Hi there.

Ever since I started Endless Space I have been hooked, and it is definitely in my top 3 games. After playing the Open Beta for around 8 hours now I can already tell that I will fall in love with Endless Legend as well. Even though the Beta is already a lot of fun, I can't help but think that the Unit Creation could be improved in some ways. Which is why I'd like to share my views and suggestions on certain aspects. I am aware that these are mostly based on a first impression, since 8 hours still isn't much time, and the game is still in Beta and a lot of features are missing. So I can't guarantee that anything I say will still be relevant in later updates or late-game. As a student I lack the time to read through the entire suggestion forum, so please forgive me if I suggest things that have already been suggested/ might be added.



Throughout this list I'll explain the "problem/shortcoming" I ran into first, before giving a suggestion, so hopefully it will be clear where this feedback came from. It is a long read, way longer than I anticipated.



To get started with this list, I'd like to share my thoughts on the Unit Classes, and their possibilities



Unit Classes, Possibilities and Discipline System



As far as I've noticed, every race starts with a single unit unlocked, followed by the others as the game progresses. (Though I can't account for unreleased races). This order of unlocking unit classes has been bugging me from the start, and here's why:





- Early game combat is restricted to "one-dimensional" battles only, where you are stuck with the unit class you start with. Though other unit types are available through Minor Races the process of assimilating races can take quite some time early game. Because of this unit progression the early game has little use for tactics, the player can only hope to outgun(outcrossbow?) his enemies. (At the moment ranged units easily overpower melee) Only in the mid-game when all classes are unlocked it is possible to make armies based on tactics, rather than availability of troop tiers. For me this resulted in getting bored of the early-game combat rather quickly, since it resorted to simple bashing/charging rather than tactics. Too put it bluntly, being restricted to pure ranged/melee combat is simply quite boring.

- Because of the troop progression, army composition is pretty screwed up. The earliest armies, in case of the vaulters, consist of ranged units, once you can use cavalry the armies will tend to mix cavalry and archers, but cavalry will be overpowered by archers early-game. Only in the Second/third research era you can finally start composing mixed armies, and experimenting with army compositions. Though it does give something to look forward too, the early game feels way too restricted. It is true that until mid-game, the player won't see any real combat, though I felt way too limited with my options.

- Though this is just a personal preference, I think it's quite quirky that certain civilisations figure out how to shoot crossbows at their enemies before using sharp objects/clubs brutally mutilate them.



A different note about the unit classes, they feel simply too restrictive. Looking back at ES, I could easily make up to 4 different designs with a single ship class because the options were so numerous. With EL the unit design felt between a choice of Two- or One-handed weapons accompanied by proper armour. Every unit I've seen so far has only a choice of 2 usable weapons, and armour is pretty much a necessity. There is the choice between Armour-Initiative in the early game, but as soon as Glassteel or Titanium is found, the choice is always obvious. Especially a unit without armour can be pretty worthless in combat. Especially mid-lategame.



The Discipline System

I feel that all of this could be remedied by allowing the player to chose a specific "Discipline" when designing a unit. Basicly this would give to player a choice which weapons to equip with a certain unit (Although with some restrictions for special units), giving each unit a set of different option's to chose from. For example, early-game Vaulter players could have the choice to equip their Marines with a sword and shield (Swordsmen/Melee Discipline), giving them the option to use a Ranged-Melee mixed army right from the start. This way a single unit could have 3-5 different types of sub-units, each coming with different design choices. This simple addition would make the unit design a lot more complex than "Two-, or one handed Melee/Ranged/Magic"



Not only would this greatly expand the creative potential of a single unit, it would also allow for a lot of experimenting with different tactics. For example a player might try giving Centaurs bows, to create a ranged harasser which doesn't do much damage, but can easily outflank and distract the enemy. Anti-cavalry cavalry could be designed by equipping cavalry with spears, or just go the goofy way and try arming a Urcer with a bow the size of a ballistae. Equipping infantry with spears/swords/axes could give them different bonuses against different types of enemies, greatly expanding the possibilities for army composition, and making armies visually more interesting. But mostly it will be a great way to add alternative roles to units, with their own benefits and downsides.



However, this does not mean that unit classes should be discarded. Rather than a unit that is forced to use a specific weapon type, a unit could be more beneficial with a certain weapon (Affinity with x weapons). This will still make it rewarding to unlock unit classes (ex: finally be able to use proper infantry, instead of archers armed with swords), while co-existing with the disciplines. Apart from that every unit class could have a set of different abilities with different weapons, a Titan armed with a giant crossbow could do damage to multiple units in a row, while Infantry-type archers could fire, and counter in a single turn, though not doing as much damage as a ranged unit would do with those weapons.



All in all, I think that the ability to use "disciplines" to equip units different weapons than their classes would not only greatly improve the unit design in terms of possibilities, it would also allow for more experiments and different tactics, while at the same time curing the early game of the ranged-stuck combat.



A more simplistic approach:

A new unit class could also be introduced, a "jack of all trades" type of unit that players start the game with. This unit could be given a basic choice between ranged or melee weapons, so it will be capable to fulfil any role until the superior-specific unit is unlocked.



High Tech units stuck with medieval fashion

I have to admit, I think each and every single unit model is beautiful and cool to look at. However, it doesn't feel right to be ending the game with units that are (apart from their weapons) exactly the same as the units I started with. It really nullifies the effect of advancing through different tech ages when there is no visual reward for it. One of the best things in any similar 4X game was watching your people/armies evolve as your technology does, whilst EL units and cities seem to be stuck in a time stasis, completely different from their technology age.



From a gameplay perspective, this can also be bothersome in a battle. The lack of visual feedback on armour or tech age of a unit makes it hard to judge your opponents in a battle. Especially since you can't see the difference between a highly-and un-armoured unit in battle this can get quite annoying. Not to mention it could make the difference between victory and defeat, if you could properly judge the level of a opponents armour. Since every unit looks alike there is no way to tell the ones with Tier-3 Glassteel armour from those stuck with Tier-1 iron. Unless you decide to analyse the stats of every unit, but that's not what a battle should be about.



Creating a fashionista paradise:

Alike to weapons and shields, show armour pieces on the unit model. This way it will feel rewarding to equip your units with the newest equipment, it will be easy to see the difference between different generations of the same unit, make battles a lot more interesting visually and; most of all allowing the player to judge his enemies without having to dig through it's stats all the time. Besides, who wouldn't love to see a Urcer be a giant hulking pile of metal, rather than a big fella with a loincloth that absorbs damage like a set of full Tier-3 armour. A Urcer clad in the best Tier-3 armour would visually be as threatening as statistically, instead of a loincloth wearing warrior through all tech levels.



Though I love the idea of a ironclad Urcer tower of death, it's mostly about being able to judge your opponents at a glance.



OR, the following could be done:



Have the unit models change with every tech era, which is probably easier to implement. It wouldn't be quite as cool as a visual display of armour pieces on units, but it will still give the player a feeling of progression, and allow a rough estimate of the other race's tech level. Though the tech level won't provide much feedback on the actual armour stats of a unit, it can give a idea what to expect at a glance.



Apart from units, it would also be nice to see cities change with every era. Perhaps they already do, in which case I haven't noticed, but the ever evolving feeling given by the city districts would be complimented by cities changing with the times. Apart from that, it can be used to get an idea of the tech level of your opponents, which is quite important gameplay-wise.





Flying Units feel insecure, seem to have a problem getting up

While flying units are rare, and should feel really powerful or mobile, somehow they feel like neither of those. Every flying unit I've seen so far has the mobility of a brick, and most of all can't seem to figure out how to fly. Basicly they feel like someone superglued a pigeon to a vaulter Titan and somehow expected it to fly, wasting some good glue and a pigeon in the process.



Suggestion: Upgrade pigeon to superglued dragon

Allowing flyers to actually fly over obstacles and longer ranges, a Daemon is not that terrifying when they come flying at you while taking a rest every five meters. Allowing Flying units to bypass terrain like cliffs and water, whilst giving them a movement range between infantry and cavalry would make them feel actually useful as a hit and run/flanking unit. Flying units could also be giving the ability to fly over enemy troops, making them a real threat to archers and support units, even when they are guarded by lines of shields and swords. Right now it feels like flying units are extremely rare, yet somehow the weakest type of units.



Minor Factions need some love

I really love the idea and way minor factions are implemented, it is a truly unique and awesome mechanic, but I feel like more could be added to it.



Units get spammed, yet are not that special

Right now, minor faction units don't stand out too much from the rest, apart from unit model. Though they have a different skill then other units off that class it still feels as if the difference is not big enough. For example a Urcer feels like a Titan that has lost its ability to block, but can smash more things. There is a difference, but the minor race units don't really stand out in terms of gameplay and tactics. Also for some reason the AI likes to spam full stacks of Minor Race units, which can make wars laughable when you find the counter to the unit the AI spams.



Extra-specialize your minors

Make Minor Faction units stand out more from the rest, at this moment they are only slightly different units that the AI likes to spam because they are statistically slightly better. Minor Faction units could feel a lot more special and diverse if they got a buff, including multiple special skills that make them truly stand out (And allowing for new strategies with different faction combo's, ex: Vinesnakes can attack different targets at once, slow but excellent at holding chokepoints, Daemons can create flaming barriers to deny tiles to the enemy, great units for harassment etc.) Of course buffing the creature units will need balancing, but this can help to make them more diverse. A good example would be disabling armour slots for certain races (Most of them can't wear armour at all), or replacing armour with different items. (Instead of armouring a giant living crystal, why not infuse him with strategic metals to give him new abilities) and most of all increasing the costs of these units. This way minor races can become unique,rare and potentially game-changing units instead of a slightly better variation to spam.



Other thingies:

-Once a minor faction is assimilated, add a banner to pacified/assimilated villages of the player's flag, and allow these villages to be attacked by other players. This will make assimilations harder, since you'll have to worry about defending the villages you assimilated. Failure to do so might mean you need to pacify the villages again. But if you do manage to defend these villages, the strong units are quite a reward. Since the new race is focused on minor races, other players need a way to be able to undermine that relationship. These changes to villages would allow that.

- More bonuses from villages, right now all you get is a minor decrease in construction costs and a small stat bonus, which feels pretty underwhelming. If I get the Urcer tribes on my side, it would make sense to use their bulk strength for manufacturing, a Urcer pacified village could give a +3 construction bonus to the nearest city for example. Allthough it wouldn't have to be FIDS bonuses, anything would feel more rewarding than "5% extra hitpoints"



And then there is some small thoughts

Mostly minor things and suggestions:

- As it is now, ranged units are extremely overpowered. They can usually lay waste to most melee troops before they are being touched. It would probably help a lot to make ranged weapons really dependent on the terrain, with severe efficiency losses for firing through forests or over obstacles. This way melee troops can approach enemy archers without getting shot up, if they use the terrain properly. It will make Initiative-Archer battlegroups powerless in areas filled with forests and cliffs, though powerful on plains where cavalry can get them. In the end a pure-archery army won't do so well as they do now.

- There is barely a difference between Bows and Crossbows, besides the obvious shield and damage, this could be expanded upon by allowing bows to arc fire over obstacles and longer ranges, while crossbows need direct fire but do more damage. This will create more distinction between the two types of weapons, and allow for more strategic thinking.

- During targeting and positioning, especially with ranged units, there needs to be the option to see the range of the ranged attacks. So that units can be positioned properly, and there won't* be any more banzai archers rushing forward to get in range. *At least it can be prevented .png" alt="smiley:

First point, the races do not start out with only a ranged unit unlocked. Only the Vaulters and the Wild Walkers start out with ranged units. Broken Lords start with infantry and the same for the Necrophages.

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
First point, the races do not start out with only a ranged unit unlocked. Only the Vaulters and the Wild Walkers start out with ranged units. Broken Lords start with infantry and the same for the Necrophages.

Ahh, never noticed that since all my opponents were Wild Walkers or Vaulters, thanks for the info. I'll edit the post :v

The unit system adds a lot of character to the different factions. Each faction should feel different on the battlefield. Some will be ranged-heavy, some will be melee-heavy, some will rely on special abilities and some will be balanced. If a "jack of all trades" unit was introduced to each faction, guess which unit we'd be using 90% of the time? It's important to note that a common criticism of Endless Space was that the factions didn't feel that unique (unless you really dug into it).



The current design should force you to carefully choose your Minor Faction allies and (hopefully) utilize the Marketplace to round out your forces. Giving every faction a flexible starting unit eliminates the need to do that. We'll see more "spam" because Jack is good enough and it will be more efficient to upgrade and build more Jacks.



Today, there are balance issues, missing mechanics, missing/unimplemented abilities and missing major/minor factions. The AI is very basic and as you point out, likes to spam one type of unit and blindly rushes units to their death. Amplitude has acknowledged these issues and hopefully a month or two from now, we'll be able to play with a fully-developed system.

Duffman667 wrote:


- As it is now, ranged units are extremely overpowered. They can usually lay waste to most melee troops before they are being touched. It would probably help a lot to make ranged weapons really dependent on the terrain, with severe efficiency losses for firing through forests or over obstacles. This way melee troops can approach enemy archers without getting shot up, if they use the terrain properly. It will make Initiative-Archer battlegroups powerless in areas filled with forests and cliffs, though powerful on plains where cavalry can get them. In the end a pure-archery army won't do so well as they do now.

This is already a feature in the game, just not a well documented one. Ranged archer units take a penalty when firing into units currently occupying a forest tile. The same goes for archers on lower ground firing on units at a higher elevation. I've used these terrain features to my advantage many times when using melee units to engage archers. The devs have said one of their priorities is finding a way to convey all these important terrain modifiers on the battlefield itself so hopefully it will soon be obvious to all that terrain truly is important in combat.

echo2361 wrote:
Ranged archer units take a penalty when firing into units currently occupying a forest tile.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that forest tiles just give a defensive boost to any unit currently occupying the tile. Melee troops attacking into a forest will also do less damage to said unit in the forest.



Think it's true that ranged units generally are better, though I wonder if some of this has to do with the fact that the AI doesn't modify its units and moves pretty predictably. There's also the fact that you can see its deployment and position accordingly. Since you wouldn't encounter this in a human player (and hopefully you don't see their deployment right off the bat too), it might be a little more difficult to hide those archers without a wall to back them up.

Also as for crossbows doing better damage, if we once again look back into history this is historically inaccurate. the main advantage of crossbows were that they were easy to use and powerful. However they were extremely low ranged and only a fool would have an army made up of crossbow men, they were used more often as a defensive weapon, as once again, they were easy to use and didn't require a lot of training. The longbow, greatly surpassed the crossbow in most ways, it had a higher range, it could use indirect fire a lot more effectively, it was faster to reload, it was more accurate, and it caused more damage. The only major disadvantages were that it required a skilled archer to be able to use it proficiently. Now, I know that EL and human weapons are unlikely to be the same but on the whole longbows greatly surpass crossbows in many aspect including damage.

The problem with historical comparison is that i doubt archers was comfortably shooting at melee at point blank for any lenght of time. While in game we have this trading bows with archers and melee. Also... screw history, just make the game play right. If we want historical accurancy then go full at it, selective aproach will end with weird results.



My thoughs (more from gameplay point of view):

- range is superior due to ability to focus fire, and hitting without being hit (sometimes totally free). So sorry, but 1h xbow < Bow = 1h melee < 2h melee. Or some other massive bonuses for melee. Otherwise this will be range fest (as now).

- I would welcome 2h xbow (the one with winch), even better if having knack against heavy armor targets.

- There is place for some more ranged weapons, like slings (good against light infantry) or dust railgun rifles for variety.

Have you ever heard of the Hundred Years' War?







Maybe not the best representation but you can imagine with the inefficiency of medieval weapons, they were quite close to each other.

I very much want to see the discipline system implemented. Each unit class would be able to use almost any discipline. I agree that a jack of all trades unit would be a bad idea because it would become too heavily used. The discipline system mixed with the fact that each unit is going to have unique passive and active abilities will allow more options for unit and army creation while still maintaining a good deal of variety.

Duffman667 wrote:




Creating a fashionista paradise:

Alike to weapons and shields, show armour pieces on the unit model. This way it will feel rewarding to equip your units with the newest equipment, it will be easy to see the difference between different generations of the same unit, make battles a lot more interesting visually and; most of all allowing the player to judge his enemies without having to dig through it's stats all the time. Besides, who wouldn't love to see a Urcer be a giant hulking pile of metal, rather than a big fella with a loincloth that absorbs damage like a set of full Tier-3 armour. A Urcer clad in the best Tier-3 armour would visually be as threatening as statistically, instead of a loincloth wearing warrior through all tech levels.



Though I love the idea of a ironclad Urcer tower of death, it's mostly about being able to judge your opponents at a glance.



OR, the following could be done:



Have the unit models change with every tech era, which is probably easier to implement. It wouldn't be quite as cool as a visual display of armour pieces on units, but it will still give the player a feeling of progression, and allow a rough estimate of the other race's tech level. Though the tech level won't provide much feedback on the actual armour stats of a unit, it can give a idea what to expect at a glance.



Apart from units, it would also be nice to see cities change with every era. Perhaps they already do, in which case I haven't noticed, but the ever evolving feeling given by the city districts would be complimented by cities changing with the times. Apart from that, it can be used to get an idea of the tech level of your opponents, which is quite important gameplay-wise.

I thought that visual changes would be implemented in the final release oO