VieuxChat wrote:
It doesn't have to be a "mini-game". Just use a 3-range attack. Choose a "stance" for each range, then look at the result : you won, you lost, stalemate=try again next turn. It's fast, semi-automatic, but you have some room for a little thought behind "Get me that planet !"

Unless that's is accompanied by a massive RTS like representation of the battle, akin to space battles in ES, your suggestion is pretty much my definition of a mini-game. With only those choices there isn't much interactivity there to fill a "full" game What I was pointing out is that similar mechanics to what you proposed(a mini-game), plus some basic animated graphics can get the job done and with style. The main issue I wanted to address with my original suggestion was the minimising of the effort needed to implement the feature, specially when there is so much else to be done.

Becks wrote:
If you have control over the orbit it is a very big advantage and the most important thing. First: Bomb your enemy. Second: Start to invade.

I like the simple system in Moo2. There you could start a bombardment and the longer it lasted the more was destroyed (people, buildings, military). But it would be nice if you have more options. I think in GalCiv2 there were several invade options.

Yes, GC2 had several invasion strategies you could use. Such as Tidal Waves or Meteor Strikes, all of them implied the worsening of the target planet and colony infrastructure conditions. What they didn't include is the political and cultural ramification of such actions. To this day the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings are hot issues around the world, this kind of cultural dynamics would not be absent in interstellar politics; in any case they would be magnified due to sheer scale.

If you have control over the orbit it is a very big advantage and the most important thing. First: Bomb your enemy. Second: Start to invade.

I like the simple system in Moo2. There you could start a bombardment and the longer it lasted the more was destroyed (people, buildings, military). But it would be nice if you have more options. I think in GalCiv2 there were several invade options.

I think the same, ground combat should be in ES. In all 4x games there always was something like ground combat, here we have only orbiting in system and taking it with all planets. It should be more advanced, choose planets invade, bombard it etc.

In my opinion, I think the devs should focus on space combat. Ground combat should be done as a quick calculation by the computer and then the players should be told who won. Points could be assigned to the armies and the one with the most would win. Like 5000 points worth of one players units beat 3000 points of another. Various factors or traits could be used to influence the points. Maybe there could be multiple kinds of units worth different amounts, but I don't think the devs should put more effort into this than a little art for each unit and a paragraph of description.



I'd rather have a great 4X game than an okay 4X with tacked on ground warfare.

I'd love to see a full fledged part of the game be ground combat, whether it's an expansion or in release is irrelevant (though the former is more likely). There's a lot of good ways you could get a full on rts battle with real rts mechanics and base building in the same game without interrupting the flow to much. Offhand, in single player you would just be taken to the battle map, the type determined by the planet with possibly dynamic variance in the layout per planet. Then you would do your base building portion, fight off forces that are landing, etc. You could even have some cool ship interactions with strafing/bombing runs, orbital lasers, and landing ships.



Multiplayer is a bit of a different issue. While playing coop, you could use the total war approach which would freeze the space map portion, and allow you and your friend to go into the battle map and you could "gift" units to your friend who would then be able to play with you and give you greater strategic options. A full on multi-player would be much harder without the game being turn based. Most land battles would be auto-resolved with the exceptions of ones where all players could participate.

metaspirit wrote:
Yes an auto working out all the + and - would be best with an pop up you won lost.

Would also be nice to have the option added for mass genocide poisoning the population or using nanites then just wait x turns and just populate the planet with all the building still intact when you kill them



The way you kill could also be seen by other races the more gruesome the kill could effect trade with races or have others declair war

As if the Cravers give a spare spike about your puny trade embargo... do you really wanna give them nanite ethnic cleansers? Then again they prob'ly won't use them as a matter of principle cause they like the squishy sound ur puny head make and it's hard to braid your ribs into a shiny new back spike ;\:P

Yes an auto working out all the + and - would be best with an pop up you won lost.

Would also be nice to have the option added for mass genocide poisoning the population or using nanites then just wait x turns and just populate the planet with all the building still intact when you kill them



The way you kill could also be seen by other races the more gruesome the kill could effect trade with races or have others declair war

The only redeeming quality of any type of ground defense is the availability of large amounts of shielding mass (just dig down and build a bunker) and energy (you don't have to light the cities at all times, do you?).



The bad part about this is, that even if the enemy has extremely powerful ground weaponry capable of shooting battleships right out of orbit beneath tons of rock and shields, you simply do not hover over them, done.

I think MOO2 did it right, and that system fits better within the overall design of this game. Just land your ground forces and allow the computer to hash out the results taking into account all the advantages and disadvantages for attackers and defenders, and the player can watch the carnage unfold.

