[Fian]

In regards to the questions about comparing MOO3 versus SE4, I can give you what I have heard from the MOO3 beta testers and my couple of days experience with SE4.

The big complaint about SE4 that I have heard is that it requires lots of micromanagement. MOO3 is supposed to minimize this. This can also be a drawback, however, as MOO3 apparently doesn't offer as wide a variety of options as you find in SE4. For example, you won't find Dyson Spheres or ring worlds in MOO3.

MOO3 offers an engaging storyline (I imagine like Alpha Centauri) that SE4 lacks. The AI is supposed to be good, while most seem to feel that the SE4 AI is weak (I have only played it personally on its easiest setting).

Combat is also an interesting feature of MOO3. While MOO3 is a turn-based game, the actual combat is real-time. It isn't supposed to be a click fest, however, as you have already divided your forces into multiple fleets before combat, and only give commands to fleets during combat. Combat also seems to have an interesting tactical mix. Like SE4, you have missles and fighters, plus you need ships equipped with point defense to defend against them. MOO3 also introduces two other styles of combat - short range versus long range beam attacks. Short range attacks are much more deadly than long range attacks, however the drawback is that you must get close to use it. To help you get close, stealth plays a major factor in battles. You don't see everything in the battle automatically, but you have to scout to see where the enemy ships are located and plan accordingly (helped by having scout ships with good scanners).

Graphics and sound will be, of course, much better than SE4, although people aren't exactly writing rave reviews about the graphics. Part of this is due to the game taking so long to develop. If this game was released when it was originally slated (2 years ago? I don't know to be honest), the graphics would have been better received.

Btw, you don't need a big computer to run a powerful AI. Chess programs have been beating me regularly with 1 second to think since at least the 486, so a Pentium 300 should present a decent AI. In fact, I have heard a lot of good things about the AI (like it was too tough and they had to tone it down for the easier settings). Of course, until people play it, we won't know for sure how good the AI is.

As for the CIV3 game conversation, I played the game a couple of times, and then got bored of the game. I won't say it was a bad game, but I certainly played CIV2 and SMAC much more. I didn't have crash problems with it, although there were balancing issues that they had to address in later patches like corruption penalties being too steep. I do find the Pro-Civ3 person's argument's lacking. I find one crash a week acceptable, maybe more if I play it tons, and most applications that I use meet that expectation. The arguments used to explain how a phalanx guy can ever defeat a tank are also quite lacking. It doesn't take a tank 4 months to defeat one phalanx unit. While the phalanx might not be 1000 years old, the technology that they are using is. On the other hand, if you said that 10 phalanx units managed to defeat a tank, I would believe it, due to running out of ammo and guns overheating. Russians and Chinese tried that tactic with a little success I think, but for the most part even the zerg style approach failed.