Civ vs. Moo3, I just have one simple comment to make about MOO3:

They designed the game so that the real time combats go until they are finished or until 10 minutes have passed--whichever comes first. Let me just say that I had a TON of combats where they had to run the full TEN minutes.

Lots and lots of people will tell you many, many things about MOO3. I can't tell you yes or not on any of them. I found myself rebooting my computer to get out of MOO3 rather than wait 10 tedious minutes while two ships that couldn't hurt each other circled the screen staring at each other.

Until the developers make the 'General Retreat' work better or create some sort of acceleration feature, I would stay far, far away from MOO3.")
Raynor

YOU CAN SET ANY TIME LIMITS YOU LIKE, AS WELL AS # OF BATTLES ALLOWED IN REAL TIME. ALSO, AS YOUR SHIPS IMPROVE THRU TECH ADVANCES, THE BATTLES BECOME MUCH MORE LIVELY & ENTERTAINING! Of course, you could just let the computer generate a result as well.

[ May 05, 2003, 09:18: Message edited by: eddieballgame ]

[eddieballgame]

MOO3 is an excellent game (pre-patched). Micromanage as much as you want or as little as you want. Great fun in multiplay. To get all the "facts" visit the forums on MOO3's main website--http://moo3.quicksilver.com/main2.html

[Gwaihir]

While we're (not) on topic:
I'm a big fan of Civ II, but the opponents are lacking - I can beat it on Deity with both hands tied behind my back (no really, i can type and use the mouse with my nose!) and drunk (well, fine, not too drunk, but drunk). As can most who have played it a few times, i would think. Anyhow, are the AIs (and by AI I mean AI + its bonus/cheat/whatevers) any challenge in the other Versions? which is the best?
Beyond that, which is the best multiplayer Civ?

[bostonrpgmania]

For me Galciv was a fantastic game
Maybe i am not a hard core 4 x gamer but it felt more like a game than Moo3 or even SE IV.
Interesting path and events keep me from retiring from the game just for one more turn.
and this is just from 50meg demo.
I am buying it today

[Fyron]

MOO3 is certainly not an excellent game... it is hardly classifiable as a game.

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
Micromanage as much as you want or as little as you want. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't hate the game, but you should be kidding. What about the "viceroy" ignoring your orders? Also, the deveolpers did the micormanage very hard with the terrible UI.
My advice is try to do not micromanage this game.

[raynor]

I haven't read the MOO3 forums in a while. I wonder how they are coming with the patch that is supposed to make the AI harder to beat?

Lately, I'm getting somewhat frustrated with the weekly play balance changes in Gal Civ as well as some fairly odd user interface decisions.

Probably, I'll just take a break from gaming until SE:StarFury comes out--hopefully in July.

[eddieballgame]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
MOO3 is certainly not an excellent game... it is hardly classifiable as a game.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, we will have to agree to disagree on that opinion. Although I agree just classifying "it" as a game doesn't do it justice. It is almost like a simulator!

[Fyron]

That was my point. It is not supposed to be a simulator though, it was supposed to be the best 4X game ever, but it is a dismal failure on all accounts.

[eddieballgame]

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by eddieballgame:
Micromanage as much as you want or as little as you want. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't hate the game, but you should be kidding. What about the "viceroy" ignoring your orders? Also, the deveolpers did the micormanage very hard with the terrible UI.
My advice is try to do not micromanage this game.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I find MOO3 very easy to use, & considering the depth of MICROmanaging available, easy to "navigate". There is so much to this program & with the coming PATCH, even more. Please, as an example, read in its entirety the excellent post by SIRIAN - http://www.ina-community.com/forums - MOO3 under STRATEGY/GAMPLAY
"Micromanage- Let's settle this once & for all." Hope I did this page address thing right:) Grant it, there are some people who are bitter about MOO3. I never played MOO1 or MOO2, but I enjoy TBS games & particularly multiplayer. This program to date has more than quenched my thirst in this genre, AND, this game will get "better" very soon. With modding allowed, you can make it better! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 11, 2003, 03:23: Message edited by: eddieballgame ]

[Fyron]

Why don't you link to the post instead?

Also, please reread the Posts in this thread about MOO3 (and in other threads). You seem to have missed everything they have said. A lot of people have found the game to override a lot of their orders and have the AI play for you anyways, even when you try to turn it off as much as you can.

[eddieballgame]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That was my point. It is not supposed to be a simulator though, it was supposed to be the best 4X game ever, but it is a dismal failure on all accounts.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The fact this program can "simulate" running an empire of the magnitude that this program allows is impressive enough. Where it "fails" I guess, is in its perceived clumsy interface. Oh,& the AI is less then best. Considering the programs stableness & lack of "game stopping" bugs not bad in my book. A better manual, maybe, but the forums have addressed just about everything in the game, and for the most part in a friendly & very helpful manner. The Patch will reflect this.
MOO3 was designed to make multiplay a feasible option for this genre. To date, it has succeeded.

[eddieballgame]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why don't you link to the post instead?

Also, please reread the Posts in this thread about MOO3 (and in other threads). You seem to have missed everything they have said. A lot of people have found the game to override a lot of their orders and have the AI play for you anyways, even when you try to turn it off as much as you can.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My source of information for MOO3 is its main website. Yes, the Viceroys will, in time, do what "they" want. The strat guide even makes mention of that. You can still force build or eliminate with ROY on. Or turn him "off" & do it all, works for me. This having to keep an "eye" on your planetary leaders is kinda cool, kinda like real life, very unpredictable! I generally only micromanage a few planets because of time constraints. Sorry for my lack of "linking" ability, new to this thing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 11, 2003, 03:59: Message edited by: eddieballgame ]

[Fyron]

Umm... the SE series has had multiplayer quite feasable for many many years. MOO3 is not an innovation.

