8/19/2019 Master Of Orion Spies
Master ofOrion | Table of Contents |Walkthrough
From StrategyWiki, the free strategy guide andwalkthrough wiki
Spying is one of the most important areas of the game to master.It is probably one of the hardest areas to master as well.
If you are able to infiltrate a spy into the enemy's empire, youinstantly get a completely up to date listing of everything theyhave researched so far in the game.
Again, as in G.I. Joe, knowing is half the battle. If you knowwhat they have, that is the first step in preparing to meet it inspace combat.
This advantage may not sound like much, but it is â especiallywhen you don't have to pay much to get it.
Speaking of not paying much to get it, the cost is fixed for theentire game. Early in the game it will take a lot more of yourproduction (in percentage terms) to train and insert one spy thanit will at the end of the game.
Spy spending is done on the basis of a percentage of galacticresources. Each click on the slider bar is 4% of the bar and theinfiltration bar for each race goes from 0% to 10% of galacticresources. It is not possible in the game to try to spend more than10% of the combined resources of all your planets to try and insertspies into a single enemy empire.
It is, however, possible that you spend the whole 10% for eachenemy race you have met. You are potentially able to spend morethan 50% of your entire resource base to try to insert spies if youwant to, but it is highly suggested that you do not do this.
Note: There is a defensive spying bar that ranges from 0% to 20%of total planetary resources. Spending in this bar adds double thepercent spent to your defensive spying rolls. If you spend 10% ofyour resources here you gain a + 20 to your defensive spying rollsthat turn.
Each of these bars has the potential to seriously seriously dragdown your economy, so think very hard about how much you spend onthem.
Some pros find that it is the best idea to pretty much alwaysput one and only one click into the spy bars of each race that youhave relations with at all times. Usually, this will allow you toget spies inserted often enough to stay relatively current on allof the races and even if you know 5 races the total spying expenseswould only be 2% of your total resource base.
To explain why this is, it would be a good idea to learn alittle bit more about how the spying system works.
Essentially, it works like this:
Instead of spies, it helps to think of your agents more ashackers, because that is what they really are. They are agents yourgovernment sponsors that try to steal technology 'over the wire'.Everything they do is done by computers.
The things they can do are:
If you tell your hackers to try to do #2 or #3 once they get in,they will attempt to cover their tracks as best they can on the wayout, by deleting or altering logs, but sometimes they will betraced before they can do so, if they are it is quite easy to tell,for the enemy empire, where the spy originated.
On the other hand, spies can have 'critical successes' as well.Sometimes the spy will not only be able to completely cover theirtracks, but instead of deleting the logs the hacker will alter themso that it looks like another race did the act and then essentiallylet themselves get caught, ensuring that the 'tracks' are found andthat the relationship between the two foreign empires involved aredirectly harmed.
As with everything else in this game, the results are governedby random rolls and associated modifiers. More specifically, thespying roll formula is:
In the above equation, you want the number to be as low aspossible, preferably below zero. To consistently succeed you wantto have as large of a lead in Computers compared to the enemy aspossible. If you are able to get technology level 40 in computerswhile your enemy is only at technology level 20, you get + 20 toall your spying rolls. The same thing applies if you can get totech level 60 when they are only at tech level 40. The relativedifference is the only thing that matters.
It goes backwards as well, if they have higher than you, it isgoing to be very hard for you to have any measurable success at allin terms of spying. If getting a number below zero is what you hopefor, you can't hope for too much if your lowest roll possible is a1 and then there is an addition to the roll rather than asubtraction.
The chart that determines the results of this roll is thefollowing
1 to 30 || | No || | Yes ||class='table-no2' | No
When reading the chart, you will notice that a successfulmission can only happen if the result on the roll is 50 or less(the only two entries with a 'Yes' in the Success column are thethree highest on the chart).
The rolls of 71 or higher always result in the access beingremoved and rolls of 70 or below never do.
Note: The access column under 'access removed' for 100+ is 'AllSpies Fail'. This doesn't mean all of their accesses get removed,just that the one caught is removed and no spies get any successthat year (if you have multiple infiltrated at the same time).
If any spies score a 'yes' under success during the year (thatgame turn) they get to make a second roll on the followingchart:
This roll is governed by a roll of 1 to 100 plus your computertech level. Basically, this means that any success at all is muchmore likely to result in a successful mission more and more oftenas the game goes along. If you make it to level 99 computertechnology, every single time you get south of 0 on the first rollyou will get a successful frame on the second roll. If youget any roll south of 50 on the first roll and you have at leastlevel 84 in computers, you can't possibly fail to have a successfulmission on the second roll.
These numbers aren't easy to get to, by any stretch, but I wantto clearly point out the difference between these two separaterolls. The first roll is always opposed. If the enemy has highertech than you then you are quite likely to fail and you fail moreevery time they widen the gap, and vice versa. The second chart,however, always gets better as the game goes on. There is nothingopposed about it, you just experience greater and greater successpercentages as the game goes along.
Spying at the end of the game, with the way these charts aredesigned, is always more successful than spying early on.
