Talk:Master of Orion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Star Lord[edit]

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)

Comment[edit]

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

- I edited the layout a bit because the text was ugly to read in my browser (mozilla/Firebird). It consisted of very long lines, i had to scroll the browser window to the right a lot. I'm not very happy with the design now, but at least i can read it without unnecessary scrolling. --Horst_F_JENS 16:49, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

Someone posted this to the article, moved it off there to discussion: Note: This information is incorrect. The Antarans develop the plague, whiping out 99% of there population. Because the Antarans that are left on Orion, and who where not affected, did not want to risk running into what ever killed the Antarans in the alternate dimension, they declared independed. And yes, the plague is the the Ithkul.

I'm not positive, but I think star lords was an earlier game than master of orion I. I've heard Star Lords called Master of Orion 0 so I think it came before.


MOO3 section POVish?[edit]

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)


Article split[edit]

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)

Expanding the race descriptions[edit]

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)

  • Go ahead. Be brave about it; no need to ask anyone. The more information the better. --flyhighplato 17:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, in other similar cases some complained that 'Wikipedia is not a game guide' Pictureuploader 19:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that was my concern.--VladAntlerkov 00:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I understand that having so much nerdy data in Wikipedia can stereotype this source of information, but I don't know if it's benefitial to have Wikipedia be so self-conscious about itself. If it's something someone would ever want to know (within reason), it should be here. --flyhighplato 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
          • ...and done. Stuff about the tech fields clipped for everyone except the Psilons. VladAntlerkov 02:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As a fan of master of Orion 2. I was appalled that Master of Orion 3 was a step back not forward. Is there a team working on Master of Orion 4 and will they use MOO2 as the template for the 4th game in the series

Orion Sector, Orions as progenitors[edit]

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)

I agree, the original MOO(I) had no backstory. If you removed it, someone added it back.Philcha 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Upgrade in progress[edit]

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)

Races articles[edit]

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

Rewrite needed[edit]

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)

I've now done the rewrite.Philcha 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrite is nice but I liked that the sequels were mentioned in the introduction. Now I have to scroll so much. McLar eng 00:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro now mentions sequels.Philcha 15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Combat and invasion[edit]

THe addition "you must use defend in depth and be ready to shore up the defenses of any planet about to be attacked. A mitigating factor here is that for a significant part of the game you can depend on defenses that are all but invulnerable to AI ships, so a certain degree of turtling is still possible" looks like original research i.e. not admissible, unless someone provides a reference. Philcha 10:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philcha, I made this edit prompted by the previous sentence, which is also an uncited reflection on the mechanics of the game: "you must use defend in depth and be ready to shore up the defenses of any planet about to be attacked." I cannot think of any references, other than somebody making an elaborate plot of available weapons (with half-damage for beam weapons) vs. available planetary defenses, which would expose this plainly, but it's certainly true of the mid-game. It should be noted that the "defend in depth" observation is also true to various degrees during the game, bordering on false at the beginning but certainly true at the end due to increases in the range and speed of attacking ships. There are a few other hard to dispute aspects of the game that are nevertheless uncited, such as "except that in the very early stages you generally have too little resources to research more than one technology at a time" , or "the early part of a game can range from quite peaceful to a whole series of wars. But any race will go to war if it thinks it has a significant advantage in production and technology."

The article would be a little poorer to somebody that hasn't played the game, without these observations, but I can certainly remove the addition if it's regarded as disputable. I just love this game and want it to have a Wiki article that does it justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.110.131 (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your desire to make the article informative to someone who hasn't played the game, in fact I've had to defend the inclusion of so much gameplay info (might have been in a discussion of Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares).
Hi Philcha, I don't much mind the deletions as they stand, given WP's stance on original research. (Note: re-edited for better formatting)
I suspect it's impossible to define original research with absolute precision. For example if I said the sum of 2 random numbers was X, probably that particular calculation has never been done before; but it's a logically necessary consequence of the laws of arithmmetic and I wouldn't regard it as original research. I thought what I said about the impossibility of chokepoints is a logically necessary consequence of the geometry of space travel in MOO.
In the late game, this is true. In the early game, one can usually defend certain key frontier points in a manner similar to chokepoints in games where troops move in real space. This is because of slow engines and low fuel cell ranges.
Unless the Alkari (rated excellent at propulsion research) go all out for range from the start while building a horde of small ships - which they can do very fast (little b******s|).
"any race will go to war if it thinks it has a significant advantage in production and technology" is based on the manual. For example the miniature strategy guide about half-way through the manual says "Finally, there will come a time when one empire recognizes its superior position and will attempt to eliminate all weaker competitors to win the game. At this time no amount of tribute will prevent the enemy from attacking."
The sentence would benefit from the adding "over all other players". As it is, it sounds like an AI can go into war against a single inferior player while superior ones are around.
An AI will go into war against a single inferior player while superior ones are around. The sentence quoted was the first I found, as I knew I would have to look for other quotes re other points. "Aggressive leaders will attack any time they are put in a favourable situation." "Ruthless leaders attack with little or no provocation." "Like the Alkari, Mrrshan players should begin the game in an offensive posture and should attack their enemies almost immediately."
"the early part of a game can range from quite peaceful to a whole series of wars" is IMO a consequence of the 9 combinations of personality traits for each of up to 6 races, although I admit I'm pushing "logical consequence" to its limit here.
Right. It's a true assertion, but it's based on gameplay experience rather than citation.
You could work out from the stats in the manual whtat the chances are of getting all pacificists for various numbers of AIs - and that would be a mathematical consequence. It would be even easier to write a program in BASIC to simulate 1,000 starts for various numbers of AIs and display the results, and that would not be OR since it's a just a different way to calculate the mathematical consequence.
"You will generally obtain more advances for a given expenditure by researching a few technologies at the same time than by spending all your resources on one technology at a time" is a consequence of the manual's "Each year that you invest research points in a device, you also get interest on the amount you have invested. The interest is either 15% of your total, or an amount equal to what you are adding this year, whichever is lower. This encourages a steady investment in your research as opposed to a "crash" funding. After the Base Cost has been invested in it's research, your scientists have a chance of a breakthrough, as long as you continue to fund that research. Your chance of a breakthrough increases by 1% for every 2% of the Base Cost you invest in addition."
I wasn't disputing this, it's indeed based on the manual.
I admit that "except that in the very early stages you generally have too little resources to research more than one technology at a time" is not actually said in the manual, but to me it's another logical consequence of the arithmetic stated in the manual (15% interest on a very small research budget is negligible, and your chance of a breakthough after passing the Base Cost depends on your spending, so splitting a very small budget means you generally wait a very long time after after passing the Base Cost).
This is what I was disputing. It isn't a logical consequence. The research model would *still* encourage split spending due to the distributed chance of hitting breakthroughs and the losses from switching sliders back and forth, and 15% is still 15% even if split in 6. In fact, in my games I only ever research 100% Propulsion at the beginning due to needing the range so bad, and that's the only reason I wasn't asking for this to be removed entirely.
If it was rephrased "... but splitting your research budget in the very early stages will most likely result in a very long wait for your first few advances" it would clearly be a consequence of the words in tha manual. Would you prefer that?
On the other hand I think your addition crosses the line and is original research. I also think your comment about "defenses that are all but invulnerable to AI ships" is factually incorrect - for example quite early in the game the Alkari may send a few thousand small ships, and they will usually destroy the defences even though most if them die in the attack; later in the game a couple of huge bombers with Autorepair and Zyro shield laugh at missiles.
Actually, the "good part of the game" that I was mentioning is the mid game -- roughly between Class V Planetary shields and Neutronium Bomb / Mauler Device, the period when shields overpower offences, particularly the non-specialized ship models that the AI tends to put on the table. Perhaps the sentence would be acceptable by saying "mid-game", and "usually" ? It can be argued that the tech level tables from the manual, together with the damage figures from the game, can prove this. I am trying to convey to new players the fact that the most strategically subtle part of the game, the mid-game, is anything but a chaos of planet takeovers, as it might sound.
I think it depends on what techs are available to the AIs and which they actually research and use. Autorepair and Zyro shield are mid-game techs, and I've seen AIs use that combo occasionally, and if they get decent bombs or (more likely in my experience) biologicals as well .... And it depends which race you're playing. Turtling works best for the Psilons IMO, because they get defensive techs faster (including anti-biological). I think the fact that we have to debate this point in so much detail suggests it's well over the line into OR.

