Traitor
 

not to be a traitor or anything, but here is a link people might be interested in looking at.
http://www.sharkygames.com/games/art...on3_interview/

Re: Traitor
 

TRAITOR!! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Traitor
 

Thanks for posting the link to the interview.

After reading this, I'm much less interested in the new game--mainly because it sounds like it is being developed by somebody other than the SimTex? folks who did the first one.

Like I said, I played MOO/MOO2 quite a bit but never lost sleep finishing a game of it like I have with SEIV.

Re: Traitor
 

Traitor is just a word, we need to back it up with actions. Now, where have I put my shotgun... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: Traitor
 

Interesting read.

I note how much time they spent meticulously planning and scheduling right out though release. This means more certain schedule slippages and cost over-runs as they struggle to make 'THE PLAN',(which is not really the game ).

MM and Shrapnel should rejoice at Hasblo's involvement at project inception. That certainly seriously reduces the likelyhood of a real good product by several factors of ten.

Peering deep into my crystal ball, I see ... recriminations, resignations, demoralization, demotions, finger pointing, firings, payoffs and layoffs.

Yeah. I know I'm a cynic.
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Traitor
 

Just an FYI but Hasbro Interactive is no more. They were bought out by InfoGames?

Here's a link to the story:
http://www.gamecenter.com/News/Item/0,3,0-5198,00.html

Re: Traitor
 

I've been following MOO3 and my take is that it will have some serious glitz in the looks department and resemble MOO2 not at all in the gameplay department. Yet another doomed attempt in the making to appeal widely to all gamers everywhere, RTS and TBS both.
NOT!!
When will they ever learn?

Re: Traitor
 

I have been looking at it also. They have some good ideas and some bad ideas from my point of view. I hope it works because I would like to see how the religions for example spread to other worlds. I also like the research model so far but it all looks very ambicious and very likely to be subject to severe cuts in the actual release of the game. Some of the features talked about now will almost surely never see the light of day. Well if it ever gets released I will probably buy it to try it (I even bought Reach for the Stars even though I really knew better). The way they seem to be going for a high level strategy with less micromanagement (lots of minister type stuff in there) and real time battles doesn't suit me much but if it is done well and there are many options it could work and I wish them well. Even if it doesn't turn out to be the type of game I like I would still rather see it done well and be a success. It can only help the genre if its a good game.

[This message has been edited by Tomgs (edited 01 February 2001).]

Re: Traitor
 

Well, gentlemen, I will always have a soft spot in my heart(and maybe my head)for anything with the words "Master of Orion" in its title. This being said I will of course spend whatever it takes to possess my own copy of MOO3 when it arrives in stores. I think it will be very good if they can stick to the game plan but, as previously mentioned, that is improbable. I think the ideas hold very much promise.

Will it be as good as SEIV? Time will tell. This being said I resent the implications of traitor mentioned earlier. Yes I know it was all in good fun, but it still propogates the idea of loyalty at the cost of quality. I, for one, am not a fan of SEIV nor am I fan of the MOO series or Imperium Galactica, etc...I am a fan of 4X. And I, for one, will welcome anyone who attempts to better the genre whether the are backed by $10 or $10,000,000.

Now, this all having been said;-), SEIV is certainly one of the better, if not the best 4X game to come down the pike in quite some time. I believe that what we possess here at this forum, that being the suprising lack of skeptisicm, is exactly what is needed to better our genre. Rarely before have I seen a place as full of help and ideas as this. And this, I believe, is exactly what is needed to better the 4X genre. So I challenge all here to welcome with arms and minds wide open anyone who would attempt to follow in the path of 4X greatness. For without bold ideas where would any of us be now?

As for Tomgs assertation that it can only help the genre if it is a good game, I strongly disagree. Would you call Edison's first lighbulb a good light bulb? Seeing as it fizzled out after mere seconds I would argue not. But where would we be without that first attempt? In the dark. There is always something good to be gained out of even the most abject of failers even if it is merely an example of what NOT to do. To make a summary of what I've said in this post: It is the culmination of everybodies work, whether they be designers or mere players of the game with ideas, if we keep our minds opened and willing to accept even the most radical of ideas, in the end we will have what we desire.

Skepticism is NOT the answer. Not that constructive critisicm isn't helpful. And I don't mean to criticise these previous Posts pointing us back in the direction of reality, I merely hope to challenge us all to remain open minded and hopeful.

