Talk:Master of Orion

message: The links are broken. Star lord the link on the MOO3 page and all other links are broken. Searching for the link is in vain because there are too many other things also called star lord.
If there are other links the star lord section should be updated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.32.31 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Lord 

message: -	Is "amodeas" a term unique to this game? RickK 04:41, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The opening paragraph on the third game seems a little biased. yes, it wasn't a vey good game, but it says it a little blatantly. HereToHelp 00:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MOO3 section POVish?

message: I've moved the Master of Orion 2 and 3 sections of this article to their own pages, leaving this page for an artilce on the Master of Orion game. Fugg 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article split

message: So I'm thinking about elaborating a bit more on the race descriptions to provide information on what, exactly, the advantages and disadvantages of each race are...
Humans: +25% profit from trade agreements, +5 to checks for whether another civ will accept a treaty or trade agreement in diplomatic negotiations, Excellent (60% tech cost) at Force Field research, Good (80% tech cost) at Planetology research, Good at Propulsion research.
Sakkra: +100% growth rate, Excellent at Planetology research
Mrrshan: +4 on to-hit rolls and initiative in space combat, Poor (125% tech cost) at Construction research, Excellent at Weapons research
Alkari: +3 to defense and initiative in space combat, Poor at Force Field research, Excellent at Propulsion research
Bulrathi: +25 to Ground Combat rolls, Poor at Computer research, Good at Construction research, Good at Weapons research
Psilons: +50% research points, Good at all research fields.
Klackons: Double production from population points, Excellent at Construction research, Poor at Propulsion research
Darloks: +30 on spy infiltration rolls, +20 on rolls to catch enemy spies
Meklars: Can build an extra two factories per population point, Excellent at Computer research, Poor at Planetology research
Silicoids: Can settle on any planetary environment without requiring any of the Controlled Environment technologies, ignores the effects of industrial waste, -50% growth rate, Good at Computer research, Poor at all other research
Of course, for this to make more sense, I'd probably have to add a lot of details regarding game mechanics to the article...
--VladAntlerkov 01:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding the race descriptions

message: I'm removing the statements that the game's setting is called that and the Orions were that. I can't seem to find them in the game, its manual or anything associated with it. This has the smell of a retcon and might be a leftover from the days when all three MOO games had one article. What with collaborative editing, if I'm wrong do add them back. --Kizor 12:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the original MOO(I) had no backstory. If you removed it, someone added it back.Philcha 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Orion Sector, Orions as progenitors

message: I'm undertaking a maddeningly sporadic effor to bring this to Good Article status. If you wish to make major additions, please drop me a line, odds are that I've already made unincorporated drafts on the topic. --Kizor 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Upgrade in progress

message: Should we add a article for every race? i'm willing to do that. --201.253.18.50 05:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Races articles 

message: I think this article needs a rewrite:
*It contains too many subjective judgements, some of which come close to advertising (although the game is no longer on sale). And some are inaccurate, for example MOO is very different from Spaceward Ho! (it's much more detailed and a game takes a lot longer to complete).
*It contains several inaccuracies.
*The section headed "Gameplay" is mainly backstory, but it's imported from MOO II, and the original MOO had no backstory.
*A large chunk of the article is a detailed list of race attributes, which could easily be made shorter - this is an encyclopedia article, not a game manual.
*It omits many important things: normal vs hostile planets; some planets have advantages in industrial production or research or population growth; 1 ship class = 1 stack in combat; max 6 ship classes, if you want a new class you have to scrap all ships of an existing class; etc.; on modern Windows computer systems you need a DOS emulator to play MOO; max one colonisable planet per star (some have none).
Suggested structure:
*Intro pretty much as is except for comparisons to Spaceward Ho! and Reach for the Stars; and change "considered to be among the best the genre has to offer" to included in Gamespy's Hall of Fame.
*Computer environment: DOS or emulator; VGA, 256 colours, 320x200 resolution (but I'd check the res, because on my screen it looks more like about 480x360 if I don't tell DOSbox to go full-screen).
*Victory conditions.
*Galaxy: max 1 planet per star; normal, fertile and hostile planets  (hostiles extend the colonisation phase); rich and ultrarich planets; artifacts planets; Orion and the Guardian.
*Game setup: galaxy size; number of opponents; choice of race.
*How the economy works (incl research, robotics upgrades and terraforming).
*Tech tree: subject areas; levels and miniaturisation; and you never get the whole tree in 1 game.
*Diplomacy; gifts ("tribute"), tech trades, trade treaties, non-aggression, alliance; varying facial expression of ambassadors; AI good at remembering player's past favours or misdeeds; built-in relationships between races; no "senate" to force player to follow any code of behaviour.
*Combat and invasion: 1 class= 1 stack in space combat; space combat "tactical" (hands-on) but with "auto" option; retreat possible; colonists = troops.
*Races (briefly): racial advantages; races have research strengths and weaknesses; races have personalities and research priorities when played by the AI; no custom races.
*User interface: various screens;  mainly mouse-driven, some hotkeys.
*Prequel and sequels.
*Refs and links.Philcha 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intro now mentions sequels.Philcha 15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite needed

