Maneuver cards would be awesome. It already makes me imagine heavy armored ships moving at full speed to close up the enemy and start shooting with kinetic weapons for the sides that would add some more variety in combat like if the enemy gets close and personal you would not be able to use missiles and beam weapons would do less dmg possibly.

Aureus wrote:
That being said, I'd imagine it would take a while to balance this system and work out all the kinks, not to mention alter some of the fundamentals of the ship design with the 'roles' idea. As such, I can imagine any expansions to the battle system would be through an expansion pack.

I sincerely hope that significant battle improvements aren’t saved for an expansion because I for one won’t be forking out anything more for ES until I learn that all of this wasn’t by design, i.e., it’s meant to be this uninteresting and it’s going to stay that way.



It’s not just battle interactivity that’s lacking, it’s pretty much every aspect of combat within ES that’s off kilter: movement sequencing, battle initiation timing, monohull dominance, DN inferiority, weapon characteristic imbalances (beam weapon dominance / kinetic weapon inferiority), fleet spam, fleet sizes, homogenous ship designs (scant non-aesthetic Racial variance), rudimentary or non-existent AI (strategic and tactical)… ad nauseum.



Most of those things can and should be addressed through patching, not expansions. Paradox are notorious for rolling out pay-for patches and that’s a very cynical way to treat customers; for some developers/publishers bugs are almost viewed as being a source of additional revenue. I genuinely hope that Amplitude don’t adopt a similar tactic because ES really does have a sound foundation upon which to build something great.

In comparison to all the *ahem* new arrivals clamouring for a quite frankly impossible RTS battle system, this stands out by not only being interesting but also practical.



That being said, I'd imagine it would take a while to balance this system and work out all the kinks, not to mention alter some of the fundamentals of the ship design with the 'roles' idea. As such, I can imagine any expansions to the battle system would be through an expansion pack.

Brillant suggestion!





and it's NOT a revamp of the combact system, but an add-on, with a sort of "double" card.



Love it.

Excellent suggestion, I as many other felt a bit let down by the simple space battles. Anything that brings more player involvement is welcome since atm the whole thing is kinda un-atmospheric (like watching an youtube trailer, it gets old after second battle). It's a pity but we can hope devs will continue to develop this game aspect.



I haven't yet decided if I like the on-the-fly selection of battle cards. It's a strange mix, this game with turns and rts elements combined. Can't say I wouldn't like an option to have a short pause before start of the battle, something long enough to actually allow you to THINK. Sort of a Pre-Battle setup, with enemy fleet analysis.



EDIT: I just saw the "already suggested and impossible to implement sticky":

Revamp battle System X

UI - Combat Timer on/off - Ability to disable combat timer prior to engagement X

UI - Immersive System Screen X

Realistic representation - More realistic representation of solar system, planets and other orbital objects X

Heh... that thread just made my heart sink for this game, it basically killed any hopes of seeing it evolve much futher beyond this point...

Yeah man I really like this idea, kinda similar to mine but I think I like your implementation a bit better

I really like this idea, especially the separate from the battle actions part, It would definitely add more depth to the combat and make mixed fleets better.

Yes, those other threads do seem to be talking about broadly the same thing: fleet formations without fiddly fleet builder tools.



I've played about a dozen games and I now find myself being seriously put off by more fundamental issues with turn sequencing than I do with the fairly uneventful combat mechanics. Truth be told if the game played well in multiplayer verses humans I'd happily live with the current combat system as is and I'd gladly retract the above suggestion.

Might be interesting for you to also look at this old thread: /#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13492-suggestion-navigation-cards-after-conventional-combat-ends

and maybe this one: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/12076-more-combat-cards-phase-specific-ones-and-card-chaining

Btw why endless space 2? endless space 1 just released and it looks like it can be improved even more

Synopsis



A high level fleet Doctrine choice is made for each phase (#2, #3 and #4) of combat, as per Battle Actions and as such would run in parallel with the current Battle Actions card system. Where Battle Actions are often centred around fleet system configuration options, Doctrines will address fleet target priority and formation choices whilst remaining in-keeping with the current Endless Space combat ethos, i.e., minimal micromanagement and efficient GUI interactivity.



Assumptions



The Doctrines suggestion is designed with the following assumptions in mind:-

- ES will never have a tactical combat model (cf. Sword of the Stars).

