Birth of the Federation? Is it better than Moo2? A review based on the beta
Lobo the last Czarnian
I have my hands on a beta copy of BOTF. I have also played Master of
Orion, Master of Orion 2 (to which I will compare BOTF a lot), Stars! and
Planets (plus loads of other empire games). I would consider myself an
experienced strategy gamer and would like to share my views on this game
(not that I expect any will not buy the game owing to my comments). Please
note I am playing a beta, not an alpha, so the game in the stores will
probably not be different from what I am playing (beta are bug-tested not
radically altered).
1. Game Background
The game lacks a suitably epic background. There is very little introduction
to each races characteristics and history. This may not bother some people
but it bothers me especially considering that a rich background could have
saved this games gameplay problems (see later). The game background is basic
and the game play doesn't differ substantially according to race chosen
i.e., choose one of the major races, use their nifty racial interface, build
a small selection of race limited items (when I say small, I mean one or two
buildings and a differing ships), listen to the nifty race adjusted
interface sounds and send race adjusted diplomatic texts to other races.
This may sound like a lot but it's not.
The races don't develop seperately (no different development tracks),
they're not treated substantially differently by the minor races or each
other (example, playing the Federation or the Klingons, you're constantly
asked to break treaties with a friendly race by another race). When I played
MOO2 I knew Meklars where different from Bulrathi's, they played completely
differently, in BOTF I have to place natural restrictions on my gameplay to
make the races feel different (i.e. Federation does not wage offensive wars,
the Klingons do but don't break treaties, Ferengi concentrate on economic
development but are treacherous etc.)
2. Game Storyline
Poor. Moo2 had a simple but gripping storyline, a galaxy of races fighting
for survival against each other and the Antarans while striving for the
remains of the Orion culture. I expected BOTF to have Borgs, epic conflicts
based on each major races (Federation, Ferengi, Klingon, Cardassians and
Romulans) natural preferences and dislikes, galaxy shattering events (such
as those that often required the intervention of the Enterprise), hidden
treasures and traps.
Instead what I got was a five-sided Stars game with each race essentially
similar in all characteristics (I do not feel that each races special
characteristics are expressed enough) and a complete lack of a story-line.
The game's name is "Birth of the Federation" but instead of it being an epic
tale of the Federation gradually assimilating the major races (yes I know
that doesn't happen in Trek but the title would suggest this), the game
concentrates on ELIMINATING the other major races (whatever side you play.
You can play for complete domination - i.e. annihilate everyone - or in
vendetta mode - i.e. annihilate two races). Somehow that doesn't feel right.
(MOO2 allowed victory by election...)
There is no tangible storyline apart from the one in most empire strategy
games i.e. build an army and loads of factories and beat everyone. This I
feel is the games greatest weakness.
3. Game Mechanics
3.1 Maps
What a disaster! The space maps are a complete disaster compared to MOO2.
They're more complex and more difficult to use (two different types of map
for economics and movement, loads of confusing colour shaded squars, you
can't tell at a glance which sector's been thoroughly explored etc).
However they do split space up into sectors which I guess is an improvement
on Moo2 (we'll intercept the Romulans in Sector B2).
One thing bothers me severely, the space maps contain lots of neutron stars
who's sole purpose seems to be to annoy players by destroying ships (a
natural minefield). I don't remember Star Trek having a fixation on these
stellar objects.
3.2 Space movement
Buggy. I don't know if its the beta copy thats buggy or whether I'm missing
something but when I order a ship to move, it sometime doesn't move for a
couple of turns and then randomly decides to start moving some time later.
3.3. Space and ground combat
3D epic space combat? More like a modern jet battle viewed through a
narrowfield satellite camera. Two rounds of rapid movement and its all over.
He who's lucky (chooses a good tactic) or better equipped wins. I don't feel
in control at all. Added to an viewing system thats about as easy to use as
an early 3D design program (and I thought Myth was difficult to get used
to!), and I found myself clicking auto battle most of the time. Also, the
end battle dialogue is pathetic (Federation wipes out Klingons,
massacres all enemy ships, a friendly female voice says "They've gone into
hyperspace, good choice").
In MOO2 I felt completely in control, I could move , use weapon systems, use
special items, view enemy ships with ease, etc. BTW the 3D images look bad
on my Voodoo 2 AND on my Riva 128.
However one thing is pretty neat, the results of space battles can affect
your empires morale.
Orbital bombardment consists of getting static information on the
results of combat between orbiting ships and space batteries and shields. No
Moo2 nail-biting last-ditch defences by brave missile bases (player
controlled) against hordes of enemy bombers.
Ground combat : What ground combat? All you see is a results screen as in
orbital bombardment, no pics or neat little fight images (who can forget the
tiny men shooting at each other in Moo2?)
3.4 Economics
Over complex and over simplistic. That may sound like a paradox but its
true. The game economics require intense complex micromanagement and
enormous
planning ability but offers few interesting development options.
3.4.1 Complex micromanagement and planning?
3.4.1.1 Building queue
Building queue is limited to 4 items. That says it all
3.4.1.2 Production facilities
You build numbers of facilities (and assign workers to each facility) not
just one facility (i.e. instead of an automated factory, then a robotic
factory, then a deep Core mine, you build 4 factories of type I, then you
upgrade then to a better type II, then type III, ad nauseam). This may sound
okay, but consider that instead of juggling around workers between fields of
work and building improvements, you're juggling around workers between
fields of work, adding facilities AND building improvements. In practise its
a nightmare. You have to estimate how many farms, factories, intel and
research buildings (this is basically all you'll be building due to the
extremely small list of buildings available) you'll need in the future
(which makes initial development of colonies extremely slow) instead of just
shifting workers. This may be more "realistic" but its less playable. This
is way you need enormous planning ability.
3.4.1.3 Watch your production manually.
Remember in Moo2, when a planet finished producing an item queue, you were
automatically told about it and allowed to change its production? Well in
BOTF you have to check every couple of turns if your most productive planet
hasn't suddenly started building trade goods because its queue ran out. This
bothers me immensely as I can't just happily click away (due to the short
building queues. However you can change the number of the same items built
in a queue without adding to the queue) and end turns without checking
what's going on.
3.4.1.4 Colony building is frustrating and slow.
Two things to note here, you can't transport colonists from a settled and
crowded world to a new and empty one and terraforming of planets in a system
can only be carried out by a colony ship (Moo2, Colony Bases and Colony
Ships?). When you colonize, you colonize all suitable planets in a system,
so Colony Ships should arrive at a system, terraform for 20 turns and then
colonize it. It also takes a colony a helluva long time to get up to speed
in production terms (because you're building numbers of facilites AND you
have to improve them constantly).
3.4.1.5 Why five different types of facilities?
Remember in Moo2 that there three types of worker and one special unit
worker unit you could build (spy (plus androids))? Well in BOTF you juggle
between five types of facility (farm, factory, energy, intel and research).
This makes things more complex. It doesn't make them more fun.
3.4.1 Oversimplistic
3.4.1.1 Build lists
The number of ships you can build in a system is limited and so is the
number of facilities. Its very basic compared to Moo2 where the build list
could reach 30 or more items on a new colony in an advanced empire
3.4.1.2 No food trading
That means each system has to be self-sufficient in its own food. No more
complex and fun balancing acts between rich agricultural gaia's. and highly
developed industrial hives. No more intense anger at an enemy's blockading
of a rich system. Guess why building a new colony is so difficult.
[Note: Are you beginning to understand why this game disappoints me? Its a
step backwards as compared to Moo2. Its more simplistic than Moo1!]
3.5. Research
Game research is not as important as it is in other empire games. Instead of
giving access to a shattering advantage against the enemy, its more
incremental, allowing slightly better ships, facilities, etc. Disappointing
and boring. No death rays, just class IV farms instead of class V ones.
3.6. Diplomacy
Simplistic is all I can say. It basically consists of getting minor races to
join your empire and declaring war, alliances and peace on the major races.
There are no "Please remove your ships and spies immediately from my
territory" options, its basically "Here is 400 credits if you'll join an
alliance with me". No science, trade treaties (oh, you can only trade with a
friendly race which might be the equivalent of a trade treaty, I guess).
However the differing texts each major race can send to the other races are
fairly humorous and characteristic (Klingon: Here is money, it is all you
understand).
3.7. AI
Pathetic. Can be beaten blindfolded. It can't build, it can't fight.
3.8 User interface?
Not as friendly as Moo2, not as bad as Rebellion. Its not a complete
click-fest but you'll sometimes feel it is. The game's lacking an economics
and military screen where you could make all the economics and military
decisions you need without clicking about.
As a final note, BOTF doesn't supply you with as many statistics that Moo2
did. This may appeal to same, but I'd like more info on what's going on.
4. Summary
Major disappointment. It is a significant step backwards as compared to Moo2
in many many ways, with few improvements (basically graphical and audial).
The mechanics are worse and so is the story-line.
5. Buy?
It's a Trek product so if you're a Trek fan you'll probably buy it. Most
paper magazines will give it good-to-excellent reviews, but check the
independent on-line ones. My bet is that they'll give 60-70% ratings and a
cautious buy-if-you're-a-fan note. My opinion? You can guess it.
6. Disclaimer
I am playing a beta. The game on the shelves will probably be exactly the
same as that I am playing (though the ship names might change and bugs will
be ironed out). Don't expect the story-line and game mechanics have suddenly
been solved during the last weeks. This game's core is flawed.