For now I'm commenting out your addition and the preceding "you must use defend in depth and be ready to shore up the defenses of any planet about to be attacked" (i.e. it's still there but invisible). Philcha (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy protection[edit]

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)

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)

Recent edits[edit]

The following is a copy of a conversation that WLU insisted on continuing on his / her User Talk page, despite my requests that it should be continued on on this Talk page:

Why did you remove from Master of Orion the bit about no wormholes and no chokepoints. It's one of the most important distinctions between groups of space-based 4X games? PS: I like your "someone's wrong on the Internet", but it's one funny I won't share with my wife. Philcha (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In general I see comparisons as original research when unreferenced, and the tone is off - using 'you' implies an instruction manual. It can be worked around using neutral language which implies that one can use star lanes to isolate star systems and heavily defend them (basically a work-around the how-to restrictions). But wikipedia is not a strategy guide. I'm guessing game pages are rife with similar problems, which is a reason I generally avoid them, but I'm playing MOO3 and I can't resist editing when I see a problem. Gotta run! WLU (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please post replies on the game's Talk Page.
So Wikipedia officallly wants its article to sound like HM the Queen. Oh,well.
As I said, warp points / wormholes / whatever vs travel-anywhere-in-range is one of the fundamental divisions in space-based games.
Your most recent edit (races) deletes one item that's in the manual and is inaccurate on another point. Do you have a copy of the manual? I do. Philcha (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to avoid unsourced comparisons to other games with similar designs, and source to the manual any information that is relevant to the points you think need to be made. There's a lot of other changes I could have made, like removing the 'some guy's website' opinions that are included and trimming the external links section, but since it's a game page for a 15 year old computer game I realize there's limits to the sources available. Regards the races edit, I'm guessing you're talking about the silicoids superior computer skills allowing better spying? I think it's trivial, but if it's in the manual it's referenceable so feel free to replace if you'd like. Wikipedia pages are supposed to be about informing on the topic, I would see that as an overly-specific discussion of the minutia of game details. But I'm not the boss of wikipedia and am not overly concerned about it being replaced. WLU (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia pages are supposed to be about informing on the topic" is exactly the reason why I included so much info. Different users will have different objectives in visiting the article, so will require different info, and the article should cater for as wide a range of requirements as is possible in a reasonable length. While I think a fairly informal tone is appropriate for a game article, there are several places where I chose the words carefully in order to avoid misleading implications that might reduce Wikipedia's credibility, and the inaccurate wording of your edit to "Races" creates that risk. The Silicoids do not "excel" at Computers research, they are rated "Good" at Computers research, a grade which is significantly below "Excellent" if you look at the numbers. To avoid going into the details of the research ratings system the article used "above average", which is literally correct and avoids misleading implications. I disagree that the minor advantage this gives the Silicoids in spying is trivial, especially in the early game when their freedon from pollution constraints gives them higher effective production than anyone except perhaps the Klackons. While writing at the level of detail of the last sentence would be WP:OR, any Wikipedia article involves a lot of summarization and therefore selection, and what the article said was based on the manual and gave readers an idea of what to expect from the Silicoids.
Re the 'some guy's website' opinions, one of the tough things about computer games articles is that some enthusiast web sites are more knowledgeable and accurate than the big name publications. For MoO Jon Sullivan and Sirian really are the best sources; for MoO II it's masteroforion2.blogspot.com; for Total Annihilation the site that gets the most respect in forums is the Gnugs.
I will restore the article to its previous state in a couple of days if I do not see any valid reasons not to on the article's Talk page. Philcha (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sirian is indeed not 'some guy', he is a very experienced player who has a.o. been enlisted by Firaxis to balance Civilization IV. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If you could provide a ref for that it might be useful to include this in the citation of Sirian's pages. Philcha (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There is an interview with Sirian (Bob Thomas) at Apolyton: [1] Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Guido. I particularly liked the final para - "Soren felt that fans would be the most reliable source of feedback for CivIV" (Soren is / was in charge of the AI). I'll quote that next time someone argues about WP:RS. Philcha (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)As I've said, I don't really care. The only concern I have are related to WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:TONE (for the 'you/your'). Go ahead, make the changes, but I think the page will be improved if attention is paid to those two areas. It's not like I am currently or plan on edit-warring to replace my version. I'll go through the page to address the you/your and the unwatch it. WLU (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm done a major rewrite. The content should still be there, I've just changed wording mostly, added citation templates, some extra sections, moved information around, added two tables (which could probably use some adjusting). Please review, my spelling and grammar tend to suffer when I'm working quickly. One problem is some facts sourced to Sirian in Master_of_Orion#Planets and Master_of_Orion#Technology weren't actually sourced in the actual page cited or any of the sub-pages I looked. Sourcing to the main page isn't really a good idea in my opinion, so if there's a sub-page where I missed the references, please add them. I also re-wrote the lead and moved much of the old lead into the Master_of_Orion#Overview section. One area which could probably use expanding is the detail on the Orion system itself. WLU (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just looked over the first part of your re-write. There are some things I like, but there also significant omissions and misleading items. Do you want to discuss this on the article's Talk page, or do we each keep doing unilateral edits until one of us gets really annoyed? Philcha (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Scanning through the interview with sirian, I coudn't see a way to include it. MOO is a minor part of the article, mentioned once, and he doesn't really say anything about it. I do agree after my re-write that his page is a reasonable source (though lots of incomplete pages). The most use I got out of him was with the race summary - possibly sourceable to the player's guide? WLU (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The Sirian interview is ammunition for next time I have to argue that fans often know better than big-name mag reviewers. Philcha (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the edits:

  • Intro
    • I like the summary of game objectives and activities, but should mention that it's a 4X TBS game; so might as well mention that "4X" was coined in Emrich' review of MoO.
    • Should mention the 2 "Halls of Fame".
    • I like the mention of FreeOrion.
    • I still prefer to see the bit about the Orion system under "Victory conditions" - the point is that it's very desirable but not an automatic game-winner.
  • I'm not too bothered about Sergey Lukyanenko's Line of Delirium - the article on him says he only used the race names, nothing else.
  • Overview:
  • As you may have guessed, I'd refer to relocate the first para (developers, "Halls of Fame", etc.) to the intro and the bit about the Orion system under "Victory conditions".
  • System requirements.
    • DOSBox is the only sensible solution - a mistake in editing config.sys can "really hose your computer" (Sullivan). DOSBox also allows ALT+TAB.
    • An AI (singular) is not quite right. There is 1 instance of the AI for each race other than the player's, they act independently and even go to war with each other.
  • Gameplay - planets:
    • Omits artifacts worlds (research bonus).

Oh, hell, the further I read the more problems I find. I can't be bothered listing every single thing - it would be as long as the article. I'm going to ask the Wikiprojects for arbitration. Philcha (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

4X is in the lead, first sentence. I'd say the discussion of the origins of 4X should go on the 4X page, unless MOOI is the first, or most innovative 4X, and even then were I making the edit, I'd be brief and put the lion's share of the content into 4X. If a MOO review was the source, that seems valid (perhaps in overview, I wouldn't put it in the lead).
High praise is enough for me, but I've no objection to adding HoF (again, briefly).
Do the Orions feature prominently in the story of the game? If so, then there should probably be a section called 'Orion'. I know it's huge in MOOIII but I just don't know about MOOI.
The lead should summarize, essentially duplicate in miniature, the entire page. Overview is for stuff like historical context in my mind, but stuff in the overview should be duplicated, not solely located, in the lead. The lead really shouldn't even have references as they should all be in the body. It's a common occurrence all over wikipedia and one that I have a spotty record of correcting. HOF stuff could be moved to a section called 'reception' or 'success', along with all the other references talking about how great the game is. Developers could be moved to 'history' or 'development'.
I've no problem taking config.sys out, I left it 'cause it was already there. Changes to how the AIs are dealt with is fine with me as I'm not an expert in the area.
The second point in Planets discusses artifacts, but briefly. Could definitely be expanded. If artifact worlds are related to the Orions (again, haven't played the game, so don't know), how about a section on Orions?
I don't really see a need for arbitration or even mediation - please go ahead and edit and if I have suggestions I can either edit directly or comment on the talk page. WLU (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I think they're for the most part good suggestions and have no objection to any of them. The above are my own suggestions and represent what I would suggest to improve the page further based on my understanding of policies and guidelines. WLU (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Further edits - I believe I've addressed most of the points: 4X is in the overview and lead. GameSpy uses HoF, GameSpot uses 'Greatest Game of All Time', so I couldn't see a way of including both in the lead without placing undue weight on a very short bit of body text, so I used the wording "Master of Orion was extremely well received, with awards from GameSpy and GameSpot for its exceptional quality". It could probably be improved. The Orion system has more mentions now - in victory conditions, the lead, planets and finally in its own section, The Orions (which could/should be moved up, possibly expanded if more info can be found - I used only what I could mine from the manual). Regards the developers, there's information in the infobox and overview, but I wouldn't put the 'who of the developers' in the lead unless it's critical (and based on the current body I don't see it as such though it's possible the body is just incomplete). In general leads are very different from overview sections - a lead should summarize the whole page, overview should summarize broad aspects of the game and particularly the real-world aspects such as development and other generic information. Speaking of overview, I've expanded, moved and retitled it as 'development'. I've tried to refine the contents of all sections to be more discrete and focussed. I removed the specifics of how to modify config.sys, ideally I'd put in a reference on how to do it, but not actually discuss specifics in the page (leave that to Sullivan or any other specific reference). I would keep the wording of AI as singular (it may act for different players, but I'm guessing it's a single AI for all opponents just varies its parameters depending on whose turn it is) but feel free to change, particularly if you've a source that can give more information. Artifacts worlds were added to planets in the third point 'planetary specials. I think that's everything brought up above. WLU (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have rolled the article back to before WLU's edits:

  • I have repeatedly asked WLU to discuss suggested changes on this Talk page, to no avail. WLU only started responding when I pointed out defects in his version.
  • Several aspects of WLU's edits are a step backwards (this list is not comprehensive, it would be too long):
    • Inaccuracy in AI personalities.
    • Slight inaccuracy in races' research.
    • Reproduces race advantages table in full; that's verbose and in some ways uninformative, e.g. the table cannot explain the Meklar's advantage without describing the whole of Robotic Controls tech.
    • Wastes space by listing all the non-hostile planet types; they are equivalent.
    • Tech summary misses some important aspects, e.g. Computers also provides 1 "special" weapon and a "special system" that enhances firepower of "beam" weapons.
    • Etc., etc.

I will review WLU's most recent version and incorporate elements that are actual improvements, plus itesm covered in discussion above. Philcha (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Every single point you've raised I have tried to address. Rather than raising more or attempting to address them one at a time or editing the version after my changes, you've reverted completely . Do whatever you want, you're too much of a pain in the ass to work with so the page is yours. WLU (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear, dear, WP:CIVIL. To summarise my view of this situation:
  • When I saw WLU was planning a major re-write, I repeatedly asked him to discuss suggested changes on this Talk page first, to no avail. WLU only started responding when I pointed out defects in his version.
  • Each time I look at WLU's version, I found more inaccuracies.
  • If anyone wants to see my approach to a major rewrite in discussion with people who know what they're talking about, see Talk:World_Chess_Championship#Pre-FIDE Philcha (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Consider that a wholesale revert is more than a little dickish, essentially saying that there was no value to my changes whatsoever, despite many of them being in line with the manual of style and tone expected of wikipedia. Much of my re-write retained information while moving it around, sourcing it, or adding citation templates which you are now duplicating. Every time you pointed out an 'inaccuracy', I researched and attempted to address it. And I repeatedly urged you to make the edits you felt were necessary. And I'm not reverting wholesale to a previous version. But I'm also not working on this page further, which means you lose a collaborator and you're probably still going to be out of keeping with the MOS if the previous version was the best you could manage. But obviously losing a collaborator won't be much of a problem since my changes were so worthless in the first place. There are still five uses of the second-person that should be addressed by the way. And please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD - I can't see a good reason for mentioning Sergey Lukyanenko there and not in the body. WLU (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've inserted mention of Sergey Lukyanenko in the body, but I wouldn't weep if someone deleted it. Lukyanenko used only the races' names, so it's close to trivia. OTOH using only the races' names makes it no more loosely based on Master of Orion than Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares is.
I've revised the lead - after revising the body, which seems like the right way round to me. Philcha (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Replaced re-write[edit]

