Draginol Draginol

Galactic Civilizations is not Master of Orion

▼

Galactic Civilizations is not Master of Orion

Easing up on the demands

from JoeUser Forums

Back in 1992 I was in college and was writing a computer game called Galactic Civilizations for IBM's OS/2 operating system.  I hung out on Usenet's comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic and almost like a collaborative design team, the users on that news group, where I was (and still am) a regular put together the features for this game.

I had started a little company called Stardock Systems in order to help pay for school and this game was being done under that umbrella.  IBM was very kind and sent me some software and tools and "red books" to help me write it. I also had bought Teach Yourself C in 21 days in order to program it.  The game also started a tradition that lasts to this day -- open betas.  Users who pre-ordered the game could participate in the beta program and tell us what they wanted changed or tweaked in the game. 

for {product/platform} screenshot 1The betas were released in late 1993 and 1994.  But unknownst to us, we weren't the only ones interested in making a space-based strategy game.  Another new company had been started called Simtex and they had made a game called Master of Orion.   It was released at Christmas 1993. 

Because they were separated by OS platforms, the two existed side-by-side.  One might argue that we made the wrong choice in choosing OS/2.  After all, Master of Orion is considered a classic while Galactic Civilizations on OS/2 was a technological footnote.  But in reality, could a game written by a 20 year old college student in his spare time have gotten the kind of coverage that Galactic Civilizations received if it weren't for OS/2?  The publicity Galactic Civilizations received helped build the momentum that takes Stardock to where it is today.  Or put another way, Stardock exists today, many game developers in that time have long since vanished.

Master of Orion and Galactic Civilizations wouldn't tangle again so directly until 2003 when Galactic Civilizations for Windows and Master of Orion 3 would face off.  Since I made the original and was designing the new one, I knew exactly what I wanted to do.  Master of Orion 3 was made by a different company - though on a much higher budget.

This time they were both on the same platform and during development, there were heated discussion by fans of each (which typically involved people on moo3.com slagging GalCiv).  Since GalCiv had an open beta, and anyone who's been in one of our betas knows how crappy our games are until the very end, the MOO fans could rightly point out how ugly GalCiv was looking.  We were competing against something that had no open beta, just a few choice screenshots that looked, admittedly pretty good.

Then Master of Orion 3 shipped and things changed.  Regardless of ones feelings on Master of Orion 3, it was not what fans were expecting. What I think many fans wanted was Master of Orion 2 with some tweaks and better graphics.  Master of Orion 3 was many things but it was not Master of Orion 2 with some tweaks and better graphics, it was very different.

Master of Orion 3 actually sold better than Galactic Civilizations -- a lot better.  3 years of pre-ordered ensured it had a massive foot print at retail.  When it came out you could find rows and rows of Master of Orion 3 boxes and then would have to dig around to find a box of Galactic Civilizations.  Still, the game sold well with nearly 100,000 sold in North America either directly from Stardock or through retail via Strategy First.  Some unknown number (probably around 50,000) was sold overseas.  Not too bad.

The reviews of Master of Orion 3 and sales (when compared to its budget) made it unlikely that Atari would be doing a Master of Orion 4 any time soon.  GalCiv, whose budget was about 1/10th of MOO 3's, was ready to do a sequel with a bigger budget and a more vigorous marketing strategy.

So what about all those Master of Orion 3 fans who wanted MOO 2.5?  If my email inbox along with forum posts are any indication, they would have Galactic Civilizations II be that game.  But it isn't.  It's not supposed to be.  The forums really only give a taste of the nit-picking that MOO fans submit but it's there.  Whether it be demands for players to do orbital bombardments without having to invade the planet to demands for tactical combat ("I should be able to select which weapon fires on which ship!").

