dev planning, anyone done it? - Page 2

Ianpolaris · March 3, 2003, 09:09

Stuie,

That is denial, pure and simple. I am sorry, but I know of no polite way to phrase that. As Emperor, President, Grand-Poobah...whatever....I should not have to micromanage spies and the military.

Putting together task-forces and redesigning ships is the job for your Joint Chiefs....not the President...assuming of course we take the "macro" management arguement to it's logical conclusion. Likewise, recruiting and deploying spies is the job of your Imperial Intelligence Agency....not you personally.

The game is wretched and not fun. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

-Polaris

Stuie · March 3, 2003, 09:14

Sorry that you are not enjoying it. Like I said, guess it's not your cup of tea.

Ianpolaris · March 3, 2003, 09:21

Stuie,

We can certainly agree on that. I did not enjoy it. Please note the past tense. I gave it away to a friend of mine who tried it out....and promptly gave it away to another friend. I hope I still have friends after this week is out.....because the reaction from all of them as been overwhelmingly negative.....indeed I have been the mildest of the bunch.

I enjoy a good, complex, and challenging game that allows me a fair amount of feedback and control. Moo III fails on all accounts. Take the most neutral requirements for a good stategy game, and then analyze Moo III fairly against them.

If you do, I think you will see that it is an unmitigated failure. Even worse IMHO, the game is not fun. I could forgive any sin in a game....except that.

-Polaris

General Ludd · March 3, 2003, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by aiin
Dev plan is worthless for military stuff. It's best never put military in the priority list if you don't want worthless ships and troops. It's best to focus on a few(5-10) planets and micro the military queu while trusting the AI to do the rest. Trust me, you'll want to toss your computer out the window when all of a sudden you get 50 recon ships in the reserves.

The AI is building a wide variety of warships for me. About 1/3 frigates 1/3 cutters 1/3 recon (It's early game and those are my only designed ships) My home planet, for instance, will have a queue full of 'top of the line' warships, while my newly developed colonies will be building scouts or point defence ships, with an odd marine or psy op thrown in. I still manage most of the military queues, though, because I like to. I usually have an overall strategy for production, anyways. (ie. build a fleet of first generation ships, then focus on colony ships while I wait for the technology to build second generation ships, ect...)

Of course, I make use of the military spending options in the budget options. (although, oddly enough, most of my planets still have military spending below the limit when set to limited war

)

OmniDude · March 3, 2003, 10:26

Ianpolaris,

one quick Q: Do you still play or did you dump the game?

You postings here here points to a love/hate-relationship (a la "The game sucks bigtime, but annoyingly manages to be just addictive enough as to not allow me to abandon it completely and that REALLY pisses me off!")...?

OmniDude · March 3, 2003, 10:31

Ah, too slow. You've already answered. Then tell me instead: Moo1 and 2 was FUN in what sense of the word? I ask, because when you say FUN I'm thinking Star Control 3. I never thought of the TBS-genre as FUN?

darcy · March 3, 2003, 10:45

Ah yes, the dev plans, another opaque feature.

How are the auto-categories for a planet chosen? Do both categories have the same priority? Is a secondary directive of a primary development plan equivalent to a primary directive of a secondary development plan? How does the Balanced/Natural/Specialized command factor into this? Is it active only when the development plan is empty?

And since it came up, what is the relationship between the Military Policy setting and the Imperial Military Budget? If the Military Policy sets nothing but the maximum Planetary Military Funding that can be allocated without causing unrest, why not keep it at maximum all the time? Wouldn't that cause the lowest unrest? Where exactly does the Imperial Military Budget go? If it goes into several Planetary Military Fundings, wouldn't that make it equivalent to Grants?

And another funny one: If you set the Planetary Military Funding to 100%, 100% of what is it then? Switch to absolute (AU) view and you won't find that number anywhere.

Ianpolaris · March 3, 2003, 11:18

OmniDude,

I did find Moo 2 fun....much more so after the 1.31 patch admittedly (because it made the game much more challenging and balanced). I didn't play Moo 1, so I can't comment there, but I have played Civ (1,2, and 3), SMAC, and many others of this genera. I felt that Civ 3 was very weak and had serious issues (which were never adequately resolved IMHO), but all were at least marginally fun.

By 'fun', I mean that I was challenged and entertained. A good stategy game IMO is addictive and immersive and that is a good part of the fun (in addition to all the other points I have made already).

I did something with Moo III that I have never done with any other TBS game....even those I felt were bad (Civ 3 comes to mind here): I stopped playing when I was winning because I couldn't bear the thought of 'playing' another turn. There simply wasn't any incentive to do it. I have never done that with any other stategy game ever. It was that bad.

