Errrr SOTS2 is more or less fixed now, it was a crappy way of staying afloat sure, but the game works.



And yes i defend it, your fighting across a goddamn galaxy what did you expect? (And whats wrong with the auto battle? how is it unrealistic?)



I agree there needs to be a way to prevent the auto timers going off in singleplayer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVgYMNOnL2s&feature=youtu.be



Here is the game where i am getting my point of view from.

A ship cap will just result in having huge amounts of FIDS with nothing to use it on.



Add multiple attacks per turn and perhaps some way to very quickly kill fleets you vastly outmatch. Reasses the situation after that. These are needed changes even if there were a ship cap.

As already mentioned in another thread i support some sort of empire CP/Supply cap. On the one hand, it's just not "realistic/atmospheric" if an empire may field any amount of fleets/ships without serious problems in supplying these (btw. current maintenance is a joke). Neither is it any fun to fight against these amounts, even if you field comparable CPs. It's simply annoying to fight fleet after fleet for a myriad each turn in just one war. Even worse it's an inflationary use of the combat system, if you have to use manual combat against an equal enemy.

On the other hand a CP cap would force players/AI to plan ahead in a war and in terms of fleet composition - not just drop thousends of trash ships in a system to block or rush the enemy. It may be possible to keep up with the AI in the arms race, even on higher difficulties (at least on "Serious" so far) - but as I said: without a fleet cap it's an annoying waste of time in war, it hampers the immersion and makes the (MP-) game less strategical if a match's reduced to an arms race.

Arghy wrote:
The combat system is already over simplistic and you'll be already hitting the same 2 cards every match exasperating it. The anemic combat is a symptom of how much they perfected everything else but this is just stressing how much combat sucks. Lets face it when your forced to ignore a part of gameplay because its tedious and unfun theres a problem.



Already even with the defense buffs combat rarely gets into the 3rd round and without a hero and due to my design sets i only play 2 cards every match. There is a problem and endless space will eventually die because of it. Telling people to just completely ignore combat with autocalc is extremely lazy and i dont like to be told that the devs dont care after i paid them my money.

I am in the process of rendering a recoding of my current game, and where i am getting my view from. i will link it here once it is uploaded so you can see my point of view and where i am being mistaken, .

I think the combat mechanics are fine. The Civilization series has no tactical combat at all, and GalCiv 2's combat is basically a non-interactive movie. But there needs to be some way of selecting cards on auto/without going into the battle view; it's just too tedious now.

Igncom1 wrote:
Errrr SOTS2 is more or less fixed now, it was a crappy way of staying afloat sure, but the game works.



And yes i defend it, your fighting across a goddamn galaxy what did you expect? (And whats wrong with the auto battle? how is it unrealistic?)



I agree there needs to be a way to prevent the auto timers going off in singleplayer.

The combat system is already over simplistic and you'll be already hitting the same 2 cards every match exasperating it. The anemic combat is a symptom of how much they perfected everything else but this is just stressing how much combat sucks. Lets face it when your forced to ignore a part of gameplay because its tedious and unfun theres a problem.



Already even with the defense buffs combat rarely gets into the 3rd round and without a hero and due to my design sets i only play 2 cards every match. There is a problem and endless space will eventually die because of it. Telling people to just completely ignore combat with autocalc is extremely lazy and i dont like to be told that the devs dont care after i paid them my money.

Thomas.Trainor wrote:
1. I expected to not have to spend 47 turns chasing down individual ships. Realistic but tedious to the point I am not playing the game anyone.



2. Autobattle is fine in such uneven fights but the issue is the one attack per fleet per turn. Again, tedious to the point I am not playing anyone.



If the devs listen to complacent proles like you on this issue they can expect me to never support a G2G game again. As it stands I am unwilling to spend time playing this game. You are defending me having wasted my money.

1. I agree that it can become quite tedious, and i feel sorry.



2. I agree.



and it is a shame you feel like you shouldn't play this game (During the Beta i almost didn't play at all for the same kinds of reasons), but i hope future updates may improve you playing experience.



You Helot.

Arghy got a point there. A big ass point to be exact.



And yes, Autobattle is veeeeery unrealistic. I used to fight with auto battle, I lost a bunch of fleets doing it. Now I fight every battle by my own and somehow I never (Just rarely) lose my battles.



And I'm totally behind Arghy when saying you could have less fleets but massive ones. +1.

Igncom1 wrote:
Errrr SOTS2 is more or less fixed now, it was a crappy way of staying afloat sure, but the game works.



And yes i defend it, your fighting across a goddamn galaxy what did you expect? (And whats wrong with the auto battle? how is it unrealistic?)



I agree there needs to be a way to prevent the auto timers going off in singleplayer.

1. I expected to not have to spend 47 turns chasing down individual ships. Realistic but tedious to the point I am not playing the game anyone.



