Will you purchase MOO3 or Civ3?

[loinburger]

Within a few months (years), both Masters of Orion 3 and Civilization 3 will be out on the shelves; both are grand strategy games, and both are sequels to games with solid reputations. Which game, if any, will you purchase?

I for one will almost definitely purchase MOO3; I'll have to check the reviews to see whether I should buy Civ3. My reasoning is that MOO3 appears to be a significant advancement over MOO2, while I'm a little worried that Civ3 might not be enough of a change from Civ2 to make its purchase worthwhile.

[campmajor!]

I have never played moo 1 or 2. I don't even know what it's about. Is it something like civ?

I do know that I'll buy civ3, no matter what. Just so that I know what I'm talking about!

[Provost Harrison]

Same here, I have never played MOO. But I am interested in what is going on in MOO3. But I would expect that I will end up buying Civ3, it would take nuclear war to stop me I would expect

Although I'll definitely check out MOO3. Anyone have a link for information?

[SerapisIV]

I can't wait for Civ3. About MOO3, I'm gonna wait and see how the whole imperial focus idea plays out. Space civs have tried to eliminate micromanagement before (ie, Imperium Galactica 2) but most of those games feel flat, just weren't as involved a gaming experience as an average Civ game.

[loinburger]

I have never played moo 1 or 2. I don't even know what it's about. Is it something like civ?

MOO1/MOO2 are similar to Civ. In both games you start colonies (in MOO you colonize planets, in Civ you found cities) and build structures on those planets/cities in order to increase production/population/etc. You also make tech advances in both games. The biggest differences I can think of are that MOO has tactical combat, allows you to design your own units, does not have terrain improvements (except as abstracted planetary structures), does not have Wonders, does not allow you to change government types mid-game, allows you to customize the strengths and weaknesses of your race (civilization), and has unique admirals/governers who can increase the abilities of your fleet(s) and the output of your colonies.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Although I'll definitely check out MOO3. Anyone have a link for information?

http://moo3.quicksilver.com/

Had MOO 1 & 2. Gave both away. If there is a demo on MOO 3, I will play it before I buy the game. Still have all version of Civ.

[Rasputin]

moo is the same as civ except it uses cows instead of humans

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Civ got me first and I don't have enought time to learn MOO any more... well that's me... anyway I am more of a earth guy. Space is for others to explore and rule...

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by campmajor!
I have never played moo 1 or 2. I don't even know what it's about. Is it something like civ?

I do know that I'll buy civ3, no matter what. Just so that I know what I'm talking about!

MOO2 is pretty much as technophile described. MOO1, the classic, is a lot different. the population is in the millions instead of 1 or 2 citizens, like in civ, and you adjust your priorities by sliding bars instead of moving people around. it also allowed for immense fleets (sometimes over a thousand ships) you could construct. The real cool thing about both MOO and MOO2 is the spaceship design. If you've played AC, the units workshop could be considered a pale shadow of the possibilities with the MOO spaceship design.

As for myself, I will definitely buy civ3. maybe my first preorder ever! MOO3 has me doubtful, since MOO2 pretty much sucked and the imperial focus sounds like a serious backfire. I'll play the demo for free, but don't count on me actually plopping money for it.

[Urban Ranger]

The original MoO is far superior to MoO 2 with one exception: you can't upgrade ships. Technical combat in MoO 2 is an interesting addition but I can do without it.

There are also some small errors in technophile's description, but I can't be arsed to fix it

I'll probably buy Civ 3 just on Sid's reputation alone, but MoO 3 sounds it's biting off too much it can chew. I'll see if I can playtest a "popular" version of it before I decide. If it can't run on my Windoze box forget it.


FB,

The Unit Workshop in SMAC is better since you can have a large number of unit types, as opposed to MoO where you are limited to six, a nonsensical restriction.

[Trdi]

I'll buy CIV 3 and maybe MOO 3. Moo 2 was phantastic, but I'm worried about the new stuff, it will be a RTS !!

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Rasputin
moo is the same as civ except it uses cows instead of humans

Rasputin, you have drink too much Vodka!

[Zealot]

Originally posted by joseph1944
Had MOO 1 & 2. Gave both away. If there is a demo on MOO 3, I will play it before I buy the game. Still have all version of Civ.

