I'm not convinced you've watched the streams. On at least a few occassions they have talked about espionage. They have ideas that add an order of complexity to espionage beyond that in GC2. These ideas are too much for them to do by release, but we should look forward to them in a DLC or expansion.

As for your "illusion", I actually agree, for the most part. While you can effectively win by non-military expansion (influence), this game is really won through expansion alone. He with the most planets usually wins. Some of the other win conditions (tech, ascension, etc.) are more like stalemate breakers. I haven't played enough other turn-based-strategy games to know if there are other ways. Aside from some cool additions like multiplayer, hex tiles, tradeable resources, and steps up in diplomacy, combat, and invasion complexity, GC3 is similar to GC2. That's by design. 

Civ 2 was like civ 1; civ 3 was like ...etc.

If galciv3 was not like galciv2, well, then I am not interested.  I am sorry, but it is a silly question.  What's the right question?  Does it do it better?   

Sure looks like it to me, which is saying something, because gc2 is still a good game to play and is still being modded. Paul said today he expects to be working on gc3 for the next 5 years.  Wow.

And it will still be 'like' gc2.  A good thing.

Just my 2  cents.

I agree with Bandorf, plus the OP mentioned two fantasy games that he might as well play. If he sees no difference in a fantasy game and a scifi game, we are missing some common ground for a conversation on this subject.

As for who wins what androshalforc's point is well taken, but many factors go into winning a game. A small map with up to 3 opponents was quite winnable by influence in GCII. If they haven't nerfed influence to the point victory is unattainable, I expect it will be the same in GCIII. 

Actually I never had a militaristic victory in GalCiv 2. I won all my games as influence victories, because that is the way I wanted to win. I captured more systems by influence and buying them than I did by invasion.

The kind of victory you want to achieve determines the game you play. There is no best way to win, there is only the most fun way to win.

The OP made a point that GC III was too much like GC II.

That was the point from the outset. The game was going to be the next incarnation of the series itself, but more of everything. It will have larger maps, better graphix but the 'feel' of the game will still be Galactic Civilizations.

As the others have state, Espionage will not be in the game at release. This was made clear and will be 'bigger and better' later on in an expansion.

I also think the OP misunderstands the entire category of 4x games

eXplore
eXpand

eXploit

eXterminate

.... sorta says it right in the game type.

No you don't trade for planets, obtain planets via culture flip.  I've won many a game in Galactic Civilizations II without declaring war the whole game.  If war was declared on me I would attack that player until he would peacefully give me all his planets but, that didn't always happen...

Always play the largest maps at the slowest pace in Galactic Civilizations II or III, the AI rarely is sooooo over powered that one race that they are playing with dominates from the beginning.

In Galactic Civilizations II I preferred the corner of the map, that way if an attack did come it was only coming from 2 sides instead of all 4.  In Galactic Civilizations III, this isn't as important to me, however, I always use diplomatic options, mainly trading for tech.

Differences in Galactic Civilizations III...

• Larger Maps (already mentioned)
• More Players (less stock major races in base game more coming in expansions dlc's)
• Adjacency bonus's
• Trade Resources
• Trade Minerals
• Trade Minerals add to ship components
• Pirate Bases
• Multiplayer