I agree with this. Make combat interesting!

And the problem with endless space wasn't the cards it too was a rock paper scissors game. And the rock paper scissors aspect of it made the cards mostly meaningless, it would actually be interesting to see a game really try a cards/deck system. But again I am more for them actually designing a fully integrated / synergistic system for ships and hope they put on their designer hat with the goal of giving us something fun and engaging. The idea that auto combat and a quick video would do that makes me want to cry a little. What makes me really kick and scream though is if they put massive ship designers and tech tree unlocks for ships and then have some brain dead combat system.

I loved tactical combat in MOO2, getting my ships in position, especially when I had them decked out so a small force could rip through a much larger enemy fleet, use transporters or boarding pods to steal the enemies' own ships out from under them, etc.  I didn't mind the tedium ... but while I found GC2's combat viewer a bit underwhelming (and lack of range, speed or rate of fire differences in the combat viewer), I don't want a MOO2 nor even SOTS level of finesse (though again MOO2's was fine and I'd love an update to it, and I also loved SOTS ... the combat was just gorgeous and I loved being able to knock out enemy turrets!).  Maybe at most, something akin to Endless Space or Star Trek:  Birth of the Federation where, instead of commanding individual ships, you give tactics for groups of ships to employ against the enemy in something of a rock/paper/scissors, but your own technology comes into play to determine how much punch you can throw out, how much you can overcome potential evasion by the enemy and land your salvos accurately, how much you can roll or dodge enemy fire, how much you can deflect or absorb before your ship is destroyed (or its components), etc.  I wish combat controls would be kept simple, I think, to keep with GC2 ... though I hope the tactical interplay is more intricate (again taking into account one side may have invested in tech for better weapon ranges, accuracy, etc.)

I am cautiously optimistic about GalCiv3, having enjoyed the previous two titles. However, I am concerned about the general trend of feature creep these days in game design. Some strategy games try so hard to please all of their fans and add feature after feature, with sprawling tech trees, fully customizable ships with dozens of components, RPG elements of heroes and leveling up ships/commanders. These is a lot of emphasis on freedom and allowing the player to do whatever he wants. This is often justified with the logic that more choices are inherently better. But really, are more choices necessarily better, or "deeper"?

I am wary because inevitably a lot of these so-called choices are merely illusions; dozens of the options are frankly not worth pursing, and only a few builds are acceptable. That a game designer can't make dozens of choices viable is not really his fault, since this is a superhuman task that is just not realistic to complete. Rather, the sin is in the attempt to please everyone by keeping meaningless choices as part of the game.

Take a game like Diablo 3, which pre-release was advertised to contain millions of possible build combinations. It turns out there's really only a few builds for each class that are viable. So millions of those so-called builds were so inefficient that players never ended up using them.

Players often demand to play the game their way. They also want to have success regardless of their choices. But if both of this is true, if all choices lead to the same outcome, then it just means that the choices are merely cosmetic. Choices that are merely cosmetic don't result in a strategy game. For a RPG, I don't think there's anything wrong with a game with only a few classes, as long as the playstyles of each class are sufficiently distinct. Keep the system simple, and make the choices meaningful.

I very well may be offending the "grognards" of the 4x crowd, but I don't think there's anything inherently interesting about being ordering your ships into such and such a formation, or firing their weapons at such and such range. I certainly don't imagine myself as some sort of Ender Wiggins, nor do I have any interest in that role. Designing a combat system with many options alone doesn't make the combat deep. Games like chess, bridge, or poker are fairly simple, yet they are very hard to master.

I'd rather see no tactical combat than a tactical combat system done poorly. My personal preference is no tactical combat, since in games of this type the mid-late game inevitably becomes bogged down in these mandatory battles. Auto-resolve is often cited as a choice for players who don't want to do the tactical battles. But is that really a choice? If the outcome is always worse, which is the standard for this type of game, then it's merely an illusion of choice. Who wants to intentionally gimp themselves by having a worse result? And needless to say, if the outcome is always better, no one would play the tactical battles anyway. The real reason to include auto-resolve is when the tactical battles cease to matter. This is usually because one fleet massively outclasses another. But by that point, the player has already won the strategic game, so, it's just checkmate in x moves. Not really interesting.

There's always the temptation to add more and more. More ships, more weapons, more tactics, more planets, more aliens. Perhaps it might be wise to, on occasion, step back and just keep the game's choices simple, but meaningful.

I'd much rather see GalCiv3 overcome the problem that has plagued all 4x strategy games: the problem of the snowball effect of exponential growth, such that the game is won in the early/mid period and late game is a foregone conclusion. Each game period should be meaningful and challenging. But this problem is not easily overcome, and solving it would require much thought and hard work. I'm much more interested in whether the designers have put any thought into this area.