Lobo the Last Czarnian, Assasin to Royalty
The above text is copyright 1999, do not reproduce without author's written
permission.
daver
course all the other previews were conflicting: the inclusion/exclusion of
the Borg, Enterprise-E, DS9, etc. How recent is this beta copy that you
have? What are the file dates? Whenever someone puts the words 'beta' and
'review' in the same sentence it's really hard to take seriously. What
you're doing actually is previewing the game. Developer's always have
something up their sleeve and pull it out at the last minute. BTW, to those
who don't know, the Enterprise-E and the Defiant ARE included in the game.
Lobo the last Czarnian <assasint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7i4h90$en$1...@sunsite.icm.edu.pl...
< -snip- >
daver
preview of the game. The anonymous previewer mentions fighting the Borg.
daver
daver <spam...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:7i4lvl$tdc$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
Lobo the last Czarnian
> Hmm, sounds nothing like what I've read these past several months. Of
> course all the other previews were conflicting: the inclusion/exclusion
of
> the Borg, Enterprise-E, DS9, etc. How recent is this beta copy that you
> have? What are the file dates? Whenever someone puts the words 'beta'
and
> 'review' in the same sentence it's really hard to take seriously. What
> you're doing actually is previewing the game. Developer's always have
> something up their sleeve and pull it out at the last minute. BTW, to
those
> who don't know, the Enterprise-E and the Defiant ARE included in the game.
990318 on the files, i.e. 1 month from before BOTF went to gold. The
gameplay, interface, graphics and story are not going to differ from this
copy. The Enterprise-E and Defiant were added at the last moment but they're
not going to substantially alter the game. As far as Borg and DS9 are
concerned, I haven't seen them (doesn't mean they're not there, but I've
been playing through the night, up to turn 360 or so in various games).
Unless what I've played for a week is a very very old alpha release (with a
march readme and file dates...) (and it was completely playable) then this
game is not going to differ substantially from what I've described and
reviewed. But if the game comes out and my comments become invalid, I'll be
extremely glad, I really wanted this to the game to surpass Moo2.
Lobo
Lobo the Last Czarnian
> preview of the game. The anonymous previewer mentions fighting the Borg.
>
> daver
I hope the Borg appears, but the march beta has no Borg by Federation turn
450, i.e. two days of gaming. Furthermore, the Enterprise, Defiant and the
Borg won't help the poor interface, the poor mechanics or the weak AI
(impossible mode - Ferengi love the Federation no matter what they do, the
Romulans are begging for friendship, all minor races want to join the Fed
ASP). The beta is also buggy but that is too be expected and I haven't
commented on that aspect.
Lobo the Last Czarnian.
**remove to email**
<assasint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Forgot to mention, go to http://www.botf.com for some news and a small
>> preview of the game. The anonymous previewer mentions fighting the Borg.
>>
>> daver
>
>I hope the Borg appears, but the march beta has no Borg by Federation turn
>450, i.e. two days of gaming. Furthermore, the Enterprise, Defiant and the
>Borg won't help the poor interface
To each his own, I don't find the interface any worse or better than
any other. Frankly, the right click gets me to each of the major
screens (diplomacy, research, etc.) right off. The only thing that
really ticks me is that the map does not scroll. I have to
doubleclick to center it on a new section. Oh, yeah, the mouse
pointed seems to lag a bit, and the game seems to access the CD alot,
causing a slight delay at times.
And I do wish I'd get taken straight away to any system that completed
building that turn, rather than having to check.
, the poor mechanics or the weak AI
>(impossible mode - Ferengi love the Federation no matter what they do, the
>Romulans are begging for friendship, all minor races want to join the Fed
>ASP).
Sorry, on medium mode, first game I played I had to give up. The
Romulans, Cardies and Klingons all ganged up on me. I was developing
pretty good, making alliances with minor powers, but stuck right in
the center of the galaxy - surrounded :(
Second game I'm doing better, but got good luck this time. In a
corner, right by the friendly Vulcans and Bajorans. But the Klingons,
Cardies, and Romulans all are making demands - its just that right now
I am the most powerful player - that they don't attack - at least
they're not that stupid :)
And I don't see all the minor races lining up to join the Feds. The
Vulcans and Bajorans join easily, as do the Tamarians (love their very
heavy industry - man can they produce!), but a number of minor races
are out and out hostile - shot first, ask questions later. The
Acamarians and Sheiliak are very hostile, along with the Chanoth (?) -
they don't come boucing to your door. I still haven't gotten them to
join me -but then again, I haven't had the money spending it on
another race - the Bandi - that play it cute.
Are you playing the same game?
The beta is also buggy but that is too be expected and I haven't
>commented on that aspect.
No crashes here in all night of play :)
Grifman
>
>Lobo the Last Czarnian.
>
>
>
>
Lobo the Last Czarnian
> any other. Frankly, the right click gets me to each of the major
> screens (diplomacy, research, etc.) right off. The only thing that
> really ticks me is that the map does not scroll. I have to
> doubleclick to center it on a new section. Oh, yeah, the mouse
> pointed seems to lag a bit, and the game seems to access the CD alot,
> causing a slight delay at times.
The interface is both difficult to use and frustrating. I've seen much
better interfaces, i.e. Moo2, Alpha Centauri, Stars, etc. Its about as
difficult to use as the original Civ CTP interface.
>
> And I do wish I'd get taken straight away to any system that completed
> building that turn, rather than having to check.
Exactly.
>
>
> , the poor mechanics or the weak AI
> >(impossible mode - Ferengi love the Federation no matter what they do,
the
> >Romulans are begging for friendship, all minor races want to join the Fed
> >ASP).
>
> Sorry, on medium mode, first game I played I had to give up. The
> Romulans, Cardies and Klingons all ganged up on me. I was developing
> pretty good, making alliances with minor powers, but stuck right in
> the center of the galaxy - surrounded :(
Medium mode, outfought the Romulans + Cardies at the same time (conquered).
Then Klingons started fighting Ferengi and I provoked them both to attack me
out of boredom.
>
> Second game I'm doing better, but got good luck this time. In a
> corner, right by the friendly Vulcans and Bajorans. But the Klingons,
> Cardies, and Romulans all are making demands - its just that right now
> I am the most powerful player - that they don't attack - at least
> they're not that stupid :)
-
Strange, I haven't had problems in any of the 6 or 7 games I've started. I
found the major races to be either cowardly or stupid (i.e. Klingon military
five times smaller than Federation, they make demands constantly).
> And I don't see all the minor races lining up to join the Feds. The
> Vulcans and Bajorans join easily, as do the Tamarians (love their very
> heavy industry - man can they produce!), but a number of minor races
> are out and out hostile - shot first, ask questions later. The
> Acamarians and Sheiliak are very hostile, along with the Chanoth (?) -
> they don't come boucing to your door. I still haven't gotten them to
> join me -but then again, I haven't had the money spending it on
> another race - the Bandi - that play it cute.
-
Money, money, money. Spend it and they'll all (with one or two exceptions)
join no matter what.
>
> Are you playing the same game?
-
Bit rude?
> The beta is also buggy but that is too be expected and I haven't
> >commented on that aspect.
>
> No crashes here in all night of play :)
As I said, bugs will have probably been ironed out.
As a game, its flawed and a step backwards compared to Moo2 (or even Moo1).
Lobo the Last Czarnian
JvG
>The interface is both difficult to use and frustrating. I've seen much
>better interfaces, i.e. Moo2, Alpha Centauri, Stars, etc. Its about as
>difficult to use as the original Civ CTP interface.
Having played the beta too I don't feel the interface is any more difficult
to master than the one in MOO/MOO2.
GrahamFife
You may be right or you may be wrong, but you've convinced me to wait for the
demo. Thanks
No19
scroll. <<
I believe you can use your arrow keys to scroll the Galactic map
(per 42 of the manual).
--
No.19
MicroProse
www.microprose.com
**remove to email**
<assasint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've go the game so I'll give my impressions after about 350 turns as
the Klingons and 100 as the Feds . . . I agree some and a lot more I
disagree with . . .
And importantly, I played the final game, not the beta, unlike this
reviewer quoted here.
>Introduction:
>
>I have my hands on a beta copy of BOTF. I have also played Master of
>Orion, Master of Orion 2 (to which I will compare BOTF a lot), Stars! and
>Planets (plus loads of other empire games). I would consider myself an
>experienced strategy gamer and would like to share my views on this game
>(not that I expect any will not buy the game owing to my comments). Please
>note I am playing a beta, not an alpha, so the game in the stores will
>probably not be different from what I am playing (beta are bug-tested not
>radically altered).
>
>1. Game Background
>
>The game lacks a suitably epic background. There is very little introduction
>to each races characteristics and history. This may not bother some people
>but it bothers me especially considering that a rich background could have
>saved this games gameplay problems (see later).
Disagree here. The manual (a pretty thick one at 150 pages though
some important stuff is vague or left out) gives a description of each
race. Interestingly enough, each race sort of has two mortal enemies
- ie, the Feds don't get along with the Romulans and Cardies, the
Klingons can't stand the Ferengi (money grubbers :) no honor, or the
Cardies, etc. Don't know what your looking for here, but there is as
much of a description, if not more of each of these races than in the
MOO manuals.
Besides, most Trek fans know all about these races and don't need any
story telling . . .
The game background is basic
>and the game play doesn't differ substantially according to race chosen
>i.e., choose one of the major races, use their nifty racial interface, build
>a small selection of race limited items (when I say small, I mean one or two
>buildings and a differing ships), listen to the nifty race adjusted
>interface sounds and send race adjusted diplomatic texts to other races.