The GUI is not "percieved as clumsy", it is undeniably clumsy. There are too many obtuse subwindows to go through to change something that will be changed back by the AI ministers. There are too many useless bits of information portrayed that you can never have an effect on, so there is no point in cluttering the game with them. Most of this bits are not explained at all, so you have no idea what the numbers mean. So, they are even more clutter, making the GUI even clumsier. Also, the control interface is less than stellar. It is horrid looking too, but that isn't part of it's clumsiness.

MOO3 does not in any way accurately simulate a space empire. It is not meant as a simulator, but as a game. So saying it is a good simulator IS NOT saying that it is a good game; it is saying the contrary.

Also, Quiksilver's propaganda about their beast of a game is not a valid source at all. What they say is irrelevant when it quite clearly contradicts what actually happens. And, the viceroys change orders immediately quite often, not after many turns. Also, turning them off actually does not do a whole lot; they still screw up everything you try to do anyways. They are very spiteful. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 11, 2003, 04:05: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[eddieballgame]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... the SE series has had multiplayer quite feasable for many many years. MOO3 is not an innovation.

The GUI is not "percieved as clumsy", it is undeniably clumsy. There are too many obtuse subwindows to go through to change something that will be changed back by the AI ministers. There are too many useless bits of information portrayed that you can never have an effect on, so there is no point in cluttering the game with them. Most of this bits are not explained at all, so you have no idea what the numbers mean. So, they are even more clutter, making the GUI even clumsier. Also, the control interface is less than stellar. It is horrid looking too, but that isn't part of it's clumsiness.

MOO3 does not in any way accurately simulate a space empire. It is not meant as a simulator, but as a game. So saying it is a good simulator IS NOT saying that it is a good game; it is saying the contrary.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not sure what point you are trying to make pertaining to the multiplayer aspect of MOO3. As for your other statements, none are factual, ONLY opinion based. As proof, I heartily disagree with most of what you have "said". But so what. I was not trying to start a debate over "what is the best space empire game" just that MOO3 is a viable & fun alternative in this genre.
BTW, what game does "accurately simulate" a space empire, of which none exist?
I am enjoying this "conversation"! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

My source of info is not Quick Silver, but the many players of this game. The "grunts" if you will. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 11, 2003, 04:22: Message edited by: eddieballgame ]

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
I find MOO3 very easy to use, & considering the depth of MICROmanaging available, easy to "navigate".
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Honestly, I'm one of the people that perceive the interface as clumsy, and think I have good reasons. In my view, I need to do too many clicks, doing things that some turns later the AI will change to their taste.

Originally posted by eddieballgame:

There is so much to this program & with the coming PATCH, even more. Please, as an example, read in its entirety the excellent post by SIRIAN - http://www.ina-community.com/forums - MOO3 under STRATEGY/GAMPLAY
"Micromanage- Let's settle this once & for all."
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">After some search, I found the post. Loong but interesting.
Think it prove that the humans can manage better the planets than the AI (nothing new to me)... but at the same time, that the cost to manage even a single planet is a click nightmare.

Originally posted by eddieballgame:

I never played MOO1 or MOO2, but I enjoy TBS games & particularly multiplayer.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I loved MOO1 and really enjoyed MOO2, both true classics, but I can't say the same about MOO3.
After read so bad reviews/oppinions about MOO3, when finally I played the game, felt that the game (or simulator to keep Fyron happy) was not so bad... but I'm not optimistic about that some day I'll really like the game.

Originally posted by eddieballgame:

This program to date has more than quenched my thirst in this genre
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's ok with me.
Not everybody like the same kind of games... although think if this game "quenched your thirst in this genre", you should try other games to compare.

Originally posted by eddieballgame:

AND, this game will get "better" very soon. With modding allowed, you can make it better! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh yes, I hope the patches and mods will improve the game.

[Fyron]

You posted this eddie:
"MOO3 was designed to make multiplay a feasible option for this genre."

This implies that it has not been feasible before MOO3 came out, which is wholely false.

My statements are not "opinions", they are observations of how the game works. Your "opinions" that you cited as proof are certainly not proof of anything except that is what you think.

[eddieballgame]

Sorry about the link thing. Anyways, I understand there is some "clicking" in this game. Supposedly the Patch is addressing this area also.
I like & play numerous TBS games such as Civ III PTW, Alpha Centauri, HMM series, AOW II.
All excellent. MOO3 is different, & will agree not to everyones liking. I certainly didn't mean to try & "sell" the game. I just wanted to give MY accurate description of what I have encountered with MOO3.
BTW GO REDSOX!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[eddieballgame]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You posted this eddie:
"MOO3 was designed to make multiplay a feasible option for this genre."

This implies that it has not been feasible before MOO3 came out, which is wholely false.

My statements are not "opinions", they are observations of how the game works. Your "opinions" that you cited as proof are certainly not proof of anything except that is what you think.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fair enough, to me the "proof" is "in the pudding". In your opinion how "good" is SEIV Online, or "hotseat" for that matter. I recently
received SEIV & it looks very good. Have yet to play it though. Thanks for your input.

[Fyron]

I don't have anyone to play SE4 hotseat with, so I can't answer that. I know there are plenty of people that are satisfied with it though. SE4 is very good in PBW play. It's the only way to play the game IMO! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif TCP/IP works well with 2 players, but gets slower than PBW with 3 or more, due to how it handles turns.

Proof means one thing, and one thing only. It is not a subjective term.

[ May 11, 2003, 05:00: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[eddieballgame]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I don't have anyone to play SE4 hotseat with, so I can't answer that. I know there are plenty of people that are satisfied with it though. SE4 is very good in PBW play. It's the only way to play the game IMO! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif TCP/IP works well with 2 players, but gets slower than PBW with 3 or more, due to how it handles turns.

Proof means one thing, and one thing only. It is not a subjective term.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you for the info & your candor, till we "meet" again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[raynor]

Regarding Imperator Fyron's comments on facts vs. opinions:

Umm... the SE series has had multiplayer quite feasable for many many years.


This is an opinion. The term 'quite feasable' is arbitrary and subject to opinion. Someone else might say that the multiplayer was not quite feasable.


