>haven't played MOO in forever >decide to play for a few minutes, no intention of playing it to the end >pick psilons >start exploring >find TWO artifact planets right next to my homeworld >"oooh, this wil be fun" >get so far ahead in tech it's ridiculous >laugh like a maniac while my fleets dominate the galaxy and enemies can't even penetrate my shields
Also red shipset is best. I always pick the giant ball for my game-winning battleship
Happened to me with humans artefact planed right from get go and orion in my corner
Went for diplomatic victory but today im gonna just exterminate them in final war i got massive lead in technology and production
Also >Playing psilons the stupidest looking nerd race
You are both wrong. It is evidently clear that the yellow ship set is the best one by far.
I haven't played MoO games yet, but they're in my backlog.
Why do people say that 2016 is worse than the old MoO2? Is this real, or just another nu-haters shit?
The 2016 game is fine. It's not bad but not great either, it's just good and does everything you can expect from a space 4x. The game has great presentation though. They really tried to stay true to the original design and got people of the original games on board. The voiced leaders and advisors each faction has are very well made. The game had a bad launch and the devs introduced starlanes instead of free movement to make it easier for new people to get into the game. It was meant as a reboot and the free movement of the old space games isn't that common anymore. The devs also made the battles real time, that was done so they could be done quicker making late game turns not take forever. For the rest the game is very similar to MoO2. However these two major changes weren't popular with people that had very high expectations of the game. Also the game came out in the same year as Stellaris and most people flocked to that game. It's a shame out of those two MoO: Conquer the Stars is definitely the better strategy game. Also I agree MoO 1 is THE superior MoO game. I wish wargaming choose that one to be rebooted rather than MoO2. There's also Stars in Shadow, which I consider the true successor to MoO2.
Nope. Stellaris can hardly be called a strategy game, it's something completely different from Master of Orion. MoO1 has you counter balance each decision with opportunity cost off all the other things you could do. Stellaris never really offers very hard decisions to make. In all master of Orion games you can steer your research to get ahead in certain fields, especially MoO1. You always have to make your decisions based on your civ and your position on the map whereas in Stellaris the most impactful decisions you make are almost exclusively made when you set up the game: traits, civics, ethics, origin
I've been waiting for the next SiS expansion for years now. Starting to think it's never coming out.
I thought so too but there has been some news in that regard. I think this is just a side project for the two developers but it seems they are finally getting ready to reveal something this year. Maybe we get the dlc this year maybe next but it is definitely coming.
I haven't played MoO games yet, but they're in my backlog.
Why do people say that 2016 is worse than the old MoO2? Is this real, or just another nu-haters shit?
Never played nu-moo but I heard the game is really bland, riddled with bugs and abandoned by the devs shortly after the first dlc. The community had to step in and fix most of the more obvious bugs.
On another note, MoO2 is the holy grail of 4X but I consider MoO1 the superior game and MoM is better than both
The game is a lot more interesting IMO. Several units available, there's more depth to combat (i.e. 8 spearmen will deal 1 damage each but as they take damage their attack is weakened, while a strong summon will keep its full attack until it's dead), units have abilities that can change the whole dynamic of the battle (i.e. teleport and regenerating units), wizards can contribute to fights with their own spells, hero units and magical items to make them stronger, etc etc. You can customize the wizard at the start and choose number and type of spellbooks and other traits. Every building in cities gives a different benefit, there are nodes and locations on the world map to capture, two whole different worlds to explore, and so on.
I'm a big fan of MOO1 and played it quite a bit, but I never went back after playing MoM. Sadly never played the remaster so can't comment on it.
Space Empires IV Chad reporting.
If we're gonna talk space 4X in general, then Imperium Galactica 2 is my all-time favorite.
It's funny that MoO1 is the prototype for dry 4x that you can make an AI pretty good at and MoM is the prototype for a wild and wacky 4x that is fun to break.
I pretty much ruined MoO2 for myself by understanding the housing exploit.
MoO1 is a lot more streamlined and simplistic, so it has a lot less busywork, the AI functions better, and the game leaves fewer exploitive tricks laying around. Like for example there are no Civilization-style city views with buildings; every planet is just a few sliders.
The lack of create-a-race also makes it more likely you learn to play each race to its strengths.
Interesting, maybe I'll give it a go. The busywork in Moo2 makes my brain go into a tired "don't care"-mentality after a while where my decision-making suffers, so it would be nice to have to do fewer but more important choices
I played MOO1 out of curiosity, having played MOO2 a lot. I can appreciate the simplicity and not having to mess around with 100 buildings per planet. But by God, the interface is so clunky it's like going from a computer keyboard to a typewriter. I think it'd benefit from a remaster.
I have no idea why Ray Fowler insisted in such an ugly human diplomat. All the other characters are perfectly fine, but this one is just awful. Doesn't help that most first-time players will pick humans and will be greeted with that image
i still don't get this change to humans image and lore
in Og they were star trek like of federation and here they are look like greedy subverting israelites
did that old boomer was shitposting or go full woketard?
i still miss the old cartoon like design, it was pure kino
>haven't played MOO in forever
>decide to play for a few minutes, no intention of playing it to the end
>pick psilons
>start exploring
>find TWO artifact planets right next to my homeworld
>"oooh, this wil be fun"
>get so far ahead in tech it's ridiculous
>laugh like a maniac while my fleets dominate the galaxy and enemies can't even penetrate my shields
Also red shipset is best. I always pick the giant ball for my game-winning battleship
Happened to me with humans artefact planed right from get go and orion in my corner
Went for diplomatic victory but today im gonna just exterminate them in final war i got massive lead in technology and production
Also
>Playing psilons the stupidest looking nerd race
You are both wrong. It is evidently clear that the yellow ship set is the best one by far.
The 2016 game is fine. It's not bad but not great either, it's just good and does everything you can expect from a space 4x. The game has great presentation though. They really tried to stay true to the original design and got people of the original games on board. The voiced leaders and advisors each faction has are very well made. The game had a bad launch and the devs introduced starlanes instead of free movement to make it easier for new people to get into the game. It was meant as a reboot and the free movement of the old space games isn't that common anymore. The devs also made the battles real time, that was done so they could be done quicker making late game turns not take forever. For the rest the game is very similar to MoO2. However these two major changes weren't popular with people that had very high expectations of the game. Also the game came out in the same year as Stellaris and most people flocked to that game. It's a shame out of those two MoO: Conquer the Stars is definitely the better strategy game. Also I agree MoO 1 is THE superior MoO game. I wish wargaming choose that one to be rebooted rather than MoO2. There's also Stars in Shadow, which I consider the true successor to MoO2.
True succesor to MoO is Stellaris (minus tactical combat). No one can compite.
Nope. Stellaris can hardly be called a strategy game, it's something completely different from Master of Orion. MoO1 has you counter balance each decision with opportunity cost off all the other things you could do. Stellaris never really offers very hard decisions to make. In all master of Orion games you can steer your research to get ahead in certain fields, especially MoO1. You always have to make your decisions based on your civ and your position on the map whereas in Stellaris the most impactful decisions you make are almost exclusively made when you set up the game: traits, civics, ethics, origin
I thought so too but there has been some news in that regard. I think this is just a side project for the two developers but it seems they are finally getting ready to reveal something this year. Maybe we get the dlc this year maybe next but it is definitely coming.
I've been waiting for the next SiS expansion for years now. Starting to think it's never coming out.
I haven't played MoO games yet, but they're in my backlog.
Why do people say that 2016 is worse than the old MoO2? Is this real, or just another nu-haters shit?
Never played nu-moo but I heard the game is really bland, riddled with bugs and abandoned by the devs shortly after the first dlc. The community had to step in and fix most of the more obvious bugs.
