Guys, it's not going to happen. No matter how much you ask for it, it won't happen. It's completely outside the scope of the project, and even a basic RTS system would take months, or more than a year if done properly.



If this is a deal-breaker for you, as people have mentioned, this isn't the game for you; the SotS series is.

The current combant is very nice, but I miss some more tactical feeling. Maybe some more possibilities to conter the enemy attacks or a pool I can choice to make more effects.

Yeah i really think that the combat is pretty bad, i mean its either tactical combat like MOO2 or just purely watching the combat like GalCiv2. I don't feel an in-between works too well, i know they can't scrap it and start again but it would be fantastic if you could actually have some sort of interaction rather than just clicking cards.

SteveTheWild wrote:
So really the conclusions we are coming to here, is not that the system is boring/uninteresting etc. but that the system is great but lacks variety and extra tactical options.



More cards and ship accessories would do nothing but improve the game

It would if it worked, but remember that "making it work" means the AI has to be able to handle it as well as the player. Otherwise it turns into a game of exploiting the AI's tactical weakness (as mentioned above in the thread, about MOO2).



I don't think the battles would be more fun if they just allow us to use a bunch of fancy tactical tricks to smash the AI, so we're winning battles that we wouldn't have won otherwise, just based on comparing fleet stats before the battle. The limited battle system right now is easy on the AI, and makes it a fair fight.



That doesn't mean it can't be improved in small ways, to make battles more interesting. But always keep in mind what can be done without totally re-writing the game for a different kind of AI.

In my opinion the combat is fine for the game it is in. In a game where you play 300 turns combat is going to happen often between multiple opponents. If the combat was RTS it would take to much time and it would become repetitive and boring.

Railgun wrote:
Guys, it's not going to happen. No matter how much you ask for it, it won't happen. It's completely outside the scope of the project, and even a basic RTS system would take months, or more than a year if done properly.



If this is a deal-breaker for you, as people have mentioned, this isn't the game for you; the SotS series is.

Wow. To mention the SotS Series in a tactical battle discussion shows that you dont know what you are talking about.

Zenicetus wrote:
It would if it worked, but remember that "making it work" means the AI has to be able to handle it as well as the player. Otherwise it turns into a game of exploiting the AI's tactical weakness (as mentioned above in the thread, about MOO2).



I don't think the battles would be more fun if they just allow us to use a bunch of fancy tactical tricks to smash the AI, so we're winning battles that we wouldn't have won otherwise, just based on comparing fleet stats before the battle. The limited battle system right now is easy on the AI, and makes it a fair fight.



That doesn't mean it can't be improved in small ways, to make battles more interesting. But always keep in mind what can be done without totally re-writing the game for a different kind of AI.

The AI cant even handle the current system to the point that it becomes a challenge. But if MP and replayability is the goal then that doesnt work with the system as it is.

Not if you want to spent 200+ hours with this title.

Dysoncube wrote:
In my opinion the combat is fine for the game it is in. In a game where you play 300 turns combat is going to happen often between multiple opponents. If the combat was RTS it would take to much time and it would become repetitive and boring.

No one wants RTS Combat.

A big improvement would be to have the ability to use a freelook camera while the battle is played out. Currently it looks like poorly edited cut scenes. Apologies to the team if this is an unfinished piece. I quite like the card system but i dont feel im in much control.

raw wrote:
Another dumb response.

I don't know why you're so quick to accuse responses as dumb, and to be honest, I don't really care. But I can still have some fun here, and maybe people looking at this thread can learn something.



So the first we need to create the hypothesis. For this case we want to know if the numbers on the poll could just be random chance. There's four choices, so if it were actually random, the probability of one choice being selected is .25, better known as one in four.



The Binomial distribution for a discrete function with known probability is:

F[x_] := totalcounted!/(successes!*(totalcounted - successes)!)*(probability^

successes) ((1 - probability)^(totalcounted - successes))



The poll has a totalcounted of 88 and a probability of .25. The expected number of successes (if it is actually random) is the same as the average, which is (87/4)= 21.75.



So we go to our favorite symbolic manipulator and graphing program and graph the distribution as a function of the number of successes.



(You can do this too by going to: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot%5B87%21%2F%28x%21*%2887-x%29%21%29*%28.25%5Ex%29*%28%281-.25%29%5E%2887-x%29%29%2C%7Bx%2C0%2C90%7D%2C%7By%2C0%2C.1%7D%5D )



The actual number of successes we are considering (aka, the counts on "No, it's fine.") is 68, and you can already see that 68 has an extremely low probability of occurring randomly. But (thanks for asking!) how low is it?



Well, there's two ways to consider it. First, you can just replace x in the equation with 68.75 and get out the (ridiculously small) answer of 1.11909*10^-24. But that's not all that useful, because probabilities often get very small anyway. Plug in 21.75 and see that the probability of actually getting the average right on the nose is less than 10%!



