why moo and mooII are better than gal civ 2

or how to make this game better

from GalCiv2 Forums
I have seen some comparison of the old series to galcivII and these games are way too easily written off. So much is borrowed from them in gal civ (the land invasion scheme looks and acts exactly like moo I) that some comparison ought to be made. Particulary, very little military "strategy" is needed in galciv II ("strategos" being Greek for a general). There certainly is diplomatic strategy and economic management, but the key part of strategy is missing. So if we set aside graphics considerations (playing with ship design is a game unto itself):

Why couldn't galciv include a robust combat sequence like (or far better than) games that are far older? Except for graphics, preparing for war took much more prep in the old games. I will always remember my squadron of large battleships being atttacked by a fleet of tech inferior warships armed with "assault shuttles" to board my crafts, which I was totally unprepared for and forced to hastily retreat and re-design my fleet. Or speed and maneuverability could be used to throw the enemy fleet into disorder. "Phasors" and "Plasmas" were actually different types of guns. Etc,etc... The point is that galcivII has actually taken a rather large step backwards. And given that I think Rome:Total War is more the future of turn-based strategy's future popularity than anything else (one only need look at the vast upgrade in combat possibilities in civ4 from its predecessors to see this and I can only imagine the next civ game will expand this exponentially).

The same goes for land combat. Whole populations don't fight, armies do (with occasional partisan action of course). The rather rudimentary system of MOOII was still far more advanced than galcivII. And why can't I bomb a planet into oblivion if I don't want to invade? The tech exists now (i.e. hydrogen bombs), so why doesn't it exist then? And the need to deal with alien populations was something in MOOII that seems logical to include in every space game (I always exported the cave dwelling Sakkra all over the universe to live under every colony).
32,820 views 37 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thanks for being calm, while I disagree, it's nice to not hear another shrill whiner.

First, unless you played the original Gla Civ (back in teh early 90's), you can't really say that this game borrrows from MOO.

Second, The bombing of planets has been explained, in MOO and MOO2 is was easy just to bomb you enemy into oblivion before they knew what hit them, war over.

Third, exporting Sakkra was awesome, I miss it.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
moo is better for no other reason that its what the cows go...>_> <_<
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I have to disagree, respectfully mind you. I think its comparing apples and oranges in terms of what the games were supposed to do. Gal Civ has an emphasis on empire building more then MOO did.

And I disagree on the Rome Total War as well. The turn based section strategy section of that game really wasn't that challenging I thought. And the tactical combat tended to dissolve into the "line up your horde and fling them into battle" problem that you get with RTS games.

I think there are a variety of approaches to doing a turn based strategy game and I prefer Gal Civ II's setup to just about anything on the market at the moment.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
What the heck is MOO anyway? I keep seeing it while reading through this msg board. I'll have to check out this MOO, whatever that is (is there a demo?).

anyway...

Comparing one game to another - from different companies - is pointless. Every game has its high and low points and no company is going to blatantly copy another's game. They could run into patent issues, if nothing else.

All I can really say is that I've never been so damn addicted to a game as I am to Gal Civ II. GTA San Andreas comes close, but.... I haven't even started that since I bought this and started playing. I also preordered a copy of "The Godfather" - which arrived from Amazon two weeks ago - and I haven't even opened the box yet to see if they sent the right merchandise.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
"MOO" is Master of Orion, a 4X strategy game along the lines of GalCiv, however, it's last release failed miserably.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I DO miss the intricate interactions between technologies and combat from Moo2.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
GASP! You mentioned "That game which shall not be named". No, not Starcon 3 .
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
MoO is the diminutive for the 90's benchmark 4X game Master of Orion, which was followed up by II and III. MoO2 was, by the estimation of most, the superior version.

Due to its age, some of the animations are too quick on today's hardware but MoO2 could still be playable, if you can find it somewhere.

Cheers,
Reaver
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I thought you had some points re:MOO2 and some elements of MOO2 that are missing from GC2 BUT using RTW as an example of the future of TBS was an error. RTW was a definite step backward (in regards strategy and gameplay) compared with MTW and STW its predecesors. GC2 has way more strategy than RTW
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Having played both Moo2 and GCII a lot I gotta say they're both awesome games and it's really hard to pick one over the other - especially seeing as how GCII is still fairly new and we most likely won't see the 'finished' product for a few years. I have to say though that at this early stage GCII has a definite edge in the area of AI which gives it much more long term single player playability. Moo2's strengths were obviously multiplayer capability and the awesome variation in the races and custom abilities.