The GUI is not "percieved as clumsy", it is undeniably clumsy. There are too many obtuse subwindows to go through to change something that will be changed back by the AI ministers. There are too many useless bits of information portrayed that you can never have an effect on, so there is no point in cluttering the game with them. Most of this bits are not explained at all, so you have no idea what the numbers mean. So, they are even more clutter, making the GUI even clumsier. Also, the control interface is less than stellar. It is horrid looking too, but that isn't part of it's clumsiness.


This also is an opinion. A fact would be something on the order of: If you click button 'X', then window 'Y' shows up. But just because you don't "like" something doesn't make it a fact. It makes it an opinion. A fact is something that is incontrovertible. If the word "like" or "dislike" enters in, then it is an opinion and not a fact.


MOO3 does not in any way accurately simulate a space empire. It is not meant as a simulator, but as a game. So saying it is a good simulator IS NOT saying that it is a good game; it is saying the contrary.


This also is an opinion.


Also, Quiksilver's propaganda about their beast of a game is not a valid source at all. What they say is irrelevant when it quite clearly contradicts what actually happens. And, the viceroys change orders immediately quite often, not after many turns. Also, turning them off actually does not do a whole lot; they still screw up everything you try to do anyways. They are very spiteful. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

This also is an opinion. What are you going to use to determine what is a valid source? Without hard proof regarding the validity of a number of sources, it is clearly your opinion regarding what is or is not a valid source.

BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with most of your opinions. But they are just that, opinions.

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

[ May 11, 2003, 08:51: Message edited by: raynor ]

[oleg]

Common, Raynor ! Do not start the whole philosophical debate "what is the truth" and how objective can we be !

No sane person would argue that games like Moo2 and SEIII/IV had good multiplayer long before Moo3 was conceived.

[Chronon]

Since this isn't Plato's Pub, I'll leave aside the question of fact and opinion. Besides, Fyron and I have probably already met our philosophical debate quota for this year. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But I did want to put in my opinion of MoO3 and ask a question about GalCiv.

I got MoO3 soon after it's release (as a gift), but because of the spectacularly negative reviews I didn't play it right away. Once I did open the box and began playing - with greatly diminished expectations - I found that I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would. There are some things I don't like: the interface (looks nice, but way too many clicks to access information), the ship design area (I like seeing the components, like in SE4), the ship sets (Atrocities, you are needed!), and the combat interface (again, a UI problem). I haven't played it long enough to really tell, but I've also heard the AI is very bad.

But I do like some things about it: the economic system, the idea of real-time combat (if not it's execution), the leaders (I like the role-playing aspect of them), the espionage system, the three dimensional star map (why not 3D tactical combat?), and the system maps. The economic system, in my opinion, is the best thing about the game. I know it's hard to say what's realistic about a science fiction game, but for me it has a very authentic feel. I like the complex interplay between resource production, industrial production, and the imperial budget. I hope some of these things find their way into SE5. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

My question about GalCiv - Is the AI as good as the reviews say? I've been looking for a truly challenging single player game, without much luck (I know it's hard to write a decent AI for very complex games of strategy, but I keep hoping).

[Fyron]

Raynor:
This is an opinion. The term 'quite feasable' is arbitrary and subject to opinion. Someone else might say that the multiplayer was not quite feasable. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Someone might say that the earth is not round. Does that make saying the earth is round an opinion? No, it does not. While this particular case could be considered a matter of opinion, my point here will apply to pretty much everything else you said.

This also is an opinion. A fact would be something on the order of: If you click button 'X', then window 'Y' shows up. But just because you don't "like" something doesn't make it a fact. It makes it an opinion. A fact is something that is incontrovertible. If the word "like" or "dislike" enters in, then it is an opinion and not a fact. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it is a fact because there are a huge number of unnecessary clicks that you have to make to get anything done, but those things most often get overridden by the AI anyways. A non-clumsy interface would not have so many windows to go through to make minor changes. The degree of clumsiness and whether or not it is a game-breaking issue is a matter of opinion, but the fat that it is clumsy is not.

MOO3 does not in any way accurately simulate a space empire. It is not meant as a simulator, but as a game. So saying it is a good simulator IS NOT saying that it is a good game; it is saying the contrary.

This also is an opinion.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, it isn't an opinion. It is a fact about computing. It is impossible for a computer program designed to run on PCs to accurately simulate something as complex as an entire empire of people, or even one city. Even a super-computer would not be able to accurately simulate billions and billions of people over a few centuries of time (or however long MOO3 Lasts).

This also is an opinion. What are you going to use to determine what is a valid source? Without hard proof regarding the validity of a number of sources, it is clearly your opinion regarding what is or is not a valid source.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The general consensus from the gaming community and also my own observations constitute valid sources. I have seen the AIs override my orders in MOO3, so that is a fact, and is supported by nearly every gamer that comments on a game. What a game company says about their game is almost never a valid source because they want to sell you their game, so they are not about to point out its downfalls. They will only portray the things it does well, and often embellish the truth so that you get a flawed picture of the game.

Oleg:
I am quite sane, and so I take offense at your comments. Of course, I assume it is a joke, so I will let it slide.

Chronon:
My question about GalCiv - Is the AI as good as the reviews say? I've been looking for a truly challenging single player game, without much luck (I know it's hard to write a decent AI for very complex games of strategy, but I keep hoping).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">GalCiv is not as complex as other 4X games (in part due to the simplified combat model and also the lack of moddability), and so has better AIs for it. They do not have to be as adaptive, and so can be written into rigid patterns more easily. This is what allows good AI, after all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[eddieballgame]

[QUOTE]No, it is a fact because there are a huge number of unnecessary clicks that you have to make to get anything done, but those things most often get overridden by the AI anyways. A non-clumsy interface would not have so many windows to go through to make minor changes. The degree of clumsiness and whether or not it is a game-breaking issue is a matter of opinion, but the fat that it is clumsy is not.[QUOTE]

It is a fact that this is my opinion; the "unecessary clicks" you "have" to make to micromanage are not clumsy to me AND not to all.
Could everything be put on 1 or 2 screens, maybe. From what I have read, the "Patch" is addressing this. It does "sound" like you were trying to micromanage with the AI on. Having played MOO3 alot, I find "ROY" will disagree in time on some of my choices. I can even "contol"
those things, shipbuilding, troop building, etc.
as long as I keep an eye on "him". For planet control with no AI override, I turn off the AI.
It does work, that is not an opinion. There is alot to do, Maintaining a healthy planet environment, keeping the pop happy, fed & protected, fleet maintenance, & on & on. This is very close to "simulating" the non real space empire environment. As a game I find this fun to deal with. Oh, that I find this fun is also a fact.

