Fenrakk101 wrote:
You failed to even acknowledge any of my other points.

Is there a purpose to that?

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Again, where the hell do you see real-time combat in Endless Space? Or in any turn-based game?

Well let's see; you make decisions in real time during combat. I'm pretty sure that makes it real time combat... unless i'm missing something?

Fenrakk101 wrote:
This is already a deep rock-paper-scissors game. Not all Tactics cards block Engineering cards. Each card blocks a card type of its own choice, and has its own type, meaning there are a lot of interesting permutations.

Right, it's a card game... I was looking for something more along the lines of... well, the rest of the game. I actually like card games myself. I used to play ST and MTG, still do play the latter in fact. I also like more traditional card games, like poker. That doesn't mean that i necessarily like them while I'm playing a 4x game. There's tons you can do with combat in a 4x space game. Making it a card game is an odd choice IMHO.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
If you don't think that's tactically engaging enough then you're not even trying.

I didn't say that, i just said that it didn't fit in with the rest of the game, and that it was a simplistic choice for a combat system. I'm sure it's "challenging" in it's own right.

Arqane wrote:
Well, the perspective isn't as far off as some of you might think. Take for example, the old American battleship. There were, as far as I can tell, only 27 that took part in WW2 (that includes 2 sunk at Pearl Harbor). There were 21 B-2 Stealth Bombers made. So for the "big guns" defending an empire, you really don't see that many. Granted we are talking about a multi-planetary empire, and not simply a country that spends 3x what the rest of the world does combined for their military. But it's still a matter of scale. Their "big guns" would probably only number up to about 100 as well, even though they would likely be bigger than you could fit on a planet.

Well sure but, how many fighter/bombers were created? How many destroyers and frigates? How many submarines? How many tanks, jeeps, APC's, SPG's and mobile guns were created? And how much combat damage did all of the afore mentioned actually do as opposed to those 20 something battleships? How much of the war was "fought" by "small" guns, as opposed to big ones?



You see, a few columns of tanks is pretty impressive, just like a few formations of frigates are pretty impressive. A lot more impressive than say one single battleship. So the point is, quantity does matter. It's all about creating a fantasy, and 5 ships just doesn't do it... no matter how huge they might be.

Well, the perspective isn't as far off as some of you might think. Take for example, the old American battleship. There were, as far as I can tell, only 27 that took part in WW2 (that includes 2 sunk at Pearl Harbor). There were 21 B-2 Stealth Bombers made. So for the "big guns" defending an empire, you really don't see that many. Granted we are talking about a multi-planetary empire, and not simply a country that spends 3x what the rest of the world does combined for their military. But it's still a matter of scale. Their "big guns" would probably only number up to about 100 as well, even though they would likely be bigger than you could fit on a planet.

jowanna wrote:


Don't get me wrong, I like the combat system for what it is. If it was a stand alone game (like gratuitous space battles), the combat system would certainly be worthy of some praise (and it is), but the point is that it just does not really fit in with the rest of the game. Still, it was fun while it lasted, but it's game-breaking enough (for me) to conclude my findings on endless space and continue my adventures in a fantasy world other than endless space..

My full support on this!

One of the 4x's in an 4x game is and always was "exterminate". While the other 3x's are implemented good enough to provide you with the illusion of a consistent "fantasy world" the exterminate seems to be missed out.

Letting aside the lifeless weapon research and the fact that there actually IS no exterminate (because you still can not raize a system), seeing an empire that owns dozens of systems beeing unable to manage more than a handfull of ships in a fleet is so laughable that i thought this is a bug until i found out that it is actually intended.

If you manage a galactic empire you want to have a sense of the power you are commanding. Where is this power in a 5 ship fleet?



Due to this completely illogical contraint and the many many logic breaking balancing issues it causes (like one single rampaging fleet that can defeat hundreds and thousands of ships without getting damaged) i stopped playing ES several weeks ago.

jowanna wrote:
I'm convinced you're not trying very hard...



No need to get excited. I assure you that sharing opinions has never ever hurt anyone.

You failed to even acknowledge any of my other points.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
I really have no idea what your point is here.

I'm convinced you're not trying very hard...



No need to get excited. I assure you that sharing opinions has never ever hurt anyone.

jowanna wrote:
Ultimately a matter of taste of course, but the concepts of RTS and turn based really get faded into a grey area in most games. Endless space is as much turn based as it is real time. Any game that calculates rolls is really a turn based game, just that the player doesn't necessarily pace the procession of the rolls... this is also true for endless space. Eventhough the game neatly defines the different phases of the battle for you, it doesn't on "your turn", so it's no REALLY turn based.

