I really dislike where this game is going.
Between "galactic terrain", forced hyperlanes, and an emphasis on static defenses, they're turning what used to be a "realtime space 4X grand strategy game", into a "realtime 'space-themed' 4X grand strategy game". Stellaris post-1.9 is going to turn into a reskin of a boring old land-bound grand strategy game, literally taking away the thing that best differentiated it from other similar games. :|
So what is it that you think makes Master of Orion 2 and/or Endless Space 2 so different from Civilization and/or Endless Legend?
I never played Endless Space, so I can't say how different it is from Endless Legend. But I never managed to become interested in Master of Orion.
I personally think it's both necessary and should have been totally expected.
The rule for Paradox games, since CK2 (and somewhat before that), is, "ship the game incomplete and finish it later via DLC."
By "incomplete" I don't mean it doesn't work, or that it isn't a recognizable game. It's more like "prove that you can make a working game with this premise, and worry about the details later."
With Stellaris you can easily see where that happened: the FTL system never really made sense. The fact FTL type was just a customization choice, with no implications for balance or anything else, also suggests they were more worried about simply showing off a bunch of methods with no idea what system they'd eventually end up with.
I mean, cmon: a single patch where they're going to revamp from the ground up: 1) borders 2) space stations 3) movement on the map 4) the wargoals system 5) apparently something about combat as well? Stellaris 2.0 is the game they should have released.
The building/tile/economy system is another one that's ripe to be rewritten from the ground up. Just watch, in another year it'll be "sooooooo it turns out that Tiles don't actually add anything to the game because adjacency bonuses are too tedious to work with..."
FTL selection is not a "customization choice", not if it's touted as the reason why moving forward with more changes is 'impossible'.
If it were just a 'customization choice', we'd be having a way to have all three transit modes in equal capacity, not be forced to use only one. The weapon choice is far more meaningless, but it's kept because every empire can research the two options not picked.
We could have had Warp as the best drive system for exploration and construction, with Warp wind-up and wind-down being longer not just with distance, but with the size of fleet moving through. Those who choose Warp at startup gain that freedom of exploration and expansion, but have to research Hyperdrive and convert any existing military to it later on so that their fleets aren't reduced to one jump per season later on.
We could have had Hyperdrive as a primary drive system for outgoing military fleets, being fast to engage and disengage on entry and emergence, regardless of distance or fleet size, but limited to its travel lanes - lanes that could be seen by anyone with hyperdrive technology, and subject to blockades and chokepoints, and galactic topography. Those who choose Hyperdrive at startup can immediately start building up their navy, with no cost for later upgrades, but would end up limited in expansion and movement of their own science and constructor ships until they can research Warp drive.
And we could have had Wormhole stations reworked to be more akin to Hiver jumpgates, providing instant travel to connected stations only, letting your ships be anywhere within your empire within a matter of days, an ultimate choice for defensive fleets. Those who would choose Wormhole stations as their starting tech, would have the ability to expand their Wormhole network from the outset, at the cost of tremendously slowing down their own expansion. A Wormhole fleet would not be able to move out of a system without a Wormhole station, only into it - a Wormhole-using empire would have to send a constructor ship through to any new system they have, before being able to expand further from there.
Just like that, all three choices are viable starting technologies, and all three exist at the same time. Hyperlanes are still the best choice for large-scale military action, making chokepoints and fortifications matter. Warp is still there to provide the freedom of expansion and exploration. Wormholes are still OP as a defensive tech, but severely limit those who choose to start with them. And since one ship can only ever have one drivesystem installed, you would not have a situation where a fleet Warps into your space and can suddenly freely move around with hyperlanes. With no one drive tech being the sole choice for an empire anymore, each of the techs can afford to have actually
crippling flaws, such as Warp fleets being locked out of movement and combat power for
months, if not
years, or Wormhole fleets being able to get stuck in a system until a Constructor ship arrives to rebuild a destroyed wormhole station, without it being such a necessarily big problem in the long run.