.com.unity Forums - MOO2 vs SEIV

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - MOO2 vs SEIV (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=3443)

Ok, we all have had this game for at least 6 months now...It's time to take a poll...
1-5 with 1 being the worst and 5 the best.
8 categories

MOO2 SEIV
Graphics 4 3
Tactical AI 3 3
Strategic AI 5 3
Customization 1 5
Tac Battles 3 5
Epicness 4 5
Races 4 5
Diplomacy 4 2
TOTAL AVG 3.5 3.875

SEIV edges out MOO2 by a smidgent!

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

IF YOU ASK ME...

I would like to change the numbers somewhat:

MOO2 SEIV (SEIV potential/patched score according to my vision of the future)
Graphics 2 2(2)
Tactical AI 3 2(4)
Strategic AI 4 2(4)
Customization 1 5(5+)
Tac Battles 2 4(5)
Epicness 3 3(5)
Races 3 5(5)
Diplomacy 4 2(5)

There's one very important thing left out, though - see if you can figure it out without me telling you what it is (hint: Why SEIV is "better" than Master Of Orion II).

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

Could it by any chance be the excellent forum & support provided?

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

I believe the multiplayer aspect of SE4 is superior when compared against MOO2.

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Devin D.Bass:
Ok, we all have had this game for at least 6 months now...It's time to take a poll...
1-5 with 1 being the worst and 5 the best.
8 categories

MOO2 SEIV
Graphics 4 3
Tactical AI 3 3
Strategic AI 5 3
Customization 1 5
Tac Battles 3 5
Epicness 4 5
Races 4 5
Diplomacy 4 2
TOTAL AVG 3.5 3.875

SEIV edges out MOO2 by a smidgent!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah...

Graphics: MOO Graphics are ok for their time, but way behind SE graphics. I just wish he had not tried to copy the 'look' of MOO II for the interface. The 'metallic' and 'dark/cool' colors don't work well when they fill the screen. Plain old pastels like the standard Windows interface -- used in SE 3! -- are much more comfortable to look at for long periods of time.

So:

Game graphics: MOO 3, SE IV 5 -- you can't get any better than 24 bit!
Interface graphics: MOO 2, SE IV 2 -- they're both bad!

Tactical AI is where SE really falls down. The MOO II tactical combat engine was reasonably clever even with the much more complicated task of managing shield facings and firing arcs of weapons. It could be tricked, but no one has yet made an AI smarter than humans, after all. The SE tactical AI is dead stupid. It ALWAYS fires at the ships with the highest total weapon power, even if those ships are PDC cruisers that can only attack seekers and units. It makes an awful mess out of any formation you give it, causing ships to get in each others' ways constantly. It ALWAYS charges straight into combat no matter how bad the odds and gets killed even faster than it needs to. As many have pointed out, the best way to even the odds against the AI in this game is to disable tactical combat.

As for the seperate rating of tactial combat, I presume you mean just the available options and how the tactical combat system works rather than how good the AI is at using it? The two-dimensional model is pretty hard to escape without a very radical new approach that would be harder to learn to use. I think that MOO II had some advantage with shield facings and weapon firing arcs but otherwise was not really that much different. It was just smarter in using the system that it had. I suspect that weapon firing arcs and shield facings could be worked into SE IV with a little effort. Unfortunately, there are just too many other things that need to be done. It will probably have to wait for SE V.

The strategic AI is better but not very smart yet. That will probably be easier to improve than the tactical AI, though. The sheer number of customizable options in ship components will probably make it near impossible to create a really smart and effective tactical combat AI but the game at the strategic level is much less affected by customizations. In MOO II there wasn't really much NEED for strategic AI. Everyone was in the same flat, open space. How much 'logic' is needed to handle that? And all resources were handled by the single "mineral abundance" attribute of a planet. No choices were necessary about how to use a given planet.

Alien races and diplomacy: The AI in MOO II was pretty clever with diplomacy, wasn't it? But it had flaws, too. I once queued up my 10 battleships for refit with 36 auto-fire shield-piercing phasors each, and the Klackons tried to put the muscle on me when I ended my turn apparently because my military strength was calculated differently while they were in refit. I then wished there were more options for replies to a demand than "refuse" and "accept" ... like "refuse politely" and "refuse angrily" and "up yours, charley" because I knew that when my 10 battleships finished refit I would slice and dice the Klackons before breakfast and move on to the Gnolams. I hope that MOO III will take ships into account if they are merely being refitted, or there could be some embarrasing mistakes... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Epicness: Oh, this one is no contest. MOO II only allowed, what, 80 systems maximum? And only had 8 races? Of course, there were those cheat programs that let you give everyone a million credits after you had refused to accept the council election so you could fight fleets of 100 ships or more... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif But even accepting the cheats as part of the assessment of MOO II, SE IV has a much grander scale and the strategic movement model allows real strategic thinking while the flat space model of MOO II results in a game of checkers -- once you get a stack of battleships built up you just slide them around the board and clean up. Argh... blitzing is DAMN hard in SE IV. Even if you are out-classed you can put up quite a struggle. This is very good.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 20 June 2001).]

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

Baron: If you don't like the graphics / colour scheme - change them! The gfx files are all there, just load them into Paintshop Pro or somthing and twiddle the colour settings.

As for the comparisons... haven't played MOO2. Someone gave it to me for Christmas Last year but I've never even loaded it, I just love SE4 too much to dilute my time with any other game.

If I was rating them though, I wouldn't want graphics Ratings affcting the averages. Who cares what it looks like, it's how it plays that's important.