P.S.-- Whew...now I feel better;-)(Seguey now in the Creed song: "With Arms Wide Open"...lol)

------------------

"He's dead, Jim."-- Lt. Commander Leonard "Bones" McCoy |Chief Medical Officer / USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)

[This message has been edited by DirkHowitzer (edited 01 February 2001).]

[This message has been edited by DirkHowitzer (edited 01 February 2001).]

Re: Traitor
 

To be honest, I did not like MOO2. I hope MOO3 is better, but overall, it just rubbed me the wrong way.

*Ducks behind brick wall.*

Re: Traitor
 

Quote ::::Just an FYI but Hasbro Interactive is no more. They were bought out by InfoGames?
Here's a link to the story::::: End Quote


You should learn to read better http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif they are getting the rights to Hasbro for a certain amont of years, not buying them totally out. They still have to use the Hasbro Name and will keep all current projects.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif



[This message has been edited by Malkuth (edited 01 February 2001).]

Re: Traitor
 

MOO was great. MOO2 was even greater. Also CIV was great, CIV2 even greater.

Call the Power never hit me and it was meant to be CIV3. I'm afraid MOO3 will let us down. There is none (as far as i know) former Simtex-wizard around greating MOO3.

MOO3 will be same as Call "CIV3" the Power. Nothing really same but name.

Of course, despite coming of MOO3, we still have Space Empires IV and hopefully someday Space Empires V

Re: Traitor
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atrocities:
To be honest, I did not like MOO2. ... overall, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting statement Atrocities, " rubbed me the wrong way."

That was exactly my feeling about MOO2. I didn't hate it, but I felt it wasn't nearly as good as the old orginal MOO. I remember being particularly annoyed that they'd decided I didn't need to choose my own engines. For some reason that really fried me.

Well the upshot of it all is/was that I played a lot more "Stars!" and SE3 for a lot longer then MOO2.

I can't wait for the new "Stars! Supernova" to come out, but I don't expect much from MOO3. Actually, even the design overview sounded sucky to me.

It's hard for me to understand how you can make a strategic war game and then require that we 'twitch' fast to destroy our enemies.

This 'real time' stuff in war games really turns me off. It has its place, somewhere, but as far as I'm concerned that usually assures that I DON'T buy the game.

Well, LOL! Guess I got that off my chest!

Re: Traitor
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atrocities:
To be honest, I did not like MOO2. I hope MOO3 is better, but overall, it just rubbed me the wrong way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too. I felt that they had removed some of the playability (ship design options, etc.) to make room for glitzy graphics that had no useful purpose. It was like they dumbed it down to appeal to a wider audience. I never finished my first game.

Re: Traitor
 

MOO was basically a computer Version of "Stellar Conquest" with tactical combat & ship design thrown in. The 8-bit members of the "Reach For The Stars" series were also essentially computer Versions of "Stellar Conquest", as were a few other games. MOO II replaced most of the "Stellar Conquest" game mechanics with ones that looked more like Civ, except for how you moved fleets around.

That being said, there were a number of things about MOO that bugged me, and I thought MOO II improved:

1) In MOO it was a viable strategy to build nothing but huge stacks of tiny ships. My preference generically is for a system in which different sizes of ships have separate tactical roles and a balanced "combined arms" approach is superior to a "pure" approach based on any size. If I can't have that, I'll take "bigger is better". I hate the swarm thing, though.

2) In MOO, population and troops were interchangable. Simtex was neither the first or Last 4X game to do that, but it is another one of my "hates". My preference is for troops to be something you build & move in transports, like in SE4. If I can't have that, I'll take how it worked in MOO2: defensive troops come from a structure you build on a planert, offensive troops come with troop transports that turn into troops when you invade. If I can't have that, rather than the MOO method I'd prefer what Stellar Conquest did: no troops, the planet surrenders as soon as you eliminate the defenses due to the threat of bombardment from orbit, you have to keep a ship there to to keep control over the conquered planet via that same threat.

