So having a different economic system than galciv ii == broken?

Sorry you don't like it but the system in galciv III, imo, is much better.  And I wrote the galciv II system (I didn't write the gc3 system).

I am not saying that just because it is different that it is broken. What I am saying is that in GC2 you could easily have to deal with losing hundreds of credits or could be gaining hundreds of credits per turn while in GC3 I have never been able to lose or gain more than a few dozen. The buying price of ships in GC3 also seems like it increases to the point that I have literally never been able to buy a ship other than in the first few turns. Money is completely worthless except when trading with AI, who actually value it for some reason.

The big part that I am really upset about though is the absurd large empire penalty. I would guess that every AI every game on larger maps either severely handicaps their growth or stays at 0 approval, and approval honestly barely matters anyways to the point that if I were playing as a race without the patriotic bonus I would just completely ignore it. If there were a more GC2 like economy, happiness could be linked to taxes again and actually be dynamic and interesting. 

The other thing I forgot to point out is that planetary invasions never fail. I have done most of several games, and have only once seen one fail and that was when my planet has a planetary defense system, military academy, and elerium defense shield. 

I am really not trying to be mean, I just really want this game to end up as one of my favorites rather than that game I was stupid enough to throw $100 into. I think that this game has huge potential and minus a few things is great. Before this game I really trusted Stardock to make a quality game and I hope you guys will restore my trust. 

I don't know OP, I just can't agree with any of your points. It seems like you haven't actually played the game much, or if you have, your experience has been drastically different from my own.

-Can't change tax rate is a good change. It allows you to control approval on a planetary basis, where it matters for this game.

-The economy is not at all like Civ V. It is all based on population, then buildings are multipliers. Whatever your qualms with CGIII economy, it does not remotely resemble Civ V.

- You may not have encountered large windfalls or losses, but that must just be the way you play, because I've had losses of several hundred/turn and surpluses of several thousand.

-Large empire affects AI and humans the same, and in fact, humans will usually  have larger empires and so be effected more severly

-As noted above, I think the lack of tax rate is a massive improvement.

-Elections are gone, but if you had a clue what you were doing you never really were in danger of losing an election on GCII either. I think in future expansions, they are interested in reintroducing some sort of government, but I think leaving it out of the base game is a very good idea.

Not true. with high diplomacy skill, trade routes, and other bonuses, ideological differences are not that hard to overcome.

A few notes on a couple of your points, Pere:

I'd heavily dispute your second sentence, tbh. You can't really control morale at all. That's the big reason why LEP is so hated by those playing on bigger map sizes; you're fairly helpless to do anything about it. Oh, you can build buildings for it, which means knocking down other stuff and waiting for ages for it to switch... but tbh, when there's rioting in the street I think most governments can come up with something better than 'we're building a new leisure center, it'll be ready in 6 months'. As I said above, I don't care much about the lack of tax rates either... but really, the game could use an on-the-fly morale improvement ability where the player can trade something to keep the people happy. Tax rates fulfill that role fairly well in most games. If SD can come up with something better, then I'd have no problem with it... but atm, the role is just empty, and that's not a good thing.

In most Civ games prior to 5, happiness could be controlled on-the-fly using tax rates, garrisoning, AND specialists. That gave a player lots of cool options; there were multiple strategies to dealing with morale issues. GC3 doesn't really have any on-the-fly options right now. You build morale buildings, and occasionally you get a lucky Artifact find or tech giving a universal boost.  Those are long-term options, requiring considerable investment or acting as eternal upgrades. There's no quick sacrifice that can be made elsewhere to get a boost to a specific planet. If you suddenly get an event that nukes morale for 50 turns, then you cannot do anything about it short of tearing down a bunch of factories across the whole empire, building the approval buildings, and then swapping them back later.

Much of the Civ 5 economy is pop-based with multipliers too. Research generation, for example, is entirely based on pop in Civ 5 (which was a very bad change for lots of reasons, in particular because food, industry and wealth remained yield-based). I do see where the OP is coming from on this one too, though really a properly designed pop-based model isn't problematic (and GC3's fundamental model is much, much better designed than Civ 5's. Just hands-down. Food and growth could do with some work, but in most other areas it's a superior design, having stuck with the pop-prod model rather than going for the bastardized schizophrenic mess Civ 5 ended up with). 