This coincides perfectly well with the percentage of resourcesrequired to insert a spy in the first place.
Specifically, the cost to insert an agent is the same all thetime, and it gets easier and easier to pay as the game goes along.As the relative cost to spy goes down, the relative chance ofsuccess goes up.
This brings you back around to why it is useful to always have 1tick in the spy bar for each race all the time and never to changeit.
At the beginning of the game, that one tick won't buy you awhole lot, but even if you succeed you probably won't get anythingof note anyway, so its not worth spending a whole lot to insertmore spies at this stage of the game anyway. If you get one spy inand hide it, the chances are likely that they will stay undetectedfor long periods of time, and this will give you up to date news onall of the enemy's technological advancements, which is the onlything you can really hope to gain with the spy at this stage of thegame anyway.
At the end of the game, that same 0.4% of galactic spending willoften buy you a chance of multiple inserts per turn and more thanlikely it will buy you lots of successes per turn if you do succeedand you are significantly ahead of the enemy in Computersresearch.
At no point in the game is it really worth spending huge amountson spying, because if it will be successful at all it is likely tobe successful at a very low cost to you anyway.
Not only that, but you slow down your own Computers research byspending huge portions of galactic resources on spying. It isbetter to spend the same 10% of galactic resources on learning thehighest level Computers technology that you have available and thenyou are better off both technologically AND in terms of spying,even though you only have a spending of 0.4% on the spy bar.
Essentially speaking, all spending above 0.4% of resources perrace is pretty much a waste at all stages of the game and doesnothing but harm you pretty much ever. It makes you worse offtechnologically and in producing warships and missile defenses and,generally speaking, the gain of adding more is negligibleregardless what stage you are at in the game.
Note: Pro Tip Material - If you are the type and patient, youcan mostly guarantee yourself spying success by saving the game andthen passing the turn with spies in the enemy empire and thenreloading the game if your spies don't succeed. This is all kindsof cheating and doesn't prove in any way that you are a goodplayer, but the option is available if you really want to have aspying success right at that moment.
Once you understand how the whole system works, it helps to geta little better understanding of how it plays into galacticpolitics.
One thing you generally want to be aware of is that a failure isalways really really bad. Maybe not end of the game threateningbad, but often times it is really end of the game threatening bad.If you are hanging on by a thread anyway, spying can be the biggestcurse in the world or the biggest blessing in the world.
By curse, it means that it can quickly turn good situations intohopeless ones and bad situations into worse ones. It is really easyto get your allies to turn on you by spying on them. The onlyreally safe thing to do is to spy on those races you are already atwar with because it probably can't make them hate you any less.
The last thing you want is to be in a galactic 3 on 3 and thento find yourself kicked off of your team and flying solo against a3 way alliance and another 2 way alliance.
Such is what can really happen if you spy on your friends.
Computers will very often take this very personally and youshould really consider how important a relationship with a givencomputer civilization is with you. Losing a trade treaty and notbeing in the 'cool kids club' anymore in terms of having yourplanetary production juiced at the same level as all of the AIraces are, is the least of your concerns.
By Blessing, it mean that spying can save the unsavable game ifyou are really really really lucky. If there is one technology thatyou really really need in order to stay in the game and thecomputer has it, there might be no downside to trying to do whatyou can to get it, especially if it is not in your tech tree andthey owner of it won't give you a chance to trade *anything* forit.
Note: If you need a tech just to stay in the game, no tech istoo high of price to pay in exchange for it, it doesn't matter howbad of a deal it is for you, that is made up by how important it isto you. If you are being hit with death weapons bio toxin antidotecan be like this and if someone just declared war on you and youdon't have Class V Planetary Shields it might be worth it to tradeanything to get that as well. Putting all your hopes into spying isgenerally the absolutely last resort option.
These concerns are why it is difficult to play the Darloks. Youdon't want to be in a war because you have no production ortechnological advantages of note, so usually you won't have a groupthat is just made to spy on as with your enemy du jour. You areprobably also behind every AI civilization that really matters andyou don't want to be on their bad sides on a fail.
Some more pro tips:
Don't hope for too much in terms of framing success. The framingangle is often more fun than anything else. When you frame acomputer it often won't have the effect on their relationships thatyou are hoping for. Their alliances often wont break up because ofit. Often it will, but most of the time it probably won't.
The computers tend to have very high relations with their alliesbecause of how the diplomacy structure works. If two empires areboth at war with the same empire, they are likely to prettyinstantly reach the highest friendliness level possible on thechart due to the 'enemy of my enemy' clause. Most of the time, aspying fail will result in a huge worsening of relations, but ifthat doesn't drop you into into the red, say, because you are atthe highest levels of ally, then as long as you keep pounding theenemy you will probably jump right back to the highest levels offriendliness again.
The drop in relations is worse every time it happens, butgetting these frames often enough to fracture an alliance is oftenreally hard to do when it really matters.
Even if the alliance splits, they will probably still both betag teaming you, because they probably still hate youanyway. The best you could hope is that they divert enoughresources to the other enemy that the pressure on you is lessenedenough that you can get by.
