2 Ideas from MoO 3 that Should be Incorporated

Master of Orion 3 (MoO 3), as failed as it is, still has two very realistic ideas over galciv, at least galciv 1. Galciv 1, and from what I've seen so far on bata of Galciv 2, allowed research of only one tech at a time and has every race fighting over the same planets. MoO 3, on the other hand, allowed the division of research into six schools, which "springed forth" different techs at the same time. Further, each race had different planetary preferences, which made certain planets more desirable for some races than for others. These two ideas are the reason that I, and many others, stopped playing galciv 1 and continue to play MoO 3.

MoO 3 has 6 research schools. Instead of researching one tech at a time, sliders allow you to determine which research schools to emphasize. Research on each of the planets is divided accordingly among these schools. When a certain school got enough research within it, it will produce a tech for the civilization. Of course some techs would still have prequisites, which meant some schools would just be collecting research until the prequisites were met from other schools. However, again, you could determine which schools to emphasize, and avoid this occurence. Further, sometimes researching within a school would not produce the tech you thought it would and instead would produce another tech within that school, sometimes better and sometimes worse, but that is what makes this research system feel so real.

MoO 3 also has several playable races, each has different planetary preferences. These preferences differ by gravity, temperature, and air pressure. Though these differences, each race takes on a different identity, some preferring Terran, Earth-like worlds, some preferring Venus-like inferno planets, and some preferring Gas Giants, among others. Because of eviromental conditions, each race has to have most of their planets within their preferences, at least until terraforming techs were reasearched. However, each races could have a few planets that were outside their race preferences, and would do so for other non-eviromental bonuses the planet might have or for stategic reasons. Thus, each race could fight over the same planets, but their proirities would be very different, something again that feels very realistic (as far as we know...)

These two ideas from MoO 3 make a space civilization game seem more realistic. No space empire (or country on Earth for that matter) directs all of their research towards one tech at a time. Instead, empires focus their scientists towards meeting certain objectives (like built me a better engine or make our people live longer). No two races, evolved on different planets from different genetic material, should prefer the same planetary conditions. They should like different planets but still be aware of a planets value when it does not match their preferences (we like cold planets but we could still use that inferno planet over there near our borders, it would make a great home for our enemy, perhaps we should get their first?).

In order to make a better galciv, I believe, and a few others like me, that these 2 ideas must be used to make a successful, fun, and realistic space civ game. I am not saying, however, that these ideas should be implemented like MoO 3 (no need for research overruns or planetary fertility ratings for example), just please incorporate these ideas into galciv 2. Galciv 1 did not have these ideas and I discovered that a heavily modded MoO 3 was quite superior solely because of these 2 ideas. I like where galciv 2 is going, and if these or something like them is incorporate into the game, I believe it could be the best space civ ever made.

Thanks for listening,

Emperor Daryl Rhoves of Neo Terra

P.S. I am not sure if planet quality is effected by Race, if so kudos on that!
17,735 views 25 replies
Reply #1 Top

We're always open to incorporating fresh ideas into GC2 that will make the game more fun, but there's a temptation to make these types of games more 'realistic', which doesn’t always equal 'enjoyable'. 

We've reached a point in gaming where we can give the user access to all kinds of tweakable civ information...our job is to streamline the experience so that casual gamers can enjoy the game at one level, but hardcore gamers can enjoy a bit more depth...but neither way feels lightweight, nor bogged down from micromanagement.

_________

I originally advocated researching multiple technologies at once...you can tackle engines and weapons at the same time, so as soon as they're done you can build a butt-kickin’ fighter without waiting around.

But, in the end, there'd be no time difference whether you research them simultaneously or one after the other. 

For example, lets say "Ion Cannon Technology" takes 10 research units to complete, and "Hyperwarp Mark 3" takes 30 research units to complete. If you're putting out 2 research units per turn, it'll take 5 weeks to research Ion Cannons, and 15 weeks for "Hyperwarp."

Now, lets research them both at the same time, splitting the allocated research units in half (1 unit per week, per tech). It'll take 10 weeks to research the Ion Cannon, at which point Hyperwarp will only need 20 more units to complete.  Since we don't need to split the units (back to 2 R.U's per week) It'll take another 10 weeks to complete the Hyperwarp.

