Jump to content

Tactical Combat - a HUGE disappointment

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

Rabiator5 #41 Posted 13 March 2016 - 06:33 AM


  • Players
  • 5
  • Member since:

Personally I think there actually is a way to combine "real time" and "tactical" into a good space combat. You can actually see it right now in one of the competitors of this game: "Battlefleet Gothic: Armada". They have LOTS of things to make combat more than simply "pretty" ... they make it interesting and human input a requirement.

  1. It is SLOW in its movement, so you do not have to be a "16-year-old Korean who does nothing else than practicing the game" (as it is for Starcraft 2). Everyone can react at that pace.
  2. The number of ships in the fleet is limited so every one of them becomes important and you are more involved.
  3. Even before the combat starts you need to set up your fleet and assign behaviour to the ships (i.e. engage at long/short range, broadside or frontal, ...).
  4. In combat there are "special powers to activate" AND movement is more than just "clicking somewher". They have a button for a high energy turn and for "full ahead" or "cruising speed".
  5. The actual ship design is interesting, because it "forces" you to using frontal OR broadside guns & missiles. The 360 degree option should be VERY expensive AND limited to just a few guns for many races. [I hope there are more options for ship design in the pipeline, because I love research (the Psilons) but I hate those disc ships because they are visually boring.]

MoO doesnt need to copy Battlefleet Gothic, but there is no harm in copying good ideas. Oh and as I already said in my own thread: LESS (speed) is MORE (involvement). Please make space combat more than just a "flashy light show with no substance". We already have far too many hollywood movies along those lines and far too many games want to follow that trend ... *cough* Star Wars Battlefront *cough*. Please do not make this a disappointment.


I would rather rule an empire of five planets that I had to work hard to make habitable or conquer and whose names I know than a million nameless planets with a bazillion times bigger income. The same is true for space combat.



livelock_1 #42 Posted 13 March 2016 - 03:31 PM


  • Players
  • 21
  • Member since:

Not sure about this, but I believe they have decided to make a shallow game. The fact they are using MOO is only for marketing. Why? Well, in their dev diaries they state - we really tried turn based ` and something like `we dont want battles to take long`.


In Moo2 battles do not need to take very long neccessarily, though they could, but just look at the depth of tactical combat. Sending decoy missiles with your payload, waiting and it goes on and on, compare this:



Of course thats also very complicated and inaccessible to newbies and takes a lot of time to figure out. Helping the player to learn all this and making an accessible game totally makes sense, where the player does not have to read a lot of forums only to understand when what weapon should be chosen against what.

But deciding to take away all the depth, well then it will just be another boring game. I actually now even doubt that people from that studio even played Moo2.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users