I think you make unwarranted assumptions; I like tactical combat in other games. GalCiv is the go to game when a person wants a strategy game but *doesn't* want a tactical level. There aren't many choices out there that don't have tactical combat; the lack is a selling point for GalCiv, not a weakness to be fixed.
Assumptions? Given that the debate on tactical combat has spanned several threads, it is safe to say this:
For a large percentage of the fanbase, tactical combat is the most in demand feature. Another large percentage (yourself included) seem to strongly oppose it.
Hell, just look at the topic post. Tactical mode being "the most interesting part"? That's what the tactical combat crowd is asking for - a full shift to a tactical focus rather than the empire-level strategy that GalCiv has done very well in the past. Maybe that's not what you personally have in mind, but the people you're arguing on behalf of think otherwise.
Tactical combat would be the most interesting addition indeed, if it were added into the game. Let's face it, at most we're going to see:
- Better graphics
- A better designed tech tree and more variation between the races
- Hopefully better AI
Compared to GC2, that's about it as far as what GC3 has offered so far. That's not to say that it's bad what we've seen so far, it's just to say that for a large percentage of the fanbase, tactical combat seems like the next logical progression.
Be careful what you wish for; I'm going to continue railing against tactical combat until we see for sure which way it goes. After that, well, I can always go back to GalCiv2 if the tactical combat fanboys wreck the game as badly as I think they're going to.
I think everyone here knows exactly what the OP was wishing for. Good tactical combat. And I hope the OP gets his/her wish. So do a lot of the people who play GC2 it would seem.