That isn't to say we won't put in good ideas when we hear them.  But Galactic Civilizations has always been a strategic game.  It's never been a game about tactics.  It's literally a class of civilizations.  You're building a civilization and you want to see how it is able to compete against other civilizations.  Ship design was added for the sequel not to be more like Master of Orion but to help extend the clash of civilizations story-arc: Players can take different weapons and defense technology paths and it would have become ridiculously complicated to stick with the "Technology gives you Ship X" methodology that GalCiv I gave you.  We had to have a way for players to choose what types of weaponry and defenses to put on their ships.  The 3D engine made it too tempting not to let people visually design their own ships.

Fleet battles in Galactic Civilizations II carries forward the clash of civilizations vision as well.  Because fleet sizes are limited by ones logistics ability, it forces players to decide whether to focus on a few huge ships or fleets of smaller ships.  Ultimately, the game revolves around whose civilization can adapt best technologically, culturally, industrially, and militarily to a given random galaxy with a given random mix of aliens controlled by carefully designed AI algorithms.

Master of Orion is not designed to be a clash of civilizations in this sense in my view.  It's a clash of militaries.  In MOO, at any level, cranking out the ships was rarely an issue. In the original, fleets of 30,000 ships was not uncommon.  The game down to being able to design the most effective ships and match them to your own tactical battle strategy the best.  The end-game typically revolved around a genocide run with each player zipping into a system with a massive fleet (held back by how large a USHORT was -- 65,535 ships in a group) and wiping out the planet.  The player with the faster ships could annihilate faster and thus win the game.

A fairly well known story about me and Master of Orion involves the birth my first son.  I played Master of Orion 2 in the delivery room on a laptop while waiting for my son to be born.  Hence, I know when MOO2 shipped because I was playing it on November 30, 1996 when it was still very new.  Or put another way, I'm a MOO fan too.  But that doesn't mean I want to clone it anymore than I want to clone Civilization (which, after all, has a very similar title). 

At the end of the day, we have our own ideas on what makes a fun game and want to pursue that.  And I can sympathize with Master of Orion fans who, ten years after MOO 2's release, are still looking for what they see as a "true sequel".  But please stop trying to push MOO on us.  We don't see being different from MOO as a flaw. 

251,974 views 84 replies
Reply #51 from Stardock Forums Top
Heh. I can't remember the # of posts I saw in Moo3 threads saying buy Gal Civ its a lot better than this trash [Moo3].
It's wasn't MOO nor did I consider it "Civilization in Space" despite the name. It is what it is. A kickass game. I like most expected MoO3 to be 'more of the same' with new races, techs, and graphics of course. MoO3 was hard to love, even for people wanting to give it a shot. Gal Civ 2, I'll jump on a limb for this, will come together nicely.. gamers and fans will rejoice. Stardock will be proud to tell people they created Gal Civ. Yes a total opposite of how Mo03 was recieved.

I'll gladly play Gal Civ 1 over MoO anyday. Can't wait for 2, but at least we have the beta for now

Reply #52 from Stardock Forums Top
Veteran Draginol: a man with an idea -> GalCiv is a game about civilizations and not about military tactics like MOO2 - I'll come back to this.

This is my first post on this site, but I have been checking the GalCiv 2 progress for more than half-a-year already. I just couldn't help myself not to comment (and it's 4:30 in the morning )

I have played MOO2 since it was released. It is on my short list of games that spent countless hours off my time: MOO2, XCom (UFO Series), DeusEx, Civ, Quake 2 and the Larry series (ah, youth ).

MOO3 was really a piece of trash. I actually managed to win the game by only pressing end-turn and doing nothing else.
And this is how I discovered GalCiv - searching for an alternative, somewhere hidden in a corner of a Romanian retailer, with no marketing and no article in any PC games magazine.

Indeed, all I wanted was a MOO2 with better graphics and some tweaks. I can't say that GalCiv gave that to me. Instead I discovered a game full of humour (the technology descriptions were really funny), strategical depth and better graphics than MOO3

Well, it was not perfect, as the fleet micro-management was a pain. It also laked ship configuration. And I couldn't choose to play another race but humans. Indeed, was different from MOO but I still liked it.

