I had a discussion with a friend who argued that GalCiv 2 (when it has all of its expansions) is a better game than MOO2 in just about every way. I felt that GalCiv 2 does a lot of things well, but fell way short of MOO2. I think that GalCiv 2 has a lot more moving parts than MOO2 but really just is not as much fun and is not any more challenging. He said that I am just letting nostalgia get the better of me.

Am I off bases here and just being nostalgic? Does anyone else thing that GalCiv 2 is the better game?

Since a lot of the fun on MoO2 is in the multiplayer mode, and Galciv 2 lacks that, I would say no, Galciv 2 is not more fun or better.

Dunno with all the expacs, but I wouldn't expect it to be better than MoO2 given the base game.

For the most part, I would agree with your friend that GalCiv2 is better than MOO2.

I like the race customizability better in GalCiv2 more than MOO2; just more ways to tweak the settings. I also like the way the planetary building is done in GalCiv2 better, with only certain spots being special and each planet having a different number of spots to build. For me, this adds a little more strategy than MOO2's simple planet type and planet size (which has an effect on population anyway).

Where GalCiv2 truly falls short for me compared to MOO2 is the combat. I am not a huge fan of rock/paper/scissors auto combat. I like the greater diversity of weapons (black hole generator, for instance) in MOO2 and the ability to move your ships about more tactically with more options for aggression (such as being able to damage, board, and capture ships).

Edit:
Also, diplomacy is much better in GalCiv2, from my experience. In MOO2, at the Impossible difficulty level (where I usually played), unless you gave yourself a bonus (such as Charismatic or Telepathic) to boost relations, long-trm peaceful diplomacy was pretty much a lost cause. In GalCiv2, with the morality scale, it is a little easier to find allies and cope with diplomatic issues even on the tougher difficulty levels.

MoO1 and 2 have some great sprite work. GC2 is so sterile in its art direction, you'll end up staring at balls of different sizes most of the time, even if you spend hours decorating your ships.

Definitely MoO2. GalCiv2 is just so streamlined and didn't feel like it had any personality.

Also, lack of tactical combat? *thumbs down*

Despite its weaker aesthetics and relative lack of personality, I still prefer GalCiv 2 since it doesn't force you to concentrate on building a huge military and attack everyone like the MoO games do. It actually allows to get to choose your strategy, play according to your style, the MoO games don't allow that.

I also found "Tactical Combat" in the MoO games to be not very interesting. They just seem tedious and out-of-place. Strategy games should have strategic combat, not tactical combat. All the precise maneovres you are forced to make in Tactical Combat screen are very weird considering the extremely limited amount of control you have over those same ships on the main map screen. I just don't understand that at all.

MoO2 has a lot of pointless micromanagement like that, and I hate micromanagement in strategy games. I personally believe that micromanagement doesn't belong in strategy games. Micromanagement of lots of little details is good for tactical games, but not strategy games. Strategy games should take the broader view and be grand in scope, especially strategy games that are set in space and span entire galaxies.

It's comparable. It's newer than MoO2 and features nicer graphics, maybe more features and options (how to assemble ships for example).

MoO2 was in my eyes more condensed and quite highly polished and balanced and offering a AI that doesn't come across as dumb and cheating. In short: a little shining gem that is hard to beat in it's area except for graphics and interface.

I would recommend both and say that both have it's strengths. And since I really like 4X turn based space strategy I am happy they both exist.