Hypothetical Question (Next-Generation MOO2)

Suggest or Vote on new features here.
User avatar
Tifi
Posts:41
Joined:Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:23 am

Postby Tifi » Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:48 am

How did Ground Bombardment work in GalCiv2? I can't recall.
There is no bombardment in GalCiv.
You shoot down any defending ships, then the transports unload thier troops and you're given the option of attacking via a list of 'Dastardly Schemes' (TM) from a plain frontal assault to dropping asteroids Centauri-style on thier cities :lol:
Everything else is based on the relative strengths of the two armies, and a pinch of luck.

A similar sort of thing was used in MoO3, but seemed far more boring and plain - probably because only 1 or 2 of the options were worth bothering with, the rest were pretty pointless iirc.

User avatar
siron
Posts:504
Joined:Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location:Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:58 pm

Actually it was supposed to be a rhetorical question. :wink:

User avatar
PsyDev
Posts:8
Joined:Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:11 pm

Postby PsyDev » Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:47 am

I have a list of gripes that I keep revisiting each time I play Moo2. I made a list of some of them, so I will tell you what I think really needs to change about Moo2. Actually, I think it would be great of Atari would release the source code of Moo2 so that these things could be changed.
I should note that I have never played against humans, so my concerns are mostly to do with AI games, user interface issues, etc. Many of them are small, not changing game dynamics much, but can be big frustrations in playability. I consider these all to be serious changes that could be made in a "moo2 1.5", if it were possible for such a game to be made.
------
1. The diplomacy in Moo2 is really terrible, in my opinion. It is extremely limited in the kinds of deals you can offer. You can't even offer "let's secure a peace treaty if I give you X, Y and Z." Instead, you can propose peace, and they say no. You can try ammeliorating relations by giving them many gifts, but then they might still say no to peace after you have given everything away.
The AI also tends to offer terrible trades in tech. There should be a trading screen like Civ 3's where you can negotiate tech, money, territory, treaties, etc. Even Alpha Centauri was better because you could offer deals like "I'll give you this if you give me that." If you didn't like the tech trade someone offered, you could also suggest an alternative or two.
AI shouldn't declare war on you so readily just because you ask for tribute in the form of techs. They should just tell you to go screw yourself. They declare war far too easily.
Likewise, you should be able to offer slightly more sophisticated deals to the AI. You can't simply "propose" that they go to war with an enemy of yours, you must demand it. Then, if they are offended, they go to war. Very lacking, makes diplomacy weak and not a main feature of the game.

2. Small point, but if you explored a system and you know there was a battlestation there, when you go back to look at the system, it shouldn't show up as "blank". You shouldn't have to remember. It should be grayed out so that you know it's "old data" but you should be able to see that, the last time you went to that system, this is what was there.

3. You should have some way of spying on enemy colonies so you can "look what's there", and see what buildings they have, what they are currently building, etc.

4. Get rid of the surrender option! So unfair and the computer acts irrationally when doing it. It's also somewhat unfair when the player in question is at war with more than one other person. It can suddenly make another player way more powerful.

5. There should be a screen which gives you a more detailed breakdown of your income and expenses.

6. The max. 4 governors thing is OK in my book. But you should still be able to high new ones -- simply toss out the old one to make room for the new one. There's no reason the program should assume you don't want a new, better leader to replace your existing one.

7. Have some sort of "odds of victory" option before you mount a ground assault, so that you know the relative strengths of the armies involved.
This feature might be good also for comparing ships when tactical combat is not enabled.

8. An auto-design feature is needed for the game, so that it will generate decent ships for you. This would be good for newbs.

9. Ship refits should be fast and cheap if all you are doing is upgrading a computer or shield, or adding a couple extra beam weapons.

