Ill give your questions my best shot.

1) I like a multiple choice set up and I like snappy or unexpected answers. Trying to bully the AI and get a snappy answer will leave me rolling on the floor with laughter. An unexpected answer to a question I thought I knew the answer to is perhaps the funnest part of Diplomacy. Civ V, had this, Gal Civ II had this. Also it would help to have omniscience on where I stand with the AI. Civ 5 kept that info from me. It made it seem like the AI was always willing to stab me in the back when in fact all it wants to do is also win. I like games where if I am at war the diplomacy allows me to acquire and ally or help via diplomacy, either begging for help or trading for assistance. 'Buying' help from the AI is what this is but I always wanted a game where it felt like I really had to ask/beg or plead for help. If the AI agreed to help but made me feel like it was put off would go a long way towards realism....

Voiced answers are not as important to me as a well written answer. Again I can go back to GC II and fondly remember some of the interchanges from the AI when I had fleets on its door step..."Stop,  just please stop you are embarrassing both of us", My goodness I nearly shot coffee out of my nose when I first saw this.... I want more!

2) My favorite games can sometimes last weeks or even a real life month or more. 100's of turns. At times I may be at war and save the game and come back and play hours with the ebb and flow of battle. Those were GREAT games! Playing one AI against another and selling arms to both is always a fun game.

3) Good strategy games, Civ IV, Civ V, Gal Civ II and Distant Worlds. All have good elements of game play. I did not care for the fixed star paths of Endless Space, it was a real shock to me after years of GC II. Anytime I can predict what the AI will do or react in diplomacy is also not so fun. Civ V was like this until many patches later. Another great game I have always loved was HEROES III and also HEROES IV. Both games had a good game play and the fun of discovering things and gear while a good combat system just added to it. The versions after gave up great play for snappy graphix and because of that, I did really care for HEROES V.

Non Civ type games I really really enjoyed goes back to HOURS and HOURS of game play on Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights. Both had that feel of exploration and not knowing your path on both how to build your character and where to go in the game. I loved both.

Sorry Frogboy, I probably did not give answers to help but I did my best.

I look forward to diplomacy in October!

1.  I like being able to purchase anything that isn't a key strategic resource to the AI for the right price.  It's important that the AI be able to value things well (the GC2 AI undervalued low-population planets, overvalued high-population ones, and greatly overvalued influence points on large maps).  I also like having an AI that is consistent in its dealings - if it has an honorable personality, you can count on your favors leading to a lasting relationship - this is essential to get people to invest in long-term diplomacy, since unreliable AIs just aren't worth the effort.

Another thing the diplomacy system could really use is some way to coordinate efforts in a joint war - for instance, you could put a marker on a fleet requesting allied assistance, and if your allies like you enough, they could send nearby ships to move with it (the AIs could also request that you do the same, and give a relations boost for helping).

Another minor feature I'd like to see it for the AI to track "military effectiveness rating".  Basically, this number would be the ratio of the production cost of the ships you've destroyed over the cost of those you've lost.  It could act to scale your effective military power in terms of how the other AIs look at you, and could also affect the willingness of your allies to send ships whenever you request support.  This would help address the occasional immersion breaking effect of how you can be tearing apart your enemies' forces with your high-tech doom fleet, but they still think their military is "superior" on account of numbers.

2.  I haven't played a GC3 game through to completion, but my GC2 games could definitely last 3+ ingame years.

3.  For me, the most important part of a good 4X was articulated by Sid Meier in his definition of a game as a "series of interesting choices".  Whenever you look at how a feature interacts with the rest of the game, you should always be asking "what options does this feature present the player with?" and "do these options lead to interestingly different results".  An example of weak performance in this category would be an option between +5% damage and +5% defense - this choice would have a negligible effect on the game except in a few extremely specific scenarios, so it is not a interesting choice.  Another example of a non-interesting choice would be to be deciding on the next building for an industrial planet, and to be choosing between an 25% boost to industry, or a 25% boost to things like wealth, research, or other options that are obviously inferior because the planet does not specialize in them.  The correct choice is obvious, so the act of "choosing" amounts to just busywork. 

