62 replies to this topic

[Jukelo]

The combat in MOO2 didn't suck, it was pretty decent, but by no mean was it the best. That would go to Sword of the Stars. Which incidentally also had star lanes for some of its races. 

Still, Sots 1 proved that you can have very fun real time combat. 

[TheTrueObelus]

Respectfully disagree with the OP.

[NinjaLA]

and sword of the stars II proved that lightning has a hard time striking twice for some franchises, but I agree.. it was very solid...   something a tiny bit more like that (but with faster combats) is exactly what it feels like they are aiming for with MoO 4

[Endsor]

Jukelo, on 28 February 2016 - 01:13 AM, said:

That would go to Sword of the Stars. Which incidentally also had star lanes for some of its races. 

 

Yes they were OPTIONAL which meant if you hated them you just avoid the humans. If only MOO 4 was so advanced and flexible..... but no they force you to use the horrid things whether you hate or not.

[HoundDogZA]

I'm going to give the new real time system a chance first.  I enjoyed the old turn-based tactical style but it also had its own weaknesses.  As for the new system:

 

• It's still EA so I expect more functionality, balances and improvements will follow.
• You can pause.  This is not hard.  Play Baldurs Gate and see how many times you mash the space bar to pause combat.  No one complains about one of the best RPG's in the world with this system :P I'd even suggest WG incorporates half speed or quarter speed into the new MOO (EDIT:  Just double checked and they have ).
• I can see some new/interesting tactics i.e. kiting with long range missiles/weapons, flanking with a squadron of frigs, maneuverability matters more here, tanking and protecting high DPS fighters in the front line and target choice matters more here also (you don't necessarily go for the big guns first).  The weapon directional choice in design also matters more now (Maybe they could even incorporate shield strength angle choice).  I imagine stealth tech would be awesome for surprises as well.

 

Maybe they could give a choice between tactical turn based/RT but I suspect this would be a big undertaking to code?

Edited by HoundDogZA, 28 February 2016 - 08:08 AM.

[Michael_Faber]

Baldurs Gate is no comparison since you never attack parts of people basically you only pause the game to select the weapon or spell and to position your heroes.In MOO2 things are far more complicated. I dont even think that RTS would work on the same level as turn based combat does.

[HoundDogZA]

Michael_Faber, on 28 February 2016 - 08:11 AM, said:

Baldurs Gate is no comparison since you never attack parts of people basically you only pause the game to select the weapon or spell and to position your heroes.In MOO2 things are far more complicated. I dont even think that RTS would work on the same level as turn based combat does.

 

In BG you don't just "position people" lol But anyway point taken...

 

So whats the difference between pausing and having turn based though?  Why can't the same level of complexity/micro-management be incorporated into real-time?  I think it quite easily can.

 

Except real-time isn't played out like a game of chess basically.  The biggest flaw with turn based (not chess but here when you move all 10 ships in a row with ranged fire) is the first move always has advantage.  For fairness, thanks to my OCD, I prefer simultaneous movement

[Aquasarrious]

Harper73, on 25 February 2016 - 06:36 AM, said:

I can see where the developers get the idea that tactical combat is not that important. MOO1 and MOO2 combat honest is kind of boring.

 

Let me give a few points:

When combat started you are already in range of all heavy weapons and missiles

When you get high enough tech who ever had the first shot normally one because each ship could take out another ship with 1 shot.

SIZE mattered unless you had WAY higher tech.

Once you got plasma cannons it was pretty much over.

One the main map screen you would chase around a fleet or would have the fleet chase around you.

Sometime the battles got so big it would TAKE FOREVER to finish them and again it would still come down to who had the first shot.

 

Where I do think the developers could make this game better is thinking of a way to make tactical combat strategic BUT also at the same time enjoyable.

 

 

 

 

As a big fan of Moo2, you're wrong on everything.
First, why would you chase around a fleet instead of destroying/capturing the planets it left undefended ? Do you remember this is not a ship wrecking simulation but a strategy game ? It's your own fault if you do stupid stuff, you know.
As for the combat:
You had so much choice in the strategies you could use... Using Neutron cannons and tractor beams to steal the enemy's ships, using cloaking devices and stasis to control the whole fight (fighting one enemy ship at a time), sabotaging enemy ships parts, interceptors, subspatial teleporters to get in the enemy's back, etc.
So no, not the first guy to shoot that wins. You obviously never played against humans or the computer set to Impossible.
I'll give you the last point, that some battles took way too much time because of the sheer number of ships in the battle (but i'm not talking about 20 or 30 here...more like 100). But aside from that, the combat was nearly flawless.

