Moo vs. Moo2

vmxa1 · August 24, 2002, 14:06

I think many here are swinging over to Moo2, but it is a tough call. The main thing is simplicity. I also suspect it is the I played Moo first factor. Less micromanagement in Moo, more ships allowed. Planets can defend themself better. Many things. I have swung over to Moo2 as it has more things for you to try. Custom races is a huge boost. Upgrades to ships. All tech is available to choose from or if creative get. Moo is sort of like playing Uncreative as you do not get to choose what you get only when you get it to some degree.

dexters · August 26, 2002, 04:15

One thing I didn't like about MOO 2 were the ship designs looked a little eh... you know, like they were lifted from a Konami Gradius game. Seems like Simtex when for the same art style, only in 1997, that was old hat even for consoles which sported such look for its hand drawn space ships in the hayday of the SNES with games like Valken, Gradius etc. (in the early 90s. when MoO first came out)

Galvatron · August 26, 2002, 06:08

In my book MoO 2 is better because of multiplayer. It's really funny to duck out network-sessions with colleagues at work and scheming against your boss or another department

Furthermore the redesigning of ships is really a big plus (like it was said earlier) and of course the graphic (the animated ambassadors of the civs are really cool) and the extended diplomatic options.

So all in all MoO is great but MoO 2 is a little bit better.

Anguille2 · August 28, 2002, 08:25

Both games are great.

MOO1 was my first computer game and has been for year my fav game. The truth is that i was very disappointed with MOO2 when i played it....i had very high expectations. Actually what disturbed me most, were the graphics and the music (never had any with MOO). Another point is, although you have more planets to colonise, the galaxy is smaller...so you get to meet the other races faster. In MOO i liked to build up my Empire on the Huge map. Also you were not able to colonize all the planets, which made planetology research very important in the beginning.
What i didn't like either were the wormholes and that the Stargates were gone. Diplomacy is harder in MOO2...if someone hates you, don't expect it to change.
Another problem is the lack of balance....once i am ready to take over the universe, most races have already disapeared

Nowadays i play more MOO2 as it really is a good game...still i think that MOO1 has been slightly better conceived

vmxa1 · August 28, 2002, 12:39

You still have the star gates, they are the last Physics selection for 15000 RP. You just do not have to build them anymore.

moomin · August 28, 2002, 12:43

Which, I think, sorts under smart MM reduction. Now, if only they had decided to do the same thing for the warp interdictors.

vmxa1 · August 28, 2002, 17:37

I think you could make a case for the way they handle both of them. First Gates, they are so late in the game that requiring them to be built would not inhibit them from being build, only add MM. You will have plenty of cash by them. In Moo it can hurt you a little to build them as they come earlier and you pay maint.
Interdictors come early enough that you will not be able to just slap them up immediately everywhere with no pain.

Yolky · October 9, 2002, 20:54

I hated tech research in Moo2. I loved that you can research 6 different fields all at once.

In Moo2 you could only pick 1 out of 3 per field only, one at a time ala Civ. At least in Moo you choose one out how many you can per 6 field at a time. I hope this option is avaliable in Moo3.

Davor

vmxa1 · October 10, 2002, 01:58

Both have there points. In Moo2, you have to think about what to choose and make smart picks (unless creative). In Moo2 you can realy make it tough by being uncreative and you do not even get to choose the 1, it is chosen for you.

moomin · October 10, 2002, 05:36

Yeah, I don't particularly fancy the Moo2 tech system either, but at least it makes it possible to get a very interesting game for the player who's willing to crank up the difficulty.

Urban Ranger · October 10, 2002, 10:17

I like MoO more. Simpler, more elegant.

Spaced Cowboy · October 10, 2002, 10:17

I really liked the sliders for both tech and production in MoO, as opposed to their 2 counterparts. There is too much MM in MoO2 as a result of adding civ elements to the game. For me micromanaging in a 4X space game is enjoyable in some areas. Here are my favorites to least favorite areas of MM in 4X

Designing ships and controlling my fleet in and out of battle
Designing my race (only done once so not much MM here anyway)
Reasearch (multiple directions possible)
Diplomacy (I've heard of some folks contacing races in Civ3 every turn...MM hell)
Building on planets...I hate it when they give improvements fancy names and building attached to them. It is only +5 or +10 to the computer, why does it have to be so difficult for us? Sliders are way cool.

end

Okay, I feel better now

Yolky · October 13, 2002, 22:55

Both games are great. Here are the points I love on both games and hope both are in MOO3

Moo1

Make your own ships and control them in combat.
The tech tree
How you control reasearch and delivery your research points
The simplicaty of playing the game.

