admiral Willy Wilber’s feedback about galactic civilizations 4

[video][/video]1. I don’t like the tech random tech option can there be an option with a tree like 3. 
2. I don’t like this core world thing can there be an option to have it like three.

3. If we are going to have a core world option. There are to many low class planets. 
4. if we are still having a core option then can we at least have a auto build. The governor system n three could be a nice way. It’s not that hard to transfer code from three. 
a. You could pick just one governor to auto build from three.

b. You could carry over all the governors and randomize which one to auto build.

c. You could let us pick a governor when we colonize a planet.

d. You let us globally change our governors. 
at least build something on the planets. The easiest way is transfer code from three. If it’s easier rename the governors. Auto build don’t leave the planets empty. 
5. getting unhappy Torians when I’m building what they want makes no sense. 
6. pods why is there no scientific bonus for bonding. 
7. shouldn’t we have an option for each ideology. 
8. shouldn’t we only be in one ideology at a time not two. 
9. shouldn’t we have at least 25, not 15 choices for each ideology. 
10. please tell us the difference between types of planets when we highlight them. 
the Oynx traded everything, but Oynx prime. 
11. how does ministry of foreign affairs leads to fusion power plants what. 
12. I would like to see specialized hubs like they used to have in three. 
13. I would like to see a fixed jagged knife this time around. 
14. please tell me what planets I need to scan, so I can in case I need to snap them. 
15. I miss the slyne how did they get wiped out. Are we going to see the return of the ones that didn’t get wiped out. 
edit 16. Please give us the planet list more like 3.



17. scorpions look to much like the hyper gate core; maybe, it’s time to find a new picture. 
19. capital mainframe dido player achievement maybe a +2 to raw research. 
20. Can we have our adjancencies back on our artifacts +2 made sense since the weren’t improvements but more serious. 
21. I like how the terrain affects how it affects my improvements. 
22. I would like to see more race types it four. 
23. I would like to see race types more evenly represented. 
24. It doesn’t make sense for a capital planet to have planet fall resource. 
Improvements adjancencies are +1, colony capitals should be +2, and the cililizatiin capital should be +3. 
25. hubs should have an adjancency of +2 a player achievement like the industrial center should have a +3. 

26. The shipyard is missing a lot of options. 
27. my ship upgrades aren’t showing up in the shipyards. It has something to do with firing speed. I’m sorry I forgot the name. You give no history of my events. Disappeared on my notifications. It was called a ship upgrade anyway. 
28. it’s a shame the space elevator isn’t a hub, but a galactic achievement, but as a galactic achievement it should give a +3 to base manufacturing instead of 20%. 
29. You know I think 5% is to low there were a lot of complaints about 5% adjancencies now we have 1% please make the manufacturing adjancencies at least 10% this could be total manufacturing it doesn’t have to be base. 

30. Ok this manufacturing problem started with adjancencies in three. I’m using six factories and a power plant. In two that would be 26 points. With antimatter it wound be 30. With a quantum plant it would be 36 points. I forgot what the adjancencies were but it didn’t threw everything off. The other complaint were to reverse it where factories were a percent. Let’s say a fusion plant was 2 and all six factories were 10%. That would be 3.2?without adjancencies. I would accept 5% for adjancencies. It being a hub +2. Not receiving from the factories, but giving it. Factories give a +1. They also receive adjancies. The adjancencies add a 120% that’s 7 The antimatter would be +3 on adjancencies six factories at 25% is assuming 3 points for antimatter that’s 7.5 points add 150% adjancencies that wold be 19 With quantum 4 points with a +4 on adjancencies with six factories at 50% 10 points with adjancencies at 180% 28 points. An advanced capital could add to two factories +4 so that +8. Changing the adjancies to 32 points still 4 less than two with most planets not likely to do this well. 
especially with most planets can’t be built on this is desirable. 
31. I’m not saying this is not the alpha, but I’m here is an option to automatically do the battle viewer. It’s currently not working. 
32. huh I lost a colony ship, and the game didn’t tell me why it was exploring.