-Polaris

vmxa1 · March 3, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Razgon
Core planets mean exactly that - the core planets of your empire.

Mineral rich planets are also just that - Planets with the rating "Mineral Rich"

Sorry maybe I was not clear. I understand what the term Core means, what I do not know is what the DEA plan is for any of the them.
When I pull up the tab it is blank. I want to see what the AI is using. Is CORE:
Bio Gov Manf or what.
The same for all of the defaults, what are they set to?
I do not think the way the AI is doing it is optimal, but I am not sure what to modify to improve it as I do not know what the setting is at this point.
If they were defined, I may see that in fact that is the best that can be done.

General Ludd · March 3, 2003, 13:59

They do not have any priorities unless you make them. Otherwise, the Ai will just build whatever it the planet needs.

Harry Seldon · March 3, 2003, 14:28

You can check defaults on the government screen where the oppressometer is. Most planets will build what is needed most first, then follow what most compliments the planet it's on; ie Mining on Mineral Rich. The AI doesn't handle this well without a little guidance, I've noticed. I usually set a basic all-planetary tertiary policy for whatever I'm good at as a race to make sure particular DEAs are built. You'll have to keep an eye on other planets to make sure they're using their space wisely because if your empire needs food, the AI will build bioharvest DEAs on mineral rich planets all day. You can delete the DEAs to eliminate any unwanted or unneccessary DEAs and replace them with what you want.

azuldracul · March 3, 2003, 15:06

HEY folks!

please can we be somewhat intelligent...when some people say dev plans don't work..it just makes me shake my head and light my hobbit pipe

Which should tell all you whiners out there somethen...if a hobbit pipe smoker like me can figure this game out everyone can...I think the strat gaming community has been a little dumbed down by commercial candy (you games know of which games I refer too)

no wonder the world is on the edge of war....some people just want to see what they want to see regardless of Facts to the contrary.

dev plans are primative object oriented programming...they are wonderful and have lots of effect; in fact my hive minded Klakons stick to them so much I am scewing up my empire 'cause planets were following the dev plans instead of thinking for themselves and taking care of failing food supplies....

thats all I wanted to say I have already spent too much time talking to people who ...have already decided..to dislike just 'cause it is a little different..a thinking persons game....gotta get back to the klackon Swarm

good luck to all those who still are allowing the foul winds of bull to influance them.

see you in the mooverse.

vmxa1 · March 3, 2003, 15:28

azuldracul that was nice, but what does it have to do with the thread? This is not about their usefulness or lack of it. It is about how to use them better, if possible and to understand them better.
IOW I was soliciting input and ideas, not complaints or diatribes.
So in that vain, do you know what the plan is for CORE or any of the default values?

azuldracul · March 3, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
azuldracul that was nice, but what does it have to do with the thread? This is not about their usefulness or lack of it. It is about how to use them better, if possible and to understand them better.
IOW I was soliciting input and ideas, not complaints or diatribes.
So in that vain, do you know what the plan is for CORE or any of the default values?

ya sorry if that came off a little hot...I am just loving the game and finding it to be not reflective at all of the negative reviews.

I think Mr sheldon right at the top might have spoken about defults.....

that being said...I don't know the defult values...AS I understand it there are not any set defaults..if you don't touch the development plan area...IMO the vicroys do what ever they need to to keep their world happy...BUT

I have only played a lttle more than 48hrs (with only 5hrs for the little death known as "sleep")

I also belive although I can't prove it that the actions of the vicroys will fluctuate with what race you play.

Also I belive the type of race as well as government type influanve just how much and if the vicroys implament the dev plans....

I am assuming you already know what is ment by CORE (worlds).... so as I said I am not awaire of default settings I belive every race has a plan that is best for them..see loreweavers excellent strat guide...

hope this helps

ps

IMO the ranking the plans are inthe que speak to their priority
so all planet would superseed..say sweetspot plan for example..I don't know for sure about this so if anyone has corabourating evidence...let me know.

Sinapus · March 3, 2003, 16:25

Are there limits to the amount of dev plans you can have? No scrollbar appears on the list when I add a new one, so that might be "no". Also, when one changes a devplan (ie., switching "mines" to "farms" for a primary focus) during a game, how long does it take to be effective?

Anyway, I find them useful. Will try to test a few plans. (I think "military" selection will cause remote colonies to build mobilization centers, but am not sure. Going to replace that entry with "planetary defense" and see what happens next time.)

