The irony of this post is that while you were writing out this rant, it probably never occurred to you that you could post your question on this forum.

janhardo should probably be playing a different game.  This one is not for him.

I can understand a mild complaint about the manual, but I am not too bothered by it, for several reasons...

1.  I'm aware of the usefulness of the Forum.

2.  I've read many parts of the GC3 Wiki (i.e., look at the section on just ship parts.  It's excellent)

3.  I've got the maturity to try to figure out things for myself (as I said, this is not the game for him)

4.  As Brad (the owner of the company) has stated, there are 8 more years of game development already scheduled (too soon for a comprehensive manual).

5.  I have watched several YouTube 'Let's Plays' and learned a lot from them.

6.  If a race of people were really going into space, they would not have access to a 'manual.'  They would have to write there own.

I also have another advantage.  I played GC2 and had access to their very good manual (95 pages), and had gained lots of experience with the Galactic Civilization framework and ways of doing things.  In janhardo's fragile state, he/she might be well advised to get a copy of 'GC2 Gold' and start playing that.  He could then gradually work his way up to GC3 or, he/she might even find that he/she is happier with GC2.  Good luck little fellow.

@Ambermonk Thanks for the comment on the Wiki ship parts.   It took me quite a while to do it and I wondered if it was useful.

@OP A game like GC (whichever version) and the way it is continuously going to evolve means that any in depth manual is going to be old by the time you read it.  So it is just going to be a brief introduction for beginners.   The Wiki will be closer but you also have to be careful.   If you want a game that is released and then never changes, it's not this one.

One way to look at it is how much effort do you want to put into something that is immediately out of date that could be put to fixing problems and developing more content?  

If you're the one who created that entry, my hat is off to you.  When I played GC2 I had a binder filled with that exact type of data, and that was my bible for designing space ships.  I wondered more than once if the same data would be available for GC3.  Thanks to you, it is.

Good job, very good job! 

Yes, i looked at the research tree in CG2 and noticed something...i can also hoover the mouse over the symbols in the research tree too and there is a orange ship symbol..yes i think i understand now  the whole picture of the research tree

The good thing about CG3 is the simplicity of keycommands.

Your other points are valid.  The manual is not a source of detailed mechanics info.  This does seem to be a product of this era of ever developing software.  I do miss having detailed manuals, even if they go quickly out of date. I do feel the dynamic response of the dev team is something wonderful enough to merit a lot of tolerance with the manuals.

However, the modern day solution is going to be the Wiki.  In the long run, it would be a silly duplication of effort for Stardock to try and match the info already in the Wiki.  Also, they have a pretty good idea of the creative and participatory nature of the fan base.  Why would they try an circumvent what they know will happen?  They're too smart for that.

So, I advise you to check out the Wiki and I send yet more thanks to the people who work on it. 

And of course, ask any questions you need or want here.

In the meantime, I will point out that trial and error has always been the best learning strategy, at least for me.  I make the most entertaining and educational mistakes that way. 

I got during gameplay a screen with United Planets (UP) ..this whole concept is not clear for me (even if your neighbouring civilizations don't like you) is there some information to find about this in the WIKI ?

Yes, and While your playing GC2, put GC3 on the shelf for the next 8 yrs. and when you return to it everything should be settled.

Trial and error is not wrong till a certain extent(degree), but please let the developer explains what he/she has created.. saves a lot of time!

But don't let me repeat myself.. let's (try )to play