33. when loading a game from the menu it says destroying a galaxy when it should say building a galaxy. 
34. I ended up with a class two world with four colonists I need colony ships to hold at least three colonists.

37. Are there going to be a market or governments. If not governments, how about political parties like we had in two. 
38. contacting private citizens is way to expensive for our research. Maybe a percentage of our treasury instead. 
39. ice bridge sunken ship. I chose to leave the ship to get two tiles. Didn’t get my two tiles. 
40. I got two citizens from a random event. It would have been ok if they would have went to earth. The random event put them in the colony Artemis(the theoretical ninth planet) I wasn’t going to waste a leader on a class two planet. This is to close anyway. I naturally built a colony ship. I’m used to galactic civilizations three here I can put three people on a colony ship. In galactic civilizations four I can’t load three citizens, but only one. The transport only have one. I need to be able to move my citizens. If your not going to allow this. Then don’t allow the game to overload colony planets. 
41. I honestly believe that the output should be the same in four as in three and that you need to adjust this accordingly. Under the new system both production and improvements need to be adjusted. This should be based on the average planet in three and four. I would assume people would probably colonize as many if four as in three. 

22,748 views 16 replies
Reply #1 Top

This is not meant as a flame aWW just my thoughts on your post pro & con

For 1,2,,4,& 12 you can always play threeB)  

On a serious note

1 This is growing on me in a positive light, it does stop bee lining to great techs. The tech tree is coming so you will know which option to choose for your goals.

2 Sorta agree/disagree. This is also growing on me. 

3 Agree their are way too many 1&2 there should be many more 3&4 say 4 to1

4 Might be an option.

5 agree

6 Do not understand what you are saying

7-9 Frogboy has stated the ideology wheel is not going to be as it is now.

10-13 I will leave this to Frogboy and the rest it's their game.

14 I would like for the uninhabited plant display to have an option to sort by size and in range. This I think would solve your post.

15 Only Brad's hairdresser knows for sure (yeah old commercial I know):|  

+16 Add option for putting major opponents super close ( same/next sector) near (3or4 sectors) far (5-8) or I don't want to see these Scum till turn 10000 ( as far as map allows) I had no problem with the ludicrous map in three. Never played with more than 3/4 major and occasional minor though. I personally do not play to beat up on an defenseless Ai but to Fantasize I am J. Tiberius Kirk (James smarter brother who stays on the bridge where he belongs and lets the Marines ur I mean Red Shirts do their job) and boldly go where no Homo Sapiens has gone before. Gotta be PC every once in awhile:congrat:

aWW could you look at my 1st impressions down forum?   

Reply #2 Top

Quoting gypsy2299, reply 1

This is not meant as a flame aWW just my thoughts on your post pro & con

For 1,2,,4,& 12 you can always play threeB)  

On a serious note

1 This is growing on me in a positive light, it does stop bee lining to great techs. The tech tree is coming so you will know which option to choose for your goals.

2 Sorta agree/disagree. This is also growing on me. 

3 Agree their are way too many 1&2 there should be many more 3&4 say 4 to1

4 Might be an option.

5 agree

6 Do not understand what you are saying

7-9 Frogboy has stated the ideology wheel is not going to be as it is now.

10-13 I will leave this to Frogboy and the rest it's their game.

14 I would like for the uninhabited plant display to have an option to sort by size and in range. This I think would solve your post.

15 Only Brad's hairdresser knows for sure (yeah old commercial I know):|  

+16 Add option for putting major opponents super close ( same/next sector) near (3or4 sectors) far (5-8) or I don't want to see these Scum till turn 10000 ( as far as map allows) I had no problem with the ludicrous map in three. Never played with more than 3/4 major and occasional minor though. I personally do not play to beat up on an defenseless Ai but to Fantasize I am J. Tiberius Kirk (James smarter brother who stays on the bridge where he belongs and lets the Marines ur I mean Red Shirts do their job) and boldly go where no Homo Sapiens has gone before. Gotta be PC every once in awhile:congrat:

aWW could you look at my 1st impressions down forum?   
i like 16. It was referring to a planetary exploration in two and three they gave scientific bonuses for using them. In four they don’t. 