One of the best parts of framing is that you are guaranteed a'critical success' in terms of the original mission. There is nochance that your spy will be caught if a frame is successful andtheir access will always remain intact after a frame. Even withouta harming of relations this is still very good news.
Another thing, they might cancel trade treaties with each otherif you frame them often enough, and getting foreign civilizationsto quit trading with each other while still trading with you isvery very good. Even if the alliance remains intact, you couldbenefit this way.
[Go to top]â DiplomacySpyingPreparingyourself for war â
Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares is a 4Xturn-based strategy game set in space, designed by Steve Barcia and Ken Burd, and developed by Simtex, who developed its predecessor Master of Orion. The PC version was published by MicroProse in 1996, and the Apple Macintosh version a year later by MacSoft, in partnership with MicroProse. The game has retained a large fan base, and is still played online.
Master of Orion II won the Origins Award for Best Fantasy or Science Fiction Computer Game of 1996, and was well received by critics, although reviewers differed about which aspects they liked and disliked. It is used as a yardstick in reviews of more recent space-based 4X games.
Plot[edit]
Long before the time in which the game is set, two extremely powerful races, the Orions and the Antarans, fought a war that devastated most of the galaxy. The victorious Orions, rather than exterminate the Antarans, imprisoned them in a pocket dimension before departing the galaxy, leaving behind a very powerful robotic warship, the Guardian, to protect their homeworld.[1]:iv
Some time after the game starts, the Antarans, having broken out of their prison dimension, begin to send increasingly powerful fleets against the players' colonies, to destroy them rather than to invade.[2] The only way they can be stopped is to carry the battle to their home universe through a Dimensional Portal.[1]:144[3]:3
Gameplay[edit]
The main screen: the pop-up window displays information about a specific star system, while the large window under it displays the galaxy as a whole.
Master of Orion II is more complex than the original game, providing more gameplay options for the player. Three new alien races have been added, and there is the option for players to design and add their own race. Instead of the one planet per star system found in the original there are now multiplanet star systems that can be shared with opponents.[4] Spaceships can now engage in combat, marines can board enemy ships, and planets can be blown up. Multiplayer mode includes one-on-one matches and games with up to eight players.[2]
Victory can be gained by military or diplomatic means. Wondershare recoverit registration code. Major elements of the game's strategy include the design of custom races and the need to balance the requirements for food, production, cash and research. The user interface provides a central screen for most economic management and other screens that control research, diplomacy, ship movement, combat and warship design.
Conquering the Orion star system does not automatically win the game; it merely provides the powerful Avenger starship and some non-researchable Antaran technologies. There are three routes to victory: conquer all opponents; be elected as the supreme leader of the galaxy; or make a successful assault against the Antaran homeworld. To be elected, a player needs two-thirds of the total votes, and each empire's votes are based on the population under its control.[1]:145[3]:2
Star systems have at most five colonizable planets, and a few have none. Players can colonize all solid planet types, while gas giants and asteroids can be made habitable with the planet construction technology. Colonizable planets vary in several ways, making some more desirable than others:[1]:47â52
The most desirable systems are usually guarded by space monsters, much less powerful than Orion's Guardian but still a severe challenge in the early game, when fleets are small and low-technology.[5][6]
Without food, a colony will starve to death. If an empire has an overall food surplus, it can prevent localized starvation by sending food in freighters,[1]:57 which are produced (in groups of five) just as any other ship and require a small amount of upkeep when in use.[1]:75 However, a single hostile warship of any size can blockade an entire system, preventing the delivery of food.[1]:139â140
Each player can change each of its colonies' outputs by moving colonists between farming, industry and research,[1]:57â58 except that natives can only farm. All normal colonists pay a standard tax to the imperial treasury, but in emergencies a higher tax rate may be set at the expense of reducing industrial output.[1]:137 Players can use surplus money to accelerate industrial production at specified colonies, but not to increase agricultural or research output.[1]:35â38 The maintenance of buildings costs money, as does maintaining an excessively large fleet.[1]:34 Ships of different sizes require different numbers of 'command points'. These are provided by orbital bases, which are major construction projects for small colonies. This severely limits the size of empires' fleets in the early game, where one can have only one frigate (smallest type of ship) per starbase or one battleship (largest type of ship in the early game) per four starbases without having to 'buy' command points, which is very expensive.[1]:137
Research, usually followed by construction of appropriate buildings, can improve all types of productivity, including cashflow and command points, and can reduce or eliminate pollution,[1]:65â99[1]:65â99 Falling behind in technology is likely to be fatal. There are eight research areas[1]:64â65 divided into several levels, each of which contains one to four technologies. To research a higher-level technology, players must first have researched the previous level.[1]:64â65 Players can also acquire technologies by exchange or diplomatic threats, spying,[1]:142 hiring colonial leaders or ship commanders with knowledge of certain technologies, planetary conquest, capturing and dismantling enemy ships, random events, or by stumbling upon it in a derelict craft orbiting a newly discovered planet.[1]:112â116 All weapons and some other combat-related components benefit from miniaturization, in which further advances in the technology area that provides them will reduce the size and production cost of those components.[1]:100â102 Miniaturization also makes available modifications for most weapons, which usually entail a significant increase in their cost and size but can greatly improve their effectiveness in the right situations.[1]:100