I really have no idea what your point is here. Endless Space is NOT as much a real-time game as it is a turn-based game. And are you telling me games like Sins of a Solar Empire or Civilization blur the lines between RTS and Turn-Based? I'm convinced you haven't even played "most games."

jowanna wrote:
I think the balance between real time and turn based in endless space is pretty good,

Again, where the hell do you see real-time combat in Endless Space? Or in any turn-based game?

jowanna wrote:
...but the combat could do with a little more control given to the player. There are many strategic and tactical aspects which are given no thoughts in endless space. It's boiled down to a very naked rock paper scissor system. And while all strategy games are ultimately some form of rock paper scissors, most of the interesting ones add complexity in the form of logical system. And so they provide a deeper and more satisfying challenge. I could just list what kind of elements make strategy more involving, but ultimately it should be clear to anyone who has ever played any strategy game, what those could be... and of course they are A LOT more difficult to program. Which undoubtedly is the main reason why endless space was kept simple in that aspect.

This is already a deep rock-paper-scissors game. Not all Tactics cards block Engineering cards. Each card blocks a card type of its own choice, and has its own type, meaning there are a lot of interesting permutations. If you don't think that's tactically engaging enough then you're not even trying.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
The problem with "in-depth tactical combat" is that this is a turn-based game. Trying to thrust RTS battles into a turn-based RTS game would just be... wrong. Wrong on many levels.

Trying to add a turn-based battle into it would just make multiplayer games even more incredibly long.



I love the current battle system. It has enough strategy to be worthwhile (as in, it's worth not auto-resolving) and yet it's not so deep and involved that it feels like a separate experience from the main game.

Ultimately a matter of taste of course, but the concepts of RTS and turn based really get faded into a grey area in most games. Endless space is as much turn based as it is real time. Any game that calculates rolls is really a turn based game, just that the player doesn't necessarily pace the procession of the rolls... this is also true for endless space. Eventhough the game neatly defines the different phases of the battle for you, it doesn't on "your turn", so it's no REALLY turn based.



I think the balance between real time and turn based in endless space is pretty good, but the combat could do with a little more control given to the player. There are many strategic and tactical aspects which are given no thoughts in endless space. It's boiled down to a very naked rock paper scissor system. And while all strategy games are ultimately some form of rock paper scissors, most of the interesting ones add complexity in the form of logical system. And so they provide a deeper and more satisfying challenge. I could just list what kind of elements make strategy more involving, but ultimately it should be clear to anyone who has ever played any strategy game, what those could be... and of course they are A LOT more difficult to program. Which undoubtedly is the main reason why endless space was kept simple in that aspect.



Simple doesn't mean "bad", like i said, it has it's merits in it's current form. There's just room for improvement. While the rest of the game pretty much "get's it right" as far as i'm concerned. There's always room for improvement in anything, but that's nitpicking really.

jowanna wrote:
Personally i think this is a mistake, and a more in-depth tactical combat system would be preferable.

I never, ever want to see this in endless space. I love the combat system.

The problem with "in-depth tactical combat" is that this is a turn-based game. Trying to thrust RTS battles into a turn-based RTS game would just be... wrong. Wrong on many levels.

Trying to add a turn-based battle into it would just make multiplayer games even more incredibly long.



I love the current battle system. It has enough strategy to be worthwhile (as in, it's worth not auto-resolving) and yet it's not so deep and involved that it feels like a separate experience from the main game.

I personally am never too sure, but I do feel the combat system would do well if it were more focused on the battle cards and tactics over the simpleness of technology.

To be perfectly honest i should probably give endless space a little more play-time to see if i can't "get used" to the combat system. The point is however that the combat system is the proverbial fly in my otherwise delightful soup.



Anyhow, I will give it a little more play-time. Failing everything else i can simply auto resolve all battles.



I would suggest a more "direct" combat system, but i fear i may be beating a dead horse. Most 4x games have a very uninvolved combat system, auto-resolving most of the battle or boiling it down to the resolve of the overall grand strategy you are playing. Personally i think this is a mistake, and a more in-depth tactical combat system would be preferable.

That was one hell of a opening before you got to the point.



Feel free to make a suggestion towards improving the game!



And I do find it surprising on your comment towards the number of ships, most people seem to be upset that you need more then 5.



I do find that the amount of ships in the current balance is fine, even to the point that I wish the maintenance costs for ships were bigger to prevent spamming lots of cannon fodder.