>This may sound like a lot but it's not.
Totally wrong here. I've played as the Feds and Klingons and there is
a world of difference. For starters, strategy is totally different.
The Feds can much more easily get minor races to join them (with a
couple of exceptions I'll note). They start off in a better beginning
opinion of most minor races, and it costs them less to get the minor
races to join them (basically you offer money and trade to minor races
to get them to join you). The Feds have a hard time conquering anyone
without the Federation rising in rebellion behind for their aggessive
war policies. I bombarded a Ferengi planet _after_ they attacked me
first and my people still didn't like it! Talk about peace mongers!
:) Morale (which is very important btw, something I haven't seem much
of before, which is nice) goes up for the Feds when peace treaties and
non-agression pacts are signed, and go down when war is declared.
The Klingons are totally opposite. I've found that monetary amounts
that the Klingons have to pay are about twice as much for the most
part compared with the Feds - plus people have a worse starting opinon
for the most part. As the Klingons, the strategy is invade, invade
and invade. You can't affort the money or time to make diplomacy
work. Also as the Klingons, the people love it when you go to war,
and are disappointed in treaties (you get messages saying that your
people are disappointed that there will be no war between you and
xxx). And when you win, morale goes sky high. I started crushing the
Ferengi and my homeworld's morale was "fanatic", hehehe. Also,
occupied conquered worlds of other races generally have poor morale.
You can never raise it above "apathetic" or "disgruntled", and it
often drops - which is when Klingons build the "Police State"
improvement :). They also have Forced Labor Farming and Prison Mines.
Gotta love those easy going Klingons, for sure :)
There are non-treaty messages you get during the game from various
races too, that add to absorption in the game. I bombarded a Ferengi
world while allied to the Federation, who had suffered greatly from
them - nearly wiped out, pushed back to Sol. I got messages from the
Cardies and Romulans urging me not to let up and congratulating me on
my assault. The Feds said that it was an unfortunate, but apparently
necessary step!
The minor races are truly unique - all from the ST universe, with
their own history and preferences and abilities. They bring certain
abilities or structures that only they can build, and it is fun
courting them, trying to get them to join your "empire". Some are
friendly, other standoffish, some need continual courting, others jump
into your arms (of course I was playing as the Feds to that made a
difference). And they are not easy to conquer at all!
Now there are, as I mentioned a couple of races that love the Klingons
- the Norsicans, Katarians and Anticans so far that I have met though
I suspect a couple of more. I didn't even have to give them money to
get them to join my empire for the most part. All warrior or "evil"
races, they started off liking the Klingons, and their opinons of me
when up as I conquered the Bajorans and Trill :) Soon they were
clamoring to join the Empire and share in the glory, hehehe.
Not certain what more you want - you have different ships, some
different buildings for each race, different diplomatic type
responses, different interfaces, different strategies, different
experiences. Plus very different mood music for each race I'll also
add.
Great bit of roleplaying in this strategy game - I loved it.
>
>The races don't develop seperately (no different development tracks),
>they're not treated substantially differently by the minor races or each
>other (example, playing the Federation or the Klingons, you're constantly
>asked to break treaties with a friendly race by another race). When I played
>MOO2 I knew Meklars where different from Bulrathi's, they played completely
>differently, in BOTF I have to place natural restrictions on my gameplay to
>make the races feel different (i.e. Federation does not wage offensive wars,
>the Klingons do but don't break treaties, Ferengi concentrate on economic
>development but are treacherous etc.)
Not certain what you mean. You keep comparing the game to MOO/MOO2,
but I found no different development tracks in those games. Everyone
built level 5 factories, robotic factories, holodomes, etc. No
difference whatsoever in what races build.
In BOTF, there are a number of different builds for different races -
Vulcan Science Academy, Fed/Human Utopia Planetia, Bajoran Hall of
Something, Chanoth Gladiator Something :). Klingon Prison Mines,
Forced Labor Camps, Police State, etc. Most minor races have a
"wonder" that they can build that can benefit you and makes them very
valuable allies if you can get them.
See my comments above as to different gameplay by races.
>
>2. Game Storyline
>
>Poor. Moo2 had a simple but gripping storyline, a galaxy of races fighting
>for survival against each other and the Antarans while striving for the
>remains of the Orion culture. I expected BOTF to have Borgs, epic conflicts
>based on each major races (Federation, Ferengi, Klingon, Cardassians and
>Romulans) natural preferences and dislikes, galaxy shattering events (such
>as those that often required the intervention of the Enterprise), hidden
>treasures and traps.
So far I have found the races to be true, but I've only played a
couple of times, so we'll so how it holds up long term. Hidden traps
and treasures? What do you mean - this is a strategy game, not an RPG
or adventure game. The intervention of a single ship such as the E
makes no sense in the context of this game.
See my comments above as to each races likes and dislikes - they are
very true to the series - and very different from one another as I
have demonstrated.
However, there are a number of special events, most of which are quite
bad. There is the Crystal Entity which depopulates entire systems
(which in my Klingon game just about wiped out the Feds), Tarellian
raiders, metal attacking viruses, a Chodak ship, wormholes that can
take you across the galaxy, and everyone's favorite, the Borg. What
else do you want? (Though I'd love a surprise visit from "Q"! :) )
>
>Instead what I got was a five-sided Stars game with each race essentially
>similar in all characteristics (I do not feel that each races special
>characteristics are expressed enough) and a complete lack of a story-line.
>The game's name is "Birth of the Federation" but instead of it being an epic
>tale of the Federation gradually assimilating the major races (yes I know
>that doesn't happen in Trek but the title would suggest this), the game
>concentrates on ELIMINATING the other major races (whatever side you play.
>You can play for complete domination - i.e. annihilate everyone - or in
>vendetta mode - i.e. annihilate two races). Somehow that doesn't feel right.
>(MOO2 allowed victory by election...)
Totally incorrect here. Winning by domination means controlling 60%
of the galaxy, not conquering everyone. As the Feds, it is totally
possible to ally with the Klingons, get a large number of minor races
to ally with you, and win, without conquering anyone - indeed they
have to - hehehe, let the Klingon's do it for you :) Winning as
allied with someone counts, which is you play true to the Fed is the
only way you'll do it, unless you want to play an insane Jean Luc or
JT Kirk :)
And actually the title is "Birth of the Federation" not "Triumph of
the Federation" - it hardly implies the Feds assimiliating everyone.
This is about the formation of the Feds . . .
Again see my comments above as the differences in gameplay with the
different races. Frankly in MOO/MOO2, it was conquer, conquer,
conquer. You could do a few things different depending upon the races
(Darlocks spying, humans diplomats, Silicoids hostile worlds, but
nothing like the difference between the Feds and Klingons)
>
>There is no tangible storyline apart from the one in most empire strategy
>games i.e. build an army and loads of factories and beat everyone. This I
>feel is the games greatest weakness.
I agree that is what the game is about in the ST universe - domination
or conquest. It is supposed to be a strategy 4X game and that what it
is. Sounds like you wanted it to be a hybrid RPG/adventure/strategy
game. It never advertised itself as such.
Though as I played the Klingons, I was really getting into it. After
every victory I was getting messages saying that my victories had
reaffirmed the peoples beliefs in the teachings of Khaless :)
>
>3. Game Mechanics
>
>3.1 Maps
>
>What a disaster! The space maps are a complete disaster compared to MOO2.
>They're more complex and more difficult to use (two different types of map
>for economics and movement, loads of confusing colour shaded squars, you
>can't tell at a glance which sector's been thoroughly explored etc).
>However they do split space up into sectors which I guess is an improvement
>on Moo2 (we'll intercept the Romulans in Sector B2).
Mixed bag. I like the overlays, it has sectors and territorial
markings like it SMAC. However, I'd like to be able to request/order
power to remove their ships - can't find how to do that. You also
have disputed territories, which is sort of cool - never seen that
before. Yeah, you can't tell unexplored from explored at a glance,
but you can run your cursor over and tell.
The thing I hate is that there is no scrolling - you have to
doubleclick to center the map, or use the arrow keys. Plus the single
zoom should be just one click instead of the "small map, big map"
choices you have to make - why not just +/- zoom. And only two zooms
:(
However, you can simplify the map. The various overlays can be added
or removed one at a time so you can tell what is going on. That makes
it a lot easier.
>
>One thing bothers me severely, the space maps contain lots of neutron stars
>who's sole purpose seems to be to annoy players by destroying ships (a
>natural minefield). I don't remember Star Trek having a fixation on these
>stellar objects.
Came across one/two in each game in a large galaxy. Consider it part
of the risk of exploration - just like in the series - didn't you want
surprises up above? Not that big a deal. Plus, you can easily look
at the stars and tell which ones are neutrons - they look different.
>
>3.2 Space movement
>
>Buggy. I don't know if its the beta copy thats buggy or whether I'm missing
>something but when I order a ship to move, it sometime doesn't move for a
>couple of turns and then randomly decides to start moving some time later.]
Must be the beta, no problem here.
>
>3.3. Space and ground combat
>
>3D epic space combat? More like a modern jet battle viewed through a
>narrowfield satellite camera. Two rounds of rapid movement and its all over.
>He who's lucky (chooses a good tactic) or better equipped wins. I don't feel
>in control at all.
Just just need to get used to it. Tooks some time, and at first I
just clicked through like you say below, but after playing with it, it
is a lot of fun. Give orders, watch the ships fire and manuever, give
more orders, see the ships react to orders, etc. I'm enjoying this
part more and more.
