Vayne? I don't get the reference...

Edit: Wait, Vayne Helsing?

I see the one with the Vayne name too, but it doesnt ring any bells for me.

Can you give us two broad based hints?

Are these games multiplayer?

Are they RTS?

As a TBS loner, I'm hoping the answewr is "No" to both questions...

I wouldn't mind some more detail in battles in a GalCiv 3, but I don't want actual control during fights outside of setting targets.

The problem is that, historically, the strategic and tactical levels both contribute to the same binary state: You either win the battle or you lose it. If you can get +1000% to your empire's build rate then it doesn't really matter how inept you are at ordering your units around, and if you can maneuver around any obstacle then it doesn't really matter how badly you're outnumbered. It's doesn't result in an added dimension to the gameplay; it's more like having two volume knobs for the same pair of speakers. Just another slider to keep track of.

If GC3 really wants to do tactical battles, then I think it's time to do away with this binary win/lose state and explore some other possibilities. Here's an easy first step: The strategic situation will usually determine the outcome of a battle, but the tactical outcome can determine some secondary outcome. Maybe if the defender can remain at 50% of the attacking fleet's size by the end of the battle, it will give -50% to the attacker's movement points next turn. Or maybe if all attacking ships get damaged past 30% they have to immediately return to the nearest planet to repair. Maybe you can soften up a planet's defenses with a kamikaze attack on the defending fleet, when you would otherwise have no hope of victory. This is a dimension that, as far as I know, has gone completely unexplored in tactical/strategy hybrids so far.

TW-series is a good example. Tactical combat might add something but it comes at an expense, and the expense is less importance on macro-strategy. Compare Total War with Europa Universalis and there is no doubt that the one without tactical battles (EU) is the one with the most strategical depth.

 I don't want GalCiv to be about exploiting the AI in tactical battles. I want it to be a great strategy game with lot's of emphasis on the macro level. We have tons of tactical combat space games allready, and none of them apeal to me the way GalCiv2 does. In war the focus should be unit design, technology, production capacity, positioning, defences, logistics, fleet composition, strategical planning in general etc, not who can click fastest in combat or who has built that single unit (horses in Fallen Enchantress anyone?) that always crush everything easely if controlled by a human in tactical battles.

Hopefully GalCiv will stay true to it's core concepts.

Another great thing is that the way GalCiv2 combat works will be perfect for multiplayer games.

Hmm, intriguing. I've actually never played Total War, so let's fix that right now..

I see a lot of space related pics in there~!

Even if it is not GalCiv 3 or Sins 2, I am always up for space games, they are so scarce. D: (Kind of wish we could get a 'genre fever' of them once the FPS one dies out )

No more XP support- http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/06/29/2235257/amdati-drops-windows-xp-support & http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/amdcatalyst13-6WINBetaDriver.aspx

I wonder when nvidia will do the same? 

GalCiv3 with tactical combat and FE style ground combat 

We've been waiting on the the screenshots for dg2 - Thanks froggy!

Updated.

Heh. Well, Demigod is owned now by Wargamer.net. So it's future is in its hands.