20-07-2003 07:25									#1
	MOO3 vs. BotF Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Which game is better, Master of Orion 3 (MOO3) or Birth of the Federation (BotF)?

On one hand, MOO3 has a lot of depth and realism that BotF lacks. On the other hand, BotF has a simplicity and intuitive gameplay that often makes it much more enjoyable to play than MOO3.

	20-07-2003 09:55									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This has been discussed in other threads but I'd still choose Moo3. I liked BotF but I thought the tech tree was weak, number of ship designs too few and uncustomizable, and the map way too small.

	20-07-2003 13:59									#3
	Remove this text

I´d prefer MOO3 for the same reasons as Vince.

BotF had some nice things which MOO3 lacks, such as those minor Races which were truely independent till you incorporated them either through Diplomacy or Conquest into your Empire,
but MOO3 has a much better Tech Tree, customizable Ships and a somehow more complex Planetary Economy.

Oh and, as Vince mentioned, Size also matters
Galaxy size is also the reason, why I rarely play MOO2 today. Would have been great, if MOO2 (or BotF) could have been modded to allow much larger Galaxies

	21-07-2003 00:03									#4
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Vince278 This has been discussed in other threads but I'd still choose Moo3. I liked BotF but I thought the tech tree was weak, number of ship designs too few and uncustomizable, and the map way too small.

I agree the tech tree in BotF was very weak. It is unfortunate that the designers of BotF did not have the license to the TOS period. If they had been able to use the pre-TNG era stuff, then I suspect that the tech tree and number of ship designs, would have been much better. It would have been really great if BotF had been able to trully span from the beginnings of the Federation, through the TOS era, all the way to the late DS9 period.

I am usually a huge advocate for customizable ship designs. However, I think MOO3 messed it up because it made managing your design, upgrading and eliminating obsolete designs extremelly unintuitive and cumbersome.

On the issue of map size, I personally hate huge maps, because they make the game too slow and long. I was playing the largest MOO3 map, and got bored very quickly, as all I was doing was colonizing planets, and had not even come close to encountering other races. On medium size maps, you can expand but also meet other races fairly soon, and quickly get into the "good stuff".

But of course, different map sizes should be available since players all have different personal preferences.

	23-07-2003 09:16									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Well said.

	24-07-2003 00:43									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I simply did not enjoy BOTF because it was like a hen clucking the micromanagement, of the game.

MOO [I] is much better, but plays a different way, and is much larger in scope, than BOTF.

And the micromanagement is easier to me, if I decide, (which I do), or macromanagement (plays differently) than BOTF could ever do.

Space battles of MOO3 can be more intense, which is what I would expect out of space battles.

Poof, your gone!

Psycho Emperor gone!

	24-07-2003 07:50									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Definitely MOO3 despite all its shortcomings.

With BotF, it isn't just things like the insane amount of micromanagement, or the total lack of ship customization. Though these things are major factors. In fact, BotF is a very good example of Bad Micromanagement. (And yes, I think that there theoretically could be sucha thing as Good Micromanagement)

A major factor I haven't really seen mentioned here is the repeatitiveness of BotF. Take negotiations and relationships with other races for example.

With the Minor Races, once you've figured out the negotiation system, if you have the patience(and the credits) you can win over any and all Minor races using the exact same tone in your messages time and time again. There is no variability. No chance that the Vulcans might react slightly differnently than last game. No need to dip your toes in the water before going whole hog as it were.

And with the other Major Races, you can be assured that no matter what you do, no matter how you play it, by the late mid-game, they will be declaring all-out war on you.

Throw in the factor that if there is a way to win other than Conquest in BotF, I sure can't remember it. Which basically means that while there is some slight varience as to what tactics you will use early on, you know exactly what you will have to do by the end to win, no matter what race you are. Build ships and blow things up.

Take the MOOs on the other hand. Any of them. Even in MOO3, there is variability. One game the Meklars may be your friend. The next, they might be your worst nightmare the entire time. All depending on factors of who you're fighting/allying with, and where you are. You can, if you try, manage to keep at least a few opponents less than totally hostile by the end of the game.

And with having multiple routes to victory, it is easy to set oneself a challenge of taking a particular race and attempting to win in a certain fashion one time, and the next winning in a completely different manner. And have it actually be a challenge to achieve certain victories with some races. I mean does anyone think that they could take the Ikthul to a Senate win without replaying at least a few times?

In essence, to me MOO3 wins over BotF in large part because discussions of Strategy and Tactics actually have real meaning in MOO. With BotF, there just isn't that much there to discuss.

	24-07-2003 19:54									#8
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Bleyn With BotF, it isn't just things like the insane amount of micromanagement,

The micromanagement in BotF is not that bad. The trick is just to think ahead a bit. For example, the number of farms level I needed to feed the maximum population is simply the map pop divided by 25. So, when you first colonize a planet, the build queue should like this:
1) number of farms needed to feed max pop
2) ~6 industry facilities
3) ~6 research facilities

And you can almost forget the planet until it reaches it's max pop. And once the planet does reach its max pop, and you have allocated every pop ppint to where you want, then you don't have to worry about it again.