The page has not changed since May 19. I also believe version before the current one is out of keeping with several policies and guidelines, including WP:TONE, WP:EL, WP:LEAD and WP:NOT#HOWTO in addition to being less detailed and organized. I have been preparing a draft on a sub-page, it's history can be found here, though I may replace the current content with drafts of other page. My starting point was this version by User:Tabletop, and all subsequent changes are from that version. I have done my best to preserve and integrate the changes made by User:Philcha since his original revert on May 19th, as well as expanding based on the manual and other sources. Both bold and revert from bold, revert, discuss have been done by myself and Philcha, please let us discuss. I will be on my best behavior and but I really, really believe the current version is more in keeping wikipedia's MOS and other guidelines. Errors, omissions and wording corrections are welcome, and I do not own the page (or pages in general) but a wholesale revert indicates that there is no value to the hours of work I have put into this version of the page; I do not think this is the case. I also respected the hours of work that have been put into the page by others and attempted to preserve as best I could. Please offer me the same courtesy. I do not want an edit war over this, but I also do not want to lose what I consider valuable changes without discussion. A third opinion or request for comment can be sought if required. WLU (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am getting really bored with this. WLU's version contains the same factual errors as before. WLU expects me to do the grunt-work of going though his text line by line, cleaning up his errors. No - I've already done my share by checking all the fact when I was editing it. Now WLU had better start doing some grunt-work to fix his errors, or I will just revert the lot. Philcha (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me present a sample. WLU's's 1st comment above is, "The page has not changed since May 19." Now look at the history. My last edit was May 21, when I changed the main text to reflect what the intro says about Lukyanenko. WLU's reading of the manual and other sources is equally unreliable. Philcha (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
According to my reading of the history, the Lukyanenko addition to the body occurred on 14:01 May 19th, 2008 though it is possible that our date and time preferences are different (my offset is -4 hours, yours, being in the UK, might be different). Irrespective, I don't believe my ability or inability to read a time/datestamp indicates all of my work should/must/could be discarded. What's unreliable about my reading of the manual, specifically? I've tried to stay very close to the manual and other sources whenever possible, but it is of course a possibility that I have made an error or omission. Could you provide some specifics of areas that you believe are erroneous? I reviewed the manual where I had guidance - for instance I reviewed the section on technologies per your previous comments and added in the missing weapon for computers and other mentions from page 25 of the manual. I am happy to research and address any deficiencies you find on the page, please point them out and I will do my best. Note that if you wholesale revert without a reason, ideally a good reason to discard many hours of work, I will revert, possibly resulting in an edit war. Also, I would prefer to discuss the page, rather than, well, me. I've been here an while and I don't think an assumption that I am hurting the page is warranted. Would you prefer to go straight into a RFC, 3O or some other form of dispute resolution?
As a side note, I don't believe Lukyanenko's books should be placed in the lead of the page - if he just used the names, that's not a very notable mention, and the trilogy that uses the names doesn't have its own wikipage. Even Lukyanenko's own page only mentions MoO once, briefly, and I don't think it discusses the trilogy at length. I do not think Lukyanenko is a good choice to be placed in the lead and it is trivia, borderline trivial trivia at that. Thanks, WLU (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd as soon delete Lukyanenko - it's as relevant as Dan Dare is to Venus.
The assumption that you are hurting the page is warranted. You repeatedly misunderstand the manual, to the extent that I now don't believe you've ever played the game. Philcha (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me, he's gone. I've never played the game, but that's for the most part irrelevant since information should be verifiable in independent sources. WLU (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifics[edit]

Here is a list of the deficiencies of, for lack of a better term, 'my version' (I would assume this version), discussed in this edit. Philcha's comments tagged with his userid, my comments follow:

My summary comes from the manual, page 42-43. In some cases I am very close to verbatim, and given WP:COPYVIO I may re-write using different words.
My summary of the "alternative" traits was more accurate and informative.Philcha (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is from page 57 of the manual. I could have made errors in who has excellent/good/poor/- but that's a reason to copy-edit. Please check it over just in case, I can't find any errors.
Read the manual properly, as I had to. I'm not going to spoon-feed you. Out of the kindness of my heart I'll give you two clues: (a) you missed something important about one of the races; (b) your account contains a word which does not occur in the manual (nor does any synonym or circumlocution), and may be an incorrect import from e.g. Spaceward Ho!. Philcha (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Reproduces race advantages table in full; that's verbose and in some ways uninformative, e.g. the table cannot explain the Meklar's advantage without describing the whole of Robotic Controls tech. User:Philcha
There is no racial advantages table I believe, there are prose summaries on pages 39-41. They are reflected in the third column of this table, and I think it's an adequate summary without going into excessive detail (particularly given the manual actively providing advice, which would definitely push the page towards being a how-to manual). I have the Melkar's advantage summarised as "superior factory control". The manual's racial summary is "...the Meklars are the acknowledged masters of cybernetic interfaces and are able to control two additional factories per population above and beyond their normal technological limit. Also, Meklars also do not need to pay to refit factories for Robotic Control." I think superior factory control is pretty adequate and more detail is unnecessary; another option could be superior industrial techniques or outputs perhaps. There's a balance to be struck between being informative and excessive detail.
Your "There's a balance to be struck between being informative and excessive detail" is exactly my point. The table gives too much detail but is less informative than the summary I produced. In addition to the problem about the Mecklar, "Superior space pilots" does not explain the Alkari's advantage at all.
There is also one whole column that is an illegitimate import from Master of Orion 3 Philcha (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wastes space by listing all the non-hostile planet types; they are equivalent. User:Philcha
The planet types section is quite detailed and could be reduced to a simple description of hostile/non and the levels of technology required. According to the manual the non-hostile planets are not equivalent - from page 11 of the manual, "The type of planetary environment dictates the size of the planet, which in turn determines how many colonists the planet can support and how fast the population will grow" and from page 12 "At the start of the game, the planet size is determined by the planet’s environment. Terraforming technology can eventually be used to increase the base size of the planet and allow more colonists to live on the planet" and page 62 "Terraforming increases the effective size of a planet by improving their habitability." It's possible the manual is just badly written on this subject, but because this is verifiable, and wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth, I don't see what else I could say in this regard. Are there other sources I could use instead? Are they reliable? Also, the planet types are kinda neat, I think they add a definite sense of the feel of the game, or context. Sure, you could take it out. I wouldn't really mourn the loss but the context is nice.
"wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth" God help Wikipedia! Which do you think readers are interested in?
The manual is poorly written on this point - my guess is that some of the wording may represent ideas that they wanted to incorporate but could not because of time and / or RAM constraints. But if you read the manual carefully you will see that terraforming is the biggest determinant of pop cap, and from that point of view all that matters is hostile / normal / fertile / Gaia. You may be incorrectly importing an idea from another game.
BTW your latest version introduces a new inaccuracy. Philcha (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Tech summary misses some important aspects, e.g. Computers also provides 1 "special" weapon and a "special system" that enhances firepower of "beam" weapons. User:Philcha
Again I'll give you a clue - search the manual for a word that begins with "sh". Philcha (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed pages 25-26 as well as the tech tree to adjust the tech content. I don't believe I missed anything but again I would require specifics.
Through reading of the manual will give you those. It might help if you played a few games too. Philcha (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate these specifics and have made an effort to address them. Please provide more and I will do my best to continue to do so, or any other editor can address them if they would prefer. Please continue to list the inaccuracies as they are very helpful for me at least to focus further edits. WLU (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording has been pasted from previous version to introduce the table; I think the table offers advantages that a prose summary does not and the species type is legit in my mind. We could replace Ursoid with Bear-like, humanoid with Shapeshifter, Avian with bird-like, but that's a lot less fun : ) We can get a third opinion if you'd like. Superior space pilots is direct from the manual for Alkari, the rest of the detail is pretty in-depth and would take a lot to explain; I think it can be left out.
I don't like playing games, so if you are unwilling to provide a direct comment or edit yourself, I am ignoring them.
WP:V is a core, essential policy of wikipedia. It is one of my guiding principles when I edit and the only way to resolve conflicts between editors who do not agree. Many wikipedians would love to report the truth but it's not an option.
If you have a source that verifies there is a problem with planet size, then the error can be pointed out and discussed in the article. From my reading terraforming moves planets up the chart.
Anything else? I would correct my added inaccuracy if I knew what it was or you could do so yourself. Any further issues large or small? Please thread your posts - the back and forth in the original version gets confusing. Also, it would be very, very easy for you to make these corrections yourself and I am unlikely to revert changes unless it is again a wholesale revert to the previous, out of keeping with the MOS and TONE version. Thanks, WLU (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


