Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts - Page 6

Asmodean · January 12, 2003, 19:16

Re: Ship refitting and upgrading.

You can at least disband a ship, right?? I mean...given that it is impossible to refit a ship, you can ditch it...right??

Please say that it is so....please

Asmodean

Comrade Tribune · January 12, 2003, 19:46

Well, you could always send it on a suicide mission. Which I would like to do with the current team at Quicksilver.

Craig P. · January 12, 2003, 23:16

You can scrap ships and get back something like half their original cost.

Xentax · January 13, 2003, 10:29

Yes, you can scrap ships, or use them as cannon fodder.

Refitting will be implemented in a patch.

Renaming systems was never a big deal for me personally, but I know some people really liked it.

I sort of miss experience levels for ships, but not as much as I would have expected.

Harry Seldon · January 13, 2003, 11:33

There isn't experience levels for ships? Does that mean that ships fight as well as they ever will right out of the gate? One of my biggest gripes against the loss of refitting was losing the exp. If the ships don't use exp., then the need for refitting, at least from my perspective, is irrelevant.

Comrade Tribune · January 13, 2003, 13:23

That is, all ship crews have the same quality, regardless if they are Veterans of five wars, or freshly drafted from the merchant marine?

Heh, Moo3 is quickly moving toward the 'Most Idiotic Game of 2003' award; if it comes out in 2003, that is.

raghar · January 13, 2003, 17:23

It's so bad. Moo3 was supposed to be much more complex than is now. I hope it was not for more "fun". I have seen so much things that was chnged to be supposedly so much fun and ended in total bulshit.

CT If there would be most idiotic product this year it could be something from Micro$oft.

Then again what about tie? Two or more? This year could be RICH.

TheMaestro · January 13, 2003, 23:49

EXP for ships is uber-important. Think about it --

Ships that have been fighting for three years with one crew...are more superb than brand new ships with a brand new crew with no battle experience.

booklord · January 14, 2003, 00:04

Quote:

EXP for ships is uber-important. Think about it --
Ships that have been fighting for three years with one crew...are more superb than brand new ships with a brand new crew with no battle experience.

Except for a few things.

1) In the above example what if you're on a ship that was assigned to back-line defense and never saw combat?

2) Given that ship losses appear to be commonplace in Moo3 wouldn't it make sense to spread experienced crews from the older ships to the newer ships then replace them with new recruits to learn from the experienced officers who remained on the older ship?

3) How long is each turn anyway in terms of years? How long do ship crews serve in your fleet before retiring?

kalbear · January 14, 2003, 00:53

In real naval terms, crews get changed around all the time, in war or peace time. People get promoted and moved, go out of the army, that sort of thing. The competency of the crew is not nearly as important as it used to be; the average level of complexity is important, but the specific level of any crewmember isn't that big a deal.

It wasn't that special a deal in Moo2 either. I'm certainly not going to miss it all that much.

Organ001 · January 14, 2003, 06:15

I think experience was important in MOO2, it was one of the reasons i chose the warload trait. Ultra-elite status allowed me to build larger ships that still had a decent chance of not being hit my enemy fire.
However, I think MOO3 will be fine without experience... I still want the abilty to upgrade ship.
Knowing me, I'll probably get stuck defending my homeworld with an obsolete fleet b/c i forgot to build new ships.

Comrade Tribune · January 14, 2003, 11:14

Ok, as you probably know, Austria is a mountainous country with no access to any sea. We were never a naval empire, have no history of seafaring and our only Battleship ever was sunk in port, without having taken part in any action.

I am sure none of you Americans would object stuffing your navy with Austrian crews?

TCO · January 14, 2003, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Ok, as you probably know, Austria is a mountainous country with no access to any sea. We were never a naval empire, have no history of seafaring and our only Battleship ever was sunk in port, without having taken part in any action.

I am sure none of you Americans would object stuffing your navy with Austrian crews?

You'll never get a security clearance if you are a communist. That makes you unsuitable for a Navy job.

Comrade Tribune · January 14, 2003, 11:28

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
You'll never get a security clearance if you are a communist. That makes you unsuitable for a Navy job.

Who says I would apply? But what about reactionary Austrians? I would even allow you to choose those who can swim!

Deal?

campfreddie · January 14, 2003, 11:46

The random post of the day award goes to CT

It's a shame it was cut but I don't think that experience is really added much to the game.

Well at least in Austria you're not sending your flagship carrier to take part in gulf operations - without bothering to load the fighters. Bet Saddams quaking in his boots about the fearsome HMS Ark Royal. It's got 100 marines on board!

Paddy_ · January 14, 2003, 11:59

@CT You should consult your history-books again.
Your comment about the Austrian navy is not correct.
It was quite a reasonable force till and during WW1.

Comrade Tribune · January 14, 2003, 17:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Paddy

@CT You should consult your history-books again.
Your comment about the Austrian navy is not correct.
It was quite a reasonable force till and during WW1.