If you can kill the guardian with only merculite missiles and zortium armor (in MoO2) like I can, you will surely still be playing this game (like me), because it has an immense range of weapons combination, wich can truly kick butts on MP games...

I'm going to buy both games, because they will surely be good games! Of course, if I sense that there is a risk of low support for MP gaming, like it happened with SMAC, I'll stick to a pirated version! So sue me! (no, don't do it, I'm kidding!)

[November Adam]

Civ 3 and Moo2 are definetly eagerly anticipated by myself. Civ, was the very first computer game I bought. I didn't have a computer. My roomate at college let me play it on his computer.

Moo2 was the second game I bought, again with out a computer.
This time bugging a friend from college.

So now that I am all grown up and have my own computer I can play these games without annoying anyone, except maybe my wife.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

FB,

The Unit Workshop in SMAC is better since you can have a large number of unit types, as opposed to MoO where you are limited to six, a nonsensical restriction.

OK, that was a nonsensical restriction, but all those things you could stuff onto a ship! do I go with 6 heavy blast cannons, 10 ion beams, 18 heavy lasers, or 26 regular lasers! or do I make room for another special. Hmmnn.. If I downgrade my shields, I can stuff another blast cannon on.
so on and so on.

IMO, the AC workshop was a pale imitation.

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by Trdi
I'll buy CIV 3 and maybe MOO 3. Moo 2 was phantastic, but I'm worried about the new stuff, it will be a RTS !!

Actually, the combat will be in "real time"... the rest of the game will be turn based.

I am planning on buying both games: Civ3, being the sequel to one of the greatest strategy games ever made and Moo3, as it looks like it is taking steps to make the game more immersive.

I actually read a preview (sorry I forgot where) that read if Moo3 implements what they are promising, it may just be over-take Civ3 as far as depth and complexity is concerned. After all, the Quicksilver team is planning on making half the game a matter of actually managing your empire's internal affairs (religion, politics, leaders, and multiple cultures, as well as all the other goodies that we are all used to like trade, military infrastructure etc.)

From all of the official comments I have seen from Fraxis, I must add that the graphics of Civ3 look neat, Culture seems promising, and colonies look to be an interesting add-on to an already strong game.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Father Beast
OK, that was a nonsensical restriction, but all those things you could stuff onto a ship! do I go with 6 heavy blast cannons, 10 ion beams, 18 heavy lasers, or 26 regular lasers! or do I make room for another special. Hmmnn.. If I downgrade my shields, I can stuff another blast cannon on.
so on and so on.

IMO, the AC workshop was a pale imitation.

Hm. The MoO workshop is more involved, but to me there's hardly any decision to make since there are only 6 types you can have, and there are optimal configurations in almost any situation. That means I always go for shield-piercing phasers unless my opponents have Hard Shield and are using it on all the ships.

On the other hand, in SMAC I can make a cheap sea scout by sticking gun and probe team equipment on a cruiser chasis.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Hm. The MoO workshop is more involved, but to me there's hardly any decision to make since there are only 6 types you can have, and there are optimal configurations in almost any situation. That means I always go for shield-piercing phasers unless my opponents have Hard Shield and are using it on all the ships.

But that's precisely the beauty of it! In Moo you can equip a ship with reinforced hull and heavy armor in the place of shields, making your shield piercing lasers useless!
AND because you don't know if your opponent's fleet is or is not using shields, you might even "blow yourself" if your fleet is all equiped with nothing else but shield piercing lasers, because you don't need to use the latest technology to have the best spaceship defence (or offence)!
In SMAC, you have to use the highest and latest technology if you want to have superiority on the field!

BTW, did I say that I kill the guardian with ONLY 2 cruisers AND 4 frigates (all using merculite missiles) and (sometimes) not even lose a ship?

Too bad I'm not as good on Civ2 as I'm on MoO2...

