My question...

[Col. Emil Furst]

I hear the game has a steep learning curve, which does not particularly faze me as I am a strategy grognard- I even play the old fashioned pencil and paper games.

But the real, deciding factor is simple: Does the learning curve match the depth of the game? I.e., is it hard to learn because it's a deep, deep game with lot of filler?

Or is it hard to learn just because it's poorly designed?

I suppose my question is: Is the learning curve justified? Is it worthwhile?

[QuackQululu]

From the description of the type of dedication you have, I would reply: A qualified yes. Clunky interface that is still navigatible. Onerous might be a good word for the interface. A number of patch issues when addressed will make it quite the game. The help interface is nearly a joke. It is jammed with info, but like Microsoft, there is nothing in the help section that applies to what you need to know. Just try a word search to find out what a "magnate civilization" is and you will find that the game has no idea either. You can find the answers in the manual eventually.
After 3 games and hundreds of turns, I was never invaded (planet invasion) even once. An A.I. glitch..fixable? I am sure they can work it out.

I am ashamed to even bring this up, since I am quite a dedicated strategy gamer myself, but it is a real step down in the eye-candy dept, being in the year 2003. But in getting to the meat and potatoes , if you are in multiplayer and facing another human mind in this game, I can see incredible possibilities opened up to a strategist. It is a mixed bag at this point, (some strategy elements are weak with poor feedback right now) but if the developers are faithful in patches and you are not looking for the "total immersion" that comes with the package, meaning visual adding to intellectual, you will have some good matches.

It is not a total wash as some might say. I am a patient man, however, and I must say I needed alot before I found a way to work around the glitches. Wait for a patch if you want to play the computer A.I.'s. They are excellent in space, but your planets are 85% safe even when not guarded. If you will be playing other humans..go for it.

[darcy]

It depends on whether you can accept that the game stays a Black Box. You can learn to operate it eventually, but you won't understand how it actually works. Unless you reverse engineer the whole thing, it will stay a trial and error affair.

As for depth... what is depth? There is lots of stuff in Moo3, but in the end, you send ships and conquer their planets. I'd say you get the same "depth" in Moo2, but with less hassle.

[heretk]

I found the learning curve to be daunting at first. My first day with the game was not very fun. And I am very comfortable with relatively "complex" games like Civ 2 & 3, as well as MOO2 and SMAC. The way you get around in the game's interface just didn't click for me like MOO2 did. Heck, I jumped right into MOO2, after only barely skimming the manual. But I tell you, I had to read every page of that MOO3 manual.

But the game is growing on me. That doesn't sound like the highest praise but I can think of many games that did the same thing. I guess I am giving MOO3 more of my patience because of my years of waiting and its parentage.

I agree with the earlier statement in this thread about the AI opponents' reluctance to commit to ground war. Just last night, one opponent sent a small TF to bomb the crap out of an isolated border colony. It had no defenses yet and I had no TFs in the vicinity. It took like 12 turns for my TF to get there and in that whole time, the AI just bombed the colony. Never went for the capture.

[vmxa1]

I am not so sure it has a long learning curve so much as it is hard to learn because the information you want is not available or is hard to locate. If I could get answer to the questions I have in the doc or the guide, it would not be hard to assimilate.