Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Master of Orion 1+2

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,185
Location
Bjørgvin
Which is better of MoO and MoM?

Og Civ 1 and MoO, which is hardest to win on the largest map, with max number of opponents and highest difficulty?

Discuss.
 
Last edited:

SCO

Arcane
In My Safe Space
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
16,320
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Ugh.

MoO1 is more 'casual' mostly due to the fleet mechanics and lack of building (though the ship design adds complexity). There is no real exploration/fogofwar in MoO1, i mean you can only see ships after some science upgrades and can't see planets on systems before exploring them, but you normally have some clue of the kind of planets there will be on them from their colors.

There are 'special' planets, but you can't tell where they are (except orion, that is always near the center). While in Mom/Civ you can often tell what you'll get, eg: a tower of magic. However, MoO is a really tight package. To be honest, i enjoy it more that the more Civ inspired MoM (and think MoM obliterates Civ at it's own game too).
The sequel kinda ruined that, with it's more complex per planet building queue (instead of sliders) making it nearer CiV. Ugh micro.
 

kyrub

Augur
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
347
Which is better of MoO and MoM?
Which is better, butter or cheese?
Those two are quite different games. Master of Magic has rules similar to Civilization (but it has so many extra strategic levels), Master of Orion 1 is a game with simplified "overboard" mechanics (but it has so many perfect concepts hidden behind) and a focus on ship design. Impossible to compare.

If, however, you mean Master of Orion II by "MoO", then the question is right in place. Similar to Civ - and IMHO slightly inferior to Master of Magic in terms of strategic gameplay. The lack of deep tactical combat, with less decisive moments and less clever moves and tricks, makes MoO II less appealing to me than MoM.

Og Civ 1 and MoO, which is hardest to win on the largest map, with max number of opponents and highest difficulty?
Master of Orion 1 is by far the hardest game to win from all mentioned, on impossible difficulty. The reason: It lacks easy-cheesy ways to victory. "It eats formulaic players for breakfast", my favourite quote from a review of MoO1. - However, the biggest test is not the largest universe, but the smallest one. Even the best players have lost Small, max_opponents, impossible games in Master of Orion 1. That is why Master of Orion 1 is one of the most challenging (challenging and fun) game in gaming history.
 

Destroid

Arcane
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
16,628
Location
Australia
MoO2 > MoM > MoO1. I haven't played Civ1 recently enough to place it in there, but its probably last, since these three are all solid games. MoO2 can be very difficult if you don't take a custom race.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Poland
Civ 1 is great because it started the civ series, as a game it doesnt hold up nor does it live to the legacy of its successors. Game mechanics got greatly expanded with time in this case.

MoO1 is similar with MoO2 easily overtaking it (even if some consider it to be superior).

MoM however is more or less unmatched to this day and as such I would consider it the best of the three.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,185
Location
Bjørgvin
Master of Orion 1 is by far the hardest game to win from all mentioned, on impossible difficulty. The reason: It lacks easy-cheesy ways to victory. "It eats formulaic players for breakfast", my favourite quote from a review of MoO1. - However, the biggest test is not the largest universe, but the smallest one. Even the best players have lost Small, max_opponents, impossible games in Master of Orion 1. That is why Master of Orion 1 is one of the most challenging (challenging and fun) game in gaming history.

So, no Chariot Blitzkrieg strategy like in Civ 1? That was the only way I was able to win Civ 1 on Emperor level.

I just won my first game in MoO, by wiping out all opposition, using the recommended settings of the manual: Medium, Simple, 3 opponents, playing as Klackons. I'm already looking forward to next game on normal difficulty. Took me a couple of days, so I guess I micro-manage each planet too much. I offered peace to the Psilons and Sakkras, but what was the thanks? They stabbed me in the back. :( And the Mrrrshan accumulated a gargantuan fleet around their main planet, but never did anything with it. :?

My goal will be to win one game on hardest difficulty.
So, is there an unoffical ranking of the races, from easiest to hardest?
 

