Jump to content


What ruined Moo3 ?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

Poll: What killed Moo3 ? (13 members have cast votes)

Are Starlanes the culprit ?

  1. Yes !!!!! (I have played Moo3) (5 votes [38.46%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 38.46%

  2. Yes, Starlanes limit all 4x games (I haven't played Moo3) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. No, starlanes were inocent! (I have played Moo3) (8 votes [61.54%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 61.54%

  4. I don't mind Starlanes at all in games (I haven't played Moo3) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Was the Viceroy AI to blame ? They certainly had a lot to win by sabotaging their player-emperor...

  1. Yes, they kept messing around with my decisions.(I've played Moo3) (9 votes [69.23%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 69.23%

  2. No, of course not! Why do they always blame the butler ? (I've played moo3) (3 votes [23.08%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 23.08%

  3. Yes, I heard the Viceroy AI was terrible and intrusive. (Not played Moo3) (1 vote [7.69%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

  4. No, I hate micromanagement. I heard they did a good job at managing colonies in such a compex game. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Perhaps the artist was underpaid and holding a grudge ? He certainly had the means to bring the game down in a ball of fire....

  1. Graphics where sub-par. Ships where horrible. Race pics where terrible. The interface was abhorring. Animations ? What animations? Not much more to say. (i've played Moo3) (8 votes [61.54%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 61.54%

  2. I've seen pictures and it's bad. Real bad. (I haven't played Moo3) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Graphics were alright. I liked the new race design they brought. (I have played Moo3) (5 votes [38.46%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 38.46%

  4. From what i saw on the web, it seems like a decent/good/excellent effort. (I haven't played Moo3) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Now what with all the impressive amount of depth, spreadsheets might have had the opportunity to inflict a mortal wound. What about them ?

  1. Spreadsheet after spreadsheet, playing your empire was as entretaining as taxes for your whole family one day before the deadline. (i've played moo3) (8 votes [61.54%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 61.54%

  2. From what i gather, the game is a spreadsheet madness with tons of meaningless values. This must have been the cause of Moo3's death. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. I actually liked the depth all of these values reflected. It only took some time to learn the ropes (I've played moo3) (5 votes [38.46%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 38.46%

  4. I've read some reviews, and really the amount of choice in the game is amazing. I don't get how people complain about it being complex when it's a 4x game on the firs place (I haven't played moo3) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Enemy empire AI's could have very well done it... After all, they were there to destroy the player, if not with their fleets, perhaps with their incompetence...

  1. It couldn't hold it's own at all. The lack of challenge was probably the biggest nail on this coffin (I've played Moo3) (7 votes [53.85%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 53.85%

  2. Almost everyone says the AI was bad. There's no point if it's a 4x game. (I haven't played Moo3) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. I think the AI could hold its own quite well. (I've played Moo3) (4 votes [30.77%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.77%

  4. I don't think this was the cause at all (I haven't played Moo3) (2 votes [15.38%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.38%

After all the patches and mods, do you think Moo3 was succesfully brought back to the land of the living ?

  1. Yes, it's a great -if misunderstood- game (5 votes [38.46%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 38.46%

  2. No, all hope for that game is lost. (8 votes [61.54%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 61.54%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

MasterOfOrionConquerTheS #1 Posted 18 April 2016 - 08:42 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 251
  • Member since:
    03-01-2016

Made a little poll. I'm wondering what do people who PLAYED Moo3 think was the cause for the game's failure. Also interested in knowing what do people who haven't played it think was the cause. 

 

There's also an option in the poll for people who liked the game at the end... just remembered it's a fixed poll if i don't add that :D

 

 



kipwheeler #2 Posted 18 April 2016 - 08:54 PM

    Ensign

  • Players
  • 9
  • Member since:
    03-28-2016

I thought Moo3's lackadaisical reception wasn't due to one factor, but a bunch combined. Mind you, I'm the rare minority that liked playing it, but it took me several months and patches before I really "got it" and began enjoying it. (I really liked the habitability rings for terraforming planets.)

