I second everything :P. There is a huge problem with in-turn movement and not having a retreat option atm.

eltro102 wrote:
But this isn't a true turn based game, as it would be considerably better and realistic that whoever attacks first... attacks?

Then lets change it, no game claiming to be a 4X turn-based game should have something like this, it sucks, pure and simple.

Igncom1 wrote:
This is a Turn Based Strategy game, and should not have the elements of a Real Time Strategy Game.

Exactly! This is true in my opinion. I haven't nothing to add.

It is a problem when how quickly a computer can command its fleets when compared to me, when one fleet is able to jump system before i can put up the interception because i am not a computer.



This is a Turn Based Strategy game, and should not have the elements of a Real Time Strategy Game.

Valazzar wrote:
what is it people dont understand about simultaneous movement and its connection to simultaneous turns?

you cant have one without the other, and making turns seperately would make the game unplayable in multiplayer.

hahaha! Very funny! Tell it to Civ V developers.

Igncom1 wrote:
Err yes, yes you can? You can place orders then have everyone move once they hit the end turn button?

Creates other similar problems, such as executing all battles at once - meaning that either they cannot be resolved manually, or the people are arent participating wait even more than they do now.

This is already a problem to some degree, but it would definitely get worse by waiting until at certain time.

Another problem is that it makes fleets move very strangely sometimes, because you are moving "blindly", not knowing where others will go.

Finally then i dont see it as an actual problem, putting your fleet in intercept mode, makes most combats happen when you want them to. Yes it happens that sometimes someone gets away, but i dont see this as a problem i can't live with, especially if the solution comes at the expense of longer turns.

Valazzar wrote:
what is it people dont understand about simultaneous movement and its connection to simultaneous turns?

you cant have one without the other, and making turns seperately would make the game unplayable in multiplayer.

Err yes, yes you can? You can place orders then have everyone move once they hit the end turn button?

what is it people dont understand about simultaneous movement and its connection to simultaneous turns?

you cant have one without the other, and making turns seperately would make the game unplayable in multiplayer.

Simultaneous movement is very, very bad feature!

IF developers little think WHY - they understood.

I don't write wall of texts, but this obviously.



Two things: or make good (REALLY GOOD) optimization code or just turn off simultaneous movement. Now it's done terribly!

zoron246 wrote:
I wouldnt mind rather seeing a level up system for ships, keep the current modding system but add an average rpg like level system for ship combat.

Ships do level up, already. They just gain a nonlinear HP percentage bonus for each level.

I wouldnt mind rather seeing a level up system for ships, keep the current modding system but add an average rpg like level system for ship combat.

There are several threads addressing the issue of intercepting fleets, and that's the most pressing concern, but I think that the whole way that simultanous movement and combat-engaging is implemented is flawed and that it should be top priority to fix it. I haven't been playing the game long, so please feel free to correct me if I've overlooked somthing, but here's what been worrying me so far:



* Fleets between stars cannot be engaged in combat. (It's probably "realistic", but we're dealing with space opera here and gaming concerns are more important.)

* An AI (and presumably a future human opponent) with "quick fingers" can move fleets away from a system or into a system, running away from a fight or engaging in a fight you don't want.

* The player who presses the button first get to be attacker, negating your bonuses if you're unlucky (if I've understood it correctly).

* I you want to see what the opponent does before you move, you can simply wait until the end of time.



The interception problem could possibly be kind of addressed with some kind of "ambush mode", that automatically initiates an attack when a fleet enter the system, and a time limit could perhaps do something for the waiting problem, but if you ask me the best way to address the underlying problem would be something like this:



* Fleets are always located at a system, never in between.

* Actual fleet movement (not decisions about movement) take place at the end of turn, after combat.

* If the distance between systems is small enough to complete the journey in one turn, the fleet move instantaneously to the other system (at the end of the turn). If not, it spend a number of turns equivalent to the travel time generating enough warp power (or however you want to explain it fluff-wise) in the first system before moving to the second.

* Actual combat (not decisions about combat) take place at the end of turn, but before movement.

* You can't see what decisions regarding combat and movement the opponents take before the end of turn.

* If only one player decides to attack that player is the attacker. If both attack both are attackers (or possibly the one with the strongest fleet).



(Bonus wishes, unrelated to the problems above:

* Your fleets should be marked with recognizable icons once an action has been decided, so you know what fleets you've already taken care of.

* You should be able to "fortify" fleets (even if no bonus applies), and you should be required to decide an action (even if it's just "pass") for every un-fortified fleet before end of turn, to ensure you don't forget any.)