As to Civ/CivII/Call to Power, I can't think of anything about CivII vs Civ that I thought was a change they should not have made. Call to Power was not by the same people, though, but somehow a different company got the rights to the game name "Civilization" and did a "look alike" intended to make the buyer THINK it was CivIII. The Call to Power folks entirely missed WHY CivII was so popular for so long, which is the ability of the players to create their own scenarios & mods. Having played with that, I can say that CivII was one of the best but could have been even better. Firaxis is doing the REAL CivIII, and hopefully they will make those improvements (from their web site, it appears they at least understand the importance and are taking steps to insure no customization ability is lost). Call to Power sacrificed customizing ability on the alter of glitz. Frankly, I never even bought it after reading enough about the game to see that. This, of course, is one of the great strengths of SE4.

On 4x games in general, I think eliminating detail in the name of reducing micromanagement is a mistake. The right approach is the one SE4 uses, of letting the player choose to micromanage or delegate. You just have to get the delegation AI good enough to be "competent". SE4 still needs some work there, but I believe that MM will eventually come through.

On the RTS thing, frankly I think RTS is totally inappropriate at any scale above the tactical. R&D and Production decisions don't get made like that in real life. The only way it becomes acceptable is if (a) it moves at a fairly leasurely pace and (b) you can pause it and while paused view reports and change orders. I consider any RTS game in which R&D or production decisions have to be made while frantically clicking to control what is essentially a tactictal battle to be just a new form of arcade game, not a strategy game. An RTS tactical module in a turn-based 4X game is OK, as long as the player does not have to excercise the level of control over units that you do, for example, in SE4. In other words, you would give the sort of orders an admiral would give, not the sort of orders a captain would give but you are acting as captain simultaneously for every ship in the fleet.

[This message has been edited by Barnacle Bill (edited 02 February 2001).]

Re: Traitor
 

1. MOO2 addressed the small ship problem by giving each empire a certain number of command points. Your command points were based on your number of starbases, battle stations and star fortresses combined with certain technologies. Each successively larger ship class required a greater number of command points. Once the number of command points from your fleet exceeded the number of command points from your starbases, you had to pay 10 gold per command point in maintenance--VERY EXPENSIVE after a while.

2. I think I see your point about troops/population from MOO. OTOH, troops in SEIV are a manufactured good that gets stored in the cargo bay...

I'm surprised you didn't mention Alpha Centauri as the successor to CIVII. It further expanded CIVII by allowing you to design your own units. Adding the planet itself as an additional opponent makes the game interesting as well. Plus, Alpha Centauri's build queues and ministers make the game a bit less micro-management intensive.


Civ:CTP and CivII:CTP were kinda neat in that you had points you could spend to do 'Settler' type things instead of sitting there micro-managing a couple of hundred of those guys. But CTP had many and various other problems. I think the most severe was the introduction of lots of extremely powerful specialty units such as the Slaver which steals population, Lawyers?, Bio-Terrorists, etc which really unbalanced the game.

Firaxis CivIII looks pretty interesting. It
will not be as good a game as it might have been before Brian Reynolds had a falling out with Sid Meir and left Firaxis. Still, we might get lucky. It looks like they are going to try doing 3D renderings of all the units plus animate them. Improved graphics will be neat to see but we'll have to wait and see what they do with the gameplay.

I used to really, really hate RTS strategy games after Command and Conquer came on the scene. Games like this were not about finesse. Instead, it was just a matter of constantly building tons of troops which were going to die in just a few seconds anyways.

Warcraft I changed all that by requiring supply points for all the units. Warcraft II was a little better game. Then, came StarCraft, the best game ever made. (Gee... with a callsign like Raynor, didn't you figure I probably thought the sun rose and set on StarCraft) StarCraft had three completely unique races with extremely unique and well-balanced units that make RTS a bLast to play.

Re: Traitor
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Malkuth:
Quote ::::Just an FYI but Hasbro Interactive is no more. They were bought out by InfoGames?
Here's a link to the story::::: End Quote


You should learn to read better http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif they are getting the rights to Hasbro for a certain amont of years, not buying them totally out. They still have to use the Hasbro Name and will keep all current projects.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Infogrames announced today that it has completed its acquisition of Hasbro Interactive from Hasbro Incorporated."

Unless you want to quibble over the fact that Hasbro Interactive still exists but is now owned by a different parent company, the old Hasbro Interactive is now dead. (Unless you want to claim that the new parent company will manage things exactly the same as the old company.)

Actually, maybe it would have been better to say that Hasbro Interactive is no more, long live Hasbro Interactive. Hopefully, InfoGames will be a better manager of Hasbro Interactive will be a better manager of my favorite maker of buggy games that eventually get fixed: MicroProse.

