Addition to tactical mode

There is no tactical mode. The CEO of Stardock has said there never will be as this game is not about combat. Personally I can do without it as well. I like watching the combat but its not required. The game is about managing an Empire, not carefully planning on where each ship goes in combat.  The entire argument about Tactical combat was done in many threads and hundreds of pages back in Alpha, Beta and early release. Again its not going to happen any time soon. 

On a Brighter note we will get ship commanders which will improve the combat effectiveness of Fleets. No ETA on this but it has been really desired by the community. 

Happy Conquering!

firs off GC is not a tactical game and never will be.  I would like to see some strategic decision making though. 

Now now you do bring up some valid points about combat 

• Tactical speed 
• range
• intelligence 

Tactical speed 

considering your fleet starts in formation and then blindly charges the enemy fleet starbase mods that increase your tactical speed and decrease your enemies speed are actually detrimental to your fleet causing it to spread out while keeping your enemies bunched up. 

ive been thinking of switching these values (+/-) on my next game 

range 

I tend to build missile ships and put on range extenders if I can a couple of extra rounds of damage can destroy a few extra ships before they even get into combat. 

and by keeping your tax speed similar across the fleet that means you can pick off the leaders of the enemy fleet 

intelligence

the way combat plays out is simply stupid ships just charge in blindly with no thought to staying together the system is easily exploitable by building defense ships that do no damage and will be targeted first and glass cannons that will be targeted last. If I could I would fire every one of my military commanders ... Out of the nearest missile launcher after having their heads dissected , to determine how creatures without brains can speak. 

I didn't know managing an empire and carefully planning on where each ship goes in combat was mutually exclusive. This game reminds me of (a far more complex version, true) Star Wars Rebellion, an almost 20 year old 4x RTS. It was also about managing an empire, except there were only 2 factions, and neutral planets were just there to be conquered (by diplomacy or by force). But it allowed you the ability to command your fleet in action. The main gripe about SW:R (outside of a clunky interface, which I never had a problem with) was ground invasions, which you couldn't command. The problem with SW:R's combat was there was no real point to commanding your ships, considering that there was no real difference between the Empire ships and the Alliance's ships (I'll concede there were differences- mainly Alliance starfighters being far superior to the Empires, and as far as capital ships went, the Empire had more firepower, while the Alliance had better shields).

You can design your own ships, but then hand them over to commanders that make Joseph Hooker (an incompetent American Civil War general) look like Patton or Zhukov (pretty competent WW2 generals). So what's the point of designing your own ships, outside of just for fun? Or using huge ship hulls to make "super" constructors. A lack of tactical brains (and not allowing you to make up for it) is a glaring issue in an otherwise almost flawless game.

And on a completely unrelated note, Larsenex=MINSC!

Now, now, leave the snarkiness to the ingame comments.  They are funnier there.  This game was deliberately designed for those who have a decided preference for no tactical combat features.  That is a difference in subjective gaming values, not a matter of superiority of one group or another.  If you like playing a different game, please enjoy that game.  If you can't get into GalCiv the same way I do, I can understand and accept that.  I am not sure why folk make such a big deal over what kind of game they play.  I could have sworn that having fun was the point, not proving a point.  But maybe I have missed a point somewhere.

This comes up a lot about going thru the work (of designing ships) and then not commanding said ships. My only answer is I do like the way the battle viewer shows our ships off. I view battles when I can see at least 4 ships per side but for the most part I will do quick combat and move on to another section of the galaxy. 

I didn't say I didn't like GalCiv 3, I said it could be made better with the inclusion of tactical combat. There's a difference. The GalCiv games are my favorite 4x games. And there's a few who like being able to wwatch the battle. I was thinking of not removing the battle viewer, but adding third button that allows you to command the battle.

Everybody knows what you said.  We can all read.  Please do not pretend otherwise.  You were making suggestions to improve the game because you felt the game was flawed or wanting as is and needed improving.  You wanted to make it "better".  What you do not seem to hear is that the subject has come up several times and the established consensus among devs is that tactical combat is not intended as a part of GalCiv.  Every so often someone comes here and tells us there is this one simple thing that GC3 needs.  This is your turn.  This is your one improvement.  Other people have had other turns and other subjects.  All of them seem surprised that the topic has come up often enough to be a sore point of sorts.  So all sorts of snarkiness and hurt feelings abound.  None if it is ever necessary.

