A Question for Tom Holsinger

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

A Question for Tom Holsinger

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Science Fiction] >> Armada 2526 Series >> A Question for Tom Holsinger

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A Question for Tom Holsinger - 11/30/2009 2:15:59 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

So why do you think no one has ever captured the feel of the turn based tactical combat in MOO1 & 2? I remember what it felt like turning my ship so the one shield that was left would take the impact of the incoming missiles. Man I miss that. Space Empires came close but missed the mark IMO. It's all about huge real-time battles now.

I am enjoying the battle in Armada 2526 so far because of the pause feature but it still does not come close to the combat in MOO1 & 2.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

Post #: 1

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 11/30/2009 2:26:13 AM

Klahn

Posts: 184
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline

I feel the same way about another game:

X-Com. I've tried pretty much every single X-Com clone and nothing has even come close to the original.

I think MOO2 and X-Com just required a certain kind of genius that's impossible to replicate.

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 2

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 11/30/2009 2:33:20 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ryvan

I feel the same way about another game:

X-Com. I've tried pretty much every single X-Com clone and nothing has even come close to the original.

I think MOO2 and X-Com just required a certain kind of genius that's impossible to replicate.

Yep, X-Com is another one.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to Klahn)

Post #: 3

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 11/30/2009 5:53:52 AM

Tom_Holsinger

Posts: 233
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Kid, there was very little tactical combat in MOO1. MOO2's was an enormous advance, and close to ideal for its day. We grognards even had a Clash of the Titans contest using an editor created by someone in Brazil, COrion2 or something lke that. You designed your best Titan-sized warship and the referee matched them against each other in ones on one, AI-controlled on both sides. The final duel was between Montgomery's Mariner, and some Russian astronomer's Pobideda. amd Mariner won. My Pride of Groac went down early to a cloaked energy torpedo ship named Ya-Gotta-Be-Kidding.

I don't miss MOO1's combat. I do miss MOO2's, but it simply could not adequately scale up, particularly not in formations of ships. I've learned to really appreciate MOO3's tactical combat.

But I haven't tried Armada's tactical combat yet. I'm still learning the strategic side of it.

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 4

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 11/30/2009 6:21:34 AM

Janster

Posts: 54
Joined: 2/19/2004
Status: offline

Hi, I'm curious to see you've actually talked to Emerich, I remember so well the drama that went on then. When I got moo 3 I must say it was a totally different experience. I so think they should have 'refined' moo 2 instead of doing what they did, I understand his motivations, but sadly the distance between applied and theory was too far.

I added some mods and tried playing it a few years back, but it didn't work very well, I wonder is there any progress on the matter, or any value for me to try to get it again? I like Armada, but the tactical aspect of it really doesn't sit well, it needs help, and thus the strategic part of it just isn't enough.

However, I do hope this project will fare better than the Lost Galaxies or whatever it was called, which I bought, which never worked, and never got fixed :(

(in reply to Tom_Holsinger)

Post #: 5

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 11/30/2009 8:06:18 AM

Zakhal

Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyv�skyl�, Finland
Status: offline

To be honest allthough moo2 was my favorite in the end I got fed up with its battles. They took so much time. Im happy that armada battles can be solved in 3 min. In sots when I used 7min battles I often had to fight 45min of battles per turn. It took almost a week of 24/7 play to finish one game. I simply dont have that kind of time anymore when I work fulltime.

_____________________________

"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."� Edmund Burke

(in reply to Janster)

Post #: 6

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 11/30/2009 11:45:50 AM

Aroddo

Posts: 125
Joined: 11/7/2009
Status: offline

i loved the moo2 battles and i sadly haven't seen any game trying to emulate them.
ok, they may not make as much "sense" as real time battles, but the system had it's charm.

i discovered that the ai couldn't cope with missile ships, so I conquered much of my early neighbours using scouts armed with 2-shot nuclear missiles. in groups of 5 they were strong enough to take out space stations.

