Tactical combat in expansion? » Forum Post by nightboy42

Well, personnaly, having played MOO, MOO2, MOM, HOMM 2, 3 and 4, I rarely used the quick resolve/auto battle since I knew I can do a better job than the tactical AI on these games. So if tactical battles appear in any GC, I perfectly knew that I will play the tactical battle since I knew it will raise the odds to crush the AI and win the game.

That is why I think that tactical combat would really alter the game. I knew that I will feel obligated to play those battles to get an edge on the AI.

I had no compunction not to use the quick resolve button if I were doing well enough in the game. Sure the losses were sometimes higher but I never really play for maximum efficiency. Just good enough to win. Most of the time I just wanted to see the various beam effects of newly researched technologies when combined with enhancement ship mods such as high energy focus.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I never said your play style was wrong. What you've been doing is making generalizations about why people want tactical battles. No one wants to impose their desire for tactical combat on you. Just hit the quick resolve button. Try not to be so anal about how other people want to play the game.

I never said anything about why you wanted to play tactical battles. I get the fact that some people really enjoy tactical battles. In fact, if GC2 had them, I'd play them once in a while. That's not the issue, and if you'd read what I'm saying, you'd understand that. I don't want to feel pressured into playing tactical combat to optimize my game play, and if the tactical AI isn't up to snuff, that's exactly what will happen.

Exactly, proper implementation would make it work.

And we're back to handwaving, to use your term. Assume that the proper implementation exists, and the problem goes away. It does, but it doesn't prove anything unless your assumption is correct.

As for programmer resource hogging, you don't even know what else you want improved other than another month of Brad's time on the strategic AI.

Ah, I see, we're covering our eyes so we don't see the fact that most of the GC2 development team is moving to Society soon (http://www.societygame.com/ and read the first paragraph of the Jan 10th news). Nice to assume that Stardock has enough resources to continue full development of GC2 features after the release but it doesn't match reality. Regardless of how you look at it, there will be a limited amount of developer resources for the expansion pack.

If you look around, you'll find wishlists for things people want in the expansion packs or version 1.1 of GC2, though with the increased board activity and lack of search, they're rather hard to find. Includes Multiplayer, as you mentioned, as well as the return of Terror Stars, more diplomacy options, map/campaign editor, modules that affect the entire fleet the ship is in, etc. You can take a look at this thread (https://www.galciv2.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=162&AID=100359) to see some of the things Brad would like put in there, and I really like some of the ideas.

Well, you'll forgive me if I decline your enticement to attack this strawman as I've never professed those points you mention.

And in what way is the extra complications of tactical combat to the AI a strawman? Or the required developer resources? I'm not misrepresenting your arguments, they're my arguments about what is wrong with implementing tactical combat in GC2. Your only responses consist of stating that Stardock has plenty of time to work on improving GC2 from now until Christmas since they're not doing much else, which isn't the case, and stating that since someone was able to balance tactical combat for an RPG AI, that doing it for tactical starship combat (including the ramifications of starship design, needed techs for said design, dealing with unusual ship designs, matching human effectiveness, etc.) isn't enough of a developer resource issue to make this a real issue.

You asked why people opposed adding optional tactical combat in an expansion. I replied with two main issues 1) if the tactical AI isn't up to snuff, taking the tactical combat option becomes more effective than autocombat which means that many of us will wind up using it to get an edge even if we don't enjoy it, and 2) the developer resource drain involved in updating the entire combat system.

Successfully updated karma reason!

PLEASE NO tactical!

Having the tactical option makes you feel obligated to use it in every battle that matters (because the battles always turn out better than when left to the AI). I do not want to be forced to choose between accepting this obligation or suffering a disadvantage, especially in large games.

It also takes the focus away from the strategic picture.

Since AI tactical is always weaker than a good human, it also penalizes the AI players.

PLEASE God, if you exist, NO tactical in Galciv!

Successfully updated karma reason!

That's not the issue, and if you'd read what I'm saying, you'd understand that. I don't want to feel pressured into playing tactical combat to optimize my game play, and if the tactical AI isn't up to snuff, that's exactly what will happen.

