Jump to content


Lets be honest MOO1 and 2 combat sucked


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

Endsor #41 Posted 29 February 2016 - 01:56 AM

    Commander

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

View PostPostApocalypse, on 29 February 2016 - 01:23 AM, said:

 

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

 

Yes exactly. Why do all MOO 2 critics ignore this easy and obvious solution? RT is not necessary to solve the problem of many ships, the auto button already solved it 20 years ago.

Zinegata #42 Posted 29 February 2016 - 02:53 AM

    Ensign

  • Players
  • 4
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

People really need to stop seeing MoO2 with nostalgia-tinted glasses.

 

MoO2 blew people's minds away because it had a tactical combat layer on top of the strategic layer, but that was nearly two full decades ago. The problem which nobody wants to admit is that it's remembered primarily because of the novelty of the tactical battles; not because they were actually any good.

 

Most tactical battles were in fact decided well before the battle was actually fought - namely when the ships were designed (which includes the tech level of the weapons) and how many ships were in battle. If you brought an equal number of ships with better guns you will win. If you bring more ships with equal tech you will win. If you designed ships using one of the "trap" option weapons that were suboptimal while your opponent didn't then you lose. If you designed ships with specific cheese setups that the AI can't deal with then you win. 

 

The actual battles themselves were mostly "move each ship forward, then fire". There was nothing actually tactical about it. Indeed, every "example" cited in the thread is a function of bringing along specific tech and builds decided before battle and not of anything you actually did during it. Making the new MoO resolve the battles via real-time with limited control doesn't actually change things very much from the old MoO2 model. 

 

This was in fact in many ways the exact same problem with the attempts to remake Master of Magic (particularly Fallen Enchantress). People kept saying they want tactical combat but kept forgetting that Master of Magic's tactical combat was about cheezing combos that was built at the strat layer, and the "tactical combat" was mostly just moving men a few squares forward and stabbing or shooting. This is why one of the most successful attempts to make a Fantasy 4X - the Civ 4 Mod Fall from Heaven - did away with tactical combat altogether in favor of just allowing allowing you to make your cheeze units at the strat level.


Edited by Zinegata, 29 February 2016 - 03:01 AM.


BionicDance #43 Posted 29 February 2016 - 03:02 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 699
  • Member since:
    02-27-2016

Block Quote

 People really need to stop seeing MoO2 with nostalgia-tinted glasses.

 

The last time I played MoO2 was less than a month ago. This isn't nostalgia; the game still holds up, and it's still addictive as hell.

 

 



Zinegata #44 Posted 29 February 2016 - 03:29 AM

    Ensign

  • Players
  • 4
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostBionicDance, on 29 February 2016 - 03:02 AM, said:

 

The last time I played MoO2 was less than a month ago. This isn't nostalgia; the game still holds up, and it's still addictive as hell.

 

 

 

Nope, this is simply you ignoring the real argument that its tactical combat sucked. This is why you didn't address how it was mostly "move forward, fire weapons", and that all the real work was mostly done at the strategic layer. What guns you brought and how many ships you brought determines victory. The actual combat itself had almost no tactics involved. You're not going to be doing any "Picard Maneuver". Hell, small ships can't even screen big ships like they are supposed to in real naval combat.

 

Really, this issue crops up all the time with nostalgic players stuck playing old games. The reason why you are addicted isn't because MoO was all that good. It was good for the time but design has moved on

 

The real reason you're addicted is because of your own self-validation issues. Your self-image of being a great strategist/tactician is dependent on the false idea that the game you beat is the bestest ever. This is why you're willfully blind to the fact that its tactical combat is actually bad - because to admit otherwise is to admit that your self-image of being a great tactician isn't actually true.


Edited by Zinegata, 29 February 2016 - 03:31 AM.