I do think the ships are too fragile given the firepower. Though that
is the way it seemed in ST too :) I'd like battles to last longer
myself.
Added to an viewing system thats about as easy to use as
>an early 3D design program (and I thought Myth was difficult to get used
>to!), and I found myself clicking auto battle most of the time. Also, the
>end battle dialogue is pathetic (Federation wipes out Klingons,
>massacres all enemy ships, a friendly female voice says "They've gone into
>hyperspace, good choice").
Yes, not as much control, but I have found it enjoyable. The controls
are awkward because no one has done this before so you're not used to
them. I've played around and now it is second nature and lots of fun.
Again, sounds like you always played as the whimpy Feds. After
Klingon battles there are all sorts of great quotes in a great Klingon
accent - and based upon my experience, different type of ships ahve
different victory quotes as follows:
"Hah, open a barrel of blood wine!"
"Hah, they were afraid to die" (when an enemy retreats)
"They accomplished nothing but their own deaths!"
"I expected more from this enemy! This was too easy!"
>
>In MOO2 I felt completely in control, I could move , use weapon systems, use
>special items, view enemy ships with ease, etc. BTW the 3D images look bad
>on my Voodoo 2 AND on my Riva 128.
ST ships with MOO tactic would be boring - there is just not the mix
of weapons - and that comes with the ST license. Kind of boring to
constantly switch in tactical battle between phasers one time and
photon torpedoes the next.
"Gee, which do I fire next captain, the choice is so vast - I don't
know which I should fire next!"
No, I like what we have here given the very limited constraints of the
ST weapons universe.
People have complained about the battle graphics, but with the
exception of Fed ships, all other races look great too me. The
problem with the Fed ships is that saucer section - comes out looking
rather octagonal :( But the Klingon ships look great - lean and mean.
>
>However one thing is pretty neat, the results of space battles can affect
>your empires morale.
Yes . . .
>
>Orbital bombardment consists of getting static information on the
>results of combat between orbiting ships and space batteries and shields. No
>Moo2 nail-biting last-ditch defences by brave missile bases (player
>controlled) against hordes of enemy bombers.
Wrong again, build outposts/starbases. These function as
fortresses/missile bases in MOO. This combat takes place before
planetary assaults like it does in MOO. I had a great battle with an
outpost attacked by half a dozen Klingon raiders - it held them off
and won. It was as gripping as anything in MOO.
>
>Ground combat : What ground combat? All you see is a results screen as in
>orbital bombardment, no pics or neat little fight images (who can forget the
>tiny men shooting at each other in Moo2?)
It's a strategic game. I never really cared for MOO2 invasions
because it was so cheesy and really didn't matter - I always brought
enough troops to guarantee victory. Don't miss it - at all. Not a
major point here. A nit for a strategic level game . . .
>
>3.4 Economics
>
>Over complex and over simplistic. That may sound like a paradox but its
>true. The game economics require intense complex micromanagement and
>enormous
>planning ability but offers few interesting development options.
>
>3.4.1 Complex micromanagement and planning?
>
>3.4.1.1 Building queue
>
>Building queue is limited to 4 items. That says it all
Yeah, it could be longer.
>
>3.4.1.2 Production facilities
>
>You build numbers of facilities (and assign workers to each facility) not
>just one facility (i.e. instead of an automated factory, then a robotic
>factory, then a deep Core mine, you build 4 factories of type I, then you
>upgrade then to a better type II, then type III, ad nauseam).
Not much different than MOO, where you built level 1's, 2's, 3's etc.
Who cares what you call it - they all work the same - increase
productivity/research/food/etc - no big deal.
Point is there is much less micomanagement than MOO. Why - because
all improvements you build are system wide! In MOO2 you can have
several planets in a system and you have to develop each separately.
What a pain! Here in this game they have made a very much needed
simplifying assumption - you don't build improvements for a planet,
but for a system. That alone cuts way, way down on the micro
management.
This may sound
>okay, but consider that instead of juggling around workers between fields of
>work and building improvements, you're juggling around workers between
>fields of work, adding facilities AND building improvements. In practise its
>a nightmare.
No worse than MOO2. There you had to split people between science,
prod, and a third option I can't remember :) What is the big
difference between MOO 2 and BOFT here - I don't see it.
You have to estimate how many farms, factories, intel and
>research buildings (this is basically all you'll be building due to the
>extremely small list of buildings available) you'll need in the future
>(which makes initial development of colonies extremely slow) instead of just
>shifting workers. This may be more "realistic" but its less playable. This
>is way you need enormous planning ability.
Hey, planning is a part of these game - comes with the territory. I
don't find it that onerous. The biggest problem is matching
population growth with the improvements. That is the worst
complication that is not in MOO, but I can deal with it.
>
>3.4.1.3 Watch your production manually.
>
>Remember in Moo2, when a planet finished producing an item queue, you were
>automatically told about it and allowed to change its production? Well in
>BOTF you have to check every couple of turns if your most productive planet
>hasn't suddenly started building trade goods because its queue ran out.
Yeah, this is my biggest grip other than the non-scolling map.
This
>bothers me immensely as I can't just happily click away (due to the short
>building queues. However you can change the number of the same items built
>in a queue without adding to the queue) and end turns without checking
>what's going on.
>
>3.4.1.4 Colony building is frustrating and slow.
>
>Two things to note here, you can't transport colonists from a settled and
>crowded world to a new and empty one and terraforming of planets in a system
>can only be carried out by a colony ship (Moo2, Colony Bases and Colony
>Ships?). When you colonize, you colonize all suitable planets in a system,
>so Colony Ships should arrive at a system, terraform for 20 turns and then
>colonize it.
Wrong. Terraform one planet and move in - get the thing going. You
don't need all that living space in the beginning anyway. A followup
ship can always come along later when you need to grow to a new
planet. It will be a while before you need to expand to the next
planet in the system. No longer your colonies took so long to get
going if you spent the first 20 turns terraforming _all_ the planets
in a system first!
Yes, it is slower oveall . . . and I'd like to move colonists too . .
. though it is probably unrealistic to ship 40 million colonists to a
planet that was just settled :)
It also takes a colony a helluva long time to get up to speed
>in production terms (because you're building numbers of facilites AND you
>have to improve them constantly).
Again, I don't understand this distinction between building and
improving. They are all just different ways of doing the same thing.
Improve a factory or build another - all just enhance production.
Then again, maybe that is your complaint - too complicated a way to do
this one thing.
Frankly, I miss the elegant slider bars in MOO. Hated the building in
MOO2 - too much micro M. Bring back the slider bars.
>
>3.4.1.5 Why five different types of facilities?
>
>Remember in Moo2 that there three types of worker and one special unit
>worker unit you could build (spy (plus androids))? Well in BOTF you juggle
>between five types of facility (farm, factory, energy, intel and research).
>This makes things more complex. It doesn't make them more fun.
Yeah, but I don't have to do it for every planet like in MOO2, just
each system in BOTF. That alone far offsets your valid point above.
Funny how you ignore things like that.
>
>3.4.1 Oversimplistic
>
>3.4.1.1 Build lists
>
>The number of ships you can build in a system is limited and so is the
>number of facilities. Its very basic compared to Moo2 where the build list
>could reach 30 or more items on a new colony in an advanced empire
Which do you want, more or less? :) But there are more unique types
for different races, which makes it a lot more interesting. I've
already pointed out a number of those - most very race specific.
Besides all the MOO facilities could be split into trade, research,
defense, production and morale - all with just different names. But
all races built the same ones. BOTF has fewer types, but more unique
ones for the various races, adding to the atmosphere - much better
than MOO2, where the Silicoids and humans build the same structures.
>
>3.4.1.2 No food trading
>
>That means each system has to be self-sufficient in its own food. No more
>complex and fun balancing acts between rich agricultural gaia's. and highly
>developed industrial hives. No more intense anger at an enemy's blockading
>of a rich system. Guess why building a new colony is so difficult.
Yeah, I'd like to be able to import food too.
>
>[Note: Are you beginning to understand why this game disappoints me? Its a
>step backwards as compared to Moo2. Its more simplistic than Moo1!]
No, its not. It is just different. On one hand here you say it is
simplistic and another more complicated. Which is it?
In a number of ways, this is a much richer game than MOO/MOO2 - you're
just so hung up on those two that you don't let BOTF stand on its own.
>
>3.5. Research
>
>Game research is not as important as it is in other empire games. Instead of
>giving access to a shattering advantage against the enemy, its more
>incremental, allowing slightly better ships, facilities, etc. Disappointing
>and boring. No death rays, just class IV farms instead of class V ones.
That's the ST license. No death rays in ST. It is not as imaginative
and you don't thirst for that next breakthrough as in MOO . . .
>
>3.6. Diplomacy
>
>Simplistic is all I can say. It basically consists of getting minor races to
>join your empire and declaring war, alliances and peace on the major races.
>There are no "Please remove your ships and spies immediately from my
>territory" options, its basically "Here is 400 credits if you'll join an
>alliance with me". No science, trade treaties (oh, you can only trade with a
>friendly race which might be the equivalent of a trade treaty, I guess).
>However the differing texts each major race can send to the other races are
>fairly humorous and characteristic (Klingon: Here is money, it is all you
>understand).
Here I agree. No tech trade, demands for tech, systems, removal of
spies, etc. This is the weakest part of the game. Though there is
the concept of territory and you can ask for disputed sections of the
map.