The difference between MOO3 and BotF when it comes to micromanagement, is that BotF is very intuitive whereas MOO3 is not. In BotF, micromanagement is very straightforward: if you want something built, just queue it up, and it will be done based on number of industry points. if you want it built immediately, just rush buy. MOO3 on the other hand is much more complex. You can't just put something in the build queue and wait for it to be done. In order to maximize production, you have to set the military/political econ slider to the right setting, tweak your military spending in your budget, tweak planetary taxes, etc...
Also in Botf, when it finishes the build queue, it buidls "trade goods" which bring in extra money. All you have to do is check your summary to see what each system is doing. In MOO3, the planet AI will build stuff all by itself. Unless you monitor each planet carefully, you'll end up with 30 transports that you never needed!

	25-07-2003 02:47									#9
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat The micromanagement in BotF is not that bad. The trick is just to think ahead a bit. For example, the number of farms level I needed to feed the maximum population is simply the map pop divided by 25. So, when you first colonize a planet, the build queue should like this: 1) number of farms needed to feed max pop 2) ~6 industry facilities 3) ~6 research facilities And you can almost forget the planet until it reaches it's max pop. And once the planet does reach its max pop, and you have allocated every pop ppint to where you want, then you don't have to worry about it again.

Hmmm.... could work, except for a few things.

1. As I recall, the built-in pop. management AI in BotF has this nasty habit of sticking population into available farms first, even when the amount of food being produced was well above what's needed to feed the current population. And I never really noticed any benifit to having excess food production. Thus, if I did it this way, I'd end up micromanaging just as much, because I'd still be going in every few turns to shift population away from farms and towards industry and research where I want it. Especially if I was still building industry.

2. That assumes I'm willing let a planet spend a bunch of time just building farms that they won't need for tens and twenties of turns to come, and going really slow at it because they have no industry. When I would much rather add a new farm only when and if I need it, and concentrate their efforts on improving their industrial/research capacity. Yes, it may take more work on my part than your technique. But, by doing so, I can get things done much faster. Because, by the time I need more than a small handful farms, I'll already have most of my industry built. Especially when it comes time to start upgrading things. Further more, building in smaller batches allows for quicker response when I decide to change what's being built in.


But the real point of this is that even having to manage all of this stuff is part of what makes for Bad Micromanagement in BotF. I don't know of any other space 4x game where you actually have to worry about the number of farms and industry and such are on a planet to the extent that you do in BotF. Yes, MOO3 has the DEAs, but even managing them yourself they are nowhere near as obtrusive as BotF. And personally, I find that with good Development Plans, the Planetary AI does an OK job. I would agree that the Military AI sucks, but that is a different matter.

	28-07-2003 14:19									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

MOO3 is better.

	28-07-2003 16:12									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Excess food production in BotF did impact on population growth but I agree that it is far more efficient to micromanage construction and population. I'd never feel comfortable about setting out a construction plan and leaving the AI to get on with it (even if I could fit it all into 4 build queue slots) while it has become second nature to do so in Moo3.

	29-07-2003 18:38									#12
	Got spare money?

Between the two, it is actually a rather tough call.

Granted MOO3 is better for all the reasons stated above (at least where there wasn't argument), but BOTF had some other key features that MOO3 blatantly lacks.

1) Space between stars. In BOTF, since it was more "Civilization-esque" as far as the map system, you could send your ships anywhere to build stations etc. That includes in the middle of nowhere as an outpost. I think MOO3 would benifit from this greatly.

2) Territorial claims was a fairly unique system in BOTF for a space-conquest game. Have territory lines in the middle of space, while not real-world practicle nor applicable, was good because that meant you didn't just own the star systems themsleves. Instead you got some territory to go with.

3) The right-click menu for BOTF was ingenious. I wish MOO3 had that for its respective screens.

Now, overall MOO3 is a better game, but mostly because it came out later, so it got to correct some of the maladies of other games before it. One better (I won't say good per se) feature about MOO3 over BOTF is the combat. In BOTF, if you have any respectable-sized fleet, the combat is over within a few seconds of cheesey explosions and people screaming.

Now don't get me wrong, the MOO3 combat system needs a facelift as well, but it is certainly better than BOTF.

And I suppose you could roughly compar Magnates to the BOTF races, with the exception that you can't initiate diplomatic talks with Magnates and you don't exactly have to "conquer" them...

	29-07-2003 20:12									#13
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Bleyn Yes, it may take more work on my part than your technique. But, by doing so, I can get things done much faster. Because, by the time I need more than a small handful farms, I'll already have most of my industry built. Especially when it comes time to start upgrading things. Further more, building in smaller batches allows for quicker response when I decide to change what's being built in.

I am not sure.

1)Excess food does have an effect: it increases growth rate. So, building my farms first will mean that pop will increase faster than yours. More pop means that I can fill more facilities sooner than you.

2)Farms can be rush bought in just one turn. So, you don't need industry at the very beginning to build farms. You can rush buy each farm each turn. So, in 5 turns, I'll have 7 farms which will probably be enough already to feed the entire pop.

