I'd check out the expansion pack discussion the devs have posted up:



/#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/11347-expansion-pack



It's battle-focused, and might solve some of your issues. Personally, I see no problem with the way the battles are now. I'll have something to actually comment with in a bit, once I actually wake up and can think a little better...

Hi



I can understand your points, but ... you can see in the thread aout which suggestions they're following that they said they wouldn't change the battle system, so we have to deal with cards (I'm french but I sense there's a pun here ...)

Also, the probleme of balance between weapons is discussed in many topics (like this one : /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/12374-missile-mechanics and this other /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/11265-kenetic-weapons-way-underpowered) maybe you can give them your ideas to improve it

No - I do not find them boring. If anything I find not having to control every little aspect of combat to be quite refreshing and far more realistic.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
The problem is that in this game (and most space games) a ship's weapons are primarily built along the sides. The bulk of a cruiser's firepower is rarely ever going to be aimed straight ahead. Watch Star Wars or play Battlefleet Gothic and you'll notice ships turning to aim their side weapons at the target instead of firing head-on. If the two fleets were looking dead at each other, logically, they would turn and fire on each other at range instead of charging. And if they both turn in the same direction when they try to shoot, then they'd probably end up doing exactly as they do now.

No, exactly, I know that.



But if they start a long range phase, for instance, missiles aren't restricted by where the port is. They launch, direct themselves towards the target, and fly off. Beams...I'm not sure about them, I'll admit that. Perhaps they are mounted near the front of the vessel? I've seen some ships around in different settings that have a few guns like that. But when the fleet are passing each other kinetics then have their chance.



It also comes down to what we have now (and in other games and movies) is the broadside firing looks more exciting. In some books (like Jack Campbell's The Lost Fleet series) they have battles more like what I'm suggesting. That's my opinion, anyway.

Shivetya wrote:
Missiles are dead simple to explain, they don't have to fire their motors until they orient. As in, pop them out of the tubes, they use directional thrusters to orient, and fire their mains to go there. Guess what, we do that today, there are torpedoes you just drop behind yourself that go off where they need to regardless of the direction you are moving.



Energy weapons in this game move at the speed of kinetic weapons suggesting they are not lasers but instead pulse energy weapons, like encapsulated fusion energy or the like. I would prefer instant hit beams. They look cooler and represent laser type weapons better. All we have now is extra bright luminescent projectiles under the guise of energy weapons. Of course we could always say that the kinetic weapons are propelled by the FTL drives :P

Well the plasma blobs they fire are kinda like the turbo lasers from star wars.



Kinetic kill weapons have to move fast, blasters don't because speed has no effect on the damage potential.



If anything they are like dumb fire missiles.



But I still doubt they would have a point to move very fast.

Missiles are dead simple to explain, they don't have to fire their motors until they orient. As in, pop them out of the tubes, they use directional thrusters to orient, and fire their mains to go there. Guess what, we do that today, there are torpedoes you just drop behind yourself that go off where they need to regardless of the direction you are moving.



Energy weapons in this game move at the speed of kinetic weapons suggesting they are not lasers but instead pulse energy weapons, like encapsulated fusion energy or the like. I would prefer instant hit beams. They look cooler and represent laser type weapons better. All we have now is extra bright luminescent projectiles under the guise of energy weapons. Of course we could always say that the kinetic weapons are propelled by the FTL drives :P

Fenrakk101 wrote:
I don't really think the ships move too slow. Some universes have battleships moving at high speeds, but there's something I like about having large ships that don't go too fast.



And with the missiles, I think what I was really getting at was that it doesn't seem to fit in with ES's universe. It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing the devs were getting at.



As for lasers, I thought of another point: Even if you can put them on the front of a ship, you can put more of them on the sides. And given the generally high accuracy and range lasers have in sci-fi, you would rather sit a ways away and open fire rather with a ton of lasers instead of just putting a few on the front of your ship.



Even if computers could do all the math, kinetics already have a low accuracy and the main thing that makes them viable is the fact that so many bullets are shot in each battle. If the firing window were much smaller, then the player who removes his kinetics and armor and puts on more lasers and other defense systems will have a significant advantage.

Again, it all entirely depends on the kind of tech the universe has. Since we don't know exactly how these all work, all we can do is conjecture about it and keep throwing our own opinions out there. And I really want to avoid Nos's wrath by starting one of those debates again, soooo...I'll just offer that we agree to disagree.

