|
Thotimx posted:Emperor: Ixitixl Heck yeah! That's the name of my old WoW character. I named him after MOO2, where it was just one of several default Klackon leader names. Is it one of several here too, or the only one?
|
#
¿
May 27, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
From what I remember of MOO2, dumping as many of your best lasers as would fit in your biggest hull generally worked. On the lower difficulties anyway.
Clarste fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
I do have memories of doing crazy things in the lategame like teleporting right up to ships and boarding them. Honestly, I think the ship-builder of MOO2 worked precisely because it was a turned-based game where each ship got an individual action like an RPG. Whereas literally every single game that came after it decided to clone every single part of the game except the turn based battles, because of the naive assumption that real-time is "better". Which is why all those games suck.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
Tendales posted:The purest version of a ship builder is probably spaceward ho. In that, tech was purely linear, but making a new ship type had a significant prototyping cost, so the choice wasn't between rock, paper,and scissors, but just when you need to spend the money to modernize and if you can maybe cut some corners somewhere. Spaceward Ho is possibly the purest space 4X in a lot of ways. It's interesting to me how it's clearly descended from MOO rather than MOO2 though (bear in mind that I have no idea what the release dates for these game are). I've never seen MOO in action before, but it seems to me in retrospect that two distinct lineages have emerged from each game. With the most obvious difference being whether you build individual buildings with unique effects, like MOO2, or just abstract planetary development into some kind of budget slider, like MOO. The latter also tends to simplify star systems into single planets. In a lot of ways it's more interesting though, since it keeps your focus on the bigger picture instead of being bogged down with building Hydroponic Farms in literally every colony.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
Given that you're killing their entire population anyway, to be replaced with your own surviving troops, isn't the only difference that you have to send a colony ship and don't get to steal techs?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
I think a better way to handle that would be for all development decisions to be made on an imperial level and simply have extra settlements provide extra resources or population (which could still be interesting depending on how you handle it). Like instead of building a factory you pass a factory law. That makes more sense to me than arbitrarily making later settlements less complicated.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I don't think it's that arbitrary (you can justify it as direct rule v. provinces), and people like developing individual settlements, but I like this idea too Stellaris tried something like that and everyone hates it with the fury of a thousand suns. In the end it just feels like you're not being allowed to control your stuff which makes the player feel frustrated. Even if the alternative would be even worse.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2017 20:55
|
|