[dogscoff]

Umm... no. I have never tried to divert any discussions into tedious quibbling over semantics. The only times I argue about semantics are when it is directly relevant to the discussion. Also, my post was nowhere near a diVersion into semantics. That one line was about classification, not word meanings.

See what I mean?

Hey, let's keep this forum a friendly place, okay?

Don't worry, Fyron knows I'm just poking fun out of him. It's kind of like the national passtime around here

If all of the added detail were to be meaningful, then surely the control that the player has over them should (uh-oh, the "should" word again ) have a discernible impact on gameplay, and dealing with the control of those details means added micro-management time.

Well, not if those details were modelled as indirect rather than direct consequences of your actions. You'd still only be managing the same old things, but you'd have to think a little more carefully about the fallout.

For example, it's all very well releasing a plague on a neighbouring enemy's planet, but you'd have to consider that the plague might infect your planets by means of a friendly third party trading across both borders.

Or you might think twice about bombarding that stubborn breakaway planet if you knew it would create a refugee crisis on your nearest planets.

Another thing to consider is that if somehow extra micromanagement is involved, you can always hand it over to the ministers. Let's just hope the ministers in se5 are better than those in se4.

As for me liking Moo3... I've never played it, but from what I hear I don't think I'd liike it. I'ma micromanagement nut. While I believe that some things should be handled in the background by the game, there are also some things that the player needs to be in control of, and it sounds to me like Moo3 took those things away.