I think the custom picks and races in GCII are all fairly generic and in the end don't really make a huge difference in how one plays the game. By stark contrast probably half the fun of Moo2 was actually designing your own custom race because the picks were all so interesting and powerful in different ways. For example telepathic allowed you to conquer planets from the air without even invading, creative practically gave you around a 3 fold tech advantage by allowing you to research all techs on each branch. You could pick omniscient and see the entire map the whole game, you could be aquatic and colonise water worlds as if they were earth like. Racial picks in GCII are nothing more than +20 to this or +10 to that and there are no real "power picks" which make your race amazing in any area.

It will be really interesting to see if Stardock expands on the custom race options in future patches and expansions because I really think that it's a big part of the fun in 4X games.


Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Wow, were throwing around more acronyms than the military and NASA combined!

Its nice to hear some thought out and logical points being made. But I would like to go back to the old saying "This isnt MOO4" It seems that most of your argument revolves around comabt options (or the lack there of). GalCiv is about optimzing numbers... end of story. Combat in GalCiv is an easy way to unoptimize your competations numbers.

What it boils down to is your trying to compare apples to oranges. I wont state my opinons on RTW because its possible that minors visit this site

But yeah... those Sakkra made great colonists... they bred fast too!
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I played the original MoO briefly before discovering MoO2. That game has been on every computer I've owned since. But you know something? My present computer will be the last. Why? GC2 . Whether or not it is better boils down to simple personal taste. For me personally I like GC2 more then I ever did MoO2 for this simple reason: No Doomstars. MoO2 always boiled down to me building a couple of Doomstars with Stellar Converters and just wiping the galaxy clean. No real thought there. No real strategy beyond make it far enough into the game to do that and WHAM! game over.

Believe me I wanted to destroy Atari for what they did to MoO3. I so wanted to like that game because of MoO2.

GC2 while not absolutely perfect (what game ever could be?) is still the best game in the genre since MoO2. And it will definitely be on my future computers for a long time. Or at least until they release a GC3 provided they do NOT destroy the franchise . Nothing else comes even close at least for me anyway.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Spelling and grammar gentlemen! Shock, horror, gasp!

Computational...

You're is abbreviated for you are, whereas Your implies belonging to you....

:
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well, MoO2 and GC2 are similiar games, but MoO2 is ten years older than GC2 so it is really hard to compare. It's like comparing Street Fighter 2 to Soul Calibur 3. Sure, Street Fighter, one of the best games ever, but would I really play Street Fighter over Soul Calibur today? Heck no.

Oh and btw, my memory of MoO2 is a lot different than yours, I remember boarding Antaran ships and winning vs huge odds on the highest difficulties. And that the creative trait was supremely overpowered. MoO2's system is not more advanced, just different.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well I also disagree with what you are saying, though I completely accept people have different opinions on the matter.

I did enjoy MOO and MOO2 and have played almost every space strategy game which lies within the same vein as those two classics. However the only area in which Gal Civ 2 is perhaps not as good as MOO2 is the custom race system. In MOO2 you could give you race a more fundemental look, by selecting traits like HIVE and things like that. Whilst Galciv is all about the numbers. But that said, you couldn't change anything else like in Galciv, such as interface, race picture etc. Also as someone has said before, some of those abilities such as Creative in MOO2 made the game very very easy to win.

And I think its been said before but, Rome Total War was a bit of a poor show really. The Rome Total Realism team did a lot ot make it better, but the game had some very poor AI. MTW was the best one so far.

Galciv 2 is better. There are a few things that could be improved or expanded on...but basically it is a much better game.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I can understand the original poster, even if we share differing opinions. Whoever says that games from different companies may not be compared is greatly misled; you cannot compare identical entities (remember Leibniz' Law anyone?), it is the difference which makes things interesting. Even apples and oranges may be compared -- lumped together and quantified as one type of entity, however, that is what the saying abhors.

