If they go that route, they'll need to drastically reduce the number of planet's assaulting.

Remember, the game is built with MP in mind. Imagine the end game. If you can assault 4 planets per turn (or must resist such assaults), and the space battles...



But if we can dream I'd like "Supreme Commander : forged alliance" redone for each assault XD

Hello everyone,



I would like to suggest that a real ground battle system is implemented in the game, I don't mean a thing like endless legend, but if a battle system with the same deepth as the space battle...



Will this be possible or it's too late to ask it???



I'm so much hyped by this game...



Have a nice day.

the problem with adding detailed ground combat will turn multiplayer into "well i guess my next turn will be in an hour, as is ES space combat can make turns go on forever(Endless Retreat)

I'd like not real ground battle per se but at least more granularity regarding systems. in ES, a system is considered the same mechanically, bet it a puny single sterile outpost or several billions populated planets. The fight over them is the same, only the siege can get considerably longer.

In my dreams, systems could be at least partially owned. That would open whole layers of pacific or aggressive interaction and even possiblities of true neutral systems that would be interesting to keep that way. Like large exchange station or protected planets.

And of course lore wise, the current system gave us only a feel about our civilization through its ships. The large inhabited planets were just statistics.

Definitely agree that some variety in the way battles are approached depending on the layout of the system (whether it's adding obstacles on the battlefield or modifying tactical options).



Also interesting would be obviously the way it would modify the imagery of the fight, whether in the background (planets, stations, etc) or if said combat has repercussions on the system besides destroyed ships.





I'm not entirely sold on partial/shared ownership of systems, but you could probably make a case for them depending on whether you find interesting mechanics to support it.

Well I understand the reasons things work the way they are. Systems are basically cities and one fleet can fully interdict/siege one. But it makes the "systems" kinda passive, and the whole thing get a bit of a monodimensionnal feel : there are puny and strong systems + the jump branching. At least in my case it makes engaging with them difficult. In ground based 4X games the cities and their surrounding have more variety in the way you interact with them. Have they large plains that you could easily plunder with mobile units, or hill/forest terrain that can be tricky to control, are they themselves fortified or not... And of course isolating a city gets way more difficult.

I think even if there is no actual gameplay on the ground, being able to zoom in to the assaulted planets, with cities on fire, battalions fighting each other, bombers, and battle changing depending with how much of the planet is being conquered (obviously on a very low poly details) would give a lot of life in the galaxy.

I really don't know if bombarding population, put fire in cities and battle fighting is a good definition of "lot of life"

Craver's to me seemed like the kind of race to just jet-pack to a planets surface like a swarm of locusts.



No transports, no drop pods, they just float down and start a rampage.

Igncom1 wrote:
Craver's to me seemed like the kind of race to just jet-pack to a planets surface like a swarm of locusts.



No transports, no drop pods, they just float down and start a rampage.

Logically you'd become a meteor on your way down... but I like the idea.

well i think of the Necromongs from Ridick: CHrinicles of a Warrior. this is the way i guess Cravvers woudl invade a Plannet

ghost_general wrote:
well i think of the Necromongs from Ridick: CHrinicles of a Warrior. this is the way i guess Cravvers woudl invade a Plannet

To me, Cravers are a lot more like a cross between the Tyrannids from WH40k crossed and the Borg from Star Trek.

I think that a planet by planet ground battle system would not work unless they are changing the way system ownership works. Since you can have 5 planets in a single system, you could not really do it from a ground level.



They might be able to implement a battle viewer where you deploy forces (mix of ground attack craft, drop ships) and those are pitted against the systems planet defenses. It would be tricky to get right, but I would envision it to be something much quicker to resolve that any kind of tactical ground combat were you are moving individual groups of soldiers. That is unless you abstract it and have a turn-based battle system like Stardrive 2.

Everything considered I'm actually against ground combat for a number of reasons.



1. The absolute main reason is the sheer difficulty of implementing a nice and realistic ground combat. The whole realistic thing is the issue here. How are you supposed to make planetary battles with a whole planet in mind? A fight in this and that city is far from accurately depicting a ground invasion, and I think anything short of a separate game will fall flat on that, at least to this day. Every single 4X space game that I've seen which tried planetary battles was unrealistic in that regard to say the least, usually due to small and unrealistic maps and a bunch of other smaller and larger issues. It's like you take a randomly generated map, put a fight with an awkwardly small assault force up there and extrapolate it to the invasion at large.

Even if Amplitude could pull this ridiculous feat of creating a realistic ground invasion, the same time could also be invested into making the main part, the space organization and fighting that much better.

2. If it's not at least somewhat realistic, it risks falling flat, being boring or exploitable. Having luck in a fight with like 100 troops affecting the fate of a invasion with millions or billions of troops would be... no. If it wouldn't have that much of an effect it'd be pointless. I'd rather see it complete or not at all. And I'd rather think about something like this for ES3 or 4, or even 5, theoretically speaking. You know, when programming speed and technology has improved sufficiently to make something like this thinkable.

3. Long turn times, that's been mentioned plenty of times. And long turn times can be devastating for these games, it just makes me think about Space Empires 5 *shudders*



That being said, some animations to give the invasions a bit more pep and feeling would be nice though.

I'm against the addition of full-fledged tactical ground battles as well. They're not necessary for a 4x game on this scale, and would most likely not mesh well with the other mechanics. They would likely take an inappropriate amount of time, or they would not be detailed enough to satisfy most people asking for ground battles.

That said, I would like to see the siege and invasion system improved, as I rarely ever used bombs in ES1. Why would I destroy buildings and population I can conquer? If I laid siege, I usually brought enough ships to finish the siege in a short time, anyway. Improved visual presentation would be a nice touch as well, though simple artwork will do here. We don't need full 3D animations, especially not if no decisions can be made during the battle.



They should focus on putting together an enjoyable and balanced space combat system first before they even think about implementing ground combat.