10. I dont see why you can sabotage AND spy on someone at the same time.

11. You should get a warning when your colonist movement will impede food transport.

12. A player should have the ability to start and stop annihilating a population at will (assuming they are still "yellow" and captive). Sometimes I have to check the galaxy screen before I can know if I need to exterminate or not.
-------
My last suggestions may be somewhat controversial as it's kind of a "big change", and I am a bit hesitant to support major changes, but I think it's worth discussing, as it's a frustrating issue, and I think most would think it's a fair idea.
13A. Say there is a star system with two colonies owned by a defender. One colony has no defenses, while the other has a battlestation and missile base. Defender has 2 battleships in the system. Attacker comes in with 5 battleships. If the attacker chooses the weaker colony to attack, the defender might not want to commit his forces to an undendable location. Instead he might want to wait until they attack his battlestation, where he has a better chance of winning. When the attacker attacks the weaker planet, the defending ships should NOT automatically engage in combat. Instead, the defending player should be asked, "do you want to defend this planet?" The defender should be allowed to simply ignore the planet and keep his battleships near the other planet, where they're safe.
"Well you can always retreat", one might argue, but there is always a chance to get killed very quickly when fighting against enemies with powerful beam weapons. Your ships simply shouldn't be in the line of fire if they don't want to be.

13B. Let's say you attack a star system with 2 enemy colonies. You have 20 titans. I think you should be able to split your forces, so that you can attack one planet with 15 titans and the other planet with the other 5. The defender can then see where you chose to attack, and allocate his own defending ships accordingly.
I also don't see why it should take 3 turns to annihilate 3 small colonies in one star system if you have enough ships and firepower to do them all in one turn.

I think these changes make sense. There is no real reason not to do them, from what I can tell. Obviously it would be a somewhat major change though.
What do you guys think of this? Do you ever do thetrick where you attack the weaker colony in a system in order to draw the enemy's ships there to try to kill them before attacking the more powerful colony with the battlestation? Do you guys think that is a legitimate tactic, or that it's a bit cheap?

User avatar
PsyDev
Posts:8
Joined:Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:11 pm

Postby PsyDev » Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:01 am

As for ground combat, I think it would be neat if it were a panzer-general style hex map of a planet, where defenders placed hidden bunkers, units around important strategic points, etc. Attackers would choose where to drop troops, what areas to bombard from orbit and what parts not.

Obviously though, I think it should be strictly optional in multiplayer.

I think it would be neat if there were simple decision matrix for ground combat strategies:
Defender:
-Inflict maximum casualties on defender (to slow him down) or:
-Hold out as long as possible (in the hopes of a rescue in two or three turns)

Attacker:
-Quick Victory (bloodier, risker? but assures you take the planet quickly and can start building missile bases, etc. or:
-Wear them down through attrition (minimizing casualties, but taking more time to gain effective control of the planet, i.e. can't produce, research.)

Possible modifier for attacker:
-Protect Infrastructure (either takes longer or costs lives, not sure which it should do). Maybe it could also increase your chances of stealing tech.
-Ignore Collateral damage (civilians and buildings die, saving your time or lives, again, not sure which it should be. Maybe both?)


I think this would be good because you could end up with some interesting scenarios... If the players pick opposing strategies, the result will be "normal", whereas if they pick the same, it will either be very bloody or very drawn out. It would give some strategic relevance to ground combat without it being too involved. You could force an opponent to stay in a system longer by making him struggle for two or three turns to get a hold of a planet, or else cause him lots of troop casualties, slowing his advance to other worlds by making him wait for reinforcements. One interesting possibility would be, for extended conflicts, attackers get a bonus if there is a ship in orbit with bombardment abilities. This might force the ship to stay in the system longer if it meant that the attackers would gain an advantage by keeping it there for ground support.
It might also make sense to have 3 options instead of 2, with "Intense", "Medium" and "Light".

Just a suggestion.

User avatar
siron
Posts:504
Joined:Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location:Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:47 am

Surely, many good points. I agree with a few exceptions.

Point 3 can cause too much micromanagement pretty fast. Especially when combined with a sabotage option.

Not sure if Point 5 is needed. I don't need it.

I haven't figured out exact formula regarding Point 9, though my impression is that ship refit prices are fair. Just don't add battlepods during refit which will explode the costs.

Other points are surely (small) improvements. Nevertheless I think that MOO2 has still one of the bests UIs ever.

gmbarak
Posts:4
Joined:Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:22 pm
Location:Israel

Postby gmbarak » Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:19 am

if you want to know how a good combat system looks like
try out Space rangers II, this game has great turn based space
comabt as well as Real time strategy ground combat,
if you ask me space rangers is the best space exploration
and maybe one of the best funnest games ever made.

