It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I was one of the gullible fools who bought MoO3 back when it first released, and was at it's most expernsive.
What a waste of good money.

One of the things like made it unplayable was the fact the AI simply did nothing. AI factions never actually "gave you a game", they'd all gang up and declare war on the player, but then never send a even a single ship at you - but their crass turtling did make it difficult to take their planets - so there was some kind of challenge in that.

I ended up buying it for mere beer money here on GOG a while back. Kind of just "for completeness" when I got MoO 1 and MoO 2. I used to have the original disks for all of them ages ago - but they've all disappeared to places unknown since!

Finally tried it yesterday, and was pleased at first, now the AI was showing "some balls" - it was beligerent and did attack!

Trouble is as I "progressed" (if you can call it that) I soon realised that MoO3 has only gone from one extreme to the other. Now it is a gang bang of EVERYONE vs you, and they all cheat. PROFANELY. By turn 80 I was constantly being attacked by fleets twice the size and double the tech level of mine - but the very OP missile bases etc did hold 'em off.
By turn 120 they were sending fleets TEN times the size of anything I could muster even over dozens of turns - and they were all insanely more tech advanced too. Eg, just one corvette sized AI ship could wipe out ten of my cruiser sized ships without even a dent. I was seeing my ships do things like "1","1","1","2" to them. They were doing things like "50", "100", "500" to my ships. And of course, my OP missiles bases - well, not so OP anymore.

Was I on "impossible" difficulty level?

No.

This was on "EASY"!

"Easy" on MoO3 is now even more HUUURRDURRRR than "Impossible" on "MoO 1 and 2"!
I absolutely HATE this kind of unfair approach.

"Easy" should be EASY! And if you want it to be a pisstakingly impossible experience, that's what "Impossible" is for!

The espionage parts are still a complete disgrace too. AI spies constantly wreak havoc through my empire, now matter how many spies I have on "interal security". ALL spies I send to their empires, dead, very next turn, without fail.
Same as it was 20 years ago. Back then I found a way to make it take 1000 turns to train spies. Effectively putting an end to espionage aspect of the game...... though the AI still kept trying to make them.

So MoO3 is STILL unplayable garbage it seems even after two decades.

Unless of course, I was "doing it wrong"...... well, you can suggest what I might have been doing wrong if you like, but I don't think I should waste any more time polishing this turd.
Post edited October 11, 2021 by JMayer70
Thanks for sharing. (It sounds like you needed that rant to prevent cardiac damage. :)

I have never played the third game, so I will be interested to see if anyone has a solution for you. I hate games that cheat, too. It always seems to be a lazy option, especially from the developers —— who should know how to school novice and experienced players, alike. (Ideally a "Zero player" option, as utilized in the classic War Games movie, should teach a beginner how to play the game, just as reading the combat log after a battle in the Baldur's Gate games helps to understand how to cast spells and what damage is done by different monsters, etc.)

Now I recommend you play the first or second game, just to remind yourself why you bothered with the third game at all.
avatar
scientiae: I hate games that cheat, too. It always seems to be a lazy option, especially from the developers —— who should know how to school novice and experienced players, alike.
avatar
scientiae: Now I recommend you play the first or second game, just to remind yourself why you bothered with the third game at all.
Why do you recommend him to play some games that you do hate? You hate that poor guy too, not only games?
avatar
DarzaR: Why do you recommend him to play some games that you do hate? You hate that poor guy too, not only games?
I have both the first two games and I like them. It is only the third game that sucks. :)
avatar
scientiae: I have both the first two games and I like them. It is only the third game that sucks. :)
Status of them being or not in your possession is irrelevant for it. Knowledge of suckiness of a game you have never played by your very own words is on a borderline of being doubtful. But actual deal is that both MOO1 and MOO2 perfectly fit into your own category of:
avatar
scientiae: I hate games that cheat, too. It always seems to be a lazy option, especially from the developers —— who should know how to school novice and experienced players, alike.
, they essentially a games that cheat, and created by lazy, but self-aware developers (for example they even used words "AI cheats" in their inner documentation); ergo you hate those 2 games. Yet now you do a quite contradictory claim that you like them. It seems you developed some odd hate-like relationships with those 2 games, so it results in ambiguity of advice.