I agree with the abstract simply because in my mind a 'ground battle' would actually be more like 'atmospheric superiority'... (If Hollywood can be used as any kind of authority). AKA an aerial war with really really quick fliers wreaking havoc on the land forces and threatening capitals...



voila! surrender or ur leader gets it!



If I can fly from a nebulae through a cosmic hurricane (whipping lil asteroids all over the place), surf on the rings of ur neighboring planet and scan ur entire moon for a temple (by pushing the big green button), am I really gonna be intimidated by ur itty bitty tank?

The question is: How complex should this game be? You could add a command and conquer ground combat system. Or a SimCity city-building system. It depends on the focus of the game. I agree with VieuxChat and reynanuy. It would be very nice to have downgraded battle system for ground combat. I don't need nice graphics for this. A abstract view would be enough.

But I don't want to leave the "space view".

reynanuy wrote:
Unless that's is accompanied by a massive RTS like representation of the battle, akin to space battles in ES, your suggestion is pretty much my definition of a mini-game. With only those choices there isn't much interactivity there to fill a "full" game What I was pointing out is that similar mechanics to what you proposed(a mini-game), plus some basic animated graphics can get the job done and with style. The main issue I wanted to address with my original suggestion was the minimising of the effort needed to implement the feature, specially when there is so much else to be done.

For me a mini-game would be to have things to do while the battle occur. (For instance a match-3 with 10 matches to do in less than 30 seconds). And that wouldn't be a good choice, I think. I'm sure they could use the "space battle system" and use it for ground attack. So nothing new to code.

Functional wrote:
Here's a few thoughts;



First of all, about minimizing efforts.



Why minimize efforts? No, turn them into profits. Either introduce it as a DLC or in a full fledged expansion. If someone doesn't like the concept, he doesn't necessarily have to get it. If people do (again, this is easy to decide by reading what's around these forums), then go for it.



Especially since they (hopefully) listen to what people have to say about these things. Especially if it helps them to profit more, it's all good.



A placeholder feature that introduces just thinking but very little visual candy is a great beginning. And keeping it optional is also great.







Now, if it would come into as DLC or inside an expansion, it would have to 'have more'. It's hard to speculate what it could be like, but as an idea, it's very intriguing.



It's very intriguing because it's sort of like making history. There are very few cross-genre games and even they can be barely called cross-genre. Who felt that Nuclear Dawn had RTS in it? Haha, those devs probably didn't play something like Ground Control. And they were not succesful obviously because when one talks about "FPS & Strategy", you imagine something completely else. You want to build hundreds of troops and face hundreds of troops as one of the troops and you want to be able to cause serious damage as you're the "elite".



Now, I'm not sure if you can really talk about cross-genre by definition, but it's clearly two different games in one. While obviously only one part is focused upon hard, but I don't see any reason why the other one couldn't be well detailed and polished. This could enable some really epic matches that you could base a whole saga of books upon.





Not everyone likes this and I'm skeptic about it happening with Endless Space, but I'm yet to see a game where you have two completely different games in one where each part reflects another. All of 'these' games in the past have been like jokes and only one that wasn't really that much of a joke was Men of War. And they didn't even try to put much focus into controlling a single unit, yet it worked like charm and added a whole new level of immersion, even though you were limited a lot and it wasn't first person.

The devs already have a roadmap, and adding things would cost more money/time. Even though I'd love an fast RTS for ground battles, it doesn't really blend nively with the MP part of the game (it will have to be some way to fast-resolve ground battles).

Here's a few thoughts;



First of all, about minimizing efforts.



Why minimize efforts? No, turn them into profits. Either introduce it as a DLC or in a full fledged expansion. If someone doesn't like the concept, he doesn't necessarily have to get it. If people do (again, this is easy to decide by reading what's around these forums), then go for it.



Especially since they (hopefully) listen to what people have to say about these things. Especially if it helps them to profit more, it's all good.



A placeholder feature that introduces just thinking but very little visual candy is a great beginning. And keeping it optional is also great.







Now, if it would come into as DLC or inside an expansion, it would have to 'have more'. It's hard to speculate what it could be like, but as an idea, it's very intriguing.



It's very intriguing because it's sort of like making history. There are very few cross-genre games and even they can be barely called cross-genre. Who felt that Nuclear Dawn had RTS in it? Haha, those devs probably didn't play something like Ground Control. And they were not succesful obviously because when one talks about "FPS & Strategy", you imagine something completely else. You want to build hundreds of troops and face hundreds of troops as one of the troops and you want to be able to cause serious damage as you're the "elite".



