I pretty much agree with all of this, though I think it might be a bit late in the development cycle to re-work the combat system.

No. Milestone is for reworking the core of the game. Alpha is about fixing major issues that cropped up with features implemented, and getting to a generally low bug count. Reworking something as ingrained as the combat system seems like a daunting task.

Daunting it may be, but it would take the game from "decent" to "FINALLLY!". It is the weakest part of the game thus far, and really feels like an afterthought.



At least more interaction would help! Targeting, formations, etc. Even if you cant control fleet location in combat, focusing fire on specific targets or subsystems and interactively toggling support craft systems would be a huge improvement. The card system just seems like an easy way out.



Also, effective blockades are a must. Just being in a system shouldn't automatically trigger a blockade. Using a combat option with setting individual fleets to blockade a system (thus automatically preventing enemy ships from escaping) should be a must. In multiplayer, non-hostile factions could request allowance through a blockade, which could be approved or denied by the blockade owner.

No. Please no. Current combat system is what makes this game unique. Everybody and their dog has nowadays implemented a detailed ship combat system, and you have a plenty of choice if that is the kind of a game you want to play. However, 4Xs that are truly global and do not require you to micromanage very single ship in every single battle or face lousy autoresolve with lots of casualties are mostly non-existent.



Camera management definitely could be improved, but rather than that - current system is nearly perfect.

kibertoad wrote:
No. Please no. Current combat system is what makes this game unique. Everybody and their dog has nowadays implemented a detailed ship combat system, and you have a plenty of choice if that is the kind of a game you want to play. However, 4Xs that are truly global and do not require you to micromanage very single ship in every single battle or face lousy autoresolve with lots of casualties are mostly non-existent.



Camera management definitely could be improved, but rather than that - current system is nearly perfect.

While I respect that TC wants a different kind of experience, I agree with the above statement. I really like where the combat is at, and I would prefer they not change it at all.



If they do change it to appeal more to real time or turn based fans, I hope they make it optional.



Also, I like how quick battles are in this game.

I like the system as in, it's short and sweet. To long combat makes me bored but games always punish you in one way or another when you try to auto it.

I would like to see some formation and proper blockades thou, pre set formations such a "Spearhead" or "Wall" to give some sort of modifier. But not further than that.

I love MOO2, but I'm honestly all for the current combat system. I find the rock/paper/scissors outcome of the tactic cards to make the battles surprisingly suspenseful, and I really like the look of the cinematic style presentation. I don't think I would have been excited about it having it described to me, but after playing a few battles, I love it.

I think combat as it is currently is more than adequate; the game removes some of the tension of previous games in favor of something smoother and more visually entertaining. It is not totally hands off per GalCiv2 but has a card system that expands throughout the game. This is good since it establishes Endless Space as a unique game. Aside from that uniqueness, there are tactical options to consider that contribute to the battles without having to frantically micro those tactics yourself. Some more variety in the presentation of these battles should certainly be implemented, but a complete overhaul in favor of real-time (or at least player controlled) battles doesn't seem consistent with the design philosophy of the game. It 'feels' more macro-oriented, not micro. As such, controlling the actual ships seems counter to the dev.team's objectives.

Meru wrote:
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2666017 original post



Yo, I bought the emperor edition yesterday & just had the chance to put ~4.5 hours into this game. I made a post on the steam forums here: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2683693 but I wanted to try to clean it up a bit so it looked a bit more cohesive & to the point(s).



1) In short, I think the battle system is a huge mistake. MoO II did it overwhelmingly right, Galciv2 did it overwhelmingly wrong & that is the model with which you are building upon.

>Realtime is fine, Sword of the stars did it "well"(many improvements could be made but it is a fine start to a real time system, overwhelmingly better than the Galciv2 model)

>Turn based /works/ there isn't a single 4x "successor" in existence that has stuck to the turn based battle system, Why? it is probably the main thing that keeps me going back to MoOII over newer 4x games. Turn based combat is a thing of the past, and makes for a very dull and unexciting combat experience, when I go into combat, I want my abilities put to the test, I want to be stressed, and I certainly don't want to click "next turn" every x seconds.

>Cinematics are great, but they only go so far: Your ship designs are beautiful & exciting to watch but player interaction is the main selling point of a "game" Gratuitous space battles unfortunately only forwarded the Galciv 2 model, which makes for a pretty game but ultimately low playability, I purchased GSB & all its expansions, but ultimately only ended up putting 14 hours into the game before I had experienced all it had to offer, to me at least. I guess that model works but I don't think anyone will be talking about GSB a decade from now, at least I hope not.

>Ships appear to have more options("subsystems" or "accessories") than in galciv 2, but the Rock-Paper-Scissors battle system limits you to a shallow experience imo. (Armor-Shields-Flak/Short-Medium-Long)



2) If you stick with the system you have in place

>Camera control, already on your todo but worth repeating.

>Targeting Control would be nice Agreed, being able to focus/spread your ship(s) fire is excellent. Perhaps even implement the ability to target subsystems?

>Numerical displays for ship HP/deflection values in battle (data data data data)INDEED





3) Game Modifications

>I see on a thread down this page addressing the lack of "interdiction" again, MoOII allowed you to intercept ships mid-journey, if your not going to allow that then they have to at least be stopped by a fleet at a planet or chokepoints are meaningless, I experienced this in the short time I've been playing already, had a blockade setup AI just went right past it to my homeworld, no interdiction would also allow for cheese-tastic multiplayer tactics, Battle -> fly back & forth between systems = immunity/repairs. This I wholeheartedly agree with, no interdiction is absolute bollocks.







