Respectfully, I don't think the decision to implement open space navigation is a valid justification for removing one of the core playstyles of 4X space strategy games -- that of tall empires. As well, from what I've read, it seems that many aspects of the game outside of economy and war have been de-emphasized, basically implying that GC4 is more like a turn-based Starcraft than a 4X like the previous installments.

What I just said is probably hyperbole, since I've not played the game, so take it with a grain of salt. And, since the game is young, I fully expect there will be major changes to come in the next few months to fix issues -- even major issues. I have no reason to expect the game will stay the way it is. They're very likely to rebalance things so the Yor don't always become the #1 civ, for instance.

I guess... my main hesitation is that, I deeply appreciate and value the fact that 4X strategy games offer a great many different ways to play. They offer meaningful different options at many different forks in the road. In order for an option to be meaningful, it must have a significant chance to lead you down a path that's just as strong for your empire (strategically, in terms of chances to survive / grow / win) than the other choices.

From what others have said, it seems like the number of different meaningful choices in how to play GC4 at the moment are limited. Always expand as quickly as possible, prepare for and expect war, and focus on conquering your neighbors who inevitably will pull you into an early war. Research key techs. Ignore diplomacy. Out-maneuver the AI in tactics and shipbuilding. Game over; you win.

I expect that many other strategies will come about once the game has been patched in the coming months. Maybe part of the deal is that players have to figure out how to play a competitive game with a strategy that takes a turn off this beaten path. That might take time, if it's possible now; and if not, it'll probably be possible later.

Some combination of balance changes, evolution of player strategy, and new content will hopefully someday soon give the game that feel -- a feel that Stellaris captures incredibly well, and even most earlier GalCiv games captured -- that your empire isn't necessarily doomed if you choose between tall or wide; if you choose between pacifist / trade-monger / conqueror play styles; if you choose between different custom civilizations with wacky pros and cons.

I'm sure there will always be a "meta" where a particular path tends to be a little stronger -- that's true even in Stellaris -- but that doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get curbstomped if you choose another way. Sometimes you can even beat the meta by being different. Again, I haven't played GC4, but I'm hearing from players that deviation from an expand-fight-conquer loop isn't really worth trying in GC4 today.

I'm trying to be soft in my criticisms, both because I want to give the game the chance to mature into something I'll truly love, and because I'm speaking from second-hand information. But I hope this post goes into my reasons why the things I've heard so far have turned me off from trying the game. I want my first experience with the game to be a great one, so I can happily wait until the game has addressed at least some of my concerns before jumping in.

It’s a lot easier to play GalCiv IV tall than any previous version imo.  

I guess I just haven't figured that out yet... I'll give it another shot

I couldn't agree more. Trouble is, I don't have a constructive answer to offer. There isn't a feeling of building a great Space Empire of Your Very Own. Exploring is pretty tedious because after a couple of games you know what you are going to find. Expanding is what you HAVE to do or you will be squished. Exploiting is handled reasonably well but exterminating comes under "soulless" (read Orson Scott Card's "Speaker for the Dead" for some alternative ideas on that) And I am sorry but it is not exciting. That's the 5th "X" btw.