No, this is the first time you've said that you'd feel pressured to fight tactically. Look, if you're really such a great strategic player, you'd resist that urge to fight tactically. I don't see why your lack of self control should be a factor in whether or not tactical combat is implemented. As in my earlier reply to the other poster, most of the time even if I lose ships in hitting the quick resolve button, I don't care. You also keep ignoring the fact that there is already a quick resolve option available with the default combat system. Sure, the system may need some tweaking after addition of tactical combat but this is the norm with any addition of features.

I'm confident that a fun, workable tactical combat system can be implemented.

Ah, I see, we're covering our eyes so we don't see the fact that most of the GC2 development team is moving to Society soon (http://www.societygame.com/ Link and read the first paragraph of the Jan 10th news). Nice to assume that Stardock has enough resources to continue full development of GC2 features after the release but it doesn't match reality. Regardless of how you look at it, there will be a limited amount of developer resources for the expansion pack.

Again, you assume the role of secretary at Stardock. I have no idea what their schedule is and neither do you. Therefore I make no assumptions that they'll be working on Society or anything else. They may have some projects that they're working on but how do you know that they're not recruiting programmers to work on those or the expansion pack. I don't know that and neither do you. I'm only suggesting that tactical combat would improve the game and should be added to the expansion pack.

Still, I'll hang around here until misophist answers the question as to how a better tactical model would improve the AI's ability to play that portion of the game or reduce the development time needed, as I am actually interested.

Ok, you've thrown out a position. Your own. And now you want me attack it. Strawman. I don't believe it would enhance the existing AI nor reduce development time.

My argument all along is that a quick resolve combat system already exists and works. Now, how would adding tactical combat as an option take detract from quick combat. You'd feel compelled to use it and so therefore in deference to your lack of self control you'd rather we all not have the option? Ok, I understand. As for developer drain, again, I don't know what their staffing situation is. I'm merely asking suggesting that tactical combat would improve the game and should be implemented.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Humans, I growed tired of this useless debate in your forums.

A real commander would see that tactical command should be left to the under castes. Strategic placement of forces to support and empower tactical commands are all that is necessary to ensure a positive outcome and freedom of our race.

W/R
Suralle Straykat
Kat Lord @ Large

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yeah! I'm with alien Suralle on this one!

The arguements that either multiplayer and/or tactical combat would distract from the most robust single player experience are very rational.

That resources are limited at many levels is reality.

That the vast majority of potential buyers are solo strategic players is reality.

That many games have been ruined by devs capitulating to small but strident communities is reality.

If you fall into one of these communities: Get over it! This is not the game you're looking for!!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I personally think it has nothing to do with resources. If Tactical Combat was a goal, resources would be made for it.

What the proponents of Tactical seem to keep skipping over is the fact that:

1) Human players will learn how to always win at Tactical combat or at the very least greatly enhance their ability over the AI.
2) As you will always have a much better chance to win by playing through Tactical, you will always use Tactical.
3) This refocuses the game on Tactical combat, a component which is inherently flawed because of #1.

Aside from that.... as this is a purely hypothetical thread about a possibility of the future..... can both sides try to be a little more gentlemanly/gentlewomanly in their pursuit of supporting their arguments please. It's rapidly turning into a mud-slinging contest with no developments in argument actually occuring. It would be a real shame if the longest thread on the forum was little better than a bitch fight!

Successfully updated karma reason!

No, this is the first time you've said that you'd feel pressured to fight tactically.

Really? Let's start with my first message to you, Message #26

So what happens is that people feel forced to micromanage combat to reduce their losses or have a better chance of winning because they know they'll do better than autocombat. I only liked tactical combat in MoO2 when I had a new ship class or weapon to play with, but I still always did tactical combat for exactly this reason. It just made the game drag out.

Message #32

I never played MoO1, but the MoO2 tactical AI was so simple to outmaneuver it gave me no satisfaction after I saw its blind points, and yet it was stupid enough that I wasn't about to let it be in charge of my ships. THAT is the point.

Message #90

Once again, yes, it works, and it's fair. Adding tactical combat would let me click a button to have a quick fair fight, or if the AI isn't up to snuff, a way to have a longer, less fair fight (fair to the AI), which breaks this. Some of us are anal enough to do that even if it's not fun because we want every non-exploit advantage we can get.

