I agree with you, GalCiv isn't about tactics.

Exactly my thought.

My problem here is that doing this will take resources away from some other aspect of the game or it's development.  Resources better spent improving AI, diplomacy, any number of things. 

I agree, but it will be a popular enough feature that I can't imagine SD not putting it in.

the GSB model is something that would be hard for humans to exploit.  (not a mention a good game in its own right)

It's not full-on AoW style tactical combat.

Not to mention it was $10 well spent on Impulse.

The key part here is "unwary human player". Now, a good enough tactical AI can certainly beat the human... but this would detract from work on other, more important parts of the game.

Yes, it's a popular feature... but as some of these posts suggest, not as popular a feature for GalCiv. Also,  look at the whole "carriers" thing... there's certainly a fair amount of support for them, but Stardock has said pretty much definitively there will be no carriers in GalCiv II, GalCiv III, or a hypothetical GalCiv IV. Just because it's popular doesn't mean Stardock will put it in.

That said, although I've never played GSB, if GalCiv III must have tactical combat, your description sounds like the preferred option. (BTW, what is AoW?)

This post said it best on the topic:

There is a difference right now between simply seeing the outcome on the galaxy map (they go boom or you go boom) and examining the outcome more closely on the battle screen, even if it's just to skip straight to the report.

You can see which ships were destroyed, and how long it took for their defences (if they had any) to fail.  You can assess whether the design gives you value and/or durability for bc, or simply crams lots of firepower into the first round, meaning you need to keep building more ships.  You can see which enemy ship designs are giving your ships problems, and then research technologies to solve those problems.

The AI can research technologies to help give its ships a better chance, and it does, but some of the ship designs it comes up with have glaring flaws.  Such as, they take too long to build (so there are fewer rolling off the production lines over a given time) or they don't provide value for bc when they are built.  And the AI doesn't value its ships enough to stop throwing them at enemy fleets piecemeal, which ironically makes the job of destroying those fleets harder due to the steady increase in max hitpoints of fleet ships surviving the battle.

The AI should not be cowed because some upstart galactic civ has been churning out cheap fighters and has a solid military 'rating' - it should plot to mop up those fighters with better weapons and better ships.  A human player that refuses to use force when necessary (actually risk a confrontation with just those cheap fighters to throw into battle) should suffer some kind of a diplomatic hit until they build a real military and fight some real wars.

What I meant was, just building a stopgap military force shouldn't give a + to relations for Military Strength, although it could remove a - if the AI doesn't have anything better.  You would need to build advanced fighters and capital ships to get a + to diplomatic relations.

Similarly if a player's ships never actually see any use, or the player's tactical prowess is poor, they should get a - to relations after a while.

Obviously though if an AI is to succeed in combat, tactical or otherwise, it needs to take note of these things and not just get grumpy or cheerful on the diplomacy screen.  The more skilled a player is in tactical combat, the more of an edge the AI needs to create for itself in order to compete with them.

I would be unhappy with this. Currently, building up a large enough military force in GalCiv allows you to completely avoid war except for some random events. As players go, I'm not much of a warmonger, and I like it that if I want, I can stay out of wars.

As a matter of what, what you're suggesting almost comes across as a - for peaceful behavior, which is just silly (except maybe for races like the Drengin and Korath).

This might be difficult to implement. How do you define "poor tactical prowess"?

This I do agree with. In my current game the Drath and Altarians have both actually paid tribute for my "superior military strength" of 4 ships with 8 total missile attack.

Not wanting spam to get the last word, I decided to throw in a comment here.

[Ed - the moderators deleted a spam post directly above this - so this is not any sort of dis of MarvinKosh whose post NOW is the one above this]

I read a lot of books.  One common element is that certain scenes or events make or break books for me, and I doubt I am alone in this respect.  Such scenes might include a big battle, or chase, or even a romantic sequence.  If the author botches such scenes, the book fails, just as a horror flick would when the scary thing turns out to be too obviously a man in a rubber suit, a al 1950s.

Such scenes generally need build-up or stage-setting, and that takes a lot of pages/words.  Readers or movie goers accept that pages or minutes will be necessary to get to the key scenes.

Space battles are those key scenes in games like this.  Yes, 4 X means the emphasis is on exploration and empire building, but the reason is to conquer and that means winning wars, hence battles.  Yes, one can win other ways, but for a game to be profitable, it must be bought and paid for by more than a very small sliver of potential players.  I, for one, would enjoy GC2 much more if I actually got to do something with all those ships for which I spent so many hours researching techs, building the yards, settling the planets, getting my empire up, and all that stuff.  SEIV made a decent gesture in this direction, with targeting priorities and formations, but GC2 has not.  I am not declaring what the exact answer should be, but I feel strongly that nothing is not enough.

Yes, space battle sequences and treatments would be chrome, and hence a burden on devs who might otherwise focus on infrastructure areas in the game.  However, if GC3 is not to be multiplayer, which is where a lot of the market is, then failing to build in such chrome will even further narrow the market.

While I have more to say on the subject of tactical combat, about your other features: 2 and 3 are good (actually, 2 is a must-have, particularly if you can mod the 'heroes' and 3 is more "would be nice"), but what's the big deal with hexagonal grids, anyway?

Sins of a Solar Empire has tactical battle...I believe.

That is another game I was looking into getting... But first I will be getting GalCiv II.

My end line is this: if making tactical combat will detract in some way from the strategic part of the game, I want no part of it. If Stardock can manage to integrate tactical combat without overshadowing other aspects of the game, and with equal (well, close enough) balance between letting the AI handle battles and fighting them yourself, I will gladly pay extra for it. I am not into GalCiv for tactics, but if tactics can be made to work as part of the game (and not the main focus of the game, as in some other space 4X games), then I'm fine.

Incidentally, like the last poster, I would also want the option to view battles that you're not playing out.