You wrote in the previous thread "I've never played the game, but that's for the most part irrelevant since information should be verifiable in independent sources."
"I've never played the game" means that you don't know what's important and what's unimportant, and you don't know how to give readers any feeling of what it would be like to play the game. It means you are in severe danger of quoting out of context and of presenting misleadingly incomplete information (which you have actually done). It means you are in danger of getting confused and presenting incorrect information, which you have actually done. It means you are in danger of summarising using phraseology which is misleading. It means you lack mental alarms that shout "Wait a minute, the game doesn't behave like that" - and my alarms scream when I read almost anything you've written in this article. The reason I've been unwilling to list and explain all the points I'm unhappy about is because they jump out at me orders of magnitude faster than I can type, and the list and explanations would be considerably longer than the article itself.
It is quite possible for someone who is initially not familiar with a topic to contribute to an article on that topic. Take a look at Talk:4X, where Randomran and I are working quite well together, because we listen to each other. Take a look at Talk:Alexander Alekhine#GA_review, where the GA reviewer admitted she knew nothing about chess, so we proceeded (successfully) on the basis that it might be necessary to revise any copyedits she did.
I am quite prepared to discuss matters of emphasis and interpretation with someone who has played the game a few times. But you are not qualified to comment at all on such matters. You may be qualified to comment on matters of style and presentation, but so far the errors introduced by your ignorance of the subject matter have necessarily dominated our discussions. Unless you propose a method of collaboration that takes account of your confessed ignorance of the game, I will revert. And if this turns into an edit war, I'll escalate the issue instantly. Philcha (talk)
Your refusal to be specific and edit to correct my errors, and reverting to a previous version means the page remains out of keeping with a variety of policies and guidelines does not help the page and turns it into a battleground, which it is not. I would rather work together. I've never taken natalizumab, had motivation for rape or acute aortic syndrome yet have expanded and re-worked all of those pages substantially and because of verifiability, not truth, WP:PROVEIT and other content policies, it doesn't matter. If information can't be verified, it's of dubious merit to the page. I am willing to take things on faith, accept certain interpretations and compromise, but I am unwilling to let an inferior version sit on the page because of small, fixable changes that could be easily made.
Determining what is important and unimportant is original research and reduces the neutrality of the page. Either one is problematic. I am willing to listen, I am willing to edit, review and comment, I am very willing to let others' edits stand but I do not wish to see my work wasted. I have not wasted yours, I have done my best to integrate your changes, diff by diff, into the extant version. WLU (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hit list[edit]