>
>3.7. AI
>
>Pathetic. Can be beaten blindfolded. It can't build, it can't fight.
Not from what I have seen. In a big change from MOO/MOO2, I have only
once seen a "stupid" declaration of war - by that I mean a much weaker
power declaring war on a much stronger power - me :) They threaten
and bluster, but never take any action. Only the Romulans once did
the stupid thing - and they paid for it with their capital :)
And it took me _three- starts as the Klingons before I could have a
chance of victory - I was crushed twice. Though in my high opinion of
myself I think it was more due to starting position :)
>
>3.8 User interface?
>
>Not as friendly as Moo2, not as bad as Rebellion. Its not a complete
>click-fest but you'll sometimes feel it is. The game's lacking an economics
>and military screen where you could make all the economics and military
>decisions you need without clicking about.
But in a nice touch, from the system screen you can go to any other
system - makes it very fast to go through all your systems one after
another. I loved this when I found it.
Plus a right click brings up a circle with all the main areas -
systems, diplomacy, research etc. Very nice.
Another nice touch is the tech screen. You can click on an
improvement you want (ship, structure, etc.) and below you will see
all the research areas, the requirements, and those that you have and
those that you still need highlighted. Very handy in planning what
you still need to research to get that Vor'cha class attack cruiser
you've been lusting over :)
I personally like it better than MOO2 - much easier to get from system
to system for changes, and to move to main screens. Disagree greatly
here.
>
>As a final note, BOTF doesn't supply you with as many statistics that Moo2
>did. This may appeal to same, but I'd like more info on what's going on.
To each his own.
>
>4. Summary
>
>Major disappointment. It is a significant step backwards as compared to Moo2
>in many many ways, with few improvements (basically graphical and audial).
>The mechanics are worse and so is the story-line.
Wrong. Let me mention areas it is ahead:
1) Better spying. You can assign your spies just like in MOO - this
was an area MOO2 went backwards by almost unanimous opinon.
2) Concept of territory/borders - you can control sectors of space,
just like land in SMAC. Outposts give the game an entire different
strategy than other games - they are essential in establishing your
territory - and keeping others away.
3) Much different gameplay by race - much more than MOO. Different
structures, diplomacy, morale impacts, etc.
4) Minor races - an almost totally new concept - though I'll give the
nod to Imperialism I & II here. A very interesting concept - and
successful in execution.
5) Different galaxy shapes. This has a huge impact on gameplay due
to the need for outposts to expand and control territory. A spiral or
random galaxy has an entirely different strategy for expansion than an
eliptical one.
6) Piracy pays :) You can raid trade routes, which is very lucrative
if they are Ferengi ones :) Just be prepared for the consequences!
All in all, I am loving this game. I have that stay up all night
fever, that one more turn addiction. Best game by far I've played in
over a year.
I just hope no one is turned off by such a one sided review of a beta
without giving the game a chance.
Grifman
Jim Getzen
Grifman, thanks for your detailed post. It was illuminating.
Jim
Gerald Lane
this game before you posted your review/impression. I would have bought this game
anyway because I am a ST fan, but now I'm sure I am buying a good game.
Thanks
Gus
Darrell999
need all that living space in the >beginning anyway. A followup ship can
always come >along later when you need to grow to a new planet.
Hmm...I think I'm still having a bit of a hard time understanding the
relationship between individual planets and systems. When I tried to use a
colony ship to terraform a planet in a system I already owned, the terraform
option was grayed out. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong? Any insight
you can share on planets and systems would be appreciated. I found the manual
somewhat lacking in this regard.
>ll in all, I am loving this game. I have that stay up all night
>fever, that one more turn addiction. Best game by far I've played in
>over a year.
So far, I agree completely! I haven't been drawn into a game like this in a
long time!
To reply to me via e-mail, please remove the NoSpam from my address.
Silverlock
to email** (Grifman) wrote:
>On Fri, 21 May 1999 22:55:13 +0200, "Lobo the last Czarnian"
><assasint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
SNIP incredibly huge post. Thanks for taking the time to write all
that, I was getting bummed based on the negative reviews but it looks
good now.
AICORE
>On Fri, 21 May 1999 22:55:13 +0200, "Lobo the last Czarnian"
><assasint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>3.7. AI
>>
>>Pathetic. Can be beaten blindfolded. It can't build, it can't fight.
>
That was my initial impression of the AI, too. I can't say I feel that way
now. I'm wondering if things have changed since the beta or maybe I'm just
lousy at this game. My old MOO2 strategies just don't seem to apply here.
I was doing very well as the Federation for the first 150 turns, controlling
over 50% of the economy as compared to the other races and had just wiped
out the Klingons. I was so far out ahead I made a premature assumption that
the AI was a little too cautious and not attacking enough.
I guess I was a little naive. Somehow a few of the other races managed to
double-cross me and attack me when my fleets were badly overextended. I
immediately lost several of my key border systems to them (Damn those
Cardassians!)
It's about 200 turns later and I'm down to just owning Sol and a few other
systems. I'm holding on to the very slim chance that my allies the Romulans
manage to batter the Ferengi enough to pull off a Domination Victory.
Otherwise the Ferengi are likely to crush me.
This is an experience I rarely had playing MOO2. It seems like once you're
way ahead in that game it stays that way and the rest is just a "mopping up"
action. For me the AI in MOO2 was strongest in the "beginning game" and
weakest in the "middle game".
This BOTF AI seems to be better the longer the game goes on. The AI is
definitely playing with better tactics than I am at this point. And all of
this is happening at the normal level of difficulty with no tech advantages.
For me this is by far the best game of the year, and it has that Microprose
addictiveness and magic I can't seem to get from other strategy titles.
**remove to email**
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 May 1999 05:53:35 GMT, sgri...@carolina.rr.com **remove
>to email** (Grifman) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 May 1999 22:55:13 +0200, "Lobo the last Czarnian"
>><assasint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>SNIP incredibly huge post. Thanks for taking the time to write all
>that, I was getting bummed based on the negative reviews but it looks
>good now.
>
Well, I guess for once I was inspired :) I've never written anything
that long about a game, but after playing a good bit, I was pretty
irritated about a "review" (of a beta at that) that I thought unfairly
portrayed a game that I think - at least so far - is very good. So
much of what was posted seemed at total odds with my own experience
that I just had to write something.
It irritated me that so many people were simply accepting what this
guy was posting that I felt an opposing opinion was needed - and let
people decide from what we posted.
Now back to BOTF :)
Grifman
**remove to email**
wrote:
>>Wrong. Terraform one planet and move in - get the >thing going. You don't
>need all that living space in the >beginning anyway. A followup ship can
>always come >along later when you need to grow to a new planet.
>
>Hmm...I think I'm still having a bit of a hard time understanding the
>relationship between individual planets and systems. When I tried to use a
>colony ship to terraform a planet in a system I already owned, the terraform
>option was grayed out. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong? Any insight
>you can share on planets and systems would be appreciated. I found the manual
>somewhat lacking in this regard.
Hmmm, sorry, I can't explain that. I haven't had any problem such as
that, but I'll take a look at it when I go back to my game.
Exactly what questions do you have? I usually pick a planet that has
a good growth rate first to terraform and then colonize - unless there
is a habitable planet already - perhaps your planets all were already
habitable? Seems unlikely though. Then as that grows and gets near
to capacity, I send another colony ship to terraform again - sort of
keep as an all purpose terraformer on all my systems.
Anything specific you are wondering about?
>
>>ll in all, I am loving this game. I have that stay up all night
>>fever, that one more turn addiction. Best game by far I've played in
>>over a year.
>
>So far, I agree completely! I haven't been drawn into a game like this in a
>long time!
Yeah, I spent from the time I got home from work Friday until 6 am
Saturday playing the game after I got it Thursday :)
Grifman
Riboflavin
>I've go the game so I'll give my impressions after about 350 turns as
>the Klingons and 100 as the Feds . . . I agree some and a lot more I
>disagree with . . .
Whew... excellent post, Grifman. One thing - what's the bugginess level of
BoTF? Your review has convinced me to go and pick up the game today, though;
this looks like a good 4X game that isn't Yet Another Civ and doesn't
require a spreadsheet like Stars.
I was wondering, though - is one of the secret weapons for the Federation
recordings of William Shatner's singing attempts?
--
Kevin Allegood ribotr...@mindspring.pants.com
Remove the pants from my email address to reply
"If you can put this postmodernist gibberish to music, I'll dance to it."
-Cleve on some leftist blathering
Mark L. Short
of the things that made MOO2 GREAT are completely missing from BOTF.
1. Detailed research tree. Gone from BOTF.
2. Customized ship development. Gone From BOTF!!!! In MOO2 you actually
built your ships from the ground up with the lastest shields, lasers,
phasers, missiles, cloaking devices, etc. You had to manage ship space vs.
fire power vs. speed in your ship design. This was a game in itself! Now
in BOTF you are stuck with the ships as designed from the series. How
boring!
I say give me the hull of a galaxy class starship, but let me decide on how
many phasers, photon torpedos, shields, shuttles, sensors, etc it will hold.
Let me make the design decisions of my fleet!
Once you get over the interesting interface and seeing the 'trek races the
realization sets in that the game is rather boring and uninteresting.
Nothing as compelling as MOO2. (Kinda the way I felt after playing Star
Wars : Rebellion)
Save your money for Alpha Centauri, Imperialism II or even Civ2:CTP.
Mark.
