Well you have 4 out of 5 methods of winning which are "civilized" - and which are also much more easy to reach (esp. Alliance, Influence on small maps, and Tech Vic when fast res speed) so I think the devs gave that a great deal of thought already.

But please devs - do something about automation: Simple logical routines IF THEN ELSE addressing objects in game, even WinAmp has plenty of them nowadays

Seriously, Stardock needs to consider taking more Master of Orion II features and cloning them to GCIII, much improved of course.  Optional tactical combat for starters.  OR, make a tactical combat expansion package.

I agree that the game already has "civilized" ways of ending without using aggression (self defense of course but that's not the same), but I thought that was obvious.

Quoting Krsont,

reply 60

1. Change the way the techs work. At the moment it feels like 90% of techs have an effect that just adds some arbitrary percentage to a score/attribute, so it feels more like a grind and less like finding a cool new thing. No more "+10% fertility" or "slightly better laser gun" technologies. Have them do things that are distinct, interesting, and have a clear effect on the game.

Bad idea. Keep it the way it is.

2. Connected to the above, remove all the fiddly little "laser III" style weapons. Have weapons with more interesting qualities. Lots of different types of damage and effects that allow civs and the ships you create to feel more unique.

Bad idea. Kepp it the way it is.

3. Remove limitations on how many improvements can be built on a planet. Have planet quality refer only to population size, industry rate, instead (and maybe have certain improvements depend on a certain level of planet quality to build). To stop spamming of a certain improvement, have only one of each type available to build on a planet.

Bad idea. Too much like "New Game"

4. More resources, that have unique effects, and can be found in a variety of places both in space and on planets. For example a fast propulsion drive might require "unobtanium", which can only be found on certain planets. Give resources fun and scifi themed names, not the current generic ones like "influence resource".

5. Allow useful things to be done to non-habitable planets. We could build unmanned mining facilities to exploit rare resources, millitary facilities, etc etc that act to improve the habitable planets in the system. Maybe even in late game you could terraform them.

Uses for worthless planets. Good Idea.

6. Allow the construction of wormholes between systems, allowing instanteous or near-instantaneous travel between them. This will speed up combat and introduce a new dynamic to warfare - disruption of supply lines when enemy ships destroy wormhole gates to cut off distant systems from support.

Bad idea. We all know the AI would be crippled by this.

7. Connected to the above two, have a generic "worker" ship module that creates stations, mining facilities, wormhole gates, etc. These work like miners rather than constructors, i.e. they aren't "used up" when they build something.

Bad idea. Where exactly do the resources come from for the miners to use. That's why it takes time to build a construcor.

8. Have the concept of mixed populations. Currently when you conquer a planet, the native population dissapears and is replaced entirely with the soldiers. This is not only unrealistic, it implies that every single planetary invasion is accompanied with mass genocide! Instead it should track the percentage on each world that is of a certain race, and give you the option to either commit genocide, to enslave them, to give them limited rights, or to embrace them as full citizens of your empire. Depending on how you act, what the galactic situation is, and the character of the race itself (are they aggressive, freedom loving, etc?), this can have different effects. Treating them too harshly might lead to protests (that disrupt industry) or even full rebellion; however giving them too much freedom might cause the same thing. Over time, if they act peacefully and are given full rights, they become assimiliated and cease to have loyalty to their original empire. Of course, if they end up getting conquered again by their original empire, these traitors may face some harsh punishments for their lack of loyalty...

Workable idea. As in "needs work", but has potential.

9. Remove the good-evil system, instead replace it with a simple system of values or policies, i.e. slavery vs. caste system vs. egalitarianism; democracy vs. dictatorship. If you act badly, however, for example committing genocide or slavery, or using terror stars, you can still expect other civilizations to look on you poorly.

The game already works this way.

10. Minor races should be kept, but changed considerably. There should be a lot more of them, and the category should basically consist of all pre-space or pre-interstellar civilizations. They can either be exterminated, enslaved, or persuaded to join your empire (see point 8 above for possible repurcussions of this). They should provide unique bonuses that make them a strategic resource. It may even be possible for them to become a full fledged civilization given the right circumstances (e.g. a random event that has them using a salvaged ship to reverse engineer an interstellar drive).

This is already in the game in certain decisions you make when you colonize planets. Pre-industrial civs are so insignificant they don't warrent more complexity.

11. More "terrain" in space. Nebulas that slow movement (but contain valuable resources), black holes, quasers... Basically all the wonderful and varied things that science and science fiction have imagined to make up the universe should show up in game. This might also include giant space monsters that attack ships.

As long as there is a way to turn it off...

BTW, Stardock is already considering making MOO4, so it would be a waste to make GC3 like MOO2.

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/43030/Stardock-Talks-Star-Control-Master-of-Orion-Sequels

All I got to say is:

Imperium Galactica II

A game from 1999 and it did a whole bunch of things better than any other space-based strategy game (including GalCiv2); fleet combat, invasions/ground combat, colonies, planetary defenses, espionage, diplomacy, gridless map, to name a few.

Please, go play IGII before you even start coding GalCiv3!

I'd also like to see the possibility to play real time, shouldn't be hard to implement.

I don't think it's that hard. You just assign an amount of units to everything and in turnbased a turn would be x amount of units and in realtime a minute would be x amount of units.

You're assuming stardock has already started to work on GalCiv3.

As I stated in my post;
Please, go play IGII before you even start coding GalCiv3!