I agree wholeheartedly that GalCivII could be improved in many ways (otherwise, the game would be perfect, doh). Some of the ways could include good things taken from other games, such as MoO, or other TBSs, such as Civ or DomII or AoW:SM or HoMM etc. (I have posted my humble suggestions for easily yet significantly enhancing the combat system elsewhere.) That doesnt mean that GC2 is bad, or not as good as MoO however. I think GC2 has gone far, praise be to Stardock! It could go further, and perhaps it will...
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Oddly enough, I don't agree or disagree with the original poster over MooI/II vs. GCII. I think it's a personal choice.

However, I COMPLETELY agree with him about the lack of outright planetary bombardment. While I support the prevention of gaming cheese, this one is silly. With mass drivers, you can achieve the same effect but it's annoying to have to get the troop transports. And while that's part of the point (to make it annoying and cumbersome) the cheese prevention benfit is NOT WORTH IT when you want to glass 1/4 of a gigantic galaxy and you have to micromanage the whole thing!! If Fortran the Great Galactic Tyrant Prairie Dog wants to take revenge against the Torians, I want to enjoy it!

Besides, the cheese factor could be neutralized simply by making the obliterated planets unsuitable for recolonization (fine) and adjust the game score so players cannot use the tactic to rush early game (no problem).

Ah, yes, the Sakkra. Tolerant + Subterreanean + 100% Growth == FUN! The silicoids were fun too...I always got a kick out of the idea of them eating rocks. I also miss the tactical combat combined with the tech. I loved creating the "I Take Your Ship" class cruiser replete with warp interdictor and legions of marines. Ah, memories!
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Oddly enough, I don't agree or disagree with the original poster over MooI/II vs. GCII. I think it's a personal choice.

However, I COMPLETELY agree with him about the lack of outright planetary bombardment. While I support the prevention of gaming cheese, this one is silly. With mass drivers, you can achieve the same effect but it's annoying to have to get the troop transports. And while that's part of the point (to make it annoying and cumbersome) the cheese prevention benfit is NOT WORTH IT when you want to glass 1/4 of a gigantic galaxy and you have to micromanage the whole thing!! If Fortran the Great Galactic Tyrant Prairie Dog wants to take revenge against the Torians, I want to enjoy it!

Besides, the cheese factor could be neutralized simply by making the obliterated planets unsuitable for recolonization (fine) and adjust the game score so players cannot use the tactic to rush early game (no problem).

Ah, yes, the Sakkra. Tolerant + Subterreanean + 100% Growth == FUN! The silicoids were fun too...I always got a kick out of the idea of them eating rocks. I also miss the tactical combat combined with the tech. I loved creating the "I Take Your Ship" class cruiser replete with warp interdictor and legions of marines. Ah, memories!
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The cheese potential of MoO2 is *not* something to remember fondly. The race-creation system was so horribly broken it just wasn't funny. It was trivial to make a race that wasn't just a bit better - there were many builds that basically guarranteed victory. That sucks balls. DONKEY balls.

The OP makes some pretty questionable points. I'm a big MOO fan myself (MoO2 less so), but saying the ground combat is the same because it LOOKS THE SAME is quite frankly retarded. No complex analysis of the calculations behind it - any ground combat with automatic resolution and 'march towards each other' animation must be ripping of MOO!!!!11

But the poster somehow thinks Civ4 was some significant step forward, so their opinion is definately based on something they aren't saying. However, I never get tired of reading 'lolz this moo feature isn't in GC2' posts. I'm going to have to play MoO2 again, and make a list of the many idiosyncracies and missing features in that game.
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i agree with the planetary bombardment, but with limitations:

1) a special ship module should be needed, it would take a massive number of specially designed warheads to kill all life on a planet and would therefore require a specialised ship.
2) Such a bombardment would require neutralising the defensive fleet around the planet.
3) Planet quality should be drasitcally reduced, perhaps to 0. This is realistic and prevents the use of colony ships in place of transports.
4) Glassing a planet should be an evil, EVIL act. Think the reaction to the Vorlons / Shadow doing it in B5. The planet killer module should require evil tech and / or its use should be an act of evil. It should also significantly harm diplomatic relations with other races.
5) The required module should require advanced tech (fitting that many warheads into a small space would not be easy), be torturously expensive and require a massive amount of space. This would ensure that any planet killer ships would be specialised, probalby slow and nearly defenceless. This would make escorting them of critical importance, ensuring strategy is not abandoned.
6) Even given all these things under no circumstances should game balance be threatened by this. Better to exclude the feature than risk damaging the game's playability. If it can't be made to work and work well, let the concept die.
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Personally I belive MOO 2 is proably the epitome of space based strategy games... There are several things in it I would love to see completly ripped off by another game.