ObGripe: No way to save the dev plans and load them in a game, so each time I have to manually input them on turn 1.

Zed-F · March 3, 2003, 18:09

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
azuldracul that was nice, but what does it have to do with the thread? This is not about their usefulness or lack of it. It is about how to use them better, if possible and to understand them better.
IOW I was soliciting input and ideas, not complaints or diatribes.
So in that vain, do you know what the plan is for CORE or any of the default values?

Hey, vxma,

There are 2 things you need to do under the Empire tab to get your dev plans set up. One is to select whether you want a specialized, natural, or balanced approach to your DEA assignments, the other is specify what you want your dev plans to include as primary, secondary, and tertiary prioirties. There are no default values for any of the dev plans, you have to set them yourself. There are a couple threads around that give some very basic tips on how to do this, esp. if you check on boards other than apolyton. I'm not super-familiar with them myself yet but I'm hoping to improve that over the next bit.

One suggestion I have seen is to set the "all planets" dev plan to concentrate on infrastructure first, trade second, and morale or something 3rd, and then to set up mineral rich, poor, high biodiversity, etc to focus on mining, manufacturing, farming, etc. Another good plan to set up is the "new" plan which will take effect for a while on any newly colonized planet -- a good start there is to put in a bit of manufacturing to let you build the planet up faster, since PPs don't seem to get shipped around your empire.

vmxa1 · March 3, 2003, 19:56

Ok I am surely failing at this. I understand how to make plans and to implement them. I have several at any given time.
What I want to do is to play around with them to see if there is a strategy that is useful to get a given planet pumped up. Or I may wan to push it in another direction an din fact have done so by forcing it to do BIO.
There must be some default setting for the plans as the game comes up using a plan called Core and maybe SweetSpot.
When you look on the planet and pull up the read out for it then they have blanks in all slots. Not talking about on the Empire screen. You have some drop downs that have mostly Player 1-x and a some others.
These are all blanks if you try to use them. The Viceroy must have some internal code that says do such and such if Core plan or what ever plans are available.
Now If I code a plan, say New and give it prime/sec/3rd and make it use them, then the pull up shows what I set it to, great.
So all I am trying find out is what the heck are values that are bing used for the plans that the AI is using. I may want to change them, maybe not. Right now I do not know what they are.

KoalaBear33 · March 3, 2003, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

So all I am trying find out is what the heck are values that are bing used for the plans that the AI is using. I may want to change them, maybe not. Right now I do not know what they are.

YOu are asking for the default AI logic. I don't think too many people know the answer right now... perhaps someone will figure it out by looking at the spreadsheet files. I think that's the only way to figure it out (unless it is documented anywhere, which it isn't)...

KoalaBear33

vmxa1 · March 4, 2003, 00:08

Yup, that is what I was hoping someone had seen it or a beta player knew. Oh well.

TheMaestro · March 4, 2003, 00:26

I'm still figuring Dev planning out...no one will ever get it right, cause the game changes a lot from game to game. But it could be a good useful tool.

Zed-F · March 4, 2003, 17:08

I think it goes based on what the planet needs, and/or what the empire as a whole needs, depending on whether it is set to natural/balanced/specialized. The AI can operate if you don't supply any dev plans after all, it will eventually decide to build mines if it's short on minerals, etc. IIRC the default is natural so it probably decides to build mostly what the planet needs, but it might be balanced instead.

You can confirm this by capturing some enemy planets and seeing what DEAs they have built...

yoink15 · March 4, 2003, 17:26

Okay, I tinkered around with the whole "dev plan" thing for the first time last night...and I ran into a problem. I set up plans for "core" and "mineral rich" and "frontier", etc., etc....but then when I went to individual planets, and I went to their dev pull-down menus, I only got one choice like "new" or something else (I can't remember) and then 5 other choices called "player defined 1" through "player defined 5". What's the deal? Did I do something wrong? I couldn't find choices for "mineral rich" or "frontier" or the other dev plans I'd created.

-Yoink

vmxa1 · March 4, 2003, 18:42

No as far as I can tell. It is annoying. I had to also define the player definted ones to force the use of mine.
Sometimes the AI decides that it is now New or Secondary and you can then use your definitions for that one. You do not get to use the list that match your dev plan?????

Grumbold · March 5, 2003, 07:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
Grumbold,

STOP IT

I understand what Dev Plans do better than you could possibly guess. The only effect a military priority has on a planet is to build a military DEA which has no discernable effect on military building or budget.

This is just like some of you fanbois saying that those of us that are angry, and dissapointed with MooIII don't "get it" or "understand it". I mastered the interface in about 5 hours (3 hours longer than it should have taken me with a more normal game). Once you have mastered the interface, your Dev Plans don't matter because you can not lose!

