Well the governors would probably have a default option until you could learn the game better anyways. I would agree with you when it came to a manufacturing capitol except you have production or starship planets. I would hope that the economic and the political capitol would go together. As far as economics and research I would still want to be able to create custom planets without the wonders. A economic planet would have none thing to do with economics, but taxes. To avoid an argument I will go ahead and explain. The economics affect income. An economic capitol would affect taxes only not income. You wouldn't have to have all your governors on by default. The things I didn't like governors with galactic civilizations is I couldn't set them globally, so I had to change them on each planet. This is why I didn't use them much. I also didn't like how limited they were. Something I don't like about automation on other games is that it doesn't let me change things unless I shut it off. I would like the ability to modify something without having to shut off my governors. I haven't seen this in Galactic civilizations 2, but I am making sure I don't want to see this in this game either.

I think those "capitals" should be "tranferable", and designation should be automatic - planet that surpasses other planets' capacity in certain area should hold title of "capital" automatically. Certain tuning should be implemented, of course - if you build manufacturing improvements on several planets, title could (but shouldn't) jump from one to another as buildinds are constructed. This would reduce micro, and make nation less susceptible to losses of planets and/or actions affecting efficiency, like revolts, provocations, natural disasters, or something similar. Of course we should have control over designation, but IMHO it shouldn't be special building. Also, to prevent "jumping" effect, and make solid choice more profitable, certain accumulation of bonus should be implemented. For example, if title of capital jumps from planet to planet, they wouldn't be able to provide normal control over their industry, so bonus will be minor. If planet is "ruling" for an extended period of time, then bonus will be significant, and could even be transitional to other planets, improving their manufacturing as well. I'd prefer to view those "capitals" not as physical object, but rather as organisations, working for a greater good of the whole nation, not just one planet.

As a mid-ground between having to manage planets individually or at a global level -- why not the ability to classify our planets into user-defined groupings and then manage at a group level?

I think I am going to have to disagree with any idea that has capitals changing location based on any parameter that involves anything except choice by the governing body. Capitals are government seats for governing bodies, which may or may not be economic or production centers. The only reason for a capital to change location is that the governing body decides to do so. Hence, in a game, I think this should be under the total control of the player, not something that happens arbitrarily to a player.

Along with this, if a player thought (s)he in danger of loosing his/her capital planet in a few turns, (s)he should be able to designate another planet as a new capital and go through the pains of moving a capital (there would have to be some degradation of economy and/or production involved for a short number of moves, if for no other reason that the target of coordinating communication has moved).

Note that if the move isn't done soon enough, the results would have to be as if the governing body was captured along with the capital city. In this case, if any planets are left, there should be a chance to re-establish the government seat at a new planet with a new body of people as the governing body. This should not be doable in one turn, but should mimic what would occur in real life, and depend on what type of civilization it is (whether it is somewhere between a hive consciousness or completely independent individuals, for one example). Also note that the penalty for allowing this to happen should be more severe than successfully moving a government seat.

Shift-click or drag-box select. I'd like to be able to drag a box around all my fleets and issue orders to them all. Or select all planets in a given area and set rally point. etc. 

You could already do that in GalCiv 2. Just press CTRL and drag a box around the ships.

Those aren't "global government seat" kind of capitals, rather than somewhat narrow specializations kind of capitals. So I see no problems with them moved closer to where the situation is more suitable for them. Imagine we have our own Silicon Vallen, huge R&D dedicated planet, or even cluster of those. IMHo it would only be wise to relocate your R&D "capital" seat there, to reduce time delays needed to control R&D stations work. Should you want to relocate it to another place, I see no problems with that - your capital, your decisions. What I don't like is that "capital" choice tied to single building. Tank without crew is just lump of metal (and other materials). Same with building - without personnel it'll be just pile of concrete.

It's not "arbitrary", it simply for reducing micro, adjusting each capital's placement. You picked up optimal location for manufacturing facitilies (so you designated your future manufacturing oriented planets, or cluster of)  - here you go, your manufacturing center (or "capital"). You want to place it elsewhere? Sure, click somewhere you want, and there's you have it.

Yes and no. If we assume spherical socienty in vacuum (not literally! :D), then in that society we will have perfectly functioning organization, where people got promoted for their skills, not anything else (God forbids - protection), with proper subordination, chain of command (even in civilian departments), with properly listed responsibilities and "to do" lists. So short term loss of contact with "brain" shouldn't be destructive. Problems could begin later, during massive relocation (hmm, I wonder, will we be able to follow USSR government actions and evacuate "our stuff" (George Carlin) from "to be occupied" territories?), blockade (and materials supply chain interruptions). Globally, of course, loss of leadership should have certain effect, but not too great - putting everything into one man is kinda... dangerous, so system of replacement should be there. Just to prevent this. Of course, some loss could be there, but in case your organization is correct, then you won't notice it, on global scale.