FinalStrigon wrote:
Uhh...Finding you an example of The Lost Fleet would be difficult. That's a book series. However, I'd highly recommend picking it up, they're very good book in my opinion.



As for missiles, well, it depends on the level of technology. It's sci-fi, so saying anything doing something is preposterous is a bit, well, preposterous. I can see it happening, or the missiles can keep the rounded arc they seem to have. Either way, they can be launched from a ways out and still make it to where they need to be.



Laser, I agree depends on how ES's universe handles them. I'm still of a mind that foreward facing cannons can be put on the ships, but again, that's just my opinion.



And yes, the fleets would be moving very quickly. This was an argument that sprung up with the carrier debate. It entirely depends on the kind of technology. I buy into that series I mentioned, where computer handle most of the firing. It can react fast enough to get the guns fired in that brief period of time, knowing when to fire at the speeds the ships are traveling to get the bullet and the enemy ship in the same place at the same time.



Personally, I think these battles are far too slow (in game, not playing through them). These ships, in my mind, would be traveling at speeds that no human can react fast enough to deal with. I am utterly and completely tainted Campbell's books, though, and (as others have mentioned) sick of the battles we see in movies like Star Wars and B5 and Battlestar: Galactica (may be stretching here, actually never saw a battle in that series), where fleet just group together and shoot at each other, usually while "parked" over a planet.

I don't really think the ships move too slow. Some universes have battleships moving at high speeds, but there's something I like about having large ships that don't go too fast.



And with the missiles, I think what I was really getting at was that it doesn't seem to fit in with ES's universe. It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing the devs were getting at.



As for lasers, I thought of another point: Even if you can put them on the front of a ship, you can put more of them on the sides. And given the generally high accuracy and range lasers have in sci-fi, you would rather sit a ways away and open fire rather with a ton of lasers instead of just putting a few on the front of your ship.



Even if computers could do all the math, kinetics already have a low accuracy and the main thing that makes them viable is the fact that so many bullets are shot in each battle. If the firing window were much smaller, then the player who removes his kinetics and armor and puts on more lasers and other defense systems will have a significant advantage.

Igncom1 wrote:
I have had second thoughts about the whole fast ships argument, with ships 'warping' in and out of a battle in a solar system leads me to believe that most battles take place as fairly slow moving speeds as ships have no time to accelerate, as they don't actually need to for most reasons, because they can just 'jump' to their destination.



And from that I am lead to believe that everyone has the technology to 'jam' each others FLT drives while blockading as to prevent ships from escaping while not in combat.



Making fighters a 'choice' for ranged combat.

That may be the case. *shrug* I just know I have my opinion, and dislike these slow battles.



Even going slow, broadside firing should work. There would be enough time for a single salvo, probably, as we can see in naval battles in Pirates of the Caribbean and Master and Commander: Far Side of the World. I don't know how historically accurate those movies are in terms of naval warfare (PotC excluded for obvious reasons...we all know that totally was how it worked, with massive whirpools and sea gods ), but oh well.

I have had second thoughts about the whole fast ships argument, with ships 'warping' in and out of a battle in a solar system leads me to believe that most battles take place as fairly slow moving speeds as ships have no time to accelerate, as they don't actually need to for most reasons, because they can just 'jump' to their destination.



And from that I am lead to believe that everyone has the technology to 'jam' each others FLT drives while blockading as to prevent ships from escaping while not in combat.



Making fighters a 'choice' for ranged combat.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
As for missiles, I see what you're saying, but it does a little preposterous to me that a missile could make a ninety-degree turn towards ships in front of you. I mean, I can see how it's possible, it's just a little weird.



Lasers are a weird topic, because a lot of different sci-fi settings explain them differently. It really depends on how ES explains the function of their lasers, which I'm not sure of.



Yeah, as you get close the kinetics can fire, but really; if the two ships are flying past each other, how large is that window of opportunity really going to be? Maybe a few moments, which is such an insignificant amount of time it's probably not even worth putting kinetics - or even armor - on your ship in the first place.



I've never seen that series, so I can't really comment. If you had a YouTube link or something that shows off what you're trying to relate to, it may be easier to visualize.

Uhh...Finding you an example of The Lost Fleet would be difficult. That's a book series. However, I'd highly recommend picking it up, they're very good book in my opinion.



