AI in MOO3

[Corentor]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
The english didn't invade the US while we were off fighting in afghanistan. Heck, they were there helping us. And we're basically a bunch of rebels who gave them the finger two hundred years ago. . .

Alliances between countries of cultures friendly to one another can often last a very long time. Thats the kind of alliances I'd like to see in games. I don't want to see the meklars (who I've been allied with for two hundred years) suddenly invade me when I happen to declare war on the Sakra.

A lot of you people who complain about dog piling do not understand the principle on which Alliances and other Diplomatic treaties are made.

Alliances are built on mutual gain for all parties who enter them. If they do not get anything out of the Alliance then there is no reason to continue to uphold that Alliance or treaty.

Take for example your long time ally who "all of a sudden" declares war on you. You say there is no reason...well it should be obvious, the goal of the game is to win and since your getting to big and your ally isn't growing as fast as you, there is no reason to continue the current alliance as it is not beneficial to themselves.

Many of you falsely point to modern day alliances such as NATO or whatnot as examples of how alliances should't be broken. Once again, you fail to understand the idea of mutual benfits for the parties involved.

Ofcourse Britain is not going to declare war on the US while it is embroiled in Afganistan, why should it? Are its intrests being threatened directly or indirectly by the US? No. The US has no territorial aspirations on Britain nor does current US actions infringe on Britain's sphere of influence. In fact stability brought by US control over the troubled region would be in Britain's best intrests.

But what if Afganistan was the lastest in a long line of American invasions and it is becomming clear that the US is going to gain total world dominance soon if nothing is done? You bet that Britain would be busy collecting a group of allies to stand up to the US before it was too late.

So before you start tearing your hair out saying "Why the **** did they declare war on me?", ask yourself this, if you were the AI and you watched yourself rampaging across the galaxy, what would you do? Thats right, you would start looking around to see who you could buddy up with before your "friend" decided that your colonies would be best served by joining their empire.

[Kc7mxo]

A lot of you people who complain about dog piling do not understand the principle on which Alliances and other Diplomatic treaties are made.

Alliances are built on mutual gain for all parties who enter them. If they do not get anything out of the Alliance then there is no reason to continue to uphold that Alliance or treaty.

Yes they are. So when my best buddy the Meklar whose rear I saved five cycles ago in the great harvester war and who I returned all his planets to declares war on me because he wants to "win", I'm sure I'll be having a great time.

Take for example your long time ally who "all of a sudden" declares war on you. You say there is no reason...well it should be obvious, the goal of the game is to win and since your getting to big and your ally isn't growing as fast as you, there is no reason to continue the current alliance as it is not beneficial to themselves.

Jealousy should not always lead to war. I can't say how many allies I had in Civ2 who attacked me because I was strong, and then died. That served their best interests, real well, and made the game so much more fun didn't it? <== Sarcasm

Many of you falsely point to modern day alliances such as NATO or whatnot as examples of how alliances should't be broken. Once again, you fail to understand the idea of mutual benfits for the parties involved.

Ofcourse Britain is not going to declare war on the US while it is embroiled in Afganistan, why should it? Are its intrests being threatened directly or indirectly by the US? No. The US has no territorial aspirations on Britain nor does current US actions infringe on Britain's sphere of influence. In fact stability brought by US control over the troubled region would be in Britain's best intrests.

But what if Afganistan was the lastest in a long line of American invasions and it is becomming clear that the US is going to gain total world dominance soon if nothing is done? You bet that Britain would be busy collecting a group of allies to stand up to the US before it was too late.

And what we're saying, if you were at all listening, is that NOT whats happening. I can play a tottally peaceful game of any strategy game I've ever had, and at some point, just because I'm "winning," the AI will attack me. That is NOT fun. at least not for me. I don't play these games just to "win," I play them to have fun. And when I'm recreating history, I'd like what happens to be just a little more realistic than having mexico invade the US because we're a superpower. You get me?

So before you start tearing your hair out saying "Why the **** did they declare war on me?", ask yourself this, if you were the AI and you watched yourself rampaging across the galaxy, what would you do? Thats right, you would start looking around to see who you could buddy up with before your "friend" decided that your colonies would be best served by joining their empire.

You're making false assumptions. Quit it. Not everyone plays civ and moo to stomp all over the neighbors, break treaties, steal technology and glass planets. Not to say that the above isn't fun, but its not the only way to have a good time.

