For everyone who doesn't "get it" yet and can't stand it...

[Arnelos]

Here's a variation on what I just posted in another thread and probably deserves a thread of its own (with considerable additions)...

I started out when I first got this game being as frustrated and disheartened as many of you. I just didn't immediately sign on to 'poly and kept sloshing away at MoO3 saying to myself "there's got to be a game here somewhere... I know there's a game in here somewhere... where is it?"

What I found was interesting...

This game is NOT a simple matter of you just clicking the turn button, though I did go through stage where that's what I was doing.

You see, I started out trying to micromanage everything and not understanding much.

Then I realized the AI could just do a lot for me and let it do so.

Then, after playing a few times, I realized that while the AI is pretty good, it's just not realistic to expect any programmers to program an AI that can accurately anticipate the details of your situation and how YOU want to cope with them.

At that point, I started taking a more active hand in my empire's development, especially as I started to understand what some of the technologies actually DID.

So as I play more, I find myself taking a more and more active role in the development of my empire, coming back from the stage I was at where I did little but hit the end turn button.

The true beauty of this game was then exposed to me: I was taking a more active role in the development of my empire not because I was micromanaging everything, but that I now better understood how to apply effective means of macromanagement and the minimum of effective micromanagement to provide direction (my chosen direction, whatever that may be) to an otherwise directionless AI.

The AI can fairly comptently manage things for you and slog your empire forward at its own pace. But when you really start to get a feel for this game is when you learn how to AUGMENT what the AI is capable of doing by telling it where to go and delving into details in those situations where it is most needed (your homeworld at the start of the game, key border colonies in the mid-game, magnate civs, your own chosen optimal fleet composition, etc.).

It's at the point where I realized that THIS is what this game is about, that the game "clicked". It took me an inordinant number of gaming hours to reach this point, but I'm now finding it near impossible to put the game down.

I'm now playing a modified Evon (my favorite race so far) on a Huge spiral galaxy map, 16 opponents, with diplo victory turned off (I've won several games by diplo win and now consider that victory option to be the cheap way out... I want a bigger game ).

The war I spent all of last night (5-6 hours of play?) fighting to conquer the infadel Meklars (who were the second largest in the galaxy while I was first) was one of the most fun gameplay experiences I have EVER had. Empire management, espionage, fleet combat, ground combat, the works. Every aspect of that military campaign was absolutely awesome and the AI threw enough frustrating stuff in my direction to actually make the conquest of the those darn Meklars quite the challenge (and this is hardly my first military campaign, having won the game a few times before).

And even after that considerable conquest and that I'm the largest empire in the galaxy by far, I own maybe 6-8% of the stars on the map. I have a looooong way to go... and I'm looking forward to every minute of it.

So a lesson to the wise... this game takes ENORMOUS amounts of patience to get beyond the initial frustration and annoyance with your confusion and the lack of documentation/tutorial. This is why the first item (bolded) in my list of patch suggestions in the patch suggestion thread is a TUTORIAL (much simpler games have them, why on earth not MoO3???).

But since the game does not have a tutorial, the only way to get between the state of frustration you're currently in and the state of pure joy that you could be in is to just work through it the hard way. That sucks and takes a lot of hours of frustration to do, but once you're there, this game is unbelievably awesome.

[kalbear]

I could not have put it better myself. Learning what techs are critical is a big factor here. Learning how you can influence your empire for the better, what works and what doesn't...all hugely important.

I love me my giant bugs. I have to try other races, I know, but damnit, I love my bugs and will cry when I give 'em up. Klackons and Tachidi being one of the worst races....lol.

[Arnelos]

I love blasting bugs

I love my Evon and, when I'm up for something different, I love playing the Silicoids (modded, of course). I've always loved playing the Silicoids since the original MoO and the Evon satisfy my love for the original Darloks.

Now if only the Humans (my other favorite original MoO race) were actually worth something in MoO3

[Killazer]

They should put moo3 in its own special section by the games in the store. Section label-> 'CAUTION: MAY CAUSE HAIRLOSS'

lol

But like Ive said many times I think moo3 is pretty good. Just some things that can be fixed pretty relatively easily need fixing. It would be cool if they tried to improve the combat graphics a bit too prolly wont happen till an xpansion or something tho if ever. Would be cool too if there was an option where you could view yer planet and structures on kinda like the civ3 throne room... or mayb a throne room for moo3. While not a huge deal, it did add a lot of atmosphere and some more fun to civ3 and I think some version of it would add some more fun factor to moo.

Game just needs to be spices up and fixed and it would be awesome. I think it can be done in some patches and perhaps an addon or something down the road.

