Moo vs. Moo2 - Page 2

vmxa1 · November 26, 2002, 18:28

Firstly, consider three 'classes' of ship: (1) Built and in service - all the ships in your fleets; (2) Designed but not built - ships on the drawing board, including those under construction; (3) Not yet designed - these exist only in your imagination, probably pending a tech advance(s).

Now, consider the automatic upgrades: (1) Instant upgrades (Drives and Fuel Cells) - these are applied instantly and automatically to all classes of ship, primarily to save the program the bookkeeping of remembering each ship's strategic speed and range independently; (2) Free upgrade (Armour) - this is applied to ships of classes 2 and 3, but not to those already built. Thus, gaining an armour tech does not require you manually to upgrade ships being built or on the drawing
board, but you will have to refit ships already in service; (3) Optional upgrades (Shields and Computers) - these are not applied to classes 1 or 2, but will be applied to any new designs you create after the advance is gained. Since these both have costs based on their level of sophistication relative to your level of advancement within the tech, the option exists to select older (and hence cheaper) versions when designing your ship.

Now, of these, only shields take up space, and, like any other system, the space taken by a shield reduces as your knowledge advances beyond its level. Therefore, if you have a design using (say) Class III Shield, and you then research Personal Shield, Warp Inderdictor, Gauss Cannon, Planetary Flux Shield, and Sub-Space Teleporter (as you might), you'll find, when redesigning or refitting this class of ship, that it has more space, because the Class III Shield has 'shrunk'.
However, this doesn't affect ships in service, in the build queue, or designs on the board - the new, smaller shield only gets fitted to new designs, and thereby to anything refitted to that design. Thus, ships built to an older design don't gain any free space from subsequent advances, but new designs do.

Both shields and computers (as well as all weapons and optional systems)have costs, which reduce as your advances cumulate. The costs of weapons are simple - each gun costs X, so 10 guns cost 10 * X. When the cost has come down to Y, those 10 guns will cost 10 * Y. Optional systems, shields, and computers have their costs based on the hull size they're being fitted to. But the costs still reduce at much the same rate. So if you have a ship designed with Computer C, Shield S, Weapon W, and Optional System O, it will cost its hull-size cost plus C+S+W+O. If you put one in the build queue, that cost is now fixed for the ship under construction. If you then research one tech level beyond each of the components, the cost to build another of these ships will be reduced to the hull-size cost plus (75% of C)+(75% of W)+(75% of O)+(75% of S).
You can add this ship to the build queue at the reduced cost, but if the previous one isn't completed yet, it will still have its original cost. So, both old and new ship designs do benefit from cost reduction due to advancement, but ships already built or building do not.

Urban Ranger · November 28, 2002, 05:44

It's not that hard to add some of the best features of MoO 2 to the original. I would say the ability to outpost is actually the best additon in MoO 2. Static defenses aren't the great. The requirement to have a staryard before building large ships is nice, though.

Destroyer · November 30, 2002, 19:33

Ive never played MOO, but I personally cant find too much fault with Moo2.

A lot of you think there is too much MM, but I think there is just about the right amount. I know the game indide out and know exactly what Im going to build in which order for every planet I have.

It seems a build que is the best way to build. Some of you think sliders are better, but the fact is if you have a set amount of PP or RP, surely you are going to finish at the same time anyway, in fact you will benefit sooner wwith a well thought out que.

Just about the only gripe I have is the size of the map is too small, and you can finish the researching techs too quick. At the end of the game, Im discovering stuff almost as fast as I can build it.

I dont even bother with and missiles or beams worse than plasma, as all the preceding weapon techs are quick to research by the time you need weapons (on a big map).

The other thing that pisses me off silly is when you are framed and they declare war on you. No matter what you give they refuse to make peace again.

It would also be nice to design star bases and ground defences.

Death Rays and particle beams are pants, and you can only have these if you capture orion. They dont miniturise, and dont match either the mauler or plasma cannon - esp after miniturisation

moomin · November 30, 2002, 19:46

There's too much MM in Moo2. No doubt about it - if there where default build queues they would go a long way towards making the end-game more enjoyable. The Moo sliders are a much better solution.

Let's see how they handle this in Moo3.

gramians · December 3, 2002, 00:52

I liked having massive fleets in MOO1, being able to produce more than 1 thing per planet in a turn, having to research different plantet types for colonization, and assassinating leaders. The repulsor was great too.

In MOO2 even if your planet has the ability to make a fleet of 20 scouts / turn it will only make 1. Which is silly. The diplomacy was improved a bit... but lacking. When they say "Hey, join me in an Alliance" it would be nice to know *at that very moment* who they are at war with etc., since you are basically signing on and about to lose your trade agreements. Or to say, "okay - if you give me mass drivers" (moo3!) The planet view of all your buildings was useless. I liked the bargraph style better in Moo1. Custom races and ships made the game.