I'll assume that you missed these because I tend to write massive messages that don't have the best organization.

You also keep ignoring the fact that there is already a quick resolve option available with the default combat system. Sure, the system may need some tweaking after addition of tactical combat but this is the norm with any addition of features.

I'm not ignoring it. That's the exact same issue that this message up till now has been discussing. I can be less than happy because I'm playing less than optimally (by doing quick combat) or I can be less than happy by micromanaging combat.

Again, you assume the role of secretary at Stardock. I have no idea what their schedule is and neither do you.

Did you follow that link? The stuff I've been saying about their schedule is coming from the devs, in most cases practically verbatim. I'm not making up their schedule, I'm just reading what they have to say about their schedule and passing it on. I'd post links to the other statements they've made if these forums had a search function.

Talk to the devs about any new project, and they'll say "Nice idea, but we don't have the staff to take on anything else." Heck, they've got a "Help Wanted" thread in the forums! If it didn't involve moving and picking up yet another programming language, I'd jump at the opportunity.

Ok, you've thrown out a position. Your own. And now you want me attack it. Strawman. I don't believe it would enhance the existing AI nor reduce development time.

No, I'm talking increased demands on AI development and other development time. Are you saying you haven't tried to refute those two issues? If you have, where? The only comments I've seen you make on the topic are assuming that Stardock is still focused primarily on GC2 for most of this year.

You'd feel compelled to use it and so therefore in deference to your lack of self control you'd rather we all not have the option?

Read this thread, I'm hardly the only person expressing that view. In fact, of the people that dislike tactical combat, Frogboy is the only one who said he used quick combat on a regular basis.

I'm merely asking suggesting that tactical combat would improve the game and should be implemented.

I'm merely pointing out that tactical combat has more widespread implications than you seem to be considering. BTW, you may want to pop over to the thread titled "Poll about game mechanics" and vote. They (not Stardock, just a regular poster) are doing a poll on how many people want/don't want tactical combat, and last I checked, it was overwhelmingly against tactical combat. Out of 25 votes, only one in favor, two votes "No unless done well", 21 votes against, and one vote "Kill Whitey!" You'll probably be surprised to find that I'm one of the two that voted "No unless done well." Of course, you and I probably have different definitions of "done well."

Successfully updated karma reason!

Your arguments have degenerated to nitpicking points which are not relevant to the discussion of tactical combat. I've stated what I want and you've not come up with any valid reasons as to how that would not enhance the game. Your viewpoint is based on the flawed premise that any tactical combat would be a cakewalk and that since you have no self restraint you'd take the "easy" route everytime. The discussion on staffing at Stardock is irrelevant. If enough people demand it I'm sure they'll implement it. We've already seen this happen with ship design.

You'd feel compelled to use it and so therefore in deference to your lack of self control you'd rather we all not have the option?

Read this thread, I'm hardly the only person expressing that view. In fact, of the people that dislike tactical combat, Frogboy is the only one who said he used quick combat on a regular basis.

So given that you and the other anti-tactical guys here can't exercise self control you'd reahter we not have the option?

Or are you saying that Brad is the only one uses his ships to fight strategic battles in GalCiv2? You don't even seem to understand what I'm saying. The reference state of the game is version that will be released 2/21. The combat as released is quick resolve. If you're not going to use quick resolve then you won't be playing the game.

As for the poll, I'm not surprised at the number of votes against as it was started by Derekroth who is vehemently against tactical. I'm sure he notified all his similarly minded buddies to chime in and skew the results from a normal distribution.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What the proponents of Tactical seem to keep skipping over is the fact that:

1) Human players will learn how to always win at Tactical combat or at the very least greatly enhance their ability over the AI.
2) As you will always have a much better chance to win by playing through Tactical, you will always use Tactical.
3) This refocuses the game on Tactical combat, a component which is inherently flawed because of #1.

1. I don't think this is the case. A ranged weapon tactical combat system can be designed so that only numbers of ships, mobility, skill, weapon range and specials are all that determine the winner.