  • System requirements - my previous text was better; and so was the heading "Computer .. environment", as it more naturally accommodates "no multi-player":
Reply by the numbers, it’s going to be short ‘cause I’ve already done this once and my fingers are tired.
  1. Saying something is tricky is not neutral, out of tone , and not necessarily accurate – it may be easy for some people and tricky for others. Harmful if incorrect (the current wording) seems more universal – a crash is a crash, irrespective of if the person knew what they were doing or not. I’d rather not include the alt-tab bit because of WP:NOT#HOWTO, and it may not always be safer to run it under DOSBox (all programs have bugs and all computers are unique). The current wording says it can be done, without saying one option is better (and I don’t believe a universal ‘better’ is warranted – it may not be better for some, as well as presenting OR concerns). I don’t mind adding ‘allows multi-tasking’ to the current version, I was on the fence before but don’t have any concerns on reflection.
  2. I’d rather describe the original distribution than say there *is* no need for a ROM/DVD – some people may get a burned copy like I did for STARCON2 in a 10-disk stack of old games. They may also get it from the internet, a flash drive, or the original disks. I think it’s adequate to say it was originally on 4 disks without saying what it is now (which will almost certainly be incorrect for someone).
  3. Explaining why the screens are 320x200x256 without a reference reads as OR for me as well – if the game designers say why it was released with these specs and we can reference it, great, but it could have been for different reasons – microprose was cheap, game testers had crappy computers, etc. As above, I’m more comfortable *describing* something than I am saying *why* it is a certain way.
  4. For multiplayer, how about “There is no multi-player option, opponents are controlled by an AI created by the program”? Contests is an unusual word to choose in my mind, and I’d think the AI is ‘located’ in the program rather than the computer. But that's hairsplitting and pretty irrelevant. WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • IMO the UI stuff should follow the explanation of the game concepts, because it refers to them.
Do you mean AI? I don't know what UI stands for and you've used it twice, suggesting it's not a typo. WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd change the 1st para of "Victory conditions" as follows:
Seems reasonable. By my reading of the manual the elections are held at 0, 25, 50 and 75; reading the above summary, it sounds like if 2/3 planets are colonized on turn 110, elections would be held at 135, 160, 185 and 210 – I don’t know if this is the case. And really it’s a pretty minor point.
I would use slightly different wording – the above definitely sounds more exciting than my usual dry choice of prose, but see this part of NPOV. I’d use a synonym somewhere between gained and determined, how do you feel about votes being ‘garnered’ and ‘his opponents’ instead of ‘dissidents’? These are minor wording changes though, I can live with either version of the paragraph. WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I know this is going to seem unkind, but I prefer my previous summary of Orion, and as a 2nd para of "Victory conditions" without its own sub-heading - it's shorter, and IMO giving the full backstory does not help the reader (unlike e.g. StarCraft: Brood War expansion, where you can't explain the game without summarizing the backstory):
Hm. I like Orion having its own section because it is called “Master of Orion” and it allows linking from other sections (right now it’s linked in the lead for instance, though that may be the only section). We could include conditions relevant to victory conditions in that section, we could also precede the Gameplay section with a ‘Backstory’ section that covers the Orions. The backstory is obviously *not* vital, but it is interesting. I think having an article called “Master of Orion” without an explicit discussion of *Orion* is odd. ==Backstory== or ==Orion== leading into gameplay gives a nice overview, and if it precedes victory conditions we could split the relevant sections – history and story in the first section, how the Orion system interacts with the mechanics in Victory conditions. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with a primary goal of ‘’informing’’ rather than ‘’helping’’ the reader, I strongly think there’s merit. Do you have any suggestions for a compromise? Obviously the game is not all about Orion but I believe it’s due some prominence. WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Planets":
    • "Mineral wealth, which influences its industrial productivity" must be expanded to explain that mineral wealth only affects factory construction / upgrades (and hence transfers to the treasury), building and upgrading of defences, and ship construction; it does not affect research or eco (N.B. this was my omission!)
This is where my understanding lags because I’ve not played the game. Reading between the lines, I think you’re saying it’s this: Mineral production impacts building/updating factories, defences and ship construction. Factories also produce money (how?), which is used for research and terraforming. For a planet that is dedicated solely to research, once all its factories and defences are built and upgraded it’s mineral wealth is irrelevant? WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Should say "Population capacity, which can be at least doubled by various kinds of terraforming" The different types of non-hostile planet are a red herring - they have no effect on how terraforming increases pop cap (as I said earlier, Simtex may originally have planned to make the type relevant, but possibly were constrained for some reason; this tentative explanation is OR, but what I just said about terraforming is strictly based on the manual and is how the game behaves).
Yea, reviewing the manual it is somewhat equivocal. It says Emrich and Hughes produced a strategy guide, any chance you’ve got access? Is it available on-line? That kind of resource would be excellent for the page overall, and probably have details such as this. Unfortunately, people seem to talk about it but not publish it on-line. I could buy it if I really, really wanted to, but I don’t :(
When you play, does it ever display the planet type when it’s not hostile? What’s the difference between building on an oceanic versus an arid or desert? By my reading of the manual, there seems to be two types of terraforming, soil and atmosphere. Per the manual, in planetology atmospheric terraforming alters population growth rates, soil enrichment does so also and increases the size of the planet and terraforming increases just the size. It’s frustrating because if it’s wrong then large swaths of the manual are completely incorrect. I’ve looked on-line a bit and there’s tantalizing discussions like this one, where the planet types seem to map to max pop sizes. Is planet size or pop max an interaction between environment and fertility? Very frustrating since the manual seems so clear. I’ve sent an e-mail to Sirian, and based on this page along with others it really looks like planet size is a mix of planet type and fertility. Blarg. WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think detailed descriptions of the hostile types are necessary. What matters is that each requires more advanced tech than the previous one, with a 37x difference between the easiest and hardest.
Yeah, probably not necessary, but it does provide a bit of context and spices up the page to include it. I could go for removing the list and replacing it with a simple bracketed list (with wikilinks). WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "increasing their population capacity and ultimately industrial capacityproductivity" - productivity is output per head, determined by robotic controls level (factories per head) and planets' mineral wealth; for a given productivity level, a pop cap upgrade increases total output. (I've studied economics, so I'm picky about this)
Sure, that’s fine. Know anything about mathematical mapping of unemployment? Did you want to make that clearer (more people = more output, more mineral wealth and better computers = more productivity per head via greater initial resources and efficiency)? WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I now think "Economy" should precede "Planets". This will make it easier to explain the precise effects of mineral wealth and the effect of artifacts.
I’m frustrated by my inability to decide on the best structure – from the experience of the player chronologically (start with economy of planets, then tech, then exploration, then ship design, then politics, then victory), scale (ship, colony, map, politics, victory), basics (victory, races, economy, tech, ships, planets)? Once a structure is decided upon, it’ll be easier to harmonize. My building of sections was quite haphazard and it definitely shows. If you think economy should go first, that’s OK with me, I can’t think of any other being an unequivocally better starting point. WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think my previous summary of the techs is a better base on which to build. The main difficulty is that each tech provides such disparate benefits that we need a different verb for each one if we try to write each tech as prose.
I’d have to see what changes you were suggesting to make comments. There’s a bit more detail in my discussion of the 6, but I don’t see much difference otherwise. Edit, I’ll comment. There's a tension between being short, and being scrupulously accurate. The former leads to the broadest advances for each tech, the latter means we have to mention Technology Nullifier in computers as a weapon. Which is better, I don't know. WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I also think my previous summary of the logic of the research process was a better base (and slightly more accurate in its description of the structure of the "tech tree", as it explains how one can go up the levels without researching every tech at previous levels - well almost, but that gets too detailed as it's about the programming of the UI). My main concern is information overload - non-players will be overwhelmed, players simply develop a feel without worrying about the actual numbers.
Sure, I’ve no problem with de-detailing the tech advances, the calculation for a breakthrough is excessive right now. The problem I see is that the manual lists 50 tech levels, with lines between each chunk of 5. I’m guessing those lines are the real 'levels', and you have to have one of those 5 in the chunk before you can go to the next chunk, meaning there’s really 10 levels and the numbers within the chunks don’t really mean anything. WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's enough for now, as we'll probably need to discuss several items. We can worry about the rest later. Philcha (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm drafting a reply in friggin' word because IE keeps crashing. Formatting may be off but I'll try to get it out ASAP. WLU (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yuck, messy and hard to read for anyone else. But there's my thoughts in all their woeful glory. WLU (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So I guess we're sticking with "dissidents" then? OK, I can live with that :) I prefer the current version without the {s} - strictly speaking it's probably more comprehensive to include the option of a single dissident, but it's ugly as sin. WLU (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Blimey, IE really is giving you a hard time!
By the numbers, as you requested:
(1) "tricky" might be a dialect issue - where are you from? To me it carries connotations of both difficult and potentially troublesome. Sullivan's "might hose your computer" is an exaggeration, so I used the paraphrase and an opportunity to tone it down a bit - at most the customized MS-DOS environment crashes and the PC reboots in its default mode, which is Win. I've seen enough refs to the reliability of DOSBox versions; that's why I took the unusual step of referencing a Linux forum - in this case what counts is the opinions of real users, not some tech wiz who disassembles operating systems for light relief. More readers will recognise "ALT-TAB" than "task-switch".
(2) OK.
(3) OK-ish. My concern is that most readers will wonder why the screen res was so small.
(4) I'm a retired computer consultant and know a bit about programming. IMO the phrasing I chose is more neutral that what you've suggested. The structure of game programs is complex: typically I'd expect one instance of an AI object per computer-controlled opponent; but in fact there may be more than 1 type of AI object, e.g. for economic management, combat and possibly overall strategy. Also "AI opponent" or simply "AI" are common terms on game forums for computer-controlled opponents.
UI = user interface - "UI" is used by game journalists and well-recognized by gamers. I've just checked that the abbreviation does not currently appear in the article - thanks for prodding me into that, because IMO assuming minimum prior knowledge is important in an encyclopedia.
"By my reading of the manual the elections are held at 0, 25, 50 and 75" - correct, but the b****rd cheats: in practice it holds elections as often as every 5 turns if there's a chance the human player will lose, but makes the human player wait a lo-o-o-ong time if he's clearly got the 2/3 in his pocket. Saying this explicitly would be OR, but IMO over-emphasising the manual's misrepresentation would mislead readers, and if push comes to shove I care more about not misleading readers. Of course I could write "The manual says that ..." (but only if "says" is emphasised).
I'm genuinely puzzled by your "the above (victory conditions: election) definitely sounds more exciting than my usual dry choice of prose, but see this part of NPOV." I thought the words I used were quite unadorned and unemotive. I confess "garnered" annoys me - it seems to be a buzzword in some parts of Wikipedia; but that might be a dialect thing. I'm restoring "dissidents" for now because "his opponents" could mean any of: the other candidate; those who voted against the new High Master; those who rejected the result (my professional background perhaps very likely makes me hyper-sensitive to ambiguity). I might eventually go for sonething like"...between those who accept and those who reject the newly-elected High Master". Edit that in if you like.
Re "Orion", to me the game title suggests Orion is the key to winning - which is untrue. In fact a premature grab for Orion could lose you the game because the Guardian will destroy so many of your ships - it's a much more formidable killer than in MOO II, especially at the highest difficuly level (dubbed "Impossible").
As I said above, the backstory is not important to the game play (contrast Starcraft'). I dont' mind including it, but only if it does not hurt the structure and flow of the article. Possibly best to wait and see how the rest shapes up.
That reminds me - the manual says "The difficulty setting affects several components of the game, including your opponents’ production rates, expansion rate, technology development, and willingness to ally with you. It also determines the size of your initial fleet" and "The Base Cost of developing a Technology is the device’s tech level squared, multiplied by a factor that depends upon the game’s difficulty setting" - and that's all it says. Do we want to go into difficulty levels, or just take it for granted as a standard feature of games?
Re terraforming and planet types, your reading of the manual matches mine an dhow the game behaves. I've now summarised it in a footnote, including that planet type is irrelevant except that you have to upgrade hostile planets to normal before using Soil Enrichment.
IIRC the strategy guide was published by Prima, who have a track record of getting stroppy about copyvios - even for works no longer in print. The manual looks to me like a rushed job, with flawed structure (duplicate content) and a few inconsistencies. I use the bits I know to be true and ignore the rest.
"Factories also produce money (how?), which is used for research and terraforming." Geez, this discussion is long enough already and you ask a really complex question with 2 lengths of answer, long and longer. "I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I said." "Money" is ambiguous: "x BC" looks as if it means money, but it's really just a measure of industrial output. Spendable money in the treasury, that can be used to boost a colony's production or to bribe another player, is something else, and you have to understand the operation of the slider system by which economies are managed in order to understand how spendable cash is generated. Because you only have sliders rather the (now) more common build queues ("build X, then Y, then Z"), you are saddled with a hard-coded set of priorities for the "industry" slider: if the colony has not reached its current robotic controls limit, build factories; if it has reached its current robotic controls limit and you've researched a higher robotic controls level, upgrade existing factories to this the higher R.C. level then build more factories; if you've built all the factories the coloony's pop can manage but less than the planet can accomodate (i.e. the number the colonists could operate if the planet's population was at max), go on building factories even tho it's wasteful; when there's no more room to build factories, place the fraction of output determined by the "industry" slider into the reserve, but at a 50% penalty (0.5 BC of speding money per 1 BC of output). That was only the long answer. Are you really, truly, sincerely sorry you asked?
"For a planet that is dedicated solely to research, once all its factories and defences are built and upgraded it’s mineral wealth is irrelevant?" Yep.
"meaning there’s really 10 (tech) levels and the numbers within the chunks don’t really mean anything" is half right. The position of a tech within its level determines its Base Research Cost, e.g. all the techs at position X within level Y (across different tech fields) have the same research cost, while those at position Z within level Y have a different cost. Philcha (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes on Philcha's edits 4 June 2008[edit]