I think the main concern i have with this game is that the developers don't look like they have played Moo2 which is clearly the best entry in the series as far as strategy goes.
I mean, the game seems to have so few in common with Moo2, i'm not sure i'll be even testing it. I wanted this game to be the sequel Moo deserves, i don't think it will be.
No leaders, real time combat (without a real strategic way to win battles due to clever ship design like it was the case with Moo2), waypoints,

[Dave_Astator]

when this game was announced i hoped to see best of both moos in battle system. - starting from the single-ship control and ending with controlling thousands of ships. 
Good realtime battles can exist, but i can recite of only one example when rt battle was sucessfuly merged with turn-based style - XCOM3 apocalypse battles. The thing is that it was basically turn based battles without turns. Characters followed same mechanics as in turn based, and battlefield retained cell structure, therefore making battle organized and same time fluent, that was brilliant.
Approaching realism and removing battlefield structure brings combat closer to arcade style rather than strategic battle.
And also i dont like how planet was put away from the battlefield, it was a brilliant idea to have a planet as battle unit. And in the end id favor unrealistic but conceptual battles, which are fun to play. Right now its just fun to watch.

[Ogarious]

Harper73, on 25 February 2016 - 06:36 AM, said:

I can see where the developers get the idea that tactical combat is not that important. MOO1 and MOO2 combat honest is kind of boring.

 

Let me give a few points:

When combat started you are already in range of all heavy weapons and missiles

When you get high enough tech who ever had the first shot normally one because each ship could take out another ship with 1 shot.

SIZE mattered unless you had WAY higher tech.

Once you got plasma cannons it was pretty much over.

One the main map screen you would chase around a fleet or would have the fleet chase around you.

Sometime the battles got so big it would TAKE FOREVER to finish them and again it would still come down to who had the first shot.

 

Where I do think the developers could make this game better is thinking of a way to make tactical combat strategic BUT also at the same time enjoyable.

 

 

Umm, no.  It didn't.  For the time MoO and MoO2 were the best of the best.  There is a lot of arguing over Turn based combat or free flow combat, I love them both.  Maybe the answer is to put in a option to have one or the other, it would be a lot of work.  But you would make a lot of profit off of it too.  There are people not buying the game because of the free flow combat.   Make it a option and everybody will be happy.  Hell, I'd probably spend equal time playing both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ogarious]

Aquasarrious, on 28 February 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

 

As a big fan of Moo2, you're wrong on everything.
First, why would you chase around a fleet instead of destroying/capturing the planets it left undefended ? Do you remember this is not a ship wrecking simulation but a strategy game ? It's your own fault if you do stupid stuff, you know.
As for the combat:
You had so much choice in the strategies you could use... Using Neutron cannons and tractor beams to steal the enemy's ships, using cloaking devices and stasis to control the whole fight (fighting one enemy ship at a time), sabotaging enemy ships parts, interceptors, subspatial teleporters to get in the enemy's back, etc.
So no, not the first guy to shoot that wins. You obviously never played against humans or the computer set to Impossible.
I'll give you the last point, that some battles took way too much time because of the sheer number of ships in the battle (but i'm not talking about 20 or 30 here...more like 100). But aside from that, the combat was nearly flawless.

I think the main concern i have with this game is that the developers don't look like they have played Moo2 which is clearly the best entry in the series as far as strategy goes.
I mean, the game seems to have so few in common with Moo2, i'm not sure i'll be even testing it. I wanted this game to be the sequel Moo deserves, i don't think it will be.
No leaders, real time combat (without a real strategic way to win battles due to clever ship design like it was the case with Moo2), waypoints,

Lets not forget that the game is not out the door ready yet.  I think leaders will be coming.  There are also some tech missing and things like mind controlling colonies missing as well.  This is not the finished product.