Nah, you are stretching the definition of 'quite reasonable'. I mean, did we ever project any sea power outside the Mediterranean? No. Even in the Mediterranean, could we compete with the English or the French? Hardly. We may have been able to take on the Italians -with luck!-, but that hardly made us a 1st rate sea power.

TheMaestro · January 15, 2003, 00:01

Competing with the French? Uh oh!
Checking out the Italian belief of honor in WW1 and 2....they were on Germany's side...saw the allies were winning and "switched."

Hindsight is 20/20 afterall...

RolandtheMad · January 15, 2003, 00:10

Does anyone recall if we were promised a specific amount of leaders? I`ve learned that we will only have four like in Moo2. I`m not too happy about that myself even though they are global leaders and not planetary ones. In fact I think it is patently absurd.

Hummmm... what to do.. what to do..

Also, does anyone see that I update the list (post #1)? Anyone have anything to add or confirm on it?

booklord · January 15, 2003, 00:48

The number I believe is four. ( and like Moo2 you won't be
offered new ones when your roster is full ).

Some apparently are poisonessly bad, while others will transform your entire empire. Furthermore they can be killed by enemy spies.

I won't make opinion until I see how they work and how potentially game unbalancing they are.

Sikander · January 15, 2003, 03:15

Quote:

Originally posted by booklord
The number I believe is four. ( and like Moo2 you won't be
offered new ones when your roster is full ).

Some apparently are poisonessly bad, while others will transform your entire empire. Furthermore they can be killed by enemy spies.

I won't make opinion until I see how they work and how potentially game unbalancing they are.

Hopefully the "poisonously bad" leaders can be killed by your own security services if necessary.

warden · January 15, 2003, 05:35

The leaders usually give you a % bonus in one area and a % penalty in another. Loknar is good because he has no drawback.

What's missing is the ship/fleet commanders. I cherish the memory of when Commander Sparky saved the flagship of my fleet in a key battle.

The overall effect seems rather colourless. I' m more impressed by the detail in HoI - lots of leaders at every level with distinctive personalties and doctrines.

Andrew

campfreddie · January 15, 2003, 07:26

>>Hopefully the "poisonously bad" leaders can be killed by your own security services if necessary.<<

There will be no totally bad leaders, since you can choose to hire them or not like in MOO2. If a leader is bad you just reject him.

Many leaders will have drawbacks though. There's a screeny of a leader that increases trade income but decreases tax income and causes unrest. He may be useful for some empires, but certainly not in all situations.

I'm pretty sure that they can be assasinated by spies and I'm not sure if they die of old age or not.

Grumbold · January 15, 2003, 08:32

I find it stupid that you still have to keep a slot free if you want to remain open to accepting better leaders or ones more suited to your style. We've also now gone from 8 slots to 4. An entire galaxy spanning empire influenced by only four (five if you include you) people? Bah! Every country in the world has more leading personalities than that who have obvious effects on the policies of their nation.

I'd like to see every system managed by a leader with his/her own personality and the ability to groom new people for these senior roles prior to inserting them. Nobody comes from a vacuum.

Paddy_ · January 15, 2003, 09:10

After keeping up to date with the development of Moo3 in the last months (years)
its VERY dissapointing to see how a big bundle of excellent ideas is going down the drain.
I agree with comments about too much simplification to meet
the standards of "the average customer" (whatever the definition might be)

The only hope is, that the remaining known and upcoming unknown features will keep the game enjoyable.

We will know it in late February.

moomin · January 15, 2003, 10:31

While I still have high hopes for Moo3. Rantz, Chantz et al don't strike me as particularly stupid or unreasonable people and IG seems to have learned something from the Civ3 debacle. The after action bt reports seem promising enough.

Sure, it won't be the Game To End All Games, but if it manages to improve on Moo2 and deliver solid gaming fun it should be around on my HD for years. It's predecessor has, after all. And Ghud knows Moo2 has its fair share of stupid design decisions, awkward interface details, cludgy implementations and whatnot.

Some games just have soul. Maybe Moo3 will be among them.

TCO · January 15, 2003, 11:07

Did Civ3 have soul? How about 2? 1?

moomin · January 15, 2003, 13:19

Selling that bridge?

TheMaestro · January 15, 2003, 22:18

Remember, M002 came out in what...96?

And everyone seems to believe the game has only been in development for three years...right....same with Civ 3...it was only developed over three years.....right....

Harry Seldon · January 16, 2003, 00:02

Quote:

Originally posted by TheMaestro
Remember, M002 came out in what...96?

And everyone seems to believe the game has only been in development for three years...right....same with Civ 3...it was only developed over three years.....right....

But how many times was the MOO title shuffled when the company that owned it was bought buy another? If it's been owned by three separate companies (I could be wrong on this one; please be gentle), it was probably started several times then scrapped when someone else came along with "fresh ideas" from the new HQ. I have no excuses for Civ, though. I've never played it and from the blistering anger coming from some of the posts I've read, I probably never will.