This game has been designed not to have rts battles, in fact it has been implemented a quite original and intuitive "card" battle system, which i like. I don't want to change it, devs made their decisions and I'm fine with. If I want something different, well Sword of the Stars could be that game, for istance. I'm absolutely ok with what we have now, and I'm sure this system will become even better with future and more polished game versions

ElegantCaveman wrote:
PLEASE GOD NO!!!

Lol nice one Elegant! lol



There is a fine balance of 4X "loyalism eggshells" Amp will be walking on figuring out how much they can afford on their bottom line between a very successful product to a total flop that pleases only a minority of their target market or hits their target market entirely.



Given today's very graphics hungry future market of younger players who have yet to taste the potential joy in 4X gaming I suspect this is where the brass tacs are counted at the offices in Amp.



Keep the Golden Oldies happy or try and keep everyone happy, new and grizzled 4X vets alike, maybe, dare I say it, shed the grizzlies and go for the younger 4X greenhorns?



Thats why I'd advocate a balance, at the very least you should be given the option for "Classic 4x" if you so wished when it came to dealing with the Space Battle feature and anything else that may remotely be abhorrent to 4X "purists", but the wise money would be to move 4X on to an audience more used to Pew! Pew! unless ofc Amp is not interested in any of their .



I think SOSE is building along these lines across multiple 4X fronts, ES is definitely building into a superior product with a stronger strategic 4X build though it seems to be dragging its tail in other potentially vital areas of gameplay that could make quite a significant difference to the success of the product in today's market.

Lets just revamp the system we have, rts is good but this game has its own feel and if we want it to be successful and get to a ES 2 then it has to have something different about it.

i'll go with Caveman about this one. I want to play the big picture, not the small focus on Space Battles. I enjoy playing on huge maps, putting hours into expansion, building, diplomacy. If i wanted flashy Space Battles i would play Sins of a Solar Empire. oh, i'm actually playing Sins quite often.... why can't i just have both. In seperate Games preferably.

Admiral_Tolwyn wrote:
Turn based like the top down moo2 battles? If that's what you want just go play moo2. The power of video cards and game design engines are jumping mountains in what they can display on our screens today,that cant be stopped. So the whole 3d space battle visuals thing is going to become more of the norm and frankly 'they way it is' from competing game companies trying to outdo the next big space battle display.



I love the old school space strat games, I grew up with moo2, ascendancy ig etc but if they want to stay afloat in this market they have to impress with visuals. They can do both, just balance it out without killing the game. Sooner or later space battle tactical games will look more like a movie, remember how epic the so called ig3 'nexus' game looked. That's just a taste of what is to come.



Imagine this game using the Nexus engine for the space battles *Drooooolz*

You don't have to impress with Graphics to get an audience these days, but keep telling yourself that you need to. As much as i dislike it, Minecraft proves that you can reach a broad audience just with a good idea and gameplay. More then 6 million ppl bought that game and it helped the indie developers around the world, showing that there is a hungry market out there that is willing to help indie companies if they just stick to what they do best: coming up with new ideas and concepts instead of trying to compete with the shiny graphics of triple A titles from EA.

Calico wrote:


You don't have to impress with Graphics to get an audience these days, but keep telling yourself that you need to. As much as i dislike it, Minecraft proves that you can reach a broad audience just with a good idea and gameplay. More then 6 million ppl bought that game and it helped the indie developers around the world, showing that there is a hungry market out there that is willing to help indie companies if they just stick to what they do best: coming up with new ideas and concepts instead of trying to compete with the shiny graphics of triple A titles from EA.

+1 [10characters]

I'm with the caveman on this as well. No to RTS but by all means add some depth and options to the existing foundation, command and control multi-ship targeting, formations, things along that line.

You don't have to impress with Graphics to get an audience these days, but keep telling yourself that you need to.

I totally agree (and have for about a decade now), graphics don't make a game good, they only make an already good or great game (game-play wise) better.

