Good luck to you too. This genre could use a few good new games.Ray K wrote:Well, I hope this doesn't rain on your parade or anything, but creating a MOO 1.5 has been sort of a "Holy Grail" for a lot of gamers. A lot of fans talk about writing a game, some actually get a few early screen shots, fewer attract enough people to provide the variety of skills needed to create a complete game, and none have actually finished.KurtGodel7 wrote:But what if the designers of MoO2 had said, "Let's take MoO1, improve its depth and richness, and avoid all Civ influence?" There would be race design, because that's a natural evolution of the race differences that existed in MoO1. The ship design process may or may not have turned out the same way it actually did. But the real difference would be in planetary management. You'd have slider bars instead of those three rows of civ-inspired person icons. There would be no planetary buildings; hence no micromanagement problem. MoO1 did a good job of allowing you to use technology to upgrade your planets across the board, without having to mess around with build queues and so on. So if my only contribution to the world of 4x gaming was to create the MoO 1.5 described in this paragraph, I think it'd be pretty good.
I see FreeOrion as inspired from MOO2 and my Rise From Ruin project as the MOO1.5 game you are talking about. Both projects are in pretty advanced stages and both are going to be free.
So not only are you behind the curve, but you have an even steeper hill to climb if you are going to try and sell your game.
There is a lot of talent on the FO team and I'm no slouch myself, so good luck!
It's not my intention to simply take ideas from the MoO series and refine them into a game. That really wouldn't be a bad starting point, but there are other ways for me to achieve my broad goals:
-My game should have the discipline, smoothness, and lack of micromanagement of MoO1.
- The game should have at least as much depth, richness, and variety as MoO2.
- The game should have a bunch of really cool ideas and innovations that do not appear in the MoO series. These should always be consistent with the first two goals.
To some extent these goals pull in opposite directions, as good goals generally do. Figuring out how to achieve both sets of goals is what makes things interesting for you, and rewarding for the players. It may only be possible to achieve 70% of the discipline of MoO1 in certain areas if I'm going to add depth and richness to compete with MoO2. For instance, in MoO1 there is a maximum of 13 icons in any space combat: 6 stacks of ships for each side, and the planet stack of missle bases. I'm leaning toward allowing a greater number of stacks than just six per side to allow a greater variety of experience.
But MoO1's system really does provide discipline. In MoO2 it's in your best interest to redesign your ships every time you make even a small tech discovery. It's not a terrible idea to frequently refit ships as well. But with MoO1's limitation of the six stacks, it's not in the player's best interest to redesign too frequently, because you'll end up scrapping a perfectly good stack of ships that's not obsolete yet. When to redesign is, for MoO1, a strategic decision rather than the micromanagement nuisance it became in MoO2. On the other hand, MoO2 allowed you--if you wanted--to have a much greater variety of types of ships present in any given space battle. In practice that ability was generally useless because it always made sense to have all your ships of the same type. But in theory the feature represents depth and richness that would have been eliminated had the number of allowable ship designs been reduced.
The point I'm making is that there's almost always a trade-off between discipline (MoO1) and depth and richness (MoO2). Knowing when and how to make this trade-off is one of the most challenging tasks of designing a game.