I really don't like spamming constructors. Wouldn't reality be more like any construction project? Materials and equipment are shipped in as needed to build things. Much like the planetary buildings. Now if you did something like freighters (or equivalent) ship materials to the starbase and the constructor that was used to start it STAYS at the starbase. I mean, when they build a building the excavators and cranes don't become the building.

Then the construction progresses based on 

1) How many constructors are there (more constructors speeds up the process)

2) Supply of materials stockpiled

If I could have a supply route that automatically ran between a planet and the starbase so I didn't have to micro it, cool. Additionally I would have to protect this route from raiding. Alternatively it could be sponsored like others have suggested. Either way stop the constructor madness!

I haven't been able to get my games past crashes enough to be really late game, or past the point I feel big enough to just smash everybody,  So, I am listening to some of the points being made and applying it to my games and thoughts as I get further and further.

I like accommodating multiple constructor modules.  I think it is an opportunity for a couple of tech developments and specialized miniaturization, and maybe a racial trait.  I like that it would stack with the Pragmatic ability if you went that way.  It does involve being able to request a specific ship type.  I use the "cheep constructor" I saw Paul using in an early dev stream.  Actually, I used that concept in GC2 and just stole the name from Paul.  I will have to reconsider what I use as throwaway constructor ships.  That will be interesting.  Considering the fuss made about overflow of other types, I would hate to be requesting a ship with 4 modules when I only had need for 2.  So that can't be allowed to be yet another micro nightmare replacing what we are talking about.  I am intrigued by the idea that a starbase could do automatic upgrades with automated constructor requests.  It would have to be implemented with both a tiny galaxy and an insane galaxy in mind, but it could be quite useful.  I like where all the suggestions are heading.

I still have to argue for the existence of actual constructor ships as part of the galactic economy.  If nothing else, they make for a lot of civilian ships to attack or protect.  I think that is actually a major point for constructors in the first place.  If you cannot safely move civilian ships to support your expansion, you need to find solutions for that.  And as the game progresses, there are just more civilians to protect or decide to do without.  I think that may be my main objection to the "sponsorship" concept.  It changes too much of the overall economy/combat interaction.  Gruesome as it is, shooting civilians is fun, too.

OK, the here is my 1c worth.   

1.  Constructors have the following usages (maybe more, just haven't thought of them).   1) buld a starbase 2) build research 3) build econ 4) build  modest defenses (say against early pirates perhaps)  5) build culture 6) build heavy defenses (strong points) 7) create a forward base for attack (allowing more modest range modules on ships)  8) mine resources 9) obtain relics  10) provide early warning posts (perhaps with extra scanning modules).    So the constructor/starbase system is flexible and combines with many different critical uses often in the same game.   Ex. do you want a string of starbases or a line of ships to guard a flank while attacking in another direction.    You can build constructors or ships.    Ships are mobile, but starbases give you many additional later options.  Ships are expensive to upgrade.  I find it hard to say that the micro involved in designing and placing ships is less intensive than placing a starbase and hitting "request constructor" a few times.  But my point is that I want that flexibility to decide how to use stuff and where to place it even after I build it.

Most of the defenses I build on starbases result from having the 2 constructors for 1 pragmatic choice and having no immediate use for the second one.  So I put in some defenses, can't hurt.  LoL.

2.  The comment has been made repeatedly that this is all about the late game.  Ok, currently I am on turn 248, gigantic universe, playing a custom race (the Fones) as pragamatic against all the standard races and "common" minors.    I currently have 110 starbases, 275 ships, and 59 colonies.  Other than the Drengin and one of the minors everyone is still in the game, and I am about to start what will turn out to be a two front war.   (I am sure the Yor will join in with the Krynn, lol).    At this point I am placing about 5% of my time on constructors (mainly to have a few ready if I need outposts during attack) about 15% of my time on colony maintenance, and the rest on ship design, build choice, and placement.  There was a point early in the game in which I did build quite a few constructors to get my research and manufacturing planets going, but I had few colonies then so it wasn't an issue.

Side Note:  The Yor are malevolent and yet I still can't attack them.   Not sure why.  Must have missed something.  Nothing in the malevolent table or the UP seems to provide that.

3. I specialize just about every planet I need, and I generally spend almost nothing on starbase defense.    I use my fleets for that.  Perhaps when pirates get meaner I will have to change that or be dedicating my fleet to anti-piracy.   So I generally only use 3 or 4 constructors per base and usually during the late early stages of the game.  Factories or labs or rarely culture stuff;  or relics (highest priority of course).    But I purposely am going for  a play style that limits constructor builds because I generally need colony ships (early) and combat ships (later)  more urgently.    Simple question: if you are spamming a  huge number of constructors why aren't you instead building a fleet to destroy your evil neighbor, or defend against him.   To each their own, I suppose.

4.  That all said I am all for helping manage things.  I saw a mention earlier that there needed to be a way to cycle through shipyards to check on stuff.    My suggestion is to be able to cycle through starbases so that you know whether to click "request constructor" or not.    Can you upgrade the lab on the starbase?  Click, done.  