BionicDance #45 Posted 29 February 2016 - 04:21 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 699
  • Member since:
    02-27-2016

Block Quote

 Nope, this is simply you ignoring the real argument that its tactical combat sucked

 

Telling me what I'm thinking or doing...? That's a paddlin'.

 

The fact is that I did and still do like the combat in MoO2. Difficult as that may be for you to believe.

 

Block Quote

 This is why you didn't address how it was mostly "move forward, fire weapons"

 

Except that there was more than that. Based on a ship's range, how much and the type of weapons it had, there were reasons to move in certain directions, to fire at one ship instead of another, or to go for the planet instead.

It's certainly more nuanced and strategic than the combat in this travesty of a sequel/remake.

 

Maybe the problem here is how you played the game. Y'ever consider that? *pointed look*

 

Block Quote

 The real reason you're addicted is because of your own self-validation issues. Your self-image of being a great strategist/tactician is dependent on the false idea that the game you beat is the bestest ever.

 

*facepalm* We're done talking now. Only the forum rules keep me from explaining my true disdain for the reasons behind your--and I use the term with all due irony--thought process on this matter, and in the language most appropriate.

 

Believe it.

 

 

 



JosEPh_II #46 Posted 29 February 2016 - 04:26 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 336
  • Member since:
    01-22-2016

View PostDemandred848, on 25 February 2016 - 01:40 AM, said:

I thought Moo 1 was a ton of fun to fight in. Was always hilarious to fly up to a stack of hundreds of little ships and black hole half of them into oblivion instantly!

 

Moo2 was pretty good, until late game when you have fleets of 20, 30, 40, or more titans and doom stars fighting in each battle. It got absurdly tedious and annoying controlling each individual ship.

 

There is a fine line to be walked, what I have seen so far of the combat in the new one, while it looks and sounds cool, seems pretty lame. But I sure as hell have no interest in microing every single ship constantly.

We are still in pretty early stages. Hopefully things will get introduced to improve things.

 

Totally disagree with this whole assessment, hope it was Not listened too. When it comes to the space battles I want control IF it's TBS. But since it's RTS then you can not have the control you had in MoO and MoO2 or even MoO3 vs current system in game (which is a clone of Armada2526).

 

So we all will have to adjust our expectations.

 

JosEPh

 

 


Edited by JosEPh_II, 29 February 2016 - 04:26 AM.

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

Bastilean #47 Posted 29 February 2016 - 05:05 AM

    Ensign

  • Players
  • 7
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

Zinegata

 

Your argument is a cop-out for the developers.  People want a dynamic combat system.  If people cannot launch boarding parties, mind control enemy ships, use tractor beams, teleport around the battle field and perform a number of other really interesting tactical combat items this won't be a master of anything.  No tactical combat means I am not interested.

 

Playing spreadsheet wars is how you build the resources for those really fun tactical scenarios.  MoO3 was soul less and dead.



Endsor #48 Posted 29 February 2016 - 06:40 AM

    Commander

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

View PostZinegata, on 29 February 2016 - 03:29 AM, said:

Nope, this is simply you ignoring the real argument that its tactical combat sucked.

 

This is nothing more than your opinion and a very minority opinion at that, your reasoning is just ridiculously wrong-headed. Most people including myself strongly disagree with you. MOO 2 had the deepest, most detailed tactical combat ever produced and no 4x game - especially MOO 4 - has ever even come close to matching it.

Mathias_Zealot #49 Posted 29 February 2016 - 07:55 AM

    Captain

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

Not that I agree with Zinegata, but really? deepest, most detailed tactical combat ever produced?


EA4 Weapon Data (5-27-16)

Endsor #50 Posted 29 February 2016 - 08:27 AM

    Commander

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

View PostMathias_Zealot, on 29 February 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

Not that I agree with Zinegata, but really? deepest, most detailed tactical combat ever produced?

 

Please, name me a 4x space game with deeper, more detailed PLAYER-CONTROLLED tactical combat than MOO 2, recent or old I dont care. I hope you can, I'll go and play it immediately.

