I would certainly love GalCiv4 come for Linux as well ☺

Shame about 4, big shame. I hope that we will be able to mod that out. Its the most despised feature of the Endless Space and Stellaris communities, that alone should tell you something.

Based on my reading... it's less like Endless Space and more like the Total War games... with systems "abutting" each other, and transit from system to system being longer/abstracted. The map could still well be a completely flat series of hexes, but the inter-system hexes are no longer represented.

If I'm right, choke points will not be entirely possible, certainly not like any system with star lanes, but more-so than now, where perhaps two fleets and a starbase may well hold a border between one system and another... but travelling NEAR that border, skipping into the undefended adjacent system and then short-in-system trip. Basically... tactical movements in one system can translate into tactical movement savings in the next by micro managing your path.

Could be wrong.

Here are, in no particular order, some thoughts:

1. Fewer but more distinctive civ abilities.

------GREAT.

1. Most colonies aren't managed they provide what they provide.  If there's a particularly amazing planet, you can train a governor for that planet that lets you manage that planet (this way, even on a huge map, you might only directly manage a dozen planets at most -- or only 1 if that's your preference).

------Some will really dislike this. I think it's pretty great. 

1. Much smaller tiles (a ship would use 7 instead of 1 so that the hexes are more discrete).

------Hrm. Having a hard time picturing this, but it sounds like a good thing... might even translate to approaching planets from certain directions could matter. I look forward to seeing more some day.

1. Multi-tile, multi-turn combat that can be disengaged from (with the enemy being able to get a final shot if you leave the engagement area).  This allows multiple fleets to move in and reinforce and engage and potentially have fronts.

------I would really, really, love to see this work. I love the idea that space battles are not necessarily affairs that last minutes or a hour... but rather, that they can be evolving battles that last a month.

1. New data system to allow players to share mods in-game (XML, etc.).

------Sounds like reinventing the wheel just to avoid relying on steam. I have the unpopular opinion, that we live in a age of wonders, largely possible through monopolies akin to Steam (and I'm not saying that doesn't have bad consequences). However, I admit, that if you pull this off, it combines the Steam players with the GoG players and the like... that would be great... I'm just worried how much work it will take from your team.

1. Anomalies and scavenging separated so that you have scavengers picking up "Stuff" but survey ships investigate anomalies which create story-arcs.

------Simple and lovely. Can't wait to make new scavenging designs!

1. No campaign.

------Yeah... kinda inevitable.

1. More specialized (wider) tech trees with many techs boosting a type of weapon (rather than having to throw out your ship designs every few turns).

------Oh thank goodness thank you! I really prefer boosts to redesigns. Even if applying the Tech broadly to the fleet has some sort of extra cost beyond just the research.

1. Elimination of governments, replace with policies that let you choose how to run your civilization.
2. Redo of the ideology concept.
3. Diplomacy / Espionage systems merged.
4. Total UI re-design to support non-modal windows (so you can have more stuff or less stuff on the screen based on your resolution and preferences).

------All excellent choices. Arguably, ideology should inform policy options, or the other way around... what you DO says what you believe in... regardless of your public messaging. So if you approve "death furnaces" you are certainly endorsing a certain ideological angle.

Thanks so much for the open preview... obviously we should all realize none of this is certain and open to change.

Sounds very promising, frogboy. Looking forward to the Founder sign-up date...

^^^ credit card operators (me) are waiting for your email!  Do I have to post another Fry meme? 

Bigger maps with far more planets likey

Most colonies aren't managed is the reason I quit playing civilization after four. Colony management is the reason I keep playing this game. This was a deal breaker for civilization. It will probably be a deal breaker hear.

Travel lines is a huge minus for sins and endless space.

Everything else sounds fine.

Well I don’t think you will have to worry about the games being overly similar. I like the citizens and they were a great addition but completely replacing population with just citizens may make the game feel like you aren’t building an empire. 

Removing the high amount of dead space in the game and replacing it with clusters will make the game flow faster you see this and plan to increase the amount of planets to prevent the game from becoming a knife fight. Really be great if you have to research a tech to go between clusters and there would be an option to have everyone spawn in their own cluster if possible. I hate getting rushed although it is an effective strategy for the computer.