Gilgamensch · December 5, 2002, 13:41

Had been said before, but:

MoO1:
+Tech's are better, more options/possibilties there.
Maps are faaaar bigger.
+Spying was easier and harder at the same time. Easier to 'get' spies, no damned MM to build them, just a slider. Harder because of framing. And the AI actually used it. Visible affect of spies (V).
+Different kinds of planets, again more important to research!
+The races seemed a bit more real.
+design more balanced (ships, at least till High Enery focus/Sub teleporter). Even the AI is able to use the Repulsor properly.
+ planetary shields.

And some other points, but too lazy to tipe them now

MoO2:
++Leaders, but not enough

+Upgrade of ships
+Custom race (too powerful for the human, or at least no counterpart existing for the AI)
+ Too dependend on the starting location.
+OK Graphics better, but doesn't really count.
- too static defence, You always need to build Starbase MD and whatever.
- planetary shields, you had to add them extra into the queue, but not really needed, they made hell of a difference in MoO1. Either you fight them off or you'll lost anyway.

Also I think the AI was more taking the colonies in MoO1 as in 2? But might be just me??????

To decide, which one is better:

I can only say: I don't know!?!?!?!?

They both are good, but MoO1 was a bit more 'original'. It is/was different. That's what I am enjoying again

But I am not sure, if I'll go for MoO3.

vmxa1 · December 5, 2002, 14:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
MoO2:
- planetary shields, you had to add them extra into the queue, but not really needed, they made hell of a difference in MoO1. Either you fight them off or you'll lost anyway.

This is an often over looked point. In Moo2 if they could not defeat the planets defenses they blockade. They do not attack with less than enough to beat the planet very often. In Moo1 they would no be able to blockade and would attack with less than enough to win all the time. Your shields could be strong enough to hold off destruction, even if they did beat your defenses. Also bio weapons could be seen to have an effect in Moo1. If you did not have the tech to handle bios you took damage, even if they could not bust your shields. In Moo2, I hve no idea if it matters or not. We did have antidote tech in Moo2, but I never saw any bios used.

Corentor · December 5, 2002, 23:49

I don't know about you but when I play strategy games, it is to build empires and feel like I am an emperor who merely needed to speak to get things done.

MOO1 felt like that.

In MOO2, I felt like a freakin house maid trying to take care of the needs of some cranky and spoiled toddlers.

Gilgamensch · December 6, 2002, 02:20

vmxa1,

the antidote in MoO2 is actually just increasing population growth. So not as important as in MoO1. And yes, you are right, even with shields they were able to damage your pop, only

you hadn't had the right anti-tech. That was a thing far more balanced in part 1. Tech - Anti-tech. OK, except the combo High-energy-focus/Repulsor-beam. The AI seems never be using it

Corentor,

Yes, MoO2 was a bit too much MM (Micro-managment). Even as they implemented build-queues, but you weren't able to 'save' those and with all the stuff you have to build, get's quite a bit of work. Faaar easier in MoO1. You just had some sliders and that was it. It also makes more seens at this level of 'ruling'. You are the big boss, why do you have to tell every single person and planet wth (what the hell) to do

. But again, that was sometimes a part in MoO2, which wasn't so bad, as you 'are' still able to outrun the AI, he seems to be never using so much the transporters (food).

Ray K · December 6, 2002, 02:34

The more complex the model, the more difficult it is to program a competent AI.

Gilgamensch · December 6, 2002, 02:46

Yes and no,

take the latest chess-program, I think it is called Fritz, the acting champion had a hard time beating it and I think nobody denies that those guys are a 'bit' better then we are.

But the big difference is, that in chess the position IS known, in any other game (Strat.,4X,....) the position are not known. Unlike a human being the computer/software can not extrapolate into the unkown, it has to run on facts. That were the human has a large advantage over the AI. The rest (MM/design/....) the AI could be far better than the human, if it has been written right.

Ozz · December 6, 2002, 15:53

In Moo small and medium design ships are most useful
and part of a stategy. MOO2 it just is more "bigger is
better".

M00 is superior.

Anguille2 · December 9, 2002, 10:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz
MOO2 it just is more "bigger is
better".
.

Sounds like the Trogarchs

just so dumb!!

Urban Ranger · December 16, 2002, 01:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Corentor
I don't know about you but when I play strategy games, it is to build empires and feel like I am an emperor who merely needed to speak to get things done.

MOO1 felt like that.

In MOO2, I felt like a freakin house maid trying to take care of the needs of some cranky and spoiled toddlers.