message: Please help me with this. My memory is vague. I can't remember what happens when you fail the copy protection quiz. Could someone check for me please and put this section in.
The game manual had pictures of a specific ship icon along with the ship's name on the bottom corner of the pages. During gameplay, the game will produce a screen displaying a random(?)ship icon and the page number(s)?asking the player to identify the ship using the game manual.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.217.76.77 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you fail to get the ship name right in 3 attempts, the game displays the "you are defeated" screen and does not give you the "continue" option in the menu. But I don't think the manual actually says that, so I don't think it should go in the in article. Philcha (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy protection

message: Edits more recent that those in the last thread, which is now unwieldy:
*System environment: Sirian's note (DOSBox) "may not perform ..." means "may be very slow", not "may not work at all". That page was last updated 2004, PCs are now nearly 8x more powerful (Moore's Law). DOSBox has also been upgraded a few times since then, improving performance significantly (see the Linux page cited).
*Economics:
**It's too early to introduce specific races' advantages. To avoid overloading readers we should present the general framework first, then the special cases when the general framework is complete.
**Text footnotes are acceptable, see for example Alexander Alekhine, which is a GA; in fact its first text footnote was suggested by the GA reviewer. The text footnote in Master of Orion: Economics will also be useful in "Racial advantages", especially if we need to distinguish between the industrial advantages of the Klackons and Meklars.
*Planets:
**Clarify impact of mineral wealth (it's all in the manual, which has no inconsistency or ambiguity on these points).
**Minimal planets are not hostile; the easiest hostile type is Barren.
**Defer Silicoids' advantage for same reasons as Klackons'.
**The influence of planet type on size and mineral wealth is probabilistic.
**Terraforming increases "industrial potential" (via increased pop), not "productivity".
*Ship design:
**I like your summary of ship functions so much I've moved it to the top.
**One doesn't build troop ships.
**It's important to distinguish clearly between class and instance (not all readers will have software design / programming experience, so many will need to have the distinction pointed out very explicitly).
**The lack of refitting / upgrading of existing ships is actually a huge point. I can't remember where I read it, but AI players are loth to scrap obsolete ship classes, which slows down their exploitation of new military techs. The other space 4X games I know well (MOO II, SE III and Ascendancy) allow refits.
*Combined "Space combat and invasions":
**Direct travel vs wormholes is strategically a huge factor, like the difference between trench warfare and motorized.
**Sirian compares MoO’s stacks to HoMM’s, but omits the fact that MoO does not allow multiple stacks of the same class. This is important, as it makes attacks that affect whole stacks more effective in MoO.
**Space combat naturally segues into invasion, if troop ships are present. OTOH one can invade without warship support. There's no natural boundary.
**The old space combat text makes important points: only in orbit (contrast SE III, where one can intercept); class=stack clearer; space combat defaults to hands-on; etc. NB in this type of context "strategic combat" generally means "resolved automatically", so I'd avoid that phrase or anything like it.
**Clarify "hostile" planet; otherwise in this context it could be interpreted as "enemy-occupied".
I'll look at "Tech" tomorrow later to-day, then move forward. Philcha (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on Philcha's edits 4 June 2008

