Sounds like the triggers need to be refined a bit. They may even be pulling data from the wrong people (i.e. you did X and Y they don't like getting a weight of A, and another race did X, Y, and Z, getting a weight of B, so A+B = C which means they should complain, and because you're the human, you get the noise). Not saying that is what is happening per se, but that sort of thing is what causes problems with games.
At first I thought this point was silly, but in retrospect I think I agree with it. From a game standpoint it means nothing. A turn is a turn. We can say one turn takes a week, a month, a year, a century, or one picosecond. So from the game standpoint, it means nothing. But from a story perspective, it does have an impact. I always thought years were too long in games like Civ (its right for the development, but so wrong for movement). But I think weeks are too short.
1. Adding the ability to view technologies in the trade window. You can already, rright click on a tech in the Diplomacy screen will tell you the same info as you get in the tech screen.
Three points: 1. Comparing Civ IV to GC2 is spurious. Civ IV DID make design decisions due to MP requirements that detracted from SP, and it took a while to get it even workable (anyone remember Civ III Play the World - bad, bad, bad, bad MP). 2. Comparing Firaxis Games to Stardock is also spurious. No offense to Stardock, but Firaxis is a much wealthier company with a big name lead dev and several big hits under their belt. I obviously have no numbers on the design cost
My nickle for what I would like to see in GC2 as an enhancement, or perhaps for GC3. 1. Player control of tactical combat. Sure watching my ships fight is pretty, but it gets old pretty fast. I would rather I could conmtrol them. Turn based tactical would be okay, or some kind of relatively slow realtime would be okay (like Homeworld). With the relatively small numbers of ships in the fleets, this would be more feasable than it would at first appear. 2. These ships
