I never said anything about immersion, I only said what I feel about role we assume there. It is just my opinion, not "the ultimate truth". From my point of view, guy who rules his nation shouldn't tell every constructor how to put bricks, give every turret operator orders of bearing, elevation and speed of a target. Even fleet commander shouldn't. Moreover, as far as I know, even ship's commander don't do that, that's why you have chain of command. Regimental commander should command his regiment, not battalion, not company, not platoon, not section, not Private John. Chances are he has no idea about John - he has about thousand of those.
Should game offer chance for a deep and, more importantly, interesting tactical combat - I'll welcome that with open arms, because I miss games of this genre. What I'm worried about is feature-creep - add tactical combat here, add tactical combat there, add deeper control over multiplayer, mixing liquids in test-tubes... I prefer betterly developed small core game, that poorly developed blanked full of features which aren't quite work. Yes, PTSD from previous failed games.
As for RPG remark, I can't quite recall one where you could play a role I described - every seems to be concerned with saving galaxy or, at least, their settlement, so I have to stick with strategies.
So whether Stardock consider it necessary to add tactical combats and made them mandatory, or add ability to delegate all combat-related issues to military branch "subordinates" (Chief of Staff, Commander of Navy, Commander of Army, etc), or "don't fix it if it works", I'll accept. After all, we are not saving Galaxy here, we just talking, aren't we?
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everyone.