As for missiles, well, it depends on the level of technology. It's sci-fi, so saying anything doing something is preposterous is a bit, well, preposterous. I can see it happening, or the missiles can keep the rounded arc they seem to have. Either way, they can be launched from a ways out and still make it to where they need to be.



Laser, I agree depends on how ES's universe handles them. I'm still of a mind that foreward facing cannons can be put on the ships, but again, that's just my opinion.



And yes, the fleets would be moving very quickly. This was an argument that sprung up with the carrier debate. It entirely depends on the kind of technology. I buy into that series I mentioned, where computer handle most of the firing. It can react fast enough to get the guns fired in that brief period of time, knowing when to fire at the speeds the ships are traveling to get the bullet and the enemy ship in the same place at the same time.



Personally, I think these battles are far too slow (in game, not playing through them). These ships, in my mind, would be traveling at speeds that no human can react fast enough to deal with. I am utterly and completely tainted Campbell's books, though, and (as others have mentioned) sick of the battles we see in movies like Star Wars and B5 and Battlestar: Galactica (may be stretching here, actually never saw a battle in that series), where fleet just group together and shoot at each other, usually while "parked" over a planet.

There are hard points, but they are covered up as to prevent return fire damaging the guns.



Its based on the age of sail broadside battles.



If they got closer in melee and really ripped each other to pieces like in many pirate movies, then it would be more exciting.

FinalStrigon wrote:
But if they start a long range phase, for instance, missiles aren't restricted by where the port is. They launch, direct themselves towards the target, and fly off. Beams...I'm not sure about them, I'll admit that. Perhaps they are mounted near the front of the vessel? I've seen some ships around in different settings that have a few guns like that. But when the fleet are passing each other kinetics then have their chance.

As for missiles, I see what you're saying, but it does a little preposterous to me that a missile could make a ninety-degree turn towards ships in front of you. I mean, I can see how it's possible, it's just a little weird.



Lasers are a weird topic, because a lot of different sci-fi settings explain them differently. It really depends on how ES explains the function of their lasers, which I'm not sure of.



Yeah, as you get close the kinetics can fire, but really; if the two ships are flying past each other, how large is that window of opportunity really going to be? Maybe a few moments, which is such an insignificant amount of time it's probably not even worth putting kinetics - or even armor - on your ship in the first place.

FinalStrigon wrote:
It also comes down to what we have now (and in other games and movies) is the broadside firing looks more exciting. In some books (like Jack Campbell's The Lost Fleet series) they have battles more like what I'm suggesting. That's my opinion, anyway.

I've never seen that series, so I can't really comment. If you had a YouTube link or something that shows off what you're trying to relate to, it may be easier to visualize.



EDIT:

Shivetya wrote:
Star Wars became a bit silly in the last few movies with their fleet interactions, with most ships being clustered up for good movie imagery more than anything else. Star Trek was much better in representation, some fights the other guy wasn't visible yet they could engage. Also in Star Trek they tended to have a wide arc for some weapons. B5 mostly relied on center line mounted weapons for large damage, very similar to how the old pen and paper game Traveler was structured. In the end it all comes down to what visual theme do want to see?

I was never a big fan of Star Trek and thus never watched it, and I assume B5 means Babylon 5, another series I never watched. I like the current theme of the game and it's what I want to see, and presumably what the devs like as well.

Shivetya wrote:
With no expressed weapon hard points ES ships are really boring, but then again we have no ability to guide their direction in a fight so the whole system is modeled around imagery. I find I auto fight all but fights I might lose now, why? Because its boring, especially with a camera that loves to be looking anywhere other than the action.

I agree that it would be nice to actually see the weapons on our ships, and it's something I hope they add, but that doesn't alone make the battles boring. I also don't really mind that I can't control my ships; it sort of makes sense, really. Especially if you have a Hero in the fleet, it's his job to decide fleet actions, not his Emperor.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
The problem is that in this game (and most space games) a ship's weapons are primarily built along the sides. The bulk of a cruiser's firepower is rarely ever going to be aimed straight ahead. Watch Star Wars or play Battlefleet Gothic and you'll notice ships turning to aim their side weapons at the target instead of firing head-on. If the two fleets were looking dead at each other, logically, they would turn and fire on each other at range instead of charging. And if they both turn in the same direction when they try to shoot, then they'd probably end up doing exactly as they do now.