MOO3 is also very moddable, a fact. Meaning
you could "improve" on its many features, an opinion.

[SlapBone]

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
I find MOO3 very easy to use, & considering the depth of MICROmanaging available, easy to "navigate".<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And every morning I have Claudia Schiffer and Cameron Diaz fight to see who will take a shower with me.

[Roanon]

Lol Slapbone. The one and only fitting answer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

For more opionons, just check out ebay. Lots of Moo3 for less than 10$. Never seen so many people willing to sell a game for less than a fifth of the original price so soon after the release.

[Wardad]

Galciv,

I have been approaching a cultural victory for some time now. The game (ver1.02) says 12 months to go. But everytime I load the saved game the cultural victory calculations are screwed up and it takes many turns for it to be corrected andreach the 12 months to go point again. ARRGGGHHH!!!

Maybe I should make everything as automatic as possible and just keep hiting that turn button.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Oleg:
I am quite sane, and so I take offense at your comments. Of course, I assume it is a joke, so I will let it slide.

[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aaah... Eeeehh... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

My post was exactly to support (hmmm.. how can you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ) you as a perfectly sane person here. In fact, I reitterated your points almost up to the line http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Either you missunderstood me or I typed something quite opposite I wanted... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Ooh, dear. How easy it would be if russian was the default language here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Fyron]

Oleg:
Your post was actually directly opposing my point.
No sane person would argue that games like Moo2 and SEIII/IV had good multiplayer long before Moo3 was conceived.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You said that a sane person would not argue that games prior to MOO3 had good multiplayer capabilities. You may have meant the other way, but that is what you said.

Eddie:
MOO3 is also very moddable, a fact. Meaning
you could "improve" on its many features, an opinion.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is not more moddable than SE4 though, and you can not eliminate its major flaws through modding.

Turning the viceroys off DOES NOT disable them entirely. They still make changes. How many times do I and others have to repeat this? It is getting tiring saying it over and over and over again.

There are significantly more people that find MOO3's interface to be horrible and clumsy than that find it to be a good interface. And what a patch will or will not do HAS NO BEARING on how the game is RIGHT NOW. What the game might be like in the future IS NOT a valid basis for argument of whta the game is like NOW.

[ May 12, 2003, 02:15: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Oleg:
Your post was actually directly opposing my point.
...(actual stuff skipped)...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But surely YOU should recognise I forget to type NOT or put one too many http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

.... Another 200 ml of investments and I am an equity...

[ May 12, 2003, 02:24: Message edited by: oleg ]

[raynor]

LOL. If you wonder why I.F. has so many Posts, it is because it argues against not just those who are disagreeing with it but also with its supporters. ...I.F. is an it instead of he because no human being could have its breadth of knowledge--even if most of that knowledge is just plain wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Regarding the problem with the cultural victory in Gal Civ: Each time you reload the game, it has to re-calculate your influence. The developers said they could have saved that piece of info as well. But it would have increased the time required to save your game. So, they left it as is.

The AI in Gal Civ is pretty good. I'm the type of person who prefers to play on my own timetable against only the computer. This is a very strong, strong preference on my part. Let me just say that the gameplay in SEIV is so much more satisfying than Gal Civ that I'm about to set Gal Civ aside and cautiously brave the waters of SEIV PBW.

[Fyron]

Regarding the problem with the cultural victory in Gal Civ: Each time you reload the game, it has to re-calculate your influence. The developers said they could have saved that piece of info as well. But it would have increased the time required to save your game. So, they left it as is. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a pretty crappy decision. It couldn't have increased time to save the game by very much, and would be well worth the marginal increase in saving time.

[ May 12, 2003, 04:17: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[eddieballgame]

[ [/QUOTE]It is not more moddable than SE4 though, and you can not eliminate its major flaws through modding.

Turning the viceroys off DOES NOT disable them entirely. They still make changes. How many times do I and others have to repeat this? It is getting tiring saying it over and over and over again.

There are significantly more people that find MOO3's interface to be horrible and clumsy than that find it to be a good interface. And what a patch will or will not do HAS NO BEARING on how the game is RIGHT NOW. What the game might be like in the future IS NOT a valid basis for argument of whta the game is like NOW.[/QB][/QUOTE]

MOO3 may or may not be "more moddable" then SEIV, but so what. You do not know that for a fact, nor do I. Plus (opinion), there are NO "major" flaws in this game. (but a fact to me)
I am also getting tired ( not really:) ) of repeating, when I turn off "Roy" I control my planet.
I am not sure where you get your "poll" numbers from, but from what I have read this would contradict your "clumsy interface" rampage.
I am curious, why do you seem so angry (opinion) in your Posts?

[Fyron]

You do not know that for a fact, nor do I. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes I do. I have looked at the modding options of MOO3, and SE4 is more moddable than MOO3 is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I never said MOO3 is unmoddable, just that it is nowhere near as moddable as SE4. And so there is no confusion, changing graphics is not modding.

Plus (opinion), there are NO "major" flaws in this game. (but a fact to me)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So do you work for Infogrames' PR department or something? That is the impression I am getting, because I have not yet heard anyone make the claim that there are no major flaws with MOO3 (except for some Infogrames lackeys...). Even the game designers have admitted as much...

I am also getting tired ( not really:) ) of repeating, when I turn off "Roy" I control my planet. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Up until it makes changes for you, yes. But, the viceroys are not completely disabled when you turn them off. I have seen this happen. EVERYONE that I have talked to about the game has seen this happen. You must not pay much attention or have been extremely lucky if you haven't seen it happen yet.