Relocating Silicon Valley isn't something you can really do, there are so many people and so much infrastructure to move that it's just not feasible. If you're talking about moving something like NASA HQ as your "science capital", that would be doable. But moving it is going to not ramp up immediately as the rest of the spinoffs have to develop around the new HQ.

As an abstraction for game purposes, I'm okay with being able to do it though.

Soviet Union evacuated a lot of everything: people, cattle, vehicles, crops, industry, different resources in 1941 with technologies and infrastructure of that time. Don't make me angry on our descendands who couldn't do something similar with their tech.

We move people and their databases. Other equipment could be relocated also, but would require additional logistical support, either simple mathematic (say we have 48 logistics, use 31, operation we planned need 20, so we kinda ffffrustrated), or via amount of transport ships needed to relocate population and equipment, say 12 transports. Probably big military ships also should be used for evacuations.

I like this idea. I would like to be able to use my best planets for this.

I would like to point out besides spviet union it has happened to us. This is what I remember learning about the spots when I learned history. Originally New england was our industrial spot. Then it was around Great lakes. Then it was the Gulf of mexico. Our manufacturing has changed locations. Moving our technological capital was closer to a debate I had at Itt tech when Clinton decided not to close Davis monthan, but decided to close the one down in Massachusetts.

On another a similar, but different subject I would like to be able to move my Galactic achievements, other Super projects, and Trade goods. The French did this with Tyhe statue of liberty and we move castles around all the time right. The reason I would want to be able to do this. Is we need to be able to build the Galactic Achieve,emts and Trade goods as soon as possible. Where later it is usually inconvienent where I built the wonders, so I wish I could move them.

I'm not sure how fare it would to be able to do this in time of war. Maybe war could negate this, but in spite of fairness the Soviets did move their manufacturing capitol during world war 2.

The dial seems better...the sliders worked well enough, but were annoying.  So long as it's still possible to adjust planets individually when necessary, this doesn't matter much to me either way.  Additionally, I'm hopeful some form of conditional Planetary Governor system remains in place to do this for me later on in the game.

- Setting up a selection of specialized conditional development plans for colonies can = fun.

- Being required to do this entire process repeatedly for each new world you colonize/conquer =/= fun.

I like the idea of improvements providing percentage bonuses rather than hard bonuses.  Gives a much better feel that it's still the population doing the work, just technology makes it easier.  I would recommend in the same vein, though (or rather I hope, perhaps), that improvements involving autonomous AI "helpers" and whatnot remain as hard bonuses, to reflect that they are technically a distinct but integral work force.

Splitting the production queues between Planetary and Ship production was nice...I'd hate to see it go, but it's ultimately inconsequential to me.  It was a novelty. I didn't add anything in itself, and the game loses nothing for not having it anymore.  It's like a haircut purely for style reasons rather than because your hair is too long.

Well, certain businesses moving to different states due less welcoming business situations in their old states could also reflect possible relocation. Not sure that could be implemented in GC3. And even if technically that could be possible, not sure if players would like their "buildings" jumping from planet to planet. Could be wrong.

To be honest I miss GC1 situation when trade good was... well, wasn't taking place on planet's surface. Yes, nothing took place on planet's surface back in GC1 and in deep theory one could build all array of buildings there. Galactic Achievements could be movable, but during relocation we should lose bonus they presented. IMHO.

Currently we have rather anectodical situation: "half of USA clogged with frictionless clothing". It's almost a monument to the victory of consumerism...

Your race will be saving its valuables, so war is good time as any. Wartime could actually boost the process of evacuation, maybe with morale factor implemented - loyal people will do the job fast and accurate, while people whose morale is faltering, they could fail somewhere, making us to pay some money for repairs after relocation is done.

Thanks for the feedback Admiral, my reasoning for tying the governors to the capitals was two fold. Firstly was to reduce the learning curve as I said, but what I neglected to mention was that it would be nice to add more or a role to the capitals (if they even exist in GC3) rather then just a single planet boost as capitals usually imply governance.

I love your idea of having separate 'footings' for your empire! That's a fantastic approach to manufacturing and could also be a great diplomatic tool, if your chosen footing was visible to the other races you're in contact with, or perhaps became visible after a level of espionage was reached. It would be excellent for those people who love longer term planning and keeping a finger on other races pulse's!

