I'm annoyed because I don't mind us not having much to say once a battle is started (though we ought to have some options) as the preparations are what is important. But still this is a space game and the geography is not as relevant and useful as in land based 4X and it can be detrimental. 

That said I think the battle is currently a PR nightmare. People like the OP are whining about options they feel should be there, and the cinematic fighting is both a time consuming endeavour for Amplitude and a tease for those players who want their mini game. I for one don't believe such a tactical mini game will be interesting, but the situation may poison the well for Amplitude.

I don't have a neat solution to propose at the moment, unfortunately. I've experienced just basic combat so far (I'm exploring the early game) and I think some Era I constraints are at play here, but I'd rather start a new thread about it. 

The designers of ES2 were very clear about the fact that the game is going to be focused on strategy. I don't see any purpose in mixing in tactical elements. OP is saying that its a regression over ES1, which I can't really understand. Its simply a different design choice. IMO, the game feels cleaner and more focused without the tactical minigame. 

I agree with OP,

people say the battle options are not a requirement to the games strategy, but it certainly is a step backwards considering it was a important part of the original game. 

Reading the early explanations of the game i believed the tactical decisions would be a different approach to the same system, but it became oversimplified it´s just frustrating to see such an interesting feature of ES being ripped off the second game.

If people want it to be faster just keep the original 3 phases battle and let the player choose all phases maneuvers at once.

uriak wrote:

That said I think the battle is currently a PR nightmare. People like the OP are whining about options they feel should be there, and the cinematic fighting is both a time consuming endeavour for Amplitude and a tease for those players who want their mini game.

Thanks for your contribution, always great to see how people generalise arguments :)

Igncom1 wrote:

Hobbesian wrote:

Eji1700 wrote:

Short range weapons double as flak, whihc counters missiles by destroying them, which means a full missile alpha strike strat doesn't work against a close range fleet because they'll shoot them down, take no damage, and then wipe out the fleet in close range.

Up to a point, that point being where enough missiles get through the flak and begin to overwhelm the short range weapons. SR can't keep up if you've enough missiles going in, eventually enough get through that if you fully commit to that strategy, it does reliably work. Once you do begin to crack the defences, it's a snowball effect, because the flak defence contribution declines. Shields will take X punishment from first to last ship, HP declines at a fixed rate. Flak defence is the only thing that declines on a curve (and consequently, results in progressively higher incoming DPS over time). Either flak has to soak 100% of what's coming in, or it's going to fail in it's entirety (how quickly depends on at what point of the curve we start at) and missiles will do 100% of damage and then we're back to the torpedo boat problem.

That sounds like the exsact same kind of stratigy and depth that you said wasn't in the game.

You're missing the point. This is the exact same problem Armoured Warfare is struggling with right now concerning MBT armour, it's known as the "Reverse gold round" problem, go study it, then come back to me.

MikeLemmer wrote:

I don't feel comfortable critiquing this combat system until we can figure out more details about how it actually works.

Not only is the Advanced Combat Log currently disabled, but I've recently uncovered a bug in the game where it'll give you the wrong values for ships' Range Effectiveness, which utterly screws up any current attempts at combat strategy. We need those fixed/implemented first.

The problem is the system entirely lacks granularity, if you had the ability to set discrete battle plans at each phase (long, medium, short), that would go some way to redressing the lack of influence during battle, but at this point it's a case of "Press a button and done", there's no ability to save battle plans by fleet comp, no true fleet customisation, all in all, the current arrangement entirely lacks a lot of features that would make it worth exploring.

DA_Corporation wrote:

Hobbesian wrote:

Eji1700 wrote:

Short range weapons double as flak, whihc counters missiles by destroying them, which means a full missile alpha strike strat doesn't work against a close range fleet because they'll shoot them down, take no damage, and then wipe out the fleet in close range.

Up to a point, that point being where enough missiles get through the flak and begin to overwhelm the short range weapons. SR can't keep up if you've enough missiles going in, eventually enough get through that if you fully commit to that strategy, it does reliably work. Once you do begin to crack the defences, it's a snowball effect, because the flak defence contribution declines. Shields will take X punishment from first to last ship, HP declines at a fixed rate. Flak defence is the only thing that declines on a curve (and consequently, results in progressively higher incoming DPS over time). Either flak has to soak 100% of what's coming in, or it's going to fail in it's entirety (how quickly depends on at what point of the curve we start at) and missiles will do 100% of damage and then we're back to the torpedo boat problem.