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)

Notes on Philcha's "Tech tree" edits 5 June 1008[edit]

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)

Races and Diplomacy[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Recent edit of "Planets" section[edit]

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[2]
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.[2]
  • Planet size, which determines the planet's population capacity. This can be at least doubled by various kinds of terraforming.[3][2]
  • 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).[2] This has the effect of extending the exploration and colonization phases of MoO for much longer than in most 4X games.[4]
    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.[2][3]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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 - [2]; 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)

Tech[edit]

I was going to edit with a summary of 'revert if desired', but this is probably better. In part of the detail trim, the tech section ship probably be de-complicated. Here's my idea:


Technology

Technology can be acquired through planetary exploration, trade, espionage or conquest but in most cases advances occur through research.[2] There are six areas of technology and funding is allocated to each area through lockable sliders. Research advances occur more quickly overall if funding is split between several areas, barring extremely limited research production (such as the beginning of the game). More advanced technologies are more expensive than less advanced discoveries but can only be funded after less advanced technology has been discovered. Breakthroughs and new technologies occur randomly once the base cost of a prototype has been met, proportionate to the amount of money invested beyond the cost of the prototype. Advances may result in completely new equipment or may improve upon pre-existing technologies (for instance through miniaturization of ship systems, which allow more to be fitted into each ship size; past the highest level of specific advances all research results in miniaturization of previous equipment). The six areas of technology are:

  1. Computers improves spying, ship combat effectiveness, factory efficiency, detection of enemy ships and allows the remote exploration of planets
  2. Construction reduces pollution, the cost of building and upgrading factories, improves spaceship armor and allows ships to self-repair during combat
  3. Force fields improves the protection of ships, planets and troops and provides some special weapons
  4. Planetology allows greater pollution control, population expansion on planets, colonization of hostile planets and assists in biological warfare
  5. Propulsion increases in the range and speed of ships and provides some special ship-based weapons and systems
  6. Weapons for uses by ships, missile bases and ground troops

Each race has only a subset all possible technologies available for research that is determined at the start of each game, forcing players to adapt to each game rather than follow a single research strategy every time they play,[4] though there are often alternative technologies that offer comparable advantages.