message: On looking at this again for the first time in quite a while, I felt both the most recent and the older versions were too terse to be informative to a newcomer. In addition to making the content more explicit:
*Computers boost spies (this is particularly important for the technologically-challenged Silicoids).
*Construction techs do not decrease costs of ships or bases (except for miniaturisation, which benefits only ships). 
*In Force Fields there are 2 systems that make it harder to hit ships: Cloaking Device and Displacement Device.
*Planetology techs do not improve the happiness of citizens (MoO has no concept of happiness, unlike many other 4X games), and the productivity improvements are reductions in pollution control costs.
*The manual emphasises the importance of ship range increases in the early game.
*Weapons techs may provide specific longer-ranged weapons, but even at the top end most "beam" weapons have very limited range. OTOH High Energy Focus (in Propulsion!) improves the range of all "beam" weapons.
*I've mainly restored the previous phrasing for research management as I think it was simpler and clearer.
*I've cut the details of how the game determines when a research project is completed (interest; factors influencing probability) - I think it will overload newcomers, and in practice it doesn't affect how a player manages research as one learns to rely on rules of thumb.
*Miniaturisation effect (not a separate tech), which applies to all techs and benefits ships (but not bases). I've deliberately left out the consequence that using your 2nd-best level of component often gives more bang for the buck, as that's too much like a strategy guide. Philcha (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on Philcha's "Tech tree" edits 5 June 1008

message: Since WLU and I have different views on the amount of detail that should be presented, we'd better discuss this first.
The whole article says too litle about espionage, sabotage and defense against these. Since these ar emamamged via the "Races" (diplomacy) menu and can affect inter-race relations, I'd include them in "diplomacy". Might want to mention "you were framed" (blamed for another race's spying).
I'd also move the generic parts of diplomacy further up, on my usual principle of establishing the general framework before describing specific variations. The addition of espionage, sabotage and counter-intel will mkae this a decent section. My inclination would be to place it just before "Technology", which refers to spying and tech trades. In fact the more I look at it the more I think we need to re-examine the order of sections in general.
The big issue is how much detail we should present about racial advantages / disadvantages, likely patterns of behaviour and pre-defined relationships between races.
The description of leaders' behaviour patterns omits the distinction between most common and alternate values of both personality and policy objective, the way this can cause game so vary from fairly peaceful to near-constant war even when the same races are present.
Even if we aim for a similar level of detail to the present version's (which I think would be excessive), the "Species type" column must go: the manual does not contain the word "species" or any equivalent, nor does Sirian's site; the concept is an illegitimate retcon from MOO 3'. The mention of "prototype" is equally illegitimate.
The table of races attempts to present all the information in the manual, but in a highly-compressed form. I think it will overload and even bore new readers, and the degree of compression makes it harde rfor newcomers to understand / interpret (WLU, you'll have noticed this in abstracts of scientific papers - you have to  be fairly expert to understand a word of them). This problem is most severe in:
*The Psilon's research bonus. The current formulation severely "misunderestimates" their advantage. Their "Good" rating makes them 1.25 times as efficient as "standard" races per Research Point. But they also get 1.5 times as many RPs per BC invested in research. So their total research productivity, in all subjects, is 1.875, which is better than Excellent (1.667).
*Should mention that one's rating in each tech subject determines what % of the techs in that area one gets to research. This is not affected by the Psilons' 50% RPs bonus, so for example they will see fewer Propulsion options than the Alkari.
*The different industrial advantages of Klackons & Meklars. It's simpler to say that the Klackons' advantage is greatest at new colonies and gets them going faster, while the Meklars' gives them a higher production ceiling at well-developed colonies - so much that, while the Meklar have weaknesses, they're the 2nd most likely race to become a late-game juggernaut (after the Psilons). Sirian provides a ref for this.
*The different space combat advantages of the Mrrshans and Alkaris, and their effect on ship initiative (who gets to shoot first).
The table of prefined diplomatic relationships copies the one in the manual, but without the supporting info - particulary the meanings of "Unease", "Wary" and "Restless". It would be better to summarise this in a few sentences, e.g.:
:The Humans are on moderately good terms with all other races, and are the only race that has such good relations with others. The Mrrshans and Alkaris are spoiling for a fight with each other. The relationship between the Mrrshans and Sakkras is only slightly better. Most other races regard the Darloks with some disfavor.
:(Yes, "spoiling for a fight" is colloquial, but it's also concise and accurate)
Philcha (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this level of detail is really passing what any general purpose encyclopedia needs, and approaches game guide levels.   I would simply have a short -- short paragraph discussing espionage, race relations, and diplomacy and its overall relation to gameplay.  We absolutely should not be including detailed descriptions of how the races relate to each other, specific tech bonuses, etc.   My $0.02.  Nandesuka (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much time to comment today, other articles are drawing my ire benevolant gaze.  I'd be most inclined to expand the page as we're doing now to be comprehensive and informative, then start negotiating shorter, less 'manual'-like summaries and moving away from high specifics.  Laying out the maximum detail means the greatest care can be taken in summarizing.  WLU (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Races and Diplomacy