Star Wars became a bit silly in the last few movies with their fleet interactions, with most ships being clustered up for good movie imagery more than anything else. Star Trek was much better in representation, some fights the other guy wasn't visible yet they could engage. Also in Star Trek they tended to have a wide arc for some weapons. B5 mostly relied on center line mounted weapons for large damage, very similar to how the old pen and paper game Traveler was structured. In the end it all comes down to what visual theme do want to see?



With no expressed weapon hard points ES ships are really boring, but then again we have no ability to guide their direction in a fight so the whole system is modeled around imagery. I find I auto fight all but fights I might lose now, why? Because its boring, especially with a camera that loves to be looking anywhere other than the action.

I would like to ask around a bit if anyone else gets more and more bored by the ES battles and if there are some ideas to make them more interesseting without re-inventig the complete combat system.



In my personal opinion, the main reasons for the boring battles are the following:



1. Player influence on battle is too little



2. Bad weapon/armor/defense balancing: Either weapons are way to powerful or ships have way to little HP. Watching a dreadnought get blastet by two not intercepted missles or a small number of beam hits really sucks. Moreover i think defense module are way to powerful. It is always better to stuff every ship full with defense modules than using armor because the high damage weapons inflict can not be compensated by armor modules.



3. Defense principle is bad: Well at a first glance it seems interesting to have a different defense principle for every weapon category. But after having played hundreds of battles i think the principles are bad becasue of the following factors

3a. Defense is replenished every round: Why should a shield that gets overloaded by massive fire or a reactive armor plating that got depleted by hundreds of kinetic impacts be fully operational again

only because a new round begins? This makes no sense and also contributes a lot in making a battle very binary.

3b Kinetic and Missle defense is completely binary: With Missle and Kinetics beeing always a "hit/miss" calculation the battles tend in beeing either a "complete fleet loss" or a "dont take a scratch"

situation which takes away every advantage in higher fleet numbers.



4. Battles are too short: i understand the need of quick battles in Multiplayer. But pressing battles with 40 or more ships in 3 phases with each 3 rounds is ridiculous. Watching all those gigantic ships getting "plopped" within seconds let you loose every reference to realism



5. Animations are to liveless and too innacurate: Every ship explodes in a flash completely independent of the ship or the weapon type it is destroyed with, the combat animations (like intercepted missles or absorded beams) are very inaccurate (kinetics are not displayed as deflected even if kinetic defense is installed, Beams are not displayed as absorbed even if there is massive shield defense etc.) the calculations seem correct but the animations are badly synchronized with this.

FinalStrigon wrote:
I can see Shivetya's point with the way battles look now, and the simple fix, I think, is just change the direction. Instead of pulling them into parallel routes for broadside battles, put them on head-to-head paths. That was the close range would have them briefly in there for broadside for the best kinetic chances, and afterward, the fleets are flying away from each other, so the end of the battle makes more sense.

The problem is that in this game (and most space games) a ship's weapons are primarily built along the sides. The bulk of a cruiser's firepower is rarely ever going to be aimed straight ahead. Watch Star Wars or play Battlefleet Gothic and you'll notice ships turning to aim their side weapons at the target instead of firing head-on. If the two fleets were looking dead at each other, logically, they would turn and fire on each other at range instead of charging. And if they both turn in the same direction when they try to shoot, then they'd probably end up doing exactly as they do now.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
...so you can still vote for auto, exactly as I said? And auto's still winning, exactly as I said?

Its wining by a hair, Razing is hot on its heels. :P

Igncom1 wrote:
Ha! ha.....my bad

Meh, I was right there with you. Sheesh, I think I started that whole debacle...

FinalStrigon wrote:
And we definitely don't want another realism debate to come up, like when the subject of carriers/fighters/bombers was in the lime light...

Ha! ha.....my bad

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Although if that happened, there would be useless confusion as the fans start debating over whether or not it's more "realistic." Really, I think the current system is fine as-is.

And we definitely don't want another realism debate to come up, like when the subject of carriers/fighters/bombers was in the lime light...



I can see Shivetya's point with the way battles look now, and the simple fix, I think, is just change the direction. Instead of pulling them into parallel routes for broadside battles, put them on head-to-head paths. That was the close range would have them briefly in there for broadside for the best kinetic chances, and afterward, the fleets are flying away from each other, so the end of the battle makes more sense.