I like resources, but I also don't want them used for anything but "special" purposes.  That is, you should be able to build a competitive Civ WITHOUT any resources at all.  What resources should do it provide a modest edge - so in a battle between two Civs of the same level, the one with resources should win. But access to resources won't counter an opponent who is substantially more advanced than you.  Note that I don't count Food as a resource - that's a completely separate dynamic.

Which is why I like resources to be required only for the following:

1. Weapons and Defenses, where every couple of tech advances there is a "special" weapon/defense requiring resources, that gives maybe a 25% improvement in performance.  Here, that would mean that having the resource could allow you to compete evenly with someone who had a 1 tech level advantage over you in that weapon/defense.

2. Special Unique buildings - the one-per-Empire or one-per Galaxy should definitely continue to require resources. That forces people to be selective about which of these they try to obtain, rather than a generic "rush-for-the-specials".

3. The high-end one-per-planet improvements; you should be able to build at least the first set of these freely, but afterwards, getting a resource would be necessary. 

4. The very high-level Starbase modules, though I'd want them to have at least the first 3 or so in the series not to require resources.

But I am not in favor of any normal building (e.g. one where you can build more than one on a planet) EVER requiring a resource, regardless of how high-tech.

If we're using this model, I'm in favor of reducing the availability of space-based resources significantly - dial it back at least 50% from the current settings

An individual Civ can either be Wide or Tall at a point in time - not both, by definition. As your empire increases in side, naturally, not all worlds are equal, but we're talking about an average - when surveying your worlds, do they generally have lots of big population, or are they filled with lots of specialized buildings.  What we want is to have the game competitive for both choices, so if you chose Wide, you can be competitive with both Wide and Tall opponents, and vice versa. And, of course, you can alter your strategy as time goes by, so you don't always have to be one or the other.  In theory, it would be possible to chose the middle ground, but it's far, far, far harder to balance for 3 possible world planning strategies than it is for just 2, because then you're into the scenarios of (say):  We've balanced 5 Cities vs 5 Factories, but can we do it for 3 Cities + 2 Factories vs 5 Factories, or 3 Cities + 2 Factories vs 1 City + 4 Factories? Balance issue are very difficult, and while there will be some variation due to optimal tile layout (and bonus tiles), generically balancing everything should mean that a pure City or pure Factory route is significantly more optimal than any combination one.

I like resource dependencies, and I'd like them taken further still. I think the resource system is one of the best things about Crusade, as it forces me to think about my decisions a lot more with respect to my relations with other civs, and the kind of actions I prioritize. It may be with the current design that balancing for tall empires may be impossible, and that's fine actually. I would like viable tall empires, but if it cannot be done within the limits of the current game design, and further changes with the current iterations are off the table, then just polish what you got. At the end of the day, the game cannot be everything to everyone when it comes to wish fulfillment. 

That does leave open the possibility for further change in the upcoming expansion, though. So there's opportunity. 

I posted heavily on this in another thread, but I really think trade resources should be manufactured, or grown by the civ..not found by luck...

Resources put an artificial break on progress...  rather than a balanced systematic break...

Monsantium or Duranium availability is the biggest break on large populations...    Morale should be the break....   building too big too fast should cause revolts... which may destroy buildings... lost production..

These are mechanics that Civ has had....    it is a mechanic that is easy to understand and hard to exploit...

Do that.

A very simple solution would be unique buildings that provide those resources that are absolutely game breaking (durantium and monsantum). If you grab 12 planets and still have no monsantum, you have another option - build that special building that provides it. It's expensive and you have to sacrifice a tile for it, but you have no choice. Ditto for durantium. 

If population growth was by civilization, not planets that would go a long way to help tall empires. If single planets had no population caps. Where lets say if you build, or buy a colony ship then starvation is incorperated based on normal rules. 

You could incorperate no limit on terriformed tiles is you have only one planet. This would go a long way towards tall. You could make the ai more willing to trade rare resources to single planet planet empires, because they are to small to worry about. I prefer a complex resource system it is more fun. I wouldnt mind bringing back trade goods. 

When in doubt... steal ideas. Maybe not the classiest way to go about it, but you'd be wrong if you think "other games that shall not be named" went ahead without assimilating good content from others. Everyone is inspired by someone else. See what works well for those games and try to find a way to include it in yours. I can tell you there are a lot of things I like about "said other game", but there is also a lot that irritates me too. Try to find the middle ground.

As for other things;

Make the AI less aggressive; a big problem I have with GalCiv3 is it's less about diplomacy and, more or less, becomes a game about conquering others. Everyone is out to get you if they think they have the upper hand, even if it goes against their ideology. Try to include more diplomatic options and actually make this a diplomacy simulator, rather than another cookie cutter domination game.

Less micro; GalCiv2 was a far superior game in this respect. You added a lot of cool extra content for 3, but most of the time I'm trying to micro the best possible way to build on my planets. Too many different types of buildings is adding too much complexity to it.

More council events; it should be required to be on the council, and the council should have a lot more options to try and pass. It seems like there are too few. Most of the time I'm trying to decide which option sucks the least. Maybe even make certain options specific to the chair... Yor shouldn't be posing the same changes as a biological race would (such as morale bonuses).

