Hello everyone,

I would like to remind of all of you that information is displayed out for you in the GDD. You should find all of it HERE.

Before answering here, I went into the GDD for both battle and ship design. And I must confess the it seems that people are are forgetting that the game is still in EA, with many things in development, and combat is not the least of them.

First about the issue of tactical play while the battle is going on, it will not happen in ES2. Devs have been clear on that note. battles will have the same outcome by watching them or not. They want the player posing as a leader of an empire, not an admiral. They do not want "mini-games". And they have various reasons for it. If you want to discuss precisely this point, I suggest that you move on. Either to another topic, or to another game. The devs are developing their game, they will do whatever they want with it.  The game is theirs, not yours. You buy it to play it, not to decide what will be in it. Even if they want input from the community, they will have the last word on it. And on this matter, their last word has already been said : no RTS during battles.

Now that's up to you to make peace with this point, or not.

What about the strategy part of battles. Comparing it with ES1 or EL has many advantages. But keep in mind that you compare "finished" product, to one that is still under development (and i advise you again to read the GDD).

If you compare ES2 with ES1 about battles, their is a gap only on the surface. The battles cards were a mess (in both good and bad). You had to choose cards in an order, try to predict how they will interact with the cards of your opponents.

The main differences with the new system in ES2 can be summed up as this :  You choose battle plans, that your opponent will try to counteract but the "only" thing is that you choose one battle plan, and that you cannot modify it during the battle. So here we have something that is effectively less complex than in ES1. You will have to make a choice for only one step of the battle (the whole battle), instead of three and you only have three choices currently to do (but more are to be unlocked by researched, I expect some of them by heroes, and more to be implemented (even by factions ?)). The timing of those decision is the second issue, but as mentioned above... No RTS ! So you will have to grieve your loss of complexity/reactivity here (if it matters to you).

But what does say Amplitude about it ? What does the GDD say ?

The battle is split into 5 phases. A cinematic arrival phase, three battle phases and finally a cinematic resolution phase. The cinematic part of the battle is, besides looking awesome, meant to highlight what parts of the planning had an effect on the outcome of the battle.

So we still have 3 phases, that are computed automatically, and that you do not see actually. But you still have to get one battle plan that will comprise the three different battle phases... It's still not better than ES1, and somewhat worse.

Finally the battle report will give you all the information you would need to understand the outcome. The battle report will:

• Visually show the battlefield 
  • Show Fleet movements
  • Show important key movements
    
    
• Give information on ships 
  • Show the sections and modules damaged in the battle
  • Show each ships relation to the "Battle Play"

But there is one feature missing in the EA, but that is planned to be added : you will have information on what has played a key role in the battles both about plans and ships.

So it's not that much added for strategy and tactics, but a feedback will be added about your choices, which is nice.

The Battle Play contains a number of effects that help define under which conditions it would be useful (To add some prediction capability) – such as a long range-based play or a defensive play.

When a player has a certain number of ships, they will be distributed into Flotillas, smaller fleets that are specific to the current battle. These flotillas can have contextual buffs or restrictions (such as only large ships), based on the chosen play. These flotillas will follow the path defined by the play, and this will be where battle manoeuvres are chosen [...]

And here is where we have something interesting... You will have a system in which your fleet will be spliced in sub-fleets. Each of this sub fleet will have different pattern depending on the ships init, and the battle plans. And we even have a nice picture of what it could be !

So in ES1 you had one fleet, and you choose one behavior for each of the three steps of the battle. What is expected here ? One fleet, that you can split in different flotillas for the battle. You chose one behavior for the whole battle, that will be altered by the composition of the flotillas.

I do not see here where is the loss in tactics or in strategy. You exchange a system in each you took three successive decisions for one fleet, to a system in which you make one decision for the whole fleet, but you will have to split your fleet in flotillas. The flotillas, depending on composition and placement (central or flanking) will modify their part of the battle plan.

If you take the fact that there was around twenty battle cards in ES1, you can expect at least half of this number in "battle plans" for ES1. Ok, but in ES1 you had to place it three times per battle. Yes. And here, you will have to make your flotillas. If I wanted to be a jerk, I would say that for a fleet of three different ships, it could lead to at least 4 combinations of flotillas, and even more if you consider the placement of the flotillas.

Ok, but what about it, it's not in the EA yet I can't see it. Exactly ! Check the updated GDD...

HOW'S THE EARLY ACCESS VERSION ON THIS ASPECT?

