So Orion, 1, 2, 3 and conquer the stars are totally different ?

[Captain86]

I had no idea these were not actually improved version of a similar or same game.
It looks like Master of Orion -Conquer the Starts is the latest version. Am I wrong ?

[Drunked Rompa]

You are correct and I can understand your confusion. Master of Orion: Conquer the Stars is actually the 4th and the latest established title in series. Sometimes people even refer to it as Master of Orion 4 for that reason.

[Captain86]

Originally posted by Drunked Rompa:

You are correct and I can understand your confusion. Master of Orion: Conquer the Stars is actually the 4th and the latest established title in series. Sometimes people even refer to it as Master of Orion 4 for that reason.

Perfect, thanks

[Sinophile]

IMHO MOO2 is the best. Its not as clunky as it's predecessor. MOO3 had lots of micromanagement.

[dixiechow]

Originally posted by Sinophile:

IMHO MOO2 is the best. Its not as clunky as it's predecessor. MOO3 had lots of micromanagement.

Agreed

[necro55]

Originally posted by Sinophile:

IMHO MOO2 is the best. Its not as clunky as it's predecessor. MOO3 had lots of micromanagement.

Yes best of all of them, no offense to Mr Sol and Spud for all they did for MOO:CTS

[dtt.scanner]

I prefer MOO:CTS actually. MOO2 is iconic, but MOO:CTS plays better, IMO. I do miss the tractor beams and boarding ships, scrapping for tech. Stasis Field. Phasing Cloak. Even with all of the perks of MOO2, I still think MOO:CTS is more diverse in how it can be played and won. The diplomacy is better, the espionage is better, and that allows for more diversity and personality of the races, and more options in how it can play out. You are able to stop an advancing armada with a timely bribe. That wouldn't work in MOO2.

[DukeOfLight]

Originally posted by dtt.scanner:

I prefer MOO:CTS actually. MOO2 is iconic, but MOO:CTS plays better, IMO. I do miss the tractor beams and boarding ships, scrapping for tech. Stasis Field. Phasing Cloak. Even with all of the perks of MOO2, I still think MOO:CTS is more diverse in how it can be played and won. The diplomacy is better, the espionage is better, and that allows for more diversity and personality of the races, and more options in how it can play out. You are able to stop an advancing armada with a timely bribe. That wouldn't work in MOO2.

100% agree...
if you want a multiplayer u can add me as a friend

[necro55]

CTS i still have mixed thoughts on the travel lines vs distance like MOO2 did it it does allow for some really rigid means of chokepoint forcing.
Diplomacy is better, mostly, but 50 years of helping someone even doing major stuff for them financially and militarily and not give them star charts when you are omniscient and its dropped by 1/3 and they act like you have had an awkward adversarial peace for generations.

I still REALLY miss turn based combat and coop with combat not autoresolve.

Really i think all the games have something going for them. I honestly didnt try moo3 past initial launch it was so bad initially that i lost interest; but i heard it got better and modders made it massively better.

[Drunked Rompa]

Isn't it funny how OP's question was never about which game in the MoO series is the best, but rather if MoO:CtS is its latest establishment? I guess the debate simply is inevitable the moment someone makes a sidetrack about how they compare. =P

Definitely there are some cool stuff in MoO2 that would also be nice to have in CtS. The latter's diplomacy system is indeed more elaborate with a more nuanced personality system for each race AI. There are still quirks though, like the broken demand mechanic and you'll lose disposition for rejecting a trade proposal that could have actually worked out if counter-offers were a thing.

Restricting system access via predetermined adjacent interlinking warp points is so-so for me. It is easier to manage, but I also find those less engaging.

Personally I prefer real-time tactical combat. But for those that don't, perhaps a gridless alternative could have been worked out using Time Based Auto-Pause as a basis, with the difference being all actions such as course changes, weapon firing and activation of abilities must synchronize to a pause interval. Regardless, I can understand that some find the lack of tactical combat in multiplayer disappointing. It more or less contradicts the dev diaries statement of multiplayer being designed in mind of "providing different modes where you can enjoy small skirmishes or the whole experience if you manage to get your friends to play with you for 8 hours". Then when people started asking why such a prominent feature ended up being absent from multiplayer, the devs wouldn't answer.

Judging from history, some fans saw potential in MoO3 which gave birth to a few important fan patches and mods for it. Those definitely improve the base game.