For the love of arnor, please make UP better. Alpha Centauri did it better and that game was reated in the 90's.

Make UP something that is important, make it so we can submit things, so that we can pressue or buy votes inside the UP meetings right before the vote.

This is what I am hoping for in TOTA even thouh i hasnt been said.

First off, let me say that I really like Stardock, and I'm sure I'd buy any expansion that you guys release, but the main features I'd look for:

- Tactical combat (this would be a big change though, as I don't think the games current weapon/defense system would lend itself to tactical combat.... making this basically an entire expansion by itself)

- Overhauled economy

- Overhauled espionage (needs to be a bit more interesting/powerful for me to use it for anything other than countering enemy agents)

- More Diplomatic/UP options

- More meaningful ship component choices

- More exciting/interesting planetary invasions

I would like to see 2 more expansions if there is going to be a GC 3 in 2010 2011.

Screw Galactic Civ III... Keep adding expansions and just evolve the game into better states of itself. As time goes on update key components of the game (graphics, animations, interface, sound, game engine, etc.), add new races, new game play elements, new storylines.

The thing I don't like about full sequels sometimes is you get used to all the wonderful stuff that the original game had or stuff expansions have introduced and then a sequel comes out and a lot of that is stripped from the game and either appears in new expansions or doesn't appear at all in the new incarnation.

If Stardock keeps up the great revamps and updates (like TOA) I really see no reason to have a GalCivIII. They can keep improving this game indefinitely as time goes on and keep up with the times technologically.

Basically what I am saying, is rather than make GalCivIII... Just eventually evolve GalCiv2 into what GalCivIII would potentially be. This way we don't have to reset to everything back to square one again and keep building on this incredible masterpiece.

I am for Exp Packs.

Unfortunately, this is generally not possible. After a certain point it becomes easier to design the new game rather than try to mold the current one into something similar. Take, for instance, the out-of-memory errors that still annoys people. The portion of the game engine responsible would basically need to be rebuild from the ground up to fix it. (See CariElf post #33 hereWWW Link).

Keep in mind, also, that an expansion pack must also be economically viable. At some point, a new game is more profitable than expanding the existing one. Stardock's aim as a company is to earn a profit by producing products in a cost-effective manner, not necessarily to provide us the absolute maximum entertainment possible - although ideally they will continue doing both! 

To counter that, this game gets similar tweaking and updating as some MMORPGs. Look at EverQuest. I beleive EverQuest did have a game engine update somewhere in its history and the game still continues to be built upon to this day... As far as it's sequel, it is ‘ok’... EverQuest II is not quite the same game as EverQuest... It was a big let down for me after it was released. Vanguard (the REAL EverQuest II), I play often… and from what I understand, it has an engine that is built for indefinite tweaking and growth. They built the game so it could be expanded and graphics could be enhanced over time.

Anyway, even if you DID have to completely rebuild the game engine why not keep building off the current inception of the game? I am sure if GalCivIII is released much of the content currently in the game will be absent and then introduced in later expansions.

Look at the Sims for instance... The Sims had a pet expansion pack... And the Sims 2 also had a pet expansion pack... It's almost like we are paying for the same thing twice (of course we are not, because it's a different game... But you get my point).

In the past technology was expanding so quickly developers HAD to do major revamps as sequels to keep up with the GIANT leaps in technology over VERY short periods of time (buy a computer one day have to buy another 6 months later to keep up). SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000, Sim City 4 etc... Each was a redesign over the other... Some were better than others. Features were added, some were dropped. Look at MOO2 and MOO3... That was a poor jump from one to the next. Other sequels were vastly superior and better than their predecesors.

I think in this day and age we are able to treat games such as these in a different manner than we have in the past. Technology is a little more amiable and fluid. The internet also plays a factor. I personally liked one person's comment/post on here of Stardock charging a small monthly fee (like MMORPGs) to get continual updates on this great game.

Despite Stardock being the Gods of Gaming... Any sequel made by anyone is a roll of the dice. There is a chance that it could be worse then it's predecessor. All sorts of scenarios can occur during development.