I admit that early on I don't carefully figure out how many constructors I need and etc.   I sense the situation in the game, how many colonies need built up, and just click constructor a few times on certain shipyards.  I may set a rally point for those stabases so that the constructors head to the right area.   Then I send them when I get them (if I need to), it isn't a big deal.    Exact placement to get the maximum?   Well, I take the low lying fruit.   I try to mine 2-3 rocks at a time.   I try to support 2 or even 3 colonies at a  time, and so forth, but I don't make a careful study of it.   Perhaps when the AI gets a lot better I will have to and my opinion may change.

5. My last point is that the game is still changing quickly.   Their will be a big change in the AI coming up, and pirates will get their own bases.   This will force changes in how one prioritizes things like constructors vs combat vs planet builds.     How that will impact things I don't know, but I am thinking I will be building fewer starbases early on because I will need ships.

In summary ideas to streamline the game are fine. Ideas that require major reorganizations of the code aren't likely to have much appeal though.   I have suggested a couple of simpler things.   Personally I am not that concerned with constructor spam.   I do admit that if I were playing on insane with only 6-8 opponents the building phase of the game would take forever and it would mean 1,000 starbases.    But that isn't much of a game to me.    I prefer a game where each faction has a fair shot at a reasonable start but that contact wont take 200 turns.   So on insane I would think 30-50 or more factions about right (haven't tried though).     I would be much more interested in some system that lets me know I can now build X (usually a capital building of some sort) on colony Y (that I have prepared for it), but even in that case as the tech tree gets set and I get more familiar with it I will know what to do.    (Guess what, I use auto upgrade universally at the moment.)

Well, that's my take.   At the moment I am organizing my fleets.    Hopefully the colonies are managing themselves ok. If some colony needs a build, they can send a memo.

Well when the constructor spam was first posted I argued against it only realising it wasn't that important of a issue,  because I get more resource starbases fully upgraded in the late game than anyone else do to war, and a couple other starbases because I'm really not interested in this stradegy mainly because starbases.aren't that good lookIng I know flaky, and other than resources It doesn't bring a significant advantage to the game other than range. But this is a play style decision. I also don't build scouts,  or sensor ships to do something that warships,  and survey ships do better to my opinion. This is an issue of game style.

Lets assume from galactic civilizations 2 forums thisis some experienced gamers playstyle. They don't build anything untill they have at least 2 billion pop. They only build enough colony shIps to colonIse 15 planets, and trade for the others. They avoId colonIsIng planets dmaller than class fIve whIch doesn't make sense to me because wIth terraformIng they are passIng up class 16 planets. They don't run at 100 percent production on purpose. They set theIr taxes as high as possible to have 45 percent approval causing a slow population growth giving you less money in the end.  not building much factories.  Maybe building only farms and approval buIldIngs to Increase population.

My point here Is if you didn't fInd something else a lot.of early game is hitting end turn. ThIs Is why some people see thIngs dIfferently Is because dome people are busy wIth colonIsIng,  and planet manage ment ehIle others have to do somethIng else than hIt end turn. No wonder they want tactics they make it where there is nonthing to do. In all honestly to each his own playing style. I'm usually to busy to worry about starbases untill I get 48 planets after the colony rush.  again my point is game style. Different people play differently. You asked for an arguement why I don't know. I don't mind debating this.

Thereis no way they are going to totally redo the starbase system with onIy a month to release. I would be pissed if we get a gimped yor that can't increase population,  or an overpowering altarians. Because they totally reworked the starbase system at the end. So you would do better to Improve the current system. The issue they gave is you need to have enough non combative ships to give it a problem to either build military ships,  or civilisn ships. So it would help to come up with civilian ship ideas. So later there will be so many civilian ships that constructor s won't be so important to use up resources. 

They already tried cutting down on constructors. According to themit didn't work,  because you don't have a much else to build other than warshIps. I know this is not a problem for those who  either don't have a lot of starports,  or usually leave their starports empty except in times of war. This is another playstyle issue,  or a issue of overpowering. I'm going to guess the latter. 

I have a compromise that would solve the problem of to many constructors on screen,  or overpowered gameplay that will probably get eliminated from galalactic civilizations four because this is inneficient,  but at least  thIs wIll fix the current problem. The computer keeps track of how many turns it takes you to build a constructor,  and send it to the starbase minus any turns it spends idle at starport. Computer also keeps track of how much money the constructor,  and starbase costs. Now give the player the ability to automate this where the computer would reproduce this for each constructor only adding any extra costs for more modules. Connecting resource or starbase to sponsered starport. As far as gameplay goes thIs would boggle down the player just as much as constructor spam without constructor spam. Give the player the abIlIty to stop sponsering the shipyard. Give the player the abIlIty to pIck the shipyard  , and changs shIp yard,  or change how the starbase Is sponsered. You could make routes just like freighters. Still giving players the same oppertunity to take out constructors. Giving an option to not show constructor routes. You would be able to see oponents constructor routes unless you shut these off untill you turn these back on. If you want a different constructor this is how you would do it stop the process then build a new constructor send it to the starbase,  and upgrade it again this would start the process all over again with the new values. When the production changes because of the planet changing,  the number of planet sponsor s changing,  or playing with sliders changing production changes,  and this is going to be recalculated. I think you should be able to choose which shipyard to use for this. If you don't choose a shipyard to use then the nearest shipyard will be picked.

