Sordak wrote:
actually tactical combat has so far always been superior to not tactical combat in pretty much any game.



If anything, tactical is a sign of quality. Cause if its not tactical, then its just about numbers.



I know what you mean tho, but i still heavily disagree.

Engaging combat should be relevant to any game featuring combat.



and bear with me here. How many people did you think played Endless Space for its engaging combat? Probably not that many. You know what games are generaly considered to have awsome combat? Age of Wonders, Heroes of Might and magic and the likes of that.

I know that the 4X genre doesnt *need* engaging combat.



But saying that not having tactical combat is *superior* to having it is just preposterous.

I agree tactical combat can be fun, but it seems the focus in this particular game will be different. Alot more strategical then tactical.

adding more features go the game, increases the amount of calculations and computing needed to be done by the computer and can and will make many computers laggy, even to the point of unplayable lag.

Sordak wrote:
adding features doesnt make it harder for PCs to handle it simply increases the filesize.

Yes i am well aware that features cost resources to make.



But its not like they dont have the setup for a great 4X game anyway. the lack of combat does *not * sound like it was due to a budget constraint to me.

I don't know if you have ever played Europa Universalis 4, but if you have, do you think that game would be better or worse if they added tactical combat? More strategical or less?

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
well if you are a developer, if you add tactical combat to the game you will probably have to put the focus on it instead of other aspects of the game. there is only so much you can add to a game anyway before it becomes to much for most computers to handle. just wait unti the game comes out and see what the combat system is like, i suggest.

adding features doesnt make it harder for PCs to handle it simply increases the filesize.

Yes i am well aware that features cost resources to make.



But its not like they dont have the setup for a great 4X game anyway. the lack of combat does *not * sound like it was due to a budget constraint to me.

well if you are a developer, if you add tactical combat to the game you will probably have to put the focus on it instead of other aspects of the game. there is only so much you can add to a game anyway before it becomes to much for most computers to handle. just wait unti the game comes out and see what the combat system is like, i suggest.

Andy_Dandy wrote:
I've played those games myself too, and enjoy them alot, but they are not as strategical like for instance Europa Universalis 4 or Galactic Civilizations 2 (which are strategy games with no tactical combat at all). The games you mention are also games where the tactical combat takes up at least half the game, they are not what I would call deep strategy games. It's a question about what type of game you want to make, and how to do it right. Adding tactical combat would make the games I mentioned less strategy focused for sure.

How so? that is nonsense.



How would add something decrease the other parts?

that is simply nonsense.





thats the old faulty argument of "it wont work because nobody has done it before to prove that it does"

The way the games you mentioned work is that combat is for all intents and purposes about the logistics around it. the combat itself is irrelevant.

So how would making the combat actual combat instead of dice rolls make the other parts of the game less strategic?



That is illogical.

Sordak wrote:
having played several games that feature both strategic and tactical gameplay (Age of Wonders, Disciples 2, Heroes 3, Eador) i can tell you for a fact that this is not true.



For one thing, these games are turn based, turns take a while. And this is a 4X game, battles will not substatially increase the turn time as you already spend alot of time in your tech tree, on diplomacy and unit creation.



And just because a game has tactical battles does not mean it starts to revolve around them. If the other elements are any good combat will not start to take over.

Combat is part of any 4X game, so the question is not wether or not to have combat, but wether or not it should be any good.



and if people care more about combat than the other elements because the combat is actually fun, that doesnt mean that the other aspects get less attention, just that combat gets more because its fun.

I've played those games myself too, and enjoy them alot, but they are not as strategical like for instance Europa Universalis 4 or Galactic Civilizations 2 (which are strategy games with no tactical combat at all). The games you mention are also games where the tactical combat takes up at least half the game, they are not what I would call deep strategy games. It's a question about what type of game you want to make, and how to do it right. Adding tactical combat would make the games I mentioned less strategy focused for sure.

I really like turn-based tactical combat!



That's why I like chess and the very recently discovered "new" game, "Arimaa", which is has many similarities with chess while being completely different at the same time.

I liked Master of Orion, I liked Fallen Enchantress (which outside of the tactical-combat is a rather poor game, as the decision-making is too simple, but the tactical-combat makes it a good game anyways).



In ES it's the other way around. The game outside of the Combat is really good but the Combat itself is very poorly made.



Right now Civ V: BNW is my favorite 4x. It does both relatively well.



Many games make the mistake of focusing one too much and leaving the other too weak. In my book that's a mistake by design.



I think in ES' case "Multiplayer" was the main-excuse. If they made tactical combat too important, then it would have to be used in MP and resulted in long wait-times.

Everybody and their mother said that Endless Space would be a far superior game if battles actually mattered. Now Endless Legend is coming around and we hear "hey, battles matter" and you think that's a bad thing? This is honestly the best feature they've previewed so far because when playing multiplayer people might actually look at my units rather than just auto everything.

Andy_Dandy wrote:
They are mutually exclusive. The more time of the gameplay spent arround tactics, the less time is spent on strategical decissions. Doing tactics well will make up for bad strategical play etc.

Games with super tactical battles also have easier exploitive AI's. It easely comes to a point where it turns the game to be all about those tactical battles.....

having played several games that feature both strategic and tactical gameplay (Age of Wonders, Disciples 2, Heroes 3, Eador) i can tell you for a fact that this is not true.



For one thing, these games are turn based, turns take a while. And this is a 4X game, battles will not substatially increase the turn time as you already spend alot of time in your tech tree, on diplomacy and unit creation.



And just because a game has tactical battles does not mean it starts to revolve around them. If the other elements are any good combat will not start to take over.

Combat is part of any 4X game, so the question is not wether or not to have combat, but wether or not it should be any good.



and if people care more about combat than the other elements because the combat is actually fun, that doesnt mean that the other aspects get less attention, just that combat gets more because its fun.

Sordak wrote:
tactics is another point of depth below strategical.



In other words strategical and tactical are not mutually exclusive. "Strategical" gameplay is mostly about logistics, army composition and general macro.



So a strategic game that also has tactical combat is simply a deeper combat expirience than a game thats just strategical but has no tactical combat.

They are mutually exclusive. The more time of the gameplay spent arround tactics, the less time is spent on strategical decissions. Doing tactics well will make up for bad strategical play etc.

Games with super tactical battles also have easier exploitive AI's. It easely comes to a point where it turns the game to be all about those tactical battles.....

Andy_Dandy wrote:
I agree tactical combat can be fun, but it seems the focus in this particular game will be different. Alot more strategical then tactical.

tactics is another point of depth below strategical.



In other words strategical and tactical are not mutually exclusive. "Strategical" gameplay is mostly about logistics, army composition and general macro.



So a strategic game that also has tactical combat is simply a deeper combat expirience than a game thats just strategical but has no tactical combat.

After reading the design goals am I the only one who thinks its nuts not have it?



Real time combat with small unit numbers on a hex map? Really.

Andy_Dandy wrote:
Tactical combat won't be superior in this game, trust me.

actually tactical combat has so far always been superior to not tactical combat in pretty much any game.



If anything, tactical is a sign of quality. Cause if its not tactical, then its just about numbers.



I know what you mean tho, but i still heavily disagree.

Engaging combat should be relevant to any game featuring combat.



and bear with me here. How many people did you think played Endless Space for its engaging combat? Probably not that many. You know what games are generaly considered to have awsome combat? Age of Wonders, Heroes of Might and magic and the likes of that.

I know that the 4X genre doesnt *need* engaging combat.



But saying that not having tactical combat is *superior* to having it is just preposterous.

Tactical combat won't be superior in this game, trust me.

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
cards. cards are nice, cards are simple, cards are easy to understand (usually) a

And cards make it so that after game 2 you stop looking at the combat altogether and give less and less of a crap about the combat. The rock paper scissors thing only works after long engagements against human players when you know what they're going for, and then a couple bad choices and your fleet is annihilated for free and your opponent ravages over you.



I think everyone has been over this and cards simply don't work because:



A. They don't encourage you to ever look at the combat which detaches you even further from playing a game and solidifies it as chart-warrior.

B. They make the combat rock paper scissors which is just bizarre when some combat can become SUPER important.

cards. cards are nice, cards are simple, cards are easy to understand (usually) a

Hey everyone - New forum goer here.



One of the main reasons I waited SOOOOOOOOOOOO long to get Endless Space (which I love like 75% to death) was the combat. I just couldn't understand why no one wanted to make a TBS space civ combat system anymore!



Anyways, I was just reading the design documents for Endless Legends and the devs seem to imply that the system will be very similar to the ES one. I know a lot of people enjoy that system, and I am not saying there is anything particularly wrong with, but personally I am not fan of it. I assume that the combat system is already set in stone (or at least drying concrete) so there won't be any change, but I would really be on board with a TBS Tactical system.

I still havent wrapped my head around how exactly the combat system is supposed to work.



So i just figured "real time" would translate to: Turn based but all turns are executed at the same time.



Opposed to lets say heroes or age of wonders where the units are moved by player turns.





If it realy is just real time animations you can watch i would strongly agree that a proper tactical combat system would be a superior choice.

I personally feel the system for combat will just be like ES, makes sense when so many other areas are the same.

Feeling for other models:

RTS: More total war? Not necessary

Turn based tactical: Not bad, but hard to balance and hard to scale up

Detailed order: (Looking at dominions, also Propbuddha) Make a lot of sense, but please make the system remember individual roles (kinda pissed that ES don't remember cards picked, but whatever)

Even though the overview said :

The battle takes place in real time over a maximum of 2 minutes, but the fight is divided into rounds on which all the rules are based.

I'm not so sure this is that much different than ES. I agree that RTS-style battles is a turn based grand strategy game isn't a good idea, but the ES system could have been a bit more interactive. A system where you can give orders to individual units (stuff like "attack", "defend", "cast spell", etc.) rather than a single order for your army, while keeping the round system/time limit from ES would be nice.

Of my 5 friends that I play multiplayer with, all of just me still watch the space battles. None of them are content with it, and this more tactical combat sounds infinitely superior even if all you do is watch simply because things could actually happen over the battle.

i personally think turn based battles would be great if they kept the card system.