Alternate Combat Mode/Autoresolve?

[Giaddon]

All those playing: is there a way to skip/autoresolve the combat? In this blog post (http://www.christophermpark.blogspot.com/2014/03/behind-scenes-iterative-combat-design.html), Chris says (at the very bottom) that he was planning on an "alternate combat mode" for those who want to keep the focus on the simulation. Did this end up in the final game?

So that's currently my thing: making an alternate combat mode that is a little more involved than your traditional Total-War-style auto-resolve, but at the same time quick and fluid and cerebral-only. In other words, keeping it a pure 4x if you use that instead of going into the action bits. And you know what? Much as I love the action bits, I plan on using that feature quite a bit myself. Sometimes I just want to get on with things, as noted above. And this way I can play the action-y combat exactly as much as I want, without ever having to weary of it. Which is important.

[nas1m]

Welcome to the forums!
No, it did not. The devs considered it rendered obsolete by the current combat model at least for now, sorry.

[x4000]

The issue was in going from a thoughtful quasi-turn-based solar map to a very action-y realtime combat model.  Those two don't always go together really well.  But when combat became turn-based and more contemplative, the main need for that went away.

[ElOhTeeBee]

The issue was in going from a thoughtful quasi-turn-based solar map to a very action-y realtime combat model.  Those two don't always go together really well.  But when combat became turn-based and more contemplative, the main need for that went away.

I'd argue that there's still a pretty substantial need for it, personally.

[x4000]

The issue was in going from a thoughtful quasi-turn-based solar map to a very action-y realtime combat model.  Those two don't always go together really well.  But when combat became turn-based and more contemplative, the main need for that went away.

I'd argue that there's still a pretty substantial need for it, personally.

Yes, I understand some people don't like it, although I've not been following the thread.  Enhancing combat is something that I of course am interested in doing, but papering over the fact that some folks don't like the combat with an autoresolve strikes me as premature at this point.

[topper]

The issue was in going from a thoughtful quasi-turn-based solar map to a very action-y realtime combat model.  Those two don't always go together really well.  But when combat became turn-based and more contemplative, the main need for that went away.

I'd argue that there's still a pretty substantial need for it, personally.

Yes, I understand some people don't like it, although I've not been following the thread.  Enhancing combat is something that I of course am interested in doing, but papering over the fact that some folks don't like the combat with an autoresolve strikes me as premature at this point.

I agree.
Anyways, I think a super OP combat mode where the player is basically invincible and has 100x weapon power but takes up a way larger amount of solar time would be more interesting than any reasonably implementable autoresolve function. And it would allow people to cater to their own playstyle in a balanced way without dividing the community. (sort of like a "Medium Golems" option from AI war)

[ElOhTeeBee]

That fails to address the whole, y'know, "combat isn't fun" thing. In fact, it punishes players for not liking the combat.

[topper]

That fails to address the whole, y'know, "combat isn't fun" thing. In fact, it punishes players for not liking the combat.

I was mostly just trying to demonstrate that I support refining the existing mechanics with variations to cater to the likes of more groups of people without splitting the community. There will always be a group that finds some game aspects unfun.

The Medium Golems example I used referred to AI war, where there are Easy Golems for people who just want to play with superweapons. Hard Golems, where you are attacked by exo-waves to account for your extra power. And Medium Golems, where you get all the power, but you have to pay for it by an increase in AI Progress.

The devs get to focus on things that the whole community gets to enjoy,  with small variations to cater to some needs.

[Giaddon]

Thanks for the welcome! And the responses.

That's too bad. I don't know if I would like the combat or not, but I often find in these sort of split level games that I eventually just want to focus on the big picture -- the game develops a kind of narrative momentum, and I become anxious for the conclusion.

Thanks again for the info!

[x4000]

It's true, I am the same way with Total War -- love the big picture, hate the battles.  I just don't understand them, and they aren't my style of thing.  For that reason I had always wanted to include an auto-resolve feature here, but had not done so yet.  I think it is something that will make sense to do, though, simply by the nature of this split sort of game.  As with Total War, you'd be giving up some of your effectiveness to skip combat, so to play "optimally" you'd want to actually do the combat.  But that was a tradeoff I was fine with in Total War, and I imagine that's the case for others here.

My current thinking is that an autoresolve here would just tell you what would happen if you choose to do it at that time, and you can either opt to do it or not.

Any thoughts?

[ElOhTeeBee]

I think that'd work as a quick'n'dirty solution. A more ideal one, but probably too much effort, would be to have it as a separate combat difficulty, with all the solar map stuff tweaked to account for its removal.

[topper]

It's true, I am the same way with Total War -- love the big picture, hate the battles.  I just don't understand them, and they aren't my style of thing.  For that reason I had always wanted to include an auto-resolve feature here, but had not done so yet.  I think it is something that will make sense to do, though, simply by the nature of this split sort of game.  As with Total War, you'd be giving up some of your effectiveness to skip combat, so to play "optimally" you'd want to actually do the combat.  But that was a tradeoff I was fine with in Total War, and I imagine that's the case for others here.

My current thinking is that an autoresolve here would just tell you what would happen if you choose to do it at that time, and you can either opt to do it or not.

Any thoughts?

Is it autoresolve as a single step when you choose the mission, or multiple steps through a battle? Assuming it is single step, having a choice on how you complete the mission between "Dispatch" and "Combat" options would probably satisfy most people.