Any one ever play EU or Crusader KIngs or dare i say Vicky all three are complex and yet there are no battles

evilknight23 wrote:
Any one ever play EU or Crusader KIngs or dare i say Vicky all three are complex and yet there are no battles

QFT. I'm playing CKII right now and I'm loving the combat. It's much faster than ES right now though - it could use a speedup/tuneup.

stevenmc409 wrote:
I just want more control I don't care if it is with an RTS style battle or if they just improve the current system to include things like target prioritization or formations.

+100% support

TheManInRoomFive wrote:
You can still keep the turn based aspects and card ideas and let people have formations and environment matter.

Currently I like how things are but I can agree that formations and a bit more control of fleet combat would be welcome. As it stands though it an get tedious because with the right mix of cards you can pretty much win every fight without much effort. A bit more strategy would be nice as winning fights with the same couple of cards isn't that engaging.

Count me in the "please no RTS battles!" camp. If there are ways to give the player a bit more of a hands-on feel without drastically affecting the flow of the game, then fine. But there is real potential for screwing up the game if it goes to far.



People always like to suggest things that would be fun for the player to do, but seldom taking into consideration what the AI can handle. Arguments that "it works in other games" don't necessarily apply, because nobody wants this game delayed for 6 months to a year while they re-write the combat AI from scratch.



The lead designer of GalCiv2 always used to say that the game didn't include tactical combat because that meant 100% of the programming focus could be spent on the strategic layer of the game. We've seen in the past with games like Total War how a game that tries to do both things well -- strategic map + tactical battle AI -- doesn't always work well. It's working pretty well now in Shogun 2, but that's after how many games of trying to get it right? Remember suicide Generals? And AI armies in TW games still can't siege worth a damn.



Bottom line: let's look for small improvements, yes. But with an indie developer like Amplitude that isn't working with a Creative Assembly-type budget, I think there's a limit to what we can expect for tactical battle AI, while also having an engaging game at the strategic level. Right now, I think they need to be putting a majority of their AI programming into Diplomacy and not combat.

What about a real-life war-gaming style approach the the battle planning. The battle itself would be three phases long, however you would plan for the first phase once, and the last two phases twice (two adhering to one strategy, the other two to a different one).



The plans would be drawn up in a blueprint style screen before the battle begins, the only information you have to go with is the approximate/known enemy fleet size. You would then chart routes, target priorities (e.g. weaker ships first), as well as group formations (ships in a group formation would all follow the same routes/priorities).



During the battle you would only be able to switch to your alternative plans at the end of the initial stage (thus you get an idea of what you enemy could be doing).



This is quite difficult to show in words so for example, here is an exemplar plan set, one is offensive, the other is defensive:



Phase 1:

(Boxes show group formations)





Phase 2 (Offensive/Defensive):

(Group disbanded for free movement/new formation)





Phase 3 (Offensive/Defensive):





Though the plans would not have to be restricted to offensive and defensive. This could also be tied in to the faction mechanics so that certain factions are more likely to take certain approaches to conflicts thus you can make a strategy for each opposing faction.



This is only a thought though.

I'm with caveman on this, really don't want RTS in this. I play and love the Total war games however the majority of the time I auto resolve the battles. Just the way I play it. I also love Sins of a solar empire, so I'm not adverse to RTS space battles per se, I just don't play Endless space for huge battles where I'm frantically trying to control everything and predict whats going to happen next. I guess what I'm saying is I have different games for different itches and Endless space has never seemed like it needed RTS battles to me just like Heroes of Might and Magic never needed ARPG elements. However a slightly more involved turn based system I could easily get behind and enjoy.