Slightly unrelated, i wonder if those things are have some interconnection:
avatar
JMayer70: One of the things like made it unplayable was the fact the AI simply did nothing. AI factions never actually "gave you a game", they'd all gang up and declare war on the player, but then never send a even a single ship at you - but their crass turtling did make it difficult to take their planets - so there was some kind of challenge in that.
avatar
JMayer70: The espionage parts are still a complete disgrace too. AI spies constantly wreak havoc through my empire, now matter how many spies I have on "interal security". ALL spies I send to their empires, dead, very next turn, without fail.
Same as it was 20 years ago. Back then I found a way to make it take 1000 turns to train spies. Effectively putting an end to espionage aspect of the game...... though the AI still kept trying to make them.
This part is quite odd too:
avatar
JMayer70: "Easy" on MoO3 is now even more HUUURRDURRRR than "Impossible" on "MoO 1 and 2"
"Impossible" of MOO2 is extremely easy, despite all the AI cheating there, so i dont see a problem with it, it should fit "Easy" difficulty definition pretty fine. On the other hand, "Impossible" of MOO1 is rather relatively hard indeed, so putting them together clearly show he just have a very vaguely idea of thats hes trying to say about.
Post edited October 13, 2021 by DarzaR
MoO 1&2 cheat?! No reeeally? (Yes they cheat.) Like the free colony ships the AI receives which is a huge help for them if they can reach a lot of planets early.

I never managed to finish a game of MoO3. Even if I try to play it occasionally I just get this urge to switch to another game like GalCiv or FreeOrion or one of the two first MoO games. I like the map in MoO3 though even if not that fond of the space lanes.
avatar
JMayer70: I was one of the gullible fools who bought MoO3 back when it first released, and was at it's most expernsive.
What a waste of good money.

One of the things like made it unplayable was the fact the AI simply did nothing. AI factions never actually "gave you a game", they'd all gang up and declare war on the player, but then never send a even a single ship at you - but their crass turtling did make it difficult to take their planets - so there was some kind of challenge in that.

I ended up buying it for mere beer money here on GOG a while back. Kind of just "for completeness" when I got MoO 1 and MoO 2. I used to have the original disks for all of them ages ago - but they've all disappeared to places unknown since!

Finally tried it yesterday, and was pleased at first, now the AI was showing "some balls" - it was beligerent and did attack!

Trouble is as I "progressed" (if you can call it that) I soon realised that MoO3 has only gone from one extreme to the other. Now it is a gang bang of EVERYONE vs you, and they all cheat. PROFANELY. By turn 80 I was constantly being attacked by fleets twice the size and double the tech level of mine - but the very OP missile bases etc did hold 'em off.
By turn 120 they were sending fleets TEN times the size of anything I could muster even over dozens of turns - and they were all insanely more tech advanced too. Eg, just one corvette sized AI ship could wipe out ten of my cruiser sized ships without even a dent. I was seeing my ships do things like "1","1","1","2" to them. They were doing things like "50", "100", "500" to my ships. And of course, my OP missiles bases - well, not so OP anymore.

Was I on "impossible" difficulty level?

No.

This was on "EASY"!

"Easy" on MoO3 is now even more HUUURRDURRRR than "Impossible" on "MoO 1 and 2"!
I absolutely HATE this kind of unfair approach.

"Easy" should be EASY! And if you want it to be a pisstakingly impossible experience, that's what "Impossible" is for!

The espionage parts are still a complete disgrace too. AI spies constantly wreak havoc through my empire, now matter how many spies I have on "interal security". ALL spies I send to their empires, dead, very next turn, without fail.
Same as it was 20 years ago. Back then I found a way to make it take 1000 turns to train spies. Effectively putting an end to espionage aspect of the game...... though the AI still kept trying to make them.

So MoO3 is STILL unplayable garbage it seems even after two decades.

Unless of course, I was "doing it wrong"...... well, you can suggest what I might have been doing wrong if you like, but I don't think I should waste any more time polishing this turd.
Can you tell me which race you were using and which races attacked you. In moo3 there is a constant war between reptiles and fish and generally this war is the main theme of every game. Or you may have chosen the Ithkul who are hated and feared by all other races.
Hi Giskarrd

I was playing as the Humans, my neighbours were the Ithkul. Despite their immediate declaration of war they weren't the problem. It was the other neighbours the Trilarians and Silicoids, despite no declaration of war (good relations with the Trilarians actually) they kept on sending fleets of 100+ ships to attack my outlying systems. I could barely cobble together fleets of 20 ships even at maximum shipbuilding effort. Their techs were a good "10 - 20 levels" ahead of mine too. They didn't seem to have many more planets than me neither. Certainly seemed they were getting a big AI cheat boost to industry and research. I would not mind if I was on "hard" or "impossible" difficulty. The AI cheats is what makes them that. But this was "easy", they should actually have AI handicaps on that IMO, not cheaty boosts.

Back in 2003 MoO3 never did this kind of ultra-aggressive behaviour - but that also was one of the reasons MoO3 was a turd back then. The opposition never did anything at all!
Post edited October 24, 2021 by JMayer70
avatar
JMayer70: Hi Giskarrd

I was playing as the Humans, my neighbours were the Ithkul. Despite their immediate declaration of war they weren't the problem. It was the other neighbours the Trilarians and Silicoids, despite no declaration of war (good relations with the Trilarians actually) they kept on sending fleets of 100+ ships to attack my outlying systems. I could barely cobble together fleets of 20 ships even at maximum shipbuilding effort. Their techs were a good "10 - 20 levels" ahead of mine too. They didn't seem to have many more planets than me neither. Certainly seemed they were getting a big AI cheat boost to industry and research. I would not mind if I was on "hard" or "impossible" difficulty. The AI cheats is what makes them that. But this was "easy", they should actually have AI handicaps on that IMO, not cheaty boosts.

Back in 2003 MoO3 never did this kind of ultra-aggressive behaviour - but that also was one of the reasons MoO3 was a turd back then. The opposition never did anything at all!
I'm sorry but I haven't played moo3 for a long time unfortunately and I can't be of much help to you. Maybe the other races are attacking you because they consider you weak militarily or you are entering their space with your ships and this usually angers them. On the technological research gap I can only advise you to direct your planets to the construction of research DEAs through the development plan and if you no longer have free slots on your planets, build them manually by replacing other DEAs.
I can't think of anything else but keep in mind that moo3 has a very steep learning curve and sometimes games are impossible to win even on an easy level.
avatar
Themken: MoO 1&2 cheat?! No reeeally? (Yes they cheat.) Like the free colony ships the AI receives […]
I know, right?

I like these two games and they are cheaters, but the cheating is manageable. (The game is fun to play and I can beat the game.) For another example, if I were to compete against a child by calculating arithmetic, I would not mind if they used a pencil and paper, say, whilst I was restricted solely to mental activity.
avatar
scientiae: I have both the first two games and I like them. It is only the third game that sucks. :)
avatar
DarzaR: [1] Status of them being or not in your possession is irrelevant for it. Knowledge of suckiness of a game you have never played by your very own words is on a borderline of being doubtful. But actual deal is that both MOO1 and MOO2 perfectly fit into your own category of:
да, you're right I don't have personal confirmation that the third game sucks, but I believe those (many posters) who have said same and I feel no compunction to confirm this for myself. Word-of-mouth is a robust and reliable form of warning, lest why would anyone post / read product reviews and testimonials? (With the obvious counter argument against the fallibility of witness accounts because of bias and imperfect recollection, both of which can be controlled for in most calculations.)
avatar
scientiae: I hate games that cheat, too. It always seems to be a lazy option, especially from the developers —— who should know how to school novice and experienced players, alike.
avatar
DarzaR: , they essentially a games that cheat, and created by lazy, but self-aware developers (for example they even used words "AI cheats" in their inner documentation); ergo you hate those 2 games. Yet now you do a quite contradictory claim that you like them. It seems you developed some odd hate-like relationships with those 2 games, so it results in ambiguity of advice.
That's a faulty syllogism.

You are inferring that I hate ALL games that cheat. (In fact, to be perfectly correct, I should have worded my displeasure as a hatred of the fact that the game/s cheat, rather than hating the games, per se.) Civilization 2 was also renown for cheating, but I played that game obsessively, back in the day. (The AI was so poor that it had to cheat because there was insufficient algorithmic savvy to create an opponent worthy of the competition.)

Certainly, I would prefer that the developers create a system that provides a perfect model universe for the game, but I also understand that this is a high bar for them to meet. Ideally, as I said, the game should be able "to school novice and experienced players, alike [… using the game engine without any modifications, or cheats]". (And I might prefer this simply because it is what I would want to create, should I have made the game.)

I might be persuaded that this ideal scenario, however, was correctly identified by the "self-aware developers" as an instance of the perfect being the enemy of the good. The creation of artificial intelligence sufficient to compete in a game is non-trivial. So perhaps it might have been achieved for these games, but at what cost? The loss of some other part/s of the game that might, on balance, be more important —— more fun to play. (It's a counter-factual argument, so we will never know.)
avatar
scientiae: I like these two games and they are cheaters, but the cheating is manageable. (The game is fun to play and I can beat the game.) For another example, if I were to compete against a child by calculating arithmetic, I would not mind if they used a pencil and paper, say, whilst I was restricted solely to mental activity.
avatar
DarzaR: [1] Status of them being or not in your possession is irrelevant for it. Knowledge of suckiness of a game you have never played by your very own words is on a borderline of being doubtful. But actual deal is that both MOO1 and MOO2 perfectly fit into your own category of:
avatar
scientiae: да, you're right I don't have personal confirmation that the third game sucks, but I believe those (many posters) who have said same and I feel no compunction to confirm this for myself. Word-of-mouth is a robust and reliable form of warning, lest why would anyone post / read product reviews and testimonials? (With the obvious counter argument against the fallibility of witness accounts because of bias and imperfect recollection, both of which can be controlled for in most calculations.)
I said its on borderline of being doubtful already, why you think you had to provide another example of? For you, moo2 cheating is is "manageable", but there are lamers who never learned even basics of it, yet claim its due to horribly unfair cheats of it (roughly stuff like OP does). Add to it that those people often also try to talk about game (its not only about game ofc, just our example is about them from a start) to others, despite know little of it, and youll get all full Dunner-Krueger stuff, that you somewhy call a "robust and reliable form of warning" instead. Due to they own ignorance, unknown to them, such people could claim things like "Impossible in moo2 is nearly unwinnable, cos AI cheat", then change it to somethings like "I won Antarans in T180, its exceptional achievement!" when theyll become slightly better and so on. And its a purely wishful feeling it could be controlled, as its not something that come from evil, people do spread false stuff cos they believe it and trying to be helpful too. And you also add some own example about how hard its to control, with own confession that you're just retranslate other's claims about game, while never bothered to even check them prior, "its right because some guy wrote so somewhere".

Ill even post a good actual quote from other forum, becase its seems as a good example, and because story eventually went better than usual there, and author surprisinaly managed to read other's word and improved alittle.
"Impossible is always a role of the dice, it's called impossible for a reason. There surely will be some blow hard full of ♥♥♥♥ person who says i win on impossible every time, yeah right. Any way it really depends on your play style. I would play to your strengths in your design, then see how many points you have left over if any. If you do have some points left try to fix some of the areas you are strugling with, say money? food? Science? Experiement, that's why you have a race design option in this game in the first place. I wish you well in the wars to come."
Easy to see how gut starts with credentials "im lamer, i even think Impossible is really hard in moo2 (the cheating is not manageable. for him), contrary to some claims of others", but not just stops there, he ridiculously offers some "help" to others. And now think about somebody, who never played moo2 yet, and read it? He could even start moo2 and, well, "confirm" it, by losing to AI (because he didnt learned how to play it yet). Should that somebody went further and retranslate it your way?

avatar
DarzaR: , they essentially a games that cheat, and created by lazy, but self-aware developers (for example they even used words "AI cheats" in their inner documentation); ergo you hate those 2 games. Yet now you do a quite contradictory claim that you like them. It seems you developed some odd hate-like relationships with those 2 games, so it results in ambiguity of advice.
avatar
scientiae: That's a faulty syllogism.
You are inferring that I hate ALL games that cheat. (In fact, to be perfectly correct, I should have worded my displeasure as a hatred of the fact that the game/s cheat, rather than hating the games, per se.) Civilization 2 was also renown for cheating, but I played that game obsessively, back in the day. (The AI was so poor that it had to cheat because there was insufficient algorithmic savvy to create an opponent worthy of the competition.)
You had some bad wording with it, and maybe you wrote not that you actually think, i fully understand. Just it looked very silly and funny when you started to "i never played the game you're about, but see how i will contradict my own claims about other game with similar name". I didnt really meant you intentionally lied in hope to inflict some malice to OP, but line of defense "yes, i did wrote it as if I hate ALL games that cheat, but take this counterexample of game that do cheat, but l like it instead, gotcha!!111" is pretty surreal, because its highlights essentially the stuff i was about initially: you either didnt knew those games do also cheat, so recommended them (it would mean you dont know that you're talkin about tho), or you knew they do cheat, yet still recommended them (that is definitely a lie, if performed intentionally)". Stuff like "yes, i knew they did cheat, but as i like they way they cheat, so i like them too, and even contradictorily recommend them to others straight after statement about hatred of the fact that the game/s cheat" is again essentially some stuff i called "hate-like relationships with those 2 games, so it results in ambiguity of advice", and you didnt moved at all from it, but somewhy re-confirmed instead.
Post edited November 29, 2021 by DarzaR