AI governors are an answer to some of the micromanagement problems that can amount to boring choices in the 4X genre, but I've always avoided them because they frequently make unwanted decisions.  But there is a solution to that - letting players make custom AI governors would provide the benefits of both worlds, while giving players a set of genuinely interesting choices when they set and alter the priorities of their various AI governors.

As for Diplomacy- I like my AI to have a personality, but I also like surprises and sneakiness.

As for turns- the most important thing isn't the number of turns, but that the mop-up phase is short.

As what for makes a game good-

a) I like my games to have a sense of exploration and randomness- but I expect less of that in a GalCiv game.  LH does the explore part very well, as did FFH.

I like my opposition in these games to not be predictable, and to be competent.  

c) I like the games to run fast, but I tend to play smaller maps and don't like controlling tons of units.

2. My most favorite Games (Round-based) are all Games of Sid-Meier's Civilization-Series. Civ CTP, Alpha Centauri, GalCiv II, Endless Space, Conquest of the new world. (Real-Time) Z, KKND, Empire Earth I, Warcraft-Series, Starcraft-Series. I also like very much all Tomb-Raider Adventure-Games.

1. Tohron really described it well, I share also his points. What I really didn't like is, when you try to help small Civilizations to regain their cities (when they are attacked by big and military-strong civilizations), sometimes it happens, that those Civilizations even go to war against you, even though you should be able to trade valuable resources with them with good conditions.

When you gain a technology of a other civilization, that is specific to those, you still shouldn't be able to build buildings that they can build.

3. A strategy game is good, when it doesn't have to much features (I don't mean the complexity but sometimes it is to overloaded, for example Civ 5 became to overloaded to me, because you have multiple World Wonders (to much for my taste), and all those other things like Religion, Spy etc.). Thats why I liked GalCiv II very much, because you could "only" bulid a small amount of different Buildings (Factories, Science Labs, etc) and each can be upgraded after researching new technologies. What I didn't like, is, that sometime it didn't pay off to research better technologies, because the upgrades become to cost-effective (to high production costs for better factories).

The productions should even be lower in my opinion, because with higher Tech you should be able to build buildings more efficiently.

I just wanted to say also, that I didn't buy the beta of GalCiv III, so I don't really know, what the differences really are to GalCiv II, but I saw some videos on youtube and it looks good!

1) My favourite part of diplomacy is the option to build a solid alliance that lasts throughout the game.  Though if it's too easy (like in Stardrive) it doesn't feel rewarding and can even take the challenge out of the game.

I hated the diplomacy Civ 5 originally had where the AI seemed to have no memory of past events.

2) When I play Civ I prefer marathon or epic on huge maps, so ~1000 turns.  I'm definitely going to try to try the biggest game gal civ will let me set up, but I don't know if I'll ever finish it.

3) A good strategy game is one I have to "solve" every time I play.  If I can figure out one strategy that wins every time I pretty quickly lose interest.

My worst strategy game memory is being knocked out of a really good (and long running) gal civ game by a random event giving my main production centers to a new faction that was at war with me.  It wasn't something that could be defended against and the random nature of it meant it couldn't even be planed for.

1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most? I want you to be as specific as you can be. Which parts of diplomacy from any game do you like the most? What parts do you remember long after playing the most?

None of it. It's just a annoyance.  They are either friendly or they are not.

2. Looking back, how many turns do your favorite games last? This is important to know the specific number of turns the game in Question lasted. 

As far as I can before the game starts to have problems (well into the hundreds)

3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good fand another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most?

GOOD - Interesting and well thought out tactical as well as strategic game play in equal forms (not mainly one or the other), with a progression that's give you some sense of power.  A personal touch to your main character and heroes, so That you give more than a toss about them.

BAD - Mostly,4x games have become somewhat sterile, they have lost their personality and soul, and become just numbers.