 Tactical combat would be the single most important addition you could make to this series.

MoO2 style tactical combat plus the strategic depth of GalCiv2 would make this the best 4X  game in 17 years. Especially if you also make the tech-tree less generic.

I don't think tactical combat will be an improvement. It will rather make the game worse. Why?

- Takes game focus away from strategical gameplay. 

- Takes ressources away from the rest of the game.

- AI will be alot easier to exploit, making the game less of the good old challenge.

- Tactical combat is terrible for multiplayer games.

All this for a feature that gets old pretty fast. I like tactical combat in fantasy games with magic etc. In Space Strategies I prefer the focus to be on making Grand Strategy gameplay, tactical combat not so much. I'm quite certain tactical combat will make the game less good compared to GalCiv2, and we have plenty of those games already. None of them feel so epic as GalCiv.

It's not adding strategy at all, but makes strategical long term thinking for warfare alot less important. If you can go arround winning tactical battles because you are better at it then your opponents, AI or humans, less importance is laid on the strategical aspects, like production, research, posistioning of fleets strategically, trade protection, logistical game mechanics, what commanders you choose and how you upgrade them becomes rather meaningless if you fight the battles anyways etc, etc. All kinds of strategical aspects becomes less valuable. 

To say it short: The more focus on tactical warfare, the less meaningfull will the strategical warfare become.

Oh yes, tactical combat all the way. Or at least seriously improved auto combat with general orders. SotS2 tactical combat is wonderful but it would take ginormous amounts of time combined with the micromanager-y strategic side of Galciv. SotS2 tactical AI still isn't that great after years of tweaking. Making a really good realtime AI without constricting movement to hexes or the like is "challenging". Making really good tactical AI in general is darn hard. 

Complications for MP is my last concern here, we could have an "always auto-resolve"-option. The game becoming a less grand strategy game and a very little challenging game with ttactical battles is my main concern. I explain in post 61.

Those who thinks the main issue is multiplayer here, has misunderstood a few things. The point is that with tactical combat the game is at huge risk at becoming as hollow as all the other space strategy games doing that (not just risk by the way, it will happen for sure).

Look at the difference between Europa Universalis and the Total War games for instance, not space games but illustrates my point. Tactical battle focus is the reason the Total War games are totally inferior on the strategy side.

tactial as option?

moddable?

arcade as option?

If they add in combat should it be real time or turn base ?

(Note that I believe they can do both tactical/non-tactiacl by having auto resolve  provide the lovely cinamatic view that many (but not me) would like).

-

I would kine of like turn base tactical combat 'cept I think in a space gme it might work better if real time - not sure as I really do trend toward turn base these days. If they provide auto-rsolve and movie play for both non-auto resolve and auto-resolve why woudl some people complain ?

My objection to tactical combat is that adding it won't really make the game "deeper." It merely gives the illusion of a deeper game. Consider the case of including auto resolve:

1. Auto resolve always gives a worse outcome than if you played out the battle. Why would you as the player ever auto resolve? You would feel compelled to play out the battles unless you have an overwhelming strategic advantage.

2. Auto resolve always gives a better outcome. Then why would you ever play out the tactical battle?

3. Auto resolve gives the the same result. But then tactical battles are just cosmetic in nature. You get to issue meaningless orders to your ships, but it's no different than watching a movie. Perhaps this isn't so bad, since at least the illusion of control is better than none, until you as the player realizes that it's an illusion.

But another another thing to consider is that designing a good tactical combat is really, really, really hard. There are many games that have nothing but tactical combat, yet the their combat systems are still lacking. GalCiv3 is supposed to have all these other, presumably equally important areas of concern for the player: economy, diplomacy, culture, research. The designers are only human, and it's not realistic to expect them to design a complex yet balanced tactical combat system and something similar in each of these areas.

Having played my share of wargames, it is perhaps wise that they generally focus on either just grand strategy or tactical combat. These designers wisely realize that it is dangerous to attempt to do both.

Stardock of course is free to design the game however it wishes, I just hope it doesn't try to satisfy both crowds. Either have an amazing tactical combat system, even at the expense of other areas of the game, or don't bother if the result is underwhelming.

I want something in between doing nothing, and tactical combat.

I'd like to see something Ogre Battle-esque where you give a general order or two, then you do the tactical combat. 

Stuff like target flagship, or target weak ships, or do the most damage possible.  I think that's the happy medium, and it's something the AI can manage as well.

I do want to see more toys than just the three basic weapons though- though perhaps getting the toys should be random/quest -based.

Wouldn't galciv3 still be a strategy game even if we had dancing bears instead of ships?!?