Less dirty borders; the AI simply has no regard for sphere of influence, and the rush for resources and planets has them claiming well beyond their initial borders, in affect, causing the problems they eventually hate you for. Perhaps this could be fixed by adding a penalty to distance from homeworld modifier? Maybe this would make the AI less likely to try and grab something far away when they have plenty of resources and such closer to home. On that same note, less resources to cap wouldn't be such a bad idea either. They are too prevalent and not rare at all. Nearly everything using them too is kind of a bummer.

Tile bonuses; these should always have a benefit to the race being played, even if it's not something they use. Again, like Yor, why do they care about pop/farm modifiers? They don't, so those resources should instead have some sort of alternate modifier to civs that don't use them.

More custom rooms/portraits; i'd like to see a lot more official and unused options available (such as animated backgrounds/races).

I'll probably think of some more later.

I dont mind improved interface for less micro. I can see where that can still be done. But when some one is proposing less features for less micro. That ruins things. Lets not have less features please, but having an option to automate things, like we already have planet governors is good. Instead of getting rid of features how about fixing the ship list, so when you build from a ship start at the first previous ship instead of starting over. When you double click on a tech tree how about returning to the main screen. Ok im not suggesting global, or local options. Im sughesting them both for the planet scteen. This way i could set the governor the way i want everytime i settle a planet once instead every time. In the case i want to change this i can. If you are ocd stop this is not stardocks problem. Yeah planetary governor is a problem for this. That is not a micro problem. I noticed when i highlight improvements i dont always get a description make it where you do, even if you have to right click to solve this problem. Wether im in the planetary build que, or on the planet screen a double click should cancel the build. Before you dummy down the game at least try making the interface even better.

If you just assume the feature was never added in the first place, nothing is being taken away. Just because something was added doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, either. Did anyone have a problem with the way the game was before in this regard? Does adding a bunch of different building types with varying bonuses improve the game? Is this something that is really important enough to care about so much, over other potential changes? This is simply not the first thing I would have changed to make GalCiv3 better. There wasn't anything wrong with GalCiv2's method of dealing with this, so, IMO, it shouldn't have even been an issue in the first place. More features does not necessarily mean the game is made better. Again, it's just an added level of complexity that may or may not be needed, so I just don't see a reason why there needs to be so many of these, because it's far and away from being one of the reasons why this game isn't doing so well.

Hi,

I'd opt for introducing a mechanism that provides for some sense of internal tension and confict between competing factions/ parties/ houses. This is probably a DLC related topic but here's the sales pitch.

Right now you've got a good 4X with a bunch of suggestions to fine tune various aspects of the 4X experience. However it's a very outward focused 4X with a hollow centre.  Stellaris and Endless Space 2 both have strong elements of internal conflict which go a long way to providing the story and player immersion that the drier, more mechanical, galCivIII 4x lacks.

As you've implemented citizens in Crusade you've got a really solid foundation for a fleshed out 'centre'. If each citizen was a representative of the various faction / party / house system in use that comprises the internal political landscape you'd have a ready made mechanic where the faction with the greatest number of citizens would be the dominant faction of the moment. Different factions could provide a range of bonuses if dominant or restrictions, eg. a Peace faction might not take kindly to being at war.

This is barebones stuff but you could really go town with your citizens and internal politics. It'd make the player see the citizens as more than just a bonus and you've got the potential here for all kinds of emergent stories. 

I think it'd serve to elevate the citizens as a unique game feature, be a point of difference to the competition (where internal factions are anonymous blobs, not people) and provide the immersion that comes from internal faction tensions.

Cheers,

Z.

It’s my first time posting, I saw this thread and I wanted to chip in. I’ve played nearly 600 hours of Gal Civ 3, so it’s pretty safe to say I’ve enjoyed it and I’m grateful to you and your team for all the hard work you’ve put in.

I’m a Concept Artist by trade, so visuals and narrative are a big draw for me. When I’m playing a game that can sometimes last dozens of hours I want to feel like I’m living an epic story with nuance and not a straight A-B, me VS Ai.

A handful of ideas.

Dynamic minor races – Bring back the interaction. Make them meaningful contributors to your empire – give them skills they can bring to the table - more research, better spies etc.  Make them a diplomatic source of contention. When other empires attacked a species I was on good terms with I wanted to be able to tell them to back off, I wanted there to be repercussions. Give them their own objectives and situations to be solved eg Minor Race A has been working on a secret project that requires X resources  from you  for completion which will then go on to be a benefit or detriment to your empire. Diplomatic issues between minor races and you/other minor races. Make them fallible – plagues that you have to research cures for or send scout ships out to retrieve resources for.

If they interact with me I feel like I’m playing in a living, breathing galaxy. When they just sit their quietly as they do now, they may as well not be there. It’s a shame not to make more of them as the stylised art style is gorgeous.

A static Galaxy – I get that there are events, and anomalies, but it feels like, once you’ve colonised a system, or met another minor race, beyond it being annihilated by the Ai, it’s always going to be there.  What if stars had a small chance of undergoing change and impacting that system? Going red giant, or going Nova and leaving behind a black hole. It might be a hindrance, it might be a benefit, but either way your strategy has to change.