I am not sure where you get your "poll" numbers from, but from what I have read this would contradict your "clumsy interface" rampage.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What rampage? You continue to deny all of the problems people have been pointing out with MOO3, so I repeat them in hopes that maybe, just maybe, you will open your mind and see the game from someone else's perspective.

I am curious, why do you seem so angry (opinion) in your Posts?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't see any anger. Annoyance at going in circles with you because you refuse to see other points of view, sure. But no anger.

[raynor]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Regarding the problem with the cultural victory in Gal Civ: Each time you reload the game, it has to re-calculate your influence. The developers said they could have saved that piece of info as well. But it would have increased the time required to save your game. So, they left it as is. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a pretty crappy decision. It couldn't have increased time to save the game by very much, and would be well worth the marginal increase in saving time.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">LOL. If you are a computer, you are a very poorly made one. How can you make such a statement with absolutely no facts? You have already established that you cannot program yourself out of a paper bag. Now, you are making inferences about an extremely complicated piece of code with which you have absolutely no experience?

[eddieballgame]

This post is starting to get "old". No, I don't work for QSI, or any software company for that matter. You believe what you will. It is really irrelevent to my original post. I respect your views, but pretty much disagree with most of what you have "said", with an open mind btw.
Had I known I was dealing with such an expert on MOO3 I might have taken the time to pick your brain on other aspects of the program.
Anyways, good gaming & GO REDSOX!!!

[Fyron]

It is really irrelevent to my original post.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it isn't, as the real facts are a direct contradiction of your original post.

Raynor:
LOL. If you are a computer, you are a very poorly made one. How can you make such a statement with absolutely no facts?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif I do not need any facts about the program to say that having it save your status towards victory conditions would be a good thing to do.

You have already established that you cannot program yourself out of a paper bag. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Excuse me? I have done no such thing.

Now, you are making inferences about an extremely complicated piece of code with which you have absolutely no experience? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Experience with the code is wholely unnecessary in this instance, actually. I know that victory conditions settings could not possibly increase the data necessary to be saved by all that much, especially when the victory conditions are not that complicated. An alternative would be for the game to recalculate your victory conditions status when you load the game back up. This would increase loading time a little, but it would be worth it to get around the bug that had been mentioned in how victory conditions are resolved. And yes, it is certainly a bug, because it is not how victory conditions are supposed to be handled.

[ May 12, 2003, 09:13: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[raynor]

One of the key elements of Gal Civ is that it is multi-threaded. This means that it is making tons and tons of calculations at the same time that you are completing your turn. One of those calculations is the somewhat complicated computation that compares the cultural significance of every one of your planetary facilities, starbases, etc against that of each one of the AI empires. The really cool feature of a game that is multi-threaded is that the game appears to run extremely fast. You really don't have to wait very long when you press 'End Turn' because the game has been making most of its calculations while you are moving your own ships around.

The developers of the game decided to shorten the game save time by not saving your status towards a cultural dominance victory. They also made the decision to shorten the game load time by not calculating it immediately upon loading the game. Instead, they spread this calculation out over two or three turns. They did this to speed the game up and let players get into the action quickly.

Can you imagine how cool this is? Instead of waiting a couple of minutes while the game does this calculation, you can instead get right back into the game. The game is actually performing this computation *while* you are playing the game. This is really quite an awesome feature. It isn't an easy thing to do, rest assured.

[Wardad]

Originally posted by raynor:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Regarding the problem with the cultural victory in Gal Civ: Each time you reload the game, it has to re-calculate your influence. The developers said they could have saved that piece of info as well. But it would have increased the time required to save your game. So, they left it as is. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a pretty crappy decision. It couldn't have increased time to save the game by very much, and would be well worth the marginal increase in saving time.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">LOL. If you are a computer, you are a very poorly made one. How can you make such a statement with absolutely no facts? You have already established that you cannot program yourself out of a paper bag. Now, you are making inferences about an extremely complicated piece of code with which you have absolutely no experience?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey, Stop tweaking I.F.! That's my job!

I can usually play about an hour every morning. So the Cultural Save and Ship Bonus save problems are really nasty bugs for me.

[ May 12, 2003, 17:15: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[raynor]

Originally posted by Wardad:

I can usually play about an hour every morning. So the Cultural Save and Ship Bonus save problems are really nasty bugs for me.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

If you can only play an hour at a time, why play Gal Civ? You might as well be playing SEIV PBW. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Didn't you know that Gal Civ is only for those folks who can sit down and play the game for ten hours at one sitting? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

That would be a great indication of some bad game design decisions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Roanon]

I am also getting tired ( not really:) ) of repeating, when I turn off "Roy" I control my planet.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Blatant lie. Working for Quicksilver?

[deccan]

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
I am also getting tired ( not really:) ) of repeating, when I turn off "Roy" I control my planet.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The main things you can't control at all are DEA and infrastructure building. You can ask the Viceroy to build a DEA at a certain region and it'll say "Planned", but often, even if you jack up Economic Development spending real high, the DEA will stay at the "Planned" phase forever.

You also can't decide to build regional improvements (like Space Ports) at all. The Viceroy does that. In any case there are many bugs with the improvements (Astro University not giving bonuses, Planetary Shields not reducing piracy etc.)

Also, you have no control of which planets get Imperial Grants. For some players, this really messes up their strategy.

Finally, even for those things that the player can control, it feels like the player doesn't control them because of the lack of immediate feedback makes it next to impossible for the player to predict the effects of his decisions.

That said, except for the above things (and maybe to a lesser extent auto-migration but that's in the game design), once you uncheck the Econ AI box, I don't believe the AI actually changes anything.

[ May 13, 2003, 04:51: Message edited by: deccan ]

[Chronon]

Raynor and Wardad, thanks for the info on GalCiv. Since I, too, only have about an hour a day to play games, I should probably not get into GalCiv. I'm in a couple of SE4 PBW games at the moment, which count toward that hour, so I probably don't have enough time left over each day to really get to know GalCiv. I'll just continue the Hearts of Iron game I'm working on. Perhaps I'll be done sometime this year... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PS. Raynor, I would highly recommend PBW. It's light years more challenging than any single player game I've played.

[eddieballgame]

Originally posted by deccan:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by eddieballgame:
I am also getting tired ( not really:) ) of repeating, when I turn off "Roy" I control my planet.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The main things you can't control at all are DEA and infrastructure building. You can ask the Viceroy to build a DEA at a certain region and it'll say "Planned", but often, even if you jack up Economic Development spending real high, the DEA will stay at the "Planned" phase forever.

You also can't decide to build regional improvements (like Space Ports) at all. The Viceroy does that. In any case there are many bugs with the improvements (Astro University not giving bonuses, Planetary Shields not reducing piracy etc.)

Also, you have no control of which planets get Imperial Grants. For some players, this really messes up their strategy.

Finally, even for those things that the player can control, it feels like the player doesn't control them because of the lack of immediate feedback makes it next to impossible for the player to predict the effects of his decisions.

That said, except for the above things (and maybe to a lesser extent auto-migration but that's in the game design), once you uncheck the Econ AI box, I don't believe the AI actually changes anything.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the games I play I can tear down DEAS & build new ones. For example; Military DEAS to help curb "unrest". It does require some in game time which sort of reflects a realistic approach.
To hinder & stop "piracy" I build ships. This does work, at least for me.
I also can build the available buildings when they come up. This has not been a prob.
I am not sure what you mean by receiving immediate feedback.
This game is not perfect "yet", but I am hopeful http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif !

[ May 13, 2003, 07:43: Message edited by: eddieballgame ]

[raynor]

I thought someone had said there was a user contributed mod that would actually let you manually build DEA enhancing facilities like the space port?

Regarding PBW... I'm afraid! I'm so afraid. The least talented human opponent is 1000x more competent a player than the feeble AI. I'm gonna die! :-)

That "Dirty Tricks" thread is awesome. I can't wait to try some of that out. But... waiting 150+ days for a game to complete... Oh, the pain, the pain...

I'm really wondering if I won't get over my current disappointement with some of Gal Civ's quirks after waiting 24 hours between turns of an SEIV game. Hmm... gonna create a new topic with a question about game length.

[bostonrpgmania]

Chronone

I hope you try galciv in near future.
It is a great great GAME and very easy to access.
It is very different from SE IV, no ship custominzation for example.
However it is very intuitive and addicting.
For me, it felt more like a 'Game' which means a lot to me since I am looking for a fun while entertained by some interesting events in the game
(try to look at designer's gameplay example
in galciv.com encyclophedia section.
It also got nice professional review. Today my copy of computer games magazine and CGW (I am subscribing all three including PC Gamer) arrived and the reviewers there seems to be impressed

If we can combine the best part of SE IV and galciv, it would be a real bLast!

[ May 13, 2003, 07:12: Message edited by: bostonrpgmania ]

[snakeye]

I have tried them all. In fact I had stopped playing SEIV awaiting the MOO3. Had it on preorder...Couldnt wait to install it! Then I saw it.....After the initial graphic's shock, I started playing it....then I hit the bugs....read the forums, try to bypass them only to find.....nothing! no game play, no depth, only turn after turns of boring "build fleet, send fleet"....And the combat leaves so much to be desired! Yeah its real-time, so?? Cant pause it, by the time i get my fleet on the screen and understand which TF is what they all go down in a hail of missiles! No battle tactics, just clickfest! I spent most of my time on clicking the turn button that anything else! Research, diplomancy and intelligence and vague and abstruct to the point of not worth bothering about! And after all this, I realised how much I missed the complexity of SEIV. Yes it was micro, and lots of detail.So? Thats why i like it! I also created a system to enhance the time i spent on a turn, so i do more things quicker! And GIVE ME THE GUI OF SEIV instead of MOO3 anyday! The person that invented the MOO3 gui must have been on drugs or something! At the moment I am playing the borg on the Atrocities MOD (thank u so much man!) and I am having the time of my life! I even worked out a few formulae to calculate costs for remote mining and bonus structures (posted in this forum). By far, i would say SEIV is the best strategy game I have EVER played! The options you have at your disposal are the BIGGEST PLUS for me! I mean, how many space strategy games you know where you can manipulate the actual map, create or destroy wormholes, planets, etc? The possibilities are endless! If I wanted fast action, I would choose an RTS over MOO3. I want startegy to take time, think carefully and at my pace, strategise and develope plans that go 10, 20 turns in the future! And i love that kinda game! SEIV is the choice for me! Is the king so far, and CANT wait till SEV!!!!!

[bostonrpgmania]

GALCIV - stable - too few especial events - too limited mod capability (cant create my own events!) - very cool graphics - gets repetitive after a dozen plays... - very easy learning curve... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">----> well event maker downloadable now

[ May 13, 2003, 16:01: Message edited by: bostonrpgmania ]

[Chronon]

bostonrpgmania, I may give GalCiv a try over the summer. I'll have a bit more time to play then, and it does sound like the kind of game I like.

[Makinus]

Comparative SEIV x GALCIV x MOO3

MOO3: bugggyyyy - boring - moddable - poo graphics - steep learning curve......

GALCIV - stable - too few especial events - too limited mod capability (cant create my own events!) - very cool graphics - gets repetitive after a dozen plays... - very easy learning curve...

SEIV Gold - stable - very fun - higly moddable - cool graphics - infinite variations with player mods - my definite choice after playing the 3 games....

Just to add my two cents (three this time)....

[deccan]

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
For example; Military DEAS to help curb "unrest". It does require some in game time which sort of reflects a realistic approach.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This works sometimes. It is clunky but should be fixed in the patch. However, what I mean is that sometimes a DEA that the player puts in gets stuck in the "Planned" phase forever. When that happens, if I take out the "Planned" DEA that I put in, and put back what the Viceroy originally wanted to build, then this DEA gets built.