User avatar
siron
Posts:504
Joined:Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location:Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:20 am

I never heard of that game, but...
...wow, it has very good reviews:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platfor ... %20rangers

Looks very interesting, thx for the hint.

Ca$$iuS
Posts:1
Joined:Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:37 pm
Location:UK

Postby Ca$$iuS » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:40 pm

ground combat is pointless in moo... end of convo :P

as for creating a new version of moo... next generation you say? im a professional gamer (work for microsoft) and i often say that the greatest games are not the games with the best graphics... gameplay is what counts. SC2 will be rubbish, trust me, TA2(supcom) was complete rubish aswell as a miriad of sequals that were created for other games (film industry anyone?). Its very rare that you come across a truely epic sequal to something, aliens was awsum... pirates of the carrabean2? abysmal... sequals are rubish because the creaters attempt to capitalise on what 'they' think will sell the game, and not what actually makes a game truely epic... FF7 was beyond amazing, FF8 was awsum... FF9... god help me i think im having a heart attack.

creating a new master of orion is far more complicated than you think... for the simple reason that moo2 is so good that not much needs changing, and therefore begs the question, why make another? they tried with moo3, dear god i was apauled...

the next generation of moo needs to be exactly what moo2 is, yet all bugs, fixed, majority of balances averaged out (not all because a galaxy is natually unbalanced(bulrathi are rubish)) and more tech... ultimately allwoing for more customisation, and at the same time, more automisation... and dear god, sakkra should not be subteranian, thats klakon terratory :P

moo(4) will never be made, the creators of moo3 tried to do it, but failed as they attempted to better what was already best.

if you want a next generation of moo, then only the moders here can create it :D modders are the only real creators, all the games companies only care about money. Big up to moders

graphics doesnt make a truely epic game, only gameplay can... as thats what a game is... gameplay... if you want graphics, go watch shrek3, but remember to take a bucket to throw up in cus they screwed it up

User avatar
Time
Posts:220
Joined:Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:27 pm
Location:Orlando, Florida, USA, Earth, Human Empire

Postby Time » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:53 pm

Good points PsyDev and Ca$$ius.

I would like to make one point about G.C.
There has been some concern about it becoming too long.
Yes. Investing 200k marines on japanese isles or dropping 2 bombs....hmmm. Not that difficult. The situations that make me consider a ground invasion are based on unrealistic game design in MOO2.
Capturing an entire planet perhaps pluto sized, might be done, where Earth sized, might take an extra turn or two, where Jupiter sized (or larger) could take 3-5 turns longer. Heavily defended and heavily populated, Massive planets should not be captured as fast as one could destroy an undefended outpost on an asteroid belt.

Also, Messy weapons, like the A-Bombs mentioned above, left radiation levels high, and would hardly be a prime location for Soil Enrichment or LOL, a Holo simulator (I am picturing farmers in radiation suits).
These delays should be expected, if one selected a messier 'Nuke them all from orbit' type option.

Also, according to a NASA website, the earth is over 6000 km in radius, or almost 4000 miles.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/pro ... y=Overview

If a subterranean race living even 10% of that depth (600 km or 400 miles) underground, would not be 'nuked from orbit' and all destroyed. Not to mention say possibly 50% of a planet's diameter, or a Jupiter sized planet of over 70,000 km or 44,000 miles (10% being 7,000 km or 4,400 miles).
It would be hard to believe even a few hundred beam weapons would effect anyone that deep underground. Thus obviously delaying the complete capture of a planet and total elimination or all of its previous inhabitants.
One could start by bombarding from orbit.
Then, move to ground forces scouting for survivors (like us looking for bin laden, not done overnight).
Automated defenses could be erected around newly captured mining areas, for example, surface areas first, then slowly underground or underwater, depending on the new occupiers choice (likely to be based on the previous races living environment).

The point being, it should take a very long time, but, we like our games to be fast. Faster is usually more fun, so, more faster paced games are made. A balance has to be made between this obvious realism, and fast paced timely fun.
MOO1 Fan, MOO2 Fan, MOO3 needed too many changes = hopeless, getting older waiting for a MOO4 (still).

