If only the carrier thread would respond so well to similar statements of Brad's opinion

Never played the MoO games so it may be worth it to check into them

Master of Orion 2 is well worth getting. Try e-bay.

GC2 is however now better than MoO series.

Don't under any circumstances whatsoever get MoO3, even if they pay u!

Don't under any circumstances whatsoever get MoO3, even if they pay u!

I'm under the impression that MoO3 isn't worse or better. It's just so different from its predecessors that it is no longer a MoO game. I find enjoyment out of playing it, but that's just me.

It is more about managing your empire than fighting wars. And when you have over a hundred planets, it gets tedious trying to adjust and manage all the planetary economies, as sometimes the Governor AI doesn't do things the way you want.

I prefer MoO2 in some respects, while I prefer MoO3 in others.

If only the carrier thread would respond so well to similar statements of Brad's opinion

Amen

The computer game - Master of Orion 2 - was the best space game ever ...
Until GalCiv2 ... which is NOW the BEST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In other words, the only way to make it balanced is to nerf it into oblivion. Even then, under the scenarios described, it would put even greater strains on gal civ's tactical ai.

I understand Brad's KISS philosophy to design. And the more i read about dark avatar, the more i'm convinced that the features added there are well chosen so as to give the ai a plausible way of checking the player while providing the latter more options. Well done.

The computer game - Master of Orion 2 - was the best space game ever ... Until GalCiv2 ... which is NOW the BEST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, the fanboy attitude is starting to bug me, now... It didn't take long, but I've been hearing it from more than just you, so don't take it personally.

I suppose I can be guilty of it for games like the Tribes series (for the longest time, I'd rant on how it was the best multiplayer FPS ever made. I had played Halo, and the damn fanboys annoyed me and I wanted to bite their heads off and blow the rest of them up with a Spinfusor/Stormhammer, the 'staple' weapon in Tribes), though, so I guess I'm being hypocritical.

But I'm still sick of people claiming it's better than everything, when I think it's just different from everything, just like I've seen Brad say at least once on this forum.

The computer game - Master of Orion 2 - was the best space game ever ... Until GalCiv2 ... which is NOW the BEST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MOO2 was definitely the best space TBS game for me till GC2 1.2 .

Call me crazy, but I don't understand why this is an issue, with the invasion options you get when you invade a planet. Mass drivers, tidal disruption, etc. -- this accomplishes precisely what some posters in this thread are asking for; it gives you a significant advantage in combat, destroys enemy improvements...

So what's the problem? Is it really necessary to have a little animation showing some bombs dropping or something? With high soldiering and some mass drivers or tidal disruption, you can take a planet with 1/10th the soldiers your enemies have.

I think you are missing the point dgswensen. All of the invasion features that you mentioned are great. The point is, tactically speaking, I believe people would like to see other types of planetary defenses that would therefore necessitate an invader to adopt some sort of planetary bombardment strategy to weaken the planets defensive capabilities. Star Wars episode V (the Empire Strikes Back) comes to mind. When the rebels were evacuating Hoth there were planetary "artillery" positions which lobbed some shots along the flight path the evac ships would be flying. This was to break up and possibly even hit the fleet of battle and star cruisers that had gathered to block their escape. Same thing with what this post is about. Make better, more active planetary defenses and then throw in the proper counter measures for an attacker to use. More strategic and tactical depth, that's all. What is in the game now works just fine. Just some of us thinking about ways to add more tactical features. Hope that clears things up for you.

I have played games such as the Homeworld series, The X-com series, Ascendency (one of my personal favorites), Romance of the 3 kingdoms series to name just a few. I really enjoy the tactical aspect of those games. I agree that the tactical part of GalCiv2 is somewhat lacking. Now the other aspects of the game may make up for some of what it is lacking but I still crave a more hands on approach when it comes to warfare. Most have been turn based and not real time.

I do like the simple approach as well, and I am sure with just a few minor changes within the framework of GalCiv2, it could be made slightly more tactical and even more challenging in that regard. Please do not get me wrong. I love this game, I think it is one of the best released of its kind. I think we all are pretty satisfied with GalCiv2 itself, we just think it would be a much better game with just a few minor changes. Of course that would then solidify its greatness in Empire Building History.

With that said I have not ever tried the Master of Orion Series. I really wish I had so that I would understand a bit more what you all are talking about. I actually would like to get a copy of MoO2. I would also like to find a copy of Ascendency for Windows XP.

Anyone have any idea's where I might be able to pick either of those up?