So the OP question: What level of Tinkering should we be allowed on a planet by planet basis...

Well I enjoy creating a "standard build queue" however that being said it's mostly because the AI is stupid about what to build and where to build it.

I usually had a "starter plan" then a "focus plan"...Starter got the usual basic tech's on a planet...the focus ones had their priorities.

I added the mod that gave "research parties" to fix the research when it was completed to auto-switch planets to a wealth orient. However if their are infinite research projects basically creating better stuff for significant Research Points ex. Miniaturization 1% bonus 10k research points...once it get's near 100% the points are doubled, towards 200% tripled, 300% quadrupled, etc. So it could take my civilization 30 turns to gain a 1% bonus to miniaturization, If that's too powerful how about 30 turns for 1 hp to my ships...so something insignificant but worth just enough for me not to repurpose my science to warfare/economy.

but back to controls...well some of it depends on the "bonuses granted" if the AI is smart (Builds right tech on right tiles, acknowledges planetary bonuses...can keep within a budget...I don't see the need for micro-managing.

Imagine a system with a "pleasure planet" for the empire (High galactic tourism) Why would you make it highly populated? Wouldn't the default governor understand the needs of its people? At least with in reason...there should be civilization wide benefits for pleasure planets(morale boosters).

One of the biggest annoyances for me was the military governor building units (obscene amounts when my nation wasn't at war...and already had 2 powerful defenders garrisoned.

So, I'd love to be able to put a "Garrison Unit quota." Have my best shipyards if a military governor is churning out units he sends them to the planets that need them...I'd love to see a smarter unit upgrade system where if I've got tons of excess resources they'd auto-upgrade my ships. If I've been threatened, or some neutral/hostile civilization is overtaking me in whatever a governor tells me "such and such is doing this we need to build these to keep our civilizations future secure."

I've got to agree this 1 build queue is rather silly...well same goes for 1 city on a planet? Seriously? How many cities exist on Earth. Original colonies sure makes sense, but not just 1 city. The idea that you can only build so many items on a planet is kind of funny (no vertical building, not usually able to build in water) I understand balance but. What could be built is significantly greater than what we could in GC1 and 2, however I miss the Star Gates from GC1 in GC2 loved having a simple nearly instant fleet rally place.

Another interesting idea is different civilizations/species using different power techs, different weapons powered by their different power sources. Still have "beam, missile, torpedo, wave, etc. types" but using different sources to get different effects (even if it's just colored differently) I understand balance is important.

But back on topic... basically it depends on if the planets will have planet wide bonuses/alignment bonuses/tile bonuses vs how smart the AI is in choosing what, how much and where to build improvements. 

One thing I always hate is when an opponent doesn't have the same resource constraints as I do. So, if I took out all their primary resource gathering systems they're stuck on a class 4 or less world...how can they afford a fleet of 10+ units.

Another annoyance was minor races that didn't expand to even planets within their own system. Yet they were able to afford a significant fleet size and power on pathetic amounts of resources.

It's an abstraction, not a 100% accurate visual representation. Those planets most definitely have more than one city. They just aren't shown.

Are you sure, that you are not thinking of MoO 2 or another game? You couldn't build stargates in GalCiv 1. They also don't work instantaneously in the GalCiv lore, and have already been made obsolete by hyperdrive at the start of the game.

The minor races can't colonise, because their AI intentionally prevents it. 

Maybe as an option, or an option for the governor never as how the game is played. I would probably play both games with micromanaging turned on and off even if the governors were good. I still stress as global and local governor settings.

Agree just not sure how to feazably do this on a game.

Agree, but this is really manifested on the difficulty of the game for. Why can't the game just play better instead of providing the computer bonuses. A couple ideas I have on countering this. One the Ai would try to pick different ideas until it finds a way to still sompete with you. This would be a learn mode. The other idea is for the computer to learn what you did, and do that, oe do a combination of both. This would require the Ai's to have an itemized database for as much objects as possible. I know this is not really what you were talking about. This just reminds me of that.