1. From distant worlds when you create a free trade agreement, trade between your two empires is boosted by 20%, then when you create a mutual defense pact trade is boosted up to 40%. Allowing mining and refueling rights in one another's territory , im not sure if you would bother to apply this to galciv3.

From Civilization 5 you can make declarations of friendship with another civilization so hostilities towards you will have a negative impact in relation between the hostile nation and your friend. You can also make joint research treaties.

From Sins of a Solar Empire Rebellion you can make pacts to joint technologies that increase your ships shields, armor and weapons. You can also agree to share world and ship vision, basically to see what they see.

The more diplomacy options the better in my opinion!

2. My Games usually last hundreds of turns over days.

3.Predictability is terrible, example I meet Drengin who are evil so they will declare war on me, I build starbases at the border and then tailor my weapons and defenses against theirs. They dont adapt their weapons or defenses to me, they declare war when I have a HUGE advantage technologically and sometimes in numbers and they prove to be easily defeated. Next game, same thing. 

A good strategy game has great replay-ability and game play with an intelligent and difficult opponent. Great 4x games, has to have this and a lot more!

Having thought a bit more about my answer to #1

A really good mechanic of the Civ 5 diplomacy once they fixed it was how the combined action of friendship declarations (which made the friends of each civ involved like each other) and denouncements (which made the friends of the civ doing the denouncing dislike the civ being denounced) tended to split the world into blocs.  It made for large scale wars and alliances and felt pretty organic.

1)    diplomacy- ability to trade/gift/steal/treaties etc. technology/money/research/land/planets/cities etc.

       the a.I. to act in a consistant manner i.e. one turn your allies the next turn they declare war then peace again , these should be built

       up to over a period of time not seemly a reaction to one thing you do or don't do

2)    quite happy to go for 100's to 1000's of turns

3)    good  games have consistant a.I. ( not predictable a.I. ) i.e. evil acts evil, neutral acts neutral etc.

       that's not to say they shouldn't neccesarily be unable to change in the game but if so it should take a

       long time to gradually change

       games that concentrate more on a living system rather than bigger or more is always better , hidden objects or areas,technologies

       etc,

       random events , surprises etc. but within reason as to how much they affect the overhaul game play i.e.

       empire destroying type events should only occur once maybe twice in a game, not every 20 or 30 turns as some games seem

       to do to try to " spice things up"

       allowing players to change settings to suit their playing style

I'll give this a go.

1) I like the diplomacy in GC2 trading techs,swapping economic and research treaties and alliances and I lked it in Sword of the Stars 2. The worst game for diplomacy was The Lost Empire - Eww! (too restrictive)

2) The longest game I've finished in GC2 was 32yrs 6mths so 1500 turns+ But I had saved games that were just as long till my wifes comp died and wiped 4 years (real time) games play out.

3) Hmmm! I like Sins of a solar empire,Homeworld 2,SW:EaW and FoC,GC1+2Ultimate Ed (mainly play ToA), Stronghold Deluxe+Crusader and Stonghold 2 (but I prefer Crusader),Tropico Gold,Sim city 4,Civ 4,Beachlife. Anyway I find the following aspects of a game if done right make it highly playable:

Camera views/free cam/zooms like sins camera and GC's combat viewer.

User Interface/ease of use if the basics are easy do you can build up to the more complex tasks (which is why I still play GC2 and will till I can get hold of GC 3)

If a game says "Design your own ships" on the cover then when I actually get to play it its pre-designed hulls that I can only put equipment on I get pee'd off (Gal Civ 2 has spoiled me as I love building ships from scratch)

Good tutorials eg Stronghold series and GC2

The music - Often overlooked but Background,Event,Combat - Get this wrong and it can grate on your nerves Best=GC:DL vocal theme song,  Worst=The Lost Empire electronic synth crap I had to turn the sound completely off.

Combat must be enjoyable I like both tactical combat (Sins,SW:EAW) and GC's combat Viewer.What I would say that GC falls down on is the land/planetary invasion screen if we could have a combat viewer version for planetary battles that'll be great!