User avatar
Arnuz
Posts:2
Joined:Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:10 pm

Postby Arnuz » Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:14 am

Actually, there's no way one can bomb away an army, just look at Afghanistan, where the Talibans keep fighting :|
It should be all ground combat. Yes, also the 1 turn invasion is ridiculous from a reality point of view, but I can live with that: making ground invasions necessary makes races like bulrathi come back!

ix-ir
Posts:5
Joined:Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:42 pm

Postby ix-ir » Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:47 am

Making a new Master of Orion game is a project I'd love to be involved in and something I think about from time to time. There are many things you could do although my ideas are mainly aimed at the single-player side with some room for MP.

Advance technology further by including sci-fi staples such as Ring worlds and Dyson Spheres. These are mega projects that fit MOO2's existing population framework and manipulation of systems. Eventually the game becomes a fight over all matter in the galaxy.

Allow unsustainable practices such as overpopulating or over-mining planets in a way that will reduce their long term worth.

Add Sun-buster weapons, a step up from Stellar converter weapons, the idea being that combat becomes more extreme until you ruin the galaxy.

These ideas lead to the new late game concept. MOO2 has a few ways of winning, I'd imagine many more, drawn from sci-fi standards such as singularity. The first (and this is a fairly time consuming win, much like a hard to get achievement) is that, after the shattering use of galactic warfare weapons you have to clean up the galaxy, you win by restoring planets and systems and abandoning your colonies in the physical universe. In addition to this you could have new, weak races popping up at the beginning of the tech tree for the next cycle of the universe.

Having new races pop up or even starting out as an ancient race could create some very interesting dynamics. Imagine if you start as a super technological race, even in multi-player but you have very different victory conditions so you cannot directly stomp others with your technology. The aim being to create gameplay-viable situations mirroring that in the Babylon 5 story.

Expand on separate dimensions (like the Antaran dimension) so that you could perhaps play your single player game through a 2nd loop where the final conditions of the first and your race's ascension set conditions for a 2nd galaxy that's stranger.

Ultimately a game of MOO2 is a story, the story aspects (such as Orion and Antares) can be expanded upon and vary from galaxy to galaxy so you encounter different plots.

Expand and create tension between racial habitats. Make gas giant dwellers. Make breathable nebula environments. Make clusters of systems in nebula so that the difference between nebula and non-nebula races is more established.

There are plenty of sci-fi staples since MOO2 that can be added in (at its core MOO2 is a sci-fi fan's wet dream of a melting pot of all sci-fi cultures and machines competing). We can add things like ideas from the Culture society from Iain M. Banks' books.

Void Stalker
Posts:20
Joined:Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:47 am

Postby Void Stalker » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:05 am

Wow, nice idea for a thread. I wonder if there is any interest in reprising a much modified version of this?

Reading the posts here makes me realize that to do this justice we would need a family of threads to cover the game in the kind of detail it deserves. If anyone is interested in this let me know and I'll start the ball rolling in a new thread that will be focused on just one (IMHO) badly done aspect of MoO2, tactical combat both in space and on the ground.

Other important areas (that I would want to keep separate from the tactical combat thread) could be the R&D thread, the race pics thread, the leaders thread and so on. It is very confusing and difficult to go over a thread and having completely different subjects being discussed from one post to the next.

Like probably every other player of MoO2, I have over the years made lists and lists of things that I would want improved, changed, or removed. So again, if anyone is interested in hearing my ideas just let me know and I'll post the thread(s) and we can all have a good time batting ideas back and forth.

Void Stalker
Posts:20
Joined:Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:47 am

Re: Hypothetical Question (Next-Generation MOO2)

Postby Void Stalker » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:04 am

[Long time lurker, first time poster.]

Just wanted to throw out a question and get some input. Let's suppose that someone was going to develop a MOO2 sequel that was going to stay true to the gameplay of MOO2 rather than going the route that MOO3 did. There are a handful of small and medium sized improvements already posted on these forums (and the older forums) that I'm sure would be welcome in such a sequel, such as customizing the equipment on star bases/battlestations/star fortresses.