[death_head]

I'll probably buy Civ3, but I'm not sure, because I only have played SMAC/X up to this point. I'm not familiar with MOO, so I can't see myself buying it. (damn comfort zone)

[loinburger]

One thing that might ruin MOO3 is if weapon design is made into a Rochambeaux; I don't think that this was really a problem in MOO or MOO2, but any time you have "offensive systems that nullify particular defensive systems" and "defensive systems that nullify particular offensive systems" you have the potential of turning a battle into a game of rock-paper-scissors. Civ and CivII did not have this potential, SMAC didn't have enough special systems to fall into this trap, and it appears that CivIII is employing the KISS technique and will also not fall into this trap. If MOO3's ship design system uses a Rochambeaux then I think that it would kill the game.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by technophile
One thing that might ruin MOO3 is if weapon design is made into a Rochambeaux;

What's a "Rochambeaux"?
And why would it kill the game? I think that it's like comparing the use of bayonets with machine guns! There are certain war technologies that become useless! Or like defending a city with even city walls with archers from an attack of modern tanks! Both city walls and archers are useless!
Yet, only howitzers ignored city walls, and could even get some scratch from archers (or our known phalanx vs battleship! )...

[TechWins]

I know I'm diffently going to buy Civ3. I really can't wait for the game but right now I"m still playing Civ2MGE a lot, so I can wait. I'm not really into that sci-fi stuff. If the MOO series was based around history, like Civ is, I would give some thought about buying the MOO3 but it's not.

I'll probably buy Civ3, but I'm not sure, because I only have played SMAC/X up to this point. I'm not familiar with MOO, so I can't see myself buying it. (damn comfort zone)

You should diffently buy Civ2MGE. I'm not sure what places you have out in Illinois but here, in Arizona, I usually buy my games at Best Buy. I only bought Civ2MGE about 8 months ago and it only cost me $15. So if Civ2MGE is anything around that price where you live you would be ripping Firaxis off. If you divide the price I've payed for the game by the hours that I've played the game it would be about 2 cents per hour! Not a bad deal.

[KrazyHorse]

Zealot, what he's complaining about is not that certain weapons are "better" than other weapons, but that you could have the following scenario: Design1 beats Design2. Design2 beats Design3. Design3 beats Design1.

Technophile, I don't see the problem with this. In real life (very simplified) Pikemen beat Cavalry, Cavalry beat Artillery, Artillery beat Pikemen. This sort of thing simply forces you to balance your forces with multiple designs.

[smellymummy]

Originally posted by technophile
but any time you have "offensive systems that nullify particular defensive systems" and "defensive systems that nullify particular offensive systems" you have the potential of turning a battle into a game of rock-paper-scissors

There is a game called Shogun Total War, where the units and warfare is just that, rock paper scissors (cavalry kills archers, archers kill spearmen, spearmen kills cavalry, etc). But the game is incredibly fun, because there is the element of strategy during battle (high ground, low ground, weather, morale, experience). I have my doubts that moo3 might not be able to balance things out and make it a fun game, and perhaps even remove the all too easy extermination method of winning.. but i'll still buy it, galaxy style TBS is fun.

Originally posted by TechWins
If the MOO series was based around history, like Civ is, I would give some thought about buying the MOO3 but it's not.

But it is! Historians from the future visited the quicksilver offices and laid out the grand scheme of the galaxy. You can read about it on their website.

Originally posted by TechWins
I'm not sure what places you have out in Illinois but here, in Arizona, I usually buy my games at Best Buy. I only bought Civ2MGE about 8 months ago and it only cost me $15.

I guess I shouldnt of went to frys electronics, they made me spit out $30 for MGE!

[Zealot]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Zealot, what he's complaining about is not that certain weapons are "better" than other weapons, but that you could have the following scenario: Design1 beats Design2. Design2 beats Design3. Design3 beats Design1.

Technophile, I don't see the problem with this. In real life (very simplified) Pikemen beat Cavalry, Cavalry beat Artillery, Artillery beat Pikemen. This sort of thing simply forces you to balance your forces with multiple designs.

But where is the strategy?!? Aren't you proving something when you build your own design? I think that you really must have some sort of strategy with your war units.

In civ2, if your enemy has musketeers, but you only have catapults, you probably won't attack until you get cannons and dragoons, right? In MoO2, most of the times you don't know what you will find in your enemy's fleet. You could get really smashed. And I think that is thrilling and is something that can make an excelent gaming experience. That's why MoO has been so overwhelmed.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Technophile, I don't see the problem with this. In real life (very simplified) Pikemen beat Cavalry, Cavalry beat Artillery, Artillery beat Pikemen. This sort of thing simply forces you to balance your forces with multiple designs.