The thought  of not managing planets feels weird but it would speed the game up dramatically. 

My responses, in your no particular order   

1. Fewer but more distinctive civ abilities.

I always prefer lots of choices, personally, but it will depend on the abilities, how much they affect gameplay and how much we can mod them.  One thing I would like to see would be different life types, I mean really different, as in they wouldn't view the map the same way.  Carbon-based such as humans would like oxy-nitro planets, maybe a floater-type that would live on gas giants and so on.

1. Vastly, vastly bigger maps with far more planets.

Will comment at a later point in the post.

1. Most colonies aren't managed they provide what they provide.  If there's a particularly amazing planet, you can train a governor for that planet that lets you manage that planet (this way, even on a huge map, you might only directly manage a dozen planets at most -- or only 1 if that's your preference).

On the one hand, I like the reduction of micromanagement, but on the other, this could cause a rapid snowballing effect (especially in a war), if not handled properly.

1. Very different map layout.  Think "clusters" connected together with hypergates with void space (untraversible) inbetween.   Gameplay wise, imagine a series of tiny or small GC3 style maps connected together. 

Not sure I like the sound of this.  I dislike mechanics that can create chokepoints.  Will the hypergates be fixed at the games start? Or will we be making them?  If we do can multiple hypergates connect to the same "island" to avoid chokepoint issues?

1. Much smaller tiles (a ship would use 7 instead of 1 so that the hexes are more discrete).

I imagine that the smaller tiles are on the battle map.  This sounds interesting, however, are all ships going to be the same size, hex-wise?  It would seem odd to me that a fighter and a battleship would be that same size on this scale.

1. Multi-tile, multi-turn combat that can be disengaged from (with the enemy being able to get a final shot if you leave the engagement area).  This allows multiple fleets to move in and reinforce and engage and potentially have fronts.

Like the concept, so long as it doesn't slow down the late game too much.

1. New data system to allow players to share mods in-game (XML, etc.).

Anything that helps to make mods easier to share is an improvement

1. Anomalies and scavenging separated so that you have scavengers picking up "Stuff" but survey ships investigate anomalies which create story-arcs.

I take it that investigating an anomaly will take a significant amount of time?  Will we be able to make our own story-arcs via modding?  Will the story-arcs be like the current events - short blurb, an effect and nothing more - or will they be more robust multi-staged things?  Perhaps even leading to possibly galaxy-ending crises?  If so, sign me up now!

1. No campaign.

Sad, but inevitable.  Would have loved to know the outcome of that particular crisis.

1. More specialized (wider) tech trees with many techs boosting a type of weapon (rather than having to throw out your ship designs every few turns).

Sounds nice, I always prefer to make my ships more effective through upgrade rather than replacement

1. Population == Citizens.  A planet with 5 population means there are 5 citizens.  You move them around, specialize them, train them.

Hopefully getting more than 1 per empire per 10 turns

1. Elimination of governments, replace with policies that let you choose how to run your civilization.

Perhaps keep government and use them as a framework to put your policies in. 

1. Redo of the ideology concept.

Perhaps with each ideological decision, the points you need are reduced for your dominant ideology and increased for all others, perhaps drastically.

1. Diplomacy / Espionage systems merged.

Would totally love to see this

1. Total UI re-design to support non-modal windows (so you can have more stuff or less stuff on the screen based on your resolution and preferences).

Like.

I think 10 colonies is about the max before it gets tedious.The auto governor never worked in any game ever so I like the big mans ideas here.

I think the campaign story should be told in the sandbox.Some games have done this well ala AlphaCentauri,Endless games.

Some sort of tactical combat is a must imo.I like the FE style.Brief but with some depth.

Could be interesting especially if one can mix and match with custom factions.

Always a good good thing, I hate the reduction to number of planets (core game of course one can mod this).