There's bound to arise problems with three fleets in a system, each attacking the next one in a circle, but there has got to be a solution to that. Some kind of initiative order, presumably.



I don't expect my ideas to be implemented, but I think it would be wonderful if they were. As it is now, the system is even more frustrating than multiplayer mode in Civ V, and that was bad enough to rule practially rule out multiplayer mode for me. Scout fleets are waltzing around my systems, and I need fleets in several systems to lock them down. As long as they manage to end turn between systems, they are untouchable. And when I do catch up with something to kill, they are obnoxious enough to attack my superior fleet commanded by an attack oriented hero, just to remove his bonuses. I expect things to get even worse once I get myself involved in major warfare.



Even if the game doesn't include changes of this nature upon release, I really hope that it'll be possible to make a mod that include them, and that someone with the required skills creates that mod.

Brazouck wrote:
I'm also afraid taht in a multiplayer game, that "the one who click first win" and "I wait before moving to see what the other do, but if he do the same ..." will be a problem, a turn based game should be about thinking, not fast clicking.

But this isn't a true turn based game, as it would be considerably better and realistic that whoever attacks first... attacks?

I like the OPs suggestion a lot. You could even have a little "warp drive spooling up" symbol next to fleets that have been getting ready to make jumps for a while to show how far their progress in moving along the lane is.

It is kinda annoying as others have stated, instead you should make orders that are acted upon when everyone hits end turn, that way it resolves the issues with multilayer.

In my opinion, simultaneous movement only belongs in multiplayer. In single player it's just confusing and actually slows the game down since the UI becomes so unresponsive when the AI is thinking and moving.

See my proposal here:



/#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/12216-suggestion-fleet-ship-range-limitation



It would fix all of this (except the speed-you-click bits described in the above post), as well as other things.

I just wanted to second this proposal rather than create a duplicate thread. I'm in the first few turns of a game, and depending on how fast I click, I can get my colony ship deployed or not on a planet. Who gets their colony ship down first is a pretty big advantage, and I don't think that should be down to mouse speed. I'd be much happier if the AI had to give the order to send a warship to the system I wanted on the previous turn, even if that meant that the AI always destroyed my colony ship.

HappyYeti wrote:
I personally believe that the system in Civ V is flawed, for these type of games, games focussed on large scale strategy, I think that there should be no element of speed or quick thinking involved. These games ought be like chess, you think out each move meticulously. Games like starcraft or other such RTS games ought be about quick thinking and reaction times, not games like this.

I feel the same way, and think the card selection process could be improved by allowing the player the option to pick battle cards outside of combat, for use in their next engagements. When you select a fleet, one visible button brings up their battle cards. Have a 1/2/3 selection in that.



It would be a way of establishing an SOP for the fleet, if not given any further orders.



For instance, if I have a fleet of missile ships, the card I want to play is whichever is going to deny the opponent missile defense. A clever opponent may think that through and play to cancel my card, but they won't be playing missile defense.

messej wrote:
Edit: I actually saw a g2g vote that I voted on and felt was a GREAT use of the g2g voting system: "Which feature would you like us to focus on NEXT?" (Or something to that effect) THIS is a meaningful use of the g2g voting system - we decide were developement efforts are directed/prioritized.



the second vote (for the endless portrait) fell FIRMLY - nay - VERY firmly in the "OMG - these are all AWEFUL, please go back to the drawing board and try again - this time with a menu that maybe doesn't feature only 8 flavors SPAM - thanks..." category



and the third (for the haratio ability name) had me once again searching for the 'I don't really care in the least" option...



Since I couldn't find these options, and just picking the least of the atrociously horrible decisions available option was soo unpalatable I didn't even VOTE on the other 2 categories - which left me feeling like my opinion didn't matter, since there was no way for me to express my actual votes (ie - "OMG - go back to the drawing bopard and try again" and "No really, I could care less...." respectively)

I read your previous post scrupulously and, even if I didn't really understand the thing about "hemorage Dust", I found a lot of things in there that make sense. (about the real ETA of fleets over the predicted one, for example)



Or about the 2G2 votes not addressing the real issues.

I totally agree with your latest post about this week votes. I voted by mistake for one of the endless portraits and I remember telling myself "Not a big deal, they're all the same".



We started on an other post to discuss how to improve the forum structure. It wasn't conclusive in my opinion. I think that the forum system for bug report and Game design discussion wasn't enough. They didn't give it enough thoughts and it would have needed to be a little more studied.



I hope that they will learn from this experiment, because this idea is really appealing to me (despite the spam & egg situation)