Coming from watching the recording of yesterdays livestream, I am wondering about the new/revised battle system in which "players have full control over their units".

For me the Endless battle system, be it Legends or Space (2), was always unique in the way that you give your units a general strategy and watch them get into the nitty gritty themselves. Be it the more "traditional" way from Legend where you give units general commands and watch the turns unfold, or the more (and still for me slightly obscure) system of battle plans in Space 2, I enjoyed the more distanced role of the player (yadda yadda, the immersive/roleplaying part of high level managing a nation and not being a squad leader commanding individual troops).

I feel that intricate battle systems in games have become "the thing" over the past decade, where every battle needs to be like its own little XCOM turn-based skirmish with as much detail and the highest skill ceiling as possible. I really enjoy games like Age of Wonders 4/Planetfall and the Total War (Warhammer) series (you may argue about how much 4X or wargame they are), but I always get worn out by their battles. For me, they shift the focus too much into the warmongering part and away from other things, that make 4X games great: The exploration and the empire building. In the end I often tend to auto-resolve battles, completely aware that I might get screwed by my own battle-AI.

I know that the battle-AI for Legend did not always make the smartest choice in where to move or who to attack, but that is just part of the game for me. I enjoy a bit of unpredictability. And in a way the detail of the players involvement was up to the player themselvs by choosing how often they want to be asked for their input in these battles.

I am not blind to the forums in general and many comments already made about Legend 2 (in videos or on Steam), where many people "wish for an improved battle system". And it seems the developers are adressing that, giving the players in Legend 2 "full control over their units".

So... bottom line... Am I the outlier for actually enjoying the less involved approach from previous Endless games? Besides the "obvious" reasons (lore/universe, unique factions/theme) that is one of the reasons I like the games so much. Are there more people who enjoy the old battle system?

And if its not clear, I do not want to criticise or be judgmental about the new game and its systems. I just had a thought while watching the stream. Since so very little is known about the new system I think everything is still possible. I was just asking if other people also enjoyed the "old" system.

I mean, in all their games you can just use the auto-battler and ignore it. I don't enjoy micromanaging combat in any 4X game, and unless I'm in multiplayer this works fine.

Yes, I had much the same thought. I do trust them to come up with something great; I think the battle system in Humankind is generally pretty good. And I think at this point it is probably fairly solidly established in the development that individual control is how it will be.  

There is just something about the limitation on the combat in Endless Legend that I think makes it feel unique, of course, but also adds extra layers of strategy. The player is required to think ahead and plan for unknown elements, ie what will happen in the battle between when the orders are given and when they are executed. However, the beauty of it is that this strategic depth is added through the simplicity of the system rather than additional complex player actions or choices. The give-em-another-grenade approach of other games can be fun of course, but I really do think it gets to feel samey.

Perhaps it is possible though to maintain the strategic depth while still giving control over each unit. Keeping initiative as a concept, for example, rather than allowing the player full choice in which order they move and use the units, would make a difference from AOW4 or Humankind. 

So to answer your question, yes there are other people who enjoy the old battle system, but I think we may be the minority.

I also like the first game's combat. It's unique and forces you to think in a different way than most games with tactical combat. But in my experience most strategy gamers dislike 1. mechanics that drastically depart from hoary conventions and 2. anything that they perceive as diminishing their agency and/or increasing unpredictability. This was borne out in all the complaints I've heard about the combat in Endless Legend, so I always assumed a sequel would walk it back.

I do like the combat in games like Heroes of Might and Magic or Age of Wonders, so if they do a successful variation on that I'll be fine. Combat is not what I play Endless Legend for anyway, and one of my favorite things about it is that it's the rare fantasy 4X that isn't completely obsessed with it. But I am a little bummed out that they are giving up on something that, for me at least, contributed to making the first game special and different from all the other stuff out there.

Maybe, if they go with a similar version to the AoW4 combat there is also a form of auto resolve that is not just instant but also lets you watch... so like a Legend 1-light version...

I mean like all the games theres times ill engage with it and others I'll auto resolve. Regardless of what they go with as long as it fits in the theme and feel of the game i don't mind how they implement it.

​

Tyakraman wrote:

Maybe, if they go with a similar version to the AoW4 combat there is also a form of auto resolve that is not just instant but also lets you watch... so like a Legend 1-light version...

AoW4's combat system is going to ruin all other 4x games for me. I think it's perfect. I can skip it if it's trivial and fight it if I need/want to. Plus, I even get a second chance to fight the battle if I get my ass kicked trying to skip it. That, with all the different spells & stuff available in combat, makes it my favorite 4x combat system by far

I am also a really big fan of Endless Legends combat system but not for the reason of just letting it auto battle. I actually like the restriction on orders a lot and I even play on 2 rounds per order so I only get to give 3 orders per combat. It feels like you were saying, like I am a general to my troops, and sometimes it can get me in trouble and that can be something I'll have to think about. That being said many many players will as they say want to "efficiency the fun out of any game" and don't like systems that lean towards even the chance of you not being in control. To them I say, Just use Glasssteel items and you will most likely win initiative lol. 

I will say though that I don't think the scale of battles will probably get to the point where it's exhausting to play through them all, I do understand not wanting to have to do individual units turns every round, especially if we are still doing 6 rounds. I think something that would be great is if we could have multi turn battles like the land battles in ES2 are but with some more depth. I want to imagine a system where we have 3 rounds where we control all the turns of our units, as do our enemies, but at the end of the 3 rounds we don't clear the board, instead we just are done for that turn and now outside forces could effect the battle come next turn, be that reinforcements, a shift in weather, a new modifier of some sort, then when we reopen the battle the forces are all in the same position we left them at and the battle continues. 

This is simply my idea of how I would improve the battle system, it wasn't really asked for but I wanted to add to the conversation. 

I like the combat on ES2. Choose a card (or just keep the same than before), click "fight", and it's done.

I played a bit W40k Gladius. It's a good 4x, but it's a bit boring to manage every unit and combat move after a while.

So I prefer a system with a kind of auto-battle, or indirect orders.

I'm personally excited for a combat system that lets you get really stuck in, Heroes of Might and Magic style. It'd really help define Endless Legend's identity against Endless Space if the latter was more vague (but had a lot of decisions to be made on the meta level) but the former let you really get elbows-deep into the tactical combat decisions.

I do enjoy the Endless Legend's combat system. It's unique, moves at a nice pace, and has a strategic depth you don't see in other games. Tho, I will have to admit it was a little confusing at first, and had a steep learning curve. The greatest complaint I have, is the advance controls – they were never explained; not even in the game manual! Did you know there is a control to move onto an occupied tile? Did you know you can que commands? I think there was even a control to attack an empty tile that you think will be occupied by the enemy. If I remember right, controls were alt-click and shift-click. I have over 700 hours in the game, and I still struggle to remember what those advance combat controls are, when I haven't played for a while.

The ES2 system is definitely what I would've prefered. I just hope those battles won't take too long, EL1 was kind of okay and I liked the limited controls, but for example in AoW4 it just feels like I'm playing xcom lite rather than a 4x.
As that probably won't change though I hope they have a good solution for the going first problem, not sure if initiative would work well in a full control setting without turns going way too long. Without it in HK it felt like going first won most battles and led to retreating in nearly all cases by the person that would go second.
Also really wish that there is a setting for force auto-resolve, especially for multiplayer.

Not a fan of the ES2 combat system. I'm glad they are going with something like Humankind

I agree with OP. I like the cinematic style of ES2, would like EL2 to have a fast auto-resolve and one with cinematic auto-resolve. Microing the battle myself is of no interest to me, though I respect the opinions of those who think it's an important feature. Maybe 3 different resolves then? Manual, fast auto and cinematic auto.

​

Tyakraman wrote:

And if its not clear, I do not want to criticise or be judgmental about the new game and its systems. I just had a thought while watching the stream. Since so very little is known about the new system I think everything is still possible. I was just asking if other people also enjoyed the "old" system.

Thanks for your thoughts and do not worry, we know this will be an important topic for those players who loved the EL1 combat system, I can confirm that we are going more into the "full control" of your units (that you could see in HK) but with our own uniqueness. Without entering into details, as we will have in the future a blog talking about it but you could imagine as well the appearance of your heroes in the battle, etc.

Tyakraman wrote:

Maybe, if they go with a similar version to the AoW4 combat there is also a form of auto resolve that is not just instant but also lets you watch... so like a Legend 1-light version...

There is something like that already in Humankind. You can do manual battle and then you have a toggle to be "auto-battle" but then if you think "Let me take the control back" you switch that.

Sounds fine to me. Can't wait for that blog post : )

The issue I have with EL combat is you can auto-resolve or fight it manually. But if you are going to let me fight it manually, then let me do it. The automated orders felt like a hybrid solution that wasn't quite satisfying (though it was original). But very curious to find out what all of you think.

Not alone :) I think Humankind had the perfect battel system as IIRC, you had direct control of units. My only gripe was that it was a bit easy to cheese the AI with ranged units and terrain. My wife and I have been binging EL1 recently, and direct control of units is something that I would have loved, as well as speeding up assaults had I chosen observer, or switch to observe/auto if I started an assault with the manual option. 

​

SpikedWallMan wrote:

I hope the battle is more like EL1 and not like Humankind.  To be honest, I felt like HK's battle system was far too complicated and tedious due to all of the factors involved, and every single move almost needed its own spreadsheet to calculate the best action.  EL1 had a deep enough battle system, but it wasn't so massive that it took too much time away from the other X's in the 4X formula.

Disagreed. The battle system in EL1 was the weakest part of the game imo. The devs changed it for a good reason and they have the data to support their decision

Having just done a humankind game against the AI and got up to about gunpowder units, I do also really like the system. I suppose the only issue I noticed and idk if EL2 will have this, but I have times where my units that are range can't not see the target and I don't really understand why. That my only issue with it, everything else I rather like and I hope EL2 take the concept and improves on it.