MOO3

[James Sterrett]

Talenn:

I disagree with you that the "choose one of the techs" in MoO2 was dumd. IMO, it's brilliant in theory, because in theory it presents the player with tough choices and forces the player to engage in some combination of conquest, espionage, and/or diplomacy to gain the other options. It's a mechanism that creates more gameplay.

In practice, I agree many of the choices were not that tough to an experienced player. But there were a few tough ones. I always agonized over Missile Bases vs Auto Factories, both critical technologies. If more of the sections of the tree had forced decisions like that, it would have been a stronger tech tree design.

On the other hand, I missed MoO1's random deletion of techs from the tree. That ensured that every game played at least a little bit differently - and, sometimes, a LOT differently. I played a game once in which nobody developed anything that could harm planetary missile bases until very, very late in the game. The only way to take systems was to try to bLast out the missile bases with spies! Eventually, the really powerful late-game weapons changed that and the conquests unrolled again.

[Talenn]

James Sterrett:

IMO, the CONCEPT was sound, but the execution was silly. Many of the techs had NOTHING to do with one another, you just had to make an arbitrary choice. The example you gave was a perfect example of what I'm saying.

Now if it had been a choice between 'x','y' or 'z' weapon or variant of weapon or somesuch I would have enjoyed it. Many of their choices just seemed not too terribly relevant to the other items on the list.

Also, IMO it would have been nice to be able to go back and research the other techs perhaps at a surcharge. That would make more sense but the whole 'This is your one chance for tech 'x'...didnt take it? Ha! You lose it forever!' idea doesnt seem to have much basis in reality and IMO didnt add much to the game play.

I understand the effect they were looking for with that, but I think they missed the mark in implementing it. SE4 does and admirable job of rewarding people for specializing their techs while still allowing the ability to go back and pick up neglected techs. In fact, I think SE4 might be a bit TOO forgiving in that regard.

FWIW, I'd like to see all techs in SE4 take a minimum amount of time to research or else give diminishing returns on huge piles of RPs.

Talenn

[Psitticine]

Here's a point I mention with great trepidation . . .

Anybody recall how buggy that game was when released? They released three patches and never did get all the DTDs out of it. MOM was even worse. As shipped, it was impossible to finish the game and they never addressed even half the issues.

I loved both games and would probably still be playing MOM if it didn't have a weird conflict with the video card on my newer computer. I do think, however, all the fuss being made over SEIV's progress should be considered in light of exactly how unstable the game to which it is most frequently compared really was.

BTW, whatever happened to Steve Barcia, anyway? I liked his designs very much!

[Talenn]

No idea on Steve Barcia. I believe Alan Emrich is working on MOO3. I really look forward to it simply because of his input. He has done a number of other board games that have all been VERY well done IMO.

He used to also be a review/columnist for CGW years ago and many of his views on what was or was not a good game mirrored my own.

Talenn

[James Sterrett]

I guess this is an "agree to disagree" - I had no problem with the unrelated nature of the techs - and, in fact, I don't think the concept would work as well if they were, since it would make the choice simpler. The factory/missile base choice was hard precisely because of the split: you could choose to apply the concept of "automation" (IIRC) to either defence or production.

I do think SEIV is too forgiving. 8)

And, yes, Psi, I *do* remember the bugs. Especially MOO2 v.130, where the diplomacy model was broken suich that the other races declared war on you as soon as they saw you. (I did manage to get an alliance for one turn... once.)

[thecyclemania]

Wow, this topic sure generated a lot of interest.

A few comments,

Mafia -----
You're right. There are similarities between SE4 and MOO3 for the tech tree. You can research on pure sciences (like chemistry) or application (like armor). Hey, it's a good idea, why not use it. But they intent to create a 'web' instead of a tree. Meaning that tech will have more dependencies. In SE4, it is too linear. Technologies don't have enough dependencies. Remember Civilization II...

Talenn----
The pacial was slow. Game were long. I totally agree. But from what I read, that's what they're working hard on. Improving the pacing. A cool idea (I think) they are implementing is "action points" (or something). As the player/emperor, you can only involve yourself directly in a limited number of actions each turn. You CAN'T do everything. You'll have to play with ministers or something similar. I really love this idea. Sure, in a way it limits your involvement in the game, but it adds gameplay. As the leader, everything shouldn't go as you want all the time. One things for sure, this will accelerate the pace.

Combat in general--------
I don't know if you guys read the section on combat, but it's totally different.
Ground combat looks promising.
Check it out at http://moo3.quicksilver.com/ground_combat.htm
Space combat will also be different. You will play the role of the commander of the fleet. So you won't control the movement and fire action of every single ships in the fleet. Then again, I think it adds so much more to the gameplay. Hey, If I want to play a game where I control every single unit in combat, I'll play TA or Starcraft. Those are tactical game. But combat in a 4X game should have a different feel to it. I think this will definitively be a move in that direction.
Personnaly, I think tactical combat in SE4 sucks big time. I always play strategic combat instead. What's the point ? Get in range, shoot then move away. Shoot then move away. From time to time, shoot seeking weapons. If you have the tech, you might have some "super cool variant" (being sarcastic) and you can board the enemy ships to capture it. Wow...
I think I enjoyed tactical combat more in MOO2 just because the icons were bigger, they looked more cool, and the explosion and fire effects were a bit more complex. In SE4, the icon are just plain too small. "Is that a battleship or an escort? can't really tell..." I want to be afraid of the enemy big mamma ship. Just seing that battleship, I should freak out...

Anyway, there is so much more to say.

And I said before, I love SE4. I bought this game just to play PBEM (no tcp/ip for now). I never play alone, the AI sucks and is never a challenge. Maybe we'll have a challenge at some point.
Remember the "Mshrann" (the cat) in MOO2 ?
They were my favorite enemy (very aggresive, bonus in space battle). I would play small galaxy, 8 players, impossible level of difficulties. You had a war going on within 10 minutes of gameplay...I loved it.

[Warlord Adamus]

IMO MOO3 looks like it will be more of a roleplaying game. I am actually looking forward to this because I think the SE series in general has always lacked things like a storyline and generally substance behind the alien empires. For instance I thought the basic concept behind Imperium Galactica II, and SMAC was great. You felt immersed, you seemed to need to explore, and there was pretty good variety in the scenarios that inevitably played out.

SE4 is more of a wargame, always has been. And not just a wargame but a blank canvas. That's what iv'e always enjoyed about SE, I can do it however I want. Honestly neither IG2 or SMAC hold a candle to SE4's strategic depth and replayability. Both ways of doing things are good in their own right, but I can't wait until someone finally puts them together, maybe SE5 ?