Done (and by this i mean look carefully and interpret the possible situations of the *G* option on the previously linked surface with triangular based grid.)!!

(PS; Hey, i edited for TYPOS only in what you refer to, SoleSoul.)

Ex-ac-T-L_Y!

But now, have another look at my earlier definition knowing the above...

...it is a single decision taken within reasonable limit(s) dictated by a ruleset that leads to better results by deduction and not being offered multiple ways to achieve the same thing.

better results being a twin replica of your "more optimal paths of play" used to express a similar logic.

-- would do.

I am all for having more "special" improvements, but just adding more tiles would mean that players would just spam more econ, production, and reserch imps, and ignore the new ones. Instead, we eould need a system in which different improvements require different terreins to be buildable: factories would only work in deaserts or mountains (lots of minerals there), farms would only work on praeries, and so on. Maybe have terraforming techs that can turn one type of terrein into another...

If they do make a system like we are describing, it might be nice to see a new layer of planet types in which some are, say, mountainous (more mountain terrein for factories), some are Pastoral (more praeries for farming & pop growth), and so on. Might add a bit of spice to the colonization rush.

Not necessarily - the ruleset becomes entirely new and alters the gameplay dynamics to a point where the newly introduced variety can be "exploited" as much as we can already with the actual "special" extras such as SP, GA & TG, etc

Theory1; (One of many other possibilities, btw) Starport capacities... we can only fit a maximum of ships in THAT stock default PI. Now comes a system where we upgrade or 'link it up' straight to the orbital layer -- giving advantages, a modular type of context like Starbases, 5+ more ships, mine fields... fine-tuning it to be more efficient.

Theory2; Don't think squares 12x6 plain and simple surface grid anymore for the following. Manufacturing *resupply* through virtual pipelines that provides raw materials acquired by the (again, new) underground layer mining facilities, water pumping stations, uranium processsing plants that even applies modifiers to the mp values. Automated as soon as you drop a factory which, in turn, can grow through upgrades represented on surfaces *polygonic* areas of control or connected through a systematic way of gaining productivity.

Theory3; Similarly to the Terrain dependant assets suggested but after having been tied up with some layers 'features' that, for example,  picks up weather events or geophysic activities to INCREASE available energy as a new kind of resource. Once again, automated and linked to the nearest network of the above Factories. Bang, ThunderStorms = additional mps. Polar region and arctic supply of de-iced fresh water. Once more, and i insist... automated & NOT in any way or interpretation something more to manage.

Theory4; What is your "take" on the Asteroids principle? Minerals, right? Supply. Then, what IS actually on real planets, space debris or apple trees, etc? Sure, it is presumed as being all there indirectly. But if you'd stare at tiny left-bottom-side icons (sounds familiar - Bonuses!) that indicates locations of optimal *resources* for any type of other new PIs... say, what would you do with a natural BlackHole that outputs 75+ energy wattage steadily? Lab, Factory, Market, Morale or not, btw. Repeating -- a_u_t_o_m_a_t_e_d feature.

Theories x+y+z; you do the math.

-- Yes, if i confirm this decision by some reasonably strategic deduction (of my own, skillfully or even through foolishly emotional reaction) in a popup that states Yes/No.

-- It's pretty accurate already with the 75% influence trigger condition, does that make absolute sense to you in ANY context other than whatever supplemental ways for you to contradict me - again? Please no answer, i figure everyone reading is smart enough to at least grasp the essential logic behind a (or many) Victory condition pre-defined by the current ruleset.

Sooner or later, you are going to have to admit that MAYBE you are somehow wrong with your ideas ***IF*** someone or a majority of people here in this thread could prove it to you or be bothered enough to try explaining. I haven't seen any evidence yet that mines are better or worst than yours.

I think it may work, it's my opinion. Fine. Cope with it.

I second that!

Should the AI get a similar popup? If not, why not?

That's a specific victory condition, not an "he's going to win, so lets end the game". Having massive influence only wins the game because there's a rule that says if you have massive influence you win the game. It says precious little about your relative military or economic strength.

What I was talking about is you being in a dominant military/economic position, one that could spend 300-500 turns cleaning everyone up. But one that, with reasonably competent play, would clearly win, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

In Chess, this happens when there is a sequence of events that directly leads to mate and there are no other alternative moves that can save you. The rules of Chess are simple enough that it makes determining this fact rather easy. The rules of a TBS game are complex enough that such determination is difficult if not impossible.

Because fixing them would simply be making a patch to GC2 instead of designing a proper sequel.

You can't add mechanics adnausium (and have a good game); at some point, you have to remove old stuff to make room for the new. And for a game as mechanically full and interdependent as GC2, increasing complexity in one domain requires decreasing complexity in another.

First, I'm not aware that PQ is a problem.

Second, removing something does not mean that the game gets less interesting. How interesting the game is depends on the mechanics that it has, not the mechanics it might have had if something hadn't been removed.

When I say I want population removed, I mean exactly that: it goes away. Now there's a hole in the game; room for a city-based mechanic for producing money. What will that mechanic be? It's a two-step process, but the particulars of the second step don't need to be worked out before the first step is decided on. The reasons for removing population are because it is a bad mechanic, not necessarily because any particular replacement is better.

No, this is backwards.  If you're going to replace something, you damn well better know what you're replacing it with first.  Otherwise lazy and/or overworked devs will simply leave that hole in the game and ship it.

I read your post with your 17 or 19 "remove this" things.  I don't remember seeing any (there may have been one) suggestions on what to replace them with.

"Replace it with something that doesn't suck" doesn't count.

Just out of curiosity, have you played Sins?  It would seem to meet as many of your requests as any game is ever likely to do.

Well, I re-read it (again), and I'm still not impressed.  Fully half of it is either "remove x and don't replace it" or "remove x and replace it with", and I quote, "something that doesn't suck", albeit not always in those words.  In other words, you really have no idea what you want to replace a number of x's with.

I must have missed your post(s) about combining influence and espionage.  I'll have to go back and have a look.  I must admit that sounds interesting.

The demo for Sins is actually quite lenient; I would recommend redownloading it and playing around in a real game.  It's true the tutorial is somewhat lacking.  Theoretically you're limited to 90 minute games in the demo and you can only use the one small map, but since you can play as many games as you want, it's not that big of a deal.  And being limited to the small map helps the learning curve somewhat.

It's worth noting that Sins has bombers and fighters, so not all of your requests were met, but I don't believe any game ever will meet all of your requests.

Which half? The only ones I can see where I don't describe what the effect of the replacement system should be are:

6, 14, 18, 27, 30, and 32.

22 doesn't count, as it's a warning not to add these to the game.

Yes, but again, my premise is that things that are bad should be removed; that the decision to remove them should not have to wait for an adequate replacement to be designed. Also, I know what the replacement system should do. That I can't explain the mechanisms involved in creating that effect is fairly irrelevant.

That's because, in any actual game design process (which we are not a part of), the specific mechanics will change. What matters is what the mechanics should be trying to accomplish, not exactly how they go about doing it.

For example, Elemental's resource system has the goal of removing production time or lessening its importance as a factor for unit construction. Exactly how it goes about these things? Well, that's something that will be ironed out by the process of game development. There are several ways of going about it, and they one they're choosing is just one of them.

What matters to me is what the big, important decisions are. It doesn't matter exactly how you allow defensive ships to work in the game, whether it is a flat bonus to defense for ships in orbit, fleeting all orbiting ships, or something else entirely. What matters is whether the game should provide mechanics to do that or not.