Sector7
<mls...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I myself LOVED MOO2... however, I'm only slightly amused by BOTF. A couple
>of the things that made MOO2 GREAT are completely missing from BOTF.
>2. Customized ship development. Gone From BOTF!!!!
Well, this was a license restriction I believe... IIRC Paramount
wouldn't have you building a Galaxy class warship... pity
Jeff W. Alexander
>built your ships from the ground up with the lastest shields, lasers,
>phasers, missiles, cloaking devices, etc. You had to manage ship space vs.
>fire power vs. speed in your ship design. This was a game in itself! Now
>in BOTF you are stuck with the ships as designed from the series. How
>boring!
>
>I say give me the hull of a galaxy class starship, but let me decide on how
>many phasers, photon torpedos, shields, shuttles, sensors, etc it will hold.
Then you'll just put in the maximum allowable number of
the best weapon, followed by the maximum allowable number of
the second-best weapon if there's any space left, followed
by the maximum allowable number of the third-best weapon,
and so on. Just assume the preconfigured ships are the
optimal design and thank the programmer for not making you
fuss with a GUI to assemble it.
Jeff "More Park's Gyro Destabilizers, Mom...please?" A.
**remove to email**
wrote:
>sgri...@carolina.rr.com **remove to email** (Grifman) wrote in message
>>I've go the game so I'll give my impressions after about 350 turns as
>>the Klingons and 100 as the Feds . . . I agree some and a lot more I
>>disagree with . . .
>[snip - 30k review of BoTF]
>Whew... excellent post, Grifman. One thing - what's the bugginess level of
>BoTF? Your review has convinced me to go and pick up the game today, though;
>this looks like a good 4X game that isn't Yet Another Civ and doesn't
>require a spreadsheet like Stars.
Pretty good so far. I've had a number of Microprose games before and
am well aware of their past reputation. I haven't had the game crash
or lock up once. The only problems of any sort I have encountered
so far are . . .
1) I had a assault transport build an outpost. After it was finished
it shows up on the galactic map as a Fed outpost (Fed color). But it
is mine and under my control. Weird.
2) The mouse sometimes slooows down when I try to move it across the
screen. It gets worse as time goes by, but a restart seems to make it
go away. Hehehe, as I posted previously, it may be one of those
damned ST "temporal distortions" :)
Of course there may be "hidden" bugs - things that are under the hood
like the old Xcom "difficulty" bug - that I wouldn't know about until
after a lot of gameplay, but as far as stability goes, I've been
pleasantly surprised.
>
>I was wondering, though - is one of the secret weapons for the Federation
>recordings of William Shatner's singing attempts?
No, I guess that is one of the benefits that the Microprose license is
only the Next Generation, not TOS :) But there is no Klingon opera
either :)
Hehehe, just built a new Klingon type ship and heard a different after
battle quote (they seem to be linked to ship types) after my enemy
ran:
"Hah, let them run . . . they must bear the burden of their shame . .
." (said with disgust in an appropriate Klingon accent)
Grifman
DC Martin
original post I changed my mind about waiting for a few weeks to buy and see
what patches came around. So I went out and bought Botf last night and have
been playing it since:) OK I slept for a little bit heh. I'm enjoying the
hell out of this game. Your comments were right on...good job.
DC
sgri...@carolina.rr.com **remove to email** (Grifman) wrote in message
<374b1ed4.824513@news-server>...
>On Tue, 25 May 1999 15:44:50 GMT, cro...@earthlink.net (Silverlock)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 May 1999 05:53:35 GMT, sgri...@carolina.rr.com **remove
>>to email** (Grifman) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 May 1999 22:55:13 +0200, "Lobo the last Czarnian"
>>><assasint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
Kevin Webb
read the manual.
DC Martin
event (cant remember its name). My outpost said "We are Klingons we are not
afraid of a cloud!" And was promptly blown away in one shot hehe.
DC
Craig S. Richardson
<nhi...@ActOnline.com.au> wrote:
>Jeff W. Alexander wrote:
>> Then you'll just put in the maximum allowable number of
>> the best weapon, followed by the maximum allowable number of
>> the second-best weapon if there's any space left, followed
>> by the maximum allowable number of the third-best weapon,
>> and so on. Just assume the preconfigured ships are the
>> optimal design and thank the programmer for not making you
>> fuss with a GUI to assemble it.
>
>I've only just stopped putting the maximum allowable number of weapons
>in my MOO2 starship. It has been pointed out to me that a partly loaded
>starship has a higher beam defense than a starship that is maxed out
>with gear. I'm still determining optimum load-outs for ships - it
>depends on the size of the ship; its role (is it a
>fire-missiles-and-run-ship?); the defensive goodies available like
>shields and auto-repair; and whether you are playing a race with high
>ship defense.
>
>Has anyone else experimented with partially loaded ships?
It's a good thought, and I would do it for special-purpose ships (more
to get tactical speed than beam defense, though). But offense is so
primary that unless you absolutely need the initiative against the
specific enemy you're fighting (and you can't get it through
computers/engines/specials), I found it best to get the maximum number
of firing platforms into the field. This is *not* necessarily the
most of the highest-tech weapon available - miniaturization and the
rock/paper/scissors nature of tactical combat make customizing your
weapons mix to a particular enemy imperative if you want a quick
victory.
Note that my usual strategy leans heavily on getting the tech
advantage. A research-based race will tend to have fewer but superior
ships to the enemy - attacking as soon as a decisive technology
becomes available, before you can be swamped by production. If your
race choice dictates that the opposite is true, the opposite strategy
might hold, but I don't have much experience with that.
--Craig
Craig S. Richardson - crichar...@worldnet.att.net
NEW! Innumeracy in action! "If ya want to look at stats,
back it up! There was only a mention of walks/OBA and
slg pct..." --ghosts...@my-dejanews.com
Nich Hills
>
> In article <ZpW23.605$112....@typhoon01.swbell.net>,
> Mark L. Short <mls...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >2. Customized ship development. Gone From BOTF!!!! In MOO2 you actually
> >built your ships from the ground up with the lastest shields, lasers,
> >phasers, missiles, cloaking devices, etc. You had to manage ship space vs.
> >fire power vs. speed in your ship design. This was a game in itself! Now
> >in BOTF you are stuck with the ships as designed from the series. How
> >boring!
> >
> >I say give me the hull of a galaxy class starship, but let me decide on how
> >many phasers, photon torpedos, shields, shuttles, sensors, etc it will hold.
>
> the best weapon, followed by the maximum allowable number of
> the second-best weapon if there's any space left, followed
> by the maximum allowable number of the third-best weapon,
> and so on. Just assume the preconfigured ships are the
> optimal design and thank the programmer for not making you
> fuss with a GUI to assemble it.
I've only just stopped putting the maximum allowable number of weapons
in my MOO2 starship. It has been pointed out to me that a partly loaded
starship has a higher beam defense than a starship that is maxed out
with gear. I'm still determining optimum load-outs for ships - it
depends on the size of the ship; its role (is it a
fire-missiles-and-run-ship?); the defensive goodies available like
shields and auto-repair; and whether you are playing a race with high
ship defense.
Has anyone else experimented with partially loaded ships?
Cheers,
Nich
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nich Hills Email: nhi...@ActOnline.com.au
-----------------------------------------------------------
Donald Bachman
: In article <ZpW23.605$112....@typhoon01.swbell.net>,
: Mark L. Short <mls...@swbell.net> wrote:
: >
: >2. Customized ship development. Gone From BOTF!!!! In MOO2 you actually
: >built your ships from the ground up with the lastest shields, lasers,
: >phasers, missiles, cloaking devices, etc. You had to manage ship space vs.
: >fire power vs. speed in your ship design. This was a game in itself! Now
: >in BOTF you are stuck with the ships as designed from the series. How
: >boring!
: >
: >I say give me the hull of a galaxy class starship, but let me decide on how
: >many phasers, photon torpedos, shields, shuttles, sensors, etc it will hold.
:
: Then you'll just put in the maximum allowable number of
: the best weapon, followed by the maximum allowable number of
: the second-best weapon if there's any space left, followed
: by the maximum allowable number of the third-best weapon,
: and so on. Just assume the preconfigured ships are the
: optimal design and thank the programmer for not making you
: fuss with a GUI to assemble it.
There is a lot more to good ship design (in MOO2 at least) than
how many weapons you can pack on it. Choice of other technology
can really make a big difference in MOO2 to the capability and
weaknesses of a ship. In fact, since MOO1, I've created fleets
wherein the various ships had very different capabilities and roles.
Ship design should at least be an option.
Donald
:
:
: Jeff "More Park's Gyro Destabilizers, Mom...please?" A.
Locutus
I used to just build big with the best weapons until I met a computer opponent
whose strategy outclassed mine (which also goes to show the MOO2 AI is no
pushover). He had a couple of large ships and a few little ones. I thought this
was easy pickings. But than I found out what those little ships were for. They
were armed with a weapon (I forget the exact name now) that, when a ship is hit by
it, said hit ship is spun around in a random direction. I would spend my turn
attempting to maneuver BACK into firing position only to get spun around again.
Sometimes I was lucky to be spun around and still face them. But most of the time
my back was towards them , my forward firing weapons useless and they took my
fleet. I learned a lesson.
Mad Hatter
Nich Hills
>
> On Sat, 29 May 1999 01:56:22 +1000, Nich Hills
> <nhi...@ActOnline.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Jeff W. Alexander wrote:
>
> >> the best weapon, followed by the maximum allowable number of
> >> the second-best weapon if there's any space left, followed
> >> by the maximum allowable number of the third-best weapon,
> >> and so on. Just assume the preconfigured ships are the
> >> optimal design and thank the programmer for not making you
> >> fuss with a GUI to assemble it.