Another annoyance was minor races that didn't expand to even planets within their own system. Yet they were able to afford a significant fleet size and power on pathetic amounts of resources.[/quote]

It's the revearse for me I would like to see the minor races to have a tech tree that was designed to use only one class 15 planet as good as the average other factions use their empires. Though this would make a terrible customized tech tree. Except unless the small races had specialized Galactic achievements and trade goods; their shouldn't have these. This would also make a terrible customized tech tree, and the game should probably find another tree to use for customized factions.

You do realize that part of having a custom faction was being able to pick which tech tree you used, right? Custom factions were not locked into using the generic minor civ tree. We have no reason to assume Stardock will be changing that.

Gaunathor- yeah your right Star Gates and the Artemis System Net were from MOO2. 

I guess I miss remembered my old 4x games ... They were really nice in MOO2 being able to manufacture ships galaxy wide and have them join each other in 1 turn to form fleets to go from staging area to battle area.

As for minor races having a set tech tree that allows them to thrive on a single class ~15 based on racial bonuses it makes sense (however I still think they should include any other planet in their system it just makes sense to me to protect a system than just a single world.) Typically because of how non-aggressive the minor races are I'd build a trade starbase there, boosting my economy and make a tourism/cultural planet with a fleet in system.

On topic, I wanted to say I like the idea of being able to micro-manage each planet.  Having a couple of defaults to be able to put a planet to (empire default, science default, etc, etc)  would be a nice bonus, but if I have to do it planet by planet (for planets that I don't want at the global, empire wide default), I'm cool with that.  Being able to type in and lock a value would help a lot, as well, so if I wanted wealth at 25 %, I could lock that, and then adjust science and production so that they split the other 75 %.

Also, please make sure that adjusting the empire default does NOT adjust planets that have already been adjusted, and make sure each planet has a button to restore it to empire default.  Thanks!

On a side note, I did really, really like the multiple production ability of Gal Civ 2, but looking back, it was pretty infrequent that I had a place splitting it's production between the two.  I normally ignored military, so ships would only be made if a planet was done with its social improvements.  However, I'm sure not everyone played that way...

@Markon yeah making a "lock button for planetary settings would be great!"

I also agree it was rare for me to be building social and military at the same time (excepting start of game).

The best planets should be the ones who can do everything.  If your planet has huge farms, huge manufacturing, huge research, etc., it should be able to do more things better and get a bonus vs a planet that just focuses on one thing.  I would like to get away from just placing a bunch of research on one planet and a bunch of market centers on another and manufacturing on another.  There should be a bureaucracy penalty for doing that.

The whole idea is that everything on a planet works together and makes each industry stronger.  

Well I still think if you wanted to modify small races, so they are better fit like making super versions of super projects to make the small races more on par with large races there should probably be a different tech tree between the small races and the customized races unless they think it's not a problem to have a super cheesy tech tree, All they would need to do this is let the small races keep their tech tree with the same name while renaming the custom tech tree. They don't have to change the custom tech tree anymore than they were going to anyways. They would just modify the small race tree with some cheesy stuff to make the small races a little better. This modified tech stuff should probably made untradeable. Your right I don't have to pick the small race tech tree in this case. I was just thinking if they did this to the minor races you would rather not have a really cheesy tech tree to pick from. I guess this would work for customized opponents not players unless Stardpck figure that it doesn't matter to players if they are to cheesy.  If they aren't willing to have a seperate tech tree. They probably not willing to give the minor races a cheesy tech tree,

Willy I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that you got this point. This was why I suggested to balance this by not allowing custom players to be aloud to do this. I guess an option would be to limit the number of planets you could settle under the option I suggested if you pick the modified tech tree I suggested.

I like the suggestion. On the military production thing at the end I don't usually mess with production. I build a lot of ships while doing social production.

Let's assume that a planet is kind of supported by other planets financially. We got two planets the same size. We are dealing with improvements that can be produced multiple times/ One planet is well rounded. The other is specialized. If it was me the well rounded planet have one farm, one entertainment, four factories, the rest would be a combination of research and economic improvements. While the other would be financially supported by other planets. Would have a for instance research bonus, mostly discovery spheres, Technological capital, any buildings that enhance research. Well one then would ask what is the purpose of certain bonuses or Capitals. I think they should have this on the game you would be creating cities like the one I live in where it basically is supported by the military. I think the game should do better with inter planet trading within the empire.