[Demosthenes1234]

I only just got the game yesterday. I put the game in my computer. And started playing. This definately is not a micromanaging game. I am still in the frustration stage where you sort of feel like everything is already done for you and so you feel obliged to click the turn button. I guess I still have to learn more. well now iM going to go home and play the damn game and try and get addicted to it...even though I know I shouldn't as I have homework and stuff to do....d'oh.
-Demos

[kalbear]

I suggest not trying so hard.

First off, install the encyclopedia mod. That helps tons to add info, strategies, etc. You might want the tech mod as well, as it helps with diplomacy and gives a better handle on all the techs that stream through your sitrep every turn early on. But that's up to you.

Second, relax a bit. Try experiments with worlds and see what works. The most important thing to experiment with is the dev plans, because those give you the most macro-level control of your empire. Knowing what does what and why and where is hugely essential to getting a good grasp of the game, instead of letting it grasp you.

And then - just have a good time, I suppose. Try attacking something for the hell of it, and find out what works and what doesn't work. Send some spies out to play with an enemy you don't like. Or heck, one you do like. Fiddle with sliders and see what works. Play around. Experiment.

[Arnelos]

*bump*

It deserves repeating without me having to re-type the whole thing all over again...

Given more play of the game since the above, I have some additions... but I'm too busy at the moment to write them... Haven't played MoO3 in several days... too busy with this odd thing called "real life".

I'm sure a few of you might have heard of it

But hopefully back to MoO3 in the near future

[canamrock]

Yeah, the only thing I find frustrating is that I cannot set up a more specific guideline for planetary development. If only I could set up a generic queue that would be followed by each new colony for a few turns, I'd be set to just hit the turn button and guide my military forward against everyone.

The game still reminds me of MoO2 near the end in that you do end up having to toss out queues sometimes, and that seems to be the drain of time I've been having. Arnelos, are you making use of the planetary viceroy guidesheets (I know this is not the right term) to minimize direct involvment? What do you use, if so?

[Yolky]

I like your post Arnelos. Can you please tell me what you did when everything clicked. Give us step by step or an idea on what you did to help us out.

I like the game but could use some help to apprciate it more and get the one more turn feeling.

Davor

[Arnelos]

Going to bed at the moment.

Here's a thread to check out where various people are talking about dev plans and what some good set-ups are (from the MoO3-Strategy part of this forum):

http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...threadid=79794

[MariOne]

Arnelos, I'm not planning to buy the game before a couple of months anyway, this to say that my comments are "pure" and unprejudiced

I follow the debate tho, and I'm interested in the community perception.

I think to understand the different approach that the design team has attempted, as to whether it succeeded I limit myself to record the several (opposing) opinions from thos who have their hands on the game.

There might be a subtle shade in what as a player we could intend for micro vs macromanagement.
(Sorry to the others, but I post having only read A.'s first post)

Of course, if I set by hand the production and the resources of every base/city/planet, and check it and tweak it avery turn, that's micromanagement.

Of course, if I set empire-/civ-/faction- -scope sliders for "economical" factors allocation, and focus on just verifying how my "strategical direction" are automatically translated in local achievements to ensure that the actual means to reach the global goals are reached, that's macromanagement.

Without being just a "god-game" (with nuances
ranging from Populous to DK to Settlers, as elsewhere already noted), to win a game strategically I must ensure (for instance) that a strong and diverse enough fleet is produced, deployed to the right front, maintained and supported.
If all what's fuctional to those goals can be obtained via macromanagement, that can be equally fine.
As long as you ultimately feel that you have *control* on what are the true game goals, it can work. It could even work better, in the sense that gives you new seansations in gaming.

But here (finally) I come to my question.

Although some claim that a PC is a better number-cruncher and thus it should be a better micromanager than a human, we know that it's not that way. No AI has yet been programmed to *efficiently* micromanage complex resources, or at least to efficiently *coordinate* the micromanagement of several interacting sources, with respect to a context.
That's why in every Civ-like game I saw, I was far better off in terms of resources availability and readiness to my goals (to stick to the simplest parameter) if I did not leave ANY decision whatsoever to the AI. Then it was still my task to put to good use that bountiful plenty no AI would ever be able to provide me with.

Now, couldn't it just be the same with macromanagement?
That is, in order to obtain an *efficient* and *effective* control of your empire to have it truly work globally towards your goals, don't you have the same to recur to:
- fine tuning of every [global!] parameter (down to the last digit allowed)
- continuous adjustment every turn of the above

For instance.
You realise how good the game is, because you can deal with setting Planetary, Military, Research Grants and funding on an empire-scale, and that works!
You decide for instance that you can effectively focus on boosting your general economy and industry before turning military and offensive. Your skill is in finding out that keeping a given global slider at 80% for 10 turns, instead that maybe lulling at 60% for 20 turns.