Right now, as I don't have the BETA from GalCiv 2 I can only drool at the screenshots and I'm trying to understand the new features from the forums. It seems like a lot of the above mentioned missing features are present in the new game.

However, what I want to point out is the business factor/opportunity that faces Stardock with this new release: there is a starving market segment that is crying for the attention of a game developer - the MOO fan base. I'm not trying to draw up Stardock's business strategy, but this is definetely an opportunity for GalCiv to become the uber space strategy title.

All it has to be done (and it's a bit too late now in this development stage) is to insert some of the features that made the MOO series (1&2) a huge success. For example Stardock may consider also the tactical side of the game, to implement espionage, ship officers, a star system like Orion (well, maybe not) etc. This can be made without affecting the core idea of the game.

By doing this GalCiv can still be the same as dreamed about by Veteran Draginol, but can also attract the huge MOO fan base and become a huge sales success. Hell, Civ4 sells great, and after all it's still mostly Civ1 with 3D graphics. Do not underestimate the power of the customers (I would love to one happy customer playing GalCiv 2.5 with MOO features inserted ).

Please don't get me wrong, I really respect Stardock (thus also Veteran Draginol) for the attitude against their customer base, and the way it build success in the market. Stardock is one of the very few companies that are still independent and listening to us. I just don't understand why not to profit more from us, while making more of us happy

Now, if you could add on the main interface a small button for "Purchase all on all planets", just for easy playing - I don't think that it would take much effort

PS. And yes, IBM is a very kind company I know, I work there
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #53 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
MoO fans are, for the majority, going to love GC2. But again... GC is not MoO. It doesn't need to be MoO. It's just fine as it is.

BTW, tactical combat did not make MoO a better game. Indeed, it made it a slower game. It was nice to be able to see how your ship designs affected your combat, but it quickly became boring MM as you had to battle in tactical if you wanted to get the full bang out of your spaceships. Mega-Boring.
Reply #54 from Stardock Forums Top
I have no ammo to counter your position. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What's Mega-Boring for you is an orgasm for me

Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to play GalCiv2.
Reply #55 from Stardock Forums Top
Ok, just to point out the basic reason of why I liked MOO (& XCom) - which of course will differ from the reasons of many&many other people: I hate micromanagement of the planets (bases) and their economy and structures (modules). I need them in order to boost my research and thus to be able o discover new techs that will make my army superior while gaining power to build a ship faster.

What is the point (IMHO) to design a ship if I will not be able to play chess (tactical mode in both MOO and XCom) with my AI opponent to prove that my design (or the way I equipped my squad) is superior. The auto mode will just not do it for me. How will I know that I would not have been able to defeat the enemy fleet by using cunning tactics? An option of having auto mode or tactic battle would have been nice.

I just want to explain my reasons, no more. I am well aware that Stardock will not be able to please each and every individual, doesn't matter how much they try. But as much as I would like to think that I'm unique there are probably more people like me out there (sniff ).

As I said before, I'm looking forward to playing GalCiv2 and I keep my hope that at version 25.4 I'll be able to choose between the auto mode and tactical combat.

Cheers.
Reply #56 from Stardock Forums Top

BogdanRC - there will likely never be tactical combat because the point of the combat screen isn't to control your ships. It is there to visually show you how the combat system works step by step.

Combat in GalCiv is not nearly as simple as people think it is and GalCiv II has a much more sophisticated model.

First off, in ship vs. ship you have 3 different types of attack and 3 different types of defense. So being able to watch your ships battle it out will enable players to visually see how one type of weapon is being countered by a particular type a defense so that players can build better ships.

Secondly, the fleets work in a very VERY specific way. By being able to watch how ships fight it out, it takes the voodoo out of fleet battles. 

If you threw in user-controlled battles, however, then it would basically change the nature of the game. The player who found some loophole or incredible tactical strategy could win the game based almost purely on tactics rather than how robust of a civilization they created.