Vahouth #51 Posted 29 February 2016 - 08:43 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Players
  • 1,288
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

MoO2 battle awesomeness in battle is a collaboration effort of both ship customization & tactical battle management. This is the reason it is one of the best if not the best. IMO the same depth of management could be achieved in RT also if done right.

As for other games with deep tactical combat, I hold my breath for Battlefleet Gothic Armada.

 



Lsathranil #52 Posted 29 February 2016 - 09:04 AM

    Ensign

  • Players
  • 7
  • Member since:
    02-27-2016

View PostMathias_Zealot, on 29 February 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

Not that I agree with Zinegata, but really? deepest, most detailed tactical combat ever produced?

 

It was definitely one of the deepest, just consider features like firing different weapon systems at different targets, turning after firing to expose a side with shield remaining, point defense, enveloping, boarding, disabling, shield piercing, crew killing, firing at missiles, teleporting, area damaging, warp interdicting, planetary weapons, star bases participating, armored missiles, fighters, bombers, heavy interceptors. I have played no other 4X tactical combat where patient and careful ship control, like waiting, turning, firing the right weapons at the right targets could mean a victory against overwhelming enemy. And all this detail carries over to the ship designer where all the different weapon types and mounts (point defense, firing arc, heavy etc) become

even more real and important and carefully designing ships (and subsequently fleets) even at low tech levels can mean a huge difference. 

 

I wholeheartedly disagree with the OP. :)

 

 


Edited by Lsathranil, 29 February 2016 - 09:06 AM.


HoundDogZA #53 Posted 29 February 2016 - 03:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29
  • Member since:
    01-10-2016

View PostM002mod, 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

 

Star lanes I kind of get if I were to imagine a 3D map superimposed to 2D.  This is how I'm dealing with it at the moment.  I'm not sure if I like it though.  I'm giving it some time.  

 

Also as you say "range restricted travel" was an important aspect that made MOO2 feel like the tech you researched played a bigger role.  No use declaring war with someone you couldn't get to, and if you hadn't researched the right fuel cells you could be outmatched by someone who has.  So it made choosing or negotiating that tech more important.  I agree with you here.  

 

I still think its possible to make the realtime combat system as tactical as MOO2 given the pause and slow options and more ship design features but I don't know if they will.  :/



Erroll_the_Elder #54 Posted 29 February 2016 - 04:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 24
  • Member since:
    02-18-2016
I liked Moo2 Combat.

Harper73 #55 Posted 29 February 2016 - 05:08 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 214
  • Member since:
    06-28-2014
All these GREAT space battles happen at the start of a game or 1 on 1 ship battles early in the game. Once you moved up the tech tree and the fleets got larger, all this strategy went away and then the game became the great fleet ball of death and just cleaning out planets.
 
I played MOO2 right up until this game came out. I hardly ever did the combat because it was so mater of fact that it got boring. If anything I would hit AUTO and watch how my ships did just to make sure my design was any good. I focused more on my empire and technology because that mattered more.
 
And 1 other thing. We played vs the computer. I think this game is being built around multi player. I hope they do add tactical combat to multi player.
 
One reason I do like the new RTS part is because.
1. Both sides get to fire.
2. Both sides gets to pick what ship they are going to fire out.
3. You can slow down combat to get to a point that you can control your fleet.
 
Do I think the new combat is great right now, NO I think it has a lot of room for improvement.
 
 
 


plasmacannontime #56 Posted 29 February 2016 - 06:32 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 102
  • Member since:
    01-13-2016

I think some naysayers might be missing the point. MOO2 is very well liked by a great many people. Just the way it was made.

Is it the Worst ever. No.

Is it the Best ever, probably not.

Is it a great balance for the amount of time it takes to play 1 game? I think so.

 

I haven finished StarCraft games in under 28 minutes. I know going into every game that they will be fast games which are great when I don't have a lot of time to play a game.