Now, I'm not sure if you can really talk about cross-genre by definition, but it's clearly two different games in one. While obviously only one part is focused upon hard, but I don't see any reason why the other one couldn't be well detailed and polished. This could enable some really epic matches that you could base a whole saga of books upon.





Not everyone likes this and I'm skeptic about it happening with Endless Space, but I'm yet to see a game where you have two completely different games in one where each part reflects another. All of 'these' games in the past have been like jokes and only one that wasn't really that much of a joke was Men of War. And they didn't even try to put much focus into controlling a single unit, yet it worked like charm and added a whole new level of immersion, even though you were limited a lot and it wasn't first person.

Just to give you quick answers, there are invasions but no ground combat (we might add that later). There are planetary and "system" improvements and it's up to the player to choose where to build them. The game is for all strategy lovers

This from a youtube trailer



What do you guys think?



I'd say it's definetively a feature that could be great, but also a feature that can be messed up too easily.



Either it becomes something that is fun for the first 1-2 days and then either you are frustrated when you have to do it or you'll skip it (if you have the option).



There's several ways of doing it as well. Either some sort of real time strategy game or turn based tactical game.



So, I'd love to see the feature, but I'm not sure if it's worth it, really. Hard to keep these things interesting for the nowadays demanding audience.



Could be perhaps introduced in an expansion that focuses upon this?

VieuxChat wrote:
It doesn't have to be a "mini-game". Just use a 3-range attack. Choose a "stance" for each range, then look at the result : you won, you lost, stalemate=try again next turn. It's fast, semi-automatic, but you have some room for a little thought behind "Get me that planet !"

I'm trying to picture this but I just don't get it unless you are describing "paper scissors stones"?

If you have control over the orbit it is a very big advantage and the most important thing. First: Bomb your enemy. Second: Start to invade.

I like the simple system in Moo2. There you could start a bombardment and the longer it lasted the more was destroyed (people, buildings, military). But it would be nice if you have more options. I think in GalCiv2 there were several invade options.

Yeah thats a simplified enough idea. Although a more advanced combat for taking a capital or some really interesting strategic point would increase the value of the game.



As for examples of ground-units... please check out the link below. It is awesome indeed. Hope we get to see a battle between UE and the Cravers with lots of these fielded.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31083337@N06/6389488599/sizes/l/in/photostream/

It doesn't have to be a "mini-game". Just use a 3-range attack. Choose a "stance" for each range, then look at the result : you won, you lost, stalemate=try again next turn. It's fast, semi-automatic, but you have some room for a little thought behind "Get me that planet !"

SomeGuy wrote:
I'd have to say that ground combat should be abstracted. Land your troops, pick a tactic or strategy for them to employ, and be done with it. Besides, when invading a planet (not to mention an entire solar system) there are going to be several battles on the ground as your troops and their troops fight for dominance. Having a system for awesome, player-controlled ground combat would be too much. The game would become more of a invasion strategy/tactics game rather than a strategic 4x game based in space.

+1 here. I really am not interested in a mini game. I'd rather see a series of factors determining the effectiveness of your invasion like geography/ tech/ philosophies etc than play a mini game. Unless it was something special it'd end up being shallow and boring before too long.

I'd have to say that ground combat should be abstracted. Land your troops, pick a tactic or strategy for them to employ, and be done with it. Besides, when invading a planet (not to mention an entire solar system) there are going to be several battles on the ground as your troops and their troops fight for dominance. Having a system for awesome, player-controlled ground combat would be too much. The game would become more of a invasion strategy/tactics game rather than a strategic 4x game based in space.

I am more in favour of a quicker abstracted system for ground warfare.I would like depth in grand strategic choices for ground combat but a indepth space and ground combat model would make the game too slow.

If the space battles live to their expectation, why not expand the concept to ground battles ? I really like simultaneous decisions (anyone tried Frozen Synapse ? It's a game in itself, so ES can't really borrow the design, but it can show how good a simultaneous combat system can be)

Yeah, I agree, it shouldn't be too intricate. But TBS could handle it aswell. Only problem I would see is that it would take potentially long times (hence optional) and not sure about RNG scenarios for those.

The best way to implement Ground Combat IMO is neither to expand the game with an RTS section nor a TBS war game. Just as the space battles are in ES, the ground combat should be resolved with a mini-game which faces different types of units against each other; in a "civilization like" unit combat scenario. Each unit can have specific abilities and be upgraded through technology research, but there would be no unit customization; to keep things simple. I had envision a system like this for a game I was working on, now with ES on the horizon, I can only suggest a similar feature for the game.