Fate, 

+1 For per-planet control, with Empire Level Default.

+1 For "User Defined Profiles", with maybe some pre-defined, like "Military", "Science", "Food" etc. (These could be the "footings")

What happens to a planet's setting if you change the Empire setting?

I tweaked a planet, now some jerk declares war on me, I want my Empire to go "Military". Will the customised planet follow the empire or will it stay? Will I have a choice?

Sorry, Master Chief Petty Officer, I'm afraid I'm not Admiral, just a medium tank.

I like learning curve idea, but idea of getting governors and/or ministers not from very start is strange.

From learning curve perspective, governers could be introduced after we colonize the very first planet, and ministers could be introduced after we construct first building from their respective area of responsibility. IMHO that only would be logical.

Experienced players, launching single-player freeplay, or multiplayer session probably would prefer having ministers opened from very start, already knowing how they are going to distribute their industry, R&D, or fleet. Probably they will already have templates for governors. If we will have templates. Say: planet, class 17, build this, this, this, and this, then fill with R&D labs/manufactures/be fruitful and multiply.

 

I think footing should be hidden from anyone who doesn't have spies or eyes (satellites/stealth reconnaissance ships) in your space, or who is not your ally/teammate. Should we be allowed to have joined research/manufacture/combats, and combat will no longer occur from big guys to small guys, thus finally allowing us to cover big, but damaged ships with smaller, yet unscathed, that could present theoretically viable solution.

For example, you've been spawned at corner of the map, hence your systems are somewhat better protected, while your teammate was spawned closer to centre. So you can afford slight shifting into R&D, while he has to protect his and yours longer borders, forcing to go into early manufacturing. Using terms I coined, it could be wise for him to pick Conveyor riveter, or even Wartime simplifier, both during expansion and industrialization periods, mostly ignoring R&D and nice development, while you could pick up Conveyor riveter, and then, after initial explansion shift to Perfectionist, and concentrate mostly on R&D. At the end your joined fleets will have his weaker, but massive "cannon fodder" up front, and few of yours "glass cannons" (maybe not so glass) behind. Then you will lend your teammate a hand with tech, allowing him to shorten the gap, and in turn he will lend you all might of his manufacturing.

And then Supersmart Shathi arrive and chew up everything.

If my approximations are correct, this could work. Of course, I used very rough numbers. What I don't like about my idea is general patternization of this scheme - during expansion/exploration stage you choose Wartime simplifier or Conveyor riveter, simply to build more colony and scout ships, and to construct buildings faster, even at expense of their subsequent reduced performance - quantity has a quality of its own. During settlement stage you replace them with Perfectionist, who will help you with R&D and upgrading older buildings into better new ones. During calm stage you could pick up Logistics genius, who would greatly reduce maintenance cost, thus, "collaterally" improving your economy. During wartime you can go back to one of first guys. In case where we just issuing decrees, we just switch them as we see fit, ot won't changes the point.

To add some variety to that, ministers could have Fallout-like traits and perks, to make them more "human-like" (if we speak Terran Alliance:)). They aren't necessary to have negative features, but they could have some variety between. You can have "crazy botanist" who could make your apple trees to bring you maize, pumpkins, or even beef steaks (no questions asked, I said - he is crazy!) and make them grow anywhere, be that dryest desert, or arctic cap, with temperature close to absolute zero. Give him time and he'll have tree growning out of his head (and he will name it Bob). But give him a gun and he'll use it as support for his plants. Or you could have armament designer genius, who would greatly improve your armament R&D, up to discovering new tech early on, and improving all armament of your ships, regardless of tech discovered. But give him crops and all he could do either turn them to new propellant, or turn them into projectiles - don't expect him to improve your farms productivity. Or your Logistical genius could knew any smallest nut's or bolt's location in your system, but don't show him to foreign ambassadors, because your minister is somewhat unkept and untidy. And smells. A bit. He is so concentrated on his duties, he has no time to take a shower, and he sleeps on his table.

Simply put, I want to see our ministers as human beings, not simple robots. Unless they are robots, but even in this case you could explain that through firmware.

I don't see the value in removing the sliders. letting you set the exact production amount you want.

Some plaints may have a dual focus, going 45 10 45 or 50/50 Perhaps a simple mode "dial" and advanced mode "sliders" option.

In the screen shot of the UI, you can do that on the triangle control with one thing instead of setting two sliders.

Sliders are a poor UI tool when you need more than one for what you are doing. 

I'm really pleased to hear about the new design for planetary control, it sounds like you have come up with a great system! Being able to set a galaxy wide control for late game will be really handy, and its great that you can change the settings for individual planets to make them different from the global setting.