I can see how people would like Total War in space, and I think there is room for that game, however to take a game that is already impressive in Alpha and try to shoehorn it into that mould would be a mistake in my opinion. I love the fact that Amplitude aren't afraid to go a different way and try something a bit different. It seems to me that the gaming industry is stagnating alot now and I believe its down to things like trying to copy the big sellers too much and risk averse nature of big companies, ala EA and activision, have you noticed how many FPS there are? I do not want to see all strategy games go super simplified like civ 5 or just copy TW:x and to avoid that we need developers to try and implement these different methods. Genetic diversity is essential for life, and I think that diversity is highly important for gaming as well. (sorry for my little rant )

Sir_Destru wrote:
If we could get a control system akin to Star Wars Empire at War that would be amazing. +1

+Support ~ I'm not billy mays and I guarantee it!

Steven_Muldoon wrote:
What about a real-life war-gaming style approach the the battle planning. The battle itself would be three phases long, however you would plan for the first phase once, and the last two phases twice (two adhering to one strategy, the other two to a different one).



The plans would be drawn up in a blueprint style screen before the battle begins, the only information you have to go with is the approximate/known enemy fleet size. You would then chart routes, target priorities (e.g. weaker ships first), as well as group formations (ships in a group formation would all follow the same routes/priorities).



During the battle you would only be able to switch to your alternative plans at the end of the initial stage (thus you get an idea of what you enemy could be doing).



This is quite difficult to show in words so for example, here is an exemplar plan set, one is offensive, the other is defensive:



Phase 1:

(Boxes show group formations)





Phase 2 (Offensive/Defensive):

(Group disbanded for free movement/new formation)





Phase 3 (Offensive/Defensive):





Though the plans would not have to be restricted to offensive and defensive. This could also be tied in to the faction mechanics so that certain factions are more likely to take certain approaches to conflicts thus you can make a strategy for each opposing faction.



This is only a thought though.

+Support ~ Also like this one!

As has been said a few times, the system now is fine for me, but it needs something more, something that can be included alongside this same system, but it needs more.

It's just a glorified cutscene most of the time, not particularly epic or enthralling, need more things to do.

I think I should link this here.



/#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/11109-discussion-proposals-understanding-what-can-be-implimented-in-a-beta-stage-game

Keep the realtime out of ma 4x game I say



But more tactical options for the current system would be nice to have. Just playing my first game, and I can see getting combat old, very fast.



Also why I can´t withdraw from a battle? Am I a Klingon in disguise? Nothing more frustrating than seeing a combat going on and from the 1st second, it´s clear that all your ships will get wiped out

I assumed the battles were RTS Style and was in a for a shock. They need to be RTs...or at least the option.



Akin to Empire: Total War naval battles would be awesome...but probably far, far away.

Hm, I verry much like Rts space battles and wouldn't mind it. But I think it would better fit in a game that also were in a sort of RT like in Imperium galactica with the important option to pause your game. I hope that there will



be one, and as far as i know legend of pegasus will go that way. If you don't want spend to much time with space battle just auto solve your combats. But I also think it is not realistic as the game is designed



differently and i am perfectly ok with it. And I also would like to see what you can make with the Battlecard feature that i find just great. So I am for an Improve of the control.



Here are some proposals:



1. The ability to create fleet formations, and task forces. That also would give you more control of the outcome of an autoresolve battle, perhaps also with the option of picking priority cards for auto battle.



2. The ability to use comand cards for fleet manouvers, like letting a task force fall back, letting another part of the fleet outmanouver the enemy fleet and attack from an difficult angle, from below or the rear. Please use the three dimensions of space.



3. More options for the combat cards, wich i verry much like and find it a great feature of the game. One possibility i would like to see is researching support modules, that would give u more options. So you have the choice between Firepower of diverseability.

RTS would be nice... if ES was a grand strategy game. But it isn't. It's a smaller scale game than Total War.



Also, given a finite set of resources, either they can create two mediocre battle systems of which only half their audience will ever use as well as introducing exponential difficulty in balance and gameplay tweaking, or they could refine/tweak/adjust/Frankenstein one to work well. Personally, I'd prefer the latter, whether real time or otherwise. Given the stage of development and the systems already involved (not just combat, but also the camera system, etc etc etc), the most practical course is sticking to what we have now (turn based) and improving the systems that support that.