I love the ability to micromanage all your planets.  I hate commonwealths in Galactic Civilizations III.  In fact I avoid them and never use them.  I like being in control of my civilization.  I normally just create a build queue and only revisit as needed.  Which in later turns is almost never.  In early turns often, but then you have less planets.  The only time I dislike micromanagement is if one takes over many planets at once.  But then again I just review each planet and then let it do it's thing.  Please don't take this away, although I agree is a great option for those that want it.

Hmmmm....  If you can pull it off where it feels like one supersized map then all for it.  If it seems more like Sins of a Solar Empire (except clumps of star systems versus one star system) then not a fan.  I'm with others I don't like artificial choke points.  Let me attempt to create one out of nothing.  Once again I don't use hypergates in Galactic Civilizations III, I don't like being forced down one path I want to choose my path.  Plus easy targets for enemies.  Maybe smaller maps similar to Galactic Civilizations III with extreme maps fall down this path.  Similar to one wins the battle, now off to the war?  There are still many other maps to conquer before the war is over... That would be interesting if done that way, where you may have 4 factions/races on one map, just to connect to another map and find 4 more to come and conquer ect...  Maybe in settings one could even choose to play the smaller game one at a time to create one large game, or just play the whole larger game all at once, or even be playing the smaller game, but have the larger game send ships your way from time to time, eventually bringing you into the larger game.

As long as it's easy to understand follow, sounds good to me.

Could be interesting, however, I'm one who likes to bypass the combat, by choosing the quick option.  I hope there would be that option in this as well.  Then once again I'd be all for it as more options the better.

Something needs to be there, always was promised in some sort for Galactic Civilizations III, however, to this point never put in to practice.

Not sure if I am fully understanding, however, I'd like to see scavenging/salvaging play a role, such as finding a free laser to add to your ship from a previous battle, no cost to your ship, minimum construction time to attach to your ship, maybe even adding to your scavenger/salvage ship on top of the hull size cap with certain requirements, like need to upgrade your power to support the extra mass, or weakening the hull unless you add integrity fields or reinforce the hull one way or another.

Never really played them anyways.  I know what other games do is they use the campaign as an in game tutorial where one can bypass this, but helps those that haven't played the game get into it.  Giving them helpful hints ect...  Some of them even will unlock special features for those that have completed these campaigns/tutorials.  This could give an option for one to have these in the game even if it's a smaller scale or dumbed down version.

I like this, I hate to have to constantly upgrade my ships or eliminate all the older ones at some point.

So if I have 8 million population, I have 8 million citizens?  I'm assuming this means 8 million population = 8 citizens.

Not really a point to the larger game play, so I'm fine with this.

As long as I'm not forced to choose which options I can have at any point of the game, that I can choose what I want from the whole list at any given point or eventually if I obtain those needed before it.

Should already have been.

With multi-monitors?  Maybe, hopefully?

Anyways my quick thoughts on the all powerful Galactic Civilizations Frog post.

Touching on a point about star lanes. From the outset (if anyone remembers) many folks were clamoring for a way to 'close or enforce borders' . I remember seeing dozens of posts about this. Unless someone can program the ai to 'see borders' (such as is done in Civ VI) the only way to enforce borders that I know of is to use star lanes. Do I like them? No but after playing hours of Stellaris I understand how they bring a strategic depth of play we do not have in Gal Civ.

You can create very nearly indestructible Starbases at choke points in Stellaris and this leads back into enforcing borders either with diplomacy or by force. 

I'll ask Frog directly and perhaps he knows.  In the game Civilization V and VI the hex based map has freedom of movement (like Gal Civ). What mechanism is present in that game which allows the Ai to understand closed borders and can it be applied to our space based game? 

Ideally an open map with enforceable borders is what folks want but both Civ and Stellaris enable the player to exploit the ai with choke points allowing the players tiny, smaller force to hold off and defend against a larger ai force. 

Myself and I imagine many other players love this depth of defensive strategy. I love it! 

Anyway I am very happy we have threads on another possible Gal Civ! 

Im going to reiterate. I hate closed borders. Players don't want anyone to be able to keep them out for no reason unless it is war. Didn't work in endless space, and civilization, and wouldn't work here. 

