Actually combat is exactly as in ES1.

Look at your weaponry stuff your ships with the best you have, choose a card acordingly... rince and repeat win or loose.

Unlock next ship hull rince and repeat line above.

Interest in combat... very few.

Strategy ? Absolute zero.

Why ? for any specie the ships are the same (exept Horacio that have weak ship)

Not sure what i would do.

1) Each specie have peculiarities at the start of the game, even minor species.

2) Remove tits or tats for strategic ressources. It brings nothing or increase them but this will lead to corridor game

3) Augment the number of cards you can choose at the same time, ES1 combat was much more interesting you just inserted flaws in combat

4) review the tech tree for military... right now its weird.. just choose upgrade weapon upgrade armor ignore the rest.

Lot of work...

Slaunyeh wrote:

Actually combat is exactly as in ES1.

Look at your weaponry stuff your ships with the best you have, choose a card acordingly... rince and repeat win or loose.

Unlock next ship hull rince and repeat line above.

I feel that this is more a weakness with in the combat ability of the AI (I'm guessing it's been your opponent most of the time) than a weakness in the combat system itself. This isn't to say that slapping on the best weapons you've got available to you is a bad strategy in general, but it is pretty predictable. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't really punish the player for doing exactly what you've said, but I think you'd have a harder time against an opponent that built and chose ranges to make your weapons, even your best ones, much less effective. 

[F]or any specie the ships are the same (exept Horacio that have weak ship)

They aren't. A Craver destroyer (the offensive small hull) has 2 weapon slots, a defense slot, a support slot, and a slot for either defense/support, with a high base HP (1020).  A Riftborn destroyer has 4 weapon slots, a defense slot, and a support slot, with a low base HP (630). A Vodyani destroyer has 2 weapon slots, 2 defense slots, a support slot, and a slot for either defense/support, with an average base HP (835). Do you mean that all ships sort of feel the same to design to you?

3) Augment the number of cards you can choose at the same time, ES1 combat was much more interesting you just inserted flaws in combat

I won't say that ES1's battle system was bad, but I don't think it's as interesting or nuanced as ES2's current system. Flotillas give you a range of ways to tune the effectiveness of your ships and also provide opportunities to execute things like protecting damaged ships (place the ship in a flotilla that you think won't draw a lot of fire), or even baiting (place a few tanky ships in the way of a lot of fire while another flotilla deals the damage -- it is even possible to get a flotilla outside of the firing arc of another, so you can deal damage without taking any in return). ES1 never had those options. 

4) review the tech tree for military... right now its weird.. just choose upgrade weapon upgrade armor ignore the rest.

Not sure what you mean here. I don't think it's that simple. What about the command point upgrades? What about additional tactic cards? What about additional options for ground invasion? Do I want hyperium energy weapons or titanium kinetics? I never feel like I can ignore these questions (especially command point and tactic card tech) when I'm considering military research.

Lulz! wrote:

I think most of the decision making in combat has been focused around Ship Design since the Alpha came out, it was more the engagement ranges and ship placement in flotillas that needed to be ironed out for the choices made in Ship Design to show up in a more full-bodied way. To be honest, space combat (ground is a different story) in Update 3 feels pretty good; in fact, I think it addresses most, if not all (apart from speed), of the points here. There are modules that are exclusive to certain ship hulls (only explorer ships can equip probes, for example, and there are many mods which only support ships can equip) and they also receive bonuses from certain ship hull types: weapon modules are more effective on ships with an offensive role, defensive modules are more effective on ships with a defensive one. In defense of the tactic cards: I don't think there is any more micromanagement than what you described in Crusader Kings 2. The flotillas are like flanks with set engagement ranges, of which you decide the composition of (or use one of the presets). How your ships and the enemy ships are designed is the biggest factor in which tactic card you choose, with the minutia in flotilla composition.

Case in point: I've faced many an AI fleet where all it has built are ships designed around beams; there are no other types of weapon aboard them. This, obviously, is not good design -- beams can only fire at short range, so if the ship finds itself at medium or long range with only beams, it can't contribute anything to the fight. Essentially, this locks you into tactic cards that feature short range flotillas, but this doesn't guarantee you'll start at short, because the way engagement ranges are decided is dependent on the range of the opposing flotilla (Mysterarts details it here). If that range is long, the fact that the ships are designed with only beams will likely lead to heavy losses with little to no damage done to the other side because you'll spend two phases dealing no damage at all. Given that, it's hard for me to see how Ship Design doesn't transfer well into meaning here as it is the difference between effectual combat or getting decimated.

First on the tactics cards my concern is they add decisions that carry little weight. My use of the term micromanagement was probably ill advised, a better term would be busy work. The only time cards have any real effect are if like in your example someone has built a fleet with all beams. If they don't play a card with short engagement ranges then they will lose. But as you stated building a fleet that relies on beams is a poor choice. In ES1 the best strategy I found was simply to build ships with a balance of lasers and missiles and then I didn't even choose cards as they made little difference to the outcome of a battle. Now in it's current state when building ships in ES2 I'm going to build a mix of slugs and lasers and generally ignore torpedoes and beams just like ES1. However unlike ES1 I have to stop and choose a tactic even if it is not going to make much difference.  Personally if the tactic system was removed and they simply went back to allowing the player to select their engagement ranges and flotilla composition and have those choices carry over from battle to battle it would stream line the process without losing much if any of the strategic decision making. Of course players would then simply select engagement ranges that best suit the ships they've built but that is their choice and is better than the current system where players are forced to design their ships to best suit the developers pre defined tactics. Put simply I build a fleet with a strategy in mind set the engagment ranges and flotilla composition in the first engagement and in subsequent engagments my only choice is do I fight the battle or do I retreat. If my fleet and hence strategy is ineffective I then go back to the ship designer and start again.