3) You can scrap excess facilities, if you want. Just scrap farms so that you only have enough for a slight excess with max pop. That way the AI will automatically put now pop in other facilities since all the farms will be taken up.

	29-07-2003 20:23									#14
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I'd also like to point out that in BotF, you micromanage a system, but in MOO3, you manage each planet. So you have a lot more to manage in MOO3 than in BotF, since MOO3 focuses on each individual planet, whereas BotF focuses on the system.

	29-07-2003 20:59									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Tricky one. If I compare the number of DEA's in an average Moo3 system to the number of buildings built in an average BotF system there isn't likely to be too much in it. Just in Moo3 I can tell it exactly how many DEA's to build in one fell swoop and never look at the planet screen again if my development plans are in good shape. The tech upgrading gets done automatically for me so I don't need to schedule them.

[Orion_Prime] I agree that games which include territory are interesting, but you pretty much have to decide between either having hyperspace lanes, which allow for strategic pinch points, or for open space travel allowing empty space to become strategically important, not just systems. Personally I like the starlane system because it allows you to build distinct border defence systems, interior research systems etc. It also helps focus the AI on achievable goals instead of seeing a fleet head off for a multi turn journey because some world at the back end of nowhere is temporarily vulnerable.

	30-07-2003 07:33									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: [SIZE=1] [Orion_Prime] I agree that games which include territory are interesting, but you pretty much have to decide between either having hyperspace lanes, which allow for strategic pinch points, or for open space travel allowing empty space to become strategically important, not just systems. Personally I like the starlane system because it allows you to build distinct border defence systems, interior research systems etc. It also helps focus the AI on achievable goals instead of seeing a fleet head off for a multi turn journey because some world at the back end of nowhere is temporarily vulnerable.

Only problem is that star lanes offer a fairly limited exploration experience, at least at the beginning of the game.

One nice thing about MOO3 is that you aren't forced to use the starlanes (if you can wait a while). One thing I don't understand though: Why does the "travel through nebula" modifier decrease the speed through a starlane, but increase the speed through open space?

	30-07-2003 14:42									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I never even noticed that it did affect travel speed

Starlanes do allow more reliable start potential than free travel if you look at the Moo2 model. There an unlucky start could see a race with no planets at 3 or 4 au distance so it has to get the second fuel upgrade before it can go anywhere. I mainly think it helps the AI a bit and is a positive development for that reason alone.

	30-07-2003 23:54									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

As an amusing anecdote, i was playing MOO2 with a friend of mine (back in the days of dial-up direct connect, ugh) was stuck at a star with three black holes blocking him in. The only star he was allowed to travel to would have taken two fuel upgrades to get to.

Needless to say, we restarted, but it was an AWESOME defensive position...

	05-08-2003 08:21									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Also in BOTF than system with than population of 100 can only built 10 DEA. In one game I was playing the Cardassian than I have the Bajoran join my empire just by buying then over a period of time. Now Major Kia I want you in my bed so I can have fun with you.

	05-08-2003 14:21									#20
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

in BotF you can build as many buildings as you like but you can only use a certain number based on pop limit. I always had spares to counter those bad randome events and to allow me to switch on more energy to power up system defences when threatened etc. The minor races always had stupid amounts of each type when captured or converted.

	06-08-2003 00:05									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I never minded the Minor Races' habbit of building strange numbers of Farming buildings because they were so good it didn't matter.

The cool thing about the minor races was, if you could affiliate with them, then wait several tens of turns, and then offer membership, their buildings would be so unbelievably high-tech that they would be the jewel of your empire.

Because of this, I always felt that the Federation had an unfair edge over the other empires...

	06-08-2003 02:44									#22
	Remove this text

The Feds were only real good at Advanced start and below. After that the minors were technologically inferior and would take forever to catch up (and generally weren't worth the investment to do it - you got them for their Specials, and maybe intel stations). Also, cloak was massively over powered, especially on Kvork class Klingon cruisers. Nothing can stand against them.

Another major bug was scrapping ships. You got full value for scrapping, and didn't pay any surcharge for rush build. This renders diplomacy for minor races irrelevant since all you have to do is build a few transports, scrap them for full price in cash, then load up the minor with a big, huge bribe. Even the most repulsive race (like Klingons, who negotiate with disruptors) can beat the nice-guy AI Fed cold. This also makes infrastructure irrelevant since you can 1) build a ship at a developed planet in the heart of your empire, 2) scrap the ship for no penalty, 3) build a shipyard in a puny new colony and 4) rush build the same ship at no penalty at that new colony. Instant fleets!

A major loophole is the ship upgrades. I build a puny destroyer or class 1 transport, wait for a key tech advance, get a free auto upgrade that triples the value of the ship (and its combat value) and then I can crush everyone in the galaxy with my instant mega fleet. Or I can scrap the transports or ships and have more cash than I know what do to with. You get the point.

That said I still like the game since it has a good “flavor”, and exploration if fun. I just don’t use the obvious holes the developers left in the game.

Hydro