Limited turn based events – In X number of turns an Asteroid will collide with a colony world. Do you try to limit the damage or are ships in range that can intercept the asteroid? The shockwave from an exploding star is heading for one of your planets in X turns. Can you counter it with planetary shields, do you have to send colony ships to grab what you can. Alternatively a genesis wave is heading towards a dead system, get your colony ships there before the Ai to reap the rewards.

Dead Worlds – I’ve seen this come up a lot. I play gigantic maps generally and it’s always demoralising to find great swathes of dead systems surrounding my core worlds. Those first turns need to be about exploration and wonder, not chalking up one dead system after another. I want to feel like I’m progressing, not stagnating. Could we make these more useful? Probe the system, discover one time resource bonuses or buffs, eg Dead world yielded +5 Durantium. An artefact was found on Dead World Y which yielded a temporary research buff. Your probe accidentally activated a beacon whilst scanning a dead world that triggers one of the games mega events.  The property of a star changes to something more hospitable and a dead system becomes a living one.

The gameplay of Gal Civ III has always been engaging for me and I prefer it over other big titles out there because of that, but some of the others handle the world building immersion better. If Gal Civ could do more of that I think it’d be a very well balanced offering.

I didn’t enjoy the new MOO for gameplay but I liked how they showcased their races on the various UI screens, how you got a chance to see them a little more and dare I say it, the voice acting wasn’t unwelcome. (probably a contentious one )

I like Stellaris for its variety in race and how the situation on an established colony can suddenly change. I like how it entertains epic ideas like Dyson Spheres and Ring Worlds. I haven’t played Endless Space _2 yet, but it looks expansive, epic, so I’m considering checking that out.

If it felt like there was more going on in Gal Civ other than me trying to annihilate or befriend a major race I don’t think these other games would get a look in.

I like a complex resource system as well, but the problem is that in order for it to work you need to trade, or you need to be the biggest civ and have everything. Right now, the AI often won't trade, which means your only choice is to be the biggest civ with the most planets. 

That's why we would need a black market as suggested elsewhere several times already. There everything would be on sale, ships as well as resources, probably more expensive than when trading with other civs, but at least that would be a reliable source.

Having a Black Market appeals to me - it's an alternative way to, as you say, get what you need in terms of resources, ships etc. I see this working best as something Pirates operate and a good mechanic to flesh them out beyond being huntin' and killin' folk. Essentially, you have two choices with pirates: kill them or avoid them. I'd like a third choice: trade with them. Now, if you choose the third option than that's a black market. However, you're basically receiving stolen property at a higher price than if you'd bought that stuff legally and if the other races realize it's stolen property there will be some sort of diplomatic downside, either with one race or the entire UP. This could be the Terran being angry you bought the ship the Pirates stole from them, or UP sanctioning you because you keep delving into various black market despite warnings etc...

I like the idea of a black market for special resources. The prices would need to be substantial, though, high enough that using it would be a last resort. 

A couple ideas. AI based game, not scripted.

1. Trade/Diplomacy/Immersion:

a. Allow 50 week trade options where I can negotiate with a producing AI player to provide example, 4 Anti-Matter per week for 2 Durantium per week.  If we can reach continual trade agreements like this with another CIV it gives us reason to defend them and their resources against other CIVs, rather than now choosing a CIV to befriend based on strategic map location only or you like ones demeanor more than another.

b. Add an Alliance Hanger Bay that the player could pay to add on to an Allied Civs Mining Starbase so we can dock ships there.

c. If the CIV loses control of the resource, they could engage you diplomatically (mission like) asking your help to regain control of it. This could be extended to planets also. How much would an AI CIV fawn over you if you liberated their homeworld and gave it back to them?

I think these small changes would add benefit and immersion to the game.

Concerning trade, I see some players commenting that the AI never trades rare resources with them. Maybe you should explain as I have discovered, an AI player will never trade if they have less than 4 themselves of the resource, nor will they ever trade more than 1/4 of their stockpile of any resource. This is a hardset AI coding, that perhaps could be tweeked for personality for individuality. But that is how it is now.

2. Limited Rare Resources and Buildings.

a. Have more options, not less as some want on the forum. The solution is not to remove rare resource buildings, instead, with some of them, offer an inferior substitute of the building for the resource deprived. Not everything has a realistic work around. We need iron here on earth to make battleships and tanks, but an inferior battery for a cell phone can be made from non rare-earth metals.

3. Borders

a. Borders only exist if you enforce them. This is 360 degree spherical space, on a 2d map, making it all the harder. No changes necessary. That said.

b. Add the diplomatic option to instruct my ships, and/or survey ships to steer clear of a CIVs borders, either at affirmation of their request or my offering.

Closing.

Overall, you have made a very good game. I like the addition of rare minerals, citizens and ideology perks. On a graphical note, I would like to see a different sprite for pirate bases and a different formula for their implementation. Early game beyond exploration, lacks small scale battles or engagements. Perhaps some type of pirates or raiders based in or near your starting position could fix this.