So, in the end, either way you get both Technologies researched after 20 weeks, only by researching one at a time you actually get the "Ion Cannons" 5 turns earlier.
Wow, that was a long example  

Anyways, at the end of the day, researching multiple techs at the same time may FEEL more efficient (and it's defiantly more realistic), but it actually reduces the speed at which you get technologies.  The AI will be smart enough to see this, and wipe the floor with anyone that uses this feature by simply researching one tech at a time.

_________

As for Planets being better suited for different races, we decided a while back not to go that route due to "conflict balancing".  In order for a conflict to be plausable, there needs to be a useful resource at stake.  If you're sitting on a planet that has no use for me, why should I bother taking it over?

And even if I was just a cruel monster that just wants to exterminate a race, It'd be a lot of hassle keeping an eye on an unusable planet just to make sure my enemies don't take it back over.  Again, this would be an example of realism not being fun. 

If everyone can inhabit any usable planet, there's suddenly more of a reason to take that planet over, and harder for the losing race to simple come in and re-habitate the lost planet.

_________

Anyways, I hope my rambling dosen’t come off as snide “know-it-all-ism” (can you ever really 'know it all' in this zany industry) We’ve weighed a lot of these options out before diving into production, and if theyre not included It’s probably for a good reason (and other times it’s just due to laziness)

But we do take all suggestions seriously, and I’d rather ramble on and rationalize our thinking than just say “No, we’re not doing that.”

So please, if there’s anything else that MOO3 (or any other game) did exceptionally well that you think would help make GC2 more fun, don’t hesitate to put us in our place.

And if you get another long-winded response, I apologize 

Reply #2 Top
For the planet conflict issue. Wouldn't it be possible to have racial preferences overlap? Assuming the standard 20 point scale on planets (I'm assuming it's 20, as I've never seen higher than a 19 and 20 seems like a reasonable limit) of 0 to 20, you could have each race with a preference range. Humans like 10 - 20, Dregs like 2 - 12, Altarians like 8 - 18 and so on. There are now several overlaps where the races could fight over the resources. In the example I outlined, you would have all three races contending for planets classified as 10, 11 and 12 with a lot of conflict between the Altarians and Humans over everything from 10 to 18.

There's also the possibility for some planet classes above 20 (those Gaia types) that absolutely everyone loves and wants to have. These would be rare and special cases though.
Reply #3 Top
For the planet conflict issue. Wouldn't it be possible to have racial preferences overlap? Assuming the standard 20 point scale on planets (I'm assuming it's 20, as I've never seen higher than a 19 and 20 seems like a reasonable


I've seen planet classes as high as 26 generated at the start of the game. I suppose the theoretical maximum for planet class would be 72, if all planetary square were somehow useable. I seem to recall Brad mentioning a realistic maximum that was somewhere between the two.
Reply #4 Top
Will planets that are below 10 be able to teraform?
Reply #5 Top
My understanding, both from playing the game and things folks from Stardock have stated, is: Planets of class 10 in GC2 will be approximately the same, in terms of habitability, as planets of class 15 in GC1.

The goal in GC2 is that planets with a class below 10 will still be useful / good to colonize and useability / planet class may be increased with the proper technological advances and / or planetary improvements.

The big difference is that the player will have to decide what to build on each planet as each will have different strengths, at least as far as innate suitability is concerned. So, for example: one planet might be a great farming planet while an otherwise unfarmable rock might be great for research. Etc..

The upshot is that even marginally habitable planets will likely be good for something.
Reply #6 Top
Small planets are currently great for banking... get lots of money into your treasure. Money good! Helps pay for the big worlds... as they lose money if you don't stick significant number of banks on them. But, 3 small banking worlds (all tiles are banks), will pay for a nice sweet 26 factory world which is pumping out your big cost ships.

Small planets are useful as research planets. One bank, and the rest labs... small, self sustaining research colony.

