The game is constructor based.

I feel that's it's constructor based more than anything because by building economic starbases around a planet one can increase production on a planet by as much as 700% in Manufacturing, Research and Economic...  If instead they increased the amount that each building did and cut that down by a factor of 7 it wouldn't be as needed.

I see your point but you should of seen all those posts about there was to much manufacturing on the planets. It was rediculous. 

This can only be true if you insist on doing maximum races.  Just because you can do it doesn't mean it is a really good idea.  Play around with the number of opponents until you get as much space as makes you have fun.

Actually, I find that the more planets I can colonize, the more starbases I build.

I assume that "hardware restrictions" is something to do with your local system more than the game itself. I don't know of anything that is inherently hardware restricted by the game on reasonably up-to-date systems. Playing with maximum players is more patience restricted than anything else for me. Even the best systems will take a while to do that crazy stuff, but then again, that is why they call it "Insane". This is not a reasonable thing to ask your system to do! Yet, we do it anyway.

Really how do you play with 100 races I'm using something like 4th or 5th gen 16 gigs of ram 128 gigs of ssd. 1 tera hard drive. My processor is a quad 6700 I7. My speed is 3 ghrtz after turboboost. 4 gigs of video ram.

I play just fine w/ an AMD FX 9370 Eight-Core 4.4 GHz, 16 GB Memory 4.4 GHz 500 GB SSD, 3TB HDD, 2GB Radeon R9 270X GPU, 100 Faction game, immense map. (Abundant everything)

In this case maybe amd, and radeon is just beating intel, and geforce. Are you sure it might not be the computer maintenence you do. I've been able to figure out that a desktop is faster  than a labtop. I can't afford a better computer than what I have. What kind of computer maintenence do you do on the computer.

 

Yea, what i was really surprised about in Galciv3 is how INSANELY LONG it takes to build military ships if you don't have all those starbases.

in Galciv2, you mostly built starbases for money, not production.... since production draws down so much money in galciv2, that's what you have to do.

On the one hand, production being so money hungry in galciv2 used to frustrate me, but on the other hand somehow the game flowed much easier than galciv3?

Well in galciv3 everything just seems slower.

Only what Norton and Windows 10 does automatically, plus I keep my drivers up to date, so virtually nothing.

I enjoyed the economics system in GalCiv II more than GalCiv III.  It just seems in GalCiv III if you don't build a map full of economic starbases you find yourself behind as it's needed to boost your output on every aspect of the game.  Hopefully it's reworked a little in the upcoming expansion.

Quote of the year! + 1 kama

To many complaints about the economic wall in two is part of the reason were stuck with what we have. To many civ fans who believe that the game should be slower is part of the reason we are here. That is basically caused from joining steam. One of the obvious things that slow down the game in civilization which was kind of solved in three was one build que, not two. Another thing that slows things down in civilization is that you can't load, or more importantly unload colonists. Galciv actually wants you to use more which is 2.5 wheres civilization only wants you to use one, but this can be changed to .5 in galactic civilizations. Also in civilization you could only use one building for each city. This would be rather fustrating in Galciv if it was ever implemented. So to replace the economic wall they introduced something like civilizations large empire penalty. They removed the penalty, but forgot to replace it with something. The economic wall is better than none thing. Assuming that they haven't forgot about the economic void that was created they will probably bring back the economic wall in the expansion, or try something else. A solution that I've seen in other games that would need to be balanced is requiring resources to build, or research anything. If balanced I think would be a nice idea.

 

Hmmm... Never noticed any of the civ games being slow?I have played every one of them starting with Civ2, to civ5.... also the call to power series, and Alpha Centauri.

 

None of these games have a problem progressing with too much micromanagement wearing you down like Galciv3..... or the micromanagement is there but it dousn't somehow 'feel' like wearing you down like it does in galciv3

 

But civ4 did introduce a much harsher financial wall similar to galciv2 (but not quite that bad), it hit you in the expansion stage, so if you try to expand too fast you go broke real quick!!

Got to disagree with you about the expansion in civilization it is obviously slower to my opinion. The rest is my speculation to why. A lot of my speculation to this is basically based on complaints to the expansion phase is to fast. My comparison to expansion in civilization is based on both trying the large empire penalty.

 

Oh well, mebe you need to increase barbarian level to keep it interesting??lol

 

There is allot of civilization development things in the civ series that are wonderfully interesting to do even when there is no combat going on..... especially the development of the surrounding terrain of your cities, and then you have to protect those developments.... Whereas Galciv3, planetary development is kind of bland in comparison.... its just part of the 'work' you have to do to as part of the challenge to survive the early AI rush. 'work'..... that is the key word, as opposed to 'fun'.....

Because what it is all about is how 'fun' is the micromanagement, and how rewarding is it? Not how much of it there is.

Agree with you on the above with the fact that city building is a little better than colony building. They even made things worse as far as colony building in three by over all lowering the average class of planets. I asked for something like civilization where you just build all the buildings instead, so you never run out. That would also solve any problem dealing with to much science, or manufacturing. This would either change the usage of classes on planets, or eliminate them. There are other aspects of the game that causes to rival civilization. I also, said I didn't like five. I'd enjoyed four a lot; because, of the features that made the game in the first place like citizen management, not coming back. Spending allocation, not coming back. Without these civilization would have flopped in the first place. I do have four, and five on steam. Four does the job. Five doesn't. If things don't come back then I'm sticking with four. But as far as city building vs. colony building your probably right. 

 

Have you tried Galciv1? That has what you are asking, there are no planet tiles.

 

Galciv1 has allot of good things that were dropped in the later versions, so its worth playing. The only significant thing missing is you don't design your own ships.

 

Also there are no 'fleets' in galciv1 so the AI tends to put up a very good fight, but they wont overwhelm you either if you are clever with defensive military starbases which are nicely overpowered :)  ..... eventually even unarmed sensor ships can defeat powerful enemy ships!!! that's what I'm talkin about

 

My fav ship was the good old battle axe