_____________________________

The Armada 2526 Wiki

Armada 2526 official forum

(in reply to Zakhal)

Post #: 7

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 11/30/2009 9:07:03 PM

PDiFolco

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

I beg to differ, I preferred the HoMM like MoO1 battles with their packs of 1859 fighters and 125 cruisers vs 35 dreads and 425 frigates. THAT was some friggin' huge battles !
Then MoO2 had a much better tac system, but with only 6 ships or so a side, even by endgame, it didn't feel very galactic ...

(in reply to Aroddo)

Post #: 8

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 12/1/2009 7:10:45 AM

Janster

Posts: 54
Joined: 2/19/2004
Status: offline

Moo 2 combat was totally superior and because everyone wants to reinvent the wheel EVERY time they create these games, its not been copied...sigh.

Btw, last time I checked a single battle in Moo 2 could contain probably up to 100 ships PER side..so I think thats epic enough imho. Best part is ships mattered, and some even had named commanders...who made a diffrence!!

Also the sheer tactic of it...for example I used to play feudal...and with that you had incredible shipbuilding but oh so sucky tech...the solutions..missiles....always hits...avoid beams, which never hits...and you got cheap 1 shot ships that totally ruin your high tech opponents day...oh the joy

moo 2 remake PLEASE...someone...anyone....

(in reply to PDiFolco)

Post #: 9

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 12/1/2009 9:38:29 AM

Star Ranger

Posts: 7
Joined: 11/27/2009
Status: offline

yes a updated remake of moo2 would be awesome.

(in reply to Janster)

Post #: 10

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 12/1/2009 8:41:41 PM

PDiFolco

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Janster

Moo 2 combat was totally superior and because everyone wants to reinvent the wheel EVERY time they create these games, its not been copied...sigh.

Btw, last time I checked a single battle in Moo 2 could contain probably up to 100 ships PER side..so I think thats epic enough imho. Best part is ships mattered, and some even had named commanders...who made a diffrence!!

Also the sheer tactic of it...for example I used to play feudal...and with that you had incredible shipbuilding but oh so sucky tech...the solutions..missiles....always hits...avoid beams, which never hits...and you got cheap 1 shot ships that totally ruin your high tech opponents day...oh the joy

moo 2 remake PLEASE...someone...anyone....

100 ships per side ? No way, not even sure there are enough hexes to contain them !
Anyway, the command/control limitations meant you couldn't support a fleet of more than say 20 ships, except maybe by exploiting endgame .
Or do you talk about MoO3 ??

(in reply to Janster)

Post #: 11

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 12/1/2009 8:42:11 PM

Vyshka

Posts: 275
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Chandler, AZ
Status: offline

Brad Wardell at Stardock Games has been talking about doing an updated MOO2 after they finish Elemental, which is their attempt to come up with a spiritual successor to MOM.

_____________________________

"When they get in trouble they send for the sonsabitches" - Adm. King

(in reply to Star Ranger)

Post #: 12

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 12/2/2009 4:11:52 AM

martok

Posts: 837
Joined: 8/30/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vyshka

Brad Wardell at Stardock Games has been talking about doing an updated MOO2 after they finish Elemental, which is their attempt to come up with a spiritual successor to MOM.

Sadly, that will not be happening now. Atari's lawyers ended up poisoning the deal (which was the same deal in which Stardock was hoping to secure rights to the MOM franchise as well). It sucks for us gamers, but I can't blame for Stardock for balking and pulling out.

_____________________________

"Evil is easy, and has infinite forms." -- Pascal

(in reply to Vyshka)

Post #: 13

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 12/2/2009 4:26:48 AM

Vyshka

Posts: 275
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Chandler, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: martok

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vyshka

Brad Wardell at Stardock Games has been talking about doing an updated MOO2 after they finish Elemental, which is their attempt to come up with a spiritual successor to MOM.

Sadly, that will not be happening now. Atari's lawyers ended up poisoning the deal (which was the same deal in which Stardock was hoping to secure rights to the MOM franchise as well). It sucks for us gamers, but I can't blame for Stardock for balking and pulling out.