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
To hinder & stop "piracy" I build ships. This does work, at least for me.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, but shields are supposed to be very good at stopping piracy according to the Readme. Another bug.

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
I also can build the available buildings when they come up. This has not been a prob.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The player has control over planetary buildings, but not regional ones.

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
I am not sure what you mean by receiving immediate feedback.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Immediate feedback means that when the player makes a decision, the game should report back on what the projected effects of those decisions will be next turn, giving the player a chance to adjust his decisions in response. Otherwise, the player tends to be left in the dark, and making decisons becomes a sort of guessing game, e.g. how much of an effect am I really having in the game?

[eddieballgame]

Actually the Planetary Shields only reduce piracy by 1/10 of there strength. You can also build Orbitals as well as System Ships, etc to all but eliminate piracy for said system.
Occaissionally with newly aquired planets there is some AI "bugginess" going on with the DEAS. The Patch is addressing this. Based on planetary budgeting & pop, the DEAS can stay in the "planned" phase awhile.
Grant it, for most "games" it is nice to get immediate feedback on decisions & choices one has made. I think MOO3 has made an "attempt" at trying to emulate "real life" experiences.
That is, not always knowing immediately if all your decisions are for the better. Is this a good idea to implement in a game? It is different, & as the "bugs" are worked out (as in any new game) I feel MOO3 could be the "1st among equals" for TBS space empire games, particularly in the area of "Online multiplay". Time will tell.

[ May 16, 2003, 04:29: Message edited by: eddieballgame ]

[deccan]

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
Actually the Planetary Shields only reduce piracy by 1/10 of there strength.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's a bug. Read:
http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=287632

In particular:

-) Planets screen - severity: high - bug
"Planetary shields have a strength of 0"

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
Grant it, for most "games" it is nice to get immediate feedback on decisions & choices one has made. I think MOO3 has made an "attempt" at trying to emulate "real life" experiences.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whenever realism conflicts with gameplay, it is usually a bad idea to stick with realism.

[Fyron]

Occaissionally with newly aquired planets there is some AI "bugginess" going on with the DEAS. The Patch is addressing this.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It happens with every planet...

Grant it, for most "games" it is nice to get immediate feedback on decisions & choices one has made. I think MOO3 has made an "attempt" at trying to emulate "real life" experiences.
That is, not always knowing immediately if all your decisions are for the better. Is this a good idea to implement in a game. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it is a terrible idea to implement in a game. This is a game, afterall. Why force us to do a lot of work and calculations to see what minor benefit something will have? Such information should _always_ be available to players.

[ May 15, 2003, 23:54: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[eddieballgame]

It strikes me, by the "tone" of these Posts pertaining to MOO3, there are going to be some dissappointed people if & when this program's faults have been addressed & "fixed" by the soon to come patch. Again, I am hopefull & feel there is not a lot to repair to make MOO3 a classic.
This is of course, my opinion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Oh, & it does not happen with every planet.
(not an opinion)

[ May 16, 2003, 02:08: Message edited by: eddieballgame ]

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
It strikes me, by the "tone" of these Posts pertaining to MOO3<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">IMHO, many people was waiting 4 years for Moo2.5, but Moo3 is not. I can't blame them.
The problem that makes angry so many people, (my opinion, of course) is that in theory Moo3 was the next step in the saga... but have a very different approach compared with the previous 2 games.

Not everybody like the same kind of games (for sure!). I can bet that most of the people that liked Dune (the old RPG game), doesn't liked Dune2 (the venerable RTS)!!!
Then IMHO, think would have been more sincere that instead the MOO3 name, the game would have been named "The Galaxy Simulator", or something like that, but of course that the MOO3 name can make more profit.

I can't eat the argument that Moo3 has a "High Climb" that need to be climbed to enjoy the game... I have played strategy games for more than 20 years, and think that if a game is really good, you don't need to climb anything more than a little hill to enjoy it.

I hate the game? Nope. But doubt that some day I would really like it (even with patches).
Most the time, I discovered myself only doing clicks over the Next Turn button, and only moving a fleet here and there... and even letting the AI solve the battles, because the tactical combat is in my opinion (again) one of the worst tactical engines that I knew.
I don't liked so much the SE4 tactical combat, or the tactical combat in IG2, but really dislike the tactical combat in MOO3 (tiny ships, can't zoom, can't pause, confuse orders, etc). Even in very old games like Rebellion, Pax Imperia 2 or Ascendancy, the RT combats were a lot better (IMHO!).

Oh well, thanks God I'm not in the MOO3 forum... somebody would have named me a Troll.

[Krsqk]

Grant it, for most "games" it is nice to get immediate feedback on decisions & choices one has made. I think MOO3 has made an "attempt" at trying to emulate "real life" experiences.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, but "real life" leaders have a substantial staff to do their research for them. I'm not about to hire people to help me play a game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[eddieballgame]

I have never played MOO1 but from what I have read it is more like MOO3 than MOO2. What little I have played of MOO2 pales in detail of what MOO3 has to offer. ( opinion )
Certainly not as much to do in the micromanagement area. ( opinion ) Agreed, the RTS combat has mixed reviews, some hate it, like it, & really like it. For me letting the computer generate the result of the ship to ship battles is ok, particularly in Online multiplay. Though the troop invasions are alot of "fun" to handle oneself. You can "zoom" the ships as well as set up time controls. There has also been offered other ship graphic files, for your gaming pleasure. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif From what I have read, the consensus is the tactical ship battles are superior to MOO2, & more realistic.
I am glad I was not a part of the "can't wait for MOO2.5 crowd" as I probably would not have taken the time to find out just how good MOO3 is & will be. ( opinion, of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )
I am in the process of learning to play SEIV.
Looks like a very good & detailed ( what I like ) program. How is the "hotseat" mode? I really like multiplay. Thank you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 16, 2003, 04:33: Message edited by: eddieballgame ]

[Fyron]

MOO3 is almost nothing like either MOO1 or MOO2.