Master of Orion II provides a wide range of diplomatic negotiations: gifts of money or technology or even all the colonies in a star system; opportunities to demand such concessions from other players; technology trades; trade, non-aggression and alliance treaties.[7]:138â142 The diplomacy menu, called 'Races' in the game, also enables the player to allocate spies between defensive duties and spying or sabotage against other empires, and to check opponents' technological progress and diplomatic relationships.[7]:42â43
The designs of colony ships, outpost ships and troop transports are fixed.[7]:105â111 These three ship types can be destroyed instantly by even the weakest combat ship if they travel unescorted.[7]:104 Colony ships, outpost ships, troop transports and warships may benefit from technological advances that increase the range and speed of all of an empire's ships free of charge.[7]:74 Players can design warships, provided they choose the 'tactical combat' option in game set-up.[7]:11 A maximum of five classes can be designed at a time, but an indefinite number may be in operation. Players can also refit ships to take advantage of technological improvements not available through free upgrades.[7]:111
Ships can travel to any star system within their range,[7]:30â31 unlike games such as Space Empires or Master of Orion III, in which interstellar travel is possible only or mainly via 'wormholes' and it is possible to set up easily defended choke points.[8][9]
In Master of Orion II, space combat occurs only within star systems, either over a planet one side is attacking or on the outskirts of a system, if one side is driving away the other's blockaders or trying to prevent an enemy build-up. If the defending side has warships and several colonies in a system, they automatically scramble to defend whichever colony is attacked. In general, enemy colonies can be taken over only after all orbital and planet-based defenses have been destroyed and all defending ships have been destroyed or forced to retreat. However, a fleet including telepaths will mind-control the colony, unless the defenders also include telepaths. In other cases the only way to seize control of an enemy colony is by invading. In order to do this, the attacking fleet must include some troop transports, which will be lost if the invasion fails, and at least transports will be permanently deployed on the planet if the invasion succeeds.[7]:75 A player cannot control ground combat: the result depends on numbers, ground combat technologies, racial ground combat bonuses, and some Leaders if present. However the game displays the progress of the combat and the ground combat technologies and bonuses used by each side.[7]:118â132 Mind-controlled colonies are instantly loyal to their new owners.[7]:23 Other recently occupied colonies on the other hand are disaffected, have poor productivity, and may rebel and rejoin the empire which founded them. Productivity slowly improves and the risk of rebellion slowly recedes, and there is a way to speed up these improvements.[7]:81 Instead of invading, a victorious attacker may destroy an enemy colony by various means.[7]:118â132
From time to time players are presented with the opportunity to hire leaders, for an annual salary and usually a hiring fee. Colony leaders improve the farming and/or industrial and/or research and/or financial productivity of all colonies in the system to which they are assigned, and some improve the efficiency of defensive or offensive spies. Ship leaders improve the combat effectiveness of their ships and some improve their travel speed. A few leaders of both types also improve the performance of warships and/or ground troops under their command, or contribute directly to a player's finances, or attract other leaders, usually for a reduced hiring fee.[7]:113â116
From time to time there are lucky breaks, disasters or emergencies which are not caused by any player's actions. These can be disabled in the game start-up menu.[7]:132
Master of Orion II provides 13 pre-defined playable races,[7]:16â21 three of which are additions to those available in Master of Orion.[2][4] The game also allows players to create custom races,[7]:132 and a group of enthusiasts regard race design as a crucial element of strategy.[10] Each player starts with ten 'picks' (race design points). Choosing advantageous traits reduces the number of picks available, while choosing disadvantages increases them, but players cannot choose more than ten picks' worth of disadvantages. Most of the options are major or minor advantages and minor disadvantages in farming, industry, research, population growth, money, space combat, espionage and ground combat.[7]:16â24 The race design system also offers 'special abilities' that have various effects on various aspects of their effectiveness.
Corel dvd moviefactory pro 7 serial key. The player chooses the empire's form of government,[7]:22â24 which has almost as much influence on how it performs as the choices described above, but the 'best' governments cost a lot of picks.[7]:16 Dictatorships are the most common governments for the pre-defined races,[7]:13â15 costing no picks while providing appropriately minor bonuses and penalties.[7]:16 Democracy provides major advantages in research and wealth generation, but is the most vulnerable to spying and sabotage. Democracies also cannot annihilate conquered aliens, but also have the fastest assimilation rate. Unification governments provide advantages in farming and industrial output and defense against espionage, but do not benefit from morale and assimilate conquered aliens at the slowest rate. Feudalism provides a large reduction in spaceship construction costs, but suffers from very slow research and the population of any conquered feudal colony is instantly assimilated into the new government. The race design menu treats Feudalism as a significant disadvantage.[7]:18â21 Each government can be upgraded once by research, but the upgrades generally increase the advantages of each without decreasing its disadvantages.[7]:134â135
Colony List, with sort buttons along the bottom. The cursor (hand) on the right is about to open a colony's Build Menu.
