OK. I already get and agree with most of what is being said here, with one where I disagree.
What I agree with:
1) Time for development is critical, especially when a total re-write is being done.
2) Keeping the nature and flavor of the game must have first priority in a total re-write, and this takes time and effort.
3) Modernization of the game mechanics is key to extending the popularity of the game -- that is, incorporating use of new hardware capabilities gives the game a fresh new feel.
4) Adding depth to the many features of the game adds substantially to the game's appeal. This is being done, we are told, with diplomacy, alignment, unit capabilities (both combat and non-combat), some added depth in combat, colony control, empire economy, start of game functions, perhaps some existing features we have not heard about yet, and even some improvement in combat. These also take time and resources.
The management, I think, has done a good job of evaluating what can be done within a reasonable time and will, I expect, stick to their plan.
What I don't agree with:
The idea that tactical combat has no place in a strategy game. My opinion is that when a strategy game includes tactical combat, it can, and must, be done in a way that adds depth to the game without impacting the game's main focus. We already have an example of this with the addition of the Ship Designer and fleets in GC2. It was seen by many fans as an added complication that could only degrade the appeal of the game, but the devs did a real good job of implementing it, and the result was an increase in depth to the game.
Did you know that the GC for OS2 series gave us control of individual ships when invading a star? It may not have been particularly robust, but it was what the technology could support at the time. It was, however, somewhat like the tactical combat many of us have been asking for. That got lost at least by the time GC2 for Windows added fleets and planet level attacks and invasions.
Another example is the CIV series of games, which is definitely a strategy set of games, which includes tactical combat. It also does it well, maintaining strategy as its main focus, and providing the brief bits of tactical combat to alleviate the long stretch of long, hard, repetitive strategic maneuvering. It adds depth to the game. And, yes, this is also true of MOO2. None of these games are Duke Nuke'ems, and the tactical combat portion of these games is not the end-all do-all of these strategy games. But it does add depth to the Civ series and to Moo2.
To round this out, I think we all agree that the devs must focus on the re-write, and that they can't spend much time adding huge new features, I see this as a given. What I would like the devs to keep in mind, however, is that there is a demand for full tactical combat as a feature that adds depth to the game in future work such as expansions, DLCs, or even GalCiv4. And what I see on this forum makes me think I am not alone in this wish.