> >
> >in my MOO2 starship. It has been pointed out to me that a partly loaded
> >starship has a higher beam defense than a starship that is maxed out
> >with gear. I'm still determining optimum load-outs for ships - it
> >depends on the size of the ship; its role (is it a
> >fire-missiles-and-run-ship?); the defensive goodies available like
> >shields and auto-repair; and whether you are playing a race with high
> >ship defense.
> >
> >Has anyone else experimented with partially loaded ships?
>
> to get tactical speed than beam defense, though). But offense is so
> primary that unless you absolutely need the initiative against the
> specific enemy you're fighting (and you can't get it through
> computers/engines/specials), I found it best to get the maximum number
> of firing platforms into the field.
Defense is *usually* primary.
I'm currently playing with a +50 Offense, +25 Defense, +10 Ground,
Warlord, Transdimensional race (Feudal, negative research, negative
spying). My fleet for conquoring the galaxy is mainly frigates with
four PD lasers. Each frigate could fit a 5th laser, but that would
reduce my beam defense and my survivability. As it is the frigates are
very hard to hit with beams, but hit frequently in return. Their
marines are very effective at boarding and the PD lasers shoot down
incoming missiles.
> This is *not* necessarily the
> most of the highest-tech weapon available - miniaturization and the
> rock/paper/scissors nature of tactical combat make customizing your
> weapons mix to a particular enemy imperative if you want a quick
> victory.
>
> Note that my usual strategy leans heavily on getting the tech
> advantage.
My race is *not* a research race (one test-tube per scientist!). Build
outposts (cheap for a Feudal race); find a neighbour; build about eight
frigates and a couple of transports and take the other race out. Repeat
six more times.
> A research-based race will tend to have fewer but superior
> ships to the enemy - attacking as soon as a decisive technology
> becomes available, before you can be swamped by production. If your
> race choice dictates that the opposite is true, the opposite strategy
> might hold, but I don't have much experience with that.
I assume you are familiar with *the* research race: Democratic,
Lithovoric, Artifacts home world?
Zig
>I assume you are familiar with *the* research race: Democratic,
>Lithovoric, Artifacts home world?
By far the best initial researchers (60 RPs from turn 0), but peter-out
quickly. I trade lithovore for telepathic + lrg HW + more spy. Ever
instant assimilate the Sakkras or Silicoids under Demo? There is no way to
match it <g>
-Zig
"That's a valiant flea that dare eat his breakfast
on the lip of a lion" - Shakespeare
Zig
globa...@aol.com (GlobalFrog) wrote:
>I ALWAYS find a way to sneak Telepathic in there. I try to overcome my usual
>slow colonization rate by mind controlling my nearest "neighbor".
Yep, conquering my backward neighbors is by far the best way to "colonize"
& telepaths are the best conquerers. IMNSHO well worth 6 picks, even
better than subterranian :)
GlobalFrog
>instant assimilate the Sakkras or Silicoids under Demo? There is no way to
>match it <g>
I ALWAYS find a way to sneak Telepathic in there. I try to overcome my usual
slow colonization rate by mind controlling my nearest "neighbor".
Frog
Andre S.
>In article <19990530201830...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
>globa...@aol.com (GlobalFrog) wrote:
>
>>I ALWAYS find a way to sneak Telepathic in there. I try to overcome my usual
>>slow colonization rate by mind controlling my nearest "neighbor".
>
>Yep, conquering my backward neighbors is by far the best way to "colonize"
>& telepaths are the best conquerers. IMNSHO well worth 6 picks, even
>better than subterranian :)
>
>-Zig
>
>"That's a valiant flea that dare eat his breakfast
> on the lip of a lion" - Shakespeare
An...@pcug.org.au ===> cherchez le femme
Andre S.
>Yep, conquering my backward neighbors is by far the best way to "colonize"
>& telepaths are the best conquerers.
but it takes so long to build your cruiser, and the starbase can be a pain
whereas
build 4-6 more frigates, two transports and that homeworld in reach is breakfast.
if you are an all-combat race.
Zig
an...@GREEN.EGGS.AND.SPAMpcug.org.au (Andre S.) wrote:
>but it takes so long to build your cruiser, and the starbase can be a pain
>whereas
>build 4-6 more frigates, two transports and that homeworld in reach is
breakfast.
>if you are an all-combat race.
I find it's alot faster if you don't build all the other junk, just
research lab & autofact, perhaps polution processor & nothing else (frees
up alot of cash too). In the early game, you can use ground troops if you
want (you might need more than 2 transports), I prefer using spys to knock
down planetary defenses. But a cruiser packed with MIRVs & maybe a
destroyer or 2 does the job even better.
Ken M.
I love the TNG "Toch Panel"-ish interface, but the rest of game sucks.
1. The Research Tree
Amen Mark Short. 6 Different Fields of research! With exciting names like
Propulsion 1, Propulsion 2, ad nauseum.
MOO2 Had six categories of research. Each bit of research had it own name
and had it's own "implications" a.k.a functions/uses/devices/effects.
(Although choosing the race trait "Creative" eliminated that issue)
SMAC has only four categories or research (Build, Conquer, Explore,
Discover) with around 14-17 discoveries each. These have distinct "names"
and distinct uses/applications. Many acted as prerequesites for later
discoveries.
Verdict: D- Research is boring in BotF. MOO2 and SMAC both pound the
snot out of it. Even MOO was better.
2. Customized Ship (Unit) Development
BotF- No such thing, you're stuck with default ships and configs. No
customization at all.
MOO2, build from the ground up. Use whatever technologies/weapons you
discovered/stolen/received as gifts and even then you can go even deeper and
customize the individual weapons with firing arcs, heavy mounts, point
defense, autofire, continuous, etc.
SMAC, you choose the chassis, the attack strength (again based on your tech
discoveries), defense, and special powers or the unit in question.
Verdict: F Totally user-unfriendly. Part of this is inherent to
Paramount's absolute limits on the franchise and the limited weapons
developed for the mythos of Star Trek, but you don't even have the option of
developing new weapons or technologies, everything is "Beam Weapon" and
"Projectile Weapon". No distinction like Phaser and Disruptor and Laser and
Ion Field or Photon Torpedo and Missle and Plasma Torpedo. If you want me
to spend my money on your game and you claim to be a 4X sci fi game, you'd
better give me alot more power over the game. (SMAC and CIVII are so far
the ultimate in customizable with their rules.txt and similar files).
3. Graphics
a. Interface- I like the TNG style layout for the interface, it's
pretty, even if the font is somewhat ugly on most of the races screens.
Just like ROE and ROE2 (Rules of Engagement), I loved the "styling" of the
interface, even if the utility of the BotF is rather weak. Too much having
to dig for information on too many different screens. A true set of
"Summary Screens" like MOO2 and SMAC would have been a great improvement.
Verdict: Looks: A+ Utility (Usefullness): C
b. Combat- Much prettier than MOO2 and SMAC on an "eye-candy" level.
Verdict: B+
4. Colony/Planet Managament
BotF just lacks so much basic info. It doesn't warn you of basics such as
"You don't have the energy to run this planned facility." It's just a
little too..."cold" I guess is the word I want...for me. In MOO2 I can get
almost all the info I need about a colony on one screen. SMAC too is a
"friendlier" interface for Colony management. It's more touchy/feely in
this category, but BotF just doesn't "feel" right.
Verdict: C-
5. Exploration
We know the location and stellar class of hundreds (thousands even) of stars
near and far here on "SOL-system"-locked 20th century Earth. With MOO2, you
knew the location and class of every star, but you didn't get more detailed
info (like planetary data) until you actually got there (unless you took the
"Omniscient" race trait). With SMAC being planet based, the position o
stars is meaningless, and the game does have an option for the terrain of
the world to be mapped previously form before you landed, but again, you
don't know where anyone is until you actually go and look for yourself. I'm
not going into the system readouts as I have no problem with the basics of
it.
Verdict: C
6. Combat
No contest, MOO2 is the hands down winner. Granted, the control each and
every individual ship on your side is unrealistic, but until better AI comes
along, it's the closest thing to an intelligently run battle plan and
"crafty" ship captains you're gonna get. BotF is prettier in combat, but
has nowhere near the options. MOO2 lets you choose which distinct weapons
to fire and which special equipmet to use. BotF doesn't give you distint
weapons OR special equipment. The tactical feel of MOO2 blows BotF away in
terms of usefullness and options and fun.
Verdict: D+ (SMAC doesn't compare, as combat is handled completely
differerntly. MoM has infintely more fun combat the BotF even. Although I
love MoM but can't play it anymore)
That's all for now. I've said my piece and stated why. Now I just need to
uninstall BotF and sell it and it's Strategy Guide.
Ken M.
Mark L. Short <mls...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:ZpW23.605$112....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
> I myself LOVED MOO2... however, I'm only slightly amused by BOTF. A
couple
> of the things that made MOO2 GREAT are completely missing from BOTF.
>
> 1. Detailed research tree. Gone from BOTF.
>
> 2. Customized ship development. Gone From BOTF!!!! In MOO2 you actually
> built your ships from the ground up with the lastest shields, lasers,
> phasers, missiles, cloaking devices, etc. You had to manage ship space
vs.