The fact of the matter is that you are infinately better off during off the Economic AI part (not that this helps much) and preplanning *all* of your DEAs by hand. [You have to turn it *OFF* otherwise the Vicerory will overrule you....which is /not/ good design.]

The point is this: I understand MooIII quite well, thank you. The more I understood it; the more I hated it.

-Polaris

Edit: Grumbold....are you listening to what you are saying?! You are saying that in order to play the game effectively, you should "macromanage" your financial settings....yet in the same breath you are saying you should micromanage your spies and military queus.

The point is that Moo III tries to both "marco"manage a game and micromanage it both at the same time....and unsuprisingly fails badly at both.

Since you've misinterpreted something as simple as my post I find it hard to believe that you understand all facets of MoO3. Claiming its impossible to lose MoO3 is another inaccurate statement. It would be true to say that once you have established well defended core worlds it would be very unlikely that you would lose by military means, but that still leaves other ways of being defeated. People can and do lose.

I made no mention of military priority in the DEA plans, so why use it as some form of rebuttal? Would you like to try using planetary defence? It works just fine for me.

The finance menu has a military-political budget setting which directly impacts on how much emphasis the AI is allowed to place on the military queue. No I don't mean the military slider that allocates empire money, use that too. If you don't adjust the M-P setting then the AI will try to keep military spending under 10% at all times because that is what you are telling it to do.

The AI has never ever overruled one of my preplanned DEA placements. It will build what it thinks best based on your orders should your preplanned building be destroyed by enemy bombing or spy sabotage.

Using DEA's in conjunction with the finance sliders, military-political setting and the ship design screen allows you to run a vast empire. When you only have ten worlds you should be micromanaging ten worlds. When you have fifty or a hundred and fifty you won't need to micromanage more than ten. You can, of course, to squeeze the maximum ounce of efficiency out of them. If you want to be that anal retentive then that is your right, but MoO3 tries to give you viable alternatives. many games simply dont.

When I design a new set of ships or need troops I hit the planets list, select by productivity and update a handful of the biggest producers to create a balanced force of what I'm going to need. Do I micromanage my military queues? No. Most of them I never need to touch. Entire

Do I micromanage my spies? Since there are never more than about fifteen of them and I can queue up construction for twenty turns it would be difficult to tack micro- or macro- as a label on it. You certainly don't gain any advantage by tweaking your spies every turn. Could there be an Espionage AI? Sure. Most critics think that too much of the game is already automated.

I believe you have tried the game and decided you dont like it. That is your right and I won't try and change your mind. However you are now seeking to impose your value judgements on everyone else and cite misleading "facts" to back up your case. Unfortunately if you've returned/traded the game already you can't go back and prove to your own satisfaction that what I'm saying is factually correct.

Ianpolaris · March 5, 2003, 07:53

Grumbold,

I am going to rebut you point by point because I find your response not only rude, elitist, but also borderline condescending (Mark G...are you listening). However, I will try once more to address these points reasonably.

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold

Since you've misinterpreted something as simple as my post I find it hard to believe that you understand all facets of MoO3. Claiming its impossible to lose MoO3 is another inaccurate statement. It would be true to say that once you have established well defended core worlds it would be very unlikely that you would lose by military means, but that still leaves other ways of being defeated. People can and do lose.

Try the following experiment. Set the game on 'impossible', adjust your ecomonic, devplans, research, and other macro-settings at turn one and never touch them again. Finally set the game to "Autocolonize=On" and simply have your scout ship(s) fly around.

Now click turn and do NOTHING ELSE. Assuming you are a member of the Orion Senate (something you can assure in the custom race section), then you will always win the game eventually....because the AI doesn't fight back.

That's not a game....that's a Sim and a bad one at that. Go check out the IG boards if you don't believe me.....better yet, try it out yourself. The game is absurdly simple, bland, and no challenge at all once the interface is mastered. Fighting the interface is not my idea of a fun or good game.

Quote:

I made no mention of military priority in the DEA plans, so why use it as some form of rebuttal? Would you like to try using planetary defence? It works just fine for me.

Since the entire discussion was about Dev Plans, in fact you were saying exactly that....that military priorities in Dev Plans (which govern how DEAs are built) makes a difference. It doesn't. In fact you should never make 'military' a priority in any Dev Plan (which again is bad planning). I also note once more that THIS is something I had to find out in gameplay. The manual doesn't tell you what Dev-Plans do at all.....so I had to find this out the hard way.