Moo2
Make your own ships and control them in combat. Did better than Moo1
The tech tree sucks but makes it intersting in you can only pick one research area and have to get the rest with other means. (not a bad idea but needed to be improved.)
Planets in a solar system than just a plain old star.
Diplomacy. It is good in Moo1 but Moo2 made it so much better. more options and giving or asking systems is great. ( i beleive first game to do that. Seems Civ3 copied it.)
and the Corion editor is so good. I never seen an editor as good as it is for Moo2. I forget who made it but he did a really really great job for it.

I can't reember much more since I just got brain dead and cant think since I love both games so much.

Davor

Yolky · October 13, 2002, 22:58

OOPS, forgot to say that Moo2 has heros. I love them just wished we could use more than 4 for combat and 4 for industrial.

Have fun with the games I will be playing them soon until Christmas when I get MOO3

Davor

vmxa1 · October 13, 2002, 22:58

Welcome to the club. I would add that Moo2 allowing upgrading ships ala Ascendancy was good. Creation of your species also. I liked the terraformign in Moo1 and that you could not colonize all types of planets day 1.

Urban Ranger · October 14, 2002, 05:27

One thing good in MoO 2 is you can incorporate other races. In MoO you just wipe them out.

ravagon · October 16, 2002, 00:34

I still use both on a semi-regular basis. Too hard to pick between them wrt which is better. Both have their strong (and weak) points.

One thing I like about Moo is the few, what I term, "super techs". Those which can allow a race a long way behind to catch up.
I'd class robotic controls, cloning, gaia transformation, atmospheric terraforming and the HE focus as such techs. Maybe auto-repair too in the earlier stages and the black hole generator right near the end.
All of these are far more powerfull than their Moo2 counterparts and, with the odd weapon or shield, can completely shift the balance of power.

vmxa1 · October 16, 2002, 03:25

There are many tactics to be used, that is for sure. I stopped using Blackhole, just don't need it by the time you get it. The AI uses repulsor beam effectively at times, when I do not have 2 movement ships or range 2 weapons and it is hard for me use on the ai as they seem to have the heavy weapons.

Urban Ranger · October 16, 2002, 05:37

I love the repulsor beams. When you combine it with a torpedo weapon, you can defend a planet with a very small fleet.

Ray K · November 5, 2002, 21:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I like MoO more. Simpler, more elegant.

I agree completely.

MOO2 was nothing more than "Civ in Space". I know a lot of people like that, but MOO was definitely one of a kind.

MOO wins hands-down in my book. MOO2 is clear proof that more is not always better.

Ray K · November 5, 2002, 22:03

Quote:

Originally posted by ravagon
I still use both on a semi-regular basis. Too hard to pick between them wrt which is better. Both have their strong (and weak) points.

One thing I like about Moo is the few, what I term, "super techs". Those which can allow a race a long way behind to catch up.
I'd class robotic controls, cloning, gaia transformation, atmospheric terraforming and the HE focus as such techs. Maybe auto-repair too in the earlier stages and the black hole generator right near the end.
All of these are far more powerfull than their Moo2 counterparts and, with the odd weapon or shield, can completely shift the balance of power.

I agree. Combined with the restrictions of the tech tree, watching your opponent increase his production by 50% or start building ships with a BHG can really put you in a panic if you do not have access to those techs.

vmxa1 · November 5, 2002, 22:25

I thought Moo was the best for about 8 or more years, but have switched to Moo2 as of late. All of the points are valued, but the retro fit of ships, the custom races coupled with the options for the maps make it so it is not the same game all of the time. I still play Moo, but in truth it is the same game most of the time. Hey I love them both.

nato · November 7, 2002, 10:08

This thread is very on topic for me. I just rediscovered MoO and have been trying to decide whether to spend time playing 1 or 2.

Here are the things in favor of each I can think of:

MoO 1
--------
1. Simplicity and elegance
2. Less micromanagement!
3. Unique planet management (sliders instead of build queue)
4. Different and unknown tech lists each game. Races being better at some fields is very cool and in character (like Alkari - propulsion)
5. Needing techs like "tundra environment" makes early expansion more interesting
6. Spying seems more effective / worthwhile
7. Visible relocation lines on map let you set up visible "regions" and regional capitals (a role playing thing I guess, but I enjoy it, kind of like naming features)
8. Huge fleet sizes
9. By forcing ships to be stacked, you have only 6 ships (and a planet) to move, so even large combats are quick. No huge wait for the computer to move
10. Also due to forced stacking, you get an extra strategy dimension: anti-stack weapons or one-big-ship type things
11. Special techs are more fun, like black hole generator

