I recently bought the game and I think it*s pretty good - many improvements over its spritual predecessor. However. I think that the one flaw in MOO 2 has been to turn away from the multi-spaceship stack-based combat instead of improving on it. Now, I could cite a ton of reasons why this works better than the single-ship approach - but I already know my point of view in that regard. So what I'd like to know is YOURS: what where your reasons to go for single ship combat? Because I don't find that approach intuitive (even if MOO 2 had it). Did you even consider the MOO I approach? And if so, what made you opt for the single ship solution?
Hi Jolly Joker, thanks for your question and welcome to the forums! First of all I'd like to say that both the original Master of Orion (MoO1) and its sequel Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares (MoO2) are among my favorite games of all time. I played them both to death and they helped shape me as a gamer and now as a game designer. They are both classics in the genre and are different in several aspects, including in how they address the number of ships in combat, and in my view both combat models work equally well in their context, so let me say that I do not necessarily consider one model superior to the other in its essence. It all depends on the game in question, on its different systems and on the type of experience you're trying to convey. With that said, I did have this stacks vs single units dilemma way back when I started doing the preliminary designs for ISG around 2012, as they both have their advantages and disadvantages. It was not a simple decision but single-units prevailed in the end. What made me make the decision were several design elements of the game that favored that approach allied with a personal preference and belief that it would be interesting to explore offering less and more meaningful ships with more personality. The design elements were things like having ships have more personality, where individual ships are captained by leaders and where losing a single ship in combat would feel more real and meaningful. So, to reinforce the attachment of the player with these ships. Also, the possibility of refitting individual warships to preserve their identity and reinforce the idea that each ship has a progression and a story to tell in the game and that the ships' crew is kept after the upgrade and their experience in combat prevails. Also, the possibility of renaming individual ships to help with the ship personality aspect and the possibility of having special gargantuan capital ships with special powers (each race's Titan with its unique ability). So, that was it. These were the reasons why I opted for the single-unit model. Again, I don't think one model or the other are necessarily better, and I recognize each has its advantages and disadvantages. I think it all depends on the game in question and what you feel is right for your game in order to satisfy all the other elements of the design in order to produce a cohesive and the most meaningful experience possible.
Thanks for the quick answer, Adam. Let me first repeat that I really like the game and all the little and not so little improvements you made. In my view, the single ship approach works well for big ships, while the stacking approch works well for small ships - small ships with personality isn't really making that much sense. Also, from the viewpoint of the races (hive mind?) the concepts would probably differ (and one of the things that really made me "buy" the MOO I solution were the racial differences in fleet conception, Alkaris preferring swarms of small ships, Meklar going big, and so on). Without delving further into the pros and cons (you have weighed them all up already) - wouldn't it have been worth thinking about combining the two (it's something that wargames do as well, go for named capital ships and treating the smaller fish as squadrons)? Building stacks with Frigates, Destroyers and Cruisers (maybe with limited stack sizes (say, 100, 50, and 10, respectively) and having Battleships and Titans as single ships? I say that, because I think that you should be able to build small ships a lot faster - you cannot fit much into them, and technology always improves, so they become old fast. Plus, you want to have a few of them, commando limits notwithstanding. When you have a ship limit (that is, you can have only so many ships), then it's a matter of putting as much as possible into a ship point, which is bad for the small ships (unless every ship size would use a different number of points). In other words, I feel pretty discouraged to build Frigates at all. Anyway, that ships has probably sailed, just wanted to know the reasons behind this design decision. Thanks.
I remember when I first joined here, over four years ago, that this issue was discussed quite a bit. There were proponents of MoO1 stacks versus the individual ships of MoO2. For me there were many factors involved. First, even small ships can feel extremely unique, especially early on or with the slowed down settings I use. Then of course it was far easier to be attached to (and immersed) by a ship rather than a stack. But that all paled to the main reason I absolutely favor the current approach. That reason is that I love the idea of tactical combat. I've had many you know, and won quite a few I had no right winning simply because I outmaneuvered AI ships in combat. One of the most exciting that I recall was when my almost crippled ship got behind the enemy and hit it point blank at it's un-shielded section. That just doesn't happen with stacks, nor can actions such as boarding and capturing an enemy vessel, (like a swashbuckler in space), be executed. In MoO1 combat, you were basically restricted to four "units" representing stacks. It worked, but victory in combat was more a factor of numbers when compared to combat with single ship units. Of course, another key aspect is that ship design loses some of its meaning and importance. Stacks, in a way is similar to RTS combat, where ship design is still there but doesn't affect the outcome in battle that much. I recall playing SEV, (a great game in some ways) and designing a ship. What did it matter where I placed the shield or the weapons, everything was 360 degrees. So Apart of what Adam wrote as a response, I offer this as someone playing games longer that Adam. The combat system in ISG, even with its lack of tactical terrain, is one of the most satisfying tactical, turn based, combat mechanic executions I have seen. It allows for many factors to exist that play a role in victory and defeat that just would not be possible in MoO1 type system. This is not a matter of wrong and right obviously, the OP certainly has valid observations and reasons to favor what he does, and in the end, no game will really seem perfect to anyone. But for me, one of the main reasons I play this game so much, and find it fun, is the existing combat system.
I'm not really intent on a discussion about the pro and cons here, but I think, Konstantine, you are wrong with a couple of your statements. MOO I had SIX possible designs and SIX possible "slots", that is a maximum of 12 possible "units" in battle. However - that's not a law or something. You could allow more - a dozen per side, for example. As a rule, combat slots would be the same as design slots, and there is no reason why you should take the same number as in a 25 year old game. Then tactics. Only THE SAME ships can build stacks, so IN EFFECT a stack is like one ship, there is no reason whatsoever why stack-based combat shouldn't work the same way than single ship combat. Outmaneuvering works exactly the same way - no difference In fact, when you played MOO I, the problem is, that if you want to build new ships you have to shredder existing ones - which may be a lot. This creates its own problems - but it also offers tactical options, because more stacks in battle is better than less. I play computer games since the 80s. Single combat, stack-based combat ... both have their merits. But in space, you don't want just a few ships, you want hundreds and thousands - you are a freaking SPACE EMPIRE -, and combat with hundreds of single units makes no sense.
Sorry, it's been decades and my memory failed me. But as you say, you're not looking for a discussion so I'll limit this. I get that, space is vast, we are playing a game where the galaxy is abstracted to a few hundred systems, but it's still a galaxy, why can't we have thousands of ships? On the other hand, if you look at naval warfare as an example, ships become fewer, more capable, and far more expensive over time. In WWII, the USN operated several thousand ships, today a few hundred. You've been playing a long time and I wonder if you ever played IG2? They had a very interesting compromise solution. Ships were individual... until the numbers got past a certain point in combat, once that happened, they would be grouped in sets of 3. This allowed the player to field and control larger forces while retaining the main advantage of single ships in combat. It was pretty cool.
Yes, I'd agree with something like that, sure. It would involve a different cost curve for ships and command points (probably none needed). I'd like that. But as I said, I just was interested in the devs's reasons to do it the way they did it. For a real meaningful discussion I'm obviousöy a couple years too late.
