16-01-2003 10:55									#1
	What Moo3 looks like from a SMACer's perspective.. Inflate your Upload Space

I was drawn into the strategy game genre by SMAC. I still play it, I love it, I still find it compelling. I bought Civ3 when it came out - and was completely disappointed. I didn't think that such a step back from SMAC was possible with the much larger budget Firaxis and Infrogames had.

I have never played Moo2, but I did download Space Empires IV, and found it to be a micromanagement hell. Control of the macro aspects of your empire was much more limited- no social engineering. Instead I found myself bogged down by endless amounts of micromanagement- controlling huge numbers of planets and ships. The combat model was much more advanced, but didn't really add as much to the game's fundamentals. The tech tree was bland and uncreative, do we really need depleted uranium cannons levels 1-5? Managing an empire was boring and tedious.

I originally had high hopes for Moo3, what with the complex social model (IE more than just the oppressometer) and the interesting strategic possibilities created by upgrading/degrading starlanes and having strategic interdictors.

Now a lot of this has been cut, the economic model is severely dumbed down.

I also think I won't find the storyline as compelling compared to SMAC, Brian Reynolds crafted seven faction ideologies that are real and believable, and seven faction leaders who are believable and interesting. Different factions have significantly different playstyles.

My view on Moo3 right now is to wait for community reviews... after seeing Civ3 get high reviews I am not going to listen to the mainstream media as I am much more of a strategy nut than those reviewers. I really would like to see a new game that is less buggy than SMAC and doesn't have SP play that is crippled by the terrible AI... but I don't really expect it from Moo3.

Does anyone here see something in Moo3 that I am missing? Is there a gem hidden beneath a game that is increasingly looking more and more like Civ3?

	16-01-2003 12:59									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Good post, Hendrik.

I was also a big big fan of SMAC, for many of the reasons you named. I loved the storyline and the feel of the factions. I liked the government types, the borders, some of the diplomacy, the planet interaction, the tech tree...there was a lot to like.

There was a lot to dislike as well.

From what I've seen of the social and economic perspective of Moo3, it is at least as complex as SMAC, and in many areas much more so. You have fine-tuned control of taxes, oppression, happiness/recreation, industrial/research spending, and the amounts of development both short term and long-term you can spend on planetary infrastructure. In addition to this, you have planetary, system, and empire-level control of these policies. You have very different government types, slavery/forced labor policies, spying policies...again

Compare to SMAC's very rudimentary social structure, based almost entirely on CIV, and there's a lot to like.

One thing we haven't been privy to so far, at least not very much, is the story elements of MOO3. From what I've read and what's been hinted at, it looks far deeper than any space 4X game so far released. We don't know about the harvesters. We have no idea what the 5 Xs are or how they let you win. Or what the New Orions do. Or why the Mrrshans, Elerians, Alkari and Darloks aren't playable races but can be found. There's a lot of info that simply hasn't been released, and I suspect strongly that much of it is due to it being under massive NDA.

That's a step in the right direction.

Add to that a far better combat and military system than Civ of any kind, including SMAC ever had. With the ability and reason to not have massive micromanagement if you so desire - or to do it all yourself. To have better diplomacy and more options in the Senate - and actually not be the one that always has the votes. An espionage system that can be very effective, and not just by buying the opponent's units in cheesy ways.

And customizable races. Oooh, that's a big, BIG plus. As cool as the factions were in SMAC, I always wanted to be able to pick things as I saw fit with something other than a text editor.

The main thing that SMAC had? Wonders. Those wonderful, overbalancing yet totally cool wonders. MOO3 has not much similar to this. They have planetary specials, system events, the 5 Xs, but nothing like the 40+ wonders that I've seen. I'm not sure how much that makes sense in a game like this, but I bet they'd be fun to do.

And that's what I find missing - the wonders. That's really it.

You know what excites me a lot? The idea that if you declare war against a country that was a good ally or was well-liked by your people, unrest increases more than the normal amount that war causes. Whereas if someone attacks you and betrays you, unrest is much lower than normal war. Little things like that, that make sense and feel right, but haven't been seen in any Civ-style game I've ever played.

That's pretty cool.

And the graphics don't suck, either.

	16-01-2003 15:27									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

SMAC was a great game for reasons already mentioned here. But really, being light on MM isn't one of them. You've had the misfortune of bumping into SE IV, which is the one spae 4x worse than SMAC in this regard.

By all means, check out Moo for an enlightning lesson on the beauty of MM minimalism in 4x gaming.

	16-01-2003 21:10									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Hmmm. A lot of people complain about micromanagement. Personally, I have some rather bad experiences with AI governors and subordinates. The Governors in Civ3 drove me up the wall and onto the ceiling!

