I wasn't going to weigh in on this, because I feel rather neutral about it, but, lets face it:
1) GalCiv is a strategy game. So is Moo2. The tactical combat is only a feature, not the end all of either game. GC2 had tactical combat, although it was more of an illusion because it was always more of an auto-resolve, perhaps one could say a pseudo-auto-resolve.
2) A master strategy plan has to include tactical actions. No real life strategy plan will survive without tactical plans designed to further the strategic master plan. We controlled that with the types, quality, and quantity of ships we built and sent in to do battle in either of the previous GalCivs. Since I am a bit of a control freak, I would have liked more control over the battles, as in being able to choose which ship did what when to which ship with which weapons.
3) I never did like auto-resolve. I always felt cheated. But I did understand that there were limitations to how much of a feature, or how many features, a programming team could include in a game (or any other kind of app).
I understand that there are different feelings and viewpoints on this topic, and I can respect them all. (I am more of a control freak when it comes to games, and I do not have the mental and physical speed and coordination for most Real Time games.) Obviously, it will be impossible to completely satisfy everyone, but I have to believe most everyone on these forums find the GalCiv series satisfying. I for one am quite confident that:
1) SD will try to incorporate as many of our ideas as they can as long as they fit within their core guidelines. The time planned for development and testing will also be a factor. Also don't forget that they are building the GC3 code from scratch. They have to if they want to use their new 64 bit engine. (I once altered an operating system feature from 24 bit addressing to 31 bit addressing when Virtual Addressing was introduced, and ended up replacing over 40% of the feature's original code, and increased its size by about 20%. And I didn't add a single sub-feature. To this day, I think I would have been better off with a total re-write.)
2) GC3 must remain, first and foremost a strategy game. Otherwise, it would loose its appeal to almost all of us (come on, now. Aren't we more cerebral than those that want nothing more than a shoot-em-up? Or an arcade game?) But strategy must be supported with good tactics.
3) Anything SD does about this idea will, most likely, include a toggle to turn it on or off, just as they did with the battle viewer in GC2.
4) What StarDock produces will be glorious.
5) We are better served by voicing our ideas and voicing expansions or variants of other peoples ideas, or expressing a detailed "no, because" only once, than getting involved in protracted arguments for and against an idea only because "I like it" or "i don't like it". After all, we are trying to convince SD, not each other.
6) If SD decides to take a good look at this idea, they will ask for comments before they start working on it.