There are a lot of comparisons between MOO and GalCiv.  GalCiv is better than Master of Orion and I'm sure Brad will make sure that combat doesn't detract from the strategy of the game.

Hopefully, tactical combat will be kept to a minimum if it's included at all.  I can see giving the fleets in general a strategy for engagement, perhaps a policy type thing.  But realtime control of fleets, stacks or what have you would suck, especially in the end game.   

Simply making the different weapons actually behave differently would require some form of tactical ability as a result.

Real-time control of each single ship may be a bit much. Yet that would make the combat turns faster than making it turn-based.

I'm still sayin' that it'll be more like MOO3, where you control fleets seperately instead of ships singly.

I'd like to see some general tactical choices in combat, but not micromanaged.  One game I remember that came fairly close in the balancing tactical combat with strategic play was Birth of the Federation.  You gave general commands to your fleet and then the "turn was executed" and you gave another order.  This keeps the time it takes to play a tactical battle down and it gives you something worth watching the battle play out.  With GalCiv2 I would just skip over the tactical battles because there was no point watching them because the battle was already resolved before the video began.

From a multi-player perspective the tactical battles need to be resolved quickly otherwise players not involved in the battle will get board.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Yeah, that's the problem with the whole "make it optional" suggestion - you can never really balance it. There's actually a few cases I can think of where it's easier to let the computer auto-resolve things then fight it out yourself, but really that can be just as frustrating.

At the very least, it's going to introduce an element of doubt into the mind of every player who autoresolves a battle and loses. And I don't think that's a good thing.

I prefer if GC continue to be GC. Don´t really understand why to make it another game like Sins or Sword. But I´ll keep my mind open until Stardock tells us more about the game. 

That will simply negate the use of other weapons. Nobody will research anything but lasers since they're the most powerful. Defenses won't matter. If the most damage is guaranteed through lasers, then lasers will be the choice to make.

By differentiating the weapons I'm talking more about their engagement envelopes, velocities, and defenses against.

In galciv2, it just didn't make any sense for lasers to have the same results as missiles and mass drivers. Same ranges, etc. And, honestly, it looks like something to that effect is changing with the coming of galciv3.

If missiles have a larger range, then simply keeping the combat as it has been will make everyone choose missiles so they can destroy ships first. Meaning that to counter such an ability and to create at least some differences to warrant the other weapon technologies the player will need to have some control over their ships/fleets engagement abilities.

Or they can go the route of Endless Space and annoy the ever-lovin' hell outta me.

Defense-wise, they could combine laser technology with missile defenses, etc.

I have been guilty of suggesting some tactical combat elements here.
That said, im against them all.

Auto resolve is the only way to go.

This means also that there needs to be different weapon types, modules, sensors, boarding ships, fighters, bombers etc. so you can affect battles with your fleet composition and ship building.

Example from lightest to heaviest:

Lasers:
Anti Fighter/Bomber laser: Shoots down fighters and bombers, limited efficiency to shoot down some missiles
Anti heavy missile laser: Shoots down heavy missiles, can shoot fighters and bombers also, but with limited efficiency, best against missiles.
Rapid fire laser: Offensive weapon, shoots down enemy ships, limited range and efficiency, but very accurate.
Laser Mk1: The basic laser, shoots enemy ships, better damage than rapid, but less accurate for smaller targets
Heavy laser:  Your heavy duty basic laser, will obliriate enemy and his shields, but not accurate on frigate size or smaller.
Cutting laser: Takes century to reload, but when you want to cut that dreadnought down, your only real choice. 

Missiles:
Anti fighter bomber: guided rapid fire rockets that outrun everything
Decoy missiles: Your best tool engaging frigate and to some extent smaller ones, has many decoys, so not so easily destroyed
Assault missiles: Basic missile type, rapid fire,  does not miss unless outrun and damage, but vulnerable to enemy defenses.
Heavy assault missiles: Better damage, lower fire rate, does not miss unless outrunned
Torpedoes: Heavy slow moving and sluggish, has HP boost against enemy fire, great damage and always hits if not outrunned.
Nuclear Missiles: Very Slow moving, low fire rate, Highest damage potential of all weapons, can be shot down with enough firepower.

Mass drivers:
Anti fighter bomber: The best there is, those bullets will rip anything small apart.
Anti heavy missile: Spraying those missiles down, sadly needs reloads and is not as accurate as laser counterpart.
Rapid fire autocannon: Frigates will squeal when they see this one.
Light artillery battery: Long firerate, good damage and decent accuracy, your basic mass driver weapon.
Heavy autocannon: Enough said. hits even frigates to some extent, but not as accurately.
4800mm Heavy artillery: When the slug is bigger than your ship, its better not to be in the way of this one. long reload (no shit).

Im not saying thats perfect or balanced, but something along those lines, to make it interesting and necessary to research and use many different weapons in your ships so your fleet stays competitive against hostiles.