Hopefully Moo3 will have much better governors. (Rumor says they're great, so I'll keep hoping). Its not that I mind letting them make decisions, as long as they DO EXACTLY WHAT I WANT!!!!

Hmm, I guess I don't much care for sharing of power.

	17-01-2003 01:52									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Plus...the fact that the beta testers of MoO3, most of whom are avid strategy fans, all say they like MoO3. You could argue that they're under orders not to bash the game, but I have seen them lavish a great deal of praise on MoO3. So I figure that's something to go by.

Asmodean

Edited because beta testers are a lot of things. But one thing they are not is bets testers.

	17-01-2003 08:08									#6
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Asmodean Plus...the fact that the beta testers of MoO3, most of whom are avid strategy fans, all say they like MoO3. You could argue that they're under orders not to bash the game, but I have seen them lavish a great deal of praise on MoO3. So I figure that's something to go by. Asmodean Edited because beta testers are a lot of things. But one thing they are not is bets testers.

That's true! A lot of Beta testers are told to say, "say nice things, we gave you a free game."

Trust me, I learned that when I got to Beta test that FPS Command and Conquor, they would say if there's anything good...spread the word. All bad remarks in the game, please E-Mail Westwood studios, and inform them of what you dislike.

	17-01-2003 10:02									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: That's true! A lot of Beta testers are told to say, "say nice things, we gave you a free game." Trust me, I learned that when I got to Beta test that FPS Command and Conquor, they would say if there's anything good...spread the word. All bad remarks in the game, please E-Mail Westwood studios, and inform them of what you dislike.

And thats really as it should be. After all, the good things will be staying in the game, while the bad things will, theoretically, be fixed. Why tell people bad things if they're not even guarenteed to be in the game after all.

	17-01-2003 12:33									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Also, the Beta testers were saying that a lot of their suggestions and what they disliked got fixed by quicksilver.

-Mellian

	18-01-2003 22:02									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

@ Kalbear

Thank you for your optimism. You actually made me feel better.

If we sit and dwell on what isn't there any longer we'll all get pissed because I'm sure everyone had something cut that they desired.

However, just like you said, there is a lot we don't know and I'm feeling optimistic (today anyway) that there are some very good surprises in store.

Being human, I am becoming impatient for the game. But it won't be much longer now.

	19-01-2003 03:31									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: If we sit and dwell on what isn't there any longer we'll all get pissed because I'm sure everyone had something cut that they desired.

MONSTERS!

	19-01-2003 06:41									#11
	Re: What Moo3 looks like from a SMACer's perspective.. Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Hendrik I didn't think that such a step back from SMAC was possible with the much larger budget Firaxis and Infrogames had.

Its called a 'Brain Drain'... I mean Brian drain

Btw, don't even ask about PBEM in MoO3. Looks like MoO has gone to the cows.

	19-01-2003 06:59									#12
	Re: Re: What Moo3 looks like from a SMACer's perspective.. Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba Looks like MoO has gone to the cows.

How about a 'Quack that's gone to the dogs'?

	19-01-2003 10:43									#13
	Re: Re: What Moo3 looks like from a SMACer's perspective.. Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba Its called a 'Brain Drain'... I mean Brian drain Btw, don't even ask about PBEM in MoO3. Looks like MoO has gone to the cows.

Well... Since SMAC was supposed to be "Civ" in space, and MoO has never BEEN Civ in space, to compare the two is exactly like comparing apples and oranges.

While both games are 4X type games and supposedly in space comparing them would be like complaining that the VW jetta you drive can't haul a heavily loaded trailor like the Dodge RAM truck I drive can. After all they are both vehicles used for transport, they both have 4 wheels and require fuel to drive but the similarities pretty much end there.

Besides, SMAC was more a "political" type game with the SE aspect and the drone stapling, where as Civ and MOO was always more concerned with how extrernal enemies fight more than the "Why". Who care about the "why" they are fighting, you just have to defend yourself or take what you need, that's what any conflict boils down to in the end.

Thankfully, Civ3 and apparently MoO3 LACK the idiotic SE aspect. I know some love it but if I want to study Poly Sci and how to govern people I'll do that in college, thank you very much.

	19-01-2003 14:11									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

You can compare the two, as they aren't so different as you are trying to make them out to be. Sure, the story settings and many of the particular game mechanics are different, but you can definately compare them.