2. In most cases, loss of ships is largely irrelevent. You're going to win anyway so who cares if you lose a fleet or two as long as you win the game. I largely used tactical in MOO to watch the cool effects of new weapons. It added to the satisfaction of doing the research and creating new ships and then using them in combat.

3. Thinking that tactical combat is inherently flawed is inherently flawed thinking.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A real commander would see that tactical command should be left to the under castes. Strategic placement of forces to support and empower tactical commands are all that is necessary to ensure a positive outcome and freedom of our race.

A true emperor would be interested only in enjoying the pleasues of palace life. Let the minions direct the empire.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Give it up, misophist, most people don't want tactical (be it in this thread or in the poll) and that's the one fact even you can't refute. It's like with multiplayer: A very few loud people lobbying for their own interest without real backing by the (huge) majority. I'm glad Stardock didn't fall for it wrt multiplayer and I trust that they won't fall for it in this case either.

Successfully updated karma reason!

2. In most cases, loss of ships is largely irrelevent.

What, do you play on difficulty settings far below your abilities? Some of us like a challenge, and that challenge is seeing how well we can do (with the difficulty cranked as high as we can handle) without the use of exploits or other such. Half decent tactical combat would render the entire game easy unless done superbly, which would be a lot of work for a group that's probably smaller than the multiplayer advocates.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Give it up, misophist, most people don't want tactical (be it in this thread or in the poll) and that's the one fact even you can't refute. It's like with multiplayer: A very few loud people lobbying for their own interest without real backing by the (huge) majority. I'm glad Stardock didn't fall for it wrt multiplayer and I trust that they won't fall for it in this case either.

A more aptly named poll might entice a wider range of people to vote. "Game mechanics poll" doesn't tell you anything about the actual game mechanics that they're polling. But Stardock did change their minds on ship design, no?

Successfully updated karma reason!

What, do you play on difficulty settings far below your abilities? Some of us like a challenge, and that challenge is seeing how well we can do (with the difficulty cranked as high as we can handle) without the use of exploits or other such. Half decent tactical combat would render the entire game easy unless done superbly, which would be a lot of work for a group that's probably smaller than the multiplayer advocates.

I personally start out in most games with a low difficulty level and crank up as I learn. Eventually, I learn enough to win more often than not. If I'm winning I don't care about ship losses.

Successfully updated karma reason!

3. Thinking that tactical combat is inherently flawed is inherently flawed thinking.

I beg to differ. I am basing my comment on empirical observation of all games I have played with a Tactical component - that is to say: Games which are not a *purely* tactical game. This is a wider strategy game where the focus is on empire management - as someone expressed before, the choices and strategies that lead up to the actual fight constitute adequate tactics similar, for example, to "plays" in a team tactics talk in (insert popular team sport).

Oh... and I can assure you, my thinking is quite sound, even if you dont agree with it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The reference state of the game is version that will be released 2/21. The combat as released is quick resolve. If you're not going to use quick resolve then you won't be playing the game.

Are you telling us that the quick resolve and the tactical combat will use different rules to determine the outcome of the battle?

Successfully updated karma reason!

As for the poll, I'm not surprised at the number of votes against as it was started by Derekroth who is vehemently against tactical. I'm sure he notified all his similarly minded buddies to chime in and skew the results from a normal distribution.

I didn't notice this before, but that's absurd! Probably 90% of the people who responded to that poll don't even know who Derekoth is! People don't agree with your view so it must be some kind of plot to undermine the truth? Hmm, I think it's time for you to step back and re-read what's been posted on this subject. People have expressed very sound reasons why they think Tactical combat should not be a part of the game. If you don't agree with their reasoning, that's fine but it doesn't undermine the validity of their statements.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'd like to change that to 100% of the people on this forum don't know who I am! Therefore, I couldn't have possibly influenced the results of the poll with the exception of my own vote. It isn't a conspiracy Misophist! In fact, you had to be prompted to go there yourself. If you didn't wish to go to the poll because of the title, then I am sure you are not the only one. And statistically speaking, I bet 90% of those who didn't vote also are in favor of no tactical.

Oh ya, and the current "auto resolve" feature is not the same as a tactical auto resolve. From what I understand, the current battle system is too rigid to give widely varying results for any given battle.