I think the GC2 model was a really nice attempt at something a bit different and a bit new... but was also painfully flawed; there were silly 'optimum solutions' for almost every build. I think the GC3 model has better potential to avoid that kind of thing, once they're figured out the right numbers to put into it. That's just balance, and so not something I'm super-worried about really; you can endlessly tweak econ values. The relative values of Money, Research and Industry are currently really imbalanced, though, and need some attention to bring them back into line.

Ah, but the human won't stop expanding his empire because of it. The AI will. I've noticed many times that the AI will not colonize past around 80 planets with morale-based LEP, since it's building from a script and so doesn't build extra morale buildings to counter it. The relatively minor penalty for having no morale is something the human wisely ignores, but the AI freaks out about it. 

And that's without even touching on how it doesn't actually act to slow down empire growth or extent, or how it's literally incompatible with the scale of the game on larger maps, or the inherent conceptual design flaw of using a colony-scale penalty on an empire-scale problem (which you just shouldn't do - if I can only counter a penalty acquired at empire level by redesigning all my individual colonies, then it's a bad, micro-intensive design). But I've outlined that in exhaustive detail elsewhere on the forum. There's little real excuse for LEP in it's current state and the sooner it's replaced with something that actually does what it's supposed to do, the better.

The OP is just noticing a symptom of the issue, and you're just using another symptom to counter it. It doesn't really clear up the problem. Which is a shame, because there's actually clearly a hell of a lot of work gone into the diplomacy module which is being spoiled by a few silly bugs and an errant design decision or two.

Really, the problem with diplo is that most effects are huge compared to the relatively small relations scale. You have 20 possible positions on the relations scale - -10 to 10. Yet several of the relations modifiers give +3 or -3 PER TURN to this score, and they stack. It's entirely possible to go from best chums to absolute loathing in the space of a couple of turns, based on some pretty minor effects (like ideology, or killing a pirate for them... or your scout ship being in their territory for five minutes). There's a diminishing return in play, but it can't really counter the modifiers acting on the undersized relations scale.

Ideology, for example, has an effect of -2 per turn, increased for some personality types. That means it would take just ten weeks of minor ideological differences to turn firm friends into absolute arch-enemies. The diminishing return acts to limit this, but none the less the impact is HUGE, particularly early on when you have no trade routes and little Diplo skill (which is itself vastly overpowered as well). Honestly, I think the game really needs the diplo scale increasing to 100 to -100. It's really quite nuanced and nicely put together, with personalities having lots of effect... but no-one can really see it, since the impact is basically 'they'll hate you in 4 turns instead of 6!'.

It's not really an on-the-fly thing. Aside from the fact that, as a project, it automatically comes last in the build queue (and so doesn't work if you're trying to build a more permanent solution), but it also doesn't make much sense. The primary reason to keep high morale is to increase production. If you're then spending a big chunk of that production to increase morale... yeah, that's poorly thought through. I do think the project is a genuine attempt by SD to try and tackle the issue. I just don't really think it's a great choice; more of a short-term reaction to a visible problem than a thoughtful and elegant piece of design.

You're missing the point 'Bad design' doesn't mean 'unmanageable'. If you look through my high-karma posts, there's one from about July which outlines it's failings point by point and outlines why it's unfit for purpose. I don't particularly want to derail this thread into a long discussion of LEP, since we had several dozen of those back in 1.1 and 1.2.

Going with the OP on this, and can't understand the "Everything is fine." people.

i have a request for you guys, coulde you check out the idea i have posted and tell me Your opinion about what i suggest to the diplomacy and espionage working together. (by this link. ?  

https://forums.galciv3.com/472507/page/1/

You know, it actually already does that. That's kind of my point - pretty much everything you'd want the diplo AI to do, it already does. There's more than 50 separate modifiers to relations. It's a huge and wonderful system... which absolutely no-one notices, because just one or two modifiers can quickly cap it out one way or the other. 

It's simplistic, but it's also a major electoral strategy used in real life I just think more options that 'build X' would be good here; I don't really care what they are as long as the player has some flexibility to react to low morale. Currently, I have very few options, which all involve a permanent increase to morale somehow. If I'm an evil empire, my reaction to low morale is much the same as if I'm a good empire. The morale-from-conquest ideology bonus is a good example of other possibilities (invading elsewhere to distract from trouble at home is another political trope), but is again a permanent increase forever after... where are my short-term options? Something to keep morale up while I'm building the building? Tax cuts and garrisoning (colony leaders) are great for this kind of thing, and their absence is a notable gap in the game's repertoire.