The things worth comparing, and what most hardline 4X TBS gamers are looking for:

Good AI
Good Diplomacy system
Effective and unbiased Combat system
Mod-ability (scenario and customization)
Multiplayer modes (sans SP gurus)
Enchanting, yet adequate, graphics and sound
Intelligent Interface
Micro-management assistance (AI governors, etc.)
And of course fun units and technologies

BTW, one of the reasons SMAC is beloved by so many fans even now, is because it does give a 'Why' factions are fighting or are at peace/odds with one another. Heh, some might call that the '5th X'.

	20-01-2003 03:55									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Actually the quicksilver site calls Moo3 a 5x game, with the 5th X being experience.

I have been playing Space empires IV in order to understand some of the basics of space combat, I am looking forward to the combat model in Moo3.

I think Moo3 will end up being an enjoyable game, but I know it will not replace SMAC in my heart.

	20-01-2003 04:16									#16
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba BTW, one of the reasons SMAC is beloved by so many fans even now, is because it does give a 'Why' factions are fighting or are at peace/odds with one another. Heh, some might call that the '5th X'.

Amen. But, on the bright side, with Moo3, we will be getting the '10th Z' instead.
(As in )

	20-01-2003 09:53									#17
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba You can compare the two, as they aren't so different as you are trying to make them out to be. Sure, the story settings and many of the particular game mechanics are different, but you can definately compare them.

Ah, sorry, but have you every played Civ and Moo? Comparing them would be like saying that checkers and chess aren't *that* different because both games involve boards with checkered patterns and pieces that move across them!

SMAC and MoO are *only* alike in that they are turn based, deal with empire building and managing population/production centers and units. Contrary to what you may think games can be totally different even with the same basic foundations, just as automobiles can be totally different even though they have 4 wheels an engine and require a driver.

quote: The things worth comparing, and what most hardline 4X TBS gamers are looking for: Good AI

We are talking about SMAC here, there is no such thing as "Good AI" when discussing that game.

quote: Good Diplomacy system

Agreed on this one, I particularly like how you can ask your "friends" to stop fighting another group.

quote: Effective and unbiased Combat system

Hmm, effective and unbiased? As long as you like 32,000 ship stacks for MoO and never use any helo/air units in SMAC.

quote: Mod-ability (scenario and customization)

Funny, it's been awhile sine I last played MoO but I can't seem to remember being able to make or play *any* scenario's with that game.

quote: Multiplayer modes (sans SP gurus)

I don't think original MoO had MP.

quote: Enchanting, yet adequate, graphics and sound

Enchanting graphics in SMAC? Sure, if you liked seeing only red and green for terrain.

quote: Intelligent Interface

As long as you liked wading through multiple menu's in SMAC.

quote: Micro-management assistance (AI governors, etc.)

AI govenors which were as stupid as the regular AI (in SMAC). Were there even govenors in MoO, I sure don't remember any.

quote: And of course fun units and technologies

Technologies partially yes, but it took quite awhile to get used to the technologies in SMAC. I liked how MoO handled technology better, you could research some stuff but all of it wasn't always in the same list and you often had to get the next tech to be able to compete with other tech's. The tech race was truly a rock-paper-scissors act, which was nice because one unit type couldn't always win vs. another unit.

quote: BTW, one of the reasons SMAC is beloved by so many fans even now, is because it does give a 'Why' factions are fighting or are at peace/odds with one another. Heh, some might call that the '5th X'.

Otherwise known as a "back story". Most of the good games used to include a little history bit with their games, but all of them didn't feel compelled to force the player to act in a certain manner towards other players. One of the problems with SMAC was that unless you did play MP, you pretty much knew exactly how all the other factions would act in every single game. Not very appealing for the replay value.

Of course, both Civ2 and MoO2 didn't appeal much to me because I had spent hundreds and thousands of hours playing the originals so was jaded on the rehash of the "same old thing" that the sequals did. I am glad that MoO3 seems to have expanded the dynamics of the game as Civ3 did with resources, culture, armies, etc.

	20-01-2003 10:37									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Geezuz Ozymandous, all you had to reply with was "Pfft.. Whatever".

I wasn't actually trying to compare the two series with that list btw, just pointing out the things that are worth comparing.

Again, I just don't find the the games so different that they can't be compared. Well wait a second! You just did compare them with that last post, didn't you?

Last edited by Anun Ik Oba on 20-01-2003 at 10:43

	21-01-2003 19:05									#19
	Actually... Support Apolyton

The first part of the post I said that you still can't compare them just because they have basic similarities, the gameplay and strategies, i.e. "the feel of the game". The rest of the post was simply stating the problems I had with all that you listed.

Any comparisons to the games was a reflection of your comparison earlier, but to me you still can't compare the games since they are totally different entities.