But before I go I would like to tell all my friends here hi. If any of you want to come over and play some nintendo just call. I'll be here all day.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Your arguments have degenerated to nitpicking points which are not relevant to the discussion of tactical combat.

No, you asked why I we don't want to see tactical combat in GC2, and I answered (needing a good AI and taking developer resources away from things I care more about). In what way is that not relevant?

I've stated what I want and you've not come up with any valid reasons as to how that would not enhance the game.

It might enhance the game for some people, it would have a negative affect on others. Unless of course, you assume as you have that developer resources are effectively infinite.

Your viewpoint is based on the flawed premise that any tactical combat would be a cakewalk and that since you have no self restraint you'd take the "easy" route everytime.

No, my viewpoint is based on the premise that getting AI right for tactical combat isn't as trivial as you assume it to be. Just about every time I've spoken on the issue, it's been "if the AI isn't up to human levels."

Ever written AI? I have. AI for an RPG and AI for tactical in a strategic game is a different ball of wax, whether you admit it or not. How many RPG games start with you and your enemy both having equal resources? How many RPG games don't either fudge on the skills of NPCs or throw in multiple NPCs to make encounters that are supposed to be difficult actually difficult?

The discussion on staffing at Stardock is irrelevant. If enough people demand it I'm sure they'll implement it.

And you want this expansion pack when? The developer resources are mostly tied up for this year, something you still don't seem to acknowledge.

We've already seen this happen with ship design.

And we haven't seen it happen with multiplayer or tactical, which were asked for in GC1 as well.

As for the poll, I'm not surprised at the number of votes against as it was started by Derekroth who is vehemently against tactical. I'm sure he notified all his similarly minded buddies to chime in and skew the results from a normal distribution.

Actually, rather than sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, you'd be better off saying it's a self-selecting poll. That meaning people that consider tactical combat important are probably off discussing things on forums for games that have tactical combat, whereas people who aren't as interested in tactical combat have gravitated towards Galactic Civilizations, and hence these forums. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that most fans that care enough about GC2 to participate in the discussions don't want tactical combat.

1. I don't think this is the case. A ranged weapon tactical combat system can be designed so that only numbers of ships, mobility, skill, weapon range and specials are all that determine the winner.

Who said that that isn't the case? The important one there is skill. Getting the AI equal to a human in skill is not going to be as easy as you assume, especially the best players, which I am not. The MoO combat system didn't favor the human. The HoMM combat system didn't favor the human. The very poor AI implementations in those games are what favored the human. The only combat system that eliminates this issue is one that takes skill out of the equation. So all the discussion about how Fallout has a better combat system is missing the point.

On a side note, Brad finally lost a 1v1 game on intelligent and was well on his way to loosing a second yesterday when the IRC event started, so after months of time, he might finally have the strategic AI playing at his level. Only time will tell, but it's looking good. Which isn't to say that there isn't room for improvement.

2. In most cases, loss of ships is largely irrelevent. You're going to win anyway so who cares if you lose a fleet or two as long as you win the game. I largely used tactical in MOO to watch the cool effects of new weapons. It added to the satisfaction of doing the research and creating new ships and then using them in combat.

Irrelevant, since it only applies to your play style. I like about a 60/40 win loss ratio, and at that kind of difficulty level, every battle matters, and if every battle matters, every ship matters.

3. Thinking that tactical combat is inherently flawed is inherently flawed thinking.

Agreed. But ignoring the complications that tactical combat would bring to the AI and the development time of an expansion pack is equally flawed thinking. Read what I've said. I haven't said that an AI that is equal to a human in tactical combat is impossible. Others have said this, but I'm more optimistic when it comes to AI. I've said that it would take enough work that it would severely impact what else could be done in the expansion pack. In addition, it would probably need Brad to work on something he doesn't want to work on, and I'd bet that progress wouldn't go as fast under those circumstances. Passion does wonders for programmers. Lack of passion not so good.

Successfully updated karma reason!

In fact, you had to be prompted to go there yourself. If you didn't wish to go to the poll because of the title, then I am sure you are not the only one. And statistically speaking, I bet 90% of those who didn't vote also are in favor of no tactical.

In fact, since the thread has been mentioned in this topic, which has a title that anyone interested in tactical combat would read, people that are interested in tactical combat are probably now more aware of it than those that don't care, and it hasn't drastically altered the results.

Successfully updated karma reason!

wow man this turned out to be a LONGGG post. Thanks god those trolls stoped posting. WOOHOOOO.

oh and uhhh..... NO TACTICAL COMBAT!!!!!

laterz

Monc34

Successfully updated karma reason!

*Beats dead horsey* WHY?? You're dead, why can't you stop ?? *Beats dead horse even more* Please go away.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kryo

Join Date 05/2003

+458

Allow me to reiterate my first reply to this thread:

NO

Successfully updated karma reason!

This has become some thread!

I too voted no (at least I think I have, this site has been so slow for me latelly that most of the times I'm not sure if my posts were sent or not). Btw, didn't know who derekroth was, no offence derek

, until now, and I only know him to the extent I saw his nickname in this thread.

This was an interesting discussion a few pages back (

) but unfortunatelly has gone a bit downhill.

My 2 cents:

I do like tactical. My favorite games so far are the totalwar series (specially shogun, it was quite a surprise and an innovation, at least for me) and galciv. I have a few flight/space simulators as well which I like too.

One remark on the ship design thing: personnaly I didn't care for it but now that I have it, I think it is fun and adds depth to the game.

On the tactical question
I was used to galciv (and others 4x before) so was not shocked to see there was no tactical (strictu sensu).
But I do think that the discussion points here have been far too rigid. What I mean is what people think is tactical combat?
I the totalwar series it is controling each unit (with 100people in it) individually in the battle field. That battlefield is +/- how much an unit can walk in the tactical map after its moves in the strategical are done. But in the tactical map you don’t control every man of the unit individually.

And I must agree, the AI (though capable of beating me) is not up to the task.

Now, in galciv2.

I tend to see the strategical map as a mix of strategical and tactical. If the game was only strategical, the emperor/president/hedonist governor would only tell the military: “this are the resources I give you, I want that sector/planet under our control. Go build whatever you want with the help of our military industrial complex, and just give me the results and no military talk about procedures”, after all the president in not necessarily a brilliant military mind in the matter of “how to”.

But as a matter of fact, in galciv2 I have a lot more control than that.
Lets consider the circle made by the moves available to my ship. I tend to think of it as the engagement square in rome totalwar. I can order ships to attack an enemy, which ship to attack which enemy, which ship should go back because of inappropriate defenses, etc. T
hat’s exactly what I do in the rome tactical map. And once I say “hey you attack this one” (I don’t really say that…) it goes and attacks, but like in rome I’m not telling every man in the melee which enemy soldier (not unit) to attack (at that point it is more like “cada um por si e deus por todos”, which translates more or less to: “everyone for himself and God for all”). So once I send an attack order in galciv 2, the ship will attack, and if it manoeuvres badly (low defense rolls) then it is destroyed. I can tell some unit to disengage in rome, but some cavalry will go after it and kill them. So the ship is damaged and the enemy finishes it.
Then you still have the choice to try and take your remaining ships back (the ones not send in the first wave) and put them outside of the enemy ship range (beyond his moves) which to me translates as a retreat since for that turn that ship cannot be attacked again.
You also have to choose carefully, depending on defense and attack equipment installed in your ships which enemy ship to attack, which can be viewed as a tactical decision.

So I tend to think the devs made the choice to not have to make another environment for battles, but if we are wiling to broaden a little our definition of tactical, then the games is an acceptable compromise.

Those who want tactical battles should also consider that having to fight 20-30 battles, even worse small ones, would be very boring. The important thing is too manage your production/research and the placement of your fleets & starbases (strategy), then make the good choices in which ship should attack which enemy (tactical) or retreat out of range of engagement of the enemy ship until reinforcements can meet with it (tactical too +/-).
And then , when the battle is engaged, the supreme general and president can only cross their fingers and hope for the best , and that their pilots in the ships are actually worth something (which is translated in the game by the fact that defense value rolls from minimum to maximum , at least that’s how I see it).

So, even if it is not perfect, I think it is a good compromise.
I hope this doesn’t cause things to go downhill again

Successfully updated karma reason!