message: I sympathise with the desire to make this more concise, but am not at all happy with the result:
*"Planet ... type determines a planet's maximum population ..." is inaccurate. There is a statistical relationship between planet type and size, but it is size that determines maximum population.
*"Planet size ... determines a planet's ... ultimate industrial potential" is also inaccurate. A fully-terraformed, fully industrialized small ultra-rich planet will build ships and defenses faster than a fully-terraformed, fully industrialized large mineral-normal planet.
IMO it would  have been better to keep the previous version, but with some details removed or reduced, e.g. 
:::The software generates a map randomly at the start of each game; the player's only influence over the map generator is the ability to choose the size of the galaxy and the number of AI opponents.  Star systems have at most one colonizable planet and a few have none.  Planets vary in four ways:
Mineral wealth	Productivity in factory, defense and ship construction
Ultra-poor    	33%
Poor          	50%
Normal        	100%
Rich          	200%
Ultra-rich    	300%
:::* Mineral wealth, which dramatically influences its industrial productivity when building or upgrading factories, building or upgrading defenses and building ships; mineral wealth has no impact on the productivity of research nor of ecological improvements (pollution control, terraforming, etc.). The impact of mineral wealth  on factory, defense and ship construction is dramatic.
:::* Planet size, which determines the planet's population capacity. This can be at least doubled by various kinds of terraforming.The manual identifies 3 ways of upgrading planets: Terraforming, which increases population capacity by a fixed amount at each tech level (+ 120 for the top level), irrespective of the planet's initial population capacity; Soil Enrichment, which increases the population growth rate by up to 100% and the population capacity by up to 50% of the planet's initial size, depending on the tech level; and Atmospheric Terraforming, which converts hostile planets to normal ones, and is a prerequisite for Soil Enrichment on planets which are initially hostile. Apart from the restriction that Soil Enrichment is impossible on planets that are still hostile, the costs and benefits of Terraforming and Soil Enrichment are independent of the planet's type.
:::* There are a few Artifact worlds containing technology left by contain relics of  a now-vanished advanced civilization. These relics double research productivity and usually provide a free technology advance to the first empire to discoverthat discovers the planet, and double research productivity of a colony there. On Orion the conquering raceThe first race to conquer Orion receives four advances and research productivity is quadrupled. the planet's research productivity is four times a normal planet's.
:::* Habitability, which influences population growth rates.  Fertile planets increase growth rates by 50% and Gaia planets by 100%, while "hostile" planets halve them. There are 13 types of planet, of which 7 can be colonized with the starting technologies while 6 are "hostile" and require increasingly advanced technology to colonize (the research cost for the technology to colonize Radiated planets is 37 times greater than that of the technology to colonize Barren planets). This has the effect of extending the exploration and colonization phases of MoO for much longer than in most 4X games. There is a relationship between planet type and initial population capacity, but it is not universal and merely affects the probability that a planet will be of a particular size - for example on average "Terran" planets are, for the most part, larger than "Ocean" planets, but exceptions occur. In similar fashion hostile planets are on average richer in minerals, but this is by no means universal. Ultimately all planets can be upgraded to Gaia class with the appropriate technologies, increasing their population capacity and therefore their industrial potential as well as growth rate.
In any case shortening this section is not a priority, as the length and detail of the "Races" has been criticised by an independent reader. Philcha (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lemme try and merge, then see what you think.  Overall the page straddles an uncomfortable gap of either needing more detail to be truly comprehensive or less detial to be reasonably descriptive without being howto-ish.  WLU (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but avoid changing the logic of what I've written. The points I raised above indicate how difficult it is to write about a game that you haven't played much, because you don't have experience looking over your shoulder and catching errors quickly. Philcha (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to keep looking back and forth.  Have a gander at what I've tried to do; in particular look at how I'm trying to deal with the size/type isse.  I still think the 13 types would be good to have now that I've read what Sirian had to say about the size range/planet type but that's one of those exess detail things.  Now that the page has expanded and become somewhat more comprehensive, my natural instinct is to try to start paring down the sections to essential, but less specific levels of detail.  Also have a look at what I've done with footnote 14, the discussion of planet upgrades.  I'd like to see that and other 'comments' taken out of the footnotes and perhaps put in a separate section that's not references (see Tourette_syndrome#Notes - I didn't even know this was possible until a while ago).  I like the statment about size and type currently leading the planet size bullet, vague yet accurate.  It misses Sirian and the manual's statements about all 13 types being on a range, but since there's nothing directly citable this is vague enough to satisfy me.  The industry/mineral richness thing is a bitch since factories and defences can be upgraded but ships can't, yet all their build rates are affected by richness.  I don't want to do a build ships/factories/defences and upgrade factories/defences as ugly and lengthy.  More tweaking, please look and please keep suggesting or edit directly.  WLU (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The part of the articles that most needs work at present is the "Races" section, as per independent commnet above. Philcha (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Races is done, it's much shorter, much less specific, and the interactions have been take out (though look at this section, this version, at the bottom - ; races are in an autocollapsed box).  I still think the table with race, type, advantage, tech info and diplomatic tendency is a very good way of compactly including a precise, informativem, accurate and tidy block of information about the races.  I tried appending the race relations box to the end of the table and it worked but I'm not married to it.  WLU (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit of "Planets" section