The solar time cost could be higher, and the credit payment could be lower (no credits for destroying ships?) if you decide to complete it "Dispatch" style. Maybe some percentage chance of ship damage based on tech levels and special abilities which might reduce the benefit in credits from the mission?

If you need the bonus, do the combat optimally, but otherwise feel free to skip it?

[Mick]

Total war games (and other strategy games with similar auto-resolve options) tend to have a concept of attrition. Victory and loss is not really binary.

I'm not sure how an auto resolve really works in this case. "Do you want to press a button to auto-win immediately, or do you want to fly little ships around to get the same result?" (uuhhh, the button!)

My problem with combat is really much the mechanics in how it plays out, but in that I don't really feel like what I do during it matters all that much. I'm going through the motions in order to accomplish the mission I set out to do, how I win doesn't really matter that much.

[Misery]

It's true, I am the same way with Total War -- love the big picture, hate the battles.  I just don't understand them, and they aren't my style of thing.  For that reason I had always wanted to include an auto-resolve feature here, but had not done so yet.  I think it is something that will make sense to do, though, simply by the nature of this split sort of game.  As with Total War, you'd be giving up some of your effectiveness to skip combat, so to play "optimally" you'd want to actually do the combat.  But that was a tradeoff I was fine with in Total War, and I imagine that's the case for others here.

My current thinking is that an autoresolve here would just tell you what would happen if you choose to do it at that time, and you can either opt to do it or not.

Any thoughts?

Okay, I'll try to keep this shorter than usual so you dont have to spend a damn silly amount of time reading it.  This isnt JUST about the auto-resolve, yet still relates to it, as there's a number of things that I think, for some players, makes the auto-resolve more attractive than it otherwise would be.

So, here are my thoughts on it, after spending who knows how many hours with the combat section of the game.  As the gameplay goes, I think you've come up with a winner here.  The basic mechanics of combat... the movement, all the bullets and enemy patterns, the abilities, all of that stuff.... needs no changes.  Sure, there'll be some that dont like it, but it's utterly impossible to change that fact.  There are more than enough that DO like it, so I'm sticking with the fact that it came out well.  Came out very well, actually.  It breaks up the main gameplay wonderfully, which is a good thing.

That being said, there are some aspects of it that can make battles as a whole a bit unsatisfying.   For example, there's not enough careful decision-making during combat.  Like, do I go over here and save this important ally ship that's holding these guys off, or do I go and stop them from attacking this space station over here?  This sort of thing needs to be enhanced.  It's something that would not change any of the core mechanics... so you're not going to irritate fans of the battle system... but it would offer more MEANING to the battles in an overall sense, in an "Okay, I did that battle, and I ACCOMPLISHED something important by doing so".

In addition, certain situations that become more and more prevalent as the game goes on can make things seem a bit futile at times.  Not futile as in "I cannot possibly win this battle", but moreso in a "I can win this, but the enemy force still has over 1000 armadas left to wreck planets with... am I really accomplishing anything here?"  Somehow, this aspect needs to be enhanced.  I can think of a number of possible ways to do this, and I can go into detail with that set of suggestions if you'd like, but one way or another, enhancing this aspect of it would make things even more satisfying.  It'd mean that even very late in the game, what you do has real impact. 

Finally, getting into the auto-resolve bit, I agree whole-heartedly that this seriously should be a priority to add to the game.  It's not JUST a matter of it being for the players that just dont like the combat, but it could help the players that DO like it as well.  For example, if I'm going into a mission to defend an outpost, and I know there's gonna be just one ship, and I know there's an absolute 100% chance that he will have no hope against me, well... that battle just isnt very exciting.  I'd rather be doing the more awesome fights, instead of essentially spending 5 minutes just to stomp one Goomba.  That's not very exciting or fun, wheras taking part in a big battle with like 5-6 flagships on each side and turrets and everything IS fun.  The player could do less of the sad and easy, and more of the crazy but satisfying. 

There's one thing I'd really like to see in addition to this though:  A pre-battle screen.   When I go to enter combat, I'd love to see a listing of what kinds of flagships there will be and how many, as well as a list I can check of all of the battle-related techs that the enemy race has.  With those being very important now, it'd be a great way to check and see if I"m powerful enough that I think I can take them down, without having to stare at the overall tech grid for 5 minutes first. It'd also go along with the game's overarching theme of giving you LOTS of graphs and lists so you can get any info you want easily.  I think this bit would help alot.


Soooooo, there ya go.  I'll stick this into Mantis too, I think, to make it easier.

[NichG]

To what degree does the player actually need to participate in the extended combats to play the game, I wonder? For example, has anyone tried a 'no combat' game where you only manipulate events via strategy-mode things plus, say, tech theft and spacefaring tech drop missions?

To put it another way, what options would needed to be added to strategy mode interactions to allow playing the game in that way to be fully viable, with actually getting into combat being a shortcut for when the player can't (efficiently) make it work with strat-only? For example, how about a 'passively aid defenders' dispatch that increases the attrition rate of fleets attacking a planet, or a 'passively aid offense' dispatch for planetary attacks; 'coordinate ground assault' to improve ground combat results for an ally, etc. Basically you'd choose to be the super-soldier and singlehandedly take out fleets, or be the general and improve the overall performance of the resources of your allies/whatever race you're trying to give a leg up.