GalCiv VS. MOO3, Stars, Space Empires, etc.

I never played Space Empires, is it cool??

Stars should be coming out in June or so it says at gamespot: Q2 2002 www.gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/calendar/pc/0,10854,062002,00.html

I think Stars looks great, the graphics are really looking great I will be buying that one for sure.

I don't have anymore thoughts about Moo3 anymore :-)I hate to say it but with all those problems they have had, I don't know how they will pull off a great game. I still have faith though, it is after all it's MASTERS!

Well as far as SE IV goes, I've played the demos for both the original and the gold versions. Let me just say this: it's my opinion that in order to truly enjoy playing this game you need to 1) absolutely LOVE feature-rich games, and 2) really, really, really, REALLY, love micromanagement! It's a pretty cool game in concept and design; but speaking for myself, I was completely overwhelmed by everything I had to keep track of. I think you need to be an extremely detail-oriented person to get the best experience out of that game.

As far as the Stars: SG release date goes, don't believe anything Gamespot says. Mare Crisium is still no closer to finding a pulisher than they were when they and Empire Interactive first parted ways. I really hope they do find another publisher, because I agree with you that this game looks very promising and would be a real shame if it was never released.

[warning: bitter rant ahead]

As for MOO3, I admit I might be one of the blind faithful. :notsure: I've been following it almost as long as I have been following GalCiv and Stars: SG, and (I'll admit) with perhaps even more anticipation than the others--that is, until 2 months ago, when everything went to hell over there. At first they seemed truly committed to the game, just like you guys and Mare Crisium with Stars.

But now Alan Emrich, the former lead designer and the true visionary behind the MOO3 project, is gone. Since then, they just seem like a bunch of suits trying to please their corporate overlords, rushing to get the game done before they lose any more money. (Yes, Stars might take forever to get published, but I truly respect Mare Crisium for walking away from a publisher that wasn't right for them. That takes some stones, man!) So I think at best we might get a good game, but one with serious debugging and play balancing issues that need one or more huge patches to fix. At worst....it might be a flop completely, crushing the hopes of all of us fans many of whom have been waiting for this game for years already. I think that is what many of us secretly fear--although I know such an event would probably help out you guys immensely.

[end rant]

Hmm... In SE IV gold you can activate "ministers" to handle construction or even a defence fleet. however I do LOVE the micromanagement of that game .

As for Stars: SG ... Well I can wait a little longer. I have the original Stars, (published by Empire interactive vaaay back in '96) and I still play it from time to time .

Now MOO3 is a story I won't coment on. (:( (:( .

Back to micromanagement, I think it would be best if some aspects of the game could be turned over to "ministers", allowing the player to focus on the part(s) of the game he/she likes and ignore the rest. And still alowing us "MM-junkies" full controll of what's going on where in the empire.

As far as micromanagement goes, I think I have yet to see a game that will continue to be fun after the initial 40-50 turns.
IMO the most fun is the initial creation of ones empire, after this, it becomes a question of piling a large enough fleet against the humongus fleet the computer has amassed and is throwing against outposts where you fleet currently is not!
And of course, micromanagement becomes a bit tedious,since most "ministers" ive seen never do the job I want them to do

That is something will have to remade, isn't..

-Uncle Argyle

Stars - I have heard of it only, not following it, etc., thus I am not qualified to comment.

S.E. - Micromanagement heaven and graphics so poor and interphase so poor that I became fustrated right off the bat. I stuck with it for a time, but never had fun.

MOO3 - No matter how poor the game is, it is still going to sell a ton & become the new standard because of the name. I suspect that from all the reviews I have seen & heard from the E3 that it will be a good, solid, fun game. I just suspect that due to all the recent events that it may be what civ3 was to the civ series, a much needed update that doesn't break lots of new ground, upsetting the core fan base to some extent, yet still solid enough to be the new measure just because of the name. Also, as with Civ3, the expansion disk will be highly anticipated and will include a lot of the game balancing and features that the core people expected with the initail release.... pause to breath and stop ranting.....

GalCiv will be the "be all, end all" of these games when it is published. Why else would we be here.

SE IV isn't somethin I have played so I can't comment.

The original stars I am addicted to because of its depth and purity of devotion to true strategy. Especially because it really captures the 'big picture' feel of LEADING and empire rather than just being a excessive micromanager(though there is that in it). As long as it stays true to the intent of the original, but has better graphics, I will be saisfied.

MOO3 sounds like it will be a nominal upgrade rather than revolutionary. If it is at least that I will be satisfied.

GalCiv is the 'Dark Horse' in this. Phenomenal AI, conceptually different yet vivid ideas, great deep gameplay, and a devoted online community. I think that it will start slow and pick up speed, which will be contrary to how it usually works.

I think this could really clue some big name developers into the idea of 'value added' software in a big way.

Stars : Yuch, text based game

Space Empires 4 : Decent very large but graphicly lacking game

MOO3 : unknown, hope it's better than 2

GalCiv : Hope to deliver what they promise. The parts I can see on the webpage are very good so far but a few more screenshots wouldn't hurt for those that don't have the Alpha

Outgunned,
what did you not like about MOO2? While I hope MOO3 is better I really like MOO2 and often play it. It had a nice balance to it which made games enjoyable even fairly late on.

Stars was not too bad a game but the early game was the only fun part. Later games tended to bog down and lack the fun factor. It was normally also a game of rapid expansion. Whichever player expanded the most usually one. No other tactic could compete.

Space Empires 4 is a good game but very very heavy on micromanagement. It's one of those games which really should be a large online game with players controlling just a small portion of their empire. It would be interesting to play this game with a seperate player controlling each system.

It's probably worth mentioning Reach for the Stars as a comparison as well. Another graphically nice game which was good fun early on, but degenerated into a rapid planet bashing at the end.

Another good comparison game would be pax imperia 2. This game was very enjoyable and great fun to play. It was fairly balanced, but then at some point the game was just over as one player became too strong and the end was a foregone conclusion. Nice factors about this game were the autobuilding, espionage and ship design. No micromanagement of colonies was required, though careful design and upgrade of ships was crucial. A modern well upgraded destroyer could defeat an old battleship. Balance just felt right.

Yet another good game was Ascendancy. Quite heavy on the micromanagement of colonies, though a bonus was that you felt your colonies were still improving late in the game as you knocked down old buildings and built better ones. Fairly good on ship design, though most of the technologies were just upgrades and added very little tactics to the battles. AI was awful though.

From the above examples it's fairly obvious that I like games with a fair balance throughout the entire game. I don't like single strategy games, games which are foregone conclusions from an early stage, or games which are too heavy in micromanagement. I like useful micromanagement, such as colony management, IF it makes a difference and is broader than just upgrade, upgrade, upgade. A good example would be choosing which building to build, as oppossed to choosing which building to build first. Choosing which building to build first is normally something a governor can handle better (with some global control).

Paul.

MOO2 wasn't grand enough. Not enough star systems and too many bad planets made exploring rather boring. That's probably why the later part of the game seemed interesting too

And you're right about the other games. Pretty much all of the games in this genre are best played early on. The later stages of the games, when you've discovered and seen it all, are too linear. Either you're the biggest empire and you have to crush the rest in the same way planet by planet or someone else is bigger and will crush you. Empire balance in the later stages of the game especially for AI players is a big issue

MOO2 was too much micro management. The thing I hope GalCiv avoids is bad end game scenarios where each side is in a race to annihilate the others worlds.

Here here. Unremitting genocide does get old after a while.

I agree, and it won't be like that in GalCiv (it wasn't in the OS/2 version either).

The reason for this is that as you gain in technology and other advantages, it becomes overwhelming.

And AI players WILL surrender themselves to you if it's hopless. yOu don't have to fight it out to the death.

Ah, I see now said the blind man. I have yet to find a game that the AI would surrender to you if there wasn't a chance of him coming out as the victor. It seems like most of the AIs' that I have come across don't care if they get annialated.
Sounds like it's gettin better and better all the time. I'll have to see what I can find in the other forums to talk about.

I tried to get Stars a publisher last year but they kinda fell off the face of the planet. At least their website stopped existing. Can anyone post their current website if they have one so I can see if I can help them out? Their game looks great, I see no reason why they can't hook up with a publisher.

Yea, the AI does care about it surviving so it will surrender if their cause is hopeless.

One thing you won't see the AI do is be uncooperative when you could annihilate them. There are a TON of AI functions in the game for it to look at its status compared to you.

It's frustrating in strategy games where you have their last city/planet/whatever surrounded and their "diplomat" says rude things "You stupid humans, you better get away from my planet or you're dead."

No. Not gonna happen here. Instead the AI recognizes its plight and responds accordingly.

Ya, when the AI does say such things, it makes you less likely to want to capture the planet and more likely to just leave "scorched Earth"

One option you might want to keep in mind for an AI is that if you are at war with another empire, and they are keeping you in check, and then you start a war with a nothing empire in the hopes of some quick gains and some production boost, they might surender not to you, but to your enemy (ie friend of a friend kinda thing) or even to some superpower neutral empire (that may let them continue their self existance yet protect them).

Sounds better and better. Thanks for the hard work.