Just a couple of answers.

There is only one Star Control universe.

However, there are two continuities (3 if you count Star Control 3...which I'm not).

The reason for a new continuity that Paul and Fred (from Toys for Bob and the developers behind Star Control 1/2) aren't going to be able to officially participate in the new Star Control game due to TFB being owned by Activision.  Out of respect for them, we are not going to use their continuity without their involvement.  

Since Stardock is now the publisher of Star Control 1/2/3 (the classic series) we will be actively maintaining and supporting the original games and their continuity.  But the new series will have a new continuity which allows us (and the community) to create a new timeline with new aliens and lore together.

The only Ur-Quan continuity alien that might show up in the new Star Control would be the Orz as they are from a different universe entirely but that will only happen if it makes sense (and if Paul and Fred have no objections). 

I realize many people would like to see the Ur-Quan and the Spathi and such back in action in the new Star Control game.  But for us, it's a matter of ethics. And the team behind the new Star Control game know the Star Control universe (and Ur-Quan continuity) inside and out.  It's definitely going to be a Star Control game. But it's going to take place in a continuity where something very bad happened to the Precursors 250,000 years ago and as a result changed the timeline we know.

But one thing of sure, the way of colony management in Star Control 3, I don't like it. I think Star Control 2, and in an extent of Star Flight was the best of Star Control. But if you want to add more feature and add some strategic element like you can influence the earth government etc, it's okay.

This is a dangerous road you guys are walking. My opinion is that while I love strategy games, adding that on top of all the other ingredients in Star Control is a recipe for disaster. 

If strategy is to be implemented, it has to be done in a way that makes it worthwhile. For it to be worthwhile, the player's strategies must mean something. For the player's strategies to mean something, there has to be a very real and present risk of failure. This is the gist of the problem. If the player fails because of the strategy section, that part of the game alone will disrupt the entirety of the story. 

You have a game that contains action, adventure, light puzzles, dialogue, research, and now strategy. The player must succeed at every single one of these aspects to see the story to its conclusion. Most players who loved SC2 will argue that the story is the greatest part of that game, all things considered. Keeping that in mind, we must conclude that all the other parts of the game stand in the way of people's favorite part. 

Adding something as complex as strategy to Star Control will only serve to alienate previous fans of the series as well as create an almost insurmountable barrier of entry to new players. It makes no sense from a business or gameplay perspective. The only thing it will add is complexity for the sake of complexity, and endless frustration. 

There is a time and a place for strategy. Star Control is not the right place, and this is definitely not the right time. If Stardock can build up the series' reputation again and build a solid fanbase (for all the love most of us have for Star Control, we are not a large or even solid fanbase), they will have the room to experiment with further entries to the series. As a first entry however, adding strategy is pretty much the same as putting a gun to the head of the license. 

It's not worth it. Not by a long shot. 

I agree.  The world has plenty of strategy games. It only has one Star Control.

I may not remember Star Control as well as many of you for various set of reasons, but let's not overcomplicate game, or that thing will never be able to take off. Better go light and see how it goes, at least for a start, and then fill your bergen with heavy stuff later, if your back could hold it.

We have GC and SoaSE for strategy. As much as I like to see certain elements added there (in GC; SoaSE is almost ideal game for me), I understand they don't have place for them there, and Stardock can't give us "Galactic Civilizations Fleet Command" dedicated tactical battles spin-off.

Agreed. My initial inclination about strategy elements is a conditional maybe. If we're talking very basic limited strategy like building an outpost or a mining facility to get resources and then guarding it with a fortification like in SC1, the answer is yes. If we're talking 4X GalCiv strategy, of course not. Like Frogboy says, the world has plenty of that already.

I think it would be cool to have at least a modicum of that empire macro strategy as an homage to SC1. Sort of like territory control as in Risk. The premise of the game's title is, after all, controlling stars! If this new title takes place during the initial development of Earth's alliances, then it stands to reason there would be some vying for control of resources on planets and holding territories or spheres of influence.

I love SC2 to bits but it isn't without its flaws. It was nonlinear in scope and that was pretty amazing in 1993, but the galaxy sort of waited on you; things only happened when you gave the right item to this alien or had certain dialog with that alien, etc. I think that dynamic should be expanded on. It would be a refreshing to have the feeling that the galaxy is going about its motions despite your intents.

That happened to a degree in SC2, but you were the catalyst in most of what happened. It would be interesting to have more unexpected surprises for the player, like having the enemy take the fight to you when you least expect. Something that gives the feeling you aren't the only force of change in the galaxy and that things can unfold in unexpected ways even without your intervention or involvement.

In SC2, the galaxy was in a state of internment imposed by the Ur-Quan Hierarchy and their civil war, so nobody really moved around on the map much. You were a rogue entity running around the galaxy without permission. I know that the details of the story aren't set in stone at this point but based on what we know, it doesn't seem like that story condition will be the case with this new title.

If it's totally out of the question to add even basic strategy elements to the gameplay, then I for one think it would be really kickass to have a separate "strategic melee" mini game; something that emulates SC1 which itself was a direct homage to Archon, one of Paul Reiche's earlier titles. For those unfamiliar, it was a lot like chess, except unlike chess you got to fight "melee style" for control of a space on the board. Taking a piece as you do in chess did not automatically secure victory for you. You had to fight for it, and depending on the abilities of the pieces involved, you could either be at an advantage or disadvantage. It was entirely possible for a piece being attacked to still hold the square if it won in combat. Very similar to SC1!

That is how Star Control actually got its name: you fought for control of stars! I've always felt that standard melee gets rather stale after awhile and that uniqueness of SC1's strategy element made it unique, much like Archon, and I'm frequently disappointed that it is overlooked or casually ignored even by fans, mostly just because it wasn't SC2.

I want less arcade-ey combat!

i would just like to see the colony building aspect kind of like star control 3 but improved upon