Whaddya think? I'm going to try something similar for races hopefully soon as it is the most egrigious offender. I took out the 'range helps at the beginning' as overly specific for propulsion, and tried to generalize as much as possible. I also led with the background on tech, which makes more sense to me than starting with the 6 specific areas. WLU (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this obscures the different types of point that need to be made:
  • 3 methods of acquiring techs. IMO this should be made before the detailed explanation of research. I also repeated it in the section's last sentence, as a reminder after all the research-specific stuff.
  • Put to lead - and added discovery on planets. WLU (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The tech areas and the types of benefit they provide.
  • I see this as an issue of level of detail and I don't see it as on that's easily resolved. I certainly have no ideal solution. WLU (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Miniaturization. It makes a heck of a difference to warships' effectiveness, as the manual points out. There's room for debate about whether it should be in "Technology" or "Spaceship design". I opted for "Technology" because it includes the point that research beyond the pre-defined tech tree can be advantageous. This is significant because in some 4X games, e.g. Space Empires III, there's no such benefit and one should re-allocate resources to something else. Yes, that last sentence would be WP:OR if included in Master of Orion; but it's a good reason for making the points about miniaturization and hyper-advanced research, about which the MOO is explicit.
I think tech is definitely the place for it to go, there's enough room to include more on miniaturization. WLU (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Research management.
Not sure what you mean here. Lockable sliders or something different? WLU (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In each game each player is allowed to see a different random subset of the technologies at each level - plus reminder about the ways of getting techs.
Yup, moved the different ways to the first sentence; they're all pretty self-explanatory except for research I think. Adjusted the wording on the random subset. WLU (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Re the order in which these are presented:
  • I think it will benefit readers to have the 3 methods of acquiring techs at the very start and also the very end of the section. The final mention of the 3 methods goes naturally with the random subsets of the tech tree, so I think that should be the last para.
I'd say either the very start or the very end, right now I've moved it to the start and it looks OK there. The random subsets I moved to after the 6 types, it make sense to me there but I'm not dedicated to that spot. WLU (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the para about miniaturization works best just after the list of techs, so readers can see what types of component it's talking about.
  • The para about managing research could either precede or follow those about tech areas and miniaturization. Personally I prefer to see the six tech areas first, but I suspect that's just taste.
I see it as going from general to specific, which is a taste/gestalt thing for me. WLU (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I really like your summarisation of the tech areas - nice work! I'd make 2 relatively minor changes.
  • Construction and enables ships to self-repair during combat. The point is that surviving ships fully self-repair after combat anyway.
Done, glad you like it, good nuance. WLU (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Planetology provides more efficient ways to control pollution, allows greater population expansion on planets, .... The reason for putting pollution control first is that the lowest-level pollution control tech in planetology makes a big difference to productivity (big reduction in % of output you need to spend on pollution control), while the lower-level pollution reduction techs in Construction are not really worth the research cost.
Done, d'you think it's better? WLU (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you find a different way to explain why splitting the research budget isn't so good in the early game - "barring extremely limited research production (such as the beginning of the game)" is not at all clear for a newcomer. Philcha (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I really, really can't. The only thing I can think of is putting in another 'qualifying note' at the bottom like what I've suggested regards planets above (and I notice you've suggested above, I've not made time to read the talk page thoroughly and I'm already itching to compose a reply for a talk page posting on a different page). Perhaps "AAn exception is at the beginning of the game when research resources are so limited it is impractical to split them". WLU (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case I'd use the earlier wording, "except that in the very early stages splitting one's limited resources in this way would make achieving the first few advances a very slow process". I know it's not particularly concise, but it makes the points that: the problem is the small level of research spending; while splitting is theoretically more efficient, the downside is the long wait. WP:OR: in practice around this stage even the home planet is concentrating on building factories and colony ships; the boost to the research budget from getting the simplest pollution control tech quickly more than compensates for the theoretical inefficiency of focussing on 1 tech (and makes colony ships significantly cheaper!)
"past the highest level of specific advances all research results in miniaturization of previous equipment" is misleading, despite what the manual says - hyper-advanced planetology tech is not worth bothering with; and the manual points out later that weapons miniaturise faster (50% per 10 levels) than other components (25% per 10 levels). In fact its statement "a miniaturized engine (lower level) will allow you to fit quite a bit more on a ship" highlights the impact of miniaturization in propulsion techs - over half the space in a combat ship is engines, because these supply energy as well as movement. I'd finesse this by saying, “past the highest level of specific advances "advanced" research results in miniaturization ....,” which avoids "all" but uses the keyword "advanced" which appears in the research menu. Philcha (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, missed a query you raised: "Planetology allows cheaper pollution control, ..." Philcha (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial Fan-Made Patch[edit]

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)

Why was this removed[edit]

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.[citation needed], ****

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)

Ridicalous game guide stuff for the gameplay section[edit]

Needs to be written anew in a proper Wikipedia manner. --Niemti (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not anew, but it could use some help. I've tried once or twice, but if I recall correctly I wasn't in any condition to do much writing.
Proper coverage of the game mechanics is important to the article. The game's very well-regarded and influential. But there's a lot of stuff here that's not pertinent to the reader's understanding, and the text often takes thirty words to say what should be said in ten.
How about this? I'll work on a better version, and keep you posted on the changes. If I'm not done after a set amount of time, please get on my case. How about ten days? I've got an important exam in a week, and two weeks might be too long.
I'll put the thing back for now. Emptying it seems too drastic - consider that it automatically marked the images in the section for deletion. I got the notification for one of them. If I'd been away or just too fed up to put a word in edgewise, they might've been deleted needlessly. Plus leaving it empty might draw in wikidrama, and honestly, I'm weary. --Kizor 11:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Check out Civilization (video game), something just like that is neeeded. --Niemti (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I've started on an edit but I have no idea how long it will take to shorten this down into something coherent. --Hubydweyer (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

---

see also, if You wish - it's related, i think: http://itsecinreal.blogspot.com/2015/05/overwork-biz-java-stress-car-crash.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.180.202.14 (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

New game, same dilemma[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Jon's MOO I Resources". 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Barcia, S (1993). "Master of Orion - Game manual" (PDF). MicroProse. Retrieved 2008-05-21. 
  3. ^ a b 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.
  4. ^ a b Thomas, B. "Master of Orion - Sirian's Perspective: The Player". Retrieved 2008-05-21.