There is also the fact that ships will still close the gap. And Shortrange weapons have higher DPS in a direct face off with missiles.  Medium range weapons also out DPS the long range Missiles. This is how the system is designed. Missile at long range will out DPS, Slug at short range but not to where they are completely destroyed.  Medium ranged weapons however will Out DPS missiles that do a long range stance against a Mid range stance. Short range Slugs will out DPS mid range. It's a Semi balance game of rock paper scissors. if you stick to entirely one strategy, a Player can easily alter and change his strategy. But with the amount of damage actually tossed out, it gives players to pull ships back or atleast not get completely one-sided. There is still MUCH tweaking to be done. But this is hardly a lack of Depth.

They can only adjust their strategy in terms of switching a few modules about and changing a battle plan, that's not exactly a great deal of Depth this time around, that's a flat regression from ES1 (where you had free reign as long as you remained within tonnage) and even in comparison to peer games such as Stellaris (where you can swap ship parts to create different styles of ship with different module layouts AND you can create variable configurations up to a power limit). Do not confuse simplicity for elegance, in this instance this is simplicity to the point of being dull, it takes away from the game, not adds to it. You don't have control of the battle in Stellaris, which focusses on the macro, but you can reinforce fleets in real time, however, the ship design is definitely stronger than it is here. Even Stardrive 2 does a better job on that particular front and nobody accuses that of being even close to ES1 in terms of quality.

This game needs to do better on the combat front, and drastically so.

I totaly agree that combat needs to be redone. I have argued it from the first time i tested the game. But do rember that devs to read this and you can hurt their feelings:)

I'm not here to preserve anyones feelings. I'm here because I want Endless Space 2 be a great game. If I see a genuine problem, I will highlight it, and I won't be nice about it. If the developers are that precious about their baby that they can't accept that something is going wrong and they need to take a good long look at why it's going wrong, then more fool them /shrug

I've been down that road once before and the devs doubled down on a bad mechanic early on, guess what happened? The game sold less than 25,000 copies and the devs were not able to maintain their studio. The lesson is simple, if a mechanic doesn't add to a game, or have a practical benefit, or is not "interesting" for the player, or is there simply to punish the player for being bored out of their wits, it's not a good mechanic. Good design makes people interested and makes them go back to it, maybe not -all the time-, but keeps them returning often enough. Viewing combat is something you do once, maybe twice, and then you'll be simulating every single fight ad infinitum, and if you get really bored you may start forgetting to set battle plans properly. That's -bad design-. That's what I mean by all of this, it needs to be fundamentally more interesting and coherent for it to stand up.

Yeah but they are frensh. so the question is do you want them to listen or not? i asume its more important for you that they listen then become anoyed right? 

My point beeing its no point shouting at somone whos is listing.

FreedomFighterEx wrote:

It is just for viewing pleasure, why so much complain about it? The almighty Civilization series doesn't even have any single depth in combat. You just click on this unit, and click on that unit, and they pummel each other to dead. I am more happy with what ES1 and ES2 did. At lease it make big fleet fight look impressive but you can choose not to watch it. Galactic Civilization 3 also trying to add more depth and complexity into their combat system but it failed horribly. Those ship role mechanic is much worst than ES1 card system and ES2 unfinished battleplan system. I adored that EL try something difference but i have mixed feeling of like and hate it. At lease Amplitude did try something difference than the other 4X and it did working for a bit. My only gear grinding would be the new combat system that they included in ES1 with Disharmony, it seem to add unnecessary complexity without yield any good result, just make player much more confuse. Beside, we don't see the true form of Battleplan system yet, so i will hold my judge but so far, i like it.

While I'm fine with the current system and think it offers a lot more depth than people are aware of, this isn't true about civ, especially civ 5/6.

Sad to say it but I agree with the OP on this one, even if there is a lot more to come from the devs to improve the battle system, what is currently in place I can only class as 'placeholder' for the time being. I think even though there are a lot of people that are content on having a very minimal battle system and more emphasis on the large scale strategy, Amplitude will lose a large amount of potential customers if the current system isn't greatly improved. Only time will tell but I've got a bad feeling about how this is going to pan out.