I would imagine such a sequel to essentially have four modes:

1) Strict MOO2. This merely replaces MOO2.
2) MOO2 with a relatively open framework for plugin development, something akin to the Space Empires series. Plug-ins should not have to involve breaking out a hex editor.
3) "MOO2 Improved" (MOO2 + small / medium improvements (i.e., customized star bases)). This could possibly be done via the plugin framework proposed in #2, assuming it's powerful enough
4) The next generation of MOO2. This is what I want to talk about below.
A most excellent thread, and I wish I knew of these forums 2+ years ago when this was first posted.

For your #1, I have to agree totally that a redone version of the original game (but that would work on/with current computers/Operating systems) would be the best first step in making a modern MoO2.

For your #2 & #3 I also believe that this would constitute a safe and effective way of building a better game, as you will already know what people are wanting in their game because of all the mods people get.

And last but not least your #4 gives me hope that if enough others want a product, then there is the chance that someone will make a new game. I was going to wait to see what others thought about the idea of a kind of linked mega thread (like some of the best AAR's over in the Hearts of Iron forums), where the first post in a general thread would just be a constantly updated post containing links to all the related threads, so we (the dedicated MoO2 fanatics) could have a one stop shopping experience when looking for a new game ideas thread.

For me, I think that we all know that the reason no new moo game is available is that there isn't enough of a customer base for the strategy games to warrant a company to expend their money on instead of making yet another lame FPS or some other mindless drivel :twisted: because that is about all the mindless shoot-em-uppers can handle.

So one idea (and the MoO3 guys tried to do this, but did it badly), is to include something for everyone in the game. My interest in MoO2 is strictly (at least to this time) single player, but that isn't going to get people (software developers) willing to invest their time and money in a new game that is going to have an inherently small fan and customer base. MoO3 tired to make the game have a broader appeal by going 'real time' for the battles, so as to make it more palatable as a multi-player game and they flopped.

So maybe we could bat some ideas around to see if we can come up with some ways to make a MoO 2000 into an attractive game for a much broader customer base (and thus higher sales) without having to ruin the game for the serious strategy gamers out there (namely, US).

How can such a thing be done?

At the game setup, we are able to (at present) make a rather limited set of choices that determine aspects of the game. What if, we get a software company willing to make a game that has an extremely selectable set of options, for custom gaming to match the interests of many different types of gamers?

To get the zombies (those lost souls that are the FPS addicts) interested in buying a strategy game, perhaps there could be some intense FPS action (as optional features) for ground combat and perhaps espionage missions. To elaborate, what I mean is that at game start-up, a customer that really only wants some mindless 'shooter' game would have a game with extraordinarily limited aspects of strategy but a hugely (to them) interesting series of invasions they could carry out to their hearts content without having to worry all about the other aspects of the MoO2 game as we know and love it.

Think of this as something like a vastly different version of 'turning on-off' tactical combat or one of the other existing options, to the point where depending on the options one selects, the game they end up playing is a completely different experience from what some one else gets with their options. The FPS crowd could carry out the infinite (mindless) ground invasion and espionage missions in the FPS style of gaming, while true strategy gamers could choose 'simple ground combat' (read this as, something---customizable to taste---that ranges from a simple report to something a bit better than MoO2 had to offer), and get a much better strategy game overall.

The strategy gamers (the 'thinking man' gamers), would do well to try to sell this concept to a software company as a next generation computer game. This gets the software company all the sales they want to the zombies, and gets us the strategy game that we want. It all comes down to making their game versatile and customizable to match the tastes of the broadest possible market.

I for one would never play the FPS portion/options of such a game, as these things just plain don't interest me but as long as the options are powerful enough to allow me a completely immersing strategy game without any boring and to detailed parts of the game, then I am a paying customer.

The zombies get their kicks getting in and kicking butt without having to 'waste' time learning how the rest of the game works, and can just select options that have a story board that abstracts all the strategy elements and concentrates on the storyline where the player is a ground warfare troop, and the game begins with the first invasion (whether their side is landing on an enemy planet or the enemy is landing on one of the players worlds) and just proceeds one after another.

The true merit of such a game (if properly written), is when the zombie gamer decides that they want to see what all the other options do...

What do you guys think of this? Let me know.