Players can manage their economies almost entirely from the Colony List. The Colony List allows the player to access any colony's Build Menu, and to change a colony's output by moving colonists between Farmers, Workers and Scientists.[3]:1[7]:35â36, 56â59 The Build Menu allows the player to queue up to seven items for construction at a colony, to refit ships in that colony's system and to design ships that may then be built at any colony.[7]:60â62 At the end of each turn, Master of Orion II shows a report in which items link to the appropriate display, usually to a colony's Build Menu when a construction project has been completed.[7]:29
Development[edit]
The game was designed by Steve Barcia and Ken Burd,[7]:153 and developed by Barcia's company Simtex, which had previously developed Master of Orion, published in 1993 by MicroProse.[11] For Master of Orion II, Simtex provided additional pre-defined races, the option to create custom races, and multiplayer options.[2][6] The first 'Orion' game's graphics had also been heavily criticized, and the second included higher-quality artwork displayed at a higher resolution.[11]
The main contributions were: design by Steve Barcia (lead designer), programming by Ken Burd (lead programmer) and five others; art by Dave Lawell (lead artist) and eight others; music by Laura Barratt; sound by John Henke.[12]
In June 1995, MicroProse agreed to buy Simtex, and turned it into an internal development division.[6][13] The acquisition continued to be known as 'Simtex Software', and the Simtex logo appears briefly before MicroProse's while MOO II is loading. MicroProse released Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares for IBM-compatible PCs in 1996,[6] and an Apple Macintosh version was published a year later by MicroProse in partnership with MacSoft.[14]
Reception[edit]Sales[edit]
Master of Orion II secured 10th place on PC Data's computer game sales chart for the month of November 1996.[15] It remained in the top 20 for the next two months, in positions 17 and 20, respectively.[16] By mid-January 1997, its global sales has surpassed 200,000 copies.[17]
Reviews[edit]
Reviews were generally favorable,[19] and the game won the Origins Award for Best Fantasy or Science Fiction Computer Game of 1996.[22] However, reviewers differed in regard to the new gameplay features and micromanagement. B. Geryk preferred the simpler approach of Master of Orion,[23] while Tom Chick found the gameplay easy to manage and much more engaging than Master of Orion.[6] Robert Mayer of Strategy Plus argued that the concepts are good but the interface makes it needlessly difficult to access information vital to managing them.[5]GameSpot's Trent Ward said the game's micromanagement is 'everything that the hard-core veteran dreams of', but noted that strategy game novices would find it inaccessible.[2] Offering yet another opinion, Next Generation found the difference from Master of Orion to be minor, concluding that 'perhaps the biggest problem is that the game is a little too stagnant, and doesn't really break new ground in the now-crowded galactic conquest genre.'[21]
Reviewers criticized that the race traits are unbalanced, with 'creative' in particular being overpowered,[21][5][6] but praised the replay value provided by the wide range of galaxies, races and other options.[2][11][20][6]Macworld's Michael Gowan wrote that Master of Orion II's 'countless strategy options will keep you coming back for more.'[20]
Complaints that the loading of artwork from CD made the game run slowly led to recommendations to download the entire CD onto hard disk before play.[6][11] Cale Corbett, reviewing the Mac version, complained that the user interface was 'clunky', as it lacked features common in programs originally developed for the Mac.[24]
Master of Orion II was a finalist for the Computer Game Developers Conference's 1996 'Best Strategy/War Game' Spotlight Award,[25] but lost the prize to Command & Conquer: Red Alert.[26] It was also nominated as Computer Games Strategy Plus's 1996 turn-based strategy game of the year, although it lost to Civilization II.[27] The game was a finalist for Computer Gaming World's 1996 'Strategy Game of the Year' award,[28] again losing to Civilization II.[29]
Master of Orion II was named the 39th best computer game ever by PC Gamer UK in 1997.[30]
Legacy[edit]
The Master of Orion series set a new standard for space-based 4X games, with a retrospective review describing it as 'a towering monolith in the genre that has cast an eight-year-long shadow over everything that's followed.. Master of Orion is still the definitive name in space opera games'.[6] In the same review, Chick added that Master of Orion II and its predecessor Master of Orion 'loom large' in any discussion of science fiction strategy games. Master of Orion II has both influenced the subsequent development of such games[23] and invited comparisons in reviews, with a 2006 GameSpot review describing it as 'the pinnacle of the genre'.[31]
Other games have been noted for their similarities and differences with Master of Orion II. One review of Space Empires IV made several comparisons with Master of Orion II, commenting favorably on the complex tactical combat, while criticizing the relatively 'sparse graphics and sound', concluding that it was the most sophisticated game available in the genre, but that it built 'on the basic foundation of Master of Orion' instead of 'breaking new ground'.[8] Other games which have been compared with Master of Orion II include Galactic Civilizations II, which James Lombardi praised as standing 'proudly next to its famed predecessor' (although it 'did not include the tactical battle option like Masters of Orion II'),[32] and Lost Empire: Immortals, whose scale was criticised as 'soulless' (relative to Masters of Orion) by Jason Ocampo.[33]
References[edit]
Further reading[edit]
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_of_Orion_II:_Battle_at_Antares&oldid=903617711'
Posted by2 years ago
Archived
So my first play through as Meklar and I've hit a bit of a brick wall. I'm 2nd place in all victories except tech in which I'm 1st (even against Psilon!). Bulrathi have the board but I can't reach them now without declaring war on at least two other races and would rather bolster all my home fronts and strengthen my fleets. There's tons of viable planets for me to colonize within my territory but I feel like this creates a greater economic drain on my empire doing so. Am I supposed to create every given colony with a given focus and nothing else? For example, one for fleet production, another for strong production commited to trade goods, research, agriculture.. It seems like its building upkeep that is keeping me at the second to highest tax bracket so adding planets therein more buildings would only create more of a burden. Is there anything else I can do?