 

As far as your other point concerning Turn based as apposed to Free form combat.  Both have their merits, both have their weaknesses.  The only real way to solve this arguement is to put both into the final version of the game and make it a option choice.  If they dont do this at launch, I would hope they would expand it into the game later.  Some word from the devs on this would be great.

[HoundDogZA]

Aquasarrious, on 28 February 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

 

As a big fan of Moo2, you're wrong on everything.
First, why would you chase around a fleet instead of destroying/capturing the planets it left undefended ? Do you remember this is not a ship wrecking simulation but a strategy game ? It's your own fault if you do stupid stuff, you know.
As for the combat:
You had so much choice in the strategies you could use... Using Neutron cannons and tractor beams to steal the enemy's ships, using cloaking devices and stasis to control the whole fight (fighting one enemy ship at a time), sabotaging enemy ships parts, interceptors, subspatial teleporters to get in the enemy's back, etc.
So no, not the first guy to shoot that wins. You obviously never played against humans or the computer set to Impossible.
I'll give you the last point, that some battles took way too much time because of the sheer number of ships in the battle (but i'm not talking about 20 or 30 here...more like 100). But aside from that, the combat was nearly flawless.

I think the main concern i have with this game is that the developers don't look like they have played Moo2 which is clearly the best entry in the series as far as strategy goes.
I mean, the game seems to have so few in common with Moo2, i'm not sure i'll be even testing it. I wanted this game to be the sequel Moo deserves, i don't think it will be.
No leaders, real time combat (without a real strategic way to win battles due to clever ship design like it was the case with Moo2), waypoints,

 

I'm not sure why any of that cannot be incorporated into real-time combat?  Or am I missing something.  Don't get me wrong I love MOO2 but I'm not convinced yet that the new system absolutely will not work given time and feedback from community.

[Aquasarrious]

HoundDogZA, on 28 February 2016 - 03:07 PM, said:

 

I'm not sure why any of that cannot be incorporated into real-time combat?  Or am I missing something.  Don't get me wrong I love MOO2 but I'm not convinced yet that the new system absolutely will not work given time and feedback from community.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm replying to some guy saying the combat "sucked" in Moo2...and most people will agree it didn't xD
Right now, the game isn't anywhere near master of orion 2...i'm hoping they'll improve it but it's the way it is.

[M002mod]

moo1 and moo2 have very different game mechanics, but a couple of things they have in common 'the pillars of moo':

- galaxy maps with free to roam, range restricted travel 

- powerful custom ship designers

- excellent tactical combat, providing a host of tactical combat options

[JeanBaptisteEmanuelZorg]

M002mod, on 28 February 2016 - 10:50 PM, said:

moo1 and moo2 have very different game mechanics, but a couple of things they have in common 'the pillars of moo':

- galaxy maps with free to roam, range restricted travel 

- powerful custom ship designers

- excellent tactical combat, providing a host of tactical combat options

 

BUT we have a super "Product vision" guy, a visionary who knows what is THE best solution. One, who is one mile ahead of all the others. I'm a bit drunk, BUT why the hell they can't separate ship movement from shooting in that HYBRID RTS innovation ?

Edited by JeanBaptisteEmanuelZorg, 28 February 2016 - 11:02 PM.

[plasmacannontime]

I'll have to log in again tomorrow, as I am out of my daily allotted thumbs up.

Otherwise kudos to TheTrueObelus  , Aquasarrious and M002mod for being spot on.

It seems as if Wargaming.net didn't understand just how much the fans liked MOO2 and how much we hated MOO3.

Incorporating star lanes from MOO3 destroyed hope for an awesome revival of MOO1 and MOO2 playstyle.

Combat should have taken their inspiration from MOO1 and MOO2 by combining what both did well.

No Star Lanes.

Free Movement to the stars limited by fuel cell range.

Use mostly MOO2 style of tactical combat, but add MOO1's stacking for ships of similar types up to some limit, say 50 ships max per stack.

This would reduce the total number of units that had to be moved on the tactical map which slowed down combat in MOO2 for huge battles.

Which I have to say, wasn't that bad to begin with. Rarely did I actually need 100+ battleships/titans/doom stars to win a planet.

Lots of choices for the user to decide what their style of combat would be for that game.

-- I remember tachyon beams from MOO1 which fired a beam in a small arc that carried over damage from one destroyed ship to another in the same stack.

