minurominerwin wrote:

You're wrong. BmB has not had a bad attitude. It is true that he has been hard with his criticism, but he has also been sharp and argued in a reasonable manner. I think you're exaggerating.

EDIT: I do not want to turn the thread either. I will not continue with this discussion.

Pluvinage wrote:

As for simultaneous turns and the battle system, I see them as necessary for dynamic multiplayer.

Although I wouldn´t mind playing EL battles by controling every unit movement and attack, like Heroes of Might and Magic. But that playstile would have to be optional because a lot of multiplayer games would drag because of this.

Disagree very much. That is the "excuse" that justifies the current combat system, but it is a very poor argument: Think that the existence of a more interactive combat system, would not be a problem for the multiplayer, because in the lobby of the game should be able to force automatic combat. 

Do you play multiplayer? You can create a game with a combat system similar to the current one, which is resolved with some pre-battle decisions, like now. If not, you can enjoy deeper fights, which require more "micromanagement", apart of cards and formations. Perhaps by turns, like heroes of might and magic, or perhaps similar to star wars: empire at war, or even patrician.

Sorry, but you're spitting a bunch of nonsense. Seemingly in multiple topics. I've actually played Master of Orion in multiplayer and have conducted endgame battles with MANY ships on both sides. It takes so long to even move and attack with all of them that each turn drags on for forever. And if you are playing with multiple people the rest might as well go watch a movie meanwhile, or at least an episode of whatever series they fancy. Yes, it took that long.

You literally whine that hero skill trees are, and I quote, "HUGE" and too complicated, that even having to deal with heroes levelling up is seemingly bothering you to death, yet ask for battles to be an order of magnitude more micro-managy... Seriously...?

You are by all means entitled to an opinion, but please stop pretending you are talking on behalf of anybody else, not to mention ALL of us. You most certainly don't talk on my behalf.

The way battles are conducted is a matter of a design decision. The first game had it, and the second one does too. You apparently played the first one prior to buying this one so this hardly came up as a surprise either. Go play some Age of Wonders 3, it's on sale, battles there just what you are looking for - this game simply isn't on the other hand. And I happen to like a lot of it just the way Amplitude envisioned it.

Frankly I quite like the ES2 battle system, it saves time and focuses on more of the grand strategy element of war, but I think it's greatest failing is actually holding too tightly to tactical considerations instead of really leveraging the abstraction of it. That it tries too hard to feel tactical and please those who want a battle simulator when that really isn't it's strength to play to.

I'd rather it went even more abstract, to cut down on the frequency of complaints and imbalances regarding damage types and the like.

I have to disagree with more abstraction in the battle system. Especially if that means making no choices in combat at all. That's Gal Civ's signature approach and one of the main reasons I don't play Gal Civ. The current system is decent enough. It just needs a few tweaks. 

Slashman wrote:

I have to disagree with more abstraction in the battle system. Especially if that means making no choices in combat at all. That's Gal Civ's signature approach and one of the main reasons I don't play Gal Civ. The current system is decent enough. It just needs a few tweaks. 

"Abstract" ≠ Simplistic. Many of the games issues right now with combat are that the damage and weapons and firing angles etc. are clearly intended for a more tactical system that lets us account for stuff like movement and facing, when in practice the battles work more like something between an automated ATB system a la Final Fantasy, and one of those mobile strategy games where your dudes walk in a straight line without taking your input.

So the stuff that remains needs to act less like a classic tactics game with movement and such, and more like a classic RPG, accounting more for rates of fire, damage types, etc.

This is a pretty in depth criticism. Honestly I prefer posts like this that out line in detail why a person dislikes the game. Now wheter all the issues outlined are matters of tastes or game development bugs/design failings is another matter XD. I'll try to put my two cents on most aspects of the areas the OP has adressed.

1. The combat: 

I agree that the combat in ES2 could use work, but I disagree in terms of where and why it needs work. The OP complains about the battles not being entertaining enough to view, which is a complete nonfactor to me. To me, battles are a means to an end and I'm not looking to watch the explosions. I auto resolve every battle, with the exception of ones where I want to know exacly what went down. In that case I press the replay battle button and watch the battle from the tactical overview. I don't understand what the OP's issue with auto resolving battles is though. Then again I mostly play multiplayer where speed is a thing.

Now onto my own personal complaints about the battle system. I actually like the concept of the battle engine itself. There is a surprsing amount of depth and options avalible to the player, as well as potential for player interaction. I'll cite an example of a series of battles I once had. I was playing Rifts, and my enemy was a Sophon player. I pulled ahead of said player in Industry and somewhat in science, and was attacking him with a conventional army equppied with laser weapons. My Sophon opponent knew he couldn't beat me with conventional weapons since he was behined, so he opted for Bombers. 

This forced me into an interesting situation. When we went into battle, he would take advantage of the Bomber's unique ability fire across 2 lanes, IE from 1 to 3 or 3 to 1. He would then put all of his ships into either lanes 1 or 3. I had to make a chioce then, either split my fleets up to cover all the lanes, or go for a 50/50 chance. If I did the former and split my fleets, that meant only one flotilla out of 3 would be able to engage his bombers fully, so I'd lose a few ships and he'd take less losses. A slow and steady war of attrition. If I tried to second guess his choice, I would either completly destory his fleet if I choose correctly, or be completly destoryed myself as I'd be in the wrong lane and he could fire on me with impunity. Since I was ahead industrially I went for the spreading my fleets approach. Even though I took steady losses this way, I had the industry to replace my ships and he didn't. I'd rather wittle him down for sure than risk it all for a 50/50 chance. 