Re: Traitor
 

My comments on MOO2 : the best game I ever played.
I'll always remember this game by this typical phrase : "One more turn... I play just one more turn and I'm going to bed...what time is it anyway ? ARRGGHH ! 5h30 AM and I have class...guess I'm not going to that one, again..."

I'm very excited about MOO3.
The religion system looks very cool. Never seen this in any other 4X game. I look forward to see how will the "command points" (imperial focus - IF) system will work. But it looks promising.

I always thought it was very unrealistic, and boring, that you could control every single aspect of the gameplay in 4X. Of course, it can be fun to some extend to control everything, and most games let you do so, but it's just not that fun. I would love to have a game where my ministers have a real impact on the game. Their personnality and ambition could have so much impact on how the game evolves. Think about it: your security minister didn't tell you about the robbery of your new ship prototype, because it was caused by his mistakes...
The posibilities are endless. I want to manage the game, yes, but managing ministers that would be really more cool.

About SE4 in general, this game is fun in multiplayer. It has lots of possibility, but still lots of issue.
Strategic combat in particular. It totally sucks. You have to guess as to what is the best design to build within the strategic combat system. We don't have access to sufficient information to design ship successfully. You can design ships that will totally rock in tactical combat, and get wiped out all the time in strategic.
I haven't played one game yet for more than 100 hundred turns. Also, the longest play session I had is around 9 hours. That's to me really reflects my level of enjoyment. The more hours I can play in a row, the better the game usually is.
MOO2 ? How about 28 hours...
Alpha Centauri ? How about 22 hours...
Civ I ? How about 24 hours...
The 9 from SE4 tells a lot.

Hey don't get me wrong. I still love this game, but there's still way too much problem with the game right now.

thecyclemania

Re: Traitor
 

I could not tell you why MOO2 did not appeal to me, but it just did not. I found that the game play was ok, but only having up to 5 planets in a system kinda weak.

Of all the 4X games I have had the oppurtunity to play, BOTF was, IMHO, the best for me. Sure it was based in sorts off of MOO2, designed by the same people, but it had a lot of little details that made it worth while game that has to this day provided me with hours of game play.

------------------
"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats! They invade our space and we fall back -- they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back! Not again! The line must be drawn here -- this far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" -- Patric Stewart as Captain Picard
UCP/TCO Ship Yards

Re: Traitor
 

Interesting. You are the first person I've met who liked Birth of the Federation. I seem to remember that one having a really bad interface.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought MOO2 lacked something. I enjoyed playing it, and played quite a few games. But it did seem to lack something. I think I may have stuck with it because it was easier to get it to run under 95 than MOO1.

Re: Traitor
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tenryu:
Hey Bill. You must be an old-fart!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yep, the old man of the sea. Bought my first wargame about 1972, at JC Penny's. It was Avalon Hill's "Blitzkreig". I was in junior high school. They still had some of those old-time "squares instead of hexes" games from the 60's in print back then, though, which is how I learned what a great inovation hexes were http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif The board game thing is probably also why I like games you can mod yourself so much. When the "rules" are printed on paper instead or hard-coded, and the units are cardboard counters instead of 3D animated graphics, anybody can mod any game all they want.

Re: Traitor
 

Hey Bill, I graduated from high school in 1973. Guess we're the same age. So, there's at least 2 old farts here.

Re: Traitor
 

I guess there's 3 old farts....probably a few more hiding out there http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif I graduated HS in 74. I have to agree with Atrocities, MOO2 was OK but no where as good as the original. Also I too liked BOTF...I liked the Star Trek theme. Besides, the varity of unique installations really made each race different to play. I wish we had the ability in SE4 to make unique facilities, ships, and components for a specific race.

Re: Traitor
 

I too liked BOTF, if only because of the combat which I thought was cool...lol. What I didn't like was the clumsy interface and the pacifist to the extreme AI...I could never get anyone to fight me!!!

------------------

"He's dead, Jim."-- Lt. Commander Leonard "Bones" McCoy |Chief Medical Officer / USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)

Re: Traitor
 

I havn't read the entire thread, so I'm OT here just wanted to put in a little note.

Sid Miers has said that he never had any intenion of working on CivIII.