Please understand we heard you and for the most part, disagree.   Maybe we over-react because of those who have come here and said the game is entirely broken and worthless without tactical combat or some other thing and loudly trashed the game, devs, and players.  Repeatedly. That happens on forums a lot, both the trash talk and the over-reaction.

Controlling the battles would make you win more, which sounds like a good thing. But it would make controlling the battles almost mandatory. No one is going to auto-resolve if it is sub-optimal and costs you ships, the whole game is about maximizing efficiency.

Having to watch and control every battle would bog the game down and make an already super-long (and some would say tedious) game even longer (and more tedious). Especially on larger maps this would get out of control.

It also would require a rebalance of the whole game and / or more advanced combat AI to adjust for the new stronger player faction. It's a huge ask.

To Erischild: What I'm saying is that this is a great game. Why not push it a little over the top and make it amazing? Why not release the best game you can? I guess with me it's not "this is great, let's keep doing it like this. It's ok team, we put out a good/great game. How can we do better? What can we add to really woo our fans?" And besides, I thought this was the forum for future ideas? Wouldn't you post here if you thought you had a good idea to make this game better? Thaat's what I did. Sorry for the snark, but I'm just as snarky in real life.

To MrWendal: I rarely lose ships in combat (and it's usually easily replaced fighters). And what to you is tedious and super long to others is a fun experience that people would willingly allow to consume their life. And as far as long games go, I don't have a problem with that. GalCiv, despite being huge, is no where near as long as some other games(unless you're trying for an influence victory from one sector in an insane map).

If I could shorten this idea, maybe not tactical control, but an a.i. smart enough to stay out of range of the enemy if your ships outrange them. But I'm not gonna quit playing this game because of one small flaw. And most of the time, it's rarely a problem for me because I rarely actually fight other factons (yes, I have the Conquest victory, but I got that through cultural domination). Most of the time it's small ship pirates, single ship Dread Lords, and weak space monsters, none of which require much in the way of tactics.

And finally, if the devs do add tactical control, the next complaint would be for ground combat (which, as I mentioned I think, was a gripe about SW:R). It wouldn't end. So maybe I should be happy with the game as it is.

 I do not disagree with the concept of over the top and amazing.  I am not arguing against progress, creativity and the future.   I disagree that tactical combat is the way to get there.  It is my subjective opinion and I do not need to justify it any more than you do.  You do not seem to allow me that possibility at all.  I don't think it is serving either of us to continue.  Enjoy.

The concept of tactical combat has been discussed in the community and the devs before, and the majority consensus (very strong inside the devs, and a plurality among the community) is that TC does not belong in the vision we see for GC3.  It's really that simple. We've made a choice that it won't be in the game, and that's neither objectively right or wrong, but merely the way it is. Further argument is pointless.

As to combat - the Battle Viewer is an abstract depiction, and does not accurately represent the calculations being made behind the screen.  Yes, tactical speed and weapons range actually make a BIG difference; I've run hundred (probably thousands) of combats in my games, and can absolutely state that those game mechanics not only aren't being ignored, they're pretty critical to get right, particularly in the far mid- to late-game.    The "role" associations are a bit more opaque, as it's hard to tell that they are targeting certain ships ahead of others, but a careful reading of the outcome of several dozen battles which show it too is being calculated and considered.

Given the level of abstraction being used, bearing and mounting positions of weapons, sensors, shields, etc. is pointless. Since we're not running a tactical simulation, that kind of information is far below the line of where the system can and should care about.  For an analogy, here's one:  when determining which teams are the most successful in baseball, does it matter that I include the names of everyone on every team when doing the analysis?  Of course not - all I care about is the win/loss record of each team.  GC3 has a certain presumed level of abstraction, and dipping below that really doesn't do anything for the game, not to mention makes the coding and game play considerably more complex for little actual gain.

The Battle Viewer is really just eye candy, and doesn't bear much relation to what's really going on.

What's your typical set up? Interceptors with high tactical speed/set to assualt, escorts with medium speed and lots of defence/little attack, capital with your longest range weapons, less defence, more attack, and slower speed?

I haven't played about with speed much, just the ship roles, and it does seem that if you have a mega bunch of escorts they take a lot of the early fire which can be good as long as you can resupply destroyed escorts to fleets. Far from shipyards or operating without enough fleets to quickly rebalance I found balanced fleets easier to cope with (rebalancing after some losses is just combining fleets and hanging back the stragglers till re-enforcements come rather than having to rebalance all ship types) and less micro but probably giving up some edge.