Reply #3 Top

aWW I think you mentioned in a post about settling a planet with one race, say the Yor ,and as it grew the new pops were all your initial race. Actually it is a graphics glitch. Your additional pops show up graphically as initial pops but if you mouse over the icons the will all say i.e. "the Yor are blah blah" so the bug is not being the correct picture but it is the correct Race.  

Reply #4 Top

Correct I did mention this on discord. What I was wondering if I settle a planet with this other species does it penalise me somehow. 

Reply #5 Top


[video][/video]1. I don’t like the tech random tech option can there be an option with a tree like 3. 
2. I don’t like this core world thing can there be an option to have it like three.

3. If we are going to have a core world option. There are to many low class planets. 
4. if we are still having a core option then can we at least have a auto build. The governor system n three could be a nice way. It’s not that hard to transfer code from three. 
a. You could pick just one governor to auto build from three.

b. You could carry over all the governors and randomize which one to auto build.

c. You could let us pick a governor when we colonize a planet.

d. You let us globally change our governors. 
at least build something on the planets. The easiest way is transfer code from three. If it’s easier rename the governors. Auto build don’t leave the planets empty. 
5. getting unhappy Torians when I’m building what they want makes no sense. 
6. pods why is there no scientific bonus for bonding. 
7. shouldn’t we have an option for each ideology. 
8. shouldn’t we only be in one ideology at a time not two. 
9. shouldn’t we have at least 25, not 15 choices for each ideology. 
10. please tell us the difference between types of planets when we highlight them. 
the Oynx traded everything, but Oynx prime. 
11. how does ministry of foreign affairs leads to fusion power plants what. 
12. I would like to see specialized hubs like they used to have in three. 
13. I would like to see a fixed jagged knife this time around. 
14. please tell me what planets I need to scan, so I can in case I need to snap them. 
15. I miss the slyne how did they get wiped out. Are we going to see the return of the ones that didn’t get wiped out. 
edit 16. Please give us the planet list more like 3.





17. scorpions look to much like the hyper gate core; maybe, it’s time to find a new picture. 
to many low class planets not fun

18. can we have the industrial center +1 to base manufacturing its a player achievement not a hub maybe +2 for being a player achievement. A little rediculus it’s a player achievement not an improvement. You can only build it once. 

Reply #6 Top

The core worlds / colonies are here to stay.  They're a..ahem...core feature.   However, we are looking at having an option that would let players control the ratio between productive worlds and marginal worlds.  So in effect, someone could set it up so that most planets are productive and combine that with a small number of habitable worlds.

 

Reply #7 Top

Ideology is going through a major overhaul for the next update.

The reason artifacts no longer give adjacency bonuses is that once you upgrade them you get the charges and the tile is cleared. If it gave an adjacency bonus then you would place something beside it counting on that bonus and be cheated when the bonus was gone.

Ship Upgrades are used when your ship levels up, not in the shipyard. So if you got an upgrade from a mission, or researching an anomally, when a ship levels up you can select to add it to that ship.

In my opinion, I like randomized research. But it's currently too random. The solution we are considering is when you decide to reroll your technologies we will allow you to select an area of focus (colonization, engineering, warfare or governance) and the techs it presents are more likely to be of that type. I like that you can't pick to just go down down the same branch in every game, but agree that its frustrating to need some military techs and not get any presented for 60 turns.

Reply #8 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 6

The core worlds / colonies are here to stay.  They're a..ahem...core feature.   However, we are looking at having an option that would let players control the ratio between productive worlds and marginal worlds.  So in effect, someone could set it up so that most planets are productive and combine that with a small number of habitable worlds.

 
I like the option idea. Something else I was talking about is at least giving the colonies an auto build option. You could just carry over code from three. 
my safari on my iPhone says the security on this website is outdated. 
ok those are core features that are on by default. What I’m talking about is options. 

Reply #9 Top


[video][/video]1. I don’t like the tech random tech option can there be an option with a tree like 3. 
2. I don’t like this core world thing can there be an option to have it like three.