So what do we use? You may have heard of the Standard Deviation before, often referred to as sigma or σ. For our Binomial distribution, the Standard Deviation (σ) is the Square Root of (totalcounted*probability*(1-probability) or Sqrt[87*.25*(1-.25)], which is 4.03887. So there is a 68% chance that our randomly counted distribution lands within 4.03887 of the average, or in this case, between 17.7111 and 25.7889.



68 is clearly outside the Standard Deviation, so lets figure out how far out it is by quickly dividing (68-21.75)/4.03887 to get 11.6369. Our actual measure of "No, It's fine how it is." is 11.6369 σ away. It's more useful because some measurements are very inaccurate, by comparing with σ, we take into account how easy it would be to get the measure by chance.



Lots of people stop at this point, but since we're rollin', lets use that distance from sigma to calculate a Confidence Level. (There's a link for it on the Statistics wikipedia page that was posted if you want to learn more about Confidence Levels.)



So σ itself has a confidence level of 68%, or a 68% chance that the measured value will be within one σ of the average. Two sigma is about 95%, and as a more concrete sample, the exciting results coming out of the Higgs Boson search last year was that there was a 3.6σ confidence level that the Higgs Boson existed between 125 to 126 GeV. (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-12/tantalizing-glimpse-no-definitive-higgs-sighting-yet-%E2%80%94-wait-2012)



The standard for scientific discovery has been set at a 6σ confidence level. So when they have a 6σ confidence level of the that their detection Higgs existing between 125 and 126 GeV did not occur by chance, everyone will rejoice and declare the Higgs Boson 'discovered,' thus affirming the Standard Model once again. A 6σ confidence level is about one chance in a half-billion that our measure did not occur due to random chance.



So our poll has an 11.6369σ, confidence level, thus affirming that of the population surveyed, "The current combat is fine."



Thank you everyone, and have a lovely evening!





TL;DR: The results of the poll clearly say that combat is fine as it is.

Thank you. Ever since he did the statistics reply I had wanted to do this, but am apparently am far less motivated than you to take up the call.

Maths is Fun!

I don't have time to spend 15 minutes on a battle, while 6 others are waiting in a multiplayer game. Time is of the essence, and none would wait for my battles. Imagine that you are playing HoMM III and you just want to fight every single battle to be victorious with the least casualties (or none). For single-player and such, be my guest. But this is a good multiplayer approach, just a minute or two to finish a battle, with limited intervention (cards). A good balance in my opinion. They could've gone all the way like GalCivII, but this is a lot better compared to that (obviously). They can add more cards, add card chaining and such to further enrich the experience & tactics later on. Or a mod could do it aswell.

thegreedyturtle wrote:
Stuff, Maths, Stats, Reference to 6sigma, to the Higgs Boson, to Scientific Certitude, and again, Stuff.

You just made my day. Or night. I need to sleep. ... Maybe later.

If you want a RTS play SoaSE. If you want a TBC go to one of the previous stated games. The current system is great, since this game is NOT focused on the combat aspect. It IS focused on the management aspect of an empire. Not to mention the DEVs would not take the months just to change combat, it would be a poor investment since your poles state the combat is fine currently.

thegreedyturtle wrote:
I don't know why you're so quick to accuse responses as dumb[...]

It is quite simple really. You pulled the statistics card when the sample size was at N = 7. That is the number one error in statistics and that means you automatically fall into the category flatliner, regardless of how much (wrong) math you pull up later.

You also continue to derail the thread.



I don't know what you want to hear still.

If you want a TBC go to one of the previous stated games.

There have been no "previously stated games" outside of SotS II (wich is a mess) and MoO (released 1993). Please, get a grip on reality.

raw wrote:
There have been no "previously stated games" outside of SotS II (wich is a mess) and MoO (released 1993). Please, get a grip on reality.

Just because a game is old doesn't mean it is bad, and gal civ 2 is turn based. Also get a grip on reality? I think you need to sir. You're requesting a complete combat overhaul on a beta stage game.

Lets just call this thread here shall we? I think nothing more productive will come from continuing this.

Ketobor wrote:
Lets just call this thread here shall we? I think nothing more productive will come from continuing this.

I agree with you.

BaronSengir wrote:
Wow. To mention the SotS Series in a tactical battle discussion shows that you dont know what you are talking about.

Yes, because SotS 1&2 don't have a tactical battle system. OH WAIT THEY DO!

Oh, sure, it's real time, not turn based. Well, if you're dead set on a TBS, you're out of luck.

No one wants RTS Combat.

Some do, apparently.

And a TBS system will also take forever to implement. And it is not going to happen. Not just because people don't want it - but because this isn't even in the game's broad strokes.

I want something better than rock-paper-scissors in space. Currently the only battle strategy for half the game is to stack ships with stacked weapons. Nothing but cheese.

raw wrote:
There have been no "previously stated games" outside of SotS II (wich is a mess) and MOO (released 1993).

Welcome to my world about 89% of the time. May I interest you in a copy of DOSBox and some Good Old Games?