Master of Orion or Else?

[Creamsteak]

MOO2 was an incredibly fun game. It's the best of it's genre that I own, and I whip it out every once in a while.

 

[Clint]

I'll agree with the GalCiv vote. It's a great, complete game. Graphics aren't excessive, but the gameplay is everything I've ever wanted in a 4X game.

-Clint

 

[Joshua Randall]

I still play MOO2 from time to time. Nothing comes close.

[ego trip] Check out this old Usenet thread for one of my most prized geek accomplishments:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&edition=us&selm=372DDF6C.B21D7A33%40bigfoot.dot.com [/ego trip]

GalCiv is a solid game. Its major difference from MOO2 is the lack of player-controlled combat; instead, the GalCiv combat is more like its namesake, Civilizations. (i.e., you run your ship over the enemy's ship and one side wins -- not like in MOO2 where you get to control the ships, fire different weapons, etc.) I don't find GalCiv as compelling as MOO2, but that may be due to my lack of nostalgia about it. Check back with me in five years or so.

 

[LazarusLong42]

Agree 100%. The graphics are only acceptable, but the gameplay is truly addictive. The best part is the number of mods available - my current favorite is Devnull, with a few changes of my own. If you like 4X games, you have to get this one.

I'll third the vote for SE4. You will not find a better 4X game, as long as all you want is gameplay. The graphics are admittedly cheesy. However, Malfador has a huge support network, including a fan-made and run site for facilitating multiplayer games.

 

[thatdarncat]

Master of Orion II - nothing really has done it for me, was hoping that Stars: Supernova would make it out but it died on the vine http://www.crisium.com/sn/news.htm.

I remember playing VGA Planets Was really waiting for Supernova to come out, I still check the website every few months for signs of life.

 

[MarauderX]

The Report

We got the game, and are having a hard time understanding it so far. The finances are confusing, but everything else seems to work well. We aren't far into it, but I think my nephew has lost interest already. Too much politicing for him I suppose, but I know I will like the game for that much more flavor. I will bring him in when it's time to do battle.

 

[crabclaw]

MOO2 -- one major problem is it's 'turn based' and it's not network friendly.

Speaking of the turn-based part -- player spend 30 minutes consulting the Farmer Almanac and and and gah!

 

[Hand of Evil]

MOO2 -- one major problem is it's 'turn based' and it's not network friendly.

Speaking of the turn-based part -- player spend 30 minutes consulting the Farmer Almanac and and and gah!

Turn base is never network friendly but in a strategy game, where moves and actions are thought about is a important consideration. It is why the TBS is being replaced by RTS games but they lose something.

 

[crabclaw]

A strategy game IMO should be RTB. What general has the lux of spending all the time needed make a decision -- command decision and do it man damn the torpedos full speed ahead!

Actually I wish the two, Turn and Real bases, could be messed.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

A strategy game IMO should be RTB. What general has the lux of spending all the time needed make a decision -- command decision and do it man damn the torpedos full speed ahead!

It depends on the command level your simulating. A simulation of an infantry squad on D-Day would make more sense as an RTS. A grand-strategic simulation of World War II is more effective turn-based. Besides the fact that a single turn may represent months of game time, being turn-based better represents the staff and support any general would have in planning and executing campaigns, not to mention all the economic, diplomatic, and political decisions being made each turn. Even at the height of a crisis, such as the Battle of the Bulge, a general had far more time to make decisions than any RTS game allows. Given that most 4X games are grand strategic in nature, turn-based works better IMO.