Right now, there is no planet morale. That will of course eat into your big worlds available tileage when it is "turned on". I hope that it won't affect small worlds. As they stand, even a class 2 world is worth sending a colonizer to... at least, at some point during your colonizing of the game. But if you have to put down morale boosters on small worlds, just to keep them from defecting or rebelling, that will change the economics to make them useless, except as possible small influence generators (for extending range).
Reply #7 Top
Even though I enjoyed the different racial preferences in MoO3 it prefer a simple system where all races uses the same environment, keeping track of the different races in my empire was not something I enjoyed. To me it was a case of realism killing the fun factor, but admitted I never completed a game in MoO3 mainly due to lack of player control and the worst UI I have yet seen.

As for the multiple research projects, I am for it. In GC1 I used a lot of time managing my research output, especially in the early and late game, where the cost of each tech needed differed a lot. If the limit of max one tech/turn is removed, excess research is applied to the next project, and research projects can be queued, I can live with serial research. If not well I will say its going to be a major annoyance to me.

In GC1 I have often had cases where my research capacity could give me from .9 to 2+ times the research points needed to complete the current project, in fact I can't remember when I last used more than 6-8 turns to complete a single research project, and those were either very early in the game, or one of the really big ones, 1 to 3 turns is more of the norm in my games.
Reply #8 Top
The interface ruined racial preferences in MoO3, but I'd have thought that multiple research projects at once was a good idea.
It only makes no difference if the progress made on a research project is proportional to the amount of money spent on it. If the completion was inversely proportional to the square root instead, it would add an extra strategic element - research all the techs quickly, or research only the ones you need. The former will make you rich through trade (maybee - only if the computers aren't co-operative enough to fast-track all the tech's you do slowly), but the latter will make you militarily powerfull (maybee - it could be a bit short termist). (ex. phasers in 5 turns, or phasers, uni mis-trans, impulse dr & deflectors all in 10).
Reply #9 Top
As for the multiple research projects, I am for it. In GC1 I used a lot of time managing my research output, especially in the early and late game, where the cost of each tech needed differed a lot. If the limit of max one tech/turn is removed, excess research is applied to the next project, and research projects can be queued, I can live with serial research. If not well I will say its going to be a major annoyance to me.

I think that this is really why splitted research might be better than serial research under Galciv I model:
- you can research only one tech each turn
- excess BC are lost (ie if you spend 100 BC in research one turn and need only 10, you have lost 90 BC)
-free research behavior (cached and not recalculated) that make the correct management of ETA to avoid overspending in research a nightmare.
Reply #10 Top
I just now remembered the way SEIII handled excess research, they were applied to the next level of the same tech, in GC terms this could be to the next tech on the same branch of the tech tree. If the current model in the beta survives there are many levels to each tech, so dumping excess points into the next level would seem logical to me. If I can't be allowed to use it on the next project in my queue.
Reply #11 Top
excess BC are lost


I don't particularly like to "lose" BC but it's more realistic, if you want to talk realism. Realistically we wouldn't know the whole research tree or the exact "cost" of any given tech. Realistically you'd pour BC into research simply hoping to get useful tech and it could be a complete waste from year to year. So, if a few BC are wasted on a given tech you (or the devs) could simply write it off based on the fact that research really isn't an exact science - if your civ wasted a few BCs it just means that it took them a little longer to research that given tech.

I think if you want to add a bit of realism to research then techs should have variable instead of fixed BC costs. For example, tech X might have a base BC cost of 10 to research, but would really take 8-12 turns (throw in some randomization to simulate the inexact science of discovering new technologies). This would add a small element of the unpredictable into the tech race mix and would add a small element of realism.

As far as the racial planetary preferences go, I liked how MOO did it but I agree that having all races like the same resources similarly and equally makes for a more pure strategic environment. Everybody wants everything equally badly and will fight to control it. I think either system works, and I don't necessarily want GalCiv to become MOO IV.
Reply #12 Top
The MOO1 model was, by far, the best. Each tech had a specific research cost that, once reached, allowed you to 'learn' the tech. From then, you had to keep pumping in RP to get an increasing chance of learning the tech each turn.

This meant that there was a minimum number of RP you needed, but you did not know how much RP it would cost in the end.

The GalCiv model encouraged micromanagement. If you were producing 100 RP per turn and needed only 10 RP to learn the tech, the efficient thing to do was to temporarily reallocate your spending so that you produced exactly 10 RP. So instead of wasting the other 90 points, they were applied to something else.

Anytime there is a game element that rewards you for twiddling knobs to get the most efficient output, you are encouraging micromanagement.
Reply #13 Top
Ok I'll reprase, if the cost of researching a tech is fixed, it's not logical to waste the excess RP. But I must agree that if it is realism, the moo2 model was more realistic, especially if you didn't select the creative racial trait.
Reply #14 Top
Realism? In a game featuring aliens in rubber masks and FTL starships?

If we have a research queue, which is on the "top 10 wish list items", then the Research Points (RP) could just roll over to the next item in the queue. If their is no next item in the queue, then ask the player. If you get asked 5 times in one turn resolution, such is life. Congrats on being a super researcher, or having waited so long to get some basic techs.

Would that be acceptable? It's logical, but logic isn't always fun. I don't know if it would be more fun.

Random research costs, random research trees, and even MoO1, MoO2, and MoO3 research systems pros and cons have been discussed in the Ideas/Research subform/tab under the thread title "The new research system". Might be worth moving this portion of the convo to that thread. Looking in the Ideas form, I see that Daryl Rhoves posted his first post here into that thread. Link for that thread is: Link
Reply #15 Top

I definatly agree that the RP's should rollover, even if this isn't realistic.  Like Uruguru said, we can't encourage micromanagement by rewarding players who know how to fiddle with the knobs.

Reply #16 Top
Along the lines of taking concepts/subsystems from MOO3 design:

1. Totatly agree on research as being excellent. The only thing I might drop is the 'overruns'.

2. Armies. The organic design made a lot of sense---build a Battalion, Army, etc... whatever scale you want, with whatever special features. It should be abridged some for GalCiv. Just pick Scale, Type, and the attached Special Unit types (as On or Off).

3. Varieties of space craft and fleet combat. Not talking about telescoping the battles to a tactical screen. But it should have a kind of rock-paper-scissors feel. Indirect bombardment vs. Short Range vs. Long Range, and include Carriers with Fighters. Combat should not just be ship vs. ship, but fleet vs. fleet.

4. Nay to the extremely different races. GalCiv is more like StarTrek, but all humanoids.
Reply #17 Top
The trick to *force* research in each area at once is to make it so that you *can't* completely focus 100% of all research on a given branch, or at least, it's not as efficient in the long-run - that way, you can focus harder on one area if you want tech X sooner, but keeping them fairly spread out pays off as far as techs over time.

I campaigned for this in MOO3 but it was shot down. Basically, you'd have some 'minimum' levels in each field that could be governed by any of several factors - government (democratic/republic governments will HAVE to work at least some on 'happy techs' for people, dictatorships would be able to focus more on the hard sciences if they want to), facilities (have some that give X rp per turn in branch Y - e.g. "super collider" gives 20 energy RP/turn), etc. Also, or alternatively, you could have efficiency bonuses/penalties along similar lines. E.g. Putting more than 30% of your total RP into a field starts to give diminishing returns on "actual" RP spent per turn, and techs/facilities/government might affect where those efficiencies start to kick in (MOO3 did something like this with 'overcharging' production, actually).

So yes, you could have an AI that always went after whichever ONE tech it wanted next, but either of these would make that a non-optimal solution, and in fact you could easily set it up to where there is NO obvious optimal solution and it's just a question of tradeoffs - do I sacrifice some efficiency for 5 turns to get that ion cannon our ships desparately need, or wait, since I'm delaying that economic breakthrough that will increase effective tax revenues by 5% 10 turns by doing so...
Reply #18 Top
I definatly agree that the RP's should rollover, even if this isn't realistic. Like Uruguru said, we can't encourage micromanagement by rewarding players who know how to fiddle with the knobs.


Music to my ears.

Now, can we get social and military production rolling over too?
Reply #19 Top
Now, can we get social and military production rolling over too?

yes please
Reply #20 Top
Quote: "I think either system works, and I don't necessarily want GalCiv to become MOO IV. "

I would have to agree. While MOO3 was an utter disappointment to me and Gal Civ 1 filled the void, I wouldnt force Gal Civ into the same mold rather have Gal Civ 2 be its own, do its own thing.