As far as ideology I don't like the fact that I roleplay, and my choices don't amount to anything. I can pick from all three. there should be an averaging system. Where my average choices decide my average tech choice. That way all my ideology points are also counted. Now ideology should have ideological names. Not benovolent means good. Or malevolent means evil. Also having more than three helps gets away from that good vs. evil concept.

As far as micromanagement is concerned it helps game immersion. If you eliminate planetary buildup. You just eliminated the reason I keep coming back. Planetary buildup makes you look different than any other game I can find. I keep asking for a terriforming option where I can terriform every land tile. From the last change I can see you keep not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not asking for an option to terriform one tile anywhere that is what you've given us. I'm asking when all other terriforming options are up right now I can't terriform any more tiles, but there is still land left on a lot of planets. I'm saying let me terriform the rest of the spaces. 

Those games don't have this so I'm not sure what you mean.

A way to think of it is that imagine a really really big map with the star clusters we have now.  Those clusters would work the way they do now.  But instead of having to send ships through empty space for dozens or hundreds of turns they travel through a hypergate.

I'm not sure I've ever foudn anyone who enjoys watching ships spend dozens of turns (literally) flying through empty space in clumps.

With regards to managing planets:

Right now, the default is that you MUST manage every planet.  Have 103 planets? You need to manage them all.  You can set up a governor to run them (poorly) but there is no choice.

What I would prefer is that colonies, by default just output what they output and that players tend to have a lot more colonies.  Players who WANT to manage more planets can train governors and send them there and that unlocks the ability to customize the planet.

Perhaps we are just misunderstanding what  you are trying to convey to us, but for me when you say "hypergate" in this context, it shouts, "artificial wormhole." 

Unfortunately, this also shouts, "chokepoint" since you can put all your defenses at the hypergates and keep your enemies out of your clusters.  It is precisely these chokepoints that we wish to avoid.

Please tell us that I am wrong!

The biggest motivator behind hypergates is that it's WAY easier to code an AI.

Not really.  It doesn't do much for the AI one way or the other.

I'll try to draw up something that helps walk through what I am thinking.  The goal isn't to create choke points but rather support larger maps without destroying pacing.

That's why I am picturing a map that would be akin a given cluster being the size of a small GalCiv III style map hooked to other maps so that you can have what feels like a more epic empire.

To pass to each of these clusters I asume there has to be a hypergate to use and only a hypergate? That creates a choke point even if that is not the intention.Can we create these hypergates to go where ever we want? How will the AI feel when a hypergate magicaly appears in thier cluster?

As to pacing, it would not be broken if stuff scaled by map size which it currently does not, hense GC3 pacing (not just pacing, more like everything) gets all borked up on big and small maps or maps that are cluttered with resources/planets/asteroids.

ATM this just feels to me like your trying to fix an issue which is great, alas it also feels to me your going about in a werid way. But we will not know for sure untill theory is put into practice

Like B5 small ships would need them but big ships make their own so in late game an invasion could bypass CPs.

Code breaking is not my forte, so in laymans terms plz?

Tiles use memory to store and CPU time to path find.

Pictured this:

The areas in gray have free movement.  The purple lines are hypergates. Once you have the tech to use them any ship can use them.

You can also research Jump Drives which let fleets select a cluster and create a temporary hyperlink to anywhere on the edge of a cluster which takes them there in N turns. However they can’t be intercepted in hyperspace.

This adds another dimension to the map and eliminates dead hexes.

Yep as we thought, choke points. Well I wish you well on that project. (I will not be seeing it).

I would like to argue against "way more planets". In a smaller game, every colony matters and every ship matters and every tech matters. These are "interesting choices".

I find that after a certain point (a dozen or so planets), i just don't care about them anymore. It doesn't matter if i have 20 or 2000 or 200000000. And if it doesn't matter, why am i still playing? Sadly, "more more more" seems to be the trend in 4X.

If the economy and combat systems were intricate and tight, having a smaller game with fewer units would create a game with more "interesting choices".