ALL they had to do with MOO3 was release an updated MOO2 and it would of sold like hot cakes. Unfortantly MOO3 was really bad (until the mod community fixed it). And thus GalCiv did well. I like GalCiv2 (You can read my review over on gameplasma.com) but I also like MOO2. Unfortantly I wont play MOO2 anymore since ive mastered the game and it holds nothing for me anymore. Still though if GC3 comes out as a solid rip off of MOO2 I wouldn't complain at all.

Personally for me the biggest thing MOO2 did better then GC2 was the diplomacy screen ... I just loved the way you had this giant alien hologram infront of you... although I like GC2's menu system for trading techs (moo2 took alot of clicking to get through a list for a specific tech)

Only thing I truly want to see in GC 2 thats not there but was there in MOO2?
The antarnes (whatever the spelling is) ... Why not have "A dread lord ship has been spotted!" events... instead of the space monster give us a more frequent "dread lord scout" event ... (of course a FULL return of the dreadlords in a game can happen)


....

My 47.50
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Wow, A MOO fan that didn't post like a raving lunatic. That's not meant as an attack, just an observation. There's been more violent posts. Anyways, I still have to disagree with the Original Post.

I also think any planet destruction should not occur. That was horrible in MOO. It became a rush to destroy the other guys planets. Taking and holding enemy planets is more strategic.

Also want to point out that GC2 is its own game and should remain that way. There are some very bad things in MOO that should just stay in the past and not migrate into this game.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I for one is a bit tired of the comparison between this GAME and the REAL WORLD.
Game mechanics should only mimic the real world where appropriate and definately not do so "just because", but when/where it actually contributes to game play. Planet annihilation would have a negative effect on GC2 game play (too fast, too easy and too undefendable from) so it's been left out.
The same goes for all "the AI should do everything to stop me from winning" whining. I disagree as the game aspect of GC2 is only "visible" to us external players. A perfectly good example is me way behind the single remaining AI, but trading everything I've got (including all high-PQ planets) for a Close relationship and winning by Alliance. There's no way the AI should stop at Friendly just to keep me from winning (one could argue that an Alliance victory is a victory for all in the Alliance).
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This is the first 4x game that I have ever played and so can't comment on the OP's points regarding MOO. But has anyone tried out the following game.....

Space Rangers 2: Rise of the Dominators
http://www.gamingtrend.com/GameInfo/GameInfo.php?GameID=4491

Even though I have the the above review I still value the opinions of the people on this board before I would buy the game, I haven't got a lot of cash and so if anyone has had a chance to play it could they give an opinion please
Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Believe me I wanted to destroy Atari for what they did to MoO3. I so wanted to like that game because of MoO2.


I still occasionally try to play MOO3. With a little bit of time, I think it could've been a GREAT game. They managed to patch some of the worst bugs, and the mod community has done a very good job fixing most of the rest. It's decent now (heavily patched), but no more than mediocre. It's just...there's a really great game in there beyond the serious design flaws; it's just not mature enough.

As for the person who said Gal Civ I came out in the early 90s... Eh? Seems like I remember GCI came out a few years ago. MOO2, and esp. MOO1, are far older.

Finally, as for comparisons...it's only natural. MOO vs. GC is very much an apples to apples comparison. IMO, GalCiv is just different enough to feel like a new/different game. For that I'm grateful. I played out MOO1 and 2 a long time ago. Can only go over the exact same ground so many times.

GalCiv is a fresh take of a proven classic. It is a fine game, not perfect, and maybe "missing" a few things; but it's one I'll be playing for a good while.