Istrebitel
Posts:17
Joined:Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:25 am

Postby Istrebitel » Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:51 am

As the OP, first time poster, been around here for some time w/o registering.

As a programmer, i may propose an alternative idea.

You (people around here) may be fans of other older games as it happens, mostly if someone likes one old game he likes more than one ^_^

You may know that some of the older game got reworked into a new, open-source solutions that added moddability, new AI, new features while retaining the possibility to play the original game on the new engine.

Some of the examples are:
Open TTD (transport tycoon deluxe)
Jagged Alliance 2 v1.13

What this might mean to the Master of Orion 2:

- A same looking, same behaving, same balanced game rewritten completely from scratch
- A seriously improved net code (no problems with network games, reconnection after disconnects, no lag etc)
- A seriously improved game code (all common bugs fixed)
- A 100% tweakable game variables (all stored in xml, including the effectiveness of housing, racial picks, weapons and equipment statistics)
- A cross-platform application with 0 problem to play on different operation systems
- Probably new features added as "tactical ground combat" absolutely toggable to have the ultimate old school moo2 experience

And what is very important imho:

An ability to ease the game process, adding several new features that make management much easier and games faster. For example:

- Save user presets and quick access to them. This includes racial designs, ship designs, build orders...
* You could just click "add ship design" and then a list of designs you chose to save before. You could see what tech levels this exact ship requires (like, X physics Y computers Z fields) and thus speed up the game when you want just that classic BB.
* Same, when creating a new colony, you could choose from typical build orders you have for them (AF -> RM -> PP -> RL -> SC, for example) without the need to manually click them all

- When a new building is researched. You would get prompted to add it to the build order as first to build for all colonies, for all colonies who dont build housing or trade goods, manually select a list of colonies. That would make you save alot of time when an autolab is researched and you've already got more than one screen of colonies to manage

- You would have fast option for "switch scientists to production" and back, when you've accumulated enough SP and expect a breakthrough soon

- Possibly even autobattles against space monsters (we know, AI is always the same. His movements are always the same. Same monster is always the same. thus, if we change all variables like chance to hit an engine, chance to miss, in favor of a monster, and the player still beats him, when he would in another game have same size fleet on the same game settings he could just auto-resolve the battle.)

- Several other fast options like "order 1 stack of freighters on the colony with highest production stockpiled" with one click,

- Production stockpile option, automatically calculated by the most expensive object the player can build on this colony, a dummy object that, when built to full, converts the remaining production to trade goods and switches colony production to trade goods, or remains in the queue with "stockpile at max capacity" fuctioning as trade goods unless player researches something that allows for higher stockpile.

- Several other useful options and indicators like changeable turn summary (i'd like to see a pop growth in there, to know if i got new populant to manage and what production has he been switched to, i think there are more ideas about that), like approximated chance to hit (probably turnable off by game setup, but very usefull for newbies to learn the game basics like how the CTH in beam combat works, missile evasion works, etc.

Well, thats a gigantic idea, but honestly, MOO2 is not a very complex game, truly! Its actually pretty simple, and seeing we have people writing patches, the source code has been dug into and extracting the exact formulas would be not much of a challenge. And its turn based, which makes it even simplier. You actually have several procedures that "shift" time 1 unit faster (in combat or on main screen), and order issuing interface between them (in combat or on main screen). The interface is very windows-like so recreating it would not be much of a problem, neither would be the combat screen, which is a plain 2D sprite engine.

What do you think? The idea sure looks gigantic and hard to implement, but i am 100% sure there are competent programmers around here. Other games got their eternal lives in form of rewritten open-source cross-platform versions, why leave MOO2 alone?

Void Stalker
Posts:20
Joined:Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:47 am

Postby Void Stalker » Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:13 am

Some nice ideas there, but I wonder who we are going to get to write them thar lines of code. Way back, I used to write programs for the Atari and commodore personal computers (so we are talking 20+ years here) as an amateur hobbyist/game-player, but those programs were very simple.

I am currently attending college (I'm going into renewable energy Engineering) and have toyed with the idea of taking some computer programming classes on the side. Not that I would have anything like the time to write even a part of the code for the game, but perhaps I could contribute something.

Happy New Year everyone....


Return to “Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests