Definitely not. The very first GC was programmed for OS/2 in 1993. Stars! development started 2 years later. That said, I played both games and I don't think they are similar at all. GalCiv is a single-player game, with strong AI, tile-based movement, diplomacy, a complex tech tree, ethical decisions to make, and several roads to victory. Stars! is mostly a strategic multiplayer space combat game.

I don't recall any electrobass version of the Imperial March, unless you're talking about this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6R3YVpRC68

I would describe Master of Magic as more Civilization-like in a fantasy setting.

One nice thing about this RTS is that you can slow the speed to a crawl, making it easy to catch your breath. Good for those of us who struggle with twitch RTS games.

Either I was thinking of "Lords of Magic" and transposed "Master", or something else happened. I don't know. Master of Orion always looked way too complex as opposed to Master of Magic. Or Lords of Magic. On the other hand, I made the mistake of picking up the series with Master of Orion 3 (when it was first released on disc, not here on GOG). That probably coloured my opinion of it.

Hang on, I'm thinking of the "Leviathan Mix" recorded for Force Commander.

You are wrong about Alpha Centauri and I think it is actually exactly what you want. As with Civ series the planet surface is generated randomly (except if you load a ready made scenario; I never do). But it has all the SciFi goodness and then some (including "planet busters" that - well - literally cause massive damage: Here's one in action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJjQEoFF5Q8).

Alpha Centauri still is the best Civ like game (as opposed to MoO like) in my opinion. Going away from real nations and Human history opens up so much more options and allowed them to be politically incorrect. You can be pretty damn evil if you want to :). And: It oozes atmosphere.

I do, I even mentioned it in my post ;)

While both are 4X space games, they play in a totally different way in almost every regard.

I've been playing more MoO 2 than MoO in the past couple of hours since buying them, as the sequel seems to have a simpler interface. Or at least a more "visually representative" menu. It still takes too damn long to develop any sort of sizeable force before the opposing empires do. At least as Humans it does. As Humans I can still play one empire off another.

Both are great and you'll get varying opinion over which is better, but I love MoO2. Some empires are more militaristic and easier to build up forces - also as you play more the mechanics will become more obvious in terms of how and what to build/research when for what species which allow you to start to optimize. I hope you enjoy and that these games are what you were looking for - I'm sorry that MoO3 was your first experience with the series, as I'm sure you can already tell it is not representative. :)

Yes, the time pressure is part of the game. RTS relies more on tactics and gut feeling and fast reflexes (StarCraft, Command&Conquer, Homeworld,...). It's not for every player.

However the border between RTS and TBS can be smaller than one think. There are games which are combinations of both (Total War,.. is RT only for combats, otherwise TB) and there are games that come disguised as RT (Hearts of Iron,..) but since they have a pause mode in which you can still give orders it is really a TB game with infinitely small turns.

Also the border between RTS and pure Action titles (Diablo, ...) or FPS is thin. I would categorize FPS as a subgroup of RTS with additions of RPG and in a special setting (FP and S).

It all comes down to the possibility to pause and still give orders. If so: slow/true/unlimited strategy. If not: time limited strategy or simply limited strategy.

Lately I continued Kings of Bounty again and it is almost all TBS except a tiny RT element (rage diminishes over time, mana refills over time) and it is just fun for some small free time in between.

The interface of MoO1 is extremely efficient, it lets you issue lots of different commands by just setting a handful of sliders. It's a bit harder to learn though since it doesn't come with an in-game help function, like MoO2. MoO2's interface explains itself better, but also requires a much larger number of clicks to operate it. Both have their advantages.
Yep, the bonuses of humans don't translate into strong fleets easily. Humans are geared towards a sneaky diplomatic game, ideally getting others into war with each other while maintaining trade relations with both. If you want to build huge fleets, try the Meklars or Klackons, who both have production bonuses. They come with disadvantages too (IIRC, Meklars grow slow, and Klackons can't choose specific research goals). Or play the Psilons, with their tech advantage they don't _need_ huge fleets to win. Silicoids are also in a good position to produce big fleets, since they can expand easily, and having more planets translates into having a better economy and therefore more production. But they also _need_ those fleets because everysone hates them.

Hearts of Iron and its ilk are tick based strategy games. There are not a whole lot of tick based strategy games out there (the paradox titles, Jeff Wayne's War of the worlds and probably a handful more).