I am not completely opposed to a GalCivIII, but in many respects from all I have stated above, Stardock could handle the whole thing differently than the ‘standards’ of the past (much as they are already doing so).

Such a good question - I would like to say that you should continue to do expansion packs, if you really think about it TA is almost GalCiv 3 anyway, look at the changes in that compared to the original GalCiv2.

The only thing I would like to add though is a slowdown on new features in GalCiv2, DA and TA and go for bug fixes insted, a bit like the talked about version 2.00 planned for the future.

I think the game still has a lot of potential. I would be willing to buy another major expansion after the upcoming one. I don't care much for multiplayer or combat changes, but an economic revamp sounds like a great idea. It's the one part of the game that still makes no sense to me.

Also, it might be neat if we could set up research and economic treaties with more precise terms. I might want to assist another empire with only "peaceful" technologies, for example, and share more than 10% of my research points in such case. Or I might want to set up an economic alliance among several empires, for a greater bonus than a simple bilateral agreement. Also, why can't we cancel treaties? I'd be nice to be able to break an agreement if a better ally comes along.

I think a good idea would be one major economic/diplomacy expansion in 2009, but beyond that just focus on the next game.

When it comes to our favorite scifi ships. I wonder how hard it would be for Stardock to get say paramount and fox and the scifi channel to allow them the rights to create ship parts inspired from Star Trek, Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica. I would pay a reasonable rate for that. Figure they cut them in on that action and everyone wins. They could add it as a little store tied to the library where you could download packs maybe even include some faction pics or animations.


Also I would like to see an expansion improve the governments. I have discussed the evil and good governments before and how I dont like having to start as an Empire if I am good or end with a Federation if I am evil but I think that could go a step further.

Good factions could start as Star Democracy ---> Star Confederation ---> Star Republic ---> Star Federation, now here it gets interesting. I was wondering if you research this type of government it could lead to an actual federation with another faction. I figure you can build on relations. You get an econ & research alliance then a straight alliance then you can form a Federation.

Which means the major faction (ie you) can control there ships but they still create them. You combine your research techs and your economy. I figure its a way for the good races to join forces with minor races or the minor races could form star leagues to protect themselves. I figure its really just building on the framework that Stardock has already laid down too.

For expansion packs - perhaps a good approach is to make the modular and you can pick and choose what "rules" you play by in the game.

This has the best way of keeping everyone happy.

I love buying expansions that change game mechanics. The #1 change I'd like to see is an economy/combat system that has been reworked similar to the way Heroes of Might and Magic IV evolved. Basically, most of the calculations the player cares about (especially ship vs. ship) are intuitive. When you see a 10 vs. a 1, you know its 10 to 1.

I have bought the expansions so far and would continue to do so if they keep providing good value.

One option a lot of companies do is release their expansion packs as a stand alone game (or slightly reduced), for example Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, the Dawn of War expansions, and the annual version of Football Manager/Fifa/every other sports game.

It would avoid your problem of being limited to your existing user-base. In some ways its a bit of a cheeky tactic, but I guess you could offer a small discount to people who bought previous versions, and so long as you keep producing interesting stuff rather than filler I think people would be happy.

I can see a third XP for GCII

However, I wouldn't want any new toys- just a better event system based on a wider variety of triggers.
better AI use of diplomacy
better UP

Isn't this redundant, seeing as how there isn't going to be another expansion pack?

To keep it short. Yes I would prefer expansions and be willing to pay for them. I've already paid for all the existing ones.

In my opinion, the only thing that is missing from this game to make it
"perfect" are tactical battles. I don't want to fight every battle tactically,
but I spend so much time and effort on my fleet, I would REALLY like to
be able to take the helm and blast away at the enemy for a while.

I'm really excited to see what a full-blown sequel would add to the already great game. That being said, keep doing expansions whenever you got enough new/improved features to warrant it until you decide to start on a proper sequel (or you no longer make a profit). Also the more improvements you make through expansions the further along you'd be (as far as features and options) in a sequel to start, allowing you to have the sequel expand even further making it the best game it could be.