3. If we are going to have a core world option. There are to many low class planets. 
4. if we are still having a core option then can we at least have a auto build. The governor system n three could be a nice way. It’s not that hard to transfer code from three. 
a. You could pick just one governor to auto build from three.

b. You could carry over all the governors and randomize which one to auto build.

c. You could let us pick a governor when we colonize a planet.

d. You let us globally change our governors. 
at least build something on the planets. The easiest way is transfer code from three. If it’s easier rename the governors. Auto build don’t leave the planets empty. 
5. getting unhappy Torians when I’m building what they want makes no sense. 
6. pods why is there no scientific bonus for bonding. 
7. shouldn’t we have an option for each ideology. 
8. shouldn’t we only be in one ideology at a time not two. 
9. shouldn’t we have at least 25, not 15 choices for each ideology. 
10. please tell us the difference between types of planets when we highlight them. 
the Oynx traded everything, but Oynx prime. 
11. how does ministry of foreign affairs leads to fusion power plants what. 
12. I would like to see specialized hubs like they used to have in three. 
13. I would like to see a fixed jagged knife this time around. 
14. please tell me what planets I need to scan, so I can in case I need to snap them. 
15. I miss the slyne how did they get wiped out. Are we going to see the return of the ones that didn’t get wiped out. 
edit 16. Please give us the planet list more like 3.





17. scorpions look to much like the hyper gate core; maybe, it’s time to find a new picture. 
19. capital mainframe dido player achievement maybe a +2 to raw research. 
20. Can we have our adjancencies back on our artifacts +2 made sense since the weren’t improvements but more serious. 
21. I like how the terrain affects how it affects my improvements. 
22. I would like to see more race types it four. 
23. I would like to see race types more evenly represented. 
24. It doesn’t make sense for a capital planet to have planet fall resource. 
Improvements adjancencies are +1, colony capitals should be +2, and the cililizatiin capital should be +3. 
25. hubs should have an adjancency of +2 a player achievement like the industrial center should have a +3. 

26. The shipyard is missing a lot of options. 
27. my ship upgrades aren’t showing up in the shipyards. It has something to do with firing speed. I’m sorry I forgot the name. You give no history of my events. Disappeared on my notifications. It was called a ship upgrade anyway. 
28. it’s a shame the space elevator isn’t a hub, but a galactic achievement, but as a galactic achievement it should give a +3 to base manufacturing instead of 20%. 
29. You know I think 5% is to low there were a lot of complaints about 5% adjancencies now we have 1% please make the manufacturing adjancencies at least 10% this could be total manufacturing it doesn’t have to be base. 

30. Ok this manufacturing problem started with adjancencies in three. I’m using six factories and a power plant. In two that would be 26 points. With antimatter it wound be 30. With a quantum plant it would be 36 points. I forgot what the adjancencies were but it didn’t threw everything off. The other complaint were to reverse it where factories were a percent. Let’s say a fusion plant was 2 and all six factories were 10%. That would be 3.2?without adjancencies. I would accept 5% for adjancencies. It being a hub +2. Not receiving from the factories, but giving it. Factories give a +1. They also receive adjancies. The adjancencies add a 120% that’s 7 The antimatter would be +3 on adjancencies six factories at 25% is assuming 3 points for antimatter that’s 7.5 points add 150% adjancencies that wold be 19 With quantum 4 points with a +4 on adjancencies with six factories at 50% 10 points with adjancencies at 180% 28 points. An advanced capital could add to two factories +4 so that +8. Changing the adjancies to 32 points still 4 less than two with most planets not likely to do this well. 
especially with most planets can’t be built on this is desirable. 
31. I’m not saying this is not the alpha, but I’m here is an option to automatically do the battle viewer. It’s currently not working. 
32. huh I lost a colony ship, and the game didn’t tell me why it was exploring.

33. when loading a game from the menu it says destroying a galaxy when it should say building a galaxy. 
34. I ended up with a class two world with four colonists I need colony ships to hold at least three colonists.
35. Districts are a nice addition to empty tiles. 