• [...]
• Players don't have to manually assign ships to the different flotillas, the assignation is automatically done by the system
• Reinforcements are not in the Early Access version. It's a feature that we aren't really sure about.

Argh... ok.

For now you only decide about the battle plan, and flotillas are automatically assigned. And as far as I know, the number of different flotillas in the fleet is fixed at one... not such room for tactical decisions here. But it's for now.

As for other non-implemented parameters, like battle ground and anomalies, it should add interesting variations and should alter te efficiency of some battle plans... leading to interesting choices (will I rush in the debris of the kessler syndrome anomaly in this system, which will harm my sheets but help close the distance for my close range weaponry ?)

So as much as I like to fight over sterile arguments, keep in mind that there are features that are planned to be added. If you want to give a positive feedback to the debs, and I mean here a feedback with positives or negatives comments but that will give useful information to the debs, then keep the big picture in mind.

Look to where the game is headed (the GDD again), and how they are trying to implement it. If it's badly done, say so. If not, say it also.

But simply firing on something by saying it's bad, ant that it was better before... it will not work. And neither the debs or I want to waste time on this.

So what about my opinion on the matters.

- no RTS, it's fine by me. It allows for quick multiplayer sessions as well as less micromanagement when I'm "building tall" and have to check tens battles per turn.

- battle play : not enough different battle plays yet.

- battle report... wait and see, I would really like to have a breakdown per battle phase, per ship, per flotillas... something that would not look like an excel sheet, but more like something we could expand to get more details. For example : show damage done/ taken per phase. Click on the phase to see the same thing per flotilla. Click on the flotilla to see per ship But if you had clicked on the damage done, get a breakdown of damage done per weapon type... Some thing along those lines

- flotillas : Manual selections of ship in flotillas. Assignment of role and target per flotilla and which would lead to "mini" battle plan for each flotilla or influence their play in the great scheme of the general battle plan.

So it could lead to something way more interesting than ES1. And I will watch for further development..

And reinforcement... but this might not make it for the release.

For the ship design... I have to go back to work, I'll add my thoughts about it later.

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. 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.

Ah, I understand what you're going for and I can't lie; I'd always prefer for there to be more options in a 4X game when it comes to combat. That said, I still disagree, for mainly two reasons:

1. As I said above, you're mistaken if you think Amplitude is going to completely change their combat system for ES2. This point in the game's development is an unmanageable time to do so, even if they were inclined to in the first place which is a whole other issue. Amplitude has a budget, they've been set deadlines and it would be tremendously expensive (and time-consuming) to invent a whole new system. Given that full release will be within the next 4-6 so months and this is the refinement, rather than the creation period, it would be poor business sense to scrap and rebuild a significant portion of the game. That's just common sense mate. A better time to pipe up would have been months ago, when they were releasing the GDDs. 

2. There isn't an especially tactful way to say this, but simply put, you really overestimate the importance of your opinion. Evidently, this is a case of personal preference. I'd wager the majority of people on here prefer it as the GDDs set it out to be. Whilst you're 'not here to pad developers egos', you sure aren't 'here to provide detailed, accurate analysis of what works etc etc'. To my knowledge at least, you're not a VIP. All you're doing is projecting your own opinion rather than 'honest' criticism. 

All said, I would say that the weakest part of Endless games is the combat. ES2 seems to be step in the right direction, fortunately. If you're not trolling, and serious about the issue I'd humbly suggest you put up a poll to at the very lest gauge whether or not your opinion is a widely felt one.

Hobbesian wrote:

Eji1700 wrote:

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.

You've clearly not seen the improvements in Civ 6 then. Suffice to say, where Beyond Earth was arguably Civ's "Endless Space 2" moment, where the Civ series entirely floundered for ideas and ended up not pushing the envelope anywhere near far enough, I can safely say that they've "Ripped the bandage off" in Civ 6 and made some fundamental improvements to pretty much every area, and in doing so have quite possibly leapfrogged Amplitude on this one. The question is if they've done enough to square off in the long term stakes against Paradox's juggernaut LTS programme for their games.

Simply mashing Endless Legend and Endless Space together and adding a few new features isn't enough at this point, the game needs to do -more- than that, and regressing the combat back to pre ES1 era simplicity isn't the way to go, not unless you're drastically improving the macro, which ES2 does not. The fact that as I've already mentioned, ES2 -tries- to be a game about ship micro in part but currently fails in that regard means it needs to seriously do some study on that side of things before it can square away the combat side. Either it ditches the concept of ship micro entirely (and therefore ditches the combat cinematics and the whole concept of the planning phase because it's a nonsense as it is) and actually focuses fully on the macro empire element or it goes full in on the combat and makes it worthwhile, as it is now, it's not acceptable.