2. Autobattle is fine in such uneven fights but the issue is the one attack per fleet per turn. Again, tedious to the point I am not playing anyone.



If the devs listen to complacent proles like you on this issue they can expect me to never support a G2G game again. As it stands I am unwilling to spend time playing this game. You are defending me having wasted my money.

23 minutes is a long time, do you have any particular relevant sections?

Wait are people defending the fact that i need to fight 47 battles in a row? these were full fleets not single ships it was 47 full goddamn fleets at once.



There is no argument that can justify the same goddamn battle 47 times. Stacks of doom suck but the current system sucks even more--no matter what you do unless you bring the fleet limit down to 20 your going to run into 20 of the same battle at once. I dont want to wait for the timer to auto calc the battles because its unrealistic and just causes unneeded attrition, i can fight every single battle and not lose a ship. Auto calc should either take that into effect or i should be able to fight a massive abstract battle.



This is not a design feature its a flaw, fleet limits should represent fleet potential sizes. If i can have 50 fleets of 15 CP then i should be able to field 10 fleets of 75 CP or even 2 massive fleets of 375 CP. Battles should take this into account with more ships on the field, replacements taking the place of lost ships and longer round timers. No matter what eventually your going to have to face an AI fielding a huge blob that you will have to auto calc and most likely horribly lose or manually fight.



Either choices are unacceptable and should have been weeded out in the beta stage. Games should be goddamn optional to buy after you play or you should be able to return the product for a full refund. I've had enough of this crap with SotS2--devs releasing massive flaws and just shrugging because its to much effort to change so they just keep the flaw and try to work with it. I thought this game was going to be different just gos to show i've learned nothing from getting burned by SotS2.

I don't think you need any kind of malus or cap or anything, just change how the AI builds fleets... like reprogram them so they max out their fleet cap most of the time, seems like they don't normally.

Because there would come a point where a large fleet is undesirable due to the malus but necessary not to be destroyed by an opponent with either a hero/technological/racial type advantage.



leading the combat system to be stressful and Un-fun.



When really there is no need to make fleets that big anyway.

Igncom1 wrote:
No, because either the malus would be enough that no one would bother, or so little that it doesn't matter.

I didn't quote understand what you mean with that?



If the malus was big / worse enough, no one would do those "Stacks of death" and apparently it does work with HoI. So why wouldn't it work here? It seems pretty legit to me.

No, because either the malus would be enough that no one would bother, or so little that it doesn't matter.



The current method is more then sufficient, as a cluster would leave you open to AOE attacks, but alone you would be vulnerable to being surrounded.



Fleets are fine in their size, the problems people are having is the number of them and single ship fleets (we really need the ability to choose what fleet we are attacking), the solution is in proper planning or having enough ships to deal with an AI that is most likely losing.

Igncom1 wrote:
That was the reason i never bought Civ 4.



Numbers have frequently in history have been beaten by smaller opponents, or are we forgetting the battle of Thermopylae with its 7,000 Greeks holding the line against the 100,000 to 300,000 Persians?

They lost after they've beaten around 20,000 - 30,000. But the greeks had the training (Dat dere strong soldiers) + the right formation / positioning. If you upgrade your ships (Technology) you have like that "well trained soldiers" + if you defend you get a bonus (positioning)



That could give you a huge advantage. But about that stack of death, how about this :



In hearts of Iron, if you stack a bigass army you get a malus on the size. (Weaker) Wouldn't that solve all the problems?

I would prefer a limit based on the number of planets you control. You cannot build more fleets than this but you can have more than this, meaning you could lose a few planets and still keep the existing fleets you have provided you still pay their upkeep.



Also, single ship fleets should suffer some additional combat penalty

I too am against an artificial ship cap.... there is already a fleet cap which gets in the way of how awesome i am. Plus there is a cap of sorts, its the dust. I say if you can afford it, build it. The AI doesnt get that big a dust bonus, you can keep up.



Now as for the AI sending hordes of single ships at you when they are dying, it could be a bug or the last gasp of a dying AI, either way you won, sorry it took so long.



Also i saw someone said you can only have 3 heroes, that is inaccurate, here are a number of techs to increase your hero cap on the left branch, they are marked as academy increases.



Also if you are having a hard time keeping up with the sheer fleet numbers of the enemy but not the power of there fleets, break your fleets into smaller ones to handle them.



Finally, while i like the idea of multiple fleets on each side battling it out, i understand why they do it 1 at a time. Its for the sake of using cards, so that if you mess up and use the wrong one you don't butcher your entire fleet at once, just the 10s of ships that are involved in that particular battle.

That was the reason i never bought Civ 4.



Numbers have frequently in history have been beaten by smaller opponents, or are we forgetting the battle of Thermopylae with its 7,000 Greeks holding the line against the 100,000 to 300,000 Persians?