5)Closing.

It is your game, do with it as you will, but I feel using the battle system from Galciv/GSB is a huge mistake & ultimately is the only shortcoming of an otherwise amazing game.

Additionally, I think they should take away the tactics cards, and have them strictly as hero abilities, and have a cooldown on how often one can use them. Also, the whole "draw" is a load of BS. I think you should have the option to retreat but it takes x amount of seconds to pull out.

Turn based combat is a thing of the past

On what ground can you make such a general statement? Oo



Anyway, I don't think hijacking the core design of the game is a good idea. Changes to combat mechanics (calculation, adding more pre-battle control over the general strategy) might happen, tactical combat is very unlikely , turn-based or real-time.

Railgun wrote:
On what ground can you make such a general statement? Oo

I have yet to see a recently successful game with turn-based combat, ergo it is a thing of the past.

i think the tactic cards are wonderful. what i think we all want a bit more of is a drop of control. maybe some more situation specific cards, faction specific cards, a card to suicide a ship? a card to retreat your cap ships at the expect of your fleet, card to predict opponents cards?.



That is all wishful thinking... but what i would love to be expanded a bit (leaveing system as it is) would be the prolog phase. id like there to be a little meta game in there that gives you hints as to the what your opponent will play if you do well and gives them hints if not. something as simple as both players being able to see each other pick cards would be great because of the limited time to choose in the prolog. 10 seconds to choose cards, do you wait for your opponent to play cards and then hope you have time to play the counters, do you choose fast and then change your choice, maybe you are too slow and go in with no cards.



i love that combat is forced, no retreating means that you move in force and only hold necessary. i enjoy it and i am sure it will only get more polished as the game goes on, love the game!

Hmmm. I've though about it and I realized the combat system could be made far more exciting by simply introducing more cards and by changing up the animations a bit. It would be nice if not every battle involved one fleet pulling up beside another and then just driving past each other. That might be impossible given the available resources and how far we are into the development cycle though.

I think the battle system is generally good, the introduction to more cards and perhaps another layer of tactics is all it needs.

This discussion has been some what amusing to read since it is all about opinion. Simply put the game is in alpha and to change the battle system from a cinematic one influenced by cards, to anything else would require allot of work. Camera control, player control over ship movement, target designation, behaviors, AI...it would be many many months of work. Yeah...most developers would look at you flatly and say "HAHAHA...fat chance". This is not to say you do not have a valid opinion...but with a release time frame of say the end of the summer, it is not going to happen in this reality.



Personally this game is interesting to me because I am tired of micromanaging every little thing. I have been playing Sin's a bit and Sword of the Stars 2, and really I am tired of having to think faster then a computer. To manage angles, to select the right targets, blah blah blah cookie cutter stuff. Things have not changed for almost 20 years. Heck I avidly played Pax Imperia, the grand daddy of many of these games.



So lets manage the empire...let the admirals manage the fighting for this one. And as always, if you not into it then that is fine. Go play something else...

SyberSmoke wrote:
This discussion has been some what amusing to read since it is all about opinion. Simply put the game is in alpha and to change the battle system from a cinematic one influenced by cards, to anything else would require allot of work. Camera control, player control over ship movement, target designation, behaviors, AI...it would be many many months of work. Yeah...most developers would look at you flatly and say "HAHAHA...fat chance". This is not to say you do not have a valid opinion...but with a release time frame of say the end of the summer, it is not going to happen in this reality.



Personally this game is interesting to me because I am tired of micromanaging every little thing. I have been playing Sin's a bit and Sword of the Stars 2, and really I am tired of having to think faster then a computer. To manage angles, to select the right targets, blah blah blah cookie cutter stuff. Things have not changed for almost 20 years. Heck I avidly played Pax Imperia, the grand daddy of many of these games.



So lets manage the empire...let the admirals manage the fighting for this one. And as always, if you not into it then that is fine. Go play something else...

Naturally it's going to be all about opinion since there really is no way to link facts to this debate.

Would it be a far-fetched dream if the space combat was real-time ala Total War style?

Would be nice if we can preset Fleet Tactics too

Depending on your viewpoint and by the meaning of 4X (explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate) Sins does fit. You explore, You expand to new planets and even systems on larger maps, you exploit new worlds and research, and you exterminate the other players. And while it does have RTS elements it could be argued that it is both unlike a more typical RTS.



There is no right way to make a 4X title...and they all have their own interpretation of the explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate concept. So there is allot of room for this, for SotS 2, Legend of Pegasus (Kalypso Media), and Sins: Rebellion. I am pretty sure people of all types will find what they desire.



As for this game, I bet it will get tuned to fit the needs of those that are looking to play it. Just the way it works in game development. Well that or you alienate all the people that bought it and you next game crashes horribly.

Probably not, just because those do fit well and cleanly into the RTS genre. More over that 4X really has a clear progression and expansion where as an RTS has more of a limited scope. Sins is more of a crossover genre, it is both 4X and RTS. And really it was not the first, Pax Imperia for the Mac OS could be played both in a real time mode and as a turn based game. Ahead of its time...but very unappreciated thanks to its sequel.