-- I remember MOO1 Megabolt Cannons which were inherently more accurate, so if I hadn't didn't have the option of a better computer, I could use it that game and still hit with beams.

-- As already mentioned MOO2's Neutron Blasters or Death Rays to kill crew and capture ships.

-- MOO2's creation of Light Carriers to Heavy Carriers of Fighters which worked even for those with poor beam options.

-- Obviously missiles types of increasing damage, but MOO2's MIRV, fast, armored, ECCM missiles brought in a new element MOO1 didn't have.

-- Torpedoes could have been improved upon. I rarely saw cause to use torps. My foe would have to have very strong shields that I was having difficulty penetrating for me to resort to use them.

-- So many optional equipment for further customization it made each game interesting.

Though not the best picks, I would occasionally choose ones to hinder myself just to make the game more challenging, such as Feudal, Uncreative or cyber picks.

I remember in MOO2, the first time I saw a Meklar Battleship repair itself during combat faster than I was damaging their ship. That was intimidating. I saw MOO4 took that away too.

 

I don't know what's going on, but MOO4 or MOO as it's now called (no that won't get confusing ever, said no one) is turning out to be a dumbed down version of MOO3.

Less complicated, but with the same stupid star lanes.

Using MOO1 races, pretty graphics and great voice actors aren't enough to overcome star lanes, poor tactical battles and poor diplomacy options.

It's not like anyone had 2 decades to read varies forums, listen to the fans and build what we many of us hoped they would, or wait, they did have 2 decades.

Other companies tried but couldn't, because of copyright laws or personal delusions of what made MOO1&2 great as they created their own now faded sub-par versions of this great game.

[M002mod]

JeanBaptisteEmanuelZorg, on 28 February 2016 - 10:54 PM, said:

 

BUT we have a super "Product vision" guy, a visionary who knows what is THE best solution. One, who is one mile ahead of all the others. I'm a bit drunk, BUT why the hell they can't separate ship movement from shooting in that HYBRID RTS innovation ?

 

http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2016/02/master-of-orion-chris-keeling-interview/

 

"Chris: While I would have been hard put to find anything good about MOO3 a few years ago, working so closely with the original games and even the members of the original team who helped us stay true to the spirit of the original legends has actually helped me to sort out bits of that game that were actually good, if only they weren’t part of a tragically unfinished game. In fact, while we had spent over a year working on a turn-based combat system, it was these consultants who suggested that real-time strategy was really the future of the genre."

 

Ahhh, so now it was the consultants who recomended RT combat  (for the 10% of players that use tactical anyway)

[ /cynism off ]

Edited by M002mod, 29 February 2016 - 12:18 AM.

[NinjaLA]

M002mod, on 28 February 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

moo1 and moo2 have very different game mechanics, but a couple of things they have in common 'the pillars of moo':

- galaxy maps with free to roam, range restricted travel 

- powerful custom ship designers

- excellent tactical combat, providing a host of tactical combat options

 

I just wanted to point out here that in both moo 1 and 2 (but especially 1) the AI doesn't have the same range restrictions you do and regularly cheats for it's own benefit.  

[JeanBaptisteEmanuelZorg]

M002mod, on 29 February 2016 - 12:08 AM, said:

 

Ahhh, so now it was the consultants who recomended RT combat  (for the 10% of players that use tactical anyway)

[ /cynism off ]

 

I've forced myself to stop thinking about SWOT analysis of EA and tried to select things that i liked back in 1993 about MOO1. AND "the grass was not greener"... I'm coming to an idea, that i like MOO1 even more now, then i liked MOO2. New MOO at the current state is a shell of nice UI, Music and graphics but nothing more. It looks like good money were spent but with no soul or should i say wisdom ?

Edited by JeanBaptisteEmanuelZorg, 29 February 2016 - 12:49 AM.

[PostApocalypse]

JamieK81, on 25 February 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

 

So, are you telling me, if you and the AI enemy had 20-30 ships, you would use each one to take out each of the other's ships? it would take a long time and while MoO2 combat was cool and perfect in the early game, but once you have loads of ships, it becomes tedious.

 

In this regard, real-time is preferable.

 

You could turn on auto in the middle of a battle to help mop up and make those large battles less tedious.