I don't think anyone is asking for all good planets. I believe that actually detracts from the spirit and appeal of GC and inherently limits strategy. I don't want the ability to improve all planets to good either, not even in the end-game. If all planets are good then none are. That's not my issue. The problem is that the game appears to suffer from the opposite problem. There are no great planets. So while I would like to see other tactical possibilities for terrible planets (lvl 4-5), I'm mostly happy with the way planets are currently laid out. Even if you only have thirty planets under your control, while a couple will offer unique statistical bonuses, none are invaluable. You wouldn't move all your forces and risk everything in an all-out attempt to protect a single planet. You might mobilize your forces to protect your home world, but that would most likely be a matter of honor. If you have thirty planets, chances are your home world is already second rate.
There are a number of ways it could be done, and the developers undoubtedly know better than anyone, but I might as well mention what I mean. I have a lot of ideas for how this could be done without becoming too powerful with only a bit of tweaking to the current system. They would be very powerful planets, but they wouldn't offer much more production/research/wealth than specialized planets with heavy bonuses. I think it would be nice to be able to pick the planets you want to turn into "prime" planets, and I would like the ability to use the Ultra Teraformer to do it. The problem with this, is that the obvious choice would be a planet that already has a high bonus. With the of addition of tile adjacency bonuses, a planet such as this could not be used. To prevent this, once the ultra teraformer is set down on a planet, it would remove all bonuses and improve random tiles. It creates the perfect planet, but by equalizing the temperature and distributing all the natural nutrients, the planet loses all special abilities (gibber-grabber). If you wanted to be nice, it could randomly add a few little bonuses like +1 farming, and +1 research. Even without any bonuses though, they could still be overpowered as a single focus planet, so to counter this, tile improvements that offer global percentage benefits to production and research would have to be reduced. I'm willing to bet if they were cut in half that would be enough.
Lets compare a lvl 10 planet with +20% production globally, a +3 production tile, and a +1 production tile. This could could represent the production of a planet with 17 tiles (I think). That's about the best I have seen. These are very rare, and while you would have a couple prime worlds, your manufacturing bonuses would be cut in half so it evens out. I think this, combined with the fact that everyone would have prime worlds, would actually create a more equal game overall. And since lvl 20-25 planets do exist, they aren't game-breaking either. They are just base planets that allow you to pursue the tactic that you want freely without a reliance on random planet bonuses. Since they offer lots of space, you can continue to build on them over a longer period of time, adding value into mid-game. It would also help prevent games on small maps where one player got the planet with +4 production and everyone else is SOL.
Research for prime planets could be done one at a time to give incremental growth for the civilizations that choose to pursue it. The first would be relatively cheap for such a powerful ability, but then become progressively more difficult. If the research tree for this kind of teraforming were set up properly, then while some races are running out colonizing like crazy, other races could be starting to focus on their prime worlds, the number of which would be decided by galaxy size. It would be advantageous for defensive races to build them close together, so even if they didn't get to colonize as many planets, they could still focus on teraforming and start building their first prime world(s). While more ambitious civilizations would also benefit, since once they had colonized the planets they wanted, they could begin research on prime worlds and begin placing them in strategic locations.
The idea is to offer more playing options without taking anything away from other players. I believe this kind of environment creates more of a focus on what you want to build, and less of a focus on what bonuses are available. Rushing out to colonize planets and finding the best way to utilize planets with bonuses would still be part of the game, they just wouldn't be the only strategy available. Personally, I would still like a way to improve terrible planets by one or two random tiles early in the game, or the ability to turn them into military outposts with a listening station, but that's another issue. Combine all of these things with balanced population benefits (resulting in slower colonization) and suddenly developing your prime worlds, researching defensive technology, building outposts, taking a couple small planets, and focusing efforts on trade/research/defense becomes a viable alternative to competing in "the rush."
Edit after live-stream
- I should add that by no great planets, I don't mean that there aren't any planets with incredibly absurd production or research. The problem is in assuming that that's what every player views as the "ideal" planet. I would rather have something with high production, some research, good defenses, enough population to support itself, and a couple special improvements like nano machines. That's the perfect planet to to me. This is not over powered, and often impossible to make early on, especially in smaller galaxies. The idea of "prime" worlds is to offer a blank canvas.
- I also heard it mentioned that increased tiles = increased micro-management. As it is, you are forced to micro-manage because all your tiles are spread out over countless planets. If I had enough good planets, I could focus on those and set all other planets to "auto govern." This actually creates considerably less micromanagement. Poor worlds are a poor investment of your time where micro-management is concerned. Why even bother?