The best part of this is, that you dont want to build dreadnought's only, but smaller ships that can get under the skin of bigger, slower ships.
Then just make cool effect when nuke blows up etc so you get the satisfaction to see your shiny guns in the action.

I have to add, by no means, i want those there to be research tree by themself, there HAS to be atleast 4 levels of guns every type.
Now get to work Stardock
 

So, we have this message

Galactic Civilization is not Master of Orion. And Brad said that the battle in Galciv is basically the battle between Civilization, not the battle between military. So, Galactic Civilization is basically Civilization game in Space / Galaxy. So, looking at his vision, then Tactical Combat is a NAY. But it doesn't mean that battle should stay like it in previous Galciv Series. We can improve it. Just look at the Civilization game. They even evolve the battle system (not the combat system). So Galactic Civilization battle system can be improved too. But how?

Let see what we can improved. Laser - Mass Driver - Missile? Why not become Direct - indirect - Siege?

Direct weapon will act like the previous Galciv game. You put your fleet next to the enemy fleet then attack them in a kind of Galciv 2 battle system.

Indirect / Volley weapon will act like the catapult / Archer in Civilization 5. They do volley attack from afar.

Siege is weaponry for planetary battle, whenever it is army pod, bomb, nuclear, etc.

In Civilization game, Direct weapon was represented by Swordman, Phalanx, etc, Indirect weapon was represented by Archer, while siege weapon represented by catapult.

Then let see about these weaponry system

I categorize the weapon system into three. Solid, Energy, and Fighter.

Solid means solid. Like Mass Driver / Railgun and Missile; Energy means beam weapon like Laser and Phaser; while Fighter is Fighter. Well yes, why not? Because Fighter is basically a tactical combat unit. But in Galactic Size Strategic Level, Fighter is basically a weapon. But of course, I still want to design my own fighter. I want to design a kind of Macross or Gundam or Viper and see them in battle.

So, with this category, we can split them into this :

Direct : Mass Driver (against Armor), Laser (against Shield), Missile (against CIWS)

Indirect : Heavy Laser (against Shield), Fighter & Long Range Missile against another Fighter or AAW Weapon (like Standar Missile 2, Patriot, S300P, you name it. But Fighter is more effective to used against attacking fighters, while AAW is more effective against missile).

Siege weapon against another Planetary Weapon.

With this kind of system, you don't need to start the game with Tiny hull anymore, as Tiny will become the hull of fighter, but start as small.

And how this system will effect the battle in Galactic Civilization game? oh it will effect it great deal and improve your choice of strategy into something that we will never capable before in Galciv 2. And it will give us a great deal of possibility in design department. For example, your can create a hit & run starship with indirect weapon, they will harass the enemy from several hex to soften them, before they meet your main fleet, to counter that you will need fast ship with direct weapon to destroy this annoying threat. Or you can send your CSG (Carrier Strike Group) to launch your carrier to attack the enemy from afar.

You can make a big ship with both direct and indirect weapon with multirole in mind, or you can make specialized ship to do specific missions, like artillery  ship, etc.

So what is the purpose of having a fighter? and why you need a fighter and not only a missile? Fighter can act as surgical attack weapon. You can see Star Wars or anything, or maybe you can play games like Free Space 2 or Wing Commanders. When you play as a fighter pilot, your job is basically to fight against fighter or to cripple the enemy's sub system like weapons and engine. So basically in here, Fighter is a weapon that used to cripple the enemy's weapon or another sub system a.k.a to soften the enemy before they meet your main force. They can damage a capital ship's hull to destroy them, but it will require a lot of time. plus they are tougher than missile, because you design it, it is not disposable weapon, so you can call it back to do another mission. While Long Range Missile is basically for long range artillery.

So the why create a direct weapon while indirect weapon has superior range?

1. Direct weapon size is smaller and can do the same damage as indirect weapon. So a ship can be equipped by more direct weapons than indirect weapons.

2. Direct weapon can counter attack another direct weapon attack, while indirect weapon can't.

I'd like to add my vote to having a meaningful combat system with only fleet actions available. Single ships should never matter in GC so targeting one is something I would not like to see. But having commands that affect whole fleet would be great. Actions like envelop, flank etc. etc. would be great.

Provided you wash your mouth out with soap and water.

(there's some in the Flight Locker just below the Steam Catapult ......  )

That was 2005.This was 2008

https://forums.galciv2.com/322138/page/4/#1895662

"THAT engine will be what serves as the basis of a future Galactic Civilizations III.  That means GalCiv III will have features like tactical battles (as an option), multiplayer, more sophisticated planetary development, and much more"

Tactical combat was planned and hopefully 2013 Brad still agrees.

If it's truly an option, it would be ok.  I just don't believe there's a way to develop a tactical battle system without taking away from the more classic battle viewer style of galciv's past.

God, I hope so.