I like the freighters/mini-freighters in GC2 for trade routes rather just straight trade lines between planets (didnt like this in Sots) also the fact that I can arm them if necessary?

Free travelling ships rather than travel lanes (eg can go everywhere on map) I didnt like this in Sins and SW:EAW and Sword of the Stars but I can live with it.

plenty of different factions to play or create your own custom races/faction? is a must to stop boredom of playing the same race/faction over and over again-variety is the spice of life and games.

Sorry for the WoT, Have a on me!

My answers will differ from others because I have only really played

• Age of Wonders
• AoW II
• AoW II: Shadow Magic
• Heroes II
• Heroes III
• Heroes V

Master of Magic when they would not talk to you every single day and diplomacy with heavy restrictions so you can't strip the AI of everything he has.

I actually don't like diplomacy. I see it as an abusive, gamebreaking thing.

The parts I remember best is GalCiv II and Master of Magic things but I only played the campaign in GalCiv II so might not be valid. Also remember Age of Wonders diplomacy but I never used it in custom games since it was extremely exploitable. Broken really.

As few as possible. I try to win as soon as I can. Games that drag on with gigantic armies are boring and possibly imbalanced (HoMM).

Good strategy games are ones with solid mechanics, design and an important earlygame!    Taking HoMM as the best example (does it count as 4x?), in the beginning you MUST capture your wood and ore mines quickly or you will fall extremely far behind. You should attack neutrals that you can beat with no losses and you must prepare (upgrade this or that creature, get lvl 2 spells) to assault a special mine that you really need and also calculate if you can accept the losses it will bring.

Age of Wonders II: Shadow Magic doesn't really have an earlygame since you tech so quickly.

Bad 4x games are ones where nothing ever HAPPENS and have no control over combat. GalCiv II is one of those cause I dislike the design of no tactical combat, building forever and it feels dull.

1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most?

Even though it's a given, having some way to quickly balance the two sides of the deal.  So for example, in GC2, the bc needed to make things equal would be picked out.  In Civ, asking 'What will it take to make this deal work?'

I like long-term co-operation with other civs, as opposed to just taking everything by force.  And if the terms of co-operation change through the ages, that's something I can live with.

I think that more than anything, I remember those times when Civs stayed in character and didn't try to stab me in the back.

2. Looking back, how many turns do your favorite games last?

Hundreds.  Close to a thousand for GC2, and in Civ 4 for example I would typically play Marathon from the Ancient age.  With slower tech progression.  And timed victory turned off.

3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one?

I guess I would say that the thing which makes a 4X bad is not having the right level of challenge.  The AI opponents or the environment should not be easily beaten or tamed.  I remember thinking that in Alpha Centauri or Civ II, for example, you had a lot of tools to radically alter the environment, which basically meant that at one point or another you would win simply because you were godlike even though you hadn't actually passed any of the victory conditions yet.

Having a challenge doesn't necessarily make a 4X good though, it just means that the player will keep coming back for more.

What makes a 4X good? Um, well I think with a lot of games allowing you to customise (for example GalCiv or Civ, being able to customise your Civ)  I think it's about the player feeling like the timeline of their struggle tells a story of victory (or defeat) and that their choices and actions helped to shape that story.

It's that lucky and memorable discovery of a high-PQ planet or Precursor Library in GalCiv which helped things along.  It's that goodie hut which yielded a much-needed technology or Settler.  It's deciding not to trust a particular AI player and being justified when they try to take over the world - and you're ready for them even if the other players aren't.

You are a storyteller, and a general, and a diplomat, and sometimes a brutal despot who had slaves whipped mercilessly to get results.  You've been there at every step along the way, from that lowly first Archer unit right up until the thermonuclear holocaust which destroyed most of the world.  Oops.  There's continuity, you know, your aptly-named capital city standing the test of time.  Unless someone razes it to the ground, of course, in which case it continues to be ashes until you get a settler in there to rebuild it.

