Not really. It would still allow deep space combat; especially wih interceptions. You just wouldn't be able to willingly set a course to a deep space sector.



Nebulae would be like a system; they could be set as a destination. So would BHs, NSs, and any other stellar body. As for SBs, they could still be built on system with no planets, or with just GGs; or any sector with any non-starsystem planetary body. Science Stations on NSs or BHs.



Waypoints would be star systems themselves. Like setting patrol paths. Which you can do now anyway.
It could make the way you set up your sensor grid more important. With a free movement system, you can just park a few scouts strategically in deep space, and forget about scanners.
Also, with the extended range of ships, OPs and SBs are probably not going to have the expected gameplay value; except maybe when built deep within enemy territory.



Hey, you have no argument from me there. I'm not into huge maps. I like a more personalized empire. Movement to systems only doesn't require larger maps. MoO didn't really have huge maps
And I'm also not looking for a TV show; I want to play a strategy game.

Pathfinding is about calculating the intermediate steps between a start and end point. If we didn't ditch the grid, then it wouldn't make a difference because it still has to calculate the entire path, regardless of whether there's a system at the other end or not. And we're not ditching the grid.

Yes, it still has to calculate it. The only change would that the end point would have to be a space body of some sort (read, a non-empty sector).
Free movement has the nasty effect that you can park a ship on the limit of its scan range of an enemy system, and check its defenses and orbiting fleets. It's kind of lame IMO, especially because a human player can take advantage of it better than an AI player.
The grid is still necessary, that's a non-issue.