I really enjoy the fight scenes (few hours into ES2). I fought with my craver fleet an vodyani arc and it was really epic. I loved it!

As atejas said: The big fights are really worth a watch! :)

In a 4x game I would expect combat to be simple. If you want more tactical combat you better play the excellent total war or xcom

Because of this I am a bit disappointed a lot of resources have been spent creating this cinematic battles.

I am happy to let the battle unfold on its own but the problem is that I don't find them enjoyable. I see my ships, some other ships very very far away and a lot of nonsense camera jumping. As such I auto resolve all battle

Also about the tactics. Although I don't want complex tactical decisions in a game like this I think it does need strategy about your fleet composition. So far you can only have the choice of long/medium/short range and the fleet strategy seems to be "the biggest cannons the better". No combined roles, no significant support roles, no tactics at all. I would prefer a system like Civ5 where there is a bit of tactics going on but not too much, and specially that it doesn't break the empire management immersions. I find battles interfering with my decision flow constantly.

I watch each and every one of the battles that occur.  Like a lot of people said, this game is not an RTS and for the main part it does a very good job of letting you macromanage your fleets before you dive into combat.  So far I understand that deeper/more involved strategies cannot be achieved (since there isn't even a "strategy card" system like the first ES) but the visuals - and yes some players care a lot about the visuals - make the battles a lot more interesting to watch than the first installment.

Even if it is left untouched (though I'm pretty sure a lot more features  will be added) the combat system and space battles are still a nicely implemented feature.

There should be a system view for the ground battles in which you could see in real time what is happening on each colonized planet. No need to have little low res soldiers. Just some marks on the surface of planets hinting there are some epic battles being fought there. And as well, above each of them, some feedback in numbers on how planes, vehicles and ground soldiers are respectively fairing, maybe with an icon resembling a unit next to them. 

eobet wrote:

I'm not a hardcore strategy gamer, so I never understood the original Endless Space battles. When I watched them, it mostly turned out worse than if I just skipped them.

Endless Legend, however, although heavily criticised by almost everyone I see on other forums, had wonderful battles to me, and even though I didn't always understand an outcome, and often cursed at a stupid AI decision, I always played them.

Unfortunately, Endless Space 2 doesn't seem different enough from the original Endless Space for me to ever let them play out. I'm very disappointed in the lack of innovation here.

(Especially after playing Thea: The Awakening, which looked really boring, but had card battles which turned out to be crazy amazing and the best part of the game.)

Also, and aesthetic side note: I really don't get the 1980s Blade Runner aesthetic of the ground battles, especially with the high visual quality of the space battles, and the high visual quality of the Endless Legend ground battles. To me, the ground battles in Endless Space 2 are actually unpleasing to look at, and actively makes me want to skip them.

Plus, are you telling me that all races, even the advanced ones, have equally shitty ground visualization tech, regardless of research era? :P

Theoretically, there might be visual cues that suggest who is being effective or not effective in battle. I don't think that really happens currently thought. Otherwise, it's just there because it's the most sensible opportunity to showcase that fleet you have been spending money and time building.

Likewise, why is there less effort visually for ground battles? Because the player puts less thought and effort into them, so there is less of a need to provide an aesthetic feedback for it.

TheDeadlyShoe wrote:

Koranis wrote:

I have a better question regarding the battles: why bother fighting them? lol.

They look good but the tactical "choices" are shallow as a pond and are quite fake. I have a short range fleet and also the enemy has one. Of course everybody will pick up a short range engagement. What tactic is that?

if you are both short ranged then your choice of tactic still dictates how long the engagement spends at short range and the bonus you get. for example if you take Prudent then much of the battle will be spent at long/medium range instead of short, limiting the damage both sides do to eachother, and you also heal at the end.

Yeah, the system is definitely more interesting than it appears, but that depth is not communicated to the player well at all. But that's what Early Access is for :P

Koranis wrote:

I have a better question regarding the battles: why bother fighting them? lol.

They look good but the tactical "choices" are shallow as a pond and are quite fake. I have a short range fleet and also the enemy has one. Of course everybody will pick up a short range engagement. What tactic is that?

if you are both short ranged then your choice of tactic still dictates how long the engagement spends at short range and the bonus you get. for example if you take Prudent then much of the battle will be spent at long/medium range instead of short, limiting the damage both sides do to eachother, and you also heal at the end.

I have a better question regarding the battles: why bother fighting them? lol.

They look good but the tactical "choices" are shallow as a pond and are quite fake. I have a short range fleet and also the enemy has one. Of course everybody will pick up a short range engagement. What tactic is that?

I'm tempted to watch them just to get an idea whether the enemy has kinetic or energy weapons, and whether they have shields. As it stands, I don't know of any other way to get details on their armaments (aside from their range effectiveness).

Each caters to a different population, ultimately as long as ES2 clearly goes in one direction or the other I'm good. What I hate is when a game tries to do both and winds up doing it poorly.

I watch some of the larger ones because they can get quite visually pretty, but most of the early game battles like sucker punching a scout or 2v2 light attack ships really aren't worth watching at all.

In answer to OP - Because it looks pretty?

I know it's been said before but you are an emperor in this game not a fleet commander. It's one of the defining features of Endless Space, love it or hate it (personally I like it a lot).

There is no reason to watch a space battle as it stands now.  If you've seen one then you've seen them all.  Hopefully the current ground combat graphics are only placeholders.  If not then I agree that they are very disappointing for this day and age.

Homeworld remastered and Total War Warhammer are the finest example of RTS done right.

Why does nobody remember Star Wars: Empire at War? Best space combat in any RTS ever, no contest.

Combat in ES2 is all about being an emperor.  Amplitudes vision is quite clear on this point.  This game is not and was never intended to be hands on when dealing with combat.  You are the empire builder not a fleet commander.  If you want to play hands on combat then lobby Total War to make a space game.  They are masters at RTS combat.  I like both aspects when they are done well.  ES2 in my opinion sets out and succeeds in the direction that this game is taking.  Make your choices and the rest is up to the gods of space.  It's galactic war where your heroes are the fighters.  Most 4X game fail miserably in direct RTS combat.  The expectations are always not met.  Crap graphics and mundane control mechanics have sent many a 4X game into oblivion.  Homeworld remastered and Total War Warhammer are the finest example of RTS done right.  ES2 vision of epic space battles between great empires is a refreshing take on this.  I can see a time when we might get to see real cinematic battles like many of us have seen in the best SI FI shows.  Bringing RTS to this game will ruin its pacing.  

kosmoface wrote:

Uh, I hope the don't build the game only for Multiplayer. 

I said "especially," not "exclusively in." And you do get something to do when your fleets go head to head - you get to choose their tactics.

I would not enjoy having to micromanage every single battle for the optimal results; setting your cards from the popup window was a godsend in Endless Space 1, and I simply don't see the appeal of playing a battle step-by-step to see what happens.

If retreating is your concern, perhaps they could add other fleet options, such as "attempt to flee once you get below x% of health." But I also stand by what I said before; that if you want to enter a battle, you accept the risk that you might lose it. If you want to retreat, you accept that you won't do much to the enemy fleet. I'm not upset that you can't have it both ways.

Uh, I hope the don't build the game only for Multiplayer. 

Sorry, but I want to have something to do when it goes head to head with another fleet.

They're just pretty to look at. I hope they stay that way; 4X games that have separate games built into them for combat are always annoying, especially in multiplayer.

If you don't enjoy looking at them, that's a shame, but I don't think it's a flaw with the game. Though I will agree that the direction they took with ground battles is rather odd.

For the moment there's no reason to watch a battle. Whether that changes remains to be seen.