I have a lot to tell about Tales of the Arnor, especially to you and other devs, but I donlt have time nor strength to do so now. 
Generally, I love the new gameplay elements; new techn tree and especially new abilities (Efficient and Iron Born are simple and great for custom civs, and Efficient is very easily lore - justified for most custom civs).
However, irtonically considering how much I was excited for this before, I have my doubts about the lore stuff. Especially concerning Tandis stuff, and him considering Dread Lords "irredemable" (in light of one line from Retribution campaign that implied that was not the case, and also because I think Tandis to be better than that). How exactly I dislike that depends on the exact nature of the Dread Lords and how much of a free will they have, 

And the mission dtyuff... The one thing I have doubts about is Nyx being Iconian children and them calling them abominations and mistakes and destroying them. It does provide justification for the Yor/Nyx actions, and I had my suspicions aboiut Iconians before (but, on the other hands, the modern Iconians are in no way responsible for what their ancestors did). So I either love it or hate iot, I have not decided. 

But enough ranting from me for now. 

Please, please: make it that the citizen list does NOT jump to the top every time you change the profession of a citizen. Make it remember its position. When you have to change 40 scientists into quantum physicists, this drives you insane!

Should be a one hour fix.

I'd like to comment on this.  I still believe the best way to achieve this is through working on ship classes and giving them quite an overhaul. 

One of my favorite youtubers Spacedock has an excellent video that kind of dives into how ship classes should work in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Cu5YJculw

Specialization is key for ships to feel unique.  If they all have the same capabilities then it turns into a 'slop'.  The way I would go about this is by designing a system that is similar to "rock paper scissors", but is more complex.  Also instead of revolving around weapon types, it mostly focuses on ship classes. Below is how I would design the system.

The way I would go about creating this dynamic between ships is by making two changes.

1. Allowing tiny and small ships to be built in large numbers late game. Rather than using carriers which have preset ships, I would just allow players to quickly build up large swarms that are expendable. When a certain tech is reached 4 fighters can be built from a shipyard per turn or 2 small ships.

2. I would change how evasion works so that it drastically effects accuracy.  Larger ships will deliver devastating amounts of damage, but struggle to hit smaller ships do to their ability to evade incoming fire (high evasion bonus).  The reverse is true for smaller ships which would have high base evasion and accuracy, but do considerably less damage. This is generally what will happen with a few notable exceptions such as the bomber which delivers high damage output at the cost of range and accuracy.

The advantage of building large ships in the proposed system is their ability to absorb large amounts of incoming damage acting as anchors for the rest of the fleet. Naturally this system has many casualties as small and tiny ships would be required to act as fleet escorts.  There is still a variety of fleet compositions available to the player though.

The way I would go about balancing this system is by pulling the auto battler out of the game so that I can run thousands of battles of between 'test' fleets and graph the results in a short amount of time. The other great thing is some weapon types will fit better with some classes than others.  Bombers might be most effective with missiles, but fighters are more effective with kinetic weapons.

Lastly if this system was fully realized, future DLC could add specialties to different civilizations.  For example Xeloxi could be better at small frigates and corvettes.  Drengin could have the best dreadnoughts. Another group has the best fighters.  And so on.

Several changes to combat, I think the game would benefit from:

1. One parameter that feels off now is weapon range. Of all 3 (accuracy, damage, range) it feels the least important and can be usually sacrificed in favor of damage or accuracy. The only way to remedy this is probably just to increase battle arena size significantly (there is a mod for that already btw).

2. Weapons could be balanced better I think. Beam weapons feel like they don't really have downsides now, while you really need to invest extra ship capacity to make kinetics work well. Missiles big range is supposed to be their main selling point, but as I said battle arena is too small for missiles to get good value. Weapons could be balanced like that, I think:

Beams: high accuracy, medium range, low damage (now they don't have downsides)

Kinetics: medium accuracy, low range, high damage (now their accuracy is too low)

Missiles: medium accuracy, high range, low damage (increasing arena size will automatically make them more valuable) 
Also, missiles should be the only weapon capable of making a volley on a map, I think.

3. Tiny hull ships (fighters and bombers) probably need some rework as they are rarely worth building. The problem lies in the way evasion works, being an independent roll on every attack. Given their limited capacity it's hard to stack evasion on them, so they usually get destroyed in 1-2 rounds. Maybe the way around that is to tie evasion to enemy weapon accuracy (extracting evasion from weapon accuracy). That way tiny ships would evade more attacks before being destroyed and stacking accuracy above 100 would finally make sense. Frigates would also be more valuable to fleets as an escort ship countering fighter\bomber swarms.

4. Ship classes need to be more pronounced I think. Some of current bonuses are often too small to even be considered. Like cruisers getting +10 % more range or bombers having +10 % damage. Or +10 % armor for battleships. These numbers can be easily be doubled at least. 

5. Battle doctrines need balancing. Partially that can be achieved by increasing arena size and making range relevant. Doctrines that reduce weapon cooldown (barrage, assault, scirmisher) feel OP compared to many other doctrines, since they increase ship dps ~2x and the cost is negligible. 

6. Last but not least I think the game need some mechanism to restrict the amount of fleets\ships in the endgame. Like logistics capacity or something. When you can go above the limit (and you can increase it by techs\policies\leaders) but pay more and thus need to have stronger economy to maintain over the top amount of fleets.

First, I greatly enjoy the game! Keep up the good work  

UI:

I think the Prestige victory is a great idea. It gives so much freedom of how to achieve victory. I like that I can e.g. play as a Science focused civilisation but either with a Military or Trade flavour on top of that.

However, the Prestige breakdown does not give any information on how the points are calculated. The game does provide zero feedback why I have, e.g. 200 points in Science prestige. It would be great if it had a tooltip description or even its on screen. That would allow to better guide the player into which decisions to make. E. g. is it better for Prestige to research more Techs or build more ships or increase Income?

Loyal patron of GC for almost two decades. The hyper lanes /star lane/ MOO/Stellaris mechanic bores me to tears. Hoping for a return to the GC III style map where civs could construct 'gates'

luceo non uro

Once we get v2.96 out the door, which has taken a lot longer than expected, due to the outage, I am hoping we will start having the 3.0 insider builds up before mid May.