I can not comment on Intrigue, have not bought it yet (waiting for the range AI bug/cheat to be fixed). I do however totaly agree with the game been in a state of "work in progress". There is far to much to and fro with the mechanics. Population - production, Starbase Spacing, Improvement % and + modifiers etc. Shame tbh, it adds to the confusion and frustration for new and old players.

That however clears up a question one of my RL mates asked me the other day regarding a window poping up every turn for him due to him been over the planet cap for his Government. He thought it was a bug, I did too (by his description) but could not check to fix it due to not owning Intrigue.

Frogboy has also said AI wont have/use Commonwealths, so that is pure cap on the human player.

Hmmm,  I saw significant influence drops every time I created a commonwealth...   though thinking about it this could just be because of some mechanic that gives % of the total for the calculation of influence.           As I said I need to play several more games just to put my initial thoughts into full focus.

Mostly at this time the whole government system is very poorly implemented in my opinion.     There is no explanation as to how Commonwealths function.   The moral hit for having extra colonies is very very artificial and not explained at all.

Their should be a linear moral/burocracy rate that can be figured out...   so X many colonies = X * overhead + Penalty  to figure out the cost of the colony.   Extra colonies should cost more simple as that.  GCII used this mechanic beautifully to put natural breaks on the colony rush... I don't understand why  a similar system is not part of GCIII      my 100th colony should add that much more to my "federal Gov" just to run... etc..

This would help balance out the Tourism money...  etc...

And various types of Gov should change how much red tape the gov produces... etc

One other thing that would massively help balance the game...

Planets should need to build like a port of Call or a customs office or something similar to tap into the tourism money.  It is really game breaking late int he game where new planets gain hundreds or thousands of credits before a player has even built anything.

new colonies should have higher upkeep.. and that upkeep should be mitigated by the government styles....   but never ever ever should a new colony make you money...

A) Buildings at the scale we are talking about are pretty massive complexes. Presumably a planet with no "buildings" has quite a few... and potentially millions of people living there. Just nothing particularly special. So I think some influence is justifiable regardless of buildings.

Agreed, a good idea to limit tourism would be to require at least some sort of building first.

C) I think its unfair to say there is "no explanation" to a morale penalty for having excess colonies. Fairly enough, I don't think there is much explanation in the game itself... but Brad/Frogboy has been pretty clear and written numerous blog posts explaining the thinking behind this. Disparate and distant populations of colonies typically dislike being controlled by far away "motherlands" who care little for their local concerns. Its a sensible feature, and necessary to make governments more than just which bonuses you want. Voting or non-voting governments are important if you are over-colonized.

D) I also agree that a financial hit for new colonies is a good idea in general, ala GCII, but I don't mind what we have now.

I think most of the systems introduced in Intrigue are a very good start. Yes, most can use some refining and expanding. I would love to see more governments to allow more role-playing immersion (more government for Machine Empires and Hive-style etc).

I think the events are just the tip of the iceberg and more will continuously be added in future expansions. Unfortunately, the change to their DLC policy seems to preclude things I would love to see such as a 'Government Pack' or an 'Event Pack'. 

I think the game is a pretty good state atm (mechanically) and I'm looking forward to further development in a way I hadn't been since the game was first released.

Thank you Taslios for this topic as I was going to share similar observations myself and I can add to what you were saying. 

GalCiv3 went long way since the first release. Originally it felt pretty much like a wargame - all you needed to do was: build manufacturing planets, build research planets, build few market planets as needed - research some weaponry - conquer everyone on Godlike. No need for diplomacy or building anything else on the planets, no need for anything else to win the game...

Now, there are new elements in Crusade and Intrigue, which add more variations to the formula above, but the political and economical aspects of the game still can be significantly improved to actually occupy more of the players game time compared to the time spend fighting. Still that balance is to be achieved and there are quite a few changes needed for it to be there. 

One is that as you said, the United Nations and generally diplomatic interactions with other races are lacking. Why, because there is no economic need for that interaction. Each race should strive to get control over higher number of resources and wealth, but it should not only be required for say ship building (as in case of resources). I think each empire should have costs to operate - each of the facilities, i.e. ships, buildings, constructions, etc... should require money maintenance cost, but also resources to operate. Good example of how it should be done - Distant Worlds. There the ships require fuel, the armies, factories, research facilities might also need money and resources to operate properly. That and not conquest - should be the focus of diplomacy in the peace times. 

I.e. trade routes with the specific trading planets (hubs) should be added in to the game, in the similar way as it works in Europe Universalis, where the particular trading hubs control the trade of the specific resources and distribution of that trade in the region and where the trading currents are directed in which proportion. Then distribution of those trade roots becomes a negotiation  agenda for united nations and between empires. 

Regarding war as it is done currently - I think fighting on the surface should be changed from immediate one turn fighting to continues fight, which lasts several turns. That adds depth to each fight and overall warfare. As potentially you need also to spend say - ammunition for the legions to continue fighting and then you need to continuously resupply them. Which makes it important to manage logistics routes in each war zone. 

In regards to citizens and there overall content - each planet needs to be populated with it's own pre-dominant race. Each race has to have a specific view on political system they like, whether they are malevolent/pragmatic/benevolent, relation to war, taxes, what planetary improvements they like, what luxury resources, etc.  That all should contribute to overall mood of the population on that particular planets and define if it's productivity/taxes/likeliness of appraisal.