Reply #57 from Stardock Forums Top
You mean, like in MoO1 where you just put a Repulsor on your ship, and armed it with 2 space reach or better weaponry and in 99,999 battles (out of 100,000), your one ship would be unbeatable?

Or in Acsendancy, where you'd get large or better hulls and put in enough of the passive energy shield component so that your ships could never be damaged?

Or in ....

Well, you get the idea.

Yes, Great Boy of Frog. That is the exact reason I find people want a tactical layers. Any game that offers them always has multiple exploits against the tactical AI. Those exploits always become the dominant used forms of "tactics" in those games. Happens every time.
Reply #59 from Stardock Forums Top

Star Pilot: Precisely.

I've yet to see a tactical space strategy game of any complexity where there isn't some "trick" that allows a player to win totally lopsided battles.

GalCiv II about building a civilization. The tactics in war are a minor part of that.

Reply #60 from Stardock Forums Top
Ever give any thought to a "Wing Commander" type game ? I can already see at least three campaign settings GC1 + Expansion, & GC 2. Not to mention developing more of the storylines, inter-acting with existing races.
Reply #61 from Stardock Forums Top
Avatar Frogboy: well, since you're putting it this way... I have to admit that from the producer perspective you're right
Such a feature can create potential exploit situations which can help the player win the game while not focusing on the global strategy. And this can interfere with what Stardock wants from this game. You've got me convinced.
Thanks for taking the time to answer me.

Merry Christmas to everyone and a Happy New Year!
Now go and finish the game on schedule I can't wait to play it.
Reply #62 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I've yet to see a tactical space strategy game of any complexity where there isn't some "trick" that allows a player to win totally lopsided battles.
GalCiv II about building a civilization. The tactics in war are a minor part of that.



Here here! [applauds] As long as I can watch my pretty little ships blow up the other civs' pretty little ships, I don't particularly care whether or not I actually get to control them. Besides, if there's one thing thing that computer strategy games have taught me, it's that I'm a very mediocre military commander in any case!
Reply #63 from Stardock Forums Top

hello


i am a flash programmer, and working on a onlinegame.


it is called www.splintercolony.com . It will be a free browsergame, with multiplayer roundbased features. It is not finished at all, but you can look at the graphicdesign etc...


I am looking for some wisdom and help everywhere. If you want to help me develop splintercolony then write to me george[at]margaris.de


www.margaris.de

Reply #64 from Stardock Forums Top
the technology descriptions were really funny

in GC2 Beta Xeno Factory Tech says now you really have aliens working in your factories Get it?
strong humour...but still funny also it makes it fun Hope it continues.
Reply #65 from Stardock Forums Top
Civ wasn't the first 4X computer game. I believe that honour belongs to Reach for the Stars, but someone will probably correct me. I still play the 2000 redo of RFTS from time to time.
Reply #66 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Me too , just hope they do it and that they not start the same "it's not MoO it's a different game" routine like with GalCiv again if they will give different name.


No tactical combat I suppose in Elemental. Sigh.

Like it or not, GalcivII IS drawing in and benefiting from people who are MOO fans. definitely when game reviewers say it is the spiritual successor of MOO, sales are being generated where it wasn't before. The whole 4x space turn based strategy genre is not that big after all. And based on posts and wishlists on this forum, even people who are only lukewarm on Galciv2 due to the lack of tactical combat, are buying and hoping that future expansion packs will add it or just want to support the genre in hopes that other developers will realise turnbased games are not dead.

Galciv II is an established franchise though so fair enough, so if people are fooled into getting it, in hopes of MOO that's their problem, though I think its disingenuous to proclaim GalcivII isn't MOO after it has benefited from that... Anyhow..

But Elemental is a different story. If we are to believe the media and forum postings, it was conceived at the start as a MOM successor and they only planned elemental because they couldnt get the name.