I really enjoyed the first two Galciv games, but my main problem with them was how clunky the planetary control was. The sliders were annoying to use, so this new production dial sounds like a great alternative. I am a real micromanager, and the idea of productivity "waste" used to really grind my gears, so I am overjoyed to hear that is gone too!

Finally, I think the decision to have one queue per planet is a sound one as well. The problem with two queues, is that it doubles the amount of player management per planet (obviously!). When you start playing on larger scale maps with 50+ planets in your empire, it becomes a real pita to have to monitor all those queues. A single queue per planet is much more elegant. A single queue also eliminates these kind of issues: A high capability manufacturing planet that burns through all the available buildings, then sits with an idle building queue whilst churning out spacecraft... I don't think you could model that kind of system and not have "waste" included. On the flip side, you also end up with low manufacturing planets slowly working through the buildings, and then still having to put something in the spacecraft build queue to avoid it being idle. It would just mean that much more micromanagement without any real constructive gain.

So all in all, I am really optimistic about the Colony control based on this post. I really hope that there is lots of different types of planets available for colonisation, with bonuses to production/research/wealth from hidden ruins and that kind of thing. Its always fun to be able to specialise production on planets that are ideally suited for that type of thing.

Honestly there would be three one for planetary improvements, one for ships, and one for techs. Versus what we have now we don't have Ques we have to change every time a ship or improvement is built or at least look at the screen with a list of builds for the colonies. With Ques there would even be no need for the colony to be on the list. How is this not better than the a;ternative. Plus I have asked that they had settings for Ques to be set for situations. There is now way this would not be easier.

A bug to avoid: having all the planetary focus wheels reset whenever the civilization focus wheel resets

Maybe having a smart enough option for the global settings like our production, starship, research, and capital planets would solve this. Honestly unless the planets were a manufacturing capital, production, or a starship planets I would not start converting all my planets into all factories especially considering I would probably have advanced factories. This alone would crush my empire, and make it where I can't produce anything because I would have no money coming in.

I could set the economies to economics. I have specified that I want settings that will pay attention to my approval or my income versus expenses.

1. My problem came in the current governor settings. For the most part I want improvement upgrade and terraforming set to off unless the planet is a class 4 of smaller, or they are morale or economic upgrade. Later on I will want to turn this on, but the problem comes from the fact this is to tedius because there is no global setting. I know why this is on by default because that is the easiest solution for the Ai. I still want a local setting there are times that on a small scale that I would want to turn a planet on. 

Now mousing over, smart Ques for research, ship building, planetary improvement, and right click menus were ways to enhance the above. Set by type, or class range of planets with variabully es like how much your expenses are compared to income, population, if starbases are fully upgraded, or resources are found. You could connect minor rally points by the type of ships being built. With any combination of these.

2. Now on a second point I would like to have more governor options. You don't have to have any on by default that would make the Ai do things not as good. I still would like to have global and local options.

I would like to see the option to set this at the beginning of the game. Maybe as one of the start up screens with the ability to change this.

That could be solved via simple template: initial conditions>what to do>for how long>whan to stop>what to do next. Say, planet class 6>improve via terraforming, then build this, this, and this, no taxes till pop cap reached, then delete that, build this, keep it that way.

I think it would be nice to add a new feature for us to invest into for a colony. This would allow each world to be more unique. Some ideas I have on this are below:

1): Social: Investing on this will perhaps create specialized citizens that can give unique bonuses to the world, such as bonuses to ships produced or the ability to build a unique building, or access a type of research normally unavailable. The idea behind this is that the citizens, if supported by the state properly, have the opportunity to grow as they are unhindered by expectations placed on them. This would require a "specialist" system to be developed. The point behind this investment is that this planet would get something usually unaccessable to the player. Not investing in this would lead to unhappiness, perhaps? So you could have corrupt worlds that only focus on the benefit of the state, and then some worlds that are very social.

2): Training: This investment would train millitary units (or any unit) that are stationed in the planet's orbit. This would be an alternate way to acquire experience apart from battles. If the experience and leveling up system if advanced enough for the available units (colony ships, scouts, constructors as well as specialized millitary units), then the player would find this valuable. I would particuarily enjoy it if all the units had access to some tech-tree that they can climb up on as they gain experience. I don't think this option would be functional unless the unit system was more complex than a "stat increase" at levelup.

I think that the more ways one can customize their worlds, the more interesting and attatched we will be to our accomplishments. 

This sounds good.

Besides training I would like to see ability increase as I level up like they have on Civilization 4