From what I've seen you do not seem to any control over what happens on-screen. Tactical turn-based combat was such a huge part of MOO 2. What were they thinking.

Pretty much this.

Anyone know why they decided to go the route they have chosen in this regard?.. there is a saying about dont fix what isnt broken (and lets face it... turn based facets of Moo/Moo2 were one of the main reasons why they are so great).

Just guessing here but probably because turn based is "slow", "clunky" and is an "outdated mechanic" which doesn't appeal to the modern gamer. Look at several gaming forums discussing game mechanics in old turn based games and you'll see these 3 points mentioned a lot.

The clearest example I can give is the original Fallout games. Modern gamers have these complaints with these games because the combat isn't exciting enough. Of course they completely missed the point that the original Fallouts were great because of the atmosphere, dialog choices and immersion, not because of the combat. Try to explain this to a modern gamer, they'll just tilt their heads and go "huh, this sucks, I wanna blow shit up."

Edit: On a slighty unrelated note, finding a red/blue/yellow blue in FPS games to unlock the corresponding door is also an "outdated mechanic" which is rather funny because in modern gaming, coloured keys are simply replaced with objectives. It's now pick up the documents, weapon prototype etc to unlock the next objective (which a quest compass points to) which on a fundamental level is exactly the game. The "archaic key mechanic" is still in modern gaming, it just has a different coat of paint that no one seems to notice.

Maybe I'm too pessimistic but seriously, lurk on other gaming forums and you'll start to see patterns on how the modern gamers brain works. Modern gaming is all about being fast and flashy, everything turn based isn't.

That's a general problem MOO 1 & 2 had though. The micromanagement, especially in part two, becomes ever more tidious as the game goes on, across the board. But the sensible answer to that in a sequel is not to jettison all the game play systems and replace them with something else, but to iterate and improve on them. Moo 1 & 2's game play systems are, beside the late game tediousnous, really solid. That is why they are classics and still fun to play today. There's many, many games from that area that don't hold up as well. Messing around with those core elements is likely to spell disaster as a game that carries the same name and the expectation of a classic series.

The inportant bit is that the turn based combat system is integral to MOO 1 & 2 working. Quite a number of the technologies you research and quite a number of the racial picks ONLY work in the context of a turn-based system. Games aren't arbitrarily thrown together ideas, but such a core decision as to how something works on a mechanic basis influences the whole. Pick that apart and you end up having to alter and change huge parts of other mechanics and game play elements and you are in danger of creating something utterly botched..

It's not just a hogwash concern. Especially given that Master of Orion 3 is probably the most pertinent example of developers failing to appreciate that and it all turning into disaster. With the result that MoO, unlike Civilisation, series, stopped getting further iterations and refinement over the years. See also all the aborted attempts at re-doing Jagged Alliance, often by abandoning turned based combat, with not a single one coming together as well or living up to the prescedent of the earlier games.

And again, this is not about failing to recognise the weaknesses of the original MOO games. Just a weariness about developers choping and changing, rather than re-iterating and improving the formular of a classic series. If you want a clean slate start with one. It'll do your own, different game much good, too. As it'll be free of the expectations you shoulder with a classic license and judged on it's own merit.

Pretty disappointing if they are making the changes to just appeal to modern gamers so to say.So many of us played games from years ago when turn based was more appealing, and even the last few years turn based has made a come back first via crowdfunded games ---> people can say the demand is there for turn based and its wanted by many older gamers. Changing the game mechanics for a very classic game to appeal to modern gamers is a massive gamble by the devs.

It's very risky to take an established title and make it More Accessible™.

Take Thief 4 (aka Teef) as an example. It ended up pleasing mostly no one and has quickly faded away - while the 1st two, and somewhat the 3rd (and <i>The Dark Mod</i>) and still pleasing gamers everyday.

Ofc many publishers these days want obsolescence built into their product; because they believe it will keep the rabid gotta have it now and it's gotta be fast crowd spending coin on the next "it isn't going to be out for years but spend $50 today for it!" projected hit.

But that isn't the only "crowd" out there; and they chance losing their "base" crowd by making such changes.

Who knows where NGD Studios falls in all that - time will tell.

I'm just saying they're taking a big risk. Hope it works out for them. I myself couldn't see dropping $50 on an alpha; but hey, if it works for them, go for it.

We do not have a glocal world yet. Just try to physically move something (a person or a good) and you will see there are still lots of borders all around.

For example: South Korea could forbid all its citizens to make business with GOG accuse GOG of breaching Korean law and demand compensations. How well they can control it is probably another matter. It's probably much more difficult but not impossible if you really want it as the example China shows. One possible angle of intercepting this would be for example at the transaction level. You could (if you wanted to) order Paypal/Visa/... to stop moving money from any Korean account to GOG, otherwise threatening their business in Korea. And even if GOG is not present in Korea, Paypal and Visa is.

And I think it makes still sense. As long as you have national borders and different laws it makes sense to respect them.

Simple. GoG is not in South Korea so they can say what they like. They can rant and rave. GoG is only answerable to Poland. If it is electronic, geoblocking is profligate. Gog is not situated in Korea therefore only it's CITIZENS are breaching the law the onus is on the buyer.

You can't blame a shop in another country if you go buy something. The argument is futile.

Multiplayer, maybe? Turn based tactical combat is fun, but it takes AGES, especially if there is a combat between 2 players and you are the 3rd player who is waiting without even seeing the battle.
The only alternative I see is "no tactical combat during MP games", which is a solution used by some games, but not always very satisfying when the tactical battles are a selling point of the game like in MoO 2.

That said, I don't know how the new MoO handles MP games (since I'm only into singleplayer)

I am not complaining but I am weary; with reason given the other examples given. Especially in the case of Master of Orion and the history of the game series. If they manage to pull something decent off more power to them; but by buying the MoO license they'll have to do a lot of work convincing me they understand that. Deepsilver who were the last to try didn't understand that.

[And I am defending MoO3 - you'll find that here on GOG in the past a little - as a game on it's own quite frequently. I thought it had tremendous potential. But as a MoO game it failed - with really bad consequences for the MoO series, which turned a 'toxic' brand after.]

And again - no the combat wasn't the core of the game play of MOO, but the way combat works heavily influences other aspects of the game play. Quite a number of the Racial Picks; quite a number of the technologies you develop only really make sense in a turn-based aspect. You cannot pick apart gameplay mechanics of such a solid game by just switching them out.

Here is some feedback on Early Release.

1. Need longer than 500 turns!
2. Computer Opponents don't seem to build Battleships, Titans or Doomstars.
3. Doomstar isn't epic enough. (Make it have more weapons, structure and cost more, there are only one per empire!
4. Missile weapons rule, there definitely needs to be a limit on them.
5. I'm having a hard time noticing a difference between the races, except for Psilons.
6. Tech gets way to fast to learn after the early stage of game.(Psilons just make it sillier)
7. Different political/economic models would have been nice (Feudal, dictatorship, Democracy, freemaket, mercantilism etc)
8. Pollution is annoying as is, but does give Uber-planet race a definite advantage.
9. Cut screen victory, defeat Orion were very meh. I was hoping more effort would have been put into them.
10. Interstellar travel is a chore, especially in a large sized galaxy. Engines only effect combat speeds so jumping around space takes forever, late stage in the game and ships can take 26 turns to go from one end of empire to the other(This may actually be cool as it demands that I have multiple fleets and can't just concentrate myself into one grand fleet like in old MOO.)
11 Need more Techs, what happened to Warp interdictors.
12 Uber Planet races shouldn't have the terra/Gaia conversion option on their Uber Planets!
13 Tactical combat needs a turned based option with an easy interface to switch between ships and switch between weapon and special systems!
14 Diplomacy with the AI seems very hard to establish and maintain agreements.
15. Seems more in tune with Master of Orion 1 than 2. Master of Orion 1 was a great game but the developers should remember that 2 was the masterpiece of 4x gaming. (At this point I think a majority of 4x agree on this , so I no longer consider it just an opinion, it's just the way it is. 20 years later and all the tech and gaming changes since it's initial release and I still know hordes of people still regularly play MOO2.) LEADERS! The game needs mercenary Leaders for your ships and colonies!
16. Should be a way to change/swap default race empire colors and design of ships!
17 . Rename star systems, and it would be nice if we could assign name to individual ships. Cruiser IV (Defiant) Cruiser IV(Enterprise) etc
18. XP for ships. (Different levels give bonuses to offense/defense/speed/initiative This with the ability to give ships individual names or rename them (Each ship should have a formal class type name and then an individual name option that carries over when you upgrade the class/type Cruiser IV *Elite Crew (Defiant) becomes Cruiser V *Elite Crew (Defiant) after upgrade)

No. Stop the bullshit now please.

Real time combat? Pass. Sigh

Is More Accessible an actual game cause of the trademark?