I see you're still having issues with this. There is no such thing as "the custom tech tree". Custom civilizations, both player civilizations and custom AI opponents, could be assigned any tech tree in the game. I think the default option was the general "minor civ" tech tree, but there was no reason to leave it that way.

Beyond that, I do understand what you meant, and overpowered Galactic Achievements and trade goods would be. the absolute worst way to implement a bonus for minor civs. Players would simply wait until the minor civs built these structures, then invade the planets they were located on. It's far better to include the intended bonuses into the civ's passive bonuses - the race is just as strong as any other way, but the sources of those bonuses couldn't be taken by the player for their own use.

I guess you could have a dedicated "minor civ" tech tree and have untradeable techs that give the same bonuses as they are researched, with the player not being able to choose that tech tree when setting up a civ, but it seems like a waste of time to me. They are passive bonuses, they may as well be baked into the civ stats from the start. In fact, that's exactly what they did with the Snathi in GalCiv2.

I agree your idea does sound better pasive bonuses at the beginning of the game also wouldn't affect the small race tech tree. Techs with passive bonuses would be better than units I didn't think of that. That way when you conquered a planet you don't get the cheesy bonuses.

Per planet basis. I'm having a hard time seeing the purpose behind this. Maybe.. maybe we should also have the ability to devote a planet to one of the three 'professions' (wealth, research, or manufacturing) and have it be a viable way to play. As to how to make that happen.. let's saying manufacturing also gives the planet a defensive bonus against ground invasions or something. That secondary bonus should not be given instantly as to avoid exploits. Perhaps a changing of the production dial should be done over time.

Other players should also be given the opportunity to know such information. To clarify, when I say 'devote a planet to one of the three professions', something would have to be done akin to having a selection of 3 buildings, one for each profession, picking one locks out the other two. Note I said akin. Let's say for example player A wants to do something about players B's research, then player A, goes after planet C, H, and N. Such a coincidence these 3 planets just so happened to have been 'devoted' to research. Better then going after planet A-Z because they all have the opportunity to producing the same amount (or close to) of research. I'm not sure opportunity is the right word there, considering I also think you shouldn't be locked out from the other professions, they should just be a pain in the ass to change to.

You could make it really complicated and find a way to make hybrids viable as well. Unless of course it is already simple enough so that avoiding a pure research planet, so as not to put yourself in a vulnerable position, is attractive enough by itself.

Edit: Why is that when I reread my post, it screams out 'douchebag'? Not really intentional..

The basic idea is this, I think "going after planet A-Z because they all have the opportunity to producing the same amount (or close to) of research", should be avoided at all cost. I'm sure that's what the developers are trying to accomplish with the OP, no?

I cam kind of see this unless every planet you colonize is cookie cutter which I cant see why you would do that when different planet comes with different bonuses. Plus the capitals. For the most part the planets are going to be the same until you get a starship bonus or research bonus. Dido until you build the economic/political, technological, and manufacturing/ capitals. My main concern is ship building. I would like my planets colonizing until they reach zero population. This would work for troop transports. With a local option I could see more reason to shift population around. Building constructors for resources. These are just a few reasons to have local and global options.

Possibly in the tutorial is where you could put that information. I would like an option to concentrate like you are talking and an option to not do it that way to while playing. This would work for local options sometimes.

I understand balance, but why this is somehow undesirable I cant see. I you mean I wouldn't want to accidentally do this then I agree. I would want to have to at least confirm this. I wouldn't want to accidentally turn off my technological capital.

 

The dilemma on this one is the varying map sizes that we all play - one solution from a die hard "bigger the better map size" Player will *tend* to differ from the "smaller-the-better" Player who is in for a quick game.

There are undeniable benefits from micro-managing, whether those benefits extend to the gargantuan task of doing it on all Planets on the biggest map is debatable, let alone the numbers of players who would do it at that map size, it is after all, primarily, a Strategic Level Game, and micro-managing is a pain with such a genre.

However ..... there is no denying the benefits (even just from mere player engagement) of such micro management at times...... and there is a "third way" which gives more options and arguably fills a need without going nuts at the biggest level of map.

Give the option of such micro-management on a System wide basis, all Planets in a System conforming to the values given by the Player. That will go a long way towards the biggest map size players, having the opportunity to maximise flexibility of resources without going down to Planetary level. Its a half-way house between No micro management using Universal Values, and full micromanagement  per planet.

There will still be many who will not be interested and don't want to touch micromanagement at all, and I understand where they are coming from - in an all or nothing scenario, I'm definitely in the No Micro-Management Camp. However, if the Values are set per System .... I'd be all for that, it would not take "that" much more time, and still provide a lot of the flexibility a purist "manage all" approach gives.

Therefor I see three options offered in the software configurable by the Player before game start,

1. No management - Universe wide Slider values

2. Partial Management - System wide Slider values

3. Full Management - every planet has the option available to micro-manage (Lord have mercy on the Souls of those on the biggest map size rofl)

Having taken two hours on one GC2 turn...

This I guess this is the games way to specialize planets for lets say a Starship, research, or a capital planet. I would do this if there was an imminent invasion of a planet or I needed to build a military yesturday and didn't have one, and yes I play like this. That blindsides the computer. 

Talking a heavily debated topic on the forums. Your not talking joking I assume this comes from the fact that people naturally assume you need the planets to be able to support themselves or they think you need to have money for some reason. The only faction I can see that having money benefits over production is the dominion of Korx who has techs to implement this. This philosophy probably comes from the fact I don't have an army unless I need one. Why is everyone picking on me. Just like pre world war 2 United states.

Wait are you claiming that the camp that wants micromanaging comes from the small map camp. I for one prefer Immense maps. If you been reading my responces I've been suggesting ways to speed this up without taking control from you. I would be in both camps of micromanagement, immense maps, smarter Ai, more customization, more factions, better trade, pirates, and more leaders. I'm obviously not a fan of making war.That is probably I'm a fan of good micromanagement.

I agree that is actually why I want global and local options is for when there is not benefit of not changing the options globally. This is also why I want global options is because there is not always a benefit of changing things locally. I didn't mention that I would like to have planets that were exempted globally because I thought that I was getting to greedy. I like that idea to. This would be like having your cake and eating it to.

Since our bonuses apply to planets and not systems when we colonize them. I've seen systems that had both production and research planets because of this I would never use this option unless it was in the game and not at the beginning of the game options.

The reason I started quoting is because I thought that you wanted a hands off management like Tyranosaur now I reread this while commenting you are comparing global and local colony management which if you read my comments that it could sound like I could go either way when what I wan't is ingame options for both. This is actually sound like we are in agreement on this.

If we are not talking about global options then this would change the game enough that we would probably need tactics to save it. If this is not a fighting game and a micromanagement game then what is it. I'm guessing your in the tactics camp which I am in neither tactics or no tactics camp. I am definatly in the no real time camp.

I guess I could accept this. It would not help out my suggestions out at all. I would only play option 1 and 3 because there are a lot of events that when you settle planets that would mess this unless the events were changed for that option to apply to all the planets in the system instead.

Options 1 and three would make great in game mechanics that I would apply both ways to cut down on micomanaging without losing control of the game. If I had an option to set this only once then I probably think this is not a good idea, but it is one I could live with. As an ingame option that you can play with I think it would be better.

Now as far as I've been talking about, my ideas would cut down on micromanaging like smart ques for planetary improvements and ship building, more governor options with global and local settings for this even where you can exclude certain planets from the global options, right clicking your build Ques for the planets, being able to click several planets at once to change their build Ques, being to be able to set up a default planetary Que to lay down when you first colonize certain planets, mutiple Ques based on certain conditions, Ques where you can build certain ships when certain conditions happen, build certain buildings when certain conditions happens, build certain improvements when certain techs are researched, only show finished building something when something like this is not happening when you are finished building in the Gnn screen, tell me when a planet is done building and have no more room or when there population is full in the Gnn, and advisors to speed things up without losing control of what I am doing.

I second this with a slight modification

I've always felt not just star systems but also sectors were completely neglected as an organizational and strategic element in GC2; I'm of the school of thought "something shouldn't exist without immediately-knowable-and-useful reason"

thus my suggestion is to keep the system FrogBoy's currently made known, while adding an intermediate layer of control (like suggested above), yet make that intermediate level of control either...

A - based on just systems, like abovementioned!

B - based on SECTORS, not systems, same idea essentially

C - based on both sectors OR/and systems

to expound upon scenario C above;

based on feedback from mormegil (forgive me for not linking) we know the alpha will probably have hexagonal sectors with a dozen-hex radius...

this means a tiny map with 7 sectors would have 397 hexes per sector with he current numbers, for 2,779 hexes total

if star systems hopefully can have a lot more than 5 planets maximum (I hope there are more than 5 systems per sector too!) this would allow for "truly intermediate" control;

i.e. early in a game my whole civilization might be in the same sector but with 1 or 2 new colonies in border sectors; if you can only control by sector you still end up micromanaging and if you can only manage by system then with certain map settings it doesn't help you much on larger maps or longer games

so give us both..? (:

use a GC2-like 'lock' button (or even better a 'selector' drop-down {use civilization default, use system default, use sector default, use custom planetary settings}

what about an {use United Planets default}; perhaps there can be UP proposals than reward or penalize civilizations for focusing on certain economics aspects? (galactic social engineering by the most influential ideology..? interstellar Kyoto protocol equivalent penalizing manufacturing-heavy races? universe-wide redistribution of wealth from richest species to poorest? "we must raise the average intergalactic education level", redistributes research spending and breakthroughs ? )

I like the drop down  menu idea maybe like you could combine production and economics more important I like the idea of using local and global in game settings. I would like to see more useful governors than what they already have. I would like to also see a global setting for my governors. I don't like the idea of making this before game options instead of making these in game options.

This is an awesome idea.  Like.  Like.  Like.

Sorry. A bit late to the discussion. I like this. Per planet economy settings would add interesting strategic choices to those who want to take advantage of it.  It should not be necessary to micromanage each planet at low difficulty level. But at high difficulty it would prove a valuable tool to defeat the odds and I think the 4x fans will like such a feature.

The way I see myself using this is I would most likely leave most worlds at default. But would override setting on a minority of key worlds where I want specific things to happen.

Well I think they are planning to have in game options to do this both on a planet per planet basis, and for everything.

I like the idea, as long as planets are given a base resource count. What the heck does that mean? This is what I mean;

On your most generic planet, it produces 1 production, 1 growth, 1 research per population. Mars, with no fertility but awesome resources, is a 2/0.5/1 planet.

So, my 3 Population produces the 1/1/1, or the 2/.5/1. Now improvements multiply this further with the factories increasing that 2 by 15% or whatever it turns out to be.

The third factor now, I'd say, is the Dial. At the center, you get exactly what the planet and improvements give you. That means in the center, Mars gives me 2/.5/1 per Population. If I want to make Mars my shipyard factory, I move the dial into production until that number tweaks towards 4/.1/.25 (for example).

This way, there's the Planet that has it's own value, the population that has it's value, and the player making a choice on how to take advantage of it.

If Mars gained 3 population to Earth's 10, Mars would still produce 12 Production in that focus compared to Earth's 10 production if the dial was in the center. Even unbalanced planets will have value.

With the new economy and the global production wheel / dial and potential per colony production dials, it strikes me that a per colony efficiency rating may be a useful piece of information to display on the UI.

Efficiency here being some calculated metric based on what the colony could output based on ideal allocation settings vs what it is outputting with the present settings.  Ideal here essentially being a 100% allocation towards the area for which the colony has the most bonuses.

E.g.

If a colony has:

• 9 population
• +50% bonus to research
• +30% bonus to industry
• +20% bonus to wealth

This is like having your cake and eating it to! As far as empire, and individual colony management.

Still want to be able to issue changes en mass to my colonies. Select all of them with a mouse drag, right click for rally point destination. How do others manage colony rally points?