Quote:

The finance menu has a military-political budget setting which directly impacts on how much emphasis the AI is allowed to place on the military queue. No I don't mean the military slider that allocates empire money, use that too. If you don't adjust the M-P setting then the AI will try to keep military spending under 10% at all times because that is what you are telling it to do.

Here you go again being condescending and assuming that those like me who vocally criticize Moo III are somehow inept or too stupid to play the game. No you didn't say it directly, but you did everything short of that.

For you information, I quickly discovered what you were talking about (within 10 turns of my first game in fact) and I always set my Finance plans to "Limited War" because that was the only way I could get my AIs to build Colony ships fast enough and consistantly enough. Of course the moment I did that, I got innundated with Troop Ships....and yes I made sure I constantly redesigned ships of all types and sizes (including lancers) so you can not tell me I was forcing the AI to built too big too early.

Quote:

The AI has never ever overruled one of my preplanned DEA placements. It will build what it thinks best based on your orders should your preplanned building be destroyed by enemy bombing or spy sabotage.

It happened to me frequently and often. Of course this is not documented either so I had to find out the hard way (I was producing waaay too many minerals for my industry and I couldn't figure out why until I rechecked my older planets). Of course my tech (I tended to play Evans tweeked for research) may have a lot to do with that....but that is yet another thing that is totally undocumented.

I discovered by my third game that I should always preplan *all* my DEAs by hand the moment I colonize a new world and then turn the planetary AI OFF. Even then it doesn't work. The Planetary AI still overrules you on military build queus even when I 'disable' it. That is another example of completely wretched design. There should always be an off-switch for any AI.....or you shouldn't even bother to show the player information at that depth at all.

Quote:

Using DEA's in conjunction with the finance sliders, military-political setting and the ship design screen allows you to run a vast empire. When you only have ten worlds you should be micromanaging ten worlds. When you have fifty or a hundred and fifty you won't need to micromanage more than ten. You can, of course, to squeeze the maximum ounce of efficiency out of them. If you want to be that anal retentive then that is your right, but MoO3 tries to give you viable alternatives. many games simply dont.

The problem is that it does a half-assed job at it. You still need to micromanage your fleet production on every planet given the wretched state of the Planetary Military AI. Don't even get me started on fleets or espionage.....GRRRRRRR!!

Quote:

When I design a new set of ships or need troops I hit the planets list, select by productivity and update a handful of the biggest producers to create a balanced force of what I'm going to need. Do I micromanage my military queues? No. Most of them I never need to touch. Entire

So what do you do with 90+% of the useless troop ships the AI insists on building....not to mention the scouts and other obsolete designs that you can't completely get rid of (by marking them as obsolete). Inquiring minds want to know.

Quote:

Do I micromanage my spies? Since there are never more than about fifteen of them and I can queue up construction for twenty turns it would be difficult to tack micro- or macro- as a label on it. You certainly don't gain any advantage by tweaking your spies every turn. Could there be an Espionage AI? Sure. Most critics think that too much of the game is already automated.

Stop. You don't get to have this both ways. Espionage is a powerful part of the game (play unmodified humans with a Democracy if you doubt this). If QS wanted to make this game about "Macro"management, then they should have done that with everything that logically would be beneath the President's concern....and recuiting and planning individual espionage missions certainly qualifies! For that matter so does Task Force creation and deployment. Come to think about it, most diplomacy should also be macromanaged too.

Somehow that seems to leave precious little for the 'stupid human' to do...which IMHO was precisely the point. If that doesn't seem like a fun game....well you'd be right. It isn't. Hmmm....that sounds like Moo III!

Quote:

I believe you have tried the game and decided you dont like it. That is your right and I won't try and change your mind. However you are now seeking to impose your value judgements on everyone else and cite misleading "facts" to back up your case. Unfortunately if you've returned/traded the game already you can't go back and prove to your own satisfaction that what I'm saying is factually correct.

I played the game for well over 40 hours when I first got it with over 1000 combined turns. While everything posted here is 'opinion', my posts are opinion based on the way the game actually plays.

This is a wretched game! That is the long, short, and middle of it. If my posts can convince someone /NOT/ to buy the game and wait for something else (GalCiv comes immediately to mind), then I will have done the community a big service. I wasted $50 of my precious dollars....not to mention the time I spend 'playing' this thing. If I can prevent someone else from making that same mistake, then I feel I have accomplished something worthwhile.