> fire power vs. speed in your ship design. This was a game in itself! Now
> in BOTF you are stuck with the ships as designed from the series. How
> boring!
>
> I say give me the hull of a galaxy class starship, but let me decide on
how
> many phasers, photon torpedos, shields, shuttles, sensors, etc it will
hold.
Babylon5
M...@here.com says...
> I so desperately wanted to like BotF, I really did.
>
> I love the TNG "Toch Panel"-ish interface, but the rest of game sucks.
>
> 1. The Research Tree
>
> Amen Mark Short. 6 Different Fields of research! With exciting names like
> Propulsion 1, Propulsion 2, ad nauseum.
> MOO2 Had six categories of research. Each bit of research had it own name
> and had it's own "implications" a.k.a functions/uses/devices/effects.
Factory level 1, factory level 2, factory level 3...ect
ect add nausium.
Shield I, Shield II, Shield III, Shield IV, etc etc add
nausium.
So lets not get into the MOO always had better tech game
ok?
Besides, if you bother to read the tchs in BOTF they give
you a pretty detailed description of what they
do.....what a concept! Giving techs fancey names does
nothing but make it very hard to get into a game.....were
ionic phase shields better than transfixed flux
shields...or was that tetriactic phase beam more powerful
than the nucleic anti proton projector.
> (Although choosing the race trait "Creative" eliminated that issue)
> SMAC has only four categories or research (Build, Conquer, Explore,
> Discover) with around 14-17 discoveries each. These have distinct "names"
> and distinct uses/applications. Many acted as prerequesites for later
> discoveries.
So your saying it makes sense that you should have to
choose one tech out of 3 or so, an NEVER be able to
research those other fields....yea...thats much better.
So lucky are we that someone choose to research silicon
chips a few years back, or mankind may never have been
able to make computers.
Its a game mechanics things, and for the most part, the
sysem MOO uses makes it so that after a few games, we all
develop a certain plan to get the techs we need, and
avoid the techs we can do without for a few turns (for
example, I never bother with shields below class 3-4
because you didnt need shields that early in the game
most time, but I ALWAYS went for mass drivers because
they gave the best bang for the buck).
You also didn't seem to notice that in BOTF espionage is
represented as a bonus to your current research, and not
as just instantly getting a tech advance. I always found
it quite stupid that a race could steel a technology they
had no knowlege of and start using it right away. Its
like saying if a tribe of nomads managed to somehow steel
a F-16, they could start making them...its ludicrus, and
it makes spying too powerful.
BOTF isn't perfect, but its still a very good game.
>
> Verdict: D- Research is boring in BotF. MOO2 and SMAC both pound the
> snot out of it. Even MOO was better.
>
<le' Snip>
Ken M.
Level 3, etc?
And at least the different shiled researching leads to ACTUAL DIFFERENCES in
the shields you have available. In ABotF, every ship is always the same.
And yes, the fancy names help suspension of disbelief and make the game more
than just "Accountant of the Federation".
As for the "Creative" issue, no I never said it made sensze, but you
stupidly read your own inference into it. Not be able to go back and
research the extra fields is silly, but it's called a form of game balance,
I was one of the first to pounce on MOO2 over the disadvantage not taking
"Creative" race trait caused.
ABotF is not perfect, but it is also not a very good game....
Babylon5 <babab...@NOSPAMTHANKS.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.11bd195276af4f96989789@news-server...
> In article <7ivdd7$q...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>,
> M...@here.com says...
> > I so desperately wanted to like BotF, I really did.
> >
> > I love the TNG "Toch Panel"-ish interface, but the rest of game sucks.
> >
> > 1. The Research Tree
> >
> > Amen Mark Short. 6 Different Fields of research! With exciting names
like
> > Propulsion 1, Propulsion 2, ad nauseum.
> > MOO2 Had six categories of research. Each bit of research had it own
name
> > and had it's own "implications" a.k.a functions/uses/devices/effects.
>
> Factory level 1, factory level 2, factory level 3...ect
> ect add nausium.
>
> Shield I, Shield II, Shield III, Shield IV, etc etc add
> nausium.
>
> So lets not get into the MOO always had better tech game
> ok?
>
> Besides, if you bother to read the tchs in BOTF they give
> you a pretty detailed description of what they
> do.....what a concept! Giving techs fancey names does
> nothing but make it very hard to get into a game.....were
> ionic phase shields better than transfixed flux
> shields...or was that tetriactic phase beam more powerful
> than the nucleic anti proton projector.
>
>
>
> > (Although choosing the race trait "Creative" eliminated that issue)
> > SMAC has only four categories or research (Build, Conquer, Explore,
> > Discover) with around 14-17 discoveries each. These have distinct
"names"
> > and distinct uses/applications. Many acted as prerequesites for later
> > discoveries.
>
> So your saying it makes sense that you should have to
> choose one tech out of 3 or so, an NEVER be able to
> research those other fields....yea...thats much better.
> So lucky are we that someone choose to research silicon
> chips a few years back, or mankind may never have been
> able to make computers.
>
> Its a game mechanics things, and for the most part, the
> sysem MOO uses makes it so that after a few games, we all
> develop a certain plan to get the techs we need, and
> avoid the techs we can do without for a few turns (for
> example, I never bother with shields below class 3-4
> because you didnt need shields that early in the game
> most time, but I ALWAYS went for mass drivers because
> they gave the best bang for the buck).
>
> You also didn't seem to notice that in BOTF espionage is
> represented as a bonus to your current research, and not
> as just instantly getting a tech advance. I always found
> it quite stupid that a race could steel a technology they
> had no knowlege of and start using it right away. Its
> like saying if a tribe of nomads managed to somehow steel
> a F-16, they could start making them...its ludicrus, and
> it makes spying too powerful.
>
> BOTF isn't perfect, but its still a very good game.
>
> >
> > Verdict: D- Research is boring in BotF. MOO2 and SMAC both pound the
> > snot out of it. Even MOO was better.
> >
>
> <le' Snip>
Dave
Dave
(da...@pdh.com)
On Thu, 27 May 1999 20:37:54 -0600, "DC Martin" <my...@pcisys.net>
wrote:
wh...@leading.net
I agree BOTF is micromanagement hell, but there is alot about the
bland tech descriptions I like. I really don't care about research in
a game like this, or endlessly upgrading my ships. Sure MOO2 was
great fun, but now I'm ready for different game like BOTF. I want to
concentrate on the strategy and fighting, and the 3d combat, while
limited, is fun. I think once Microprose gets feedback on the
inevitable AI problems that appear in a game like this and gets a
patch out, this is going to be a classic. But yes, you are right this
isn't MOO3 and isn't trying to be.
JvG
>ABotF is not perfect, but it is also not a very good game....
You're in the minority, most people here who got the game enjoy it.
Jeff W. Alexander
Locutus <locu...@systec.com> wrote:
>
>I used to just build big with the best weapons until I met a computer
>opponent whose strategy outclassed mine (which also goes to show the MOO2
>AI is no pushover). He had a couple of large ships and a few little ones.
>I thought this was easy pickings. But than I found out what those little
>ships were for. They were armed with a weapon (I forget the exact name
>now) that, when a ship is hit by it, said hit ship is spun around in a
>random direction. I would spend my turn attempting to maneuver BACK into
>firing position only to get spun around again. Sometimes I was lucky to
>be spun around and still face them. But most of the time my back was
>learned a lesson.
That was the Gyro Destabilizer I mentioned in my signature,
and I thank you for bringing it up.
What you encountered was a *poorly* designed fleet. I say this
because that computer fleet would have been nastier if it had done
away with those little ships and outfitted its main cruisers with
those guns to begin with.
Compare it to the Fusion Beam, its closest parallel in the
tech tree.
One GD takes up 50 spaces and is available at Fields tech level
2. It averages 5 points of base damage.
One Fusion Beam with the shield-piercing, armor-piercing, and no
range dissipation upgrades (none of which are actually *legal* for the
FB, but I'm matching it to the GD) in a 360-degree mount takes up 16
spaces and would not be available until Physics tech level 3. It
averages 4 points of base damage.
So you can fit three FBs in the space of one GD in the early
game. BUT...the Gyro always hits, and its damage gets multiplied by
the size of the target. Against Cruisers and beyond you're guaranteed
more damage with the Gyro, and will likely get it against Destroyers
too if your beam OCV is particularly low (or their DCV is high...).
And this comparison is still not entirely balanced. It gives the
FB the benefit of one level of miniaturization, which was necessary to
give it the modifications the GD has built-in. Miniturize the GD by
one level as well and it drops to 40 spaces, or two-and-a-half FBs.
Now the damage against even Frigates is comparable despite the much
larger size per barrel.
And now, my point. Getting a *balanced* detailed vehicle design
system is hard. I've seen it break down any number of times: MOO2,
Silent Death, Car Wars... I've seen people vehemently refuse to play
games with stock sample ships provided by the rulebooks, or experience
disorientation when they did and found they could no longer dependably
obliterate opposing units with single shots. I've seen games which
were evenly matched on "build points" but were complete blowouts from
the end of turn one because one side was naive enough to build ships
and/or fleets with a mix of offense and support capabilities and the
other just mini-maxed and raped loopholes.
Complexities are fun to experiment with, but A) there will
never be more than a small handful in the "This Works Good" list,
regardless of how many there are, and B) each one brings with it
another possiblity of cracking the game's balance wide open. Which is
why I don't automatically equate "Game X doesn't let you design your
own ships" with "Game X is worse than Game Y, which does".
Jeff A.