What is good about a 4X is expanding your mind to consider new possibilities, new strategies and different ways of playing.  So for example, in Civ 5 I liked that each civ has different advantages and ways of playing.  In GalCiv 2, the default races gained unique improvements techs, and abilities.

It's not about cranking out generic victory X in the least turns possible, or achieving a million point score.  Well, it may be to some, but not to me.

It's about exploiting your knowledge of relations between the other civs to make yourself appear to be the trustworthy trading partner.

It's about sneaking your spies in to sabotage production (without going complete overkill like in Civ 4 and having so many spies that your opponents can't produce anything).  Or there's intrigue, which was introduced in Civ 5: Brave New World, and allows you to warn players of impending sneak attacks.

I think in a nutshell, 4X games are good because there isn't one cookie-cutter way to win, things happen and you may have to adjust your plans on the fly.

Hope this helps!

1. Consistent AI and lots of options ranging from trade to research to alliance and coporation. Oh and funny and unique dialog is great as well.

2. Hard to really calculate. I have ADHD so sometimes my games can last thousands of turns and sometimes it barely reachs 100. Depending on how I am doing.

3. Solid Mechanics and Design can make or break a game IMHO. I've played 4x across the board (Sins(RT4x), SOTS (different racial movment patterns), GalCiv(campaign, combat viewer), MOO(tactical combat)) so I have no preferable game design and/or mechanic just as long as its solid and works.

1. Trade agreements (allow trade routes), trade/gift/request specific resources (any resource), military access/open borders, defensive pact, non-aggression, research agreement, form/dissolve alliance, negotiate peace (via any resource available), declare war, request faction go to war/peace with, insult/compliment.  I would love to see the ability to goad two factions into declaring war on each other.

2.  Hard to say.  I've enjoyed short games that take a day, and long games that take 3 months.  Both of these are usually set by the map size and/or speed of the game.  I've never really paid attention to the number of turns, especially since you can really slow some games down (like Civ), just the overall amount of time.

3. Having an interesting, and active, early game in which to lay your foundation is important, as is the ability to shift that focus fairly early on if/when your situation changes.  Having the ability to adapt as different events unfold.  Having a variety of victory conditions is also very welcome, as it encourages different play styles.  My most memorable victories have usually been those that were non-militaristic, one of which I built zero military units.

Two things that always annoys me is when the AI is not consistent, and when they bombard you every other turn (eg: Civ Open Borders).  There should be specific positive and negative reactions to everything you do, and those should add up to determine how the faction reacts to you. Most games already do this. but one of the very few things I liked about Rome 2: Total War (even after a year of patching) was that you could see the breakdown of everything the factions liked/disliked about you, and you could watch as those actions degraded over time.

Ok here it goes.

1. I like the multiple choice system of previous GalCiv games. I also love it when the AI is witty and clever, like you try to intimidate them and it laughs at you or hits you with a one liner. Same goes for when you park ships near the AIs border and they send you a communication saying they know what you are up to.  I also like AIs where it is actively trying to win and sticks to the preferred method for that race. (Drengin war you, Drath use spying and espionage ect)

Also its nice if there are a lot of options with forming alliances, with vassal nations. It would be great for example if one of the independent races that is near your territory joins you because they fear another race that also borders them or hates them or keeps threatening them. 

2. My favourite games can go for many days or weeks with hundreds of turns passing. There is nothing better than playing a long game and suddenly there is an uxexpected twist from the AI that keeps me playing for another three hours when I should be sleeping. 

3. To me what makes or breaks a game is often how its presented. Some 4X games like EU VI just pile all  of the game systems (which there are a lot of)  on you without making it fun to learn. Games like Galciv and the Civ series make it fun to learn and keep learning without overwhelming you. Another thing that does bug me though for a lot of strategy games is the amount of straight up cheating the AI does. Make it fun and challenging yes but ifs its way too obvious that the AI is cheating (like Civ V making AI units magically spawn every turn at an enemy city) then its a big turn off. Also spy/espionage spam, don't make the AI do it, it doesn't make it interesting just annoying.