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.