I didn't convey myslef clearly I guess because my point was that civ 5 was decently deep (vs players) and civ 6 has only improved on that and looks very good.

Anyways someone alreayd posted my feelings on ES2 combat. Not to be a jerk but a lot of what i'm reading gives me the vibe that many players haven't hit era 3 and really explored the systems in the game. They do NOT work fully right now, but ship design in itself is already 100% deeper than ES, which to me is much more important (since cards were basically a formality if your fleet was better, and that had actually 100% solved answers for a lot of the games life), and we see things in the ship design that hint at strategic decisions that might become important later when we get larger CP caps (namely symmetric and heavy mounts which currently do nothing and very little respecitvely, but clearly exist for a reason).

In reference to 2: I've been involved with numerous kick-started and early access projects, usually at alpha stage in order to help shape and guide them, I've worked with game developers constructively when they've not been to precious about their babies to accept some fairly blunt analysis and generally I know whereof I speak. There's not a single game mechanic to date I've not run into in some way shape or form at least two or three times by now so this ain't my first rodeo, I may not be a Ben Kuchera of the world, but then I didn't sell my soul to Oculus to be one *grins*

Let's just say I've been right more often than not and the times I've called it and people went "Nah, you're wrong" and trundled on their merry way have resulted in some pretty shocking results, and not for me. I do -not- want to be wearing the "I told you so" t-shirt for this game. Besides, there's already a poll in action, it's called the G2G points system, you'll note one thread discussing improvements on the existing combat system has over 100k G2G points and this thread has around half that, and both threads have sizably more than most threads on the forum. I'd say that makes them meaningful. Back to you.

You're talking about 'helping' to shape games and guide them, but when I read your posts it feels more like forcing.

I'm not saying it is bad that you give your opinion, but realize that your opinion is not the only one.

Your ego is not really helping getting your point across.

This discussion had many arguments, but it never ends because nobody is willing to change their views or their specific arguments. 

Let's just say I've been right more often than not and the times I've called it and people went "Nah, you're wrong" and trundled on their merry way have resulted in some pretty shocking results, and not for me. I do -not- want to be wearing the "I told you so" t-shirt for this game. Besides, there's already a poll in action, it's called the G2G points system, you'll note one thread discussing improvements on the existing combat system has over 100k G2G points and this thread has around half that, and both threads have sizably more than most threads on the forum. I'd say that makes them meaningful. Back to you.

Like some other comments say in this thread, make a vote to see if you are part of the majority opinion. 

You can't interpret at the amount of points this thread has to the validness of your arguments, because these points were mainly determined by your thread having the only provocative title.

At some point you might as well agree to disagree, since the discussion is not getting any better and there are no new arguments introduced here. 

RageMcGeezaks wrote:

Like some other comments say in this thread, make a vote to see if you are part of the majority opinion. 

You can't interpret at the amount of points this thread has to the validness of your arguments, because these points were mainly determined by your thread having the only provocative title.

False cause much?

I'll let you off once. Watch thy logical fallacies, next time I get bitey.

Hobbesian wrote:

RageMcGeezaks wrote:

Like some other comments say in this thread, make a vote to see if you are part of the majority opinion. 

You can't interpret at the amount of points this thread has to the validness of your arguments, because these points were mainly determined by your thread having the only provocative title.

False cause much?

I'll let you off once. Watch thy logical fallacies, next time I get bitey.

I'm sorry brother, false cause how? Anyway.

I don't think there is a direct correlation between thread visibility and the amount of people that support your opinion. 

I'm just saying that you'd need a vote to investigate that. 

Right now you are making as much (false) assumptions as I do. 

RageMcGeezaks wrote:

Hobbesian wrote:

RageMcGeezaks wrote:

Like some other comments say in this thread, make a vote to see if you are part of the majority opinion. 

You can't interpret at the amount of points this thread has to the validness of your arguments, because these points were mainly determined by your thread having the only provocative title.

False cause much?

I'll let you off once. Watch thy logical fallacies, next time I get bitey.

I'm sorry brother, false cause how? Anyway.

I don't think there is a direct correlation between thread visibility and the amount of people that support your opinion. 

I'm just saying that you'd need a vote to investigate that. 

Right now you are making as much (false) assumptions as I do. 

You're suggesting the upvotes are specifically because of the title, and that's your premise regardless of the fact there's two distinct threads covering combat and -both- of them are seeing heavy upvotes. That also means the need for a vote is rendered spurious because the fact both threads are seeing the activity such as it is would indicate there's definitely -a- problem, even if I am incorrect in my assessment (and I am open to the concept I am wrong in my assessment OF the problem, however, I flatly refute the concept that no problem exists, there's sufficient discussion that suggests there is one now, and to deny it would be a bit King Canute-ish to say the least).

That's false cause. Like I said, I'll be nice once. Second time gets teeth and claws. Pay attention to the forum and to the threads that are being discussed rather than being laser focused on trying to bat away -one- critique at a time.  That is all.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

I've participated in discussions on this topic several times before, and I'm getting tired of it.

We can state our opinions about the combat system, explain what contributed to that opinion and what we think would be better, but in the end it's Amplitude's decision.

So I will try to limit this post to adding some relevant information.

There has been a lot of back and forth over this being the right time to completely overhaul the combat. I will say the following:

Yes, if Amplitude decide to completely overhaul the combat, then starting sooner rather than later would be good.

But I also want to remind you that when they were working on Endless Legend, they completely overhauled the combat calculations of the game. That may not require as much work as going to a full tactical combat system, but it was definitely a radical shift in how the game played.

Sola_J has already very nicely brought the GDD into the discussion again.

One further point mentioned in the GDD: The Battle Plan Deck, which will allow you to tailor your selection of strategies to your fleets and opponents.

Now, I will share some "data" I gathered earlier. This hasn't been a rigorous test, as I've only run each battle plan once, since I was mainly trying to capture on video how te ship movement differs with the different plans. The results of that can be found in an image gallery so this post doesn't become 2000 pixels tall.

There are also videos showing a relatively tactical view of the Sniper, Evasive , and Close Battle Plans in action.

I want to note the following about these battle results:

In none of the three battles did my missile ship and snipers destroy the enemy before they were in range to properly return fire.

In none of the three battles did my fleet get crushed by the enemy Reaper. It certainly did a lot of damage, but keep in mind that I did not bring any flak at all in this fleet.

In the battle in which my Accelerators rushed the Reaper they took very little damage. In the video it can be seen that the Reaper can only fire a few volleys from its turrets at them before the open fire.

All these results need to be taken with a grain of salt, as the AI did not choose optimal ranges for its medium-sized hullls. With a long-range stance the Reaper would have had more time to damage the Accelerators.

Similarly, I intentionally did not bring shields to this fight, as I wanted to clearly see the damage distribution after the battle. Had I been using shields on my Accelerators, and possibly support modules other than engines, they might have fared much better.

The combat system definitely need a lot of work, but I am not convinced that throwing it out completely and starting over is necessary.

In the short term, I would like to see much lower requirements for multiple fleets, so players can start experimenting with that without putting 80 turns into a game at normal speed.

The "tactical overview" button in battle and the detailed post-battle report also need to be available as soon as possible if any proper judgment on the depth of the battle plan system is to be passed.

Finally, on the issue of using G2G points of a thread to gauge the validity of the point the thread makes: It may show interest, but not necessarily agreement. And even the interest is doubtful at the current score, in my opinion.

1. The G2G score simply reflects how many people have upvoted a thread. Given that a thread is a discussion, this may mean that they agree to the OP, it may mean they agree that the topic needs to be discussed, or they may simply think that the thread contains worthwhile information and discussion.

2. I have to put this bluntly, but around 80000 G2G points is basically nothing.  You yourself have 22k points, accounting for a fourth of the score. Four to six people who own a lot of the forum badges are enough to bring a thread to 80k G2G points. That does not necessarily constitute a majority of players, as we have no way to gauge if all those points came from a few votes, or many.

Consequently, I would suggest indeed creating a poll. Either a "Yes/no" poll, or a poll offering the three solutions brought up by mezmorki.

Thank you, Sola_J and The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales for steering this stagnating thread back onto a more factual path. 

Essentially, Hobbesian, I'd think that it should be obvious by now that you should at least withhold from the criticism till more information is available, at which point you'll actually have a leg to stand on. If you're still dissuaded by the facts, then make a poll as suggested.

At the very least, maybe try and act like you're not a troll? Perhaps it's just your style of writing, but your grandiose statements can be construed as pretty arrogant. Not to mention that attempting to belittle the input of others is only going to detract from the legitimacy of your argument in the first place.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

Hobbesian wrote:

Again, you're doing what RageMcGeezaks did, and not looking at both threads which are now active. So that gets a report because spurious nonsense has no place in this discussion, it doesn't contribute anything to the topic, and it doesn't add anything constructive.