I agree with the very next post. At this point with the developers supporting the current system with a month away from release. There Is poInt about pIsting about totaling redesigning the system. You would do better to try to improve the current system like automating this process. At this point the ones who don't want constructors have lost. All you can do is improve on the current system.

My suggestion would be to compromise between some of these ideas. Frogboy has said he wants shipyards to be a decision point of resource management for ships, and lots of folks want to improve the "Fun" level of building starbases.

What if you combined shipyards and starbases? Might look something like this.

1) You start with 1 starbase in your home system. That starbase has a shipbuilding module to begin with. 

2) Constructors are reduced to a type of ship used to establish a starbase only

3) Once a starbase is established, it has a build queue and can build additional starbase addons (Similar to planets)

4) The tradeoff is once you build a Shipyard add-on to the starbase, it can then build additional modules OR ships. Now you have to manage a decision between improving the starbase or cranking out a ship.

5) Keep the sponsor system from shipyards, but apply it instead to the starbases build queue, which the shipyard module inherits. Perhaps allow planets to split their sponsorship so as not to limit # of starbases to # of planets available to sponsor.  

This would bring the starbase system more inline with the other resource management portions of the game, eliminate the need for spamming constructors, and add a way to make your shipyards defensible (adding military modules to the starbase through the build queue).  I also think this would feel more like howi envision a sci-fi shipbuilding facility might operate (as part of a starbase where people live and with strategic importance to your empire). 

One problem with multiple modules is that you still need to spam when upgrading parts - you still have to manage all of the constructors. It's less intensive, but still can be micro heavy.

I hadn't been keeping up with the schedule for final release and although I like the idea of having starbases sponsored like shipyards once a constructor has built it in the first place I can see that its a little late for such a radical change just before release. Maybe they could consider it for a later patch or for addition to one of the expansions. I'd rather they spent time on things like fixing the event system so it isn't so flawed if you play a synthetic and  general balance and polish.

Have to agree with a lot of whats been said above, currently starbases are far to tedious to build but still needed thus detracting from the game. 

For me there is a simple effort reward ratio that is highly skewed to high effort low reward.
It takes dozens of constructors many turns to build a decent defence base, but these can be conquered by a single late stage ship, or small fleet. 

I expect higher effort should bring bigger reward, thus a starbase I have been building for half the game should take significant effort to defeat. 

For me a starbase should be a colossal investment of time and effort, but leading to a monster. 
They are static and that limits them, but they are massive and should be able to support many many times the defensive/firepower of even the biggest ships, and thus I should need a huge fleet to bring them down. 

It would be truly awesome to have the same level of design control over starbases that you have over ships, just with many many more points to spend and construction options. 

The really big problem I have at the moment, is the system is self defeating. 
Its far easier to build a very simple starbase with only non-military function and build a specific fleet of ships to station at that star base.
This is much more effective defence, for far less effort and money than fully upgrading the starbase.   

I agree with androshalforc on every point.  Starbases are good as they are, we just need to be able to give them production queues and be able to set them as rally points for constructors.  So you still get all the micro without wasting a bunch of time repetitively sending out constructors to the same place to make upgrades you know you've wanted for 100 turns.

As has already been said well here, the Constructor system is a bit awkward and seems to be clunky and could use some work. Like many here, I like the idea of Starbases using manufacturing capacity in the same manner as Shipyards. The player must also be able to choose where to deploy their Starbases.  How to implement the upgrades and facilitate and streamline game play is going to take some serious consideration. 

One of the things that seems to be driving the problems with starbase management is that we now have to do mining starbases.

Frankly, over 50% of my starbases are for mining, and the majority of them mine only a single resource, because of the separation between stars (I tend to play on "loose clusters" or "scattered").   I'm not a fan at all of the replacement of the space miner/mining colony concept from GC2 to the new method.  I'd *MUCH* prefer we go back to the GC2 method of mining.   I'd like to keep a mining starbase concept, but only as a "relay" - that is, a nearby mining starbase would stand in for a planet in terms of determining how much production was received from a mining asteroid, which could then be "beamed" somewhere.

Reducing the number of mining starbases by 50-75% would go a *very* long way to keeping the micromanagement of starbases down.

One of the other issues I have with starbases is that there are several modules I often do not want.

Examples: The Perimeter scanner or many of the defense modules.

For fringe starbases, these make perfect sense. In the middle of my territory, not so much. However, it is easy to forget and to add modules to a starbase that have to go to these "useless" modules.

I would like a more automated version of starbase upgrades, and would want to ensure I can turn off certain modules that I consider useless on many bases.