3 comments
Master of Orion is a turn-based, 4Xscience fictionstrategy game released in 1993 by MicroProse on the MS-DOS and Mac OS[1] operating systems. The game is the first in its franchise, and the rights are held by Wargaming.[2] The player leads one of ten races to dominate the galaxy through a combination of diplomacy and conquest while developing technology, exploring and colonizing star systems.
Gameplay[edit]
Master of Orion is a turn-based game. In the first iteration of the franchise, one can only play against the AI (the computer). Human and AI players control the management of colonies, technology development, ship construction, inter-species diplomacy, and combat.[3]
The software generates a map randomly at the start of each game; the player can only choose the size of the galaxy, and the number and difficulty of AI opponents.[4] In the first game, star systems have at most one colonizable planet and a few have none. Later games have more planets.[5]
Master of Orion has 10 playable races, each with a specialty. For instance, the Humans have advantages in trade and diplomacy; the Bulrathi are the best at ground combat; the Silicoids ignore pollution and can colonize even the most hostile planets, but have slow population growth.[6] Each race is predisposed to like or dislike some of the other races,[7] and is advantaged or disadvantaged in different research fields.
The game begins with a single homeworld, one colony ship, and two scout ships that can be used to explore nearby stars. The game will sometimes produce random events which can be harmful or advantageous. One planet is Orion, 'throne-world of the Ancients' and most valuable research site in the galaxy,[8] protected by a powerful warship, the Guardian. Victory is gained either by eliminating all opponents or by winning a vote on peaceful unification.
There are seven normal and six hostile planet types.[9] The various hostile types require increasingly advanced technology to colonize.[10] Size determines the planet's initial population capacity. Mineral wealth dramatically influences a colony's industrial productivity while Habitability influences population growth rates. Hostile planets are the most likely to be rich or ultra-rich in minerals.[9] Artifact worlds contain relics of a now-vanished advanced civilization.[9] All planets can be upgraded to Gaia class with the appropriate technologies.[11] Planets can be upgraded in three ways:
Planet type does not affect the costs and benefits of terraforming and soil enrichment.
The main screen, showing the planetary management controls on the right.
Sliders are used to allocate a colony's output between ship construction, planetary defenses, factory construction, ecology, and research.[10] Planetary population generates production, especially when assisted by factories.[12] There is a limit on the number of factories a unit of population can operate, but building upgrades can increase this.[13] Defence spending is used to build additional missile bases, upgrade missile bases or planetary shields.[13] Military and spy maintenance is deducted from every colony's production.[14] A planet's output can also be transferred to the treasury at a loss.
Ships can travel to any star system within their range and combat always occurs in orbit over a planet - it is impossible to intercept enemy ships in deep space.[15] Players can control space combat manually or ask the software to resolve combat automatically.[16]
Technology[edit]
The designers regard technology as the most important contribution to a player's success.[17] Funding can be put into one or all of the game's six independent tech tree fields, including Computers, Construction, Force Fields, Planetary Science, Vehicle Propulsion, and Weapons.
If a ship uses a component from a particular technology area, further advances in that area reduce the cost and size of the component; this effect is called 'miniaturization'. When one has researched all of the technologies in an area of the tech tree, further research can discover 'advanced technologies' in that area, which do not provide specific new capabilities but increase the miniaturization of ship components.[17]
Battles are almost always decided by numbers and technology rather than by clever tactics.[18] Players can design and use their own ships. There are four hull sizes; smaller sizes are harder to hit while larger ships can survive more damage and hold more components. There are eight types of components, each with different effects. Only six ship designs can be used at a time.
Diplomacy[edit]
Master of Orion provides a wide range of diplomatic negotiations: gifts of money or technology; one-time technology trades; trade pacts that boost industrial output; non-aggression and alliance treaties. Players can also threaten each other, declare war and arrange cease-fires.[19] Each AI player remembers others' actions, both positive and negative, and will be unwilling to form alliances with a player who has broken previous treaties with it.[7]
Under AI control, each race has a ruler personality and an objective, such as Xenophobic Expansionist or Pacifistic Technologist. These traits guide their politics and economic management; for example militarists maintain large fleets and prioritize technologies which have military benefits, while ecologists put a lot of effort into pollution control and terraforming.[20] Traits vary from game to game.[20] Each race has most probable traits and avoids their opposites.[7] Races may occasionally revolt and change traits.