Renegen

Arcane
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
4,062
I've played Civ1 a lot in my childhood and it was the game that started it all. It has things in common with the other 2 games, MOO and MoM. I can see Microprose trying to have a monopoly on turn based strategy with 1 realistic, 1 fantasy, 1 science fiction. Civ1 thus has cool random events that the other 2 games are known for, it has the simple map system and charm of MoM but... the game is kind of imbalanced. A favored tactic of mine was to rush Musketeers, the earliest I got them was 700 BC. There's not too much reason to play Civ1 anymore, its sequels are better games.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,185
Location
Bjørgvin
I've played Civ1 a lot in my childhood and it was the game that started it all. It has things in common with the other 2 games, MOO and MoM. I can see Microprose trying to have a monopoly on turn based strategy with 1 realistic, 1 fantasy, 1 science fiction. Civ1 thus has cool random events that the other 2 games are known for, it has the simple map system and charm of MoM but... the game is kind of imbalanced. A favored tactic of mine was to rush Musketeers, the earliest I got them was 700 BC. There's not too much reason to play Civ1 anymore, its sequels are better games.

Well, each Civ game seem to get progressively more complex. I've only played 1 and 2, but I remember 2 had much more units to choose from, for example. So I think playing the games in sequence will make the later, more complex ones less daunting.

As for Civ 1, the winning strategy on Emperor level for me was to use Chariots and blitzkrieg with them. It felt like a hollow victory, though. It's more fun to make the cilization that builds the first space ship to reach Proxima Centauri.
 

Gozma

Arcane
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
2,951
MoM is great for having so many crazy tricks and ideas in the same game. Tons of fun to explore all the ways it can be played.

MoO1 is almost the opposite, it's great for being a tightly crafted and distilled 4x. Tons of fun to find out the strongest ways to play, and to use all the races to their strengths.

MoO2 is like a midway point between them. Also if you try to play late into the game it gets miserably boring.
 

hoverdog

dog that is hovering, Wastelands Interactive
Developer
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
5,589
Location
Jordan, Minnesota
Project: Eternity
Master of Magic is the best game ever.

If it was a bit more balanced and had a less braindead AI, it would, um, it would be even better.

edit: I've just imagined what it would've been if MoM'd had a sequel just as better as MoO2 was to MoO2.

I'm crying now :(
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,185
Location
Bjørgvin
I'll probably play Master of Magic later this year, and I'm looking forward to that. Playing games chronologically 1994 looks like it will be a poor year for pure CRPGs, but a good year in general with games like MoM, System Shock, Jagged Alliance and X-Com. By 1994 I had given up on my Amiga and still not got a PC, so it's like a black hole in my computer gaming history.

Should be interesting to see how MoM compares to the Age of Wonders games. What I actually like best about AoW:SM is the tactical combat, but I understand MoM has a more simplistic combat system?
Too bad about the weak AI, but that is the problem with most strategy games, unfortunately. I usually play strategy games on "Impossible" or, if it is virtually impossible, "hard", while for CRPGs I nearly always play on normal difficulty.
 

knightley

Educated
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
104
I like MoO most, just can't resist a good space empire game, after that MoM.
 

Deuce Traveler

2012 Newfag
Patron
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
2,899
Location
Okinawa, Japan
Grab the Codex by the pussy Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
I never played MoO, but I did play Master of Orion 2, Civilization 1 and Master of Magic. Master of Magic is very similar to Civilization, but I like the special characters you can gain and the magic aspect better than Civ 1's long list of technological achievements. On the other hand, Master of Orion 2 is the game that I'll pick up and play first and continuously if you had me choose between the lot. I just think Master of Orion 2 has a lot more replayability with the various racial builds and the randomly generated galaxy, though Master of Magic comes close.


For me. MoO2 > MoM > Civ1

Not to take away from Civ 1. All three are awesome games.
 

Riel

Arcane
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
1,357
Location
Itaca
In regards to AI: We humans love diversity of options, AIs can't cope with that. That's why MoO's AI is the best, no way any AI can cope with MoM pletora of posibilities.

That said good AI doesn't make the greatest game, in terms of fun I rate them: MoO2, MoM, MoO. MoO2 and MoM offer more to discover and have fun with than MoO.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,185
Location
Bjørgvin
In regards to AI: We humans love diversity of options, AIs can't cope with that. That's why MoO's AI is the best, no way any AI can cope with MoM pletora of posibilities.

That said good AI doesn't make the greatest game,

AI doesn't make the game, but once you start to master the game the (lack) of AI becomes apparant in too many strategy games.
In MoO, I'm currently only playing my second game - Large map, max number of opponents, Average difficulty - and the AI keeps sending Colony Ships to uncolonized planets in my own backyard. Makes it very easy for me to just send in 10 troops to conquer the new colony, or chase off the colony ship if I don't have the tech for using the planet yet.
Also, the AI always seems to have far more ships than me, but rarely use them effectively. Either they just congregate around their home planet, or they attack in waves.
Still, it's a good game, but not quite as good as Civ 1, IMO.
 