message: There is a unofficial Fan-Made Patch avaliable, it may be worth mentioning in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.116.89 (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial Fan-Made Patch 

message: I found this text commented out in the article with the comment "I can't believe this."
: **** I can't believe this.
:At the start of the first turn each player can see the locations of all other stars but only the planet in its home system. Each starts with one colony ship and two scouts., ****
Was this removed simply because the editor in question "couldn't believe it"? The statement is 100% true, as far as I can see, and that is blatantly obvious from simply starting a new game. You can see every star on the map, but every one except your home system is marked as "Not explored" when you select it, so you cannot see any of the planets except your own home. The colony ship and 2 scouts is also trivially easy to confirm as true (which it is). I can understand that it does need a citation, but otherwise I'm not sure what is so unbelievable about this? Cecilkorik (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was this removed

message: So, they've done it again, just like SimCity two years back. I suggest that the naming convention determined for that case be used again here, i.e. we make the original MoO have the year in parentheses and redirect the words "Master of Orion" to the series' page.99.199.197.6 (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New game, same dilemma 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Master of Orion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421020523/http://archive.gamespy.com/interviews/february02/moo3/ to http://archive.gamespy.com/interviews/february02/moo3/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505052831/http://games.ign.com/halloffame/civilization.html to http://games.ign.com/halloffame/civilization.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104104413/http://uk.top100.ign.com/2003/91-100.html to http://uk.top100.ign.com/2003/91-100.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051113215729/http://www.gamespot.com/features/6132108/index.html to http://www.gamespot.com/features/6132108/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Master of Orion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080607055833/http://www.consimworld.com/newsroom/story/0701/070401emrich.html to http://www.consimworld.com/newsroom/story/0701/070401emrich.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160327131135/http://jonsullivan.com/misc/moo.pdf to http://www.jonsullivan.com/misc/moo.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What are the criteria for listing a weapon type under the "Weapons" section?  It makes sense for special weapons to be treated separately, but among normal weapons the current version separates out bombs and biological weapons only, with no real explanation for why only one of the four basic weapon types (bombs of beam weapons, missiles, torpedoes, and bombs) deserves special treatment.  Furthermore, the heading structure misleadingly implies that biological weapons are not bombs.  My attempts to establish some parity were rebuffed, so I would appreciate some clarity on the matter.  166.181.80.60 (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The gameplay section is already too long, and the section on weapons should be removed and replaced with a 1-2 sentence summary. Waxworker (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of Subsections under "Weapons"