Master of Orion 2

[hurleybird]

Yeah, MOO is still such a great game. I love going back to it. It was the game that got everything right. YOu had great options of micromanaging but I liked how the combat felt like a chess match.

The great thing about MOO is that the micromanagement never gets tedious. No other TBS can make that claim. Almost all the micromanagement can be done from the main screen with a system of sliders, which makes it easy to manipulate each planet lightning fast.

[Sufficient subject divergence to break this discussion off from this thread - Death]

 

[Death]

The great thing about MOO is that the micromanagement never gets tedious. No other TBS can make that claim. Almost all the micromanagement can be done from the main screen with a system of sliders, which makes it easy to manipulate each planet lightning fast.

Too bad they felt they had to "spice it up" for MOO2. In spite of the superior graphics of the sequel, I find that the original is still more enjoyable, even if things like the 32K ship stacks are utterly ludicrous.

(The less said of MOO3, the better.)

 

[Edfilho]

I kinda like Moo2:Baa (genius acronyms) best. It feels better. But they, as long as you don't prefer 3, it's alright

 

[Delance]

MOO2 still is a very enjoyable game. It's pretty amazing, considering how old it is. It was one of the best years for strategy gaming before the market went stupid. And the best came from Microprose: MOO2 and X-Com Apoc.

 

[hurleybird]

MOO2 still is a very enjoyable game. It's pretty amazing, considering how old it is. It was one of the best years for strategy gaming before the market went stupid. And the best came from Microprose: MOO2 and X-Com Apoc.

IIRC MOO2 was pretty much hated by fans of the series when it first came out, and gained popularity as time went on. While MOO2 did definantly have some really cool stuff (Dimensional portals! Stellar Convertor!) the interface was pretty bloated compared to MOO1. It took an order of magnitude longer to tweak a planets production in MOO2, and the combat got really tiresome and unbalanced in the late game -- whichever force was the first to act could obliterate the enemy force before it it was their first turn.

 

[Madman]

It's true, the "deathstar" approach became the be all and end all in mop up - an army of several dreadnoughts with stellar converters and you win the game with ease (and no need to worry about pesky rebirth of their civilization after you detonate the planet!)

i never was sure about civ though, im more a red alert sorta guy and the slowness of civ (and moo2 too) really bugged me - then again i also play transport tycoon to death and thats kinda slow .

with response to the amusing rants about leonardos workshop - chill guys, its only a game! (if i cared enough id go look who was right - but i dont)

 

[Delance]

IIRC MOO2 was pretty much hated by fans of the series when it first came out, and gained popularity as time went on.

I have no idea about that. For a game of its kind, it sold pretty well. I was a fan and I didn't hate it at first. But the initial versions had some AI problems that were fixed with the later patch.

While MOO2 did definantly have some really cool stuff (Dimensional portals! Stellar Convertor!) the interface was pretty bloated compared to MOO1. It took an order of magnitude longer to tweak a planets production in MOO2, and the combat got really tiresome and unbalanced in the late game -- whichever force was the first to act could obliterate the enemy force before it it was their first turn.

Not at all. Later on you could build devices that would slow down the speed by which the enemy fleet would approach your system, and, with stellar gates, you could put your entire fleet on any of your systems in a single turn. Even worse: the enemy could take a shorter hyperspace route and strike your own planets if you commited your fleet to a long run. So, moving firt was not an easy way to win.

And all one battle could really do is destroy one system, which is not much in the grand scheme of things. In the final stages of the game it'd be a matter of actually destroying the enemy fleet or finding an alternative way of winning the game, since the most likely scenario was a standstill.

It's true, the "deathstar" approach became the be all and end all in mop up - an army of several dreadnoughts with stellar converters and you win the game with ease (and no need to worry about pesky rebirth of their civilization after you detonate the planet!)

On the harder difficulty settings, anyone could come up with stellar converters. And a system is not important on a vast empire. With the very agressive AI of MOO2, you'd have to come up with some good strategy on any stage of the game.

 

[Zelvik]

The stellar converter on the highest difficulty or in Multiplayer realy isnte the end all. Real question always was whatever heavy Disruptors or Plasma Cannons were the way to go.

 

[Death]

The stellar converter on the highest difficulty or in Multiplayer realy isnte the end all. Real question always was whatever heavy Disruptors or Plasma Cannons were the way to go.

No contest. Plasmas can't autofire, and can't harm Barrier shielded planets (2x range dissipation + atmospheric dissipation doesn't leave enough "oomph" to crack the shield). Disruptors can do both, and from any range with no loss of damage potential, to boot. Sure, for its time Plasma Cannon has a nice damage output (and does so against ships at any tech level), but it doesn't stand up too well against Disruptors. especially once you advance enough for AF (2 tech levels, IIRC).