- ES will never have a micromanaged fleet formation tool (cf. Sword of the Stars).

- ES will never have an in-battle ‘point-click’ target priority mechanism.

- ES battles will always be a largely ‘hands off’ affair.

- ES combat choices must be logical, efficient and intuitive.



The Doctrine Dial & Battle Phases



Phase #2 of battle (long range) always starts the player off in the middle of the Doctrine dial, on ‘Standard: Engage’; this choice is fixed for phase #2 and cannot be changed. At the start of phases #3 and #4 the player has the option of moving one level up or down on the Doctrine dial (as well as choosing Battle Actions). As per Battle Action selection, neither side knows what the other has chosen until the next battle phase starts.



Doctrines Explained



Ship Roles



In order for Doctrines to work ships will need to be given a designated ‘Role’ by the player. (The Role attribute already seems to exist in-game but appears to be fixed on ‘Multiple’.) For ease of implementation the Role attribute should be defined at ship schematic level rather than at a discreet ship-by-ship level, i.e., when you design a ship you also decide what its Role is.



The standard set of ship Roles would be: Multiple (default) / Stand-Off / Skirmish / Support / Battle



The Doctrine Dial (Standard Set)



The standard Doctrine dial would comprise the following Doctrines:-

Offensive: Flank

Offensive: Skirmish

Engaging: Close (fixed choice for phase #2)

Defensive: Stand-Off

Defensive: Feint



To recap: At the start of combat phases #3 and #4 the player moves up or down one place on the above dial, or stays where they are.



Doctrine Mechanical Effects (Standard Set)



Each Doctrine will affect the behaviour of ships within the fleet by their Role, as follows…



Offensive: Flank – Outmanoeuvre the enemy formation and strike where their forces are weakest.

Stand-Off: Advance. | Target Priority: Stand-Off & Support.

Support: Advance. | Target Priority: Normal.

Skirmish: Advance. | Target Priority: Stand-Off & Support.

Battle: Advance. | Target Priority: Battle & Skirmish.



Offensive: Skirmish – Harass the enemy formation with hit’n’run tactics whilst probing their formation for weak points.

Stand-Off: Advance. | Target Priority: Normal.

Support: Advance. | Target Priority: Normal.

Skirmish: Double Advance. | Target Priority: Stand-Off.

Battle: Advance. | Target Priority: Skirmish.



Engaging: Close – Close with the enemy fleet in good order as part of a meeting engagement.

Stand-Off: Advance. | Target Priority: Normal.

Support: Advance. | Target Priority: Normal.

Skirmish: Advance. | Target Priority: Normal.

Battle: Advance. | Target Priority: Normal.

* This Doctrine would be the same as the battle mechanic rules as they are in the game now.



Defensive: Stand-Off – Keep the enemy formation at maximum effective stand-off weapons range.

Stand-Off: Hold/Move Back. | Target Priority: Normal.

Support: Hold/Move Back. | Target Priority: Normal.

Skirmish: Advance. | Target Priority: Skirmish.

Battle: Advance. | Target Priority: Normal.



Defensive: Feint – Present the appearance of a weak formation to lure enemy forces into an unfavourable position.

Stand-Off: Hold/Move Back. | Target Priority: Stand-Off.

Support: Hold/Move Back. | Target Priority: Normal.

Skirmish: Advance. | Target Priority: Skirmish.

Battle: Advance. | Target Priority: Battle.



GUI Considerations



A small dial tool would need to sit alongside each Battle Action slot which could function in much the same was as the Battle Actions do, i.e., click and select from a list, or it could function as a dial in and of itself, i.e., click to roll up or down one place on the Doctrine list. In order to remain in-keeping with the Battle Actions GUI design icons may be needed to represent each Doctrine, with mouseover for tooltip, rather than showing text.



Diversifying Fleet Doctrines…



…By Race



The standard set of Doctrines could be altered to suit a racial characteristic where appropriate. Some examples being:-

- The Hissho might be able to move the Doctrine dial one place up or down for phase #2, whereas all other races are fixed to the ‘Engaging:Close’ choice for phase #2.

- Pilgrims might be able to choose ‘Defensive:Stand-Off’ for Phase #2.

- UE might be able to choose ‘Offensive:Skirmish’ for Phase #2.

- Cravers might not be able to choose any of the defensive Doctrines at all. It’s all about the attack for them!