Personally, I think the combat is awesome. I can skip minor fights without worry and really sit down for the ones I do want to see.

Same as with Endless Space, I'm not here to watch scout ship vs. scout ship. When I'm watching my big armadas clash, there is the place where I sit back and ponder how to make my empire more glorious.

Of course there is some polishing needed in these battles, but I wouldn't have it any other way :)

Currently, I'm much more focused on over-expansion, tech-tree, politics and happiness issues. While these problems will surely be addressed these are far more pressing for the game than the space battles. 

I was hesitating to respond to this thread, but now I feel like I have to give my opinion before this discussion gets extremely one-sided.

Augustus wrote:

I disagree with the premise of this thread.  The combat system rests on a strong foundation, and it looks great.  It needs a bit of complexity and some creative TLC, nothing more.

I agree. I think the combat looks great so far. I think it only really needs some minor improvements here and there. Particularly with camera control.

TangerineMantis wrote:

Augustus wrote:

I disagree with the premise of this thread.  The combat system rests on a strong foundation, and it looks great.  It needs a bit of complexity and some creative TLC, nothing more.

I agree. I think the combat looks great so far. I think it only really needs some minor improvements here and there. Particularly with camera control.

I also agree. Not that I've had the pleasure of playing the EA, but from what I've read in the GDDs and footage I've seen, it seems to me to be shaping up nicely. For sure, a definite improvement on Endless Space. 

This will always be an area of contention, mainly due to the fact that our opinions on the matter will be based off what the individual instinctively prefers. Now, for some the Endless Space 2 combat system may be unapproachable to them, and that's unfortunate. That said, I reckon for the the majority (the vast majority I dare say) here, it is a part of the game that doesn't need altering in any significant way. 

Besides, it strikes me as simply odd to say 'Throw the combat out, start again.' Aside from the sheer...hostility...of the statement, the game is in EA. Amplitude isn't going to completely scrap and rebuild a prominent (or indeed, any) section of the game because a thread pops up angrily critiquing the current system. I'm not anti-criticism but at the least, let's be civil and constructive about it.

Not to defend the tone of the thread title, but the game is in Alpha. It may be open for Early Access for whatever reason, but it's not even Beta yet. It's not feature complete. While it may feel bad for the designers, if there's ever a time to make a major change like this, now's the time.

Besides, it strikes me as simply odd to say 'Throw the combat out, start again.' Aside from the sheer...hostility...of the statement, the game is in EA. Amplitude isn't going to completely scrap and rebuild a prominent (or indeed, any) section of the game because a thread pops up angrily critiquing the current system. I'm not anti-criticism but at the least, let's be civil and constructive about it.

I'm being constructive. That's why I'm being honest, the combat doesn't work. It's as simple as that. If you're looking to auto-simulate every single fight, then yes, it works, at least until you forget to set the battle plan appropriately and end up being shafted for a lapse in concentration. If you want to engage with the combat system properly and get involved in Ship Micro? No. It absolutely does not work on any level at all.

This point in the games development is the ideal time for a fundamental examination of the Ship Micro, and right now it absolutely does not work beyond Auto-Simulate. Great, they've got that bit right, and they've got everything beyond it terribly wrong. Fantastic. That means they've made some genuinely -bad- choices along the way and they need to look at what led them to those choices and re-evaluate why they decided those were ever a good idea in the first place. If ES2's macro was Stellaris level or Civ VI level, I might forgive it to some extent for the sin of terrible Ship Micro, but it's not, so it needs Ship Micro to work, it does not, and right now it's a strong candidate for bin and rebuild. Thus "Throw the combat out, start again", it's contentious and I make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that it is a contentious title in the very first post I wrote.

And I re-iterate, I'm not here to pad developers egos, I'm here to provide detailed, accurate analysis of what works, what does not, and what needs fixing before this game is ready for release. If you want to sit there and pretend everything is hunky dory, be my guest, but Amplitude have a reputation for making *excellent* games, and Endless Space 2 is shaping up to be more "Beyond Earth" than "Civ IV", and that's not something I am willing to accept. I want to see this game improve, and if that means being blunt about what's not working, so be it.

ES2 combat is a huge step backward in scope, ambition and complexity.  Majorly disappointing.

Hobbesian wrote:

Besides, it strikes me as simply odd to say 'Throw the combat out, start again.' Aside from the sheer...hostility...of the statement, the game is in EA. Amplitude isn't going to completely scrap and rebuild a prominent (or indeed, any) section of the game because a thread pops up angrily critiquing the current system. I'm not anti-criticism but at the least, let's be civil and constructive about it.

I'm being constructive. That's why I'm being honest, the combat doesn't work. It's as simple as that. 

While I will disagree with the OP's premise, I do agree with this point. Right now it is more important to debate full game systems than it is number tweaks. There is plenty of time to get balance right, but here and now is where these major systems will start to solidify (if they haven't already), and its vital to debate them.

The OP's original premise is that a modern 4x game requires good tactical combat to be successful. While that is certainly a valid way to go, I disagree it is necessary. A strategic game that focuses on what fleets you build, your balance of weapon and defense vs your opponent, and where you choose to fight is a fine system in a 4x game. The key is that there must be valid and clear strategic choices to be made.

I stress the word clear because I think this is an area ES1 combat failed out. There were a lot of variables in ES1 combat, but ultimately how your choices affected combat was hard to gauge amidst the sea of numbers. For example, ES2 has discussed additional positional damage on your modules that will depend on the position of ships in combat. That is a fine idea for RTS combat, or heavily tactical turn based combat, but it is a poor idea in strategic combat. It is more important to have a smaller suite of choices that have a strong and powerful impact on combat....so that the user can feel their strategic choices matter. 

Ultimately whether this game is tactical or strategic in combat is a matter of taste....what is more important is to commit to that decision and do it right. Right now I fear that ES2 is trying to play the middle, and you often wind up getting the worst of both worlds.

Just wanted to add that while my combat thread was aimed at improving the existing approach - I endorse a broader re-examination of the combat system as discussed in this thread as well.  Basically, I see three ways forward:

#1 - Improve the current system significantly to add more depth to the battle planning approach (what my thread was exploring)

#2 - Abstract the combat even more and eliminate the whole battle planning.  Instead, focus on making the ship designer more robust with perhaps role-based behaviors.  The focus on combat would be more at the strategic level of ship design and fleet composition, with no input no the fight itself. 

#3 - Go in the opposite direction of #2 and make combat more hands on and controllable - perhaps getting closer to Endless Legend's system.  This would indeed be throwing the system out entirely and taking a new approach.

Any of the above have more potential to be interesting than what is in place right now.

mezmorki wrote:

Just wanted to add that while my combat thread was aimed at improving the existing approach - I endorse a broader re-examination of the combat system as discussed in this thread as well.  Basically, I see three ways forward:

#1 - Improve the current system significantly to add more depth to the battle planning approach (what my thread was exploring)

#2 - Abstract the combat even more and eliminate the whole battle planning.  Instead, focus on making the ship designer more robust with perhaps role-based behaviors.  The focus on combat would be more at the strategic level of ship design and fleet composition, with no input no the fight itself. 

#3 - Go in the opposite direction of #2 and make combat more hands on and controllable - perhaps getting closer to Endless Legend's system.  This would indeed be throwing the system out entirely and taking a new approach.

Any of the above have more potential to be interesting than what is in place right now.

This, so very much this. Any of these options would be acceptable in my book.

The one option that is not is "Do nothing" or "Oh it's fine, it just needs a few tweaks and some polish". No, no it does not, it needs a genuine and deep re-evaluation. If there was a way I could sticky one specific response, this would be the one I would encourage people to read, because this definitely encapsulates the kind of thinking that will encourage constructive discussion. #2 if followed through would take the ship micro out and replace it with ship macro (more like stellaris), this would be fine -as long as- other areas of the game got significantly buffed (the tech tree would need a revamp, and the political system would need more bite for example) but that would be a perfectly acceptable tradeoff. #1 is something I think is feasible from the "Revamp" perspective, and #3 would be the choice that would need the most work in terms of binning the basic premise and then revising it with a "different" core, but that may be necessary if #1 isn't viable.

That said, a full abstraction with making the ship designer much more robust does intrigue me, because that opens up a lot of interesting doors in terms of making ES2 truly macro heavy.