No AI I've ever played with can compete with a Human for very long. After a while the human understands the how the game works, and how the AI plays. Then the challenge is gone. But that doesn't mean that the fun has to vanish too.

I've had a great time with civ2 and moo just playing the game out to see how things end up. I've enjoyed games of Medieval TW just seeing what the AI does to itself, and for an instant forgetting I'm just another college student in a nation filled with millions of them, and instead pretending that I'm back in the middle ages ruleing an empire with trusted Allies and hated Enemies.

Unfortunately, due to current game design, I tend to only end up with the latter, not matter how I play.

[Corentor]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Yes they are. So when my best buddy the Meklar whose rear I saved five cycles ago in the great harvester war and who I returned all his planets to declares war on me because he wants to "win", I'm sure I'll be having a great time.

Hey it was your decision to go save their butts, maybe next time you'll realise that saving their butts is pointless and you'd rather just have the harvesters tire themselves out killing the Meklar before kicking their ass.

Originally posted by Kc7mxo Jealousy should not always lead to war. I can't say how many allies I had in Civ2 who attacked me because I was strong, and then died. That served their best interests, real well, and made the game so much more fun didn't it? <== Sarcasm

Well they died because they waited too long. I hope the AI in MOO3 doesn't wait till its hopeless before trying to check the human player's advance.

Originally posted by Kc7mxo And what we're saying, if you were at all listening, is that NOT whats happening. I can play a tottally peaceful game of any strategy game I've ever had, and at some point, just because I'm "winning," the AI will attack me. That is NOT fun. at least not for me.

The point of the game is to win. If having opponents do what is neccessary to accomplish that goal is not 'fun' for you, I suggest you try another game. One where the point of the game is to make buddies...

Originally posted by Kc7mxo I don't play these games just to "win," I play them to have fun. And when I'm recreating history, I'd like what happens to be just a little more realistic than having mexico invade the US because we're a superpower. You get me?

Mexico isn't going to invade the US because the universe does not have a victory condition that the US is about to meet which gives all Americans a free pass to heaven and sends everyone else to hell. But if there was, everyone would be piling on the US, including Mexico.

Originally posted by Kc7mxo You're making false assumptions. Quit it. Not everyone plays civ and moo to stomp all over the neighbors, break treaties, steal technology and glass planets. Not to say that the above isn't fun, but its not the only way to have a good time.

Last time I checked, the point of the game WAS to stomp on the neighbors (or atleast enslave them), break treaties, steal technology and glass planets. That the game isn't what you want isn't the developer's problems. If there were enough people who liked going around making buddies with everyone, then MOO3's victory condition would probably be "make friends with 10 different races:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo No AI I've ever played with can compete with a Human for very long. After a while the human understands the how the game works, and how the AI plays. Then the challenge is gone. But that doesn't mean that the fun has to vanish too.

Thats why multiplayer is all the rage today. The fun of the game comes from the challenge.

Originally posted by Kc7mxo I've had a great time with civ2 and moo just playing the game out to see how things end up. I've enjoyed games of Medieval TW just seeing what the AI does to itself, and for an instant forgetting I'm just another college student in a nation filled with millions of them, and instead pretending that I'm back in the middle ages ruleing an empire with trusted Allies and hated Enemies.

Unfortunately, due to current game design, I tend to only end up with the latter, not matter how I play.

Well, I guess there just ain't enough of you pacificsts out there. Until then your stuck with games who cater to people like us who like their aliens well done, preferably with a laser rifle.

But at any rate, its pointless to complain. The point of the game is to win. If you don't like that...don't play. It will save you 50 bucks too.

[Zed-F]

The question is, what makes better gameplay: a game where AI nations behave realistically (i.e. help their friends, don't backstab them without a really good reason, etc. -- i.e. don't play as if their goal is to prevent you from winning) or a game where the AI nations do recognize that they are in fact competing with the human nations to "win" and therefore take unrealistic actions in an attempt to prevent the human player from winning. Most human players will take unrealistic actions or abuse the AI any way they can in order to win, so there's ample precedent for the AI to do so as well. We routinely backstab or our AI competitors, or at least attack them without provocation, so why shouldn't they do the same to us?

A game where the AIs don't recognize at least to some extent that the human player is the real opponent tends to be too easy. So, there have to be at least some concessions made in that direction, though it's important that the game not be too blatant about it. In fact, there's a continuum of how much the AIs try to gang up on the human, and it's important to pick the right spot along it when designing the game, though that's not always simple. Civ3 has had several iterations where they have rebalanced this, and I expect they will continue to tweak it in future. From other threads I expect that as difficulty increases in MOO3, the amount of AI ganging up on humans factors in will increase as well.

[Draginol]

So why not have one of the possible victory conditions be an allied victory?

That way there's a lesser but still acceptable victory in winning as a team rather than sole survivor.

In that way you can have AI players who won't back stab you.

I tend to agree with KC. When I've just saved the Meklar form annihilation and then gave them back their worlds I want them to feel grateful for it. I want them to acknowledge this. Not just because it's fun but because it's INTUITIVE.

[kalbear]

From what I gathered in the strat guide, some form of alliance victory is possible. At the least, you get victory points for your allies' equipment, tech, etc.

[Kc7mxo]

Hey it was your decision to go save their butts, maybe next time you'll realise that saving their butts is pointless and you'd rather just have the harvesters tire themselves out killing the Meklar before kicking their ass.

So I should just let my allies die. Hmmm.

Well they died because they waited too long. I hope the AI in MOO3 doesn't wait till its hopeless before trying to check the human player's advance.

Ahh, so allies should only sneak attack me if they can win?

The point of the game is to win. If having opponents do what is neccessary to accomplish that goal is not 'fun' for you, I suggest you try another game. One where the point of the game is to make buddies...

If the only point of playing a game is to win, then why do people continue to play them after they've won? Once all the challenge of civ2 on deity left, did people quit playing? Some people can enjoy games other than by crushing their enemies beneath their feat. Although that is really fun too.

Mexico isn't going to invade the US because the universe does not have a victory condition that the US is about to meet which gives all Americans a free pass to heaven and sends everyone else to hell. But if there was, everyone would be piling on the US, including Mexico.

Yep. No victory condition. For me, one of hte biggest attractions of Civ2 was creating a new history. Not getting to alpha centauri. Who gives a rip about that? Winning is the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. In other words, its not the destination, its the journey.

Last time I checked, the point of the game WAS to stomp on the neighbors (or atleast enslave them), break treaties, steal technology and glass planets. That the game isn't what you want isn't the developer's problems. If there were enough people who liked going around making buddies with everyone, then MOO3's victory condition would probably be "make friends with 10 different races:

I'm not asking for a barney universe. I'm just asking for one that simulates somewhat realistic politics.

Thats why multiplayer is all the rage today. The fun of the game comes from the challenge.

All the rage. Right. And the percentage of people who own civ3 and play multiplayer is sooooo high. And challenge is why that silly sims game is one of the most selling games in history.

Well, I guess there just ain't enough of you pacificsts out there. Until then your stuck with games who cater to people like us who like their aliens well done, preferably with a laser rifle.

Firstly, I'm not a pacifist. I like to fight wars and crush my enemies as much as the next fellow. But I also am a fan of history, and I'd just like to see an AI behave in a remotely realistic fashion when it comes to diplomacy.

But at any rate, its pointless to complain. The point of the game is to win. If you don't like that...don't play. It will save you 50 bucks too.

Complaining is never pointless. How else will people know what you want and what you will pay for?

[viciouscycle]

There is a balance somewhere. The AI should be trying its best to win the game but at the same time it should also be abiding by certain principals of behaviour. One great way to aid this endeavour is to allow coalition victories. A coalition victory would allow your allies to reamain loyal and actually help you win the game if they get to share in the glory.

And, as with many other options in a good game, the coalition victory condition should be able to be disabled if so desired. For those of us who want to be the one and only Master of Orion!

Games will never be able to truly represent real-world diplomatic dynamics no matter how advanced the AI becomes simply due to the nature of being a game: games have victory conditions but life does not. A compromise is necessary between having a fun, challenging game and a realistic simulation.

[darcy]

I'm afraid this is one of these questions where a compromise is impossible. You can either roleplay or play to win, that's mutually exclusive. Trying to make an AI which does a little bit of both will result in one erratic, schizophrenic and generally silly AI.

I'm not saying that the roleplaying aspect doesn't have its merits; however, if you put multiplayer in your game, that's a pretty clear message which path you want to take. There can be no roleplaying in anonymous online multiplayer games, as all roleplayers will be totally crushed by the play-to-win people and quit in frustration.

So why not have one of the possible victory conditions be an allied victory?

That way there's a lesser but still acceptable victory in winning as a team rather than sole survivor.

Allied victory sounds like a tempting solution, but I have my doubts. It seems it would be very easy to win such a game: just ally with all other players. Then all players win. Wars would only be fought against the few stubborn losers who refuse to join the Grand Winning Coalition.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


The english didn't invade the US while we were off fighting in afghanistan. Heck, they were there helping us. And we're basically a bunch of rebels who gave them the finger two hundred years ago. . .

Alliances between countries of cultures friendly to one another can often last a very long time. Thats the kind of alliances I'd like to see in games. I don't want to see the meklars (who I've been allied with for two hundred years) suddenly invade me when I happen to declare war on the Sakra.

The US helped fight for France in 1917. They returned to liberate France from German occupation in 1944. For forty years they then protect France practically single handed from the threat of Communist invasion. Now that the US wants to invade Iraq you'd have thought they'd be lining the Champs-Elysses with flags and waving in the GI's again. But they are actively vetoing US proposals in the UN/NATO and having diplomatic talks with the Russian Premier instead. Ungrateful buggers eh?

Unfortunately computer games rarely tend to make the distinction between firm allies, allies of convenience or allies who only care whats in it for themselves. If an Ai goes from ally to enemy some players assume its a total polar swing in attitude. EU was much more transparent because you could see that someone was allied but at -60 relations with you. So basically they dislike you but are sticking with you for now. Repeated stroking in the way of diplomatic contacts, money and help in their defensive wars would be needed just to keep them civil. Any warmongering would see the rating plunge.

Can you tell the difference between 'Allied and worshipful' and 'Allied but hating it' in MoO3? I don't know. I would hope that the language of the diplomats and the spy reports would help. Until everyone's been playing for a month and the expert players have come to a solid opinion I reserve judgement.

[Widely Reknown]

The US helped fight for France in 1917. They returned to liberate France from German occupation in 1944. For forty years they then protect France practically single handed from the threat of Communist invasion. Now that the US wants to invade Iraq you'd have thought they'd be lining the Champs-Elysses with flags and waving in the GI's again. But they are actively vetoing US proposals in the UN/NATO and having diplomatic talks with the Russian Premier instead. Ungrateful buggers eh?

This is a pretty lousy example of an alliance of convenience. The US and France are firmly allied, they just don't agree on every single point in their foreign policy. An alliance does not mean that everybody should obey the strongest member.

You can be pretty sure France would help you out if you were invaded by super-Iraq, though.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


If you were willing to ignore the AI's extrodinarily long memory. . . Stupid thing would start a war, you'd whoop it, and it would never forgive you. Damn zulus.

And how you act during the war did a lot to determine how long the AI "remembered". Capture some cities and then stop, no problem (usually), but RAZE cities and the AI would hate you forever, which MAKES sense, IMHO.

People didn't dislike the Germans as much after WW1 as they HATED the nazi's after WW2 when millions of people had been killed in death camps.

There is a distinction.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Grumbold


**snip real world examples**

A game turn in these things is usually 1 or more years. Can a nation/ planet/ civilsation be fighting one another one century, allies the next and warring again by the third? You bet. Just about every country on our planet has done it and its that sort of behaviour we try to model. Should aliens be more reliable and trustworthy?

So should an "ally" which you drop a bit of tech to occasionally declare war on you when you are at peace? Absolutely not. Should they decide to take a chance when you're embroiled in another internecine war and they figure sooner or later they're going to be next because you're running out of victims? Hell yes! Especially if the diplomatic model allows them to ally with your other enemies as a matter of convenience.

See this is my issue. I understand that nations and/or empires will look after their own best interest, but I would think that there would be at least SOME sort of diplomatic break-down before war is declared, which seldom happens in the 4X games I play before the AI declares war.

The fact that the AI would suddenly declare war, when everything had been rosey and grand the turn before, when the player has done NOTHING to provoke them is what annoys me about the AI in most 4X games. Yes, I know that human players will do the same in MP, but at least then you'd have a clue by the amassing of ships near the border, etc, not "out of the blue" or simply because the human was doing better than the AI.

Besides, there is no sense in most 4X games of when to fight and when to stop. Even a small country can try to sue for peace if they are facing destruction, yet this very seldom happens, the AI declares and then almost NEVER asks for peace, even when down to their last world/city.

[Jamski]

It would be nice if as you approached their homeworld you would receive envoys begging for mercy. Or even from other civs requesting that you do not completely eliminate a race. Perhas in GalCiv?

-Jam

[Widely Reknown]

It would be nice if as you approached their homeworld you would receive envoys begging for mercy. Or even from other civs requesting that you do not completely eliminate a race.

The first one would be nice, depending on the race. The Sakkra would rather die than surrender, wouldn't they?

The second one would be awesome. The genocide of an entire sentient species should really piss off the more peaceful races. They should at least use some diplomacy to avoid an atrocity like that.

Can't see it happening though -- it would require a too subtle AI to be realistic. Just a IF fleet near homeworld THEN send envoy asking for peace wouldn't really be much fun. And with ethoses(?) out of the game, well...

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Widely Reknown


This is a pretty lousy example of an alliance of convenience. The US and France are firmly allied, they just don't agree on every single point in their foreign policy. An alliance does not mean that everybody should obey the strongest member.

You can be pretty sure France would help you out if you were invaded by super-Iraq, though.

Its a pretty good example of game mentality from a player. "I saved their asses twice, I never hurt them, I give them a bit of tech now and again but now they're starting to hate me for invading someone else and turning into the only galactive superpower. Wtf this diplomacy system must be broke!"

If you really want great examples of alliances of convenience, just look at 14th-17th century European history.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
See this is my issue. I understand that nations and/or empires will look after their own best interest, but I would think that there would be at least SOME sort of diplomatic break-down before war is declared, which seldom happens in the 4X games I play before the AI declares war.

I think we are closer to agreement than we thought.

Originally posted by Grumbold
Can you tell the difference between 'Allied and worshipful' and 'Allied but hating it' in MoO3? I don't know. I would hope that the language of the diplomats and the spy reports would help. Until everyone's been playing for a month and the expert players have come to a solid opinion I reserve judgement.

EU2 was nice because you could see both the status (allied since 1802, expires 1831, diplomatic marriage, military access) and the attitude (+200 -> -200) separately. That might be too much information, since I defy anyone to define US-UK relations as +60 or +160 and give reasons why their answer was true, but some hints would be very useful. EU2 really did make you consider hard whether it was worth the price to keep paying your allies to be friendly or should just let them slide into hatred as you rose to dominate the world.

[kalbear]

That's interesting that you mention that particular system, Grumbold - that's almost exactly what information is listed in the strat guide as being available for diplomacy purposes.

[Master Marcus]

correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the beta testers and other pre-release players ARE NOT at liberty to share some information BEFORE the release. I've read many of the "AI related" and data threads, and we're still speculating. Most of the questions aren't answered. At least said testers, less the four ones having thrown some bone recently, should give occasionally a hug even if "politically correct". Don't get me wrong, I like to discover by myself the details of the learning curve and the data of a game; it's just that MoO3 is a complex game that relies very very very much on the AI coding....

[Grumbold]

*Grumbold nods eagerly to Master Marcus and smiles gratefully at Kalbear* ... now where's that nuke button

[Widely Reknown]

By Grumbold:

Its a pretty good example of game mentality from a player. "I saved their asses twice, I never hurt them, I give them a bit of tech now and again but now they're starting to hate me for invading someone else and turning into the only galactive superpower. Wtf this diplomacy system must be broke!"

Okey, I get your example now, and I see the merits of it.

Sorry if I got ahead of myself and rushed to conclusions. I just find the current trend of animosity between the US and the EU very frightening, and possibly a greater threat to "world-peace" than either Iraq or North Korea.

Don't really want a discussion about it here, just explain why I got a bit upset for no apparent reason.

Sorry, ignore me, back to business! What about that AI?

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Widely Reknown
*snip*
I just find the current trend of animosity between the US and the EU very frightening, and possibly a greater threat to "world-peace" than either Iraq or North Korea.

Well this is easy to explain. The US is chock full of people who left Europe, Asia, etc to "find a better life" away from their former rulers and governments. With this in mind it's not that surprising that the different mind-set's would clash regarding how to do things.

Besides, as someone said in another post, a lot of Europe has disliked the US as an entity (not necessarily US citizens, but the nation) for awhile, but it's only recently that the people in the US took notice and now the feeling is more mutual.

Ill-feelings against other nations aren't uncommon, especially when those nations are at odd's on their national interests, like France and/or Germany not wanting to invade Iraq because they have so many lucrative business deals with Iraq.

In any event, back to the topic at hand, as long as there is SOME sign that relations are going down the tubes then I wouldn't mind the AI declaring war, but the "everything is peachy but we're going to war now" thing that most AI's do in 4X games if an insult to the game's players and I hope it's not that way in Moo3.

[Daveybaby]

As an aside... anyone else find it telling that everyone is referring to CivIII in the past tense? I hope this isnt going to be the case with Moo3 in a year's time

[MitchDev]

Not necessarily Davey...

I've seen alot of posts (not just here) with Civ and TBS fans that didn't like Civ3...

Or itr may be frequently mentioned in the past tense as people have moved on to other games...

Personally, I'm ressurecting an old laptop system just so I can get MoM to run again... Nothing I do in XP with compatibility mode or Config.NT gets me the Expanded memory it says it needs....

[Grumbold]

There are definitely posters who still like it, play it, defend it and refer to it in the present tense - even in this thread. I'm not one of them

[delmar]

Do you guys know any strategy game where the player is able to influence (program) the behavior of the AI, by changing rules or setting up new ones? Sort of like writing a script?

After I got fed up with Civ3/PtW (I am definitely not going to refer to it in future tense any more... ), I am thinking that the next game I am going to buy will have to have such a feature. Actually I am a bit surprised that this is not the norm, at least for games like Civ3 where one can mod every freaking thing. Is this perhaps so terribly hard to do?

[Harry Seldon]

Originally posted by MitchDev
Personally, I'm ressurecting an old laptop system just so I can get MoM to run again... Nothing I do in XP with compatibility mode or Config.NT gets me the Expanded memory it says it needs....

Have you tried the shortcut trick with MoM? I had it running on a W2K box a few months ago and I think it'll work with XP.

[Widely Reknown]

Posted by delmar:

Do you guys know any strategy game where the player is able to influence (program) the behavior of the AI, by changing rules or setting up new ones? Sort of like writing a script?

I know Europa Universalis II offers at least limited ability to modify the AI:s behaviour.

The latest patch actually substitutes Paradox's AI-scripts with those written by a fan. Hi's latest project is to modify the AI so that every country behaves differently depending on which monarch is running it at the moment. I think he might have bitten off more than he can chew, but so far he's at least managed to modify four countries. That just leaves 196 more to go :-).

[MitchDev]

Originally posted by Harry Seldon


Have you tried the shortcut trick with MoM? I had it running on a W2K box a few months ago and I think it'll work with XP.

Which shortcut trick? I've edited the "pif" settings with a variety of values... which trick in particular?

I've been fighting with a lot of older games since the move to XP, at least CIV III, SMAC/X, and MoO 2 are running...

[Harry Seldon]

{quote]Which shortcut trick? I've edited the "pif" settings with a variety of values... which trick in particular?

I've been fighting with a lot of older games since the move to XP, at least CIV III, SMAC/X, and MoO 2 are running...[/quote]

Do this: Install the game as you normally would on an older system. Find the executable that runs the game (moo's is orion.com; not sure if it's the same for moo2 as I haven't run it for a while). Right-click the executable and choose send>shortcut to desktop. Right-click the shortcut on the desktop an go to properties. You should have about five tabs that will allow you to change the settings of the VM when it opens to run the app. Configure the Memory tab to 600k of conventional mem and 2048 or 4096 of EMS. I also usually change the fonts to bitmap only, screen size to full, and disable screen saver. I can't remember who, but there's a guy that posts in the MOO1/2 forum that runs it on XP so if this doesn't work you can try over there and see if he'll help you.

Speaking of MOO, I've been playing it in anticipation of MOO3 and thoroughly enjoying its schizophrenic AI (We offer a peace treaty to you, human player. Just surrender to our fleets that will be attacking your systems for the next four turns or we'll attack again). Here's to hoping the MOO3 AI waits until AFTER all his fleets in route have attacked before declaring peace or at least allows you to defend your colony.