I love GalCiv II but I'm sad to say that from all the gameplay of the alpha and even your list of changes from each version is confirming my worry that III is not really that big of an update. Heck, you guys are even using the same old logos and opponent civs from the last game. Two of the bigger changes mentioned are strategic resources and the ideology tree, but even these are just rehashed features from games like Civ V. Why were strategic resources not in the last version for that matter. That concept has been around for years. And the ideology tree is just another social policy feature like in Civ V.

It would be nice if you tried to implement truly new, original features that make the game different. Not everyone loves the city states feature in Civ V but at least you could say that is a completely new feature to that series that really alters the entire world and gameplay experience. Where is that happening in Gal Civ III? Otherwise, you should not call this a sequel - it's just another expansion.

You have also really simplified the economic system in this game and taken away the unique aspects of II that made it stand out from other games, i.e., like the ability to reduce production spending to manage your economy. Now with that big circle, it looks like all you can do is adjust where the spending goes vs. each category.

Multiplayer? United Planet proposals? Again, all sounds like features we can find in other games and that should have been around years ago. I personally don't care about multiplayer but a lot do so you can have partial credit on that one.

It's probably too late for this game but I hope you guys are hearing some of this feedback to think about future projects. There are a ton of people commenting on the YouTube videos about how this game is not really looking very different from the last version.

And I'm sorry, but the hex map, even though I personally prefer it, is actually not doing a thing to change decisionmaking or overall experience in a game like this. If anything, it's just reducing the number of directions you can move your ships (now only 6, before with squares it was 8 directions).

I believe you are passing judgment too soon. The alpha was released last week.

[/quote]It would be nice if you tried to implement truly new, original features that make the game different. Not everyone loves the city states feature in Civ V but at least you could say that is a completely new feature to that series that really alters the entire world and gameplay experience. Where is that happening in Gal Civ III? Otherwise, you should not call this a sequel - it's just another expansion.[/quote]

Minor civs have been part of GalCiv since the beginning. That's why I didn't break them out into their own section.  We will likely expand on minor civs but they're not new to GalCiv.  We had them first.

Wow, you have a very interesting and unique view of things here. I take it you have no background in the industry? Ever be an "official" beta tester before? Your opinion of what constitutes "common sense" is not universal...

Initially I did not like the City States in civ V much.

I found their importance artificial and the magnitude of the bonus they provide made the system exploitable. I literally vassalized every city state in the map and SteamRolled all the other civs. 

I have not played the game with expensions though, nor did I even play it recently. I went back to Civ IV instead.

I am overdue for playing an up to date patched + expansion Civ V though. Maybe I would change my mind about it then.

He's so wrong too.

I've participated in several of Stardock's early release betas and the game I downloaded at first was very much not feature complete. I recall that the race-specific tech trees in Twilight of the Arnor were introduced after testing started, and they were not all introduced at once.

The problem I have is that it implies the opposite:   colony non-adjacency penalties.  It encourages a boring, grow-your-empire-normally game, when what I really want is for players to really mix it up and all h-e-double-hockey-sticks break loose.  I'd rather see the outlying colonies be valuable, juicy targets worth starting a war over.  Plus the strong races with big empires will only get stronger (since they will have more "middle" planets with lots of bonuses).

Speaking of hockey sticks:  I hope those Quebec Canadiens really spank New York good tomorrow.  

Oh, cool.   That was on my Galciv2 wish list, too.   I think it rocks because it makes you think about how to build your colony.  Location matters.   And not just for what you build:  the bonus tiles' locations matter, too.

Just when it got me to thinking about the proximity-to-other-colony bonuses....      I was thinking maybe ship-building bonuses for each neighboring alien planet, and improvement-building bonuses for each same-race planet.   That way everybody's warships get built toward the front line (instead of always rally-pointing everything).  Plus it makes you have to shift gears as your empire grows (and your outliers become inliers).

more minor races

Indeed it did, and you remember the name as well as I do.

They have already unlocked MP to support larger map sizes than small.

This is an old thread but it does get referenced.

I have one change to the Galciv3 column.    Independent shipyards:  this, imo, is a big change and introduces a lot more choices (like building shipyards for separate nearby colonies or using one shipyard for both) plus some serious tactical issues when on offense or defense.

My 2c.   Perhaps I should have a "post sale" and charge only 1c for a weekend.  Hmmm.