Maybe I do overrate specialization, the numbers aren't clear. I think I can on average get 3-4 times more production of a particular resource by specializing a planet than if I generalized it. But if I need 3 planets each specializing one resource, specialization probably only gives modest gains overall, maybe in the range of 20 to 40%. That is a big amount long term and might make a big difference if the AI was better, but at current AI levels it's not a big deal. I expect the AI to get better over time so I want my colony management skills honed, and micromanagement when specializing is helpful to be reduced.

I was unsure whether I should have mentioned issue #3. I don't really understand what you said on that point. But I do have times when I want my shipyard idle and my planet queue empty, and the "projects" don't work like they used to anymore so they aren't so good most of the time.

Playing on an insane map and specialize your planet as the OP mention is in fact an INSANE task to do in the long run with the current game mechanics. 

I do agree with the OP on all the issues this entails if this is the route you choose to go, which is the most efficient way for sure. Although it totally breaks the game and makes it pointless to play in its current state so why bother with it is my next question.

I can easily micromanage the first 30-50 turns and find myself with 5-10 times more total power than all the other AI (on hardest setting) and what have I accomplished?

In my opinion thees mechanics need a strong pass with the nerf bat and streamlined, make good strategies less strong and much less micromanagement heavy. This would also have the positive effect of making the AI more competitive for everyone.

I agree. Having an governor that properly specializes a planet and can control the distribution between production/research/wealth would be perfect. And they could be used by AI to make the planets not terrible.

Generally agree with the OP; if you are playing for maximum gain then the micro required becomes unwieldy, to say the least.

Such micro is prohibitively impractical in MP, not only because of the excessive turn length but also on account of a bug that resets your Econ wheel on non-Imperial setting worlds when restoring from a save game.

Yep, pretty much agree with all your points OP.

I particularly dislike the forced upgrade path for factories / research / markets - would much prefer the old GC2 style. i.e. I have researched Xeno Factories, I can build Xeno Factories directly.

And as for production wheel - horrible way to try and set 100% values. A simple option (directly on the colony screen) to one-click for 100% M / R / E would solve a lot of the micro issues. Even better if there was a k/b shourtcut for it - but that is another issue that needs more widely addressing.

Unless you're trying extra hard to min/max, I find this level of micro fairly irrelevant:

1. You max manufacturing until everything is built.
2. You 99% your research/money/military manufacturing (or throw in some extra % of social mf for pop growth).

Every time you get new relevant building techs or terraforms, you repeat #1 and #2.

It's a fairly short cycle and there's no in-depth manipulation required. The main tedium is remembering to check the planets every few turns to see if they have something in queue or if they've reverted to projects.

Still, going to each planet and resetting it is obnoxious, so I can agree with that.

For pure min/max you'd have to break that up (because you don't actually want to build everything up front) and probably drop automatic upgrades, but that's ... tryhard. I'd do it for my first planet, maybe the second if it's major, but that's about it.

That said, overall I like the concept of "production groups", e.g. labeling a planet as "research" and then setting a global "research planet" production wheel/slider.

That would take care of some of the intermediary steps and automate the adjustments for dozens of planets at once.

Yes this would also be resolved by the planet groups.

I think in tandem with the planet groups, the global empire-wide setting should have an "override" checkbox that you can set to override local or group settings. When your "rush" or w/e is complete, then you can uncheck the box and the group or local setting would be restored.

Meh, I don't see this as a major priority if the planet group concept and the global overrides are there. Those two things would reduce the micro down to rather low levels, and the "specialization governor" seems like a lot of effort for low value.

The notion of the wheel also just invite people that don't stop to think of what it is they are doing to play sub optimally. Such as I see on streams where they put 50/50 on production and science where there are no reason to do so... you just delay both production and research in the end. This is one of the major reasons I don't like the implementation of this mechanic.

You either put research at 100% because there is a tech you need or you set production to 100% to build those new research facilities up faster so you can gain more research and then research techs you need that much faster. When you split the production and research you just delay the development of the tech you need... anything else is just an illusion.

Why do you have a tool which by its very nature fool the casual players to gimp themselves and at the same time a tool in which the AI will never be able to use properly. Sure the AI can find the optimal values but it can never understand when to use what properly because it is utter trash at long term planning like that. For the AI to be more competitive it is better with a system that are slow to change, there simply are too many benefits to the human player.

If the focusing wheel for individual planets had not been there would it not be even smoother?

You would not have to bother about it at all and your buildings would simply produce depending on how they are built and how you set the Empire Wide sliders.

I really don't see why you would rebuild you world much, that would in general be very inefficient practice. You can still specialize your worlds, just not as extreme. You can also then use the projects (if redone) to transfer some production into research or wealth when you don't have better things to do.

I usually restrict my games from using the individual focusing wheel and that works just fine, even against Gifted AI. I don't do this because I dislike the slider, but because it just give the player too much control and reduce the competitiveness of the AI. I have also yet to see the AI move slider on anything but empire wide. It might do it but I have so far never seen it.

When the AI start using this mechanic in a decent way then I will reevaluate the way I do this...

I can't wait to see the governors come into the game. They will be AI you know, and while they may be helpful for some,

I can already hear the howls go up that the governors don't put things in the right place.

The game would work perfectly fine without the ability to manage sliders for individual planets. The way you build on the planet is enough. I have specialized production, research and wealth generation worlds in my games. I would not be surprised if the majority of casual players never use the focusing wheel for individual worlds anyway.

I know that some people can't put rules and limits on themselves to challenge themselves. The game is simply too broken on the power-gaming spectrum and quite micromanagement heavy if played that way. The AI is a complete pushover even on the hardest difficulty due to how certain mechanics work. It is not hard to be five to ten times as strong as the closes AI opponent by turn 50.

I could also beat the AI with using only half the hull capacity if I like... the battle system is so easy to break its not even fun. I will not dispel that illusion here though, competitive players might be sad. 

But luckily I don't feel like I have to use all the tools in the game since I actually want to feel challenged, so I want my economy to grow in a similar way that the AI grow theirs.

I see no wrong in being competitive... I have tried a few games but quickly abandoned them all so far... simply no challenge once you know the tricks.

Agreed. The whole thing gives the impression that the game was not sufficiently playtested before release. I commend Stardock for their track record of post-release support, but I am baffled by the number of things in the game that are fundamentally broken. I guess GalCiv is first and foremost aimed the the casual demographic who will not notice or care. There is no doubt the game has a spark of fun, but I think the more serious players that make up the majority of the forum population will see what could have been with a few more months focused on balanced. When it comes to strategy games, I've always been of the opinion that a feature should not be in the game if the AI cannot properly use it.