The sad truth is when I gave my game away (I could not return it), I almost cried. I had waited for 4 long years (like the rest of you) for a worthy successor to Moo 2. I looked forward to this game and counted the days until it's release. I desperately, desperately wanted to love this game....and I tried...ooh I tried to see that 'light' that some of you have talked about.

I can't do that anymore; honesty compells me to say that this is a horrid game and we should just accept that and move on. This reminds me of Civ3 when it came out....only this game makes Civ3 PTW look good.

-Polaris

Grumbold · March 5, 2003, 09:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
Grumbold,

I am going to rebut you point by point because I find your response not only rude, elitist, but also borderline condescending (Mark G...are you listening). However, I will try once more to address these points reasonably.

It was because I found your attacks on this game in this thread so excessive that I felt compelled to respond to you.

Quote:

Try the following experiment. Set the game on 'impossible', adjust your ecomonic, devplans, research, and other macro-settings at turn one and never touch them again. Finally set the game to "Autocolonize=On" and simply have your scout ship(s) fly around.

Now click turn and do NOTHING ELSE. Assuming you are a member of the Orion Senate (something you can assure in the custom race section), then you will always win the game eventually....because the AI doesn't fight back.

I don't want to bore myself to tears. I have already lost one game (on normal) to Orion Senate defeat. On another game where Senate win was inactive I only got elected into the Senate after my biggest allies had become president. Patching is bound to make the AI more aggressive since so many people have clamored for it. That doesn't influence whether or not DEA planning is a useful tool in automatically building colony worlds without obligatory manual micromanagement.

Quote:

That's not a game....that's a Sim and a bad one at that. Go check out the IG boards if you don't believe me.....better yet, try it out yourself. The game is absurdly simple, bland, and no challenge at all once the interface is mastered. Fighting the interface is not my idea of a fun or good game.

1,600 turns and counting...

Quote:

Since the entire discussion was about Dev Plans, in fact you were saying exactly that....that military priorities in Dev Plans (which govern how DEAs are built) makes a difference. It doesn't. In fact you should never make 'military' a priority in any Dev Plan (which again is bad planning). I also note once more that THIS is something I had to find out in gameplay. The manual doesn't tell you what Dev-Plans do at all.....so I had to find this out the hard way.

Military buildings apply morale effects. I havent yet worked out what they mean by helping to increase tolerance to military structures. It could be something that was cut or it could be an underlying variable. It might influence how many militia you get when invaded (and you do get invaded occasionally, hopefully more in the future.) Its not unreasonable to make it a tertiary effect on one of your plans. It would be unforgivable to have military buildings and not have the option to include them in DEA planning. You're slamming them for inclusiveness? Every building has a class and every class is allowed to be incorporated into a plan.

Quote:

Here you go again being condescending and assuming that those like me who vocally criticize Moo III are somehow inept or too stupid to play the game. No you didn't say it directly, but you did everything short of that.

I have absolutely no problem with people criticising MoO3. Just look around the forum. You won't find me slamming all the critics.

Quote:

For you information, I quickly discovered what you were talking about (within 10 turns of my first game in fact) and I always set my Finance plans to "Limited War" because that was the only way I could get my AIs to build Colony ships fast enough and consistantly enough. Of course the moment I did that, I got innundated with Troop Ships....and yes I made sure I constantly redesigned ships of all types and sizes (including lancers) so you can not tell me I was forcing the AI to built too big too early.

So why bring this up (your earlier post which gave me this impression):

Quote:

You have to readjust your military spending and queus anyway at almost after every turn (and this is *not* my idea of macromanagement) because of the inane priorities the AI has even when it *does* go for military spending.

In short, no difference so the Dev Plans are a good idea that are effectively useless.

Which implied you didn't know how to get it to consistently spend on military projects, nor were you willing to selectively obsolete/unobsolete ship designs as it suits you.

Incidentally you glossed over my mention of MilitaryAI.txt. Having adjusted some values in that I often have to manually queue ships because I run out (something to tweak again before my next game.) A perfectly workable alternative if you insist on discussing only vanilla MoO is to make troop ships obsolete after you've scheduled a couple of planets to make them.

These are all tools to eliminate the mandatory requirement to shedule everything personally every time. They are infinitely better than having no tools at all and would be bitterly resented by most people if they could outperform manual intervention (which is what you seem to be demanding).

Quote:

{re DEA's being overridden} It happened to me frequently and often. Of course this is not documented either so I had to find out the hard way (I was producing waaay too many minerals for my industry and I couldn't figure out why until I rechecked my older planets). Of course my tech (I tended to play Evans tweeked for research) may have a lot to do with that....but that is yet another thing that is totally undocumented.