Any fan, who read this will draw the obvious conclusion, Elemental is going to be all in name but MOMII. As such Elemental will draw in and benefit from the hint/rumor that it was supposed to be a Master of Magic sequel, and the effects of that will be HUGE, and I think Stardock people know it.

A very clever advertising strategy, if i was paranoid, I might even question if SD was even serious about getting the rights to MOM.... Being perceived as the successor of MOM would be almost as good...

Any game that is promoted (even if by just fans and game reviewers) as MOM II or successor should I hope live up to that implicit promise.

I hope SD people will swallow their pride, and copy what works as they posted recently rather than try to force it to fit the mold of a Stardock fantasy version of GalcivII game.

On the other hand, if they really want to go a completely different direction from MOM, I think it would be fair of them to state it upfront. I wouldn't say failure to do so would be false advertising, but it feels kind of dishonorable I think to know that people are thinking that Elemental is a MOM successor, and not say anything to dispel this misconception until a couple of months after release.





I hope SD


Reply #67 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
There were so many things wrong with MoO2 I don't understand the fanboyism. The planet management, AI and diplomacy were all terrible. People liked it because of the tactical engine, and that's it. Everything else existed to produce the ships you used to win. GalCiv isn't like that. It does, however, have some of MoO2s 'uber racial picks' problems, but nowhere near as bad as subterrainian creative telepaths.

I feel there is still a role for planetary bombardment in GalCiv, however. The game is much more complex and mature, so it can be implemented a little better than in MoO2, where nobody ever cared you were slaughtering billions of people.
Reply #69 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Civ wasn't the first 4X computer game. I believe that honour belongs to Reach for the Stars, but someone will probably correct me. I still play the 2000 redo of RFTS from time to time.

Starweb is probably the oldest. The first one I played was MegaWars III.

Reply #70 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Anyone who can respond to a shopping list of bad - not average, measurably bad - features by saying 'is that bad' really needs to reassess themselves. The race picks weren't inherently bad, they were poorly balanced. Anyone noticing a pattern? The game was easy as ass unless you deliberately handicapped yourself. Easy to win, but inefficient to play - even midgame the appalling 'Civ in space' system was overloaded. MoO2 is actually a prime example of why the '4x' genre is so limited: once you're up and running, the only thing you can do is kill or be killed. Sorry, that's lame.

MoO2 fans aren't upset by the lack of tactical planetary invasions: why not? Because such a feature would add nothing to the game. So it is with tactical combat - GalCiv2 doesn't have trick special weapons, or fighters, or shield facings. If one had control of a GalCiv2 battle, they would simply focus their fire on a single enemy ship one at a time. This is, of course, what the autofight does already.

GalCiv isn't MoO2. For this, I am eternally grateful.
Reply #71 from Stardock Forums Top
I'm a big MOOII fan, and stil play it from time to time. But I really find GalCiv II a much richer game. You're right that MOO is pretty much all about building a huge fleet with good weapon combos. In GalCiv, not only are there a bunch of different ways to win, but they sort of build off of each other. I've used influence starbases to help win a military victory, and military operations to help win a cultural victory. Plus the good diplomatic AI and the option of giving your civilization a moral alignment (the best thing about GalCiv I and II, in my oppinion) give an RPG aspect the game that I really appreciate.

Finally, whenever I hear people complaining about not being able to glass planets from orbit, I remember a certain event in Babylon 5, and I reflect the when you start hucking meteors at somebody's planet, they tend to surrender. I like that if you use weapons on mass desruction to conquer a planet, you have to stick around and pick up the pieces, afterwards. It's... realistic.

Good work, guys!
Reply #72 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I stiill play MOO2 and bought GalCiv2 because people were saying GalCiv was the best successor to MOO out there.

If you're going to design ships you really need to be able to do something with them afterwards. The MOO and MOO2 tactical combat are pretty simplistic but they do fill that need.

I really really love GalCiv2 but I STRONGLY disagree about the statement that tactics have no place in a clash of civilisations. In critical battles -- the battles on which wars can pivot -- they can make or break the war. If war has a place in a clash of civilisations then so do tactics.