That's certainly an interesting - and valid - POW.

vmxa1 · December 20, 2002, 03:50

I don't know why I never thought to mention this before, but I just got advance soil in Moo1 and it made me realize something. The pop boost is very pleasing in Moo1. I mean when I get to jump my pop up in a big chunk with soil or a + pop such as +60 when my last one was +20.

granid · December 22, 2002, 20:17

I find that the planetary development features and research in moo2 are almost exactly the same as in Master of Magic (not Civilization). The tell-tale sign is the ability to build "trade goods" or "housing," which appeared in MoM first (as far as I know).

I wouldn't mind seeing that set of features go away, or at least get replaced with some "mass-build" feature which lets one manage planets in groups. Maybe provide a macro language and let players write scripts for empire management

vmxa1 · December 23, 2002, 04:14

Well Steve Barcia wrote Moo and MoM.

Urban Ranger · December 23, 2002, 11:24

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I don't know why I never thought to mention this before, but I just got advance soil in Moo1 and it made me realize something. The pop boost is very pleasing in Moo1. I mean when I get to jump my pop up in a big chunk with soil or a + pop such as +60 when my last one was +20.

Yup. Complete Eco Transform (+120) is just a bit nice.

Urban Ranger · December 23, 2002, 11:26

Quote:

Originally posted by granid
The tell-tale sign is the ability to build "trade goods" or "housing," which appeared in MoM first (as far as I know).

You can build "trade goods" in Civ 2, it's called Capitalization. Yes, you do need a tech advance first.

I thought the most obvious clue would be the leaders, though.

granid · December 23, 2002, 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I thought the most obvious clue would be the leaders, though.

I forgot about the leaders! You're right, that's even more obvious.

granid · December 23, 2002, 16:01

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Well Steve Barcia wrote Moo and MoM.

Yes. I guess Moo was first, followed by MoM, followed by Moo2. They must've liked MoM enough to try to reuse some of its mechanisms in Moo2. I prefer the sliders of Moo, though

AIL · January 3, 2003, 15:55

I clearly prefer Moo 1! In Moo 1 I spend lots of time in making strategical decisions like what fleet shall go where, to be used for it's best efficiency and that's actually fun! In Moo 2 I spend the most time in creating the same build-que over and over again. A game of Moo 1 lasts some hours, in Moo 2 it's likely to last at least 3-4 times as long.

Main_Brain · January 5, 2003, 15:13

I liked MoO2 better mainly because you had less ships :=)
The Space Combat Tactics also were Way better than in MoO

Urban Ranger · January 5, 2003, 22:40

That's because MoO isn't tactical.

vmxa1 · January 6, 2003, 03:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Main_Brain
I liked MoO2 better mainly because you had less ships :=)
The Space Combat Tactics also were Way better than in MoO

I have no axe to grind for either as I change my position on which is better all the time.
I am just not sure I understand the part about less ships. I mean you can never have more than 6 types of ships in Moo1 in any battle and they are stacked. So the numbers do not matter for purposes of managing. In Moo2, you could have 100 ships on one side. Can be very tedious.
As to tactics, they almost are no tactice in Moo2 when you think about it. The ships have so little manuvrablity.
As a planetary defender you have very little flexiblity.
So I guess I do not understand the reasons you mentioned.
Moo2 has many features that are better than Moo1 and many that are not.

booklord · January 6, 2003, 16:00

In the new Moo3 game they will have a screen where you set your build priorties set on a self determined design setup.

For example you can design a profile named "research station" and then list the entire build list for that planet type. So when you colonize a world you can simply designate it a "research station" and the AI will follow your pre-existing instructions. Such a screen would have doubled the playability of Moo2.

Overall I'd say Moo2 is the better game except for one ascpect. Late game planet management is just too time consuming. It's why 90% of the games I play on Moo2 are in small galaxies.

AIL · January 6, 2003, 17:05

This would be the 1st and the 2nd would be to hand over some better Ship-Design-Plans to the AI. If it had what you mentioned+what I just did, I would prefere Moo2 but it has not and so I like Moo1 much more.

Gilgamensch · January 22, 2003, 09:22

Would be nice, if the computer would take the humans designs to improve their own. But this would leave a possibilty for cheating.

Another problem, if you make the AI's designs to good, you would never win. But their should be some 'learning' method for the AI, so that stronger humans have to play against better designs. This is true for MoO 1 and 2.

patrickjb53 · February 5, 2003, 04:20

I prefer MOO2 over MOO1. I recently went back and played a few games of MOO1. Boy it's amazing how far we've come in 10 years. I enjoy/ed both, and agree that they (Micro Prose) left out some of the good aspects of MOO1, but in my opinion, MOO2 is the better of the two.