Please don't post entire articles from another website.  A small sample and a link to their site is proper.

I've edited your post.

There will be technology to make uninhabitable planets habitable, I like that. I remember an event from a GC2 game where about 20 or so class zero planets were turned to class 6.

Ship combat will not be in the Alpha. Also 

"Galactic Civilizations isn’t about fighting long tactical battles."

Can we put the begging for tactical combat to rest now? Please.

"Our focus is in making the single-player game great and then adding multiplayer on top of that."

Excellent.

"Different resources exist on the map and are used for a variety of purposes, primarily the pursuit of optimum efficiency in creating ex-Drengin (or Terrans, or whomever)."

I don't really understand. What are ex-Drengin?

"Right now we’re putting 110% of our effort into making the base game awesome."

Good, too many companies focus on DLC before the game is even finished. I expecially hate day one DLC.

"No. A huge majority of our fans enjoy playing on Steam and having it hooked up through Steam allows us to easily take advantage of Steam’s features (achievements, multiplayer, etc.). We tried providing a Steam and non-Steam version of Fallen Enchantress and hardly anyone used the non-Steam version." 

That should kill hopes of a non-Steam version.

"But we are excited by the addition of the new culture system, map hexes, multiplayer, the new battle system, and interstellar terrain as well as the long list of refinements to every aspect of the game."

Can't wait to hear more about the culture system and interstellar terrain.

Sorry about that, I'll keep that in mind from now on.

The full answer doesn't leave much for interpretation. 

"We have a new combat system that we are planning for after the alpha. But we don’t want to mislead people – Galactic Civilizations isn’t about fighting long tactical battles. You are controlling a civilization that spans the galaxy and your focus is on producing and placing your fleets, not in giving every order in a battle. We want to keep players engaged at the empire level and fighting for planets and systems, not in ship to ship combat."

But yeah, I expect some people to ask for tactical combat to be patched in after the game releases.

This should put your fears to rest.

"We fully expect the majority of our players to play Galactic Civilizations III single-player. Our focus is in making the single-player game great and then adding multiplayer on top of that."

Can we move all further discussion on this to the thread created by Island Dog? Having two threads dedicated to this interview can be confusing.

No responses are needed. Just go to the other thread.

I have to agree with this. Weirder still, Frogboy already provided an answer some time ago:

Likewise. Some sort of complicated, more expensive habitat domes or something like that, containing certain mini-modules to keep morale high. Remember Space Colony game, where we could install smaller modules under the domes? Of course, no real micromanagement, just the idea.

I don't like concept of DLC itself, I like old add-ons and expansions, but if it's free content, something from graphics departments, if artists really have nothing to do up to release - then why not?

Crusader Kings 2 alike - where you could customize your game even more you can customize your AR-15? Sold!

Oh, wait...

The thing with DLC is that on an AAA game, not all the teams are working at the same time in development. Instead of idling a team or laying people off, you can put them to work on DLC while the main team works on something else. The content in question is usually small enough that they can sell it relatively cheap, but it's got a high profit margin since it's relatively easy to make.

Full expansions don't work well for a game like Call of Duty anyway, since the goal isn't to change mechanics between versions. DLC is great to just add content like maps. For strategy games expansions tend to make more sense because the life of the game is so much longer.

Well we don't have a lot of history since Stardock hasn't really gone on the DLC train much. The only game we can really reference is Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes. Which in and of itself is 'werid' since it's more like a 'stand alone expansion' to Fallen Enchantress, than a separate game.

Looking at other games in the strategy genre, the general rule is that DLC adds content to the existing game. Things like races, leaders, scenario maps, new ship parts, and such.

Expansions add or change game systems. Things like espionage that change how the game plays. They also tend to contain things that could be sold as DLC.

That is pretty much exactly how the divide worked in Civ V (some maps and Civs as DLC, others came in the expansions along with espionage, religion, and a beefed up trade system). I expect it to be similar here. Some games use the term "DLC" for both types just for simplicity, but it seems Stardock is keeping the terms separate.

But we are not most people! Few are the few, the proud, The Stardock fans, we show our interest in purchasing games Brad and his team are making, and he, as capitcalist, should make games for us, not most people.

Yeah, sure, in modern days people are ready to pay 25% of costs of full-fledge expansion for meaningless things like assault bra for your wizard team mate. I wonder why Apple haven't sued anyone on that? I thought it's their MO - to sell fertilizer for narcisses.