So cool tactical situations like the one above are the good part imo of the ES2 battle system. The bad part is how opaque the after battle analysis is. Each tactics card you use interacts differently with every other one, and very little information is avalible about those interactions. For the many times where the battles goes roughtly how I envisioned it, there are times where I'm sitting there stareing at the after battle analysis wondering what the heck went wrong lol. I'd like it if the anlysis had an even better step by step break down of the fight. 

2. Simultaneous turns:

I somewhat understand the OP's feelings on this. While I never felt cheated vs the AI, I've had more than a few situations where my opponent online had an advantage because he acted first. We're supposed to be playing a turn based game not Starcraft 2! Haha, but I can much more clearly see the reasoning behined simultaneous turns too. Imagine having to wait for 8 people every time in a game as time consuming as ES2! It would be UNPLAYABLE. MP games take long enough as is. I have a hard time seeing a good way to reconcile the two concepts of smooth multiplayer and fair turn based situations.

3. Battle balance:

Honestly the battle system is currently more balanced than it's ever been. It's by no means perfect but it's not really all that bad. The counter system can lead to some interesting potential for planning and strategy too. For example in MP the typical meta has been to go for beams or lasers with minimal flak support "just in case" someone went for missles. However I saw that my enemy's main attack fleet neglected to bring any flak support, probably under the assumtion that "obviously missles are too easily hard countered so why lose dps by putting in some flak?" This lead me to blind side him by building a fleet full of missle boats. I was able to take down his key attacking fleet with minimal losses. I then immediately updated my ship designs and went to a full laser configuration before counter attacking. Lo and behold, his next fleet was now escorted by a few dedicated flak boats in an attempt to counter my "Missle boats". This gave me an edge in the following battle too. However, what if he predicted my swtich and instead, built missle boats of his own? Then I'd be at a disadvantage with my switch to pure laser. The battle system with its counters puts the advantage towards the player with more industry and economy (as it should) but also someone who can plan for the enemy. I say the concept is sound, but the numbers need continued tweaking.

4. AI and diplomacy:

Hm, admitedly I have yet to see a 4x game that FEELS as good as Alpha Centuari. The way AC was able to create memorable and interesting AI faction personlaties that could be easily reflected in their gameplay was utterly amazing. For example, as Diedre you'd natrually research the Fungus bonus techs and put points into Ecology. This lead to your pollution rating being lower, and your own area looking like an infested alien horror show (Or beautiful natrual sceneary depending on your PoV haha!). Meanwhile Morgan's land would be full of ugly Boreholes and Mines that had both a visual and gameplay impact on the game. The setting and gameplay mechanics of ES2 just don't lend itself well to this kinda of expression. I have a hard time seeing how they could improve on this though. I mean sure Sophons would get more science buildings I guess, but you can't really see that just by looking at your systems. There are some general guidlines like the Lumeris being more acomodating than the Cravers because the former thrives on trade while the latter wants to consume. 

5. Expansion?

Sorry I don't think I understood this one. Can you explain it to me better? What exactly was the issue? The limitation wasn't hard enough? Or was it too hard?

6. Quests:

I disagree with you here. The quests are somewhat intrusive yes, but they deal mainly with the internal affairs of the Race you're playing as. Not only that, the various choices offers you the player chances to adapte towards your situation. For example, typically I play the Riftborn in a more peacful manner, and I take the option to build population quicker for my questline. However, there was a game where the situation was such that I didn't need to build population faster and instead wanted to go to war. I adapted and picked reward that improves manpower construction. This fit my narrative both in the context of the story, AND the story of my game. The Viceroy would be more likely to take a militant view of the new universe she's in if she lands next to say, militant Cravers as opposed to peacful Sophons. It fit my gameplay because said choice helped me deal with the invaders better. 

The ES2 stories don't always fit so perfectly, but sometimes they don't need to as the stories are seperate from the gameplay. Think of the main quest line in Alpha Centauri for example. It's exactly the same for every faction and the same very time, but works.

Another thing is that some of the pop up quests are context senestive. For example, the Sophon teen's quest only occurs if you have a certain number of Sophon population in your Empire. 

In the context of MP, the main quest just becomes something you plan around and take into account as part of a faction's quirks. You're metagaming at that point so you play with the rewards in mind. For example setting things up to get X quest for Y reward at Z turns. I don't find this particularly intrusive or immersion breaking since when I'm playing MP I'm already putting roleplay considerations aside (Unless I'm fooling around with friends). 

In essenace, I don't agree that the quests take away from the game. They are strictly a plus for me, and the added lore is especially interesting. In fact, playing through all the main quests was a huge motivator for me to buy the game in the first place. I was excited when I heard ES2 was going to have the quest system of EL and it didn't dissapoint. 

That about covers everything I guess! Bm if you're still around let me know what you think about my counter examples and arugments. Although some of it like the quests section is admitedly more of a "this works for me and doesn't for you" kind of thing.