I am glad I was not a part of the "can't wait for MOO2.5 crowd" as I probably would not have taken the time to find out just how good MOO3 is & will be. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was in the "waiting for MOO3 crowd but instead found other game 3". MOO3 is not deserving to be entitled Master of Orion, for it is not in any way comparable to the grandness that was the previous games of the series.

[ May 16, 2003, 04:50: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[snakeye]

I was expecting MOO3 to be with more deapth than MOO1&2 in a way similar to SEIV. I was really impressed when i saw what you can do with SEIV (mines, sats, bases, map manipulation, ship design that kicks butt!) and was waiting for that on MOO3 plus MORE since it was a later released game. Then i realised my error. Should have been waiting for SEV NOT MOO3. DOH!

SEIV, has the most depth that i have seen! In all sections! I love the project-orientated approach for research and espionage! WHY OH WHY DO MY SPIES DIE????? (MOO3) WHATS THE POINT!? "Eh good evening 007, why dont you take a walk to *country* and see what you can *STEAL-DESTROY-SLOW_DOWN*?" Is this espionage??? So vague? And match the project-orientaited research of SEIV with: "Ehh...hmmm today we will be researching..eh..economics...yeah thats it!! Go on everybody....fire away ideas!"

And dont even start me on the game design! When i unload my troops on a planet, i get a remainder of ALIENS: " EXPRESS ELEVATOR TO HELL:GOING DOWN! (but not up again!OH NO! either stay there on that planet boys or GO BACK TO RESERVES!" I dont think this game was build for realism or SP gameplay in mind. Was build for mindless, fast MP action: build fleet, sent fleet, "AH CRAP! HE WAS MISSILES! BOOOOOOOOOOOOM!" THE END!

NO THANK U! STICKING WITH MY BORG ON SEIV! >VULCANS HAVE JUST BEEN ASSIMILATED! RESISTANCE IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN....FUTILE!<

[ May 16, 2003, 13:52: Message edited by: snakeye ]

[Roanon]

I'm surprised that there is soo much faith in the "soon" to come patch for MOO3. Well true fanatics have faith in anything, I can understand that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Thinking that a SINGLE patch will fix this plethora of bugs and designfaults is VERY naive. Due to time constraints, testing for this patch will be even worse than for the original game. The more changes are done simulaneously and without good testing, the more problems will arise. My personal guess is that for every 3 bugs fixed, there will be one new popping up. And this is a conservative estimation.
Recommendation: do NOT buy this game until after this omnious patch is really available "soon"(TM) and has gotten the first feedbacks. Right now, the so-called MOO3 is one of the worst games I know (personal opionon of course).

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
How is the "hotseat" mode? I really like multiplay. Thank you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hotseat is the option when you play multiplayer, but everybody play into the same computer.
You could play with your brother, and while you're doing your moves, he could be eating pizza in the kitchen!

[deccan]

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
I have never played MOO1 but from what I have read it is more like MOO3 than MOO2. What little I have played of MOO2 pales in detail of what MOO3 has to offer. ( opinion )<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, MOO1 combat was exactly like MOO2 combat except that ships of the same type stack. (Not an opinion.)

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
From what I have read, the consensus is the tactical ship battles are superior to MOO2, & more realistic.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's more realistic because it avoids the problem of giving the person who goes first such a large advantage, but it's disappointing in probably every other aspect, e.g. non-pausable, lack of tactical options (no choice of formations), lack of pre-battle positioning, lack of information on enemy ships, weird issues and bugs (PD, ECM/ECCM, AI pathfinding etc.)

[deccan]

Originally posted by eddieballgame:
[QB]It strikes me, by the "tone" of these Posts pertaining to MOO3, there are going to be some dissappointed people if & when this program's faults have been addressed & "fixed" by the soon to come patch.[QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I've gone into this in more detail on the MOO3 official forums:

http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=6a1ad7b88108b19a95b9e61f14e2ca82&threadid=292411

In brief, I believe that MOO3 is a great MP game, allowing MP games to go by relatively quickly and easily. However, the cost of this has been SP playability, with many options eliminated, simplified or handed over to the AI so that each turn will take only a fixed amount of time regardless of the state of development of the empire or the current circumstances of the game. I remember reading an interview in which the designers said that they were aiming for a max combat duration of 3 minutes. That's great for MP, not for SP.

[Taz-in-Space]

I am resurrecting this 'dead' thread to announce that there is no way to make new threads! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

That's right - there is a problem with this part of shrapnel's forum. I appears to me that we may have gone over the magic number of threads allowed.

Until this problem is fixed I propose those with old threads 'recycle' them.

To do so go to an old thread of YOURS and edit the original post. RENAME IT. Then add a new post to start the 'new' thread going.

Note: best done with small threads. AND DEAD ONES ONLY PLEASE!

[Fyron]

Yeah... I posted something in the Ask Shrapnel Games forum Category about this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Kamog]

I like Will's idea to use the Starfury forum in the meantime until the problem is fixed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Will]

w00t! I had an idea! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Oh god, I just used 1337-speak... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i 7331 your pain will, i 7331 your pain.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
[QUOTE]Oh well, thanks God I'm not in the MOO3 forum... somebody would have named me a Troll.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, if you remember, you have been branded "the Troll of the day" here two months ago http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That even sparkled a new thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[dumbluck]

I've been recycling old threads for a long time. You're only doing it cause you had to, I did it cause it was "cool". . . http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Gryphin]

EDIT: Never mind, they are fixed.

Anyone who finds an old thread of mine is welcome to use it. I'll rename it when I see it pop up.

[ May 31, 2003, 13:41: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

[dumbluck]

Gryph: Only the person who started the thread (and the Moderators?) can change a thread topic. So you are the only one who can recycle your old threads...

[Fyron]

Dumbluck, anyone can post something in it. Gryphin explicitly stated that he would change the topic title of the thread if he saw it bumped up like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But it is pointless now that the problem is fixed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[dumbluck]

Ok, yea, that makes sense. I just misunderstood.