Can you give me a reproducable example to test? Eg put XYZ on a rich world and 10 turns later X will have been replaced? All my DEA's stay where they're put.

Quote:

I discovered by my third game that I should always preplan *all* my DEAs by hand the moment I colonize a new world and then turn the planetary AI OFF. Even then it doesn't work. The Planetary AI still overrules you on military build queus even when I 'disable' it. That is another example of completely wretched design. There should always be an off-switch for any AI.....or you shouldn't even bother to show the player information at that depth at all.

Again a.f.a.i.k. the AI cant override your queued builds but will add stuff onto the end of them based on your macro instructions and the balance of forces in your reserves that militaryai.txt advises. Give me a set of steps that will make it override you if you can, please.

Quote:

The problem is that it does a half-assed job at it. You still need to micromanage your fleet production on every planet given the wretched state of the Planetary Military AI. Don't even get me started on fleets or espionage.....GRRRRRRR!!

So what do you do with 90+% of the useless troop ships the AI insists on building....not to mention the scouts and other obsolete designs that you can't completely get rid of (by marking them as obsolete). Inquiring minds want to know.

I've never needed to micromanage every world. My experience here is clearly in direct opposition to yours. My primary construction planets are the only ones I care about unless I find I need 200 more battleoids or 20 more transports to invade multiple planets.

If you build transport TF's with more than the minimum number of transport ships plus escorts and recon then you need lots and lots of them and the AI seems to be geared to this. If the transport TF gets targetted by the enemy's first salvo it makes a huge difference to their survivability if your troops are spread among 6 ships with 6 PD protectors.

Obsolete design templates are hidden unless you flag them up so I don't worry about them. The only time I see the designs are to toggle on or off the most recent ones that I need more or less of. Obsolete ships I use as antipiracy TF's, antarran X mission ships or just scrap. There's nothing I get stuck with that I can't get rid of.

Quote:

Stop. You don't get to have this both ways. Espionage is a powerful part of the game (play unmodified humans with a Democracy if you doubt this). If QS wanted to make this game about "Macro"management, then they should have done that with everything that logically would be beneath the President's concern....and recuiting and planning individual espionage missions certainly qualifies! For that matter so does Task Force creation and deployment. Come to think about it, most diplomacy should also be macromanaged too.

Spy recruitment is four clicks every ~20 turns. Authorising espionage operations absolutely are the province of the ruler. Recent western history is full of dodgy espionage deals that threaten the government/presidency when discovered. You only need a couple of clicks to insert a spy and he'll keep running until he's dead. Hardly hellish micromanagement.

Do I like that the oppressometer setting seems to need to be at 9+ to eliminate New Orion spies? No. Will it be tweaked? Probably. Although for most empires the impact of a lost tech or a destroyed building is pathetic, since they discover a couple of techs a turn and build dozens of buildings, I admit the effect is like water torture on people who want 100% security 90% of the time. Personally I find the 'insert spy' button mught as well say 'kill spy' until much later in the game.

Quote:

The sad truth is when I gave my game away (I could not return it), I almost cried. I had waited for 4 long years (like the rest of you) for a worthy successor to Moo 2. I looked forward to this game and counted the days until it's release. I desperately, desperately wanted to love this game....and I tried...ooh I tried to see that 'light' that some of you have talked about.

I can't do that anymore; honesty compells me to say that this is a horrid game and we should just accept that and move on. This reminds me of Civ3 when it came out....only this game makes Civ3 PTW look good.

-Polaris

I'm sorry that your experience of the game has been so different from mine, but I'm afraid that I'm going to continue to post my version of "the truth" alongside yours for people to judge between.

The game is not perfect but I enjoy playing it as it stands. I expect patches to make it a more challenging game to beat in future.

Ianpolaris · March 5, 2003, 09:36

Grumbold,

We are getting dangerously a-Topical for this thread, so I will leave it at this:

1. I have found that if I do not turn off the Planetary AI, the AI will replace DEAs. I didn't find that out for several games because it is a difficult thing to spot....but as an exercise, try assigning *all* your planetary DEAs on colonization and then look at the planet some 50-100 turns later. It won't be the same (unless you do as I suggested). 'nuff said.

[This is an attempt to bring this back on topic btw.]

2. As for the rest of it, it isn't "my truth"; it is the truth. Moo III as presented to the community is a wretched game. Now we may disagree as to how fundamentally flawed it is....that's fine. But it is fundamentally flawed. You have said so yourself (albeit indirectly) in two things you have just said:

A. You have gone 1600 turns by 'pressing turn'. While you might not have won yet (you will if you are a member of the senate), you also have not lost.