What would I add? Civilization 3 had this great idea and it was called a civ-o-pedia. Right click on almost anything and you get information about it, the tech needed to research, what it does, etc.. and related links.
Reply #22 Top
GalCiv could do with a handy, basic, right click info. Very handy for remembering what a tech might grant in negotiation in particular, but useful elsewhere as well.
Reply #23 Top
GalCiv could do with a handy, basic, right click info. Very handy for remembering what a tech might grant in negotiation in particular, but useful elsewhere as well.


Or maybe Ctrl+Right Click, as right click is used to order ship movment. But then, I suppose there isnt much on the map screen that you'd want to get tech info on, other than a ship class itself, say battleship hulls. I dunno, just a thought.
Reply #24 Top
Well, there are the resources and whatever else they add to the screen. Having extra info for new players and the forgetful would be a kindness. GC1 did have that click on anomoly or resource and it would say things like "send a survey ship here for a chance of something interesting happening" or "build a starbase here to increase your military capability" type info. Very useful.

And if they stick in various terrain and new wreckage anomolies, it would be nice to have reminders what those are as well.
Reply #25 Top
I love this debate.

While I see the logic behind:

If you generate 2 RP a turn and
If it costs 30 to get a technology, than 15 turns for 1 technology is infinitely better than
dividing 2 by 6, and then waiting 180 turns to get a payoff, but getting 6 technologies at that time.


However, I do see how it could work. I hate to 'borrow' from other games for an analogy, but Heart of Iron II does the initial idea the best justice.

What if every playable nation has 'research teams'. Depending on the type of nation, these are companies or scientists. These scientists have whatever category of research you use ie;

Dr Klaar
Warp +2, Plasma +1, Diplomacy -1

You have a certain number of labs, up to six. Just like with merchant routes though, you can't open them all at the start of the game. Instead, over time as your empire expands, you can have more than one research team operating. This sort of assumes that your research teams are using all the available university and labratories on your empire, and as you can expand projects you have the availability to research.

When assigned to a project, Dr Klaar's team is unavailable for other projects. This would add an all new level of 'realism' to the game and strategy, without sacrificing the fun. You see its not as simple as 'time' and 'rp' points. The Scientists that know all about building big weapons are already busy, you want those same scientists to invent a universal translator? wouldn't it be better to let the ones who work on languages work on that? otherwise, you'll end up with a universal translator that has a big laser attached to it. (joking).

These teams could pop automatically, or randomly or even based on the fact that since you focused primarily on weapons research, they've developed weapons experience). A team could even be built just like a ship or structure.

In any case, Lets say you had six teams like this (without going into the exact + or - of the categories, just a general idea)

Dr Klaar
(Good at Weapons, Ship design)
Dr Muton
(Good at Weapons, Planetary Invasion Vehicles)
Dr Ingmar
(Good at Weapons, Defenses)
Dr Tektektektek
(Good at everything, has a minus to diplomacy)
Dr TikTak
(Good at diplomacy)
Dr Argos
(Good at Industry, Diplomacy)

But, you only had three labs, because this is the middle of the game. So you have to decide which of the three you want to use.

Due to the fact, that research spending doesn't work like this;
If I have 30 RP, in 1 turn I can research that new technology in the real world, it shouldn't in the universe. It should be more like "It costs 2 RP to fully fund a research team, a fully funded research team can work for 10-15 weeks on this project, less if they have more expereince, more if they are not working at 100% capacity).

This then assumes that that a research team as long as it gets paid 100% of its requirements will not be able to simply be 'paid more' to work on something.

Now, you could possibly assign more than one team to the same technology, but I think rather than 200% effort, you should get a declining rate of return, perhaps 150% with 2 teams, and with 3 teams you get total 195%, towards the goal and so on (45% increments, perhaps 40% for team 4, 5 and adding 25% for team 6).

This would also help stem the tide about "Why not just put everyone towards the same goal", because large research projects, are harder to manage!! and if you are willing to invest in three projects, you do get an economy of scale.

So in other words, in the above example, you could pick three teams to work on seperate projects at 100% each, or you could combine some of their efforts (but with a declining rate of return). These teams may even learn 'cross team partnerships' and increase efficiencies on large projects, if you use a system where research teams get better based on their experiences.

Then the player must also balance their research.