He is create an undisclosed project that is the true CivIII

He wasn't truely happy with CivI so he replaced it with CivII but they are both to be considered CivI.

Alpha Centuri is to be considered CivII becuase it is next in story line order. It would have been named Civilizaion if he hadn't have had a falling out with the company.

His next Project is the only true CivIII it comes in storyline after Alpha Centuri.

------------------
Lord Darwin,
Space Empires Fan since
Space Empires 2 in 1995

Re: Traitor
 

hehe, ya'll a buncha yougins. ah gradumacated from College in '75. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: Traitor
 

In many ways, SE4 is the game I hoped MOO2 would be, but MOO2 itself was a seriously flawed game. I got so frustrated I kept a tally for several games and discovered that the player was about three times as likely as any other empire to be the victim of a harmful "random" event, and that the Antarans "randomly" chose one of my colonies as the target of their raids between 40% and 60% of the time. I *hate* that kind of AI cheating. But the real problem was that command point system. In MOO you could too easily build an instant fleet of thousands of ships, but in MOO2 they went so far the other way that you were lucky if you could support a few dozen. My planets were constantly getting attacked because I just couldn't build enough ships to protect my borders. Then there were the umpteen colony production enhancements. You had to build each one to remain competitive with other empires, but there were so many of them that just keeping the queues full was a full-time job.

In contrast, SE4 suffers from none of these problems, and best of all, most of the game is customizable. Having played a couple of Trevor Chan's massively optioned games (Capitalism & Seven Kingdoms), I think this is one of the best ways to capitalize on the power of computers, and I hope it's the way the rest of the gaming industry will go.

Re: Traitor
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darwin:
Sid Miers has said that he never had any intenion of working on CivIII.

He is create an undisclosed project that is the true CivIII

He wasn't truely happy with CivI so he replaced it with CivII but they are both to be considered CivI.

Alpha Centuri is to be considered CivII becuase it is next in story line order. It would have been named Civilizaion if he hadn't have had a falling out with the company.

His next Project is the only true CivIII it comes in storyline after Alpha Centuri.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummmm, you might want to look at http://www.firaxis.com/civ3/ and http://www.firaxis.com/team.cfm

Yep, that's Sid. Yep, that's Civ III. Hmmm. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: Traitor
 

In addition to command points, MOO2 also addressed the swarm thing by economics. You couldn't afford to build thousands of ships.

I do agree that Alpha Centauri was a successor to CivII. There were a few things about it I did not like. One was that the scenario was too fixed. Another, related to that, was that you could not turn off PLanet. The great thing about CivII was that you could make scenarios about almost ANYTHING. With AC, no matter what you changed in the part of the game easily accessible to modders, you were still stuck playing in the AC storyline. The other thing I did not like was about units. Even for a game on that sort of scale, units should represent more that 1 vehicle or squad. I mean, a bae is obviously a domed city with thousands of inhabitants. The way things were set up, you really couldn't do mods on any of the things units were built of, either. I think the concept is good, but it needs some modification.

If I was going to do a 4X game that takes place ON a planet (which I'm not, never having programmed in anything more advanced than Turbo Pascal), I would let you design vehicles & squads similarly to AC, only without the graphics for every chassis & component so you could roll your own easier. However, units would be built out of squads & vehicles as in Norm Kroger's TOAW series. I would use a somewhat simplified combat system based conceptually on TOAW, as well.

Of course, I would use a hex grid. I've never understood the irrational predjudice of most computer gamers against hex grids. A square grid creates a huge movement distortion because of diagonals, which hex grids eliminate. The earliest board wargames used square grids, and often introduced complexities like charging you 1.5 MP to move diagonal instead of just 1 to deal with the diagonal problem. Hex grids became nearly universal once introduced because they solve that problem so cleanly.

Re: Traitor
 

Hey Bill. You must be an old-fart!

Maybe if we told them that they can shift each successive line of squares first right 50% then the next left 50% they'd feel better 'cause they're not hexes!

Re: Traitor
 

Sabre21, You said,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Besides, the varity of unique installations really made each race different to play. I wish we had the ability in SE4 to make unique facilities, ships, and components for a specific race.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although you can't really make facilities "race specific" you can make require a specific racial technology type. This is pretty close. Siimply create a facility and have this line in it...

Tech Area Req 1 := Religious Technology

Or Temporal or Organic.