Stellaris would be a shiny version of all the other Paradox games made with the Clauswitz engine before it's a knockoff of Distant Worlds.  They're all this way, and, naturally, they're all 32 bit as well.

Aside from being a space 4X, they probably don't have much in common.  Watch some of the gameplay videos, PDX has put out quite a lot of content.

What matters is how good the game is and not 64bit.GC3 is not scaled for large galaxies like Stellaris is.GC3 is micro hell at that scale.

Well micro hell just means that you got a lot to do. What ends up happening and will end up is the fact that after so many objects on the screen the performance drops to nothing or you outright crash. Ill hold off on getting it till I hear some of the rants/raves from those <really informed and unbiased> steam users!

I agree, I don't care for RTS games.  Regarding Distant Worlds (universe), its listed as RTS, but the pause at will feathure makes it ok for me. 

64-bit it is just one of many features.

GC3 didn't have the luxury to tap into a 10+ year old game engine. 

Obviously, we could have taken the GalCiv II engine and continued to enhance that until we hit the memory limit.  We made the choice to go to 64-bit and take our lumps in 2015.

Eventually, everyone else will have to move to 64-bit and they'll go through the same process.

Also, in what way, specifically, is GC3 "micro hell" on large maps?

Well i think global and planet settings for governors. Queing up research could help. An easier way to not use ships you build. Being able to right click on shipyards starbases and planet to control governance and building sortof like they did in two. These would help.without changing gameplay. A list of of explored unclaimed planets. 

To be blunt, I don't give a damn whether Stellaris is 64-bit.  What matters most is game design.  64-bit vs 32-bit doesn't even register in my consideration of a game.

Obviously I haven't played Stellaris yet, but a couple comments:

• It brings a lot of Paradox's strengths from its grand strategy games to the space 4x genre, like a more complex approach to war goals, more complex diplomatic relations, etc.  I love Distant Worlds, and it's my favourite 4X of all time (space or otherwise), but it was severely lacking in that department.
• I prefer to think of Distant Worlds and Paradox games (including Stellaris) as 'continuous' time rather than real-time.  They don't play at all like traditional RTS games (which I despise).  They tick along at a very stately pace (to quote Tom Chick), and the player is never rushed.  Hell, Distant Worlds pauses when you open *any* screen, and there's no option not to.  I've always hated RTS games, but Paradox games and Distant Worlds have ruined turn-based games for me.  I consider them to be an indication of where the 4X and grand strategy genres should move.  Distant Worlds gives a feeling of space that no turn-based grid-based game can do.  Those games now just feel like land-based games with different graphics.

I'm actually quite excited about what I'm seeing Stellaris do (based on the dev and let's play vids) with the 4x space genre.  I see myself putting in lots of hours playing it, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it impacts other 4x games in the future, including GCIII.

I am really looking for Stellaris being out for so many reasons.  For one, I enjoy the EU games a lot.  Secondly, every time there's a space strategy game we have people who say "game X will have all these things I wanted" and then game X comes out and it's not a magic bullet.

Every time I see someone talk about how we should have tactical battles I can just say "Hey, there's a new MOO. Did they implement MOO tactical combat the way you demanded we should? No? Well talk to them."

I actually want to shiv the people at Paradox personally for all the DLC they fuck their games up with.  CK2 has been an unmitigated train wreck for over a year now.  They add more "free" broken shit to the main game than it can handle, which means not buying the stuff still gives you the shaft even if you don't get to play with it.

First impressions.

Glacial pacing, and I do mean glacial.  If you like other PDX games like CK2, this isn't a problem, it's pretty similar pacing wise.

As an example, it's 350 minerals to get a colony ship, 90 minerals to build a research station that will bring in 2-4 minerals per tick, 60 minerals to build the starting corvette.  I got myself up to 12 income playing for two hours at normal speed.

Combat's okay, exploration is okay.  I got bushwacked by pirates while I was building my second colony ship and they took down a research station before I could build some more corvettes and take them down.  Customization is pretty substantial, but also fairly shallow.  Very big picture.

haven't played too much stellaris, but the pacing is definitely atrocious

if i play it at the intended speed it's too slow

if i play it without pausing, the UI becomes frustrating

if i play it by using the speed accelration controls and pausing for commands, i spend more time playing with the time controls than i spend playing the actual game

i'm maybe 5% of the way through a 1v1 on the smallest map.

in that much time i would be 50% of the way through a 6-player galciv2 or civ4 game (which is about the point where i'll quit)

in that much time i could have finished 5 large games of rise of nations

and the saddest part of it all is that there's nothing interesting to look at while the game crawls along. the brid's eye view in RTS games is at least mildly interesting when you see workers harvest resources or armies moving to their destinations because monitoring those things has some relevance to the actual strategy. everything important in stellaris is hidden in multiple layers of menus - almost nothing relevant is visible from the map screen

it's like a game of solitaire. i haven't even encountered my rival yet, and i'm playing on the smallest possible map.