 

You point out several flaws. I.e., it was impenetrable in terms of what was going on, so many players gave up in frustration. It had ugly graphics for ships and interface menus. It was too micro-managey for many players. However, it wasn't just any one of these by itself that turned off the player base, I would argue, but that the various bits did not hold together well with each other. It was a synergy of slightly bad things that together added up collectively to create a really difficult-to-love game for most players.



JosEPh_II #3 Posted 18 April 2016 - 10:27 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 330
  • Member since:
    01-22-2016

View PostMasterOfOrionConquerTheS, on 18 April 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Made a little poll. I'm wondering what do people who PLAYED Moo3 think was the cause for the game's failure. Also interested in knowing what do people who haven't played it think was the cause. 

 

There's also an option in the poll for people who liked the game at the end... just remembered it's a fixed poll if i don't add that :D

 

 

 

2 things about your poll, What is your definition of or rather qualifications for "Played"? 1 minute? 10 minutes? A whole hour?

And what is your real purpose for this "fixed poll"? Too laugh at those that do like it and make those that disliked it feel superior to those that actually did play it? More derision and name calling? (And yes I understand it's a rigged poll)

 

JosEPh ;(


Old and Slow.....Watch Out! It's Not Y'uns Turn!

Ilserrad #4 Posted 18 April 2016 - 11:01 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 98
  • Member since:
    03-17-2016

MoO3 is an example of feature creep gone out of control. It's chock full of interesting ideas, but sacrifices too much gameplay in order to squeeze them in.

 

For example, I LOVE the system of breaking up planets into individual regions and being able to develop each region separately. Having to conquer a planet region by region was pretty cool.

But you apply that system to something of MoOs scale, it becomes a management nightmare. And if you just automate it, why bother even having it?

 

And sacrificing visual feedback to cram all that detail in was a painful loss. It worked in MoO1 because the tech limits back then, but after MoO2, I just couldn't go back to playing a spreadsheet.



MasterOfOrionConquerTheS #5 Posted 19 April 2016 - 03:25 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 251
  • Member since:
    03-01-2016
Nonono, 

View PostJosEPh_II, on 18 April 2016 - 10:27 PM, said:

 

2 things about your poll, What is your definition of or rather qualifications for "Played"? 1 minute? 10 minutes? A whole hour?

And what is your real purpose for this "fixed poll"? Too laugh at those that do like it and make those that disliked it feel superior to those that actually did play it? More derision and name calling? (And yes I understand it's a rigged poll)

 

JosEPh ;(

 

Nonono, it's not about name calling. I'm just wondering what the expectations of why it failed (on a review-critic-level) are betwen those who played it and those who don't. There's a lot of people who seem to hate it for the Starlanes alone, but i remember i didn't have any trouble with those starlanes at all, it was all the OTHER stuff that i didn't like. 

Lucian667 #6 Posted 19 April 2016 - 07:55 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 579
  • Member since:
    10-08-2015

MOO 3 was a hideous dumpster-fire of a game in almost every respect and was well deserving of its negative reviews and universally reviled status. It certainly wasn't just the starlanes, there were so many reasons, but starlanes were only ONE of its enormous laundry list of problems. I'm still scratching my head over the incomprehensible decision to resurrect two of MOO 3's most hated CORE features (starlanes and dumb RT tactical combat) into MOO 4. Absolutely nuts, its like they dont want to make money or something.



MOO2MOD #7 Posted 19 April 2016 - 10:18 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 400
  • Member since:
    06-22-2015

the one link that matters / all you need to know in 5 pages;

 

http://www.quartertothree.com/reviews/moo3/moo3-1.shtml

 



MOO2MOD #8 Posted 19 April 2016 - 10:20 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 400
  • Member since:
    06-22-2015

View PostJosEPh_II, on 18 April 2016 - 10:27 PM, said:

 

2 things about your poll, What is your definition of or rather qualifications for "Played"? 1 minute? 10 minutes? A whole hour?

And what is your real purpose for this "fixed poll"? Too laugh at those that do like it and make those that disliked it feel superior to those that actually did play it? More derision and name calling? (And yes I understand it's a rigged poll)

 

JosEPh ;(

its not about the people who play it.

its about the game.

quoted:

"If you ever really, really want to write a review in which you totally slam a game, MoO3 is one of the easiest victims available."

source:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6010668&postcount=5

 



JosEPh_II #9 Posted 19 April 2016 - 01:14 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 330
  • Member since:
    01-22-2016

View PostMasterOfOrionConquerTheS, on 18 April 2016 - 09:25 PM, said:

Nonono, 

 

Nonono, it's not about name calling. I'm just wondering what the expectations of why it failed (on a review-critic-level) are betwen those who played it and those who don't. There's a lot of people who seem to hate it for the Starlanes alone, but i remember i didn't have any trouble with those starlanes at all, it was all the OTHER stuff that i didn't like. 

 

These answers are directed solely at the Author of this poll and thread. Not to Anyone Else.

 

Questions from the poll answered by a MoOIII Player and Modder

1. Are Starlanes the culprit ? No they were not, it was after all a 3d map while 1 and 2 were not. Off Road was made longer than it should've been by the Devs, but they did reduce it from 20 to 1 to basically 3 to 1 with a Multiplier of 5. All very easily changed (reason is in answer to Poll ? #4).

 

2.Was the Viceroy AI to blame ? They certainly had a lot to win by sabotaging their player-emperor...

2 edged sword was the Viceroy. He cut both ways. If you did not understand the principle you seemed to get cut by it. Easy fix though if he really bothered you, Just Uncheck the Planet Econ AI when you found a colony, no more Viceroy to deal with.

 

4.Now what with all the impressive amount of depth, spreadsheets might have had the opportunity to inflict a mortal wound. What about them ?

Spreadsheets allowed immense ability to Mod, in fact more open to modding than previous 2 combined. This was one of the games saving graces. No the spreadsheets excuse was just a crutch for those that were looking for something to blame because it was not MoO1.5 (and III has a ton of 1's features) nor was it the MoO2.5 that All MoO2 players wanted. The spreadsheet allowed the player/modder to do so very very much to the game.

 

5.Enemy empire AI's could have very well done it... After all, they were there to destroy the player, if not with their fleets, perhaps with their incompetence...

The AI was far from being incompetent. But one thing many did not realize was that III's Easy setting was equivalent to both 1 and 2's Average/hard settings. The Enemy AI could put up a very good fight, could spy well and play well in Diplomacy and the Senate.

 

6.  After all the patches and mods, do you think Moo3 was successfully brought back to the land of the living ?

Yes. The Player Patches  fixed many of the bugs that Atari and Quicksilver left unfinished because Atari cut of the Money for a 2nd Patch.

Those that play 3 have been branded as a minuscule few of foolhardy idiots by those that stand on their MoO1 or MoO2 merits and (slanted) poll driven majorities, when in reality there are more III players than they want to acknowledge. MoOIII is still available from several game distributors still. And it's price has been stable for many years. It's been on Gog's lineup for over 6 years even with the constant stream of "hater" reviews it still garners.

 

So this is why I posted the way I did in my 1st post to your poll. Just like this forum, you have a set group that will go out of their way to post negative "reviews/posts" when and wherever they can. It's become their crusade, all the while trying holding onto a 13 year old grudge because III was not what they wanted, it was Not MoO1.5 Nor 2.5. So they try to destroy it for those that do want to play or even try it. And they will post 13 year old reviews to give themselves support. And that is why I stand up to it whenever and wherever I can. The Other voice has a right to be heard too.

 

You will notice I skipped over Poll question #3 Graphics.

Non of the choices actually fit well for a MoOIII long time player. Yes it was a major Faux Paux by Quicksilver to make III only an 800 x 600 resolution game. That did kill the Joy that the Eye Candy player wanted. But if you were into playing any of the MoO series as a TBS 4X player then the graphics were not that "game breaking" as Strategy and Tactics and depth of play were of more Importance than the latest slickest graphics out there. But the graphic quality was not up to current standards of that time period.

 

JosEPh

 

 


Edited by JosEPh_II, 19 April 2016 - 01:30 PM.

Old and Slow.....Watch Out! It's Not Y'uns Turn!

JosEPh_II #10 Posted 19 April 2016 - 04:06 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 330
  • Member since:
    01-22-2016

View PostMOO2MOD, on 19 April 2016 - 04:20 AM, said:

its not about the people who play it.

its about the game.

quoted:

"If you ever really, really want to write a review in which you totally slam a game, MoO3 is one of the easiest victims available."

source:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6010668&postcount=5

 

 

I've seen and read that post, I've been a Civfanatics forum member since 2007. I Lurked for 2 years prior before joining. I also know you are a long time member there too.

 

And it Always, and I mean Always devolves into who plays it as much as it ever was about the game.

 

Don't you think we that play the game know about these "opinions" that have been out there since 2003? We have decide to go past them and found a game worth playing after the Publisher and developers quit. They left us the means to do so and we did thru Fan patches and Mods.

 

If those that "hate" MoOIII would just say, "I dislike and won't play it" and leave it at that it would never devolve into "who plays it". But they just can't seem to do that. They can't take conventional wisdom of "If you can't say anything good, just don't say anything". So it seemingly becomes a defamation Badge of Honor to slam those that like it and voice they like it on a public forum. The rhetoric used always forces it into this War of Words. But yet they still can not or chose to ignore that they can just say the simplest of lines and get their view expressed, "I don't like it". To me their very act of Righteous Indignation over the game is tarnished because of the foul and abusive language and mean spirited post comments (they can have their R.I. badge that I don't care about, but the verbal abuse and foul language I do take great offence over). Leave that out of any response and the discussion about the game would Stay on the Game. But those that "dislike III" just can not seem to do that, put aside the malice whether it comes out in a post with or with out intention.

 

JosEPh


Edited by JosEPh_II, 19 April 2016 - 04:25 PM.

Old and Slow.....Watch Out! It's Not Y'uns Turn!

Endsor #11 Posted 19 April 2016 - 05:28 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 118
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

View PostJosEPh_II, on 19 April 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

If those that "hate" MoOIII would just say, "I dislike and won't play it" and leave it at that it would never devolve into "who plays it".

 

Every person who talks about moo3 only talks about the game. It NEVER devolves into "who plays it". That is just the sad fantasy invented by your mind that you repeat ad-nauseam in all your many, many, posts as you desperately look for a fight as hard as you can. I challenge you if you can to show these posts where moo3 players are insulted and not the game. Where are they? Stop trying to pick fights, just say you opinion about the game and let others say theirs. Then there would be no problem.

MasterOfOrionConquerTheS #12 Posted 19 April 2016 - 09:37 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 251
  • Member since:
    03-01-2016

Wow... well yes the post is biased (clearly). But i'm not going after players, i was just trying to ask around see what the hatred of Starlanes was compared to other factors. In fact, i would have loved to like Moo3, and I WOULD have tested it with mods and patchs if it hadn't left me with such a bad after-taste. 

 

About my experience with Moo3 : I was living in Argentina, the game was really hard to get at the time, had to pester my parents like the bubonic plague to buy it at import price (no magic STEAM or GOG in 2003),  got the original box, the cds, the manual, etc, was super excited to play it, and then it turned out to be completely not what i wanted and ridled with bugs. I tried to play it so many times but simply couldn't get myself to like it 1 bit.   

 

Sorry if anyone got offended. 



JosEPh_II #13 Posted 20 April 2016 - 04:21 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 330
  • Member since:
    01-22-2016

View PostMasterOfOrionConquerTheS, on 19 April 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

Wow... well yes the post is biased (clearly). But i'm not going after players, i was just trying to ask around see what the hatred of Starlanes was compared to other factors. In fact, i would have loved to like Moo3, and I WOULD have tested it with mods and patchs if it hadn't left me with such a bad after-taste. 

 

About my experience with Moo3 : I was living in Argentina, the game was really hard to get at the time, had to pester my parents like the bubonic plague to buy it at import price (no magic STEAM or GOG in 2003),  got the original box, the cds, the manual, etc, was super excited to play it, and then it turned out to be completely not what i wanted and ridled with bugs. I tried to play it so many times but simply couldn't get myself to like it 1 bit.   

 

Sorry if anyone got offended. 

 

I'm not offended at all by your poll. I was fully aware of what kind of responses it would receive.

 

I would bet though that the post above yours is most likely negative and is from someone who made it personal but says they didn't. Who also can not read nor comprehend written english very well. Perhaps english is not his native tongue? I don't know. But since I can only see his username I really don't know what he posted nor do I really care to know either. There is a function provided by the forum that facilitates this.

 

JosEPh

 

 

 

 


Old and Slow.....Watch Out! It's Not Y'uns Turn!

Dizeit_ #14 Posted 20 April 2016 - 12:44 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 33
  • Member since:
    04-20-2016
I wanted to shoot that meddling f*&%^$g Viceroy! Whoever programmed it belongs in a special level of hell. Star lanes were a minor quibble in moo 3 compared to havoc that guy wreaked.

MaddCowQQ #15 Posted 28 April 2016 - 01:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12
  • Member since:
    04-26-2016
I didn't think MoO3 was the worst thing ever, but it felt very unfinished/polished.  I liked the idea of templates for your viceroys but it took forever to fill those out the way you wanted, but once you did it made life a bit better.  I still think its underwhelming as a sequel to MoO2, but really MoO2 was so good it would have been really hard to surpass or equal so they decided to go broke.  They didn't really hit what they wanted to.

Mathias_Zealot #16 Posted 07 May 2016 - 05:03 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 286
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

View PostEndsor, on 19 April 2016 - 05:28 PM, said:

 

Every person who talks about moo3 only talks about the game. It NEVER devolves into "who plays it". That is just the sad fantasy invented by your mind that you repeat ad-nauseam in all your many, many, posts as you desperately look for a fight as hard as you can. I challenge you if you can to show these posts where moo3 players are insulted and not the game. Where are they? Stop trying to pick fights, just say you opinion about the game and let others say theirs. Then there would be no problem.

 

Did you hear that? That was the sound of the Irony meter exploding.
EA4 Weapon Data (5-27-16)

MadCaptainBob #17 Posted 09 May 2016 - 06:54 AM

    Ensign

  • Players
  • 2
  • Member since:
    05-09-2016

The biggest single issue that sent it to my trash bin was that it was absurdly unstable at launch; I think it crashed more times than any other game I had ever played up to that point, well beyond what one would ever expect from a professional team.  Aside from that, the interface was an impenetrable mess of spreadsheets and charts sitting on top of core gameplay that hadn't really evolved beyond what MoO2 offered, just a few half-assed gimmicks tossed in here and there.



JosEPh_II #18 Posted 13 May 2016 - 02:42 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 330
  • Member since:
    01-22-2016

View PostMadCaptainBob, on 09 May 2016 - 12:54 AM, said:

The biggest single issue that sent it to my trash bin was that it was absurdly unstable at launch; I think it crashed more times than any other game I had ever played up to that point, well beyond what one would ever expect from a professional team.  Aside from that, the interface was an impenetrable mess of spreadsheets and charts sitting on top of core gameplay that hadn't really evolved beyond what MoO2 offered, just a few half-assed gimmicks tossed in here and there.

 

So you never made it to the 1.25 Official patch before hitting the Trash can?

 

What ruined MoOIII? Disgruntled MoO and MoO2 players who didn't get the 1.5 or 2.5 version they wanted. And could not accept a new path is Main reason. Rushed and underfunded development was the icing.

 

JosEPh


Edited by JosEPh_II, 15 May 2016 - 02:59 PM.

Old and Slow.....Watch Out! It's Not Y'uns Turn!

plasmacannontime #19 Posted 11 August 2016 - 03:38 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 101
  • Member since:
    01-13-2016

You poll should have included the option of, "I played the game, but don't remember that being the problem".

 

To me, MOO3 failed by adding star lanes, eliminating several of the core races and making the game so complex that it wasn't fun anymore. 

 

This question has been raised many times over the years. Here is a link to one of such questions from back in 2008, where I (as Time) when into great detail back then as to what I liked and didn't like about MOO3. 

http://www.spheriumn...c.php?f=10&t=18

 

After I (again, it was just "Time" back then) replied to the poster then.

JosEPH replied too. http://www.spheriumn....php?f=10&t=603

You must have been a big fan of it, if you modded MOO3.

It looks like you had to change your name (adding the "II") like I did. Someone must have taken your first choice too. :(

I couldn't stomach it for that long.


MOO1 Fan, MOO2 Fan, MOO3 needed too many changes = hopeless, MOO4 trending downward, getting older waiting for a MOO5 (a modern version of mostly MOO2).

plasmacannontime #20 Posted 11 August 2016 - 03:57 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 101
  • Member since:
    01-13-2016
Here is the full text for the 1st link, just in case that site goes down some day.
 
by Time » Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:10 pm
ya,
I remember it was the only game I new I would like before I bought it, so I preordered at $49.99 and the Handbook $10 more.
Boy, was that a waste of money!
 
Most of you have covered most of the bad stuff.
 
1. Star Lanes Suck!!!!!!
I enjoy the whole freedom of movement thing. Their my engines, let me go where I want to!
 
2. Diplomacy? I could get a trade treaty and not know how I benefited from it. Not to mention terms like casis belias? (or something like that) why introduce strange terms like that? Games are still played be young people too.
 
3. Too little info. on how anything is done.
 
4. Too little control.
 
5. The grant system sucked! I want to spend money to protect my colonies, not just watch forces come in and do little to respond.
 
6. I can't stand screen flipping! Minimize this.
 
7. Strange names on the tech list, instead of familiar names, made it less easy to adapt too.
If you stole antiagathics, just what did you get? How about a T.R.A.P.S. Logistic System? Frame of Reference Simulator? Public Service Ethos? Z Storage and Basing Facilities?
Just keep it simple. Keep the learning curve simple enough to get enough players to like your game, and you'll keep your fan base.
 
8. Races seemed too similar. They seemed too much like +1 here -1 there, lame.
 
9. They hid Subteranean in a readme file saying Klackon had it, but, not the actual effect, or if could be stolen, traded, replicated, researched, or purchased.
 
10. Complicated ground combat system. When I actually got some ground combat, I just used nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare'd every time. I didn't know any better, it just seemed like it would get this pain over faster, lol.
 
11. Senate. I could look down the guide, say wow, I'd like to suggest that and be unable to.
 
Any pluses?
few.
 
1. I tried to like the combat system. When you think about it. MOO1 stacks spacecraft, MOO2 forms lines like battlefield warfare from 200 years ago. and MOO3 did improve this. Fleets had rings of smaller ships around it to protect it. (of course, perhaps not every race may have thought of this at the same time, lol, and it was the only configuration available)
 
2. More ship sizes, MOO1 had 4, MOO2 had 6. 8-10 might have been a max I could live with. Of course, they couldn't stop there, there went to 14 different hull types (overkill).
 
3. When I heard that there were moons and zones to planets, I thought wow, now allies could inhabit moons of each other, and zones where appropiate. Such as Plains, Mountains, Ocean, Atmosphere, thinking an Aquatic could live in the Ocean while a scilicoid could live in the mountians, etc. Boy, that blew up in my face.
 
4. You could have more than one Orbital Platform around your planet
(nice). Of course, I couldn't figure out how to upgrade the weapons, they remained old and easily beatable later on. Nor could you build many missile base like MOO1. Geez, between the US and USSR during the cold war, we had a combined ICBM total of over 3000 missiles. (someone could look up the actual total) That would trash any alien attacking this planet, if we upgraded them correctly over time. But, MOO2 and 3 gave us 1.
 
5. I liked the seperation of races by type, Humanoid, Aquatic, Cybernetic, Geodic, etc. I would have simplified this to terrain types and created sub-classes of breed types (Harvester, Humanoid, Cybernetic would all inhabit normal terran worlds; Insecoid and Geodic, Subtanerrean worlds; Aquatic, Saurian water based worlds; Ethereans, (glad they added them, but, they sucked) Gas Giants worlds.
 
6. Different race modifiers for race in ground combat(Initiative, Number of attacks, hits, etc.) Nice, though I wished i could see a comprehensive total somewhere, so I could tell what was better.
 
probably more.
This is just getting too long for me now, lol.
 
Bottom line. MOO4, if created, has to be better than MOO3, they better listen to customer feedback, or they will be doomed to bomb again.

MOO1 Fan, MOO2 Fan, MOO3 needed too many changes = hopeless, MOO4 trending downward, getting older waiting for a MOO5 (a modern version of mostly MOO2).




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users