A better example of how games can be in the same "genre" but totally different is Quake and Theif. Both were FPS, but the gameplay and objectives of each were vastly different.

	21-01-2003 20:34									#20
	Get a bigger avatar today!

In one S stood for Shooter and in the other Sneaker. Not even populist magazines like PC Gamer put those two in the same category.

There are fundamental similarities between Civ, SMAC, MoO and others but areas where they are different too. That is a good thing

	22-01-2003 11:03									#21
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Man... a lot of people are strategy gaming newborns

Being the owner of and having played Civilization, Master of Orion, Master of Magic, CivNet, Master of Orion 2: Battle at Antares, Civilization II, Civilization II Multiplayer Gold, Alpha Centauri, Alpha Centauri: Alien Crossfire, Civilization III, and Civilization III: Play the World....

I'll rank them as follows:

1. Master of Orion
2. Alpha Centauri: Alien Crossfire
3. Alpha Centauri
4. Civilization III
5. Civilization II: Multiplayer Gold
6. Civilization II
7. Master of Orion 2
8. Master of Magic
9. Civilization
10. Civilization III: Play the World
11. CivNet

The original Master of Orion may not have been terribly high graphics or terribly high tech, it may not have been as intellectually satisfying as SMAC or as customizable as Moo2, but it was just a hell of a lot of fun in a way that I've never really experienced with any other game in the entire genre. I still go back to play the original Moo even after all these years. I even made sure I got a sound card for my new computer that could emulate SB16 sound in DOS just for the original Master of Orion.

I agree with the relative newcomers to strategy gaming at the top of the thread that SMAC is an incredible game and it's by far one of my favorites and one of the ones I most anticipated (I was an avid poster on the Firaxis SMAC boards for a FULL YEAR before the game came out ) and it strikes a great balance between micromangement, queue use, and grand strategy.

But for just pure fun without all the fixings, nothing beats the original Master of Orion.

My hope for Master of Orion 3 is that it won't be the let-down I thought Master of Orion 2 was... Moo2 was great for multi-player and customization and graphics, but it just wasn't FUN the way Moo1 was and it didn't have the same level of grand strategy. It was more of dealing with thousands of build queue's and micromanging colonists than it was about grand strategy.

SMAC is so good because it strikes a nice balance between grand strategy and micromanagement. My hope is that Moo3 does the same.

I've played 'em all and I know what I want

	22-01-2003 15:33									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

MoO over MoM?

Taste sure differs.

	22-01-2003 19:43									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Civ III over any of the rest mentioned?

It sure does.

I'd echo the comments about the original MoO though. Had I got a system that could play it I would still be returning to it from time to time.

	22-01-2003 23:56									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I honestly don't understand what people find fascinating about the original moo. Certainly, it was a great game when it came out, so was civilization. But I never played civ after I bought civ 2. There's a lot of fond memories there, but you just can't go home again. Its like trying to play dune 2 after you've played starcraft or red alert 2.

Moo2 is above and beyond moo in so many ways, I cannot understand why people continue to prefer it. I've got a good buddy who's like that, the only thing he's ever been able to put his finger on is that he prefers moo's simplicity over moo2's complexity. For me, complexity is almost always BETTER than simplicity. I want more options, more abilities.

Consider Axis and Allies. Sure, its a fun board game. Plenty of strategy availble in it. But after I bought the added unit expansions, I just couldn't play the orignial anymore. It just felt so small.

Its like a childhood playground. You just can't go back.

	23-01-2003 01:21									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Its nostalgia; really, it is.

	23-01-2003 01:27									#26
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It's not just nostalgia - MOO had a lot going for it that got obliterated by the MOM-like Moo2.

Tech trees were randomized, multiple trees could be researched at the same time. You didn't get every tech every game. Ever get stuck not being able to get Deuts? That sucked hard, but made some games hugely challenging.

Auto-updating your colonies with the latest factory/terraforming deal. This alone made me miss MOO, more than virtually anything else. If you get autofactory 2, you can say 'yes, I want all my colonies to use it, duh'.

Ease of dealing with colonies. No build queues. They could indeed be building ships, factories and terraforming all at the same time, and you didn't have to MM them to death.

There was a lot to like. I also liked the massive amounts of ships you could produce. I miss megabolt cannon. I miss that biological warfare did matter on occasion. Admittedly, MOO2 is in most ways a superior game, but I can't say that it's simply better - unlike, say, Civ2 vs. Civ.

Then again, I don't understand why anyone would play Civ2 once they played SMAC, but hey, whatever floats yer boat.

	23-01-2003 01:44									#27
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kc7mxo I honestly don't understand what people find fascinating about the original moo.