Well, THE REST (your global vision, skill, choices) BEING THE SAME, wouldn't you have gained nevertheless a slight but measurable material advantage, had you bothered to determine that the *optimal*, *global* settings were to have that slider at 75% on turn one, then at 83.5% on turn 2, then at 79%, then at 74%, then back at 86%.... and so on, continuously fine tuning and adjusting it every turn?
The results would be *more or less* the same, and the general feel of how your empire flows to your strategical goals wold be the same.
But maybe, at a given "confrontation point", you could find out that the one who finetuned and adjusted all the global parameters every turn, ends up to have 5% *more* (and not *less*) ships in his clashing fleet, or 5% stronger or fitter weapons, or 5% nearer to the paradise planet because he cold produce them faster.
Or ends up to have that 5% margin on his economy, lending him the vital edge on trades or whatever to strongarm his partners.
Or ends up to have 5% more senate votes before the final election.... (for instance b/c he managed to let his population grow a bit more efficiently).

That is, I read in this forum the equations system:
micro = tedious menial shortsighted tasks = BAD
macro = deal with the real forces at stake in the big picture = FUN

If my assumption holds true in actual gameplay instead, it's just a matter of how much every player puts attention, effort and commitment into DETAIL management.

A poor micromanager will lose againt a *careful* micromanager, unless the former redeems his sloppines with geniality in vision and strategic approach.
A game which allows to match the strength and weaknesses of a succesful micromanager and of a sloppy administrator but enlightened empire leader, is a good game, imho.

But taken two gifted macromanagers, the one more careful to the tiniest everyturn detail will always prevail over the somewhat sloppy one.
Speaking in principles, and imho, of course.

In summary:
"macromanaging" does not mean that you don't have tiny details in the macro-parameters, to fine tune and adjust everyturn.
Even if this is a "macromanagement" game, to be ultimately succesful at macromanagement you NEED to "micromanage the macromanagement itself".
You just need to shift the excruciating and extenuating effort from one scope to the other, but you can't subtract yourself from it, if you wann match with the best opponents and stand a chance.
That is, all the micro-macro debate is not missing the target, it's missing the shooting range, it's running around in circles barking at our own tails...

Or... izitso?

(just had 1/2 hour to kill waitign for a meetign @work, gotta go now, thanks for your atention)

[billybaruch1]

But since the game does not have a tutorial, the only way to get between the state of frustration you're currently in and the state of pure joy that you could be in is to just work through it the hard way. That sucks and takes a lot of hours of frustration to do, but once you're there, this game is unbelievably awesome.

I appreciate what's been written here, but I have to tell you -- I don't understand any of it.

#1: It's well-documented the enemy AI will attack your systems, but will never invade your planets. That means there's no reason to leave infantry on planets. Also, there's no reason to build Orbitals or System ships, except to break up the blockade.

#2: Mobilization Centers - they magically teleport space and planetary task forces. This is unrealistic and I think it is a poor gameplay choice by the designers but, at least, the TF's all go together. This is unlike

#3: Grouped task forces that travel at different speeds. Try sending them all on a invasion and you might not like it when the undefended transports arrive one turn before the weapons. I guess you can select the ones that travel at the same speed and send them together.

#4: Designing Ships -- can this be any more tedious? Everytime you get a new tech, and this is actually something that does happen every day (every turn), you have to obsolete the old and build the new. I'll admit I'm beginning to get the hang of it, but if the computer would do this for me, that'd be good.

#5: the prior post about micro-mgmt of the macro-mgmt AI rings true to me. Adjusting sliders and clicking buttons is not really that much fun. I'm learning how to tweak things, but, well... this sure isn't Alpha Centauri. But then again, what is?

#6: I'd like to see some "Secret Projects" or big, big accomplishments that the player could invest in. You know, like in Civ and SMAC.

What else? I just want to emphasize I'm not looking to start an argument. I'm going to play MOO3 for a few more hours now. I've won a game in the Senate and I've lost a game to the Senate. Now I turned the Senate victory off. I want to at least get one X. I really want to see the "awesomeness" of this game.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by billybaruch1

#2: Mobilization Centers - they magically teleport space and planetary task forces. This is unrealistic and I think it is a poor gameplay choice by the designers but, at least, the TF's all go together. This is unlike

#3: Grouped task forces that travel at different speeds. Try sending them all on a invasion and you might not like it when the undefended transports arrive one turn before the weapons. I guess you can select the ones that travel at the same speed and send them together.

#2 is not super bad, but could be fix in a number of ways. It would be super bad if you did not have a long delay to disband befoe you can build a new TF. Make TF independant of the Mobilzation and move it to much later in the tech tree.
#3 I consider this a small thing as well. I do not send my troops with my attacking fleets, so I am not concerned about their early arrival. But you could just be careful about what TF goes when. I would not mind if you could force a least common denominator for speed if you send mulitple TF at one time form the same location. They would act as a battle group at that time.
Good luck on you search for the 5 X's.