Riel

Arcane
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
1,357
Location
Itaca
Yeah well all Ais have flaws, that doesn't take away from the fact that MoO's AI does a good job at creating challenging oponent without cheating too much.

Actually AI is a very missleading word, there is no such a thing as ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE as of yet, just a bunch of scripts and rules, the more complex the rules they have to abide by the more loop holes and errors in AI programming, that's what I was stating. Chess with it's simple rules has decent "AI" the rules are simple and sraightforward to program with no choice other than trying to defeat one single enemy. In games that have economy, diplomacy, warring... AI is just to complex to do properly without tons of errors and stupid "strategies"
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,185
Location
Bjørgvin
Just won my third game of Master of Orion, playing as the Humans on a Large map, with four opponents and Hard difficulty, and with the UOP installed.
I started next to the Meklars and Sakkras, who both had irritating irrational personality, so the human diplomacy advantage didn't work out too well, with pacts and trade agreements being broken randomly.
So I conquered the galaxy with huge warships instead.
I can't help but feel that the game favours the hugest ships, since they usually have the option to retreat and fight another day. Also with the BC used to build one huge ship you get more guns than with the same BC worth of smaller ships.
Still it was fun to build nearly thousand small fighters with LVL 3 Shield and use them against the Sakkras' huge stack of small fighters.
Later I would build battleships with Repulsor Beams. With all the Sakkras' ships having only 1 range laser, one of my battleships could vanquish whole fleets of their ships.

So far my experience is that Civ 1 is harder then MoO on the second highest difficulty. But I've only played the "easy" races in MoM so far. My goal is to win on Hard with all the races I haven't tried yet, and then try to win on Impossible with whatever turns out to be my favoured race.
 

SCO

Arcane
In My Safe Space
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
16,320
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Try a game with that spy race. It's pretty different. Also, you get almost as much tech as the psilons (especially if they are in the game) -.~
 

kyrub

Augur
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
347
If you played Humans, Klackons, Psilons, you should not mention "difficulty" in the same phrase.


Otherwise, I second the SCO's suggestion. Darloks are interesting and somewhat hard to win.

Silicoids make a really different game, a lot of fun and risk. They are not easy as well, to win, as you will see. Some of my best game with late late victories happened with 'coids. - Another intricate race are Meklars. The advantage is quite soft, but can be useful in many ways. If you think huge ships are the cream, try Alkaris and a nimbus of micro ships. Another stake: try to win the game with Neutron Pellet Guns. Mrrshans are probably the hardest to win, but I find them rather dry. They're good just for the challenge. Sakkras and Bulrathis lack special intricacies, for me at least.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,185
Location
Bjørgvin
When I read the manual, the Darloks was actually the race that sounded most interesting and most suitable to my playing style. I always find war more interesting than diplomacy in games, and stealing tech is a tactic I like in Civilization.

I just started a new game playing the Silicoids. I can imagine their slow growth rate becoming a problem later on. So far I haven't found any noteworthy hostile planets either, and yet again I get the Sakkara as next star neighbours.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,185
Location
Bjørgvin
If you think huge ships are the cream, try Alkaris and a nimbus of micro ships.

Heh, as chance would have it my second neighbour in my Silicioid game were the Alkaris, and I'm terrified of their little Space Gulls. They have 9 in both Beam and Missile Defence, movement of 3, and are armed with Ion Cannons, so even the best Shield won't negate their power. I'd like to see the specs on those ships...My battleship with 40 Heavy Lasers only kill one or two of them per round. My scientists are frantically researching the Repulsor Beam...
 

Rpgsaurus Rex

Guest
Is MoO2 a better experience in vanilla, or modded/fanpatched etc.?
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,185
Location
Bjørgvin
I must say playing the Silicoids was rather more difficult than playing the Humans in Master of Orion. Slooow growth and research rates is frustrating, so I'm forced to use spies to try to keep ut with the technology. I've even launched some desperate ground assualts to discover new tech, but I've had rotten luck. Even if I refrain from bombing the factories keep their secrets so far. What excactly determines the chances? Only number of facories captured? Or does the number or surviving conquerors also matter?
I think biological weapons would have been perfect to reduce the number of defenders but let the factories be intact.
The Alkaris are producing more and more small ships that I can hardly hit, so I regret not bombing one of their larger planets to smithereen when I had the chance. By the time the transports arrived, so had too many of the Alkari ships, forcing my battleships to retreat.
Choices&Consequences, baby!
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom