I agree that the principle of the Endless Space combat system was good, but the execution left much to be desired.

As uqcu pointed out, it felt wrong that the fleets would be constantly closing in one each other. I can see a certain logic in the fleets just strafing each other in a straight line (inertia of such massive ships and all that), but it would not make sense to move outside of your optimal range.

To that end, I think Endless Space would have been better serve with a card system that represents fleet maneuvers. Keep Distance, Close with enemy, maybe even "outflank" sending only the small ships with the powerful short-ranged torpedos forward while the battleships continue long-range artillery bombardment....



I don't need full tactical control in combat, and I think that would be hard for the AI to handle and take away from other development time. I would much rather have a "hands off" system that still allows me to issue strategies to fleets and thus keep different ship designs and even mixed fleets viable.



Also, being able to manage our empire while combat happens could greatly speed up turn resolution, especially with a hands off system. Back before "single turn order phases" became the default in Endless Legend, I would often set up my battles, kick them off, then go to micro my cities while the battle happened int he background. Perhaps they could open the cinematic in a small window, or play it out on the map in te star system. I'd prefer the former option, though.







Other gameplay features I would like to see:

- Sequential turns and hot-seat multiplayer.

- Pre-set teams and allied victory.

- An internal policy system. Not like CivV's policies nor the civics of Civ4, but rather Acts and laws you can pass and maintain that give different bonuses.

- Better Diplomacy. AI personalities, reasonable deals, the ability to renegotiate, and perhaps even ways to vassalize weak empires with actual tangible benefits to you beside ending the war.

- More interesting moons. I'd love to see planets with multiple moons, and more options/improvements that interact with them.

- A clearer tax and trade route system.

- More varied victory conditions. In the end, both the Science and the Economic victory just measured how much Dust/Science you generated over the course of the game.

- A little bit of visual eye candy: I would love to see the planets (and their moons) in their orbits on the strategic map, as well as trade ships moving along the star lanes to show trade routes (like the poor haulers trudging along the roads in the Total War games). This would also help to convey some gameplay information at a glance.

- Potential for maps with multiple galaxies

- Fixed blockade mechanics. Just see WhiteWeasel's post earlier in the thread for some good ideas.





P.S. I would much prefer actual beams over blaster style shots for lasers, but that's really no make or break issue.

I definitely like the idea of fleets needing admirals to be formed to help present fleet spamming. You need to have a reserve system of some type set up though to transfer newly built ships between systems without needing admirals to just sit around ferrying single ships to join up with their distant fleets.



Regarding combat, I don't need full tactical battles in my 4x games, but I certainly won't object to them if they show up. My favorite games have been the ones that offer a fun, quick tactical combat option while still offering fair auto-resolve options for those battles you know you want to skip.



That being said, if we won't have tactical control, I at least want a say in the strategies by admirals will employ in battles. ES was heading towards this with the battle card systems, formations, etc. I can't quite articulate it, but I was looking for just a little more input in combat in ES than I was getting.

echo2361 wrote:
I definitely like the idea of fleets needing admirals to be formed to help present fleet spamming. You need to have a reserve system of some type set up though to transfer newly built ships between systems without needing admirals to just sit around ferrying single ships to join up with their distant fleets.

The way Rome 2 worked, you would indeed end up with a reserve army led by another commander who either reinforces the main army or ferries new units. It's not ideal yes, and it's easier to do in Rome because of its recruitment system which is a lot faster than ship production in ES. So if such a similar system is to be implemented, it will need to be reworked to fit the game (perhaps ships can be set on rally points to fleets).

I hope so too that Spaceships are more customization.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
I must be one of the few that thinks that combat in Endless Space is perfectly fine, all it would need as far as I am concerned is better balancing (no op LR kinetics), and perhaps having formations have a bigger impact.

I fully agree with you.

WhiteWeasel wrote:
The problem of endless spaces combat is not lack of depth, it's lack of interactivity in the battle. At first I didn't mind it, but after coming back from a long break of ES. I feel as if, combat -though not terrible by any means- feels a bit...on rails-y. Other than fitting my ships, formations and battle cards, I don't have much agency in the actual fight.

This was never a problem for me, because ES combat was about builds/setups/configurations and not about direct control. For me it was fun, because I was testing various builds for my fleets and configured the outcome by using cards, formations and targeting. Thanks to this outcomes were always extremely fun to watch for me.





One thing I lacked in ES was planet customization. I could only choose one general plan for entire planet. It felt shallow for me, I would really love to see more depth here.

The problem with the ES combat system is that there is no room for tactics. Long range dominates and whoever has the best/most long range weapons wins.

@EvilDM



Imo thats a problem of proper weapon system implementation. I agree that there usually was no sense in using later battle phases. It would be better to not have range modifiers, or have them implemented in a different way.

uqcu wrote:
@EvilDM



Imo thats a problem of proper weapon system implementation. I agree that there usually was no sense in using later battle phases. It would be better to not have range modifiers, or have them implemented in a different way.

I don't think that the ES1 battle system allows for a solution for this. It will always be best to inflict as much damage on the enemy in the first phase while the simple battle system doesn't allow you to affect the order of battle, length of the phases or to mitigate the attack. You can make the damage of the first phase less reliable, but that only moves the problem into the next phase.

EvilDM wrote:
The problem with the ES combat system is that there is no room for tactics. Long range dominates and whoever has the best/most long range weapons wins.

That is primarily a balancing problem. LR kinetics are too damn effective, with great accuracy and 4 attacks each phase.

If weapons were restricted to an optimum range like it used to be, then missiles which are optimized for long range, don't dominate (they only hit at the end of a phase, once, are expensive and resource intensive to produce, weigh more so you can have less, and are a lot more effective if used by smaller cruisers / frigates than by battleships and dreadnoughts. And they fare badly in the other phases). That or making LR kinetics ineffective compared to missiles.



Secondly, with battle cards (that reduce specific weapons' accuracy, or boosts defense), formations (where ships with the most HP are in front or the ships that are the most expendable), and good fleet build up (having ships dedicated to absorbing damage or cannon fodder), one can withstand the first phase relatively easily.



In addition, most space tactical gameplay has both spam and long range dominate. Just look at Sins of a Solar Empire, which I love, where long range missile cruiser and carrier spams are the name of the game. I have yet to play a game that has implemented actual tactics for space battles; it is an enormous task that I do not think Amplitude can afford to focus on while also delivering better empire management.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
That is primarily a balancing problem. LR kinetics are too damn effective, with great accuracy and 4 attacks each phase.

Weren't they attacking 3 times and not 4?

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
If weapons were restricted to an optimum range like it used to be,

Than that would put us back to times when missiles were OP and they are still powerful even now.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
then missiles which are optimized for long range, don't dominate (they only hit at the end of a phase, once,

...and kill everything before phase two.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
are expensive and resource intensive to produce, weigh more so you can have less, and are a lot more effective if used by smaller cruisers / frigates than by battleships and dreadnoughts. And they fare badly in the other phases).

Bigger firepower at the cost of amount of it does sound like a good solution for this problem. It only needs to be balanced properly.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
In addition, most space tactical gameplay has both spam and long range dominate. Just look at Sins of a Solar Empire, which I love, where long range missile cruiser and carrier spams are the name of the game.

True.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
I have yet to play a game that has implemented actual tactics for space battles; it is an enormous task that I do not think Amplitude can afford to focus on while also delivering better empire management.

I agree.

EvilDM wrote:
I don't think that the ES1 battle system allows for a solution for this.

I think otherwise, but it would require two major changes. I was reading responses here and I came up with an idea. The problem here is connected to battle phases and weapon range (which basically tells if weapon hits or not). The main problem is the fact, that battle phases are tied to ranges. It should not be so, because thinking tactically, you do not get close to your enemy in every situation. Another main problem is the fact, that if weapon is configured for a specific range, than it almost never hits at other ranges - this is too extreme. Ranges should work differently, more naturally. Bigger range - lesser chance to hit; closer range - higher chance to hit.



Let's say we have a situation where two completely different fleets start a battle with eachother. First fleet is constructed from heavy cruisers - a few big and slow ships. Second fleet is constructed from small corvette type ships - many of them.

What would you do, if you were in command of the second fleet? I would keep distance and snipe the first fleet (they have big and slow ships, easier to hit on longer distance), because getting closer could mean that my fleet would be much easier to hit. I would use mobility of my fleet to dodge incoming fire, it would be more easier to do this by keeping distance. (This is where ES combat system fails, it forces every fleet to get closer. Combine this with my idea of ranges and the second fleet fails miserably, so I think it is important to add an option to keep distance.)

If I were in command of the first fleet, how would I defend from the second fleet tactic? I would use fighters and bombers for that purpose, but that would take some time before they would arrive and attack, so I would have to have good defenses on my heavy cruisers to withstand first blows. (Bigger ships - bigger space for weapons, siege, armor, defenses, hangar. Smaller ships - no space for hangar, maybe even siege (or smaller siege weapons), much less armor and defenses.)

Let's say that the second fleet is using guerilla tactics and retreats before fighters and bombers get to them. They constantly make surprise attacks to soften first fleet. What should I do if I'm in command of the first fleet? I should send some ships, that will be able to hunt down the second fleet. That basically means that I would need additional fleet of fast ships, that could answer this threat. (That was another failing of ES, because early ships weren't very usefull later. This solution would make them useful and it would additionally make bigger ships less viable option for endgame, if sent alone without a proper escort.)



Thats what came in to my mind. If any of you have some ideas than share them and if any of you see a flaw in my idea, than don't hesitate to criticize. I surely didn't thought about everything here.

uqcu wrote:


...and kill everything before phase two.

If used by frigates to maximize spread, yes (missiles used on bigger ships were easier to counter). But from my experience, abilities that reduce missile accuracy tended to be effective, in combination with tanky ships and a defensive formation, and after the LR phase missiles became virtually useless.



I'm not saying ES is or was perfectly balanced. I agree that missile frigate spam is also a problem, though less so than LR kinetics (and I do think they fire 4 times each phase, but someone correct me if I am wrong). But I think this can be fixed with better balancing and perhaps reworking the range system as you suggest.

Hello everyone(my first post :redface,

I agree that endless space have an unbalanced combat system; it was always the same way to play (Long or medium range kinetic or laser; and nano-repair card for the second and third phases in order to act like the battle has never happened).

I'm expecting a lot more for Endless space 2 ( a big thank to all the developper/designer/whatever ) for the combat system. I really enjoyed a fast battle and the idea of battle cards. I really thing the the combat system could be improved with more option likes:

-The place of the combat (asteroid field, in the shadow of a planet/moon, close to the sun, etc...), which can be choosen by the attacker, modify the parameter of the battle. For example, Long and medium range are innefective in asteroid field; improved battle scanner on battle ship will improved them when fighting behind in the shadow of a celestial body. The list of area could change depending of the system/ defensive fleet.

-The combat mode (Ambush[whichcanfailed], normal line of battle, battle of the Saintes strategy? etc] which can change entirely the tactic and the effective use of all ships in the battle.

I know that the second one is perhaps a little bit difficult to implement .



I will enjoy a game where a correct strategy could lead to a win more than the number of ship or the size of the cannons. That can be



I really enjoyed the random research tree of Sword of the star ; it change a little bit the feeling of how do you play each time.



Random scenarios could be interesting also, like a galatic invasion of drunken robots/bug/old ones after a discovery (a little bla bla of an old specy which come in the galaxy for an harverst after X turns).

At the end, I'm expecting to have more option at the game setup than the first opus and bigger galaxy(ies?!

I really hope they will continue their focus on empire building (which was perfect in ES) and add a "working" combat system (cough LR kinetics cough)

I would very much like a system like Total War: Rome 2, where you can only field a limited number of armies (which grows as your empire grows) and they have to be led by a commander. That would fix fleet spams without any commanders, which is ridiculous.



That being said, fleet spamming in ES was not that effective a strategy, because of its combat system. I was able to hold choke points with one fleet blockading a dozen enemy fleets, and beat each one of them in battle while losing a frigate or two at worst, thanks to a high level admiral, better tech, and better abilities. As long as fleet spamming is not too effective a strategy, I will be satisfied.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:


- Pre-set teams and allied victory.

A man after my own heart!

Another thing I would like to see, ending videos similar to the intro videos in EL.

Faction specific ones would be nice but I would settle with 1 video per victory type.

According to these preview screenies there will be internal elections, passing of laws and new ways to pre-plan battles. I don't understand french unfortunatly.



http://www.press-start.be/2015/08/gc15-endless-space-2/

Used google translate to translate that into English and by god. IT SOUNDS INCREDIBLE



The new combat system sounds interesting but what interests me the most is the government system. I'm really looking forward to seeing how this plays out in-game.



The space-bar for more information also sounded interesting.

Thanks for sharing this article

Yes, more planetary defensive options would be the bees' knees to me. As it stands, they don't really do much.



Also, contreversial opinion here, but I'd like to get rid of free-travel. It massively outclasses convential movement, and because of that, renders defensive structures virtually irrelevant.



I'd also like to see a slider or option for map generation for Empire Size/Happiness Penalties. On massive maps, it begins to feel like a slog taking over places, and it seems silly to have to destroy every system I invade.

I think that free travel should be retained, but all movement options should have strong and weak points. Similar to how the Sword of the Stars series did movement. EG:



HIVER GATES

They invade colonies and other systems without the use of FTL drives. Instead, they use a "gate" network that can teleport ships instantly. However, there are constraints of the network: It has a capacity limit of how many ships it can handle, and it has to be set up at a world in order to offer instant travel. By eschewing FTL drives, Hiver vessels pack far more weapons and armor than that of other races.



LIIR STUTTERWARP

The Fish use drives that cause their ships to make millions of tiny teleportations. The speed at which Stutterwarp can be implemented is dictated by proximity to gravity wells like planets and stars: The closer a Liir vessel is to a star, the slower it travels. However, Stutterwarp allows for very flexible movement, and potentially can allow to evade incoming fire by "phasing" out of the way if correctly timed. Further, Liir vessels become extremely fast when they enter open space, due to the lack of gravity. As such, open space grants them great advantage in combat, and allows for quick traversal between star systems. Due to the reliance on Stutterwarp, Liir vessels are in great danger when exposed to gravitic weapons.



HUMAN STARLANES

By using a device to manipulate wormholes, Humans can travel very quickly between systems. Starlanes do not have capacity limits, but they do have an important restriction: The destinations that any Starlane offers is fixed. Extreme speed at the cost of flexibility.



RATS (I don't remember the name of this race.)

Similar to how humans travel, but with one great difference: Instead of using existing Starlanes, they instead create lanes by force. This allows them to create travel corridors as they wish, allowing for tremendous flexibility. However, these starlanes are temporary at best, and will quickly erode if not reinforced often. Further, it takes time to "drill" a starlane corridor, which makes it very obvious when the Rats are coming.





Ect. The strong point of the SOTS series is travel, and I very much hope that Amplitude nicks the concept for use in Endless Space 2.

The Zuul btw.



Also, the Morrigi and the Loa have interesting star drives.



The Morrigi have a warp drive that allows them to travel faster the more ships are in a fleet.



And the Loa use warp cannons to shoot nanite blobs at other solar systems, these blobs then form a fleet at the destination.

Hm. I was recently thinking about Stars! and the mass-drivers that can throw resource packets at other worlds. If combined with the concept of the Loa, perhaps whole worlds could be absorbed by a nanite-entity, allowing for the entirety of an planet to be broken down and reassembled elsewhere...



My kingdom for a remake of Stars!

Based on the Gamescom vid here are some questions/speculations:



1. Advanced politics. Escpecially internal politics. Perhaps black-ops (assassionation,blackmailing,bribes,scandals) to manipulate politics without the population's knowledge?



2. Will each minor faction in your empire represent as a new party? If so, will minor faction parties grant unique traits if they become the major party? Perhaps ship designs unique to that faction?



3. Will there be political parties other than Labor, Wit, and Military? Perhaps a party that focuses on specific branch of research.



4. What happens if you try to ignore the populations' demands? Simple decrease in Approval or more advanced disadvantages? Perhaps rioting systems actually declare independence if they had enough of your s**t?



5. Quests. Will you be able to obtain them by finding Endless ruins and interacting with minor factions? What will the reward be? Unique techs only obtainable through quests?



6. Probes seemed to move ignoring paths. Can you launch other things, such as interstellar missiles? Would be cool to bombard the enemy from the other side of the galaxy.

prixt wrote:
Based on the Gamescom vid here are some questions/speculations:



1. Advanced politics. Escpecially internal politics. Perhaps black-ops (assassionation,blackmailing,bribes,scandals) to manipulate politics without the population's knowledge?



2. Will each minor faction in your empire represent as a new party? If so, will minor faction parties grant unique traits if they become the major party? Perhaps ship designs unique to that faction?



3. Will there be political parties other than Labor, Wit, and Military? Perhaps a party that focuses on specific branch of research.



4. What happens if you try to ignore the populations' demands? Simple decrease in Approval or more advanced disadvantages? Perhaps rioting systems actually declare independence if they had enough of your s**t?



5. Quests. Will you be able to obtain them by finding Endless ruins and interacting with minor factions? What will the reward be? Unique techs only obtainable through quests?



6. Probes seemed to move ignoring paths. Can you launch other things, such as interstellar missiles? Would be cool to bombard the enemy from the other side of the galaxy.

1. So far we only have elections. It remains to be seen how much of the infiltration mechanic from the upcoming EL expansion they port over

2. Unsure. It can also be that there will be one party for each political direction if there is enough population for it, the race being determined by which race in your empire supports it most. But each minor race having special laws that can be passed if they are in power would be interesting.

3. There are 8 I think. Military, Science, Pacifism, etc. The more votes a direction becomes the more laws from its branch you can pass. So even if your scientists have 80% of the votes and the militarists the otehr 20%, you likely can still pass the basic military laws.

4. I hope it is rioting and in the worst case civil war.

5. Hopefully yes

6. I don't think bombarding other planets from far away, even though its realistic would make a good gameplay element.

EvilDM wrote:


6. I don't think bombarding other planets from far away, even though its realistic would make a good gameplay element.

Depends on a few factors.



As in SOTS Sol Force could occasionally build Node Missiles to bombard planet with.



Basically big nukes with FTL drives, that while not game changing, could still add up against an unprepared colony.

Starbases would be great!

I really hope that they will change combat to something MoO II like (or even Sword of the Stars 1). The combat in ES1 was rather bland and unbalanced by design.

I hope, I really hope they don't have the 'massive fleets' deal. Gets tedious fast.

EvilDM wrote:
I really hope that they will change combat to something MoO II like (or even Sword of the Stars 1). The combat in ES1 was rather bland and unbalanced by design.

Don't count on it. I'm expecting a hybrid between ES and EL. Both MoO TBT and SotS1 RTT are something that they have always wanted to stay away from.

Nasarog wrote:
Don't count on it. I'm expecting a hybrid between ES and EL. Both MoO TBT and SotS1 RTT are something that they have always wanted to stay away from.

Well, I'm throwing in my vote for tactical combat and hotseat.

Idaho wrote:
I hope, I really hope they don't have the 'massive fleets' deal. Gets tedious fast.

I would be in favor of what Total War: Rome 2 did. You could only have a limited number of armies, that have to be led by a commander.



In the context of ES, you would only be able to build a limited number of fleets (the limit might increase the larger your empire is), that have to be led by an admiral.

I find the idea of fleets just going all over the place without a commander to be a bit ridiculous. And in such a way, it makes hero management and skills even more relevant.

ES2 reveal page mentions minor factions so that's great. I've always wanted a space game with minor factions - species that have not achieved interstellar spaceflight but are still enough of a force to be reckoned when colonizing a planet. I really hope they develop the minor faction mechanic, allowing us different ways of dealing with the natives: conquest, extermination, enslavement, uplifting, cooperation, integration, assimilation and etc.



Imagine:

- you're a spacefaring faction and discover a planet

- it already has a minor civilization on it, you must make choices

- a) exterminate and settle your own people, this would require to spend ground troops and maybe damage planet quality

- b) enslave, this would raise productivity but lower approval, risks of rebellions that may damage infrastructure and etc

- c) fulfill a quest or something so that the natives accept to be integrated in your empire. This should give you more FIDS bonuses but also maybe some unique bonus - the natives may not be able to build their own spaceships but maybe they're great at urban combat so now you can build superior troops for invasions

I really hope they will follow the Endless Space 1 battle system more than Endless Legend. EL is really slow in battles, and the choice in battles are not really important. ES don't have really nice tactics, but the fights were faster, and much more funny to watch (battle space were nice).



I wish online game will be more stable than ES1 was too ^^



Can't wait for this game.

magnuskn wrote:
Well, I'm throwing in my vote for tactical combat and hotseat.

Tactical Battles kills the game in many ways.



- Singleplayer suffers from AI that can't tackle the human exploiting it in tactical combat.

- Multiplayer suffers from battles that last forever.

- The game in general suffers from making the players attention less about strategy and more about tactics. This would also have to influence game design decissions to the worse in my opinion.





So please, not too much human controlled tactical battles focus. Focus on deep and engaging strategical gameplay!

I hope that spaceships are more customization and visible on the map.



Also I hope there are multiple galaxies in a single game!

I would also like to see more tactical combat. WAY more tactical (it slows the game down quite much, but it is worth it IMHO). In Endless Space the fleet size is very limited so the combat length would be sane.



Starbases, yes please!

The game shares a lot of ideas with the board game Eclipse, which also has starbases. The difference between the two lies in the fact that in Eclipse you have a very low cap on the number of ships, which forces you to consider placement and how you want to invest your resources.



In Endless Space you could just churn spaceships, and so starbases too, which would make it difficult to balance them in a significant way.



While I enjoy building up the "Arsenal of democracy" when going on the war path, I think there is some room for improvement as wars soon stray from the "who has the best approach or is the best prepared" and right into "who has the highest production cap" territory. That usually coincides with the moment where the game starts requiring a lot of micro-management, which is in my opinion detrimental to the flow (and enjoyment) of the game.



Can't wait to learn more next week!

More diplomacy - Always more diplomacy.

I hope that it will introduce the starbase to protect planets, like in Imperium Galactica II.

I'll leave these two posts I made when discussing in the ES2 speculation threads:

WhiteWeasel wrote:
Also the current blockade mechanics have got to get a revamp. They are to exploity/unfair depending on which end you are on.



For undefended systems:



1) The systems normal defenses will provide it with it's own ower: (albeit not a ton) . This system MP factor into if it can be blockaded. If the blockading fleet has less MP than the system, it cannot be blockaded. It's silly how a scout can shut down a whole systems trade lanes (when that system has anti-ship measures as part of it's defenses mind you). The system MP won't stop a full fleet, but will alleviate the scout blockade exploit.



2) Be it upgrades to existing structures (like cloud rippers) or a standalone, add structure that can damage an enemy fleet in orbit. These anti-ship measures will deal damage divided evenly amongst all enemy ships in the fleet. The damage is applied on a per fleet basis. The damage will have the enemies defensive modules factored in. Because of this a single ship fleet could be ripped apart in a turn or two, while a full fleet could take very little to no damage at all as a sorts of herd resistance. So say your system defense does 600 damage per turn. You have a 450 corvette that has a total defensive value of 100. A single ship fleet (or a dozen since the damage is reapplied per fleet) will get destroyed. But a single fleet of 6+ of those corvettes will take no damage at all. This will discourage blockading with a bunch of singular weak ships and stalling massive fleets with a bunch of throwaway ships and encourage the condensing of fleets.





For defended systems



1) Your fleet must have at least >=75% of the total enemy ower: (system(if any) + fleet in orbit) in order to blockade it. As I find it silly a hilariously outclassed scout or unarmed invasion fleet can stop your trade routes AND stall your heavily armed forces.



2) A fleet can battle again based on it's CP value. In essence a 12 CP fleet can fight a same sized or larger fleet once, or can fight twelve 1 fleets, four 3 fleets etc... Maybe I'm bashing this over the head now that I don't like fleet spam.

WhiteWeasel wrote:
Yeah I hope for an ES2. While ES is good, that are still so many things that can be improved. Many of which would just be better off making a new game that trying to revamp an old one. While I love the cinematic flare to it, and hope it's as pretty looking in ES2, I hope combat becomes more in depth than pick your formation, targeting, battle cards and watching the fireworks. Also based on my post here, empire-side mechanics could be changed to prevent fleet spam abuse. Or alternatively do away with it all and have your ships in the actual star system like Sins of a solar empire with the turn based elements of Endless legend/Last federation. Now that would be cool.



Also diplomacy in ES could use some love. I have not played very much of endless Legend, but I heard it improves upon the diplomacy issues ES had. I would like the AI to take your resources into account when making a deal and should not be as offended when you refuse a deal that is obviously in their favor. They should expect to get refused or offer much in return if they ask for a resource and it breaks my monopoly on it or have a near monopoly on it (or offer me another resource that I'm a near monopoly in so I could get that bonus instead). And asking for a strategic resource that I have only one unit of is not an option, etc... Adding the ability to renegotiate a lopsided deal would be awesome thing to have. Another thing that peeves me off is that the AI factions will seem to run the same. They will out of the blue declare war on me because they are running out of space for their people, which is a believable action for the hissho or UE to do, but I should NOT be getting that message from the automatons.



Lastly faction diversity. Lore, aesthetics, and trait wise amplitude has got it down. But their tech trees are pretty much the same. I think there should be much more than 10 or so faction specific techs you can research. Also I saw one guy say that there should be little nuances for each faction like altering the UI and adding special background music for each faction like starcraft.



I want Endless space 2 to fix the problems endless space had, have the 4x improvements Endless legend made (where applicable) and do what endless space does right better. Call me idealistic.

magnuskn wrote:
Well, I'm throwing in my vote for tactical combat and hotseat.

I was happy with EL tactical combat, and then I kept playing. I found some glaring weaknesses that have yet to be adjusted. I'm not as fond of it as I was before.

Add tactical combat and have a simple check box for "AutoCombat" for the people who think it slows the game too much. Kinda like the old Heroes of Might and Magic games (#3 being my favorite).

If you have tactical it will never truly be replaced by auto combat as the player will always do better.

After playing Paradox's games, I have been thinking about there being some sort of politics in ES2. Even if it would be a shallow mechanic such as the enactment of reforms or changing the government type, I would still welcome it.

I must be one of the few that thinks that combat in Endless Space is perfectly fine, all it would need as far as I am concerned is better balancing (no op LR kinetics), and perhaps having formations have a bigger impact.



But from formations, to fleet behavior, to heroes, to abilities, and range and rate of fire considerations, there is a lot more depth and control to Endless Space's combat than say Galactic Civilizations (which I love incidentally), or most space 4x games that I know of. I think it had enough depth without taking away or distracting us from strategic gameplay and empire management.

I agree knightofphoenix.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
I must be one of the few that thinks that combat in Endless Space is perfectly fine, all it would need as far as I am concerned is better balancing (no op LR kinetics), and perhaps having formations have a bigger impact.



But from formations, to fleet behavior, to heroes, to abilities, and range and rate of fire considerations, there is a lot more depth and control to Endless Space's combat than say Galactic Civilizations (which I love incidentally), or most space 4x games that I know of. I think it had enough depth without taking away or distracting us from strategic gameplay and empire management.

The problem of endless spaces combat is not lack of depth, it's lack of interactivity in the battle. At first I didn't mind it, but after coming back from a long break of ES. I feel as if, combat -though not terrible by any means- feels a bit...on rails-y. Other than fitting my ships, formations and battle cards, I don't have much agency in the actual fight.

WhiteWeasel wrote:
The problem of endless spaces combat is not lack of depth, it's lack of interactivity in the battle. At first I didn't mind it, but after coming back from a long break of ES. I feel as if, combat -though not terrible by any means- feels a bit...on rails-y. Other than fitting my ships, formations and battle cards, I don't have much agency in the actual fight.

That is still more control than games like Galactic Civ. I don`t mind it at all. I`d much rather have that, than have a meh tactical system where spamming is the name of the game, like almost every other RTS / games with RTS elements out there.



Of course in an ideal world, I'd love to have amazing tactical gameplay, where superior tactics are vital. But I personally do not consider it to be the priority in a game like ES. But of course that is just my opinion.

Im a bigger fan of being able to empire build in my 4X games.



As I don't really like to micromanage.

Eysteinh wrote:
I agree knightofphoenix.

Yes, well spoken. Gametime can never be more then 100%, I want most, or all, of that time of game design centered arround interesting strategy rather then tedious tactics.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
That is still more control than games like Galactic Civ. I don`t mind it at all. I`d much rather have that, than have a meh tactical system where spamming is the name of the game, like almost every other RTS / games with RTS elements out there.



Of course in an ideal world, I'd love to have amazing tactical gameplay, where superior tactics are vital. But I personally do not consider it to be the priority in a game like ES. But of course that is just my opinion.

My biggest hope for change in ES2 combat is actually a fix to fleet spam. Perhaps something akin to a supply/ cap system, where you have to research and/or build planetary improvements in increase the number of ships you can field at once. And of course different factions would have different limits, like say the cravers having a higher than normal supply limit to account for their spammy, throw away ships and whatnot.