Three words, baby... Black Hole Generators. There's nothing I enjoyed more than watching that crappy fleet of 4000 destroyers with one laser a piece vanish in the space of five turns.

That's revenge for my fleet of Doomstars, you Infidels!

	23-01-2003 05:35									#28
	Tired of ads?

kalbear hit the nail on the head...

What makes the original Moo stand out is that it had a lot of features that Moo2 (for some god-awful reason) took OUT.

For instance:

- Empire-wide production goals... you just discovered Automated Factorires level IV or whatever... you can tell the ENTIRE EMPIRE to devote a given percentage of its production toward the factory automation before completing other tasks.... same thing went for new planetary shield advances, soil enrichment advances, terraforming advances, etc.

- A MUCH MUCH MUCH better spy game that was a ton of fun compared to Moo2... I was highly disappointed by Moo2's spy system, which gives you far less things to do and requires more micromanagement build building individual spies. Moo used a slider... it cost more to have more spies... simple. And the meat of the spy game was in what you DID WITH YOUR SPIES rather than the annoyance of what you had to do to build them. Moo2 will just let you stick them on "espionage" or "sabotage" and hope they do something randomly nice every once in a blue moon. How disappointing!

- Revolutions. Let's face it, one of the things that made the original Moo so much fun was causing Emperor Sauron of that annoying Sakkra empire you'd been fighting to get overthrown by his own people and replaced by some Pacifistic Ecologist who'd actually sign treaties with you ah, the glory of creating satellite regimes

- The randomized technology tree. This is one of the things that made the original design for Moo3 sound so good compared to Moo2... the original Moo HAD a randomized tech tree so that every game didn't play out the same way No matter how many times I play Moo2 with my friends, we always end up researching the same techs over-and-over... Moo2 tried to create different paths by forcing you to make a choice between 3 different techs, but most people agree on which of the three techs are clearly superior and it takes 3 human players working in cooperation to make sure you get all of the techs (or just bribing the AI for ones you'd like). In the original Moo, the techtree was randomized such that you couldn't anally plan out your future technology the way you could do in Moo2 and you might actually have to use some neat new tools you didn't use in the your last 12 games.

- Sheer scale. One of the more annoying aspects of Moo2 was that your entire empire's fleet was a few ships and entire galactic conflicts could be decided by a single battle between a few cruisers on each side. What the original Moo had going for it was sheer scale. You were moving around armadas of fleets and worrying about supply lines and fleet gathering points and strategic fronts and large-scale battle attrition, etc. etc, etc. Moo2 just doesn't have the same level of grand strategy.

- Not being excessively anal with colony micromanagement. The system of managing individual colonies was simple and workable. It used these wonderful things called SLIDERS. Moo2 dropped this for a lame attempt to use concepts developed from the Civilization games and adapt them to a space strategy game... it just doesn't work. Most games of Moo2 end up being large micro-management fests. You spend too much time worrying about how many workers Denzab IV is going to put on industry rather than science rather than worrying about larger issues.

I could list more, but there's little need. I like Moo2 and I think it's a good game, it's just that Moo1 was more FUN because you didn't have to deal with all the micromanagement and you got more of the grand strategy and epic scale. As many game designers have lost sight of over the years, GAMEPLAY matters more to many gamers than graphics or sound effects or even multiplayer capability. If you make a good GAME, people will play it and like it.

	23-01-2003 15:44									#29
	Increase the size of your Attachments

MOO2 woul've been great if:

1) the tech tree was randomised (each advance could randomly appear in the level above or below its default) and 'creative' made less powerful.

2) Instead of 'autobuild' have 'use default queue' and 'set default queue'. If you could set a list of building priorities and just say to all your vanilla colonies 'build things in this order'. It was just too painful to build a new colony and be presented with 50+ build options and have to select the same old queue again. Or to have to edit all your build queues whenever you researched something new.

On the issue of complexity, MOO2 had lots more decisions to make, but most of them were 'duh' type decisions, selecting build queues and shuffling workers around. MOO1 had less to do but the things that you could do were more fun.

	23-01-2003 17:07									#30
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

People have covered a lot of what I prefer about MoO. I would add that I never felt that a single ship strategy was all-powerful. Go for a big ship strategy and you could be defeated by the 2,000 strong scout force armed with bioweapons because you couldn't shoot them all before they reached your planet. Go for destroyers and the BHG could neuter you.

MoO2 reduced that scale down to a couple of dozen warships per side and eliminated some of the alternative strategies. I will also never forgive it for automatically upgrading all your ground batteries and space stations to the weapons which have no effect against space monsters and Antarrans just because they are higher in the tech tree than the other weapons you've researched. Duh!!