 

[hurleybird]

Not at all. Later on you could build devices that would slow down the speed by which the enemy fleet would approach your system, and, with stellar gates, you could put your entire fleet on any of your systems in a single turn. Even worse: the enemy could take a shorter hyperspace route and strike your own planets if you commited your fleet to a long run. So, moving firt was not an easy way to win.

You misunderstand me. The first person to actually move in combat can completely obliterate the enemy force before it's their turn to act in combat.

The stellar converter on the highest difficulty or in Multiplayer realy isnte the end all. Real question always was whatever heavy Disruptors or Plasma Cannons were the way to go.

Plasma, definantly. Even after they drastically lowered its strength in the latest patch it was insanely overpowered. With miniturization you can load hundreds onto a doom star, and hitting all four sides is really nice, especially against ships with damper feild (so you aren't wasting energy taking out all four sheilds). It doesen't really matter that plasma didn't work as well against planets -- a couple ships with stellar convertors take care of that quite nicely. Again, it also depends on which version you use. In earlier versions, the plasma takes up half the space and is unquestionably the best weapon in the game.

 

[Delance]

You misunderstand me. The first person to actually move in combat can completely obliterate the enemy force before it's their turn to act in combat.

The turn based system creates this imbalance. But there're ways to survive the enemy firing first.

 

[Madman]

I did say in the mop-up stage. after you have managed to take care of the fleets, sending ships with the stellar converter off to dipose of planets.

I agree though that during the main course of the game, it is more important to focus on intership weaponry. esp as you say on the higher skill levels

 

[Maj.Striker]

I never got a chance to play MOO2 although I have always wanted. I suppose that eventually I will pick up a copy and sit down and play it through, until then I'm happy playing through the original MOO.

 

[hurleybird]

The turn based system creates this imbalance. But there're ways to survive the enemy firing first.

But it's far harder for the enemy to survive me firing first as long as I have plasma and the right mix of specials. Makes for rather boring space combat late game.

 

[Delance]

But it's far harder for the enemy to survive me firing first as long as I have plasma and the right mix of specials. Makes for rather boring space combat late game.

The hard part is to actually get the enemy fleet all rounded up on a system for you to attack, as they tend to flee and let the systems with local defenses, which are just weak for massive fleets.

I did say in the mop-up stage. after you have managed to take care of the fleets, sending ships with the stellar converter off to dipose of planets.

Why'd you do that? Just conquer the planets if you are good, or wipe out the colonies and send your own colony ships if you are evil, there's little point in nuking planets, they are kinda useful.

I agree though that during the main course of the game, it is more important to focus on intership weaponry. esp as you say on the higher skill levels

I whish fighters, bombers and fighter-bombers were more effective, because they are so cool to use. Early on, fighters with mass drivers can be a major help during battles.

 

[Death]

Why'd you do [destroy planets]? Just conquer the planets if you are good, or wipe out the colonies and send your own colony ships if you are evil, there's little point in nuking planets, they are kinda useful.

On the other hand, assuming a multi-planet system, with the Stellar Converter you can nuke the more worthless of the planets, and later rebuild from the asteroid rubble with artificial planet tech. Even a huge/rich toxic world gets trumped by a large gaia (or even terran) planet without the rich modifier (not sure about URich huge toxic worlds, but even if the toxic has more output it pays for it with increased maintenance costs).

As an added bonus, even if the original planet was a tiny world, the asteroid rubble can be turned into a large planet, vastly improving its potential value. Tiny UPoor LG/HG worlds don't remain worthless when upgraded from rubble.

 

[Delance]

On the other hand, assuming a multi-planet system, with the Stellar Converter you can nuke the more worthless of the planets, and later rebuild from the asteroid rubble with artificial planet tech.

Since the game doesn't allow you to self-destruct planets (you can try, tought), that's very useful. You're stuck with the small and toxic planets you have, but you don't have to take that from your enemies. In this way, the Stellar Converter is less a doomsday weapon and more a terraforming tool.

 

[Maj.Striker]

Eh, if you can totally annihilate a planet you're probably not going to need to worry about terraforming and taking over the planet...you're probably well on your way to winning the game by then.

 

[hurleybird]

Not really. The stellar convertor can destroy a planet, but it's wasted as a normal weapon.

Blowing up worlds to create better planets is just too tedius for me to do. Sure, it's cool for the first couple planets, but the process becomes extremely boring.

 

[Death]

While true that it's not just "snap your fingers and *poof* instantly developed planet", and that if you've survived to SC tech you're probably not that far from winning outright, it is a nice option for absolutely and completely burying an opponent. (The animation of the planet kill is amusing, too. )

As for being wasted as a normal weapon, not so, in my experience. SCs do wonders for punching out planetary defenses quickly (especially important when your opponent has an SC of his own installed on the assaulted planet), or knock out a Titan or lower (though somewhat overkill below titan) in one shot, if the target planet is lacking defenses it's vital to kill quickly (really, a fighter base is not that big a worry, even if they have particle cannon tech). A doomstar with an SC and some other, normal weapons will cover a lot of territory.