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dogscoff:
If I was rating them though, I wouldn't want graphics Ratings affcting the averages. Who cares what it looks like, it's how it plays that's important.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that!

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

So far I have only played the demo of SEIV,I am now awaiting the delivery of the full game.
I've played MoO2 on and off for years, it's an old favourite, which is still cool.
SEIV seems to be a Titan in comparison.
The demo has it's limits, in the full Version I hope you can demolish/sell of facilities so that you can build new and better ones. Also that you can terraform your planets.

My conclusion is that SEIV is great and so is MoO2.

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The demo has it's limits, in the full Version I hope you can demolish/sell of facilities so that you can build new and better ones. Also that you can terraform your planets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can do that stuff in the Demo, but you've gotta be really quick on the research front in order to do it before the time limit hits http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

Edit: Unless the tech dosen't go that high... I don't remember what the limit is.

With a planet selected, there's a white tower with a small recycle icon in the corner of the button. Click that to scrap facilities.

Start on a high-tech game, and build an atmosphere converter, conditions improvement plant, and value improvement plant. You should see the terraforming finish before your game ends.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 20 June 2001).]

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Game graphics: MOO 3, SE IV 5 -- you can't get any better than 24 bit!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*cough* 3d Acceleration *cough*

Granted, 3d games require more impressive software to make MODs for, but after playing games like Far Gate, Homeworld, SFC, and SFC2, I'm thoroughly convinced that 3d is the way to go. Well, for the tactical engine at least, you don't really need to spice up the main game screen.

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Noble713:
*cough* 3d Acceleration *cough*

Granted, 3d games require more impressive software (snip)
...SFC (snip)
...and SFC2, I'm thoroughly convinced that 3d is the way to go.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*cough* 3D? *cough* SFC? *cough*

*cough*

*cough*

------------------
"The best way to seek help is to help the best seek the way."
-Philter

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

I bought M002 Last year from the discount bin and played it quite often - for awhile. I ended up getting bored at the lack of customibility - which is why I feel SE IV is a better game - and plus you can draw your own ships!

------------------
Visit the Spoogy Federation at:
http://spoogyfederation.tripod.com

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

I'm afraid I do not agree that 3D 'acceleration' is a step above 3D pre-rendered graphics. It's just a way to sell more hardware, I think. Rarely has any game done anything creative with real-time rendered graphics. If they would just render the <bleep>ing pictures and put them on the CD you could play these games on much less expensive computers. So, 24-bit graphics is the best things will get. The human eye cannot detect all of the colors possible with 24-bits, let alone those in higher modes. We just need programs and graphical artists to produce high-quality images and SE can be as amazing as any 'real time' rendered game. The current default images are decent -- for 16 bit color! -- but not really close to the possibilities of 24-bit color.

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
It's just a way to sell more hardware, I think. Rarely has any game done anything creative with real-time rendered graphics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said it.

Most of the 3D games out there are just crap - like the new X-COM game for instance.

I mean - SEIV in 3D would be pretty cool - as long as it wouldn't f**k up the game (*=my respect for all you friggin moralists out there http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif).

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

Ok, here is my vote.

MOO2 SEIV
Graphics 3 5
Tactical AI 3 4
Strategic AI 5 3
Customization 1 5
Tac Battles 2 5
Epicness 3 5
Races 4 5
Diplomacy 4 5
TOTAL AVG 3.125 vs. 4.625

I would have given a better Rating for MOOII for Customization if I hadn't discovered SE3 about 3 years later. Right now, I would say SE4 is probably the most customable game in existance, at least to my knowlege. I was never impressed about MOOII's Tac AI. Heck, what did it matter, their wasn't all that many options to begin with for different stategies anyway. Strategic was different. The AI in MOOII was pretty sharp an sort of knew you weak spots to hit it if wanted to. I don't think SE4 has that. Customization, heck! SE4 hands down, the winner! Epicness... eh... I suppose SE4 would win that since it is sooooo Multiplayer friendly. As long as you have an imaginative group of friends to play with SE4 with, the roleplaying part of SE4 is almost endless. Races, Both games had some interesting and unique races to its games. Diplomacy, I would have to say SE4 wins desisivly only if played in Multiplayer. Like I said before, you are only limited with this option by the limitation of your friends playing against you.

Overall, SE4 wins in my vote, but MOOII as an average game is not all that bad compared to some games I have seen out their.

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lucanos:
You said it.

Most of the 3D games out there are just crap - like the new X-COM game for instance.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be what is known as a "shameless cash in". http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
Doesn't have anything to do with X-COM, really.

Phoenix-D

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

Thanks for the hints :-)

One of the things I noticed about SEIV, is the way planets and ships are constructed in a similar way to a really old game- The Logic Factory's Ascendancy. SEIV is far superior to that game, but it shares a small niche in my games collection.
I'm looking forward to receiving the full SEIV.

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
That would be what is known as a "shameless cash in". http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
Doesn't have anything to do with X-COM, really.

Phoenix-D

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

tell me about it

Re: MOO2 vs SEIV

My three-year-old system's graphics card doesn't give me an option of 24-bit color; it jumps from 16-bit to 32-bit. (In fact, I'd never even heard of 24-bit before I got SE IV.)

I agree with Baron Munchausen that 3D acceleration is a ploy to sell hardware. I don't have a 3D card on my system, which means that I cannot play one of the games my sister gave my for Christmas. I'd like to upgrade to a new system, but I've been trying to pay down my credits cards first.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"