You have population units and can micromanage every thing they do.
In MOO2, they went complete CIV direction. This game is the supreme leader of the MOO games. The fact is, I never liked Master of Orion 2. Master of Orion 1 is one of few example out there of the way 4X games should be, but unfortunately rarely are, designed. The majority of 4X games today are not really about strategy - they're about math, memorization, and repititive busywork that masquerades as depth. Unlike some other games with semi-random trees a missing tech never ends up feeling like a punishing dead end.Īnd to add to it all, the various factions ooze with atmosphere despite the retro graphics.Įven if you dislike 4X games, heck, especially if you dislike 4X games you should give MoO a shot. It's semi-random, which helps to make each playthrough feel unique and limits the strength of memorization. Master of Orion has probably the best tech tree ever devised. Combat is decently enjoyable, and is set up in a way where a late game encounter plays very similar to an early game one. MoO is one of the few games that has found a reasonable middle ground. Some 4X games have very complex combat that becomes completely unwieldy later in the game when battles grow past a certain size (MoO 2), while other 4X games avoid tactical combat entirely to avoid that issue (Galciv). Tactical combat, while nothing to write home about in and of itself, strikes a good balance between depth and pacing. Colonies are managed directly from the game map, which speeds turns up tremendously.
It's actually kind of the opposite - instead of min-maxing which buildings to place where (which is a math problem, not a strategic one) you control everything with broader strokes.
That's not to say that empire management is less deep. Unfortunately, the genre as a whole has decided to go down the opposite path. The MoO 1 design philosophy is to focus on higher level strategic decisions, rather than the minutiae.
0 kommentar(er)