Carriers, really?  Is that really the first priority?  I'd like seeing that too but if that's going to be GC III's prime marketing bullet, I'm bored.  Anyway GC II can semi-simulate that already (fleet warp bubbles I believe they're called?)... yawn.

I'm totally fine with leaving GC mostly alone (and honestly it probably should be) and getting a MOO sequel instead of a GCIII.  We have a modern and decent GC game - not so with the MOO series, and it's about time that changes.

Agreed on RTS (ugh!!!) unless we're talking a Star Control sequel where it'd be mandatory.     I guess MOO 3 was a screw up just like Starcon 3, it can happen to any series, even GC.  I'm impressed that Stardock has considered working on such sequels - the trick is (which the big producers always overlook) to not break the game in the process of improving it, and to do enhancements that add real value.

Depending on the type of game, fancy new updated graphics, 3D effects or UIs, or removing entire aspects of the game that made the original fun is how game publishers tend to screw up the worst.  Do enhancements that add real value: with Star Control for example that might be:

• Add detail to the "game universe": more things to do, places to explore, items to discover, sub-plots to engage in, etc.
• Provide more options to the player allowing them to play as they choose - ex. if they'd rather not spend time mining on planets provide an alternative; if they'd rather be on a more forgiving time limit to win the game by, provide the option somehow; etc
• Avoid the pointless graphical and 3d "enhancements" done in SC3
• Increased ability for mods, modded "alternate universes", mod "alternate timelines", and so on - big factor in creating a solid fanbase and keeping the series alive over time.  Put all that free labor to use!!!
• Compelling storyline - provide some big bad enemy to fight, not some stupid, barely organized, "alliance" which appears weaker than the player's side almost to begin with (I'm talking about you, Crux).  Threaten the freedom of the entire galaxy or something!  Provide real conflict.

Imperium II was "okay" for me, I think the main problem I had with it was the crappy interface/RTS game and the "boringness" of the RTS part entirely.  Games that try to combine strategy/turn based and real time tend to do a great job with one, and a SUCK A$$ job with the other:

Total War series: Great job with the RTS part; piss poor turn based strategy game and AI which never improves from game to game
Space Rangers II: Amazing, dynamic, free-play, and immersive turn based game superior to even Star Control's outside-of-combat exploring; boring and tired RTS sub-game (good thing the bad parts of this game are entirely optional!)

Sometimes you'll have a game that successfully combines two very different game modes, like MOO II or the Romance of the Three Kingdoms series does (in general)-- but they're entirely turn-based, not turn-based + RTS.

RTS and turn-based games are mostly two totally separate markets with only some rare exceptions.  The only successful series I can think of to do this well is the Total War games.  (But with their lack of attention improving the strategy side, I'm losing interest.)  No, we don't want RTS in our turn-based games here, even as an option (it'll cost in other areas to design and implement!), it's just too risky.

Interesting idea about colonizing other galaxies. Should the turns be on hold for every galaxy except the current one in focus?

Regarding the tech trees, redesign.  Ditch the unique tech trees for each race.  It's just not worth the effort.  Maybe a few unique technologies for each race is fine, but not a whole tree.  Besides the insanity it creates when 'tech trading' and such, I just don't see the point in adding that complexity, it doesn't make the game world any more interesting.

Unfortunately that would just turn constructor spam into base spam (which is just as big a problem now if not more so).  I like the idea but it'd need to have some other dependency "cost" for actually building structures.

I'd be happy with a modest graphical overhaul, a few new races and other goodies and a whole lot of rebalancing. On a commercial level, I think the invasion graphics was the worst part of GCII. The rest of the game is cute, but the invasion screen has always been substandard.

I would also say to bring all variables out of the binary and into python or XML, but I think they have already said yes to that.

The biggest problem with GalCiv2, TotA in particular, was that it was never balanced. There have always been useless improvements, useless technologies, and broken game concepts. A high percentage of them would have been easy fixes if Stardock had only invested the time. Frogboy seems to have an aversion to charting the progression, cost and benefit of game elements on a spreadsheet, but that's the only way to see how out of whack some things are.

Case in point: defense. It isn't worth the research time, space, or cost compared to just building a bigger hull or more ships. And it has been that way since day one. The AI seems to be smart enough to know this, since I have never seen it spend a great deal of resources on defense. However, if you cut in half the cost, size and research time for defense, it starts to be a viable alternative.

The morale, population and tax income triad is also out of kilter. Tax income is based on the square root of population while happiness goes down exponentially with population. The net effect is that you will get more income from low populations and econ improvements than from farms and morale improvements. All of which brings to mind GalCiv's equivalent to teats on a boar--300% food production bonus tiles.

But please don't reinvent the wheel with each update, whether it is an expansion or the next generation. I think that is a big part of the problem with bugginess and the general lack of refinement in PC games. Build on the foundation you already have.

I would also like to see somebody finally make some progress in defeating some of the core problems with 4x strategy games in general. The basic problem is, and has always been, that if you survive the insanely competitive colony rush, you can't lose. Unfortunately, that sure win may seem to take forever. Some progress has been made with alternative victory conditions, but the other half of the problem has never been addressed. That other half is that bigger is always better, and this is a direct consequence of the fact that new colonies, cities or whatever are just as good as the capital. Maybe colonies shold be sort of rustic and the lion's share of research and production should be centered in or near the capital. This would tone down the colony rush and provide a way to finish off an enemy without conquering every last outpost.