That is simply inexusable......*especially* when Rantz made a big deal in Dec about the game being delayed to make sure "it was done right".

B. If defensive spies are so useful (and they are!), then there should be a way to automatically build spies to a certain percentage of the imperial budget. You don't get this one both ways....either macromanaging is desired in *all* cases or it should be truly *optional* in all cases.

3. If anyone else is reading this, please...please get the game from a friend and kick the tires on it before you buy it. I am convinced that most gamers will recognize it for the poor excuse of a "game" it is. Even the latest reviews are giving Moo III very poor marks.

-Polaris

P.S. Anything less than 'excellent' or 80% (4 stars) is a horrid review from a gaming magazine due to the incestuous nature of the business. If any magazine gives Moo III less than 80%, then they are risking being blacklisted by Infogrames.....but that is starting to happen! [See the current news if you doubt!]

Trooper Bill · March 5, 2003, 09:50

"I mastered the interface in about 5 hours (3 hours longer than it should have taken me with a more normal game). Once you have mastered the interface, your Dev Plans don't matter because you can not lose! "

There's to problems here.

1) If the dev plans don't matter, you're not macromanaging well. You've probably not gotten the right combination of planet selection, empire-wide zoning, and development plans.

2) The computer opponents are clearly meant only as training for playing other humans. Everyone knows that no computer AI (purchased for 50$ anyway) will ever pose the challege that a human does. At least currently. Try playing against your friends, and see if there's a challenge.

Ianpolaris · March 5, 2003, 09:56

Trooper Bill,

The first statement "if dev plans don't matter, then you are doing somthing incorrectly" is IMHO dangerously close to saying, "You must be too stupid to like Moo III." That is just an FYI.

The fact is you are only given a limited number of Dev Plans. There is no documentation anywhere as to how they work and what exact effect they have. Even the manual admits that they are "only guidelines" which means there is no guarantees that your planet will be developed in the needed way.

I am quite serious: No Devplan will ever be as good as doing the following two things:

1. Assign *all* planetary DEAs by hand the moment you colonize. This requires just a few minutes of work, but you never had to touch it again as long as you....

2. Turn the Planetary AI to OFF.

I have played the game both ways....and manual assignment of DEA is much better and far more effecient than any AI DevPlan. This is actual game experience talking.

-Polaris

Edit: I almost forgot. In any TBS game, the single player game is as important....indeed more important than multiplayer. It is difficult to get friends to allocate the time to play a 600 turn game of Moo....but you do that all the time with the single player game.

Thus if the enemy AI can NOT give the player a challenge even on impossible, then the game is for all intents and purposes unplayable. Given that QS got an extra 3 months to "do it right" (to quote Rantz), this is inexcusable.

asleepathewheel · March 5, 2003, 14:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
The first statement "if dev plans don't matter, then you are doing somthing incorrectly" is IMHO dangerously close to saying, "You must be too stupid to like Moo III." That is just an FYI.

Ian-

your bitterness is getting the better of you.

I just can't see how TB said what you claim. People that are using dev plans incorrectly aren't stupid, they just don't have enough experience with the game yet. All it takes is a little time.

It would seem to me that there are three theories of development, with most people doing a bit of everything.

Let the Viceroy determine everything
Set development plans to guide the viceroy
Micromanage the planets' development

I can't see how that is bad. Late game MoO2 personally annoyed the hell out of me, having to go to everyplanet on my own every tech improvement.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
I have played the game both ways....and manual assignment of DEA is much better and far more effecient than any AI DevPlan. This is actual game experience talking.

Of course doing everything by hand is better than letting the AI do it, that is a fairly obvious statement. AFter all, wouldn't you agree that you are smarter than the AI? You are more efficient, have long term plans and ideas that the AI cannot. The dev plans are for a certain type of player who wants a different type of game.

It would seem to me that that is a strength of the game: if you want, you can micromanage most everything in the game similarly to MoO2. If you don't want to do that, then the Viceroy does a fairly competent job of it, even better when you direct him what to do.

While you complain that the viceroy doesn't follow your guidelines, I would have to disagree. As I have said before, the easiest way to show this is to use a flawed plan, ie poor planets build mining or something else. Its incredibly easy to end up with food shortages or other problems if you aren't careful, this you can clearly see in the game. Trial and error is required to figure out exactly how to do what, I certainly have more things I have to learn, many more.

Yes the Enemy AI is flawed currently. Check some of the other boards for fixes to this, an agressive AI is being tested right now by players. Not perfect yet, but on its way. Every day the AI gets closer to being what it should be.