Do you have anything else to add?

I spent several hours reading both threads and re-reading parts of it this thread, rereading the GDDs, and going back through my old notes and discussions about the combat system. If you reported me for "spurious" contributions, so be it.

To be clear, the report concerns your commentary concerning the G2G stuff, which is "false cause" fallacy being repeated for the sake of being repeated. I said I'd brook it once, people aren't listening, so that's what the report is for. It's not constructive, it's not helpful, and it's trolling by another name. The rest of your post I have no issue with.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

Hobbesian wrote:

Again, you're doing what RageMcGeezaks did, and not looking at both threads which are now active. So that gets a report because spurious nonsense has no place in this discussion, it doesn't contribute anything to the topic, and it doesn't add anything constructive.

Do you have anything else to add?

I spent several hours reading both threads and re-reading parts of it this thread, rereading the GDDs, and going back through my old notes and discussions about the combat system. If you reported me for "spurious" contributions, so be it.

Regretting a bit that I ever responded to this thread.

I'll start an apologize for fueling part of this ridiculous argument. 

Honestly, I'm not even going to mention any further critique here, given the toxicity this conversation has reached.

I really appreciate the new productive tone The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales was trying to set in his big response and I hope we can continue our discussions in other threads. 

Also I've read some comments of Hobbesian on tech-tree issues and although we are not agreeing here, I'm glad to see that we still have something in common.

Cheers

A couple of necessary points:

Our dev teams are currently in overdrive, working tirelessly to get content and features in, fix what needs fixing, debug what needs debugging. There's an Improve List available for those of you who are curious about where we're headed. Under the vague header "Space Battle General Improvements" are covered a bunch of changes, sometimes radical, that are going to happen to the Space Battle as we currently know it. Input during the Space Battle itself is however still off the table from what I know.

As comes with an important game release, along with the release of an expansion, everyone here is pretty much strung out. It falls to the Community team to make sure the dev team can work in the best conditions, and that includes safeguarding their peace of mind so they can focus on the real issues. Reading abrasive posts from anyone will definitely go against that effort, and regardless of the reasoning behind one's manner of speech, there is a huge gap between "no sugarcoating" and what we've seen in this thread. That's not okay.

Please either present your opinion in a respectful way (we're asking for elementary courtesy), or refrain from posting altogether. We have enough players who share opinions of both sides but not the need to throw vitriol to carry on the discussion, and as such, we will be operating with extreme prejudice because we have literally no time for this.

Thank you for your understanding.

Frogsquadron wrote:

A couple of necessary points:

Our dev teams are currently in overdrive, working tirelessly to get content and features in, fix what needs fixing, debug what needs debugging. There's an Improve List available for those of you who are curious about where we're headed. Under the vague header "Space Battle General Improvements" are covered a bunch of changes, sometimes radical, that are going to happen to the Space Battle as we currently know it. Input during the Space Battle itself is however still off the table from what I know.

As comes with an important game release, along with the release of an expansion, everyone here is pretty much strung out. It falls to the Community team to make sure the dev team can work in the best conditions, and that includes safeguarding their peace of mind so they can focus on the real issues. Reading abrasive posts from anyone will definitely go against that effort, and regardless of the reasoning behind one's manner of speech, there is a huge gap between "no sugarcoating" and what we've seen in this thread. That's not okay.

Please either present your opinion in a respectful way (we're asking for elementary courtesy), or refrain from posting altogether. We have enough players who share opinions of both sides but not the need to throw vitriol to carry on the discussion, and as such, we will be operating with extreme prejudice because we have literally no time for this.

Thank you for your understanding.

Fair, can you be a bit more specific then about what the "General improvements" might involve? It would be useful to get a feel for what direction Amplitude have in mind as there's a difference between improvements that "Add fluff" and improvements that "Add stuff", right now the battle space vocabulary is -extremely- limited and Ship Micro as a consequence feels like an afterthought. There is a second, significantly more constructive thread *here* that covers suggested improvements that would not require input during space battle itself, however, they would require some significant revamps in the current system to make it more workable.

If this is "it" for Ship Micro then I would politely suggest that you jettison Ship Micro altogether and focus on the Empire Macro now, and focus development resources on that.

Our design team is working on a post explaining the current changes and direction we're headed for Space Combat. We're looking at end of week, possibly earlier.

Frogsquadron wrote:

Our design team is working on a post explaining the current changes and direction we're headed for Space Combat. We're looking at end of week, possibly earlier.

Looking forward to it.