Hostile actions do not automatically cause war. Clashes are even expected at the opening of the game, when all sides are sending probes out into the unknown. On the other extreme, a ground assault must be knowingly targeted at an inhabited planet, and is a massive provocation.
Colonies can be bombed from space, or taken in ground invasions. Ground invasions can be conducted through enemy defenses. Present enemy ships or missile bases will fire on the approaching transports, possibly destroying some or all of them.[21] The invasion itself is fully automatic.[22] Results depend on numbers, technology and (if one of the races involved is Bulrathi) racial ground combat bonus.[23]
Invasion is expensive.[24] In the first game, there are no special soldier units; colonial population itself is sent to fight, exterminate the existing inhabitants, and form a new planetary population.[23][25] The production capacity of any remaining factories can be gleaned, and plundering of technologies if enough factories survived the attack.[23] Controlling a new system extends the range of the invader's ships.
Master Of Orion RacesDevelopment[edit]
Master of Orion is a significantly expanded and refined version of the prototype/predecessor game Star Lords (not to be confused with Starlord, also released by MicroProse in 1993). Steve Barcia's game development company Simtex demonstrated Star Lords to MicroProse and gaming journalist Alan Emrich who, along with Tom Hughes, assisted Barcia in refining the design to produce Master of Orion;[26][27] and the game's manual thanks them for their contributions.[28] Emrich and Hughes later wrote the strategy guide for the finished product.[29] MicroProse published the final version of the game in 1994.[30]
Star Lords[edit]
Star Lords, often called Master of Orion 0 by fans,[31] was a prototype and never commercially released (its intro opens with 'SimTex Software and Your Company present'). The crude but fully playable prototype was made available as freeware in 2001, stripped of all documentation and copy protection, in anticipation of the launch of Master of Orion III.[31] Major differences between Star Lords and Master of Orion include inferior graphics and interface, simpler trade and diplomacy, undirected research, a lack of safeguards to prevent players from building more factories than are usable and the use of transports rather than colony ships to colonize new planets. One feature of Star Lords that Master of Orion lacks is a table of relations between the computer-controlled races. The game was eventually made available for download on FilePlanet[32] and the home page for Master of Orion III.[31]
Reception[edit]
Emrich in a September 1993 Computer Gaming World preview described Master of Orion as 'the best that galactic conquest can offer', and summarized its type of gameplay as '4X', meaning 'eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate'.[24][36] He and later commentators noted earlier examples of this genre, including Civilization (1991)[37] and Reach for the Stars (1983).[38] The magazine's full December 1993 review stated that 'Master of Orion is one of those games where one must actually put effort into finding something inadequate about the game design, and that in itself is probably the highest praise this reviewer can give a product.' The magazine concluded that it was 'a definite Game of the Year candidate as well as Exhibit A in many divorce cases'.[39] A February 1994 survey of space war games gave Master of Orion a grade of A-, stating that 'It's still conquest, but it's conquest that begins to have an interesting point to it'. The reviewer wished that the game supported multiple players, but predicted that 'I think MOO will safely reign supreme well into the new year'.[40] A 1994 survey of strategic space games set in the year 2000 and later gave the game four-plus stars out of five, stating that it was 'a richly-textured product. Graphics coupled with high play yield a high recommendation'.[34]
Next Generation reviewed the Macintosh version of the game, rating it two stars out of five, and stated that 'Strategy game of the year, NOT.'[35]
Master of Orion was named the best strategy game of 1993 by Computer Games Strategy Plus.[41] It also won Computer Gaming World's Strategy Game of the Year award in June 1994. The editors called it 'a game that is worthy of being called 'Civilization in Space', and wrote that it 'epitomizes and expands the 'Conquer the Galaxy' motif in strategy gaming'.[42]
In retrospective reviews, Allgame, GameSpot and IGN regarded MoO as the standard by which turn based strategy games set in space are judged, although Allgame regretted the lack of a multiplayer option.[43][44][45]
In 1996, Computer Gaming World ranked Master of Orion as the 33rd best game of all time.[46] In 2003, IGN ranked it as the 98th top game.[47]Master of Orion is a member of both GameSpy's Hall of Fame (2001)[48] and GameSpot's list of the greatest games of all time.[49]
In 1998, PC Gamer declared it the 45th-best computer game ever released, and the editors called it 'a great sci-fi space epic'.[50]
Legacy[edit]
Two commercial sequels to Master of Orion have been released, Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares and Master of Orion III. The sequels are significantly more advanced in graphics and sound and feature large differences in gameplay, with some players claiming the original game remains the best version of the three.[51][52]
In 1997, MicroProse released a Master of Orion 'Jr.' scenario as part of the Civ II: Fantastic Worlds expansion for Civilization II. In 2001, Star Lords, developed as Master of Orion prototype, was released as freeware as part of the promotion for Master of Orion III. Also a potential future release of the MOO and MOO2 source code was indicated by the MOO3 developers in 2001.[53] In 2011, a clone of MoO II, titled Starbase Orion, was published by Chimera Software, LLC for the iPhone. The game setting has been the influence of Russian writer Sergey Lukyanenko's trilogy, the Line of Delirium.