…Through Technology



Certain technological advances might enhance some of the standard Doctrine choices. It could be that everyone starts off with the middle three options on the Doctrine dial as standard with the top and bottom Doctrines being only unlocked separately through technological discovery.









There we have it: Fleet Doctrine. The details would be subject to debate but the above hopefully does enough to convey the general idea. If you don’t like the idea, which you are well within your rights to, all I ask is that you be constructive in your criticism or at the very least remain civil.



Thanks.

I know the first post is long, guys, but I would recommend reading through it entirely anyway.

Basically, what's he's suggested is your 'Maneuver' cards, just with enough detail to actually be put in game successfully, and in a balanced manner. In my opinion, the Fleet Doctrine is like 'maneuvers', but better. xD This should /definitely/ go high on the devs list. =P I dunno why this doesn't have more posts in it.

I think maneuver/movement cards (in addition to the combat cards) would really add more depth/diversity to the space combat and make space battles more interesting, without adding to much micromanagement and without changing space combat too much.

I think an easy addition to the combat that would be beneficial would be to add movement cards to your fleet that run in parralel with your combat cards. As iblise said, why would any logical fleet commander with a fleet filled with missiles, close on enemys who had no missiles when they could bombard them from long range and kyte them across the map? And if I have a fleet with a bunch of kinetic weapons why can I not put all my energy into my engines for two phases to get to knife fighting range quicker?



All that the devs would have to do is add a second layer of "movement cards" that would increase or decrease the length of each combat phase. So if I had a missile heavy fleet I would play my "keep your distance" card that would attempt to increase the length of phase 2, the enemy would play a counter to this that would be "close at maximum speed" card and whoever had the better engine tech would win out for that phase, potentially keeping missiles most effective if the enemy did not have the engines to catch you. Or vice versa if I had alot of close range guns I could try and speed ahead to catch a fleet that was trying to run. To prevent missiles from becoming godly you could have a card that turns off weapons and shields or deflectors but doubles engine speed, allowing you to speed up next to your missile heavy enemy and blast him with your close range guns.

And here I was expecting to be shot down in flames; I guess I've been living on t'interwebs for too long.



It is encouraging that players recognise that the current combat system has oodles of potential and that you don't have to take steps towards transforming it into real-time tactical in order to make it more engaging (if you excuse the pun).



As for it being an 'Endless Space 2' suggestion, it really isn't as complicated a mechanic as it may first appear. In a nutshell, all it's doing is allowing you to decide which ship roles do or do not advance and what their preferred target type should be. The added game depth is delivered by how one Doctrine plays against another thus creating the illusion (well, abstraction) of fleet formation manoeuvring and target prioritisation without needing to build in complicated manual group movement and attack orders (i.e., real-time tactical elements). It should just slot right in… almost.

I love it! I wanted the combat improved, but any ideas I had were always (even in my opinion =P) too intense of a change...but this builds on the existing system, adding more indepth combat selection. It's fantastic.

+10

Excellent idea, simplistic but allows for improved space battles by developing depth. I've been re-reading the Honor Harrington series (gg) and I've been craving a long distance missile duel. I personally find it slightly mind boggling when my missile frigates insist on closing to knife edge combat with laser/gun range combat boats when they could simple pound the enemy at range.



The current system utilizes broadsides delivered by ships sail more or less in a straight line at each offset an unknown distance and engaging in a long range duel as they close. I personally love this feature, I've yet to see a game where the designers actually sat down and through about this elementary notion, space ships firing broadsides rather sitting passively and attacking from a static location with forward mounted chasers. Where this breaks down in my opinion (for what it is worth) is the complete lack of strategy and the similarity between all attacks. For better or worse I can choose to attack with three different weapons that only differ in color. A mathematically determine coefficient increases or decreases the effectiveness of a weapon as the distance closes. The principal is a sound basis but could be so much more with a few changes regarding what defekt has termed as 'Fleet Doctrine'.



In order to create an effective and truly noticeable difference between weapon types and essentially ship classes/roles, the ability to created defined predefined battlefield tactics would be, in short, amazing. This could potentially introduce tech changes as weapon classes are redefined (laser as true short range weapons of incredible destruction and missiles the deciding factors as fleets close) but I digress and go off topic somewhat. Either way what defekt has suggested is change worth considering, that's my two cents.

Why not Endless Space 1?

I like where your going with it but I feel that is something for endless space 2