Either way, you release something with the words galactic civilizations in it and I will buy it.

Well, if I like the game (and I reeeeally like GalCiv2), I'd buy any expansion that comes out.
See, this way I know that a game I rather like will be improved. A version 3 could mean that some things have changed which I liked in version 2 - for example, in my eyes Civ 4 is not as good as Civ 3.
(Well, yes, of course I trust you guys - your games are excellent. But this is my general opinion).

Thus my advice, for what it's worth: keep bringing out expansion packs for your excellent game, and bring out Silver Packs (containing all extensions) and Gold Packs (containing original game plus all expansions) every now and then.

I'm definitely for more expanions. Especially deep TBS games usually need a long time to grow and balance out to really shine. New games are usually risky if it comes to bugs and gameplay.
I'd also like to see space monsters and if possible a real combat mode.

I would like to see the ability to propose bills to the United Planets. That was a feature in Master of Orion 3 I thought was very cool.

Do you ask yourself why the people wants a new GalCiv3?
GC2 have all thing that really good game should have: good AI, nice graphical environment, battles visualization, pirates, minor races, standard events and megaevents, independent government (UP), ethics which change relations between playeers nad more things which can change balance of game...
But GC2 does not have the one thing that changes "good game" into "cool" or "incredible perfect" game of few last years.
It is the MULTIPLAYER.

Since 1994, not a game that had better multiplayer in turn-based game than the Stars!. This multiplayer system was implemented to other turn based good game (but with poor graphic) f.e. like SpaceEmpires-4.

If somebody create game which has this multiplayer system and very good graphic turn-based space game (like GC2) it will join "playable" with "perfect".

Free "playable" multiplayer system to all versions of GC2 game give you more people which want to play/buy your game. I don't understand why nobody understand that.

QFT

Diplomacy and UP nag me... Diplomacy is simply trading stuff, you can't threaten others, there's not enough treaties, you should be able to conquer a enemy but keep them around as slave state (autonomous, does what you order) also same by peaceful way (you offer protection and you get research bonuses, influence or something etc.)

UP should work more like Alpha Centauri's UN...

Because i would like to have as many improvements in upcoming patches i would like to tell you "No, we do not want to buy new expansions" but if i am honest i will be forced to buy the new ones if they can keep up with Twilight

But please - do not disregard v 2.0 . I am absolutely stunned about your work with TA and the energy you spend in this game, you set my expectations very high, your fault. After what i have seen i can simply not be satisfied by "simple patches" with a few bugfixes like the other games have. I love your policy of integrating the players that much and i think it is the best way to improve a game to be groundbreaking. At least the fact that you ask for expansions proves to me you have success with TA. That gives rise in my hope you will spend a little energy in improving it. But i am a little bit avaricious like the others may be as well, keep that in mind and go for those that dont own TA yet to buy it - including making us owners even happier (and then ultimately forcing all the happy people into buying yet another expansion ^^)

yes, I will continue buying expansion packs as I find the money to do so.

the problem will be content. there seems to be 2 major groups of players, at least on the forums: first there are the players that want to play the most enormous map offered and get into every little detail of their empire, though most would agree that too much micromanagement is a problem. the other group seems to like smaller maps with quicker more streamlined 'deathmatch' style games.

there probably won't be enough in either group to only make one happy, and satisfying everyone would be hard.

I would pay for tactical combat especially. It doesn't have to be much, mabey just a list of ship icons on the left and right sides of the battle viewer where you could tell who to attack who, and maybe set tactics for each ship. (like you are the admiral). that might get old for some players fast so perhaps they could chose to have an AI the same level as the difficulty fight for them.

also I'd pay for:

economic improvements
UP upgrades/ overhaul
diplomatic refinements/ full overhaul
more logical AI (they do consistently make the same mistakes that make them loose)
a total overhaul of planetary invasion (it looks unpleasant and I'd like more tactics)
more options for the AI to auto manage things for you.