The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

I'm afraid to say that you may be generalizing from the type of battle system you would enjoy to claim everybody would enjoy it.

I haven't made any claim. I've spoken very little about what the battle system should be and more about what the battle system shouldn't be. If you're going to erroneously state that I'm making claims about what people would enjoy, try to be less erroneous and state that I'm making claims about what people wouldn't enjoy. Should I be more explicit? I dislike that battles have been essentially reduced to making a single choice. It is a very shallow system that is hardly engaging. If it is hardly engaging, why does it exist? Ironically, the only choice that you're being asked to make with this current battle design is a choice that would be left to an admiral.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

And "auto-resolving" is not a solution when most games that have player-controlled tactical battles have absolutely abysmal, unpredictable outcomes for auto-resolved battles.

You've played games that have terrible outcomes for auto-resolved battles? How does this apply to Amplitude or the development of Endless Space 2. Are the engineers of Amplitude also as terrible when it comes to programming as the engineers of these other games you've played? Maybe you would like to give us examples of these games? This is a dead point to me because you're projecting the incompetence of other companies onto Amplitude.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

With Endless Space 2, I am looking for a high-level strategic experience. If I want to manage my battles, I will turn to other games. Or, very loosely quoting the devs, they wish to sell the fantasy of being a space emperor, not being a space admiral.

Again, with the current battle design, you're actually being asked to make the choice that an admiral would make. Consider that someone managing an empire would probably only dictate which sector a fleet would attack or defend and how much resources to dedicate to this action. Your perception of Amplitude's design seems to be more about rationalising what it is than critically considering what it is. If the rationale is that you shouldn't act as an admiral, then even the current design runs counter to it. Amplitude isn't a stranger to mixing roles. As I've indicated in previous posts, I'm all for empire level management but combat in its current form doesn't fit the role of admiral or emperor.

Theisos wrote:

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

The ability to alter orders during the battle animation, even once, is very likely to break that goal.

Why is it necessary that this goal be achieved though? Is it worth uncompromisingly pursuing if it detracts from the production of engaging gameplay? If battles are broken into phases per turn or even across multiple turns then auto-resolving could be an alternative option at each phase.

I'm afraid to say that you may be generalizing from the type of battle system you would enjoy to claim everybody would enjoy it. I, for my part, have been looking forward to the proposed system since they announced it. With Endless Space 2, I am looking for a high-level strategic experience. If I want to manage my battles, I will turn to other games. And "auto-resolving" is not a solution when most games that have player-controlled tactical battles have absolutely abysmal, unpredictable outcomes for auto-resolved battles.

I'd rather get a reliable system hat allows me to skip battles than one in which I have to manual every battle if I don't want to take avoidable losses.

Or, very loosely quoting the devs, they wish to sell the fantasy of being a space emperor, not being a space admiral.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

The ability to alter orders during the battle animation, even once, is very likely to break that goal.

Why is it necessary that this goal be achieved though? Is it worth uncompromisingly pursuing if it detracts from the production of engaging gameplay? If battles are broken into phases per turn or even across multiple turns then auto-resolving could be an alternative option at each phase.

Yes this is a "high level" management game.

Would a high level ruler manage combat? Probably not.

Would a captain or admiral of a ship/fleet have to pull off some fancy maneuvers and use incredible foresight to dodge missiles in space? Probably ya

Shouldnt games use mechanics that let the player's decide what to do next instead of just presenting you a laser and light show? Definitely 

Once i get my hands on the EA, and IF combat is boring, you bet I am going voice my opinion. 

Theisos wrote:

samsonazs wrote:

After all in space it doesn't make much difference how far you are. My bullet / rocket / laser always has range and the same impact force.

In the case of bullets and rockets, distance would matter. Both of these things take time to travel. The greater the distance, the greater the time needed to travel that distance. So distance, in this instance, allows ships positioned further away more time to evade bullets and rockets.

You are correct. I meant that the damage doesn't change.
That is why for long rage lasers are the only sensible solution (you can evade bullets and have a lot of time to shot down rockets).
And as the range get smaller bullets and rockets come more into play.

There is room for very nice cinematics for this where ships evade and getting a hit on smaller ships is harder.

BlackBird1696 wrote:

Nomas wrote:

Overall from the last 2 gameplay videos i am confident that the game will look and play pretty good. But i am kinda skeptical still on combat. So far its not bad but it looks that it needs something more. Personally i would like the option to pick a battle play and during combat. Its only logical that all battle plans in combat dont stick as they were on paper. Factors change during battle and so should do battle plays. I dont know if its a feature that can be added right now but i think its a nice addition that should be added to give more depth in combat. 

I think something similar to the card system would be good. Where the battle is separated into three plays instead of cards. and the next play can be changed before the current one is finished to allow adaptation.

I agree with having something like this in place. I understand the desire to have less involvement in battles as the game is about the broader, high level management of an empire but having such a reduced role in battles is unappealing to me. The novelty of watching those rendered space battle will wear off and battling will quickly become a loop of choosing a single, simplified tactic and moving on to the next empire management task after skipping the battle scenes. Breaking battles into "plays" and allowing strategic decisions to be made for each "play" is a more appealing concept to me, especially if done in a way that allows "management" of battles.

What is unclear to me is flotilla mechanics. Will we be able to mark them manually or the AI will do it?

I like this. It seems to fit within the design guidelines ES2 has set for itself. It keeps the decision at a high strategic level (it's a clear plan that can be picked and then executed by the AI), but offers more initial options that align better with your build/strategy.