Reply #10 Top


[video][/video]1. I don’t like the tech random tech option can there be an option with a tree like 3. 
2. I don’t like this core world thing can there be an option to have it like three.

3. If we are going to have a core world option. There are to many low class planets. 
4. if we are still having a core option then can we at least have a auto build. The governor system n three could be a nice way. It’s not that hard to transfer code from three. 
a. You could pick just one governor to auto build from three.

b. You could carry over all the governors and randomize which one to auto build.

c. You could let us pick a governor when we colonize a planet.

d. You let us globally change our governors. 
at least build something on the planets. The easiest way is transfer code from three. If it’s easier rename the governors. Auto build don’t leave the planets empty. 
5. getting unhappy Torians when I’m building what they want makes no sense. 
6. pods why is there no scientific bonus for bonding. 
7. shouldn’t we have an option for each ideology. 
8. shouldn’t we only be in one ideology at a time not two. 
9. shouldn’t we have at least 25, not 15 choices for each ideology. 
10. please tell us the difference between types of planets when we highlight them. 
the Oynx traded everything, but Oynx prime. 
11. how does ministry of foreign affairs leads to fusion power plants what. 
12. I would like to see specialized hubs like they used to have in three. 
13. I would like to see a fixed jagged knife this time around. 
14. please tell me what planets I need to scan, so I can in case I need to snap them. 
15. I miss the slyne how did they get wiped out. Are we going to see the return of the ones that didn’t get wiped out. 
edit 16. Please give us the planet list more like 3.





17. scorpions look to much like the hyper gate core; maybe, it’s time to find a new picture. 
19. capital mainframe dido player achievement maybe a +2 to raw research. 
20. Can we have our adjancencies back on our artifacts +2 made sense since the weren’t improvements but more serious. 
21. I like how the terrain affects how it affects my improvements. 
22. I would like to see more race types it four. 
23. I would like to see race types more evenly represented. 
24. It doesn’t make sense for a capital planet to have planet fall resource. 
Improvements adjancencies are +1, colony capitals should be +2, and the cililizatiin capital should be +3. 
25. hubs should have an adjancency of +2 a player achievement like the industrial center should have a +3. 

26. The shipyard is missing a lot of options. 
27. my ship upgrades aren’t showing up in the shipyards. It has something to do with firing speed. I’m sorry I forgot the name. You give no history of my events. Disappeared on my notifications. It was called a ship upgrade anyway. 
28. it’s a shame the space elevator isn’t a hub, but a galactic achievement, but as a galactic achievement it should give a +3 to base manufacturing instead of 20%. 
29. You know I think 5% is to low there were a lot of complaints about 5% adjancencies now we have 1% please make the manufacturing adjancencies at least 10% this could be total manufacturing it doesn’t have to be base. 

30. Ok this manufacturing problem started with adjancencies in three. I’m using six factories and a power plant. In two that would be 26 points. With antimatter it wound be 30. With a quantum plant it would be 36 points. I forgot what the adjancencies were but it didn’t threw everything off. The other complaint were to reverse it where factories were a percent. Let’s say a fusion plant was 2 and all six factories were 10%. That would be 3.2?without adjancencies. I would accept 5% for adjancencies. It being a hub +2. Not receiving from the factories, but giving it. Factories give a +1. They also receive adjancies. The adjancencies add a 120% that’s 7 The antimatter would be +3 on adjancencies six factories at 25% is assuming 3 points for antimatter that’s 7.5 points add 150% adjancencies that wold be 19 With quantum 4 points with a +4 on adjancencies with six factories at 50% 10 points with adjancencies at 180% 28 points. An advanced capital could add to two factories +4 so that +8. Changing the adjancies to 32 points still 4 less than two with most planets not likely to do this well. 
especially with most planets can’t be built on this is desirable. 
31. I’m not saying this is not the alpha, but I’m here is an option to automatically do the battle viewer. It’s currently not working. 
32. huh I lost a colony ship, and the game didn’t tell me why it was exploring.

33. when loading a game from the menu it says destroying a galaxy when it should say building a galaxy. 
34. I ended up with a class two world with four colonists I need colony ships to hold at least three colonists.
36. I think the map looks better. 

Reply #11 Top

Being able to set the ratio of core worlds to colonies would make me very happy and keep me playing this game for years and years to come.

Reply #12 Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 8
I like the option idea. Something else I was talking about is at least giving the colonies an auto build option. You could just carry over code from three. 
my safari on my iPhone says the security on this website is outdated. 
ok those are core features that are on by default. What I’m talking about is options. 

Auto-build never worked well. Most players felt like they should manage all of their planets, it becomes tedious, therefore the game becomes boring, etc.

It's all game psychology and some players would say that you assign a governor to the world then never mess with it again. Players that have 80 worlds they are individually setting improvements on are "playing wrong". But it's our job to make sure that players don't have to "play right" for it to be fun.

Reply #13 Top

Quoting DerekPaxton, reply 12

Auto-build never worked well. Most players felt like they should manage all of their planets, it becomes tedious, therefore the game becomes boring, etc.

It's all game psychology and some players would say that you assign a governor to the world then never mess with it again. Players that have 80 worlds they are individually setting improvements on are "playing wrong". But it's our job to make sure that players don't have to "play right" for it to be fun.

 

Variety is the spice of life and having more options and ways of playing make more people happy, imho. What's fun and how to play to make it fun is relative for many. You guys have been doing great so far so keep up the good work! :congrat:  

Reply #14 Top

Quoting DerekPaxton, reply 12


Quoting admiralWillyWilber,
I like the option idea. Something else I was talking about is at least giving the colonies an auto build option. You could just carry over code from three. 
my safari on my iPhone says the security on this website is outdated. 
ok those are core features that are on by default. What I’m talking about is options. 



Auto-build never worked well. Most players felt like they should manage all of their planets, it becomes tedious, therefore the game becomes boring, etc.

It's all game psychology and some players would say that you assign a governor to the world then never mess with it again. Players that have 80 worlds they are individually setting improvements on are "playing wrong". But it's our job to make sure that players don't have to "play right" for it to be fun.

Derek you are so so wrong the only way to play any game is on a small 10,000,000 hex map ( that's sectors totaling that many) , super planets of at least 50 tiles with options for up to 500, at 5 hex distance, no governors, and fleets of 100,000.

Leaving sarcasm aside if a person wishes to and the game engine will allow it the player should have the choice to micro manage his empire. 

In regards to Auto-Build having played 4x games since about 1994 I have never seen in computer generated auto build, auto path, auto explore, auto attack, you add any function for the computer to auto that could give a anal-retentive Mini-Maxer a challenge. I do know that the cause of this is to really give a ARMM player a challenge the player would need a home computer that would make Big Blue look like a Commodore 64. Probably need to be that big to do intelligent auto build. 

You said up thread that the team considered options to make colonies into core worlds after a time.

I would like an option to build what I would consider optimal on all my planets or have the tiles improvable by the core world it supports. A core planet builds a spaceport on the Core then builds a farm on a satellite planet the improves a tile or so on the Core the a nudist camp for morale on its second Sat ad nauseam. 

Also from my post up thread:

+16 Add option for putting major opponents super close ( same/next sector) near (3or4 sectors) far (5-8) or I don't want to see these Scum till turn 10000 ( as far as map allows) I had no problem with the ludicrous map in three. Never played with more than 3/4 major and occasional minor though. I personally do not play to beat up on an defenseless Ai but to Fantasize I am J. Tiberius Kirk (James smarter brother who stays on the bridge where he belongs and lets the Marines ur I mean Red Shirts do their job) and boldly go where no Homo Sapiens has gone before. Gotta be PC every once in awhile 

Reply #15 Top

Quoting DerekPaxton, reply 12


Quoting admiralWillyWilber,
I like the option idea. Something else I was talking about is at least giving the colonies an auto build option. You could just carry over code from three. 
my safari on my iPhone says the security on this website is outdated. 
ok those are core features that are on by default. What I’m talking about is options. 



Auto-build never worked well. Most players felt like they should manage all of their planets, it becomes tedious, therefore the game becomes boring, etc.

It's all game psychology and some players would say that you assign a governor to the world then never mess with it again. Players that have 80 worlds they are individually setting improvements on are "playing wrong". But it's our job to make sure that players don't have to "play right" for it to be fun.

I agree that auto build didn’t work well with the old system, but it works better than the system you get jack. The current system just has nonething, so you didn’t fix the micromanagement problem. This system does nonething. The manufacturing is less than three, ok if it was like three it still doesn’t work with umteen planets that you can’t do anything. All you have is food consumption and raw production. If I was going to keep this system where most planets do jack, then I would sup up things like manufacturing. Picking up the slack instead of scaling things down. I’m really saying the jack system doesn’t work. At least auto build, or picking up the slack would save it. 
i do find it funny if the current system doesn’t work you get rid of it instead of keeping it till you find a solution. Governors, asteroid miners, espionage, the wheel, and planetary invasions. Sorry about that large empire penalty thing. I’m not saying bring it back. What I’m saying keep it until you can solve it. In this case that would be a good idea. Test it I bet everyone would use it in this case. 

Reply #16 Top

Quoting gypsy2299, reply 14


Quoting DerekPaxton,






Quoting admiralWillyWilber,


I like the option idea. Something else I was talking about is at least giving the colonies an auto build option. You could just carry over code from three. 
my safari on my iPhone says the security on this website is outdated. 
ok those are core features that are on by default. What I’m talking about is options. 



Auto-build never worked well. Most players felt like they should manage all of their planets, it becomes tedious, therefore the game becomes boring, etc.

It's all game psychology and some players would say that you assign a governor to the world then never mess with it again. Players that have 80 worlds they are individually setting improvements on are "playing wrong". But it's our job to make sure that players don't have to "play right" for it to be fun.



Derek you are so so wrong the only way to play any game is on a small 10,000,000 hex map ( that's sectors totaling that many) , super planets of at least 50 tiles with options for up to 500, at 5 hex distance, no governors, and fleets of 100,000.

Leaving sarcasm aside if a person wishes to and the game engine will allow it the player should have the choice to micro manage his empire. 

In regards to Auto-Build having played 4x games since about 1994 I have never seen in computer generated auto build, auto path, auto explore, auto attack, you add any function for the computer to auto that could give a anal-retentive Mini-Maxer a challenge. I do know that the cause of this is to really give a ARMM player a challenge the player would need a home computer that would make Big Blue look like a Commodore 64. Probably need to be that big to do intelligent auto build. 

You said up thread that the team considered options to make colonies into core worlds after a time.

I would like an option to build what I would consider optimal on all my planets or have the tiles improvable by the core world it supports. A core planet builds a spaceport on the Core then builds a farm on a satellite planet the improves a tile or so on the Core the a nudist camp for morale on its second Sat ad nauseam. 

Also from my post up thread:

+16 Add option for putting major opponents super close ( same/next sector) near (3or4 sectors) far (5-8) or I don't want to see these Scum till turn 10000 ( as far as map allows) I had no problem with the ludicrous map in three. Never played with more than 3/4 major and occasional minor though. I personally do not play to beat up on an defenseless Ai but to Fantasize I am J. Tiberius Kirk (James smarter brother who stays on the bridge where he belongs and lets the Marines ur I mean Red Shirts do their job) and boldly go where no Homo Sapiens has gone before. Gotta be PC every once in awhile 

I like this post mine is closer to trying 64 factions of n a insane map, and giving up after a few years. Yes I tried it in ludicrous. I don’t like playing with your enemies to close. The reason I suggested auto build is I want to use those couple of tiles in my colonies. I would even agree that colonies coul get different improvements than core worlds. Yes optimally let me micromanage everything, but if I can’t don’t penalize me for not being able to micromanage everything. Yes this system penalizes everyone. Either sup up, not scale things like science or manufacturing, or use those wasted tiles. At least balance it next to three. That means improvements need to be better, not worse to balance next to three. I like the idea of being able to turn colonies into core worlds. Maybe going back to twos terraforming anything with a class four or less could be turned into a class 16. 
I would prefer to keep them away.