Atari won't let them do MOO, but he is still planning on creating it's spiritual successor, at least he was the other week in the forums over there.

_____________________________

"When they get in trouble they send for the sonsabitches" - Adm. King

(in reply to martok)

Post #: 14

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 12/2/2009 6:30:26 AM

Janster

Posts: 54
Joined: 2/19/2004
Status: offline

[/quote]
100 ships per side ? No way, not even sure there are enough hexes to contain them !
Anyway, the command/control limitations meant you couldn't support a fleet of more than say 20 ships, except maybe by exploiting endgame .
Or do you talk about MoO3 ??
[/quote]

I played Moo 2 a -lot- even had a few very fun 4-5 player sessions, the 'limit' of ships in a single fleet was prolly around 100, the game did not use hexes, but squares, and in a single front line row you could have more than 10 ships..maybe as many as 20, and that was with Doomsday ships.

As for what you could 'realistically field' well in our MP fights, I had about 50-70 ships of battleship size as I was feudal, my friend who was tech heavy, used cruisers and fielded probably over 50+... and compared to endgame thats not big at all ;)

(in reply to PDiFolco)

Post #: 15

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 12/2/2009 10:07:23 AM

PDiFolco

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

Sheesh, then I sucked big time at that game with my smallish fleets !!

(played only SP anyway)

(in reply to Janster)

Post #: 16

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 12/6/2009 10:17:12 PM

lordxorn

Posts: 768
Joined: 12/6/2009
Status: offline

Yeah I am saddened by the lack of any grand 4x space game, (save a few like GalCiv, SEIV, Armada) that can hold a candle to MOO2.

What Armada needs to be a step closer to MOO is ship design, and improved battles.

As far as fleet design, I think Moo2 is the best model, where the GalCiv model is great for customisibility. The problem with GalCiv is the generic Weapons like Laser, Missile, Gun I II III, etc. the gratifying thing about Moo2 was the different types of weapons, and their graphical representation in the tactical screen. (Black Hole Generators

(in reply to PDiFolco)

Post #: 17

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 12/6/2009 11:26:35 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

I'm partial to SotS's battles myself. especially with the ACM mod.

(in reply to lordxorn)

Post #: 18

RE: A Question for Tom Holsinger - 12/7/2009 6:48:09 PM

SireChaos

Posts: 710
Joined: 8/14/2006
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom_Holsinger

Kid, there was very little tactical combat in MOO1. MOO2's was an enormous advance, and close to ideal for its day. We grognards even had a Clash of the Titans contest using an editor created by someone in Brazil, COrion2 or something lke that. You designed your best Titan-sized warship and the referee matched them against each other in ones on one, AI-controlled on both sides. The final duel was between Montgomery's Mariner, and some Russian astronomer's Pobideda. amd Mariner won. My Pride of Groac went down early to a cloaked energy torpedo ship named Ya-Gotta-Be-Kidding.

I don't miss MOO1's combat. I do miss MOO2's, but it simply could not adequately scale up, particularly not in formations of ships. I've learned to really appreciate MOO3's tactical combat.

But I haven't tried Armada's tactical combat yet. I'm still learning the strategic side of it.

Your copy of MoO3 had tactical combat? Mine only had groups of ships creeping around the battle map blasting away at each other, with few tactical option and even fewer opportunities for player input. And since the AI is such a coward that it retreats unless it is clearly superior, rather than defending vital worlds, they�re usually not even particularly exciting. Not to mention if you want to see anything of the batlle, you�re looking from so far away that your massive capital ships are tiny colored smears against a black background.

No, the best space-based tactical combat system I can think of it MoO2�s. A pity that battles were usually rather small, although occasionally (once or twice in an epic-sized game) I�d get an encounter with 20-30 Doom Stars on each side... now that�s a battle!

(in reply to Tom_Holsinger)

Post #: 19