MoO 2
--------
1. Custom races!
2. Multiple planets per system
3. Outposts for laying claim to planets and extending ship range. Also can make planetless systems useful if they have asteroids or gas giant
4. Barren / Radiated worlds are more differentiated because they can't grow food / high upkeep costs
5. Solving the food problem can be interesting early game (go with one or two breadbasket worlds or try to get all planets self sufficient?)
6. The spreadsheet is wonderful (too bad its so vital)
7. Leaders are a lot of fun
8. Star ship design! 8 specials instead of 3 lets you make so much more fun ships, mods like AP and auto fire etc. are great, also doom stars are available
9. Ships are not forced into stacks of all the same kind, which is very silly in MoO1. This allows for more maneuver and tactics, and more realism
10. Obsolete ships don't have to vanish to make room for new. Much better and more realistic
11. Boarding parties and marines help make ground combat a little more important, and gives more options, like capture ships
12. Starbases are cool
13. AI will actually send its big fleet and attack you, and not run away instantly from a missle base
14. Can conquer other races and have a multi racial empire. This is huge if you feel uncomfortable playing a genocidal ethnic cleanser (which I can't stand feeling like)
15. Cool spacey music

Overall, here is what I think it comes down to:

MoO2 has more and better features, the big ones being:
1. Race customization
2. Starship design and combat
3. Multi racial empire, don't have to annihilate

However, all those great features come at the heavy, heavy price of much increased micromanagement tedium.

So the question is are the great features worth the increased micromanagement? Better simulation or more fun game?

I myself still can't decide. If only they had added the features, but kept their cool elegant slider system for MoO2 instead of making yet another city build queue civ clone. That was my very first reaction years ago, and I still feel the same way today.

Sorry for the long post, I've just been having a hard time deciding.

vmxa1 · November 7, 2002, 15:03

Nice job of defining the issue. It is a very hard call and I play both. When I have had enough of one, I go back to the other. This after nearly 10 years of Moo and about 2000 games. I have in recent times put Moo2 ahead of Moo, but will accept either postion.

wervdon · November 24, 2002, 00:39

Quote:

Boarding parties and marines help make ground combat a little more important

Actually, Ive always thought that ground combat was more important in moo1 than moo2. But mostly cause its easier to just wipe them out from orbit I guess.

I _think_ id rate moo1 as better though because of the following:
1) All your ships in moo2 use your best drive system. That is they
automatically upgrade. It maybe convenient, but it just doesnt seem as much fun to me really.
2) Stargates are automatically built in moo2. It may reduce the micromanagement, but well its no where near as satisfying as actually building the things in strategic locations

3) Leaders with galactic lore early on can ruin the whole exploration thing. My solution has always been refuse to hire them though ;P
4) Racial customization actually seems to reduce variability for me. Its too cool not to use, but then I almost always end up building the same 2 or 3 races

This is more my problem though than the games, as I could just make myself play with the in game races if I wanted ;P
5) Moo1's research tree is just a lot more fun. The random research tree aspect rocks. You could be uncreative in moo2, but its not the same, and it just puts you at a severe disadvantage to the ai which isn't uncreative

6) The different colonization techs added a strategic element somewhat lacking in moo2.
7) Units stack in moo1, battles are faster

In moo2's defense:
1) Starbases are cool. You should of been able ot design them though

2) Multiple planets per system is cool.
3) The diplomacy is better in moo2.
4) The ship designs other than the armor and engines being locked to the best you have is much better in moo2
5) Units don't stack in moo2, battles are more interesting

----
Im undecided, Im currently playing moo1 alot, but they are both in the top 5 games of all time as far as im concerned, and its definately too close to call. If I had to pick right now, though, id say moo1 is slightly better. If you had asked a month ago, id of said moo2 is slightly better

vmxa1 · November 24, 2002, 02:17

Seems fair to me, I could accept either position.

Yolky · November 26, 2002, 09:54

Yes in MOO2 when ship designing you get the best drive and armour but if you click on the armour or engines or computer for that matter you can downgrade them to what ever you want. I believe they have the best system automatically since most people want them when making new ships or they progamers beleived that is what people wanted, but to my knowladge you can change them.

Davor

wervdon · November 26, 2002, 13:51

Actually armor and engines are locked at the best, you can't downgrade them in moo2. You can, however, downgrade your shields, battle computer, etc. Just not armor and engines.

However, one thing I had thought (not sure where I got the idea) was that all your ships automatically upgraded engines when you got them, but I just checked and it seems that only the designs are upgraded not existing ships.

GePap · November 26, 2002, 14:42

I don't see why not have the best in new ships: I have never seen a significant space difference having newer armor versus older ones. The same with the engines.

Yolky · November 26, 2002, 17:55

I didn't know that Wevdorn. I thought it was all since I never adjust the engines or the armour. Always wanted the best for them. Thanks for the correction.

Davor