[Grumbold]

Nicely put Arnelos.

The user mods are already helping to alleviate the learning 'wall'. Hopefully with more mods and the official AI patch we're headed for an awesome game.

[Thud]

So this is what my SMC has been doing all term...

I got the game yesterday. I'm not frustrated, but still micromanaging. Perhaps the frustration has yet to come.

As for the alien AI problems... thats where multiplayer comes in

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Thud
As for the alien AI problems... thats where multiplayer comes in

It would be nice if the AI could be modestly competent though, as seemed to be the case when the beta tester AAR's mentioned people taking over AI races and playing them for a bit or dropping out to let the AI run the empire they had built.

In a game where you're looking at a significant time commitment to play it would be good if you could say 'sure, play three hours on tuesday without me. I'll pick up the threads again when we resume on thursday.'

[MariOne]

Grumbold, I REFUSE a game which can only be acceptaly played thanks to USER mods.
I *expect* OFFICIAL patches for that.

(...a patch would be recognisable and referencable wherever I go.
A mod would only be recognised within a local community, or would have limited diffusion and *validity* anyway...)

[Grumbold]

Whether or not a game can be acceptably played without certain user mods depends entirely upon your personal preferences. Personally I find SMAC detestible until I alter the psi combat so that the mindworms are almost useless. Some game mods have become so universal they've been released as commercial products in their own right.

In this case, as with so many previous examples, the user community is way ahead of the developers in finding solutions to common issues, making improvements to the game and generally rushing out any new feature that somebody thinks could be cool. Of course this is only possible because the developers took the time and effort to make elements of the code easily accessible so that players could chose to tweak to enhance their gameplaying experience. Their patch will inevitably cover a lot of the ground the mods are covering now, just in a more official, documented, bug tested way. MOO3 is certainly playable without any mods its just not as positive an experience.

[Don K Hotay]

Originally posted by billybaruch1


....

#4: Designing Ships -- can this be any more tedious? Everytime you get a new tech, and this is actually something that does happen every day (every turn), you have to obsolete the old and build the new. I'll admit I'm beginning to get the hang of it, but if the computer would do this for me, that'd be good.

...

I just want to add that once dev plans are in place, and planetary/system micromanagement worries are out of the way, ship designing is the one area that requires a player's full attention. Having played this long, design is not something that I would ever want the AI to handle, except for maybe getting the basic components into a hull.

Ship technologies flowing in are boons not burdens, and they stay that way because I'm always checking in at the lab to see which ones are on the horizon, so I can design accordingly.

Versus the AI in single player, its easy to take advantage of its weaknesses by simply checking which techs are and are not available to them, and then designing ships custom tailored to assure victory in battle. In multiplayer, this is obviously a little more difficult

Quixote

[Grumbold]

The AI doesn't do a bad job of building ships when you hit autodesign either. Sure you can improve them all, but thats part of the fun. Many people would hate it if you couldn't tinker with ships and do better then the AI at trading speed for guns etc.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Thud
So this is what my SMC has been doing all term...

I got the game yesterday. I'm not frustrated, but still micromanaging. Perhaps the frustration has yet to come.

As for the alien AI problems... thats where multiplayer comes in

Are you on crack? Who in real life could make the time committment MP would require? Even with limited turns it would be just too much.

[Don K Hotay]

Originally posted by Grumbold
The AI doesn't do a bad job of building ships when you hit autodesign either....

I've noticed that autodesign puts all emphasis on damage, and for direct fire weapons (and fighters as well), this is no good. Range, space vs. damage, and a civ's shield/armor tech. have to be taken into consideration in order to build a battleworthy "wessel" (quoting that russian star trek guy)....then we can talk about design improvements. Autodesign is for getting the basics into a ship, not for building a dependable one.

Quixote

[Grumbold]

Oh I'll never leave a design untweaked, that is true, but it is a very efficient way of ensuring you get all the latest shields, drives, scanners etc bolted into your ship. Most of the time all I have to do is halve the ship speed, tweak the point defence and maybe switch to an older weapon type that has better damage when all of its enhancer techs are taken into account. Whether or not you like the size of shield it puts in each ship is more about gameplay style.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Thud
So this is what my SMC has been doing all term...

I've been discovered!



Thud,

In all seriousness, I've been too busy with RL over the past several days (not the previous term... ) to post in the Civ3 boards, post here in the MoO3 section, or even PLAY MoO3

Hell, this is the first time I've sat in front of this computer in nearly 2 days.

RL can be hectic at times...