As for the points about different modules my issue is about differentiating small and medium hull classes not the attack and defend designated hulls. I have only played with the Sophons as I want to keep my first experiences of the other races until post release but using them as an example, once I have unlocked the Giga class hull I have no need to build the kilo class hull unless I have exatly one or two CP left in my fleet and I want to fill them as there is no aspect in which the kilo class is better than the Giga.

This is my problem with the decisions in the ship builder, too often certain decisions become obsolete. Whether that is building a small ship after i have unlocked the ability to build a medium or even choosing to build a ship with all beams. Now if ship speeds are incorporated into battle calculations it will bring utility to small hulls even once larger hulls have been researched. For example if you build fast ships with all beams they will now be able to close the distance with larger opponents resulting in at least two stages at short range, thus even though they have less weapons than a larger hull they can fire more shots so the total damage output would be similiar. Therefore large hulls would still be the go to for general jack of all trade designs but players could use the small hulls for specialised niche designs.

My opinion is that these changes will give the player more meaningful choices when designing their fleets and stream line the process of resolving battles.

They aren't. A Craver destroyer (the offensive small hull) has 2 weapon slots, a defense slot, a support slot, and a slot for either defense/support, with a high base HP (1020).  A Riftborn destroyer has 4 weapon slots, a defense slot, 

and a support slot, with a low base HP (630). A Vodyani destroyer has 2 weapon slots, 2 defense slots, a support slot, and a slot for either defense/support, with an average base HP (835). Do you mean that all ships sort of feel the same to design to you?

Actually YES, thats the point....

I did not go to the  theets counting....

I hardly do teeth counting (or math crunching), cause i do not like it, in this kind of games unless i feel it necessary.

Thanks it wasn t but it was so subtile that the diferences you enumerate did no diference at all, maybe that s the problem.

How to solve. Sincerelly i don t have much idea, right now, or i would have posted.

I won't say that ES1's battle system was bad, but I don't think it's as interesting or nuanced as ES2's current system. Flotillas give you a range of ways to tune the effectiveness of your ships and also provide opportunities to execute things like protecting damaged ships (place the ship in a flotilla that you think won't draw a lot of fire), or even baiting (place a few tanky ships in the way of a lot of fire while another flotilla deals the damage -- it is even possible to get a flotilla outside of the firing arc of another, so you can deal damage without taking any in return). ES1 never had those options. 

Well, i did not explicitly sayd combat was great, i merely sayd it was much more interesting or should i ve sayd more fun maybe, of fun for more time.

Not sure what you mean here. I don't think it's that simple. What about the command point upgrades? What about additional tactic cards? What about additional options for ground invasion? Do I want hyperium energy weapons or titanium kinetics? I never feel like I can ignore these questions (especially command point and tactic card tech) when I'm considering military research.

Disclaimer haven t played beta yet.

Lets dissect the cadaver:

*Command point: 

Yes OK they are needed but for ES1 players they are point given, not adding fun.

*Cards: 

Upgraded once, looked at the card, analysed the strategy, never came back there since they aren t strategic. They act merely as another enhancers, they didn t feel relevent, it was better to invest faster in Hulls, or next gen pewpew or shield.

There card need to bringsomething unique!

Be more like:

- Manoeuver to retain maximization of range so to prolong long range vantage.

- Boost engine 25% and front shield by 25%  but do not fire on the first fase to get up close quickly

- Do a cisor manoeuver baiting the ennemy fleet to try to flank it (i know something similar is in the operational theatre but it doesn t quite work)

That sort of things.

And not:

upgrade long range firepower 2% to maximize long range (and then be a sitting duck) 

get 10 gold for each of your command point destroyed - Sincerely what such card add as a strategic viewpoint.

*Hyperium or Kinetic. 

Basicly long range or short range.

Thats the death of the game strategy as you can t really compose your ships anymore.

THIS!!! is one of the greatest strategy killer, if not the one as from this point all combat become the same:

Long range: Stand of and pray

Short range: Run toward the ennemy and pray

You MUST find a way to pedal back, or turn this exclusive way in such a way it doesn t kill strategy.

*Ground invasion

I don t even look at it.

There s not enought diferences brought by thanks airships and infantry.

Just mass infantry and roll over period....

Infantry should be an overall duck it kills infantry cavalry and airship but not that eficient, but be the main occupation method. Infiltration should be specialized at reducing cavalry and airship or sabotage civilian stuff

Cavalry should be good infantry  killer but be weak to airship and mild weak to infiltration. Should Support occupation in a mild way.

Airship should kill mass infantry and be a pain to cavalry but do not allow occupation.

Ho and yes.

Upgrade hull or new ship class

New ship class all the way without thinking.

And what kills it?

Hull upgrades tied to weapon specialization. If you choosed the wrong specialization you screwed and F%%¨*G P!%%ED

If you didn t chosse til now your hand is forced.

Down with that!!

What i liked: Free slots that allow all! Nice idea keep them there keep them sparce.