In July 2013, Wargaming bought the Master of Orion franchise from the Atari bankruptcy proceedings.[2] A 'reimagining' subtitled Conquer the Stars was announced in June 2015[54] and released into early access on February 26, 2016. It was fully released on August 25, 2016.[55]
References[edit]
Bibliography[edit]
External links[edit]
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_of_Orion&oldid=903617701'
From StrategyWiki, the free strategy guide andwalkthrough wiki
Master ofOrion II | Table of Contents| Walkthrough
An instant, long-rangeweapon
In the early game warships are slow and weak, and most empireshave very few Star Bases and therefore cannot afford to have largefleets.
Spies are a 'weapon' that can strike instantly, can be producedvery quickly and are not too expensive to maintain, as you can seeby comparing their costs with those of typical early-game warships(the 'or X BC' costs apply to ships that make your fleet exceedyour Command Points):
Production races vs researchraces
In the very early game spying favors production races becausethey can most easily produce Spies and, if the maintenance costexceeds their income,can easily switch to making Trade Goods for a fewturns without losing much of their advantage in rapid colonization.And most production races are weak in early-game research, so theyhave a lot to gain from espionage.
Most non-Creative research races are Democracies, which is bothan advantage and a handicap in Spy wars: they have a good cashincome, which makes it fairly easy for them to pay for themaintenance of Spies; but they have a -10% disadvantage incounter-intelligence (defensive spying), and their fast researchmakes them attractive targets for espionage.
Creative races are usually Dictatorships. Their bonus techs makethem attractive targets for espionage, even to non-Creativeresearch races. Dictatorship has a +10% bonus in incounter-intelligence, but Creative races are no faster early-gameproducers than non-Creative research races, and Dictatorships havesmaller cash incomes than Democracies.
Know your enemy
As soon as you make contact, check out theother empire to see whether they are a threat or an opportunityor both in terms of spying, and especially whether they have spyingbonuses or disadvantages; the Race Statistics screen and the RacesReport are the tools for this. And keep checking, in case they trya 'Spy rush' later.
Offensive spying in the earlygameEspionage or Sabotage
Espionage (stealing techs) is only worth trying if your opponenthas a few techs you want ( know yourenemy!).
Sabotage (destroying the opponent's assets) may be worth tryingimmediately, as every race starts the game with a free Star Baseand Marine Barracks. The Star Base would cost 400 PP to replace,and its loss would halve the size of fleet your victim can runwithout having to 'buy' Command Points at 10 BC per CP. The MarineBarracks is cheaper to replace (60 PP), but a Dictatorship orFeudalism would be struggling under a 20% morale while it has noBarracks.
Generally you should delay sabotage until you've stolen all thetechs you actually want.
When and how many Spies
If your objective is espionage, it's worth trying 1 Spyimmediately because you may catch your opponent unprepared. 1 Spythat faces no opposing defensive 'Agents' will usually steal a techin under 5 turns. Even if that Spy is killed without stealing atech, you're forcing your opponent to build Spies when he / she /it would rather be building or stockpiling for something else - asignificant burden for opponents who have non-production races.
After the first solo mission it's generally a good idea to make3 to 4 Spies in a row, but keep them on counter-intelligence untilyou have the number you want:
Sabotage is more difficult, and you should use a gang of 3 to 4Spies for your first mission.
Defensive spying in the earlygame
This generally applies most strongly to research races,including Creatives, since research races have more techs to stealand will find it harder to replace sabotaged assets.
You need to be clear about your objectives in early gamedefensive spying:
A research race's first line of defense is its productionstockpile.
But research races can seldom afford to wait until first contactbefore making Spies:
The trickiest part is guessing when first contact is likely tohappen. It's earlier in Small or crowded galaxies and in games withAverage Tech or Advanced starts. But a few turns before firstcontact is likely, Dictatorships should build 2 Spies andDemocracies should build 3 or 4. If they kill the opponent's firstSpy, that might persuade the opponent to give up offensive spyingfor a while. But keep checking the Races Report!
It has various themes or you can customize the keyboard yourself too. Moreover, it can convert words into GIF animations. Swipe type windows 10. The TouchPal keyboard supports more than 120 languages.
Eventually you will reach a situation where you have anadvantage in spying tech and you have several Agents. From thispoint onwards 12 Agents will generally be enough for Dictatorshipsand about 15 for Democracies. But keep checking the RacesReport.
Replace lost Spiesimmediately
The end-of turn report will tell you if you have lost offensiveor defensive Spies. Most governments should replace each lost Spywith 2 more until they reach 12 Agents; Democracies should replacewith 3 more until they reach 15 Agents.
The same applies to Spies lost while on offensive missions: ifyou let your total number of Spies decline, you're vulnerable to amass espionage or sabotage counter-attack. But if you repeatedlylose Spies on offensive missions, give it up and reinforce yourdefensive Agents.
[Go to top]â Diplomacy isscoutingEspionagewarsPlanning andwinning wars â
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |