You can stay with me but, it won't be anything like your used to so you may just want to stay  

That seems fair enough. The people complaining about it being too easy are the ones min-maxing with optimal strategies. It's great that they've found them but it'll be even greater when they're up against an AI that plays just as viciously. I hope that the different races retain their personalities while playing to win. And it wouldn't hurt to give a bump to tech that seems to be overshadowed by more efficient options so we all don't head down the same paths on the tech tree. Tall order but you've got my wallet behind you!

This... one of the reasons why larger map games don't get completed.

Then you are the person I need.

I need you to send me your saved game.  I will use that as the basis for my AI and optimization work.

Someone did this with Sorcerer King recently and I was able to cut the late game turn times from over 40 seconds down to 6 seconds for him and everyone else in that situation.

In fact, anyone who has a saved game late game that has dumb AI or slow turn performance, send it to me. bwardell@stardock.com with the subject GalCiv III save.

I really like this. Thank you!

If no one else cringes, I will.  To my analysis, one of the reasons we lost the Frog on these forums in the first place was the kind of nasty debates started multiple times in multiple threads on multiple forums over subjects like "realistic" combat.  It is a loaded word and a loaded subject. It sounds like you are already aware of just how big an issue it is, and yet you think it will be all right to bring it up just one thousandth time more because you ask us cutely not to cringe.  Not gonna happen.  At least, not with me.  Since I am not in their marketing department, I have no reason to be silent on the subject of people who bring up issues long after they have been repeatedly been beaten to death.  The issues I mean, not the people.  At least, not yet.

I'm on board with this too.  And even if we don't get full battle control some means to direct ships at a macro level on an engagement by engagement basis.  The current ship roles are nice but it forces you into "one-size-fits-all" and that simply doesn't work for every engagement.  I think either option would require significant work to be done to the battle system.

EDIT: Also, totally unrelated but I'm loving the frack crap out of Escalation. Well Done!

The game hasn't crashed for me in awhile I think they fixed it for me with 1.83, but that doesn't mean there are other problems I don't have. I've always liked the game, and I think it now has a better user interface than two now. The are still upgrading two as of this year, so you can expect them modifying it in the year 2026, so realistically it wont be finished for ten years.  

Other than crashes, and a little balancing the game always worked the way it was supposed to.

I don't think this thread is the best place to discuss problems in detail. It would be better to discuss individual problems and solutions in other threads ... and there are already lots of threads and discussions providing exactly what you want. Just three recent examples: 

https://forums.galciv3.com/480408/page/1/#3656717

https://forums.galciv3.com/480191/

https://forums.galciv3.com/480070/page/1/#3655662

------------

As for my two cents in this thread:

Personally I am not regretting buying GalCiv3 and many of the DLCs so far and I probably will purchase more in the future. I don't see the need to stop development of DLCs or expansions in order to fix the current game. Also I can not complain about stability or performance. However I have to agree that GalCiv3 has two basic shortcomings which have already been mentioned:

1. The fight against the AI is difficult at first but later the AI can not keep up and it get's a little ridiculous. I sure hope the annoucements in this thread that this will be adressed are true.

2. The usability of GalCiv3 on larger maps is very poor and with almost every feature I have to seriously ask myself if any of the developers tried to play an insane map for real. And no, I'm not complaining about micro management. I like to micro manage even on insane maps - but I don't like to have to make 10 clicks where one would suffice. And I don't like to have to search information that should be provided in convient ways.
Yes, there have been improvements on that part, but as far as I know they all came after long struggles and lots of begging. An example are the sorting options in the ship and planets list - after a long time of begging, they were finally implemented ... but are they really thought through? I beg to differ. Another example are the "move to top/bottom"-arrows in the shipyard. I was happy when I read the update notes on that one and they are good - but did they thought of putting them also on the building queues on planets? No. NO, of course not - that would only have been the logical thing to do.
Apparently the GalCiv3 team has basically no compentence in usability engineering - and to be honest, I have given up hope on that part.

Let's try to keep these posts positive, I know many of us are frustrated at different things in the game but, there can be a more constructive way to get this point across

As OP, I formally rescind the basis of this post. Major improvements in the game have happened BEFORE Crusade, and the news on Crusade is so promising, and the expansion may go so far toward solving problems and improving the game, that it seems best to let StarDock do what they do best.

Thanks StarDock!

Hey Creemap. I play on insane maps with 2 to 3 opponents. I set the game to save every 20 moves. This means that near end game its hanging on to a few saved games which really slows the game down, After every 40 or so moves I hit the escape key. delete the previous saves listed and the save the game in its current state. Do that also at the end of a session. I only hold saves in the early game in case I blow it and can go back to an earlier save. Hope this helps.

Bit of a nit pick really, Stellaris is not a 4x, its GSG.