A single Civilization game can take weeks to finish. Great when I have small amounts of time I can dedicate over a long period of time.

Eve is effectively never ending.

MOO2, I could start on a Friday and know by Sunday night whether I won or not. It fits in as the perfect weekend game.

If one makes it more complicated, it takes longer, like MOO3 did, and doesn't fit into any time I allot for it. It's no longer the perfect game for the weekend.

So is the combat simplified by your standards? It sounds so.
Is it good enough for others for what they want? To many that is a definite yes.

I for one do not want to lengthen the amount of time I spend on the game.

Just because the developers decided to add artificial lines in space, that I must follow and waste my time does not make this a better game experience.

It slows things down for no gain in fun or efficiency of my actions. I have better use of my time.

All of these things have to be taken into consideration when producing a game.

MOO2 has done a fine job and I like it as a my perfect weekend game.


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).

VengefulTick #57 Posted 01 March 2016 - 12:40 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14
  • Member since:
    02-29-2016

View Postplasmacannontime, on 29 February 2016 - 12:07 AM, said:

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.

 

I can't give you a thumbs ups (why the heck is there a limit?!); but I'll quote you and say, "Well said!"



Provinfistoris #58 Posted 01 March 2016 - 01:57 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 175
  • Member since:
    02-27-2016

plasmacannontime, on 29 February 2016 - 12:07 AM, said:

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.

 

Yeah really. I am incredibly upset with how this game is turning out. I wanted a revival of MoO 2. What we're getting is MoO 3(2). It's incredibly bad. 

 

To those arguing MoO 2 battles are bad? Even at late game, MoO 2 battles have tactical depth. I was fighting against my friend who has playing Sakkra, and I was playing a custom silicoid(Unification, +2 Prod, forget the disads) I churned out a 50 titan fleet to fight his 150 titans. I decimated him, because while I had similar technology, I had better ship designs. (Heavy Armor, hard shields, shield cap, multi-phase shields, structural analyzer, lightning field + all the heavy plasma cannons they could handle) 3 to 1 odds, I decimated his fleet only losing 2 ships. Tactical nuances. That's what made the difference. While he was moving forward and firing, I was moving into flanking and hitting his rear and sides. He only used Forward mount weapons so that really hurt his ability to work. Early game battles are exciting. Late game less so, but still have room for tactical nuance.

 

This dumbed down battle system is absolutely terrible. I hope that the devs will turn things around, but I get the feeling they aren't listening to our feedback.

 

 



Harper73 #59 Posted 01 March 2016 - 03:32 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 214
  • Member since:
    06-28-2014
Now there are two MOO2 games. Do we all remember the 2.0 before the big 2.5 update.
 
The big update that made M002 so much better. The first MOO2 was good but if you went back and played the Moo2 right out of the box, it was a different game.
 
Even MOO2 was made better by updates. Just think with positive suggestions how well this game could be.


RayFowler #60 Posted 01 March 2016 - 04:14 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 217
  • Member since:
    07-02-2015

View PostZinegata, on 28 February 2016 - 08:53 PM, said:

The actual battles themselves were mostly "move each ship forward, then fire". There was nothing actually tactical about it.

 

Maybe we're playing a different game.

 

I've had fights in MOO1 where my stack of ships would kite the enemy missiles around the map while others moved in for the kill.

 

I've had fights where I used repulsors to push enemy ships around where I needed them, especially if they had 1-range weapons.

 

I've had fights where I lured defenders away and then teleported/bombed a colony into oblivion, forcing their fleet to retreat.

 

I've had fights where I've had to recloak ships while the torpedoes recharged.

 

I've had fights where my highly maneuvarable stack would move in, shoot, and then retreat out of range (<3 warp dissipators)

 

At no point in those particular battles was I thinking, "ok, move closer. now pew pew"

 

 

 

 


Master of Orion fan since 1993




4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users