Which is a good thing. MOO2 had a better combat system than Civ/CivII, IMO, because it allowed for the mixing of units in this way. The important thing which kept MOO2 combat from being a Rochambeaux (and which keeps your Pikemen/Cavalry/Artillery example from being a Rochambeaux) is that the possible ship designs were stronger/weaker in some aspects of combat, not invincible/useless in some aspects of combat. A shield-piercing laser was still useful against an enemy who wasn't using shields, an armor-piercing laser was still useful against an enemy not using armor, hard shields had uses beyond that of preventing boarding or stopping shield-piercing lasers, etc. Similarly, if you throw enough Cavalry at a group of Pikemen, the Cavalry eventually win; they are weaker against Pikemen, but they are not completely useless.

The problem arises when the weapons and defensive systems become so specialized that they are useless except againt their specialized counterparts. Hard Shields prevented enemy boarding/raiding parties, but they also gave additional bonuses to defense making their addition to a ship useful even if the enemy never tries to board/raid you. But what if Hard Shields did nothing but prevent a raiding party, and what if they were the ONLY defese against a raiding party? Then you've got to guess whether your enemy is going to try to raid your ships; guess wrong, and you will have either wasted precious ship space and resources or the enemy will have damaged/captured your ship. Now the decision to add hard shields does not so much reflect your strategy as it does your luck.

MOO2 avoided the mistake of overspecializing ship systems, and hopefully MOO3 will avoid it as well; however, there's always the risk that they'll make a Rochambeaux, and I for one do not want to spend forty dollars for a glorified rock-paper-scissors game.

[tniem]

Originally posted by TechWins
I only bought Civ2MGE about 8 months ago and it only cost me $15. So if Civ2MGE is anything around that price where you live you would be ripping Firaxis off.

You won't be ripping Firaxis off, they didn't make it. You will be ripping Inforgames or whatever who bought out Microprose where Sid used to work before he left to found Firaxis.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Zealot
But that's precisely the beauty of it! In Moo you can equip a ship with reinforced hull and heavy armor in the place of shields, making your shield piercing lasers useless!

Not lasers, phasers. A ship in MoO 2 equipped with shield piercing phasers, plus High Energy Focus and Archilles Targeting System, is invicible. Even better than that dreaded stellar converter in terms of space and energy, unless the enemy has put Hard Shield everywhere.

Originally posted by Zealot
AND because you don't know if your opponent's fleet is or is not using shields, you might even "blow yourself" if your fleet is all equiped with nothing else but shield piercing lasers, because you don't need to use the latest technology to have the best spaceship defence (or offence)!

Acutally I do. Since there can be only 6 ship types, once I encounter all of them I know what the enemy uses. Also, I have spies that tell me what tech my opponents have, I can make a very good guess what their ships have.

Originally posted by Zealot
In SMAC, you have to use the highest and latest technology if you want to have superiority on the field!

Face it, so's MoO. Your cruisers just aren't up to snuff when facing my teleporting doomstars with blackhole generators, death rays, and stellar converters.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not lasers, phasers. A ship in MoO 2 equipped with shield piercing phasers, plus High Energy Focus and Archilles Targeting System, is invicible. Even better than that dreaded stellar converter in terms of space and energy, unless the enemy has put Hard Shield everywhere.

Acutally I do. Since there can be only 6 ship types, once I encounter all of them I know what the enemy uses. Also, I have spies that tell me what tech my opponents have, I can make a very good guess what their ships have.

If you had ever played multiplayer, you wouldn't even say a word of your last topic! If you even build FIVE battle ships it is a lot! If that game only had support for TCP/IP, I would gladly teach you a lesson! You wouldn't even know what Achilles Trageting System is!!

Face it, so's MoO. Your cruisers just aren't up to snuff when facing my teleporting doomstars with blackhole generators, death rays, and stellar converters.

You sure need a lesson, because you wont even get technology to build titans! I'll wipe you off before of that!