Disappointed--my fault?

This is not a MOO game. It is a Civ game. If you didn't like Civ, then it's no surprise you don't like GalCiv.

See the thread "OT: Has anyone ever played Pax Imperia..." If you absolutely MUST play another game try that one - it sounds like you'd really like it (super fast pace, lots of strategic options, etc - and as a RTS, it probably will meet your wish of an "intermediate genre").

But my honest suggestion is learn this game in a way that suits your preferences - I did not like Civ much either and I love this game. It has random options for your opponents; lots of different tech pathing options (no long tech tree if you don't have to get every one of them and like to trade); strategic battles with some randomness to force you to adjust based on the results; and it can be as fast-paced as you let it be. Heck, set one Gov with the basics and amend only those planets that are strategically important, and be flexible with your tactics as things progress. Then take your turns as fast as you dare.

~SDC~

If you didnt like Civ2, or SMAC, if your looking for tactical combat, if you dont want a tech tree.

Well sorry Gal-Civ aint for you, i would say go get Moo3, but i cannot recommend that travesty of a game to anyone

although you say you loved moo1, have you got moo2? that was one heck fo a cool game

~SDC~

"I'm not enthralled by long tech trees; and I don't care to win by loving everybody."

That does shoot down two of the possible ways to win this game, which would definitely increase the repetitiveness of the game... Because I'm lazy, I'm going to quote myself now, from a post I made about this topic on Gone Gold's forums earlier today:

"The replayability, for me, comes from the different game types and types of victory. You're right, within a given type of game (say, Large map going for a Technological win), what you do is quite set: there's pretty much an optimal way to play to achieve victory in that context.

But if you change the map size (or other map settings), you have to change your 'early game checklist', since expansion works differently then. And it may not be obvious exactly how to do that, which is where strategic experimentation comes in.

If you choose to pursue a different victory type, how you play and what you prioritize will, obviously, change drastically.

If you change the AI's morality settings, you'll have to play differently, as the game will get considerably harder if (for instance) you tend to play Evil and set all the AI's to Pure Good.
Within one particular game type, I think you're right, in as much as this game feels more linear, strategically, than Civ does. But the sheer variety of options for changing the game type give it replayability for me -- it's going to take me a long time to exhaust all the possible paths to victory and ways to play this game.

Keep in mind, too, that Stardock will be adding new techs to the tree, new ships to the game, new random events and morality choices, etc... and players will be doing the same. Over time, if you keep up with the professional- and user-created mods, I suspect this game will change considerably in both feel and strategy required."

- Ash

~SDC~

well, I used to be of the same opinion. Moo1, 2, tactical, all that. and, I still do like it. but, I've really gotten into GalCiv specifically because it's different. military is just a single facet of the game on purpose. there is a web of intrigue to plot with the aliens, and spreading your influence across a large map can be fullfilling. heck, just keeping your empire afloat in the opening is fun to me. it has that 'old school' charm to it. it's been a couple of weeks now, and I've only got up to 'Normal' AI. so, I'm looking forward to more challenge. and, then there are updates. now, I'm not trying to convince anyone, just my take on it. maybe this is not a game you'd enjoy. wait for the demo, perhaps? StarDoc should have a demo soon.

perhaps, they'll patch Moo3 into a fun game. it's got tactical (well, sort of, heh), and military conquest is pretty much all it boils down to. then go for that. there is nothing else to recommend, really. which is sad. all IMHO.

oops, sorry, didn't realise you've already tried GalCiv, in which case ignore the demo

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, people: thing is, I'm lazy, so I'm always going to set initial choices to whatever seems easier (though doesnt attract me that I have to set opponents at "fool" to play--makes me one too. insult the customer--no sale) I want the machine to make the choice for me.

Some specific annoyances: in Moo1, size of game board was about 20 spaces (tiles?) in small size. Here, smallest is 48(?), twelve spaces per sector. A chess game 48x48 spaces? Did not like Moo2. Think inclusion of planets in this kind of game is a mistake. dilutes action: chess where you could occupy part of a square?
Tried Pax Imp way back--don't remember clearly but know I returned it. New ships via patch: what good a ship if you can't equip it or (simplistically) navigate it?

Wooooo! I'm hard to please. Back to books--more fun to navigate that. Thanks for listening!

"I'm always going to set initial choices to whatever seems easier"

If you don't want a challenge, I'd say you're definitely in the wrong place.

- Ash

~SDC~

camomile--I give you credit for admitting youre lazy.
Have your tried Starships Unlimited? I just got it and though its no GalCIV, and I dont like it as much as GalCiv it does have starship configurations, tactical warfare and uts realtime, though not in the sende of the standard RTS clickfests/teen geek type of games. (No offense to all the teen geeks out there.)
You are kind of in a bind if you dont like turn based games OR twitchfests (I am right with you on that front: I cant stand RTS any longer)

There are a lot of ways to play and win this game. As for the long tech tree, it doesnt have to come into play at all if you play on small or tiny. Even medium really, you have to go out of your way to win via tech.

I love this game, it is the most fun I have had with a TB strat game since MoM.

olaf

Can't face choices. Good? Evil? Diplomacy? Strategy to me means you do your opponent before he does you. In chess, are opponents good, evil? They're opponents. Diplomacy? do you beg, bribe opponent not to take your piece? I don't understand. This is more Sims Online, relationship games.

P.S. The manual says if you control 7/8 of sectors (your color), you win. I had 24 of 25 but no win(?).
PPS The major civs can be set to Fool, but the minor Civs out of your control--Carinoids (adenoids?) were by far strongest in my games.

Diplomacy is part of TBS games like this. SMAC (Sid Meijer's Alpha Centari) had a great diplomacy system. I like the way you could bribe other civs for their vote in upcoming elections. Every Civ game going back to Civ 1 over 10 years ago has diplomacy. MOO series, same thing. Diplomacy and back stabbing are part of the genre of strategy games.

bonscott: True, that's one thing I miss about SMAC when playing GalCiv. Heck, I'd be happy just to know what the vote is going to be on, so I can know if I need to quickly buy some Influence. Knowing how they're likely to vote (espionage?) would be nice, as would being able to buy their support. Best of all would be being able to nominate bills, but I think that would throw the balance of the game off.