On another note, MoO2 is the holy grail of 4X but I consider MoO1 the superior game and MoM is better than both
>MoM
What's that?
I was looking to play some game with similar gameplay.
Master of Magic
>Master of Magic
How is it compare to MoO?
Also, your opinion about the remaster.
The game is a lot more interesting IMO. Several units available, there's more depth to combat (i.e. 8 spearmen will deal 1 damage each but as they take damage their attack is weakened, while a strong summon will keep its full attack until it's dead), units have abilities that can change the whole dynamic of the battle (i.e. teleport and regenerating units), wizards can contribute to fights with their own spells, hero units and magical items to make them stronger, etc etc. You can customize the wizard at the start and choose number and type of spellbooks and other traits. Every building in cities gives a different benefit, there are nodes and locations on the world map to capture, two whole different worlds to explore, and so on.
I'm a big fan of MOO1 and played it quite a bit, but I never went back after playing MoM. Sadly never played the remaster so can't comment on it.
If we're gonna talk space 4X in general, then Imperium Galactica 2 is my all-time favorite.
how the frick can something be superior to the holy grail
Okay, should've clarified that MOO2 is "generally considered" the holy grail of 4X, but I don't agree with that at all
By not killing you for choosing poorly
Space Empires IV Chad reporting.
It's funny that MoO1 is the prototype for dry 4x that you can make an AI pretty good at and MoM is the prototype for a wild and wacky 4x that is fun to break.
I pretty much ruined MoO2 for myself by understanding the housing exploit.
This thread inspired me to start a game up for the first time in years, got my ass handed to me on normal
I've only played Moo2, why are many people ITT saying Moo1 is better? What are the differences?
MoO1 is a lot more streamlined and simplistic, so it has a lot less busywork, the AI functions better, and the game leaves fewer exploitive tricks laying around. Like for example there are no Civilization-style city views with buildings; every planet is just a few sliders.
The lack of create-a-race also makes it more likely you learn to play each race to its strengths.
Interesting, maybe I'll give it a go. The busywork in Moo2 makes my brain go into a tired "don't care"-mentality after a while where my decision-making suffers, so it would be nice to have to do fewer but more important choices
I want to try the old moo games, since they're praised so much. But they look bad, dim and just not pleasant to my eyes. Sorry guys.
Do MoO2. It's enjoyable.
Remnants of the Precursors is a free MOO1 remake with new graphics and lots of QoL features. Check it out.
>playing MOO over MOO2
yes
MoO >MoO2
Out of my way MOO fricking shits
too bad there were no SotS 2
not that that mecron gay or erynie c**t could ever deliver
I played MOO1 out of curiosity, having played MOO2 a lot. I can appreciate the simplicity and not having to mess around with 100 buildings per planet. But by God, the interface is so clunky it's like going from a computer keyboard to a typewriter. I think it'd benefit from a remaster.
That's why you have remnants of the precursors.
>can't refit fleets in MOO1
yes
and there is limit of models you had
I didn't liked it at first but its pretty great game choice
I'm in two minds about MOO1 and MOO2
one has too much, the other has too little
Only played Moo2, great game it surprisingly holds up to this day, moo1 filtered me with the low res UI and unreadable font
play remnants of the precursors
it's free
>remnants of the precursors
almost MoO
it have so much more QoL over MoO and yet that boomer gay still shot over it
Sure
Goblins are in the game, cool
Those are just americans
I have no idea why Ray Fowler insisted in such an ugly human diplomat. All the other characters are perfectly fine, but this one is just awful. Doesn't help that most first-time players will pick humans and will be greeted with that image
i still don't get this change to humans image and lore
in Og they were star trek like of federation and here they are look like greedy subverting israelites
did that old boomer was shitposting or go full woketard?
i still miss the old cartoon like design, it was pure kino
The diplomat still reminds me of Gary Oldman in the fifth element.