Look at history. Hopefully you would agree that World War 2 was a classic clash of civilisations. What would World War 2 have been without Stalingrad, Midway, or the Battle of Britain. I don't know about the others, but I know for a fact that we won Midway through a combination of luck and superior tactics. The Japanese force was superior. The US SHOULD have lost. If the battle were resolved using a basic strategic combat resolver like GC2 we WO)ULD have lost. If we had it would have completely changed history. The US would have been unable to send most of it's resources to the European war like it did and the war could have dragged on MUCH longer assuming we won at all. Perhaps it would have ended with a nuclear holocost. Luckily we'll never know. Through very TACTICAL considerations we won at Midway. If the Japanese planes hadn't been caught in the middle of fueling when the first US divebombers attacked, if their fighters hadn't been at low altittude at that time because they had just finished massacering the US torpedo bombers, if we hadn't found their carriers before they found ours, it would have been very very different and the world today would be very different from what it is.

I picked Midway because I'm more familiar with it then most battles, but you can look at many other battles the same way. Battles do not always go to the one with the strongest force. Tactics are a very important contributer and small forces which are well commanded have defeated larger, more poorly commanded forces throughout history. Those battles have changed history. In many cases one could almost say they have driven history.

Wars hinge on tactical combat. It very much has a place in a clash of civilisations.
Reply #73 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I agree with most of what you're saying except for the consequences of what a lose at Midway would have meant.

American policy was that the European war took precedent, and nothing at Midway could have changed that. A victory for Japan wouldn't have changed much. The USA could out produce Japan by a staggering margin. The US could afford to lose ships, planes, and pilots, the Japanese couldn't. Even if they could have won more battles, they still would have run out of oil, and resources. If they had won more battles they probably would have ran out of oil even sooner.

Once Germany fell Japan would be facing the full might of the USA, twice as much had been going to the European Theatre. Britain and Russia would be fighting against them also. Japan's situation was hopless and all they could've done was delay the inevitable. And they wouldn't have been able to delay it long against all 3 allies.
Reply #74 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Moo II was a great game at its time and it is a shame that Qicksilver destroyed the series with Moo III.

GalCiv was also good at its own, but its more like Civ in space, where Moo II was different with its well known races which all could be used (even in MP) and their abilitys, its different types of planets, research tree, its heros, ship construction which you could really lead in battle, ground combat wasn't a gambling and you had not to do a genocide at the civilians if you invade the enemy planets.

Moo II was more personal, where GalCiv is larger.

Btw. I like all three series Civ, GalCiv and Moo for its own.

Darklor (still waiting for a real Moo III)
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top

Two things about tactics and the fate of nations:

1) World War II is not a good example of tactics making a difference.  World War II was a war decided by attrition and logistics.  The Napoleaonic wars would be better examples but those wars didn't involve the industrial mobilization of civilizations.

2) Midway was not won by tactics.  I would assert it demonstrates that the combat system of GalCiv II is right on. 

3 US Carriers defeated 4 Japanese carriers because of:

  • Good signal intelligence that let the Americans know where the Japanese were going to strike. This is akin to GalCiv II (in 1.1)'s ability to see a line where enemy forces are going if you'd put time into espionage.
  • Radar. US forces had radar, the Japanese did not. This is akin to having better sensors in GalCiv.  Had the Japanese had radar, Midway would have gone very differently.
  • Luck.  What destroyed the initial 3 aircraft carriers at Midway was that US torpedo planes had come in low (and were all destroyed) which brought the Japanese fighter screen down low.  At that moment, US dive bombers appeared on the scene and sunk 3 of the 4 Japanese aircraft carriers.

Midway had nothing at all to do with tactics. It was essentially two fleets meet and it was auto resolved with one side rolling very very well and having the initiative.

I think players have quite regularly scene the case where 3 capital ships attack 4 enemy capital ships and win the day.