Yes. Not all of us have the reflexes microers have. And not all of us can micro multiple battles simultaneously. We shouldn't lose one battle and win the other just because, as the leader of an empire, we personally commanded one battle and not the other.

Following that logic, the people who can/enjoy to micromanage shouldn't have to sit helplessly and watch the AI do everything.

So where does that leave us?

With two fleets of equal strength, victory should be determined by the fleet with the superior commander. I like to command my battles tactically, but would still like to not have to. I would like to be able for once in a while just to watch the beauty of battle. But even with the finalized AI (release time) no AI controlled (in single or multi) equal size fleet will out battle me tactically, or I should hope most of us.

So where does that leave us?

Even if you hate clicking away, it seems intensive micro is the plight of the rts and subgenres.

And I want meaningful formations n manuevers!

Better versions aren't different from tech advances from a mechanical perspective. Even more complex mechanical variations, like elephants over cavalry, are just a combination of increases. You can simulate identical effects in civ by replacing new units with upgrades for the originals as soon as you have enough to propogate each new variant. A cobalt could remain a cobalt for the duration of the game, but mechanically it's the same as a new ship every time it upgrades, just like the maceman over the axeman.

For micro, is it really that fun to select your group of lrm frigates and manually target a specific enemy capital ship? Having something to do is not the same as having something to think about, and strategy games by definition are supposed to require thinking, if sadly lacking it in the typical rts game. Combat coming down to how fast your fingers move instead of how fast your brain works is really depressing, even when I had fast fingers it was depressing.

If tactical maneuvers were actually useful on a large scale instead of running a cobalt through the enemy line while they're targetting it so they turn, you could do something with the game that was meaningful. The mitigation system, with a bit of tweaking, could create a system where 1-1 combats were optimal efficiency. By creating performance hits from being under fire and having substantially more impressive mitigation effects(think logarithmic and based on the ratio of fire compared to max shield strength, with one on one for cobalts being down at 20% and two on one being closer to 50, instead of 22 and 24) you would force a more realistic combat system where maneuvering helps, and focusing fire doesn't.

Alas, words like morale strike terror into the hearts of tard rts fans, so we'll probably never get a real one.

I really dont understand then , why your not complaining about the game as it currently is

because atm ,the better steamroll fleet is the one where people are much better at microing the special abilities with constant assignment manually. Autocast cannot match it. example the Anti-Spike Antorak Phase micro , the triple dunov selective shield-restore micro ... , Manual micro > autocast.

Because we trust in the dev's promise for improved AI.

Some misunderstand what i have been trying to say.

I am not totally against micro. Sometimes it is necessary to do some micro to achieve victory in this game. What i am against is this game turning into yet another version of Sup Com, Homeworld, or Dawn of War. Where the only way to win is play in a frantic micro clickfest. Like Schod said if you want frantic micro RTS then go play those games. This game is supposed to be about epic grand strategy. Not up close, and personal tactics.

So far Sins is not like that micro fest that i dread. Which is why i haven't complained about it, but i do see it steering towards that direction. So i am saying something about it now.

We must find a way to break out of that damn single steamroll fleet mentality. That is where all this micro fleet management is coming from. The game was intended (at least in the beginning) to be played on huge maps with multiple fleets engaging each other at once. This is where macro comes into play. Which is all about 4x. Most turn based 4x games like Galactic Civ2 all you need to do is form the best fleet you can come up with and send them off. The AI does the rest. There is no micro in those games. The fleets in Sins need to be able to handle themselves with little to zero human intervention. All you should have to do is point them to where they need to go. If a certain battle is critical then yes by all means take over, and micro the hell out of it. If the game shapes up to where multiple fleets do engage how in the hell are you gonna micro ALL of those fleets at once? It is simple, YOU CANT. Again this game is supposed to be about the best of both worlds. RTS, and 4x. Macro, AND micro.

It may sound like i dont like the above games i mentioned, because of the micro involved. Quite the opposite. I have all the above mentioned games, and i enjoy the hell out of them (especially dawn of war). I just dont want to see Sins become like this, because it will then become just another "been there, done that" game.

And it is a mentality -- a habit of thought and approach. If one player breaks free from it, it forces the others to do so -- or loose -- but alas, its difficult to break free from it, especially on smaller maps.

I dont think anybody wants to be a steamroller , but sadly the game design just doesnt encourage anything else.

to major, you say its not the micro-fest you dread. I honestly think that theres nothing to dread even if it there is micro. The fact that you say "its not" atm , demonstrates how game elements that enhance "expertism" have a minimal effect on Casual Players because there IS too much undesirable micro that can only be detected if you enter the realms of expertism.

how??? its not like you can turn the ships backwards and forwards to ahve them dodge artillery... micro could use a bit more in Sins.

you're right that it shouldnt be a clickfest, but if I'm focusing down in on a battle where its 3:4, if I'm microing the 3 side I should still have a decent chance of victory against someone who is not microing the 4 side. otherwise microing would be a COMPLETE waste of time.

  
please dont make me use the "noo" word!

steamroller mentality is certainly the noob (dammit!) tactic of this game, yes its functional if you're lucky, but its far less effective than splitting your fleet up. why? because if your enemy is trying to steamroll you can harass him with the proper units, attack his rear flank or just bring local groups together to hit him when he isnt expecting. all of that works beautifully

if you havent seen steamroller get crushed, nobody in your games (including yourself) have been playing your fleet cards correctly.

ask emp, I've pulled some pretty fancy assassinations off on entanglement by using a detatchment of a fleet.

Sins actually needs a complete revamp of micro. The micro in Sins is absolutely horrendous as it is. Ironclad need to work very hard at the RTS element of Sins because its very cumbersome. Quality of microing rather then the Quantity of microing.

ok, thats a much better statement.

Schod you do realise im on yourside when it comes to the whole issue of "steamrolling".

Im just trying to make having multiple fleets better encouraged so its accessible to more players of a range of skill levels. It shouldnt be exclusive. What should happen in an RTS game with proper design is to encourage multiple fleets and backdoor assaults to all skill levels.

In homeworld 2 , there wasnt as much steamrolling because you could raid resources meaning a split between defensive anti-raid fleets , distraction fleets and raiding fleets. All levels of players would split their fleets because the game design encouraged it. Begginer players would however make more mistakes doing it then top players.

To have a game however where everyone except the top players split their fleets shows a flaw in the RTS element of game-design. Sins RTS side has flaws...simple as that.

p5yy this isnt some exclusivity thing, its just that people dont know any better as of yet. it doesnt require more skill, simply more attention

people will understand pretty soon, not to say that I'm against any more anti-steamroller counters. thats fine by me.

well, I'd say the advantage of microing battles should outweigh the drawbacks. obviously, putting enough attention into a battle to micro individual ships, their abilities, health statuses and those of your enemy keeps you from focusing elsewhere. such as other battles going on, keeping an eye on other players, allies or enemies, continue research, building, sending reinforcements where they are needed.

maybe you can do all this and still micro a battle. I can't. the advantage of not doing it though is to get information earlier on other things. if multiple battles are going on you can continuously watch all of them, see enemy strengh and your own, observe development, evaluate proable outcome and need for retreat/ reinforcements/ pursuit and all this.

so yes, managing a battle should give you returns, but at a price.

the other big thing is - and that has been mentioned - combat AI. currently a lot of abilites require manual cast, where it would neither be necessary, nor is it particularly fun. take my prime example of a dunov. its shield restore is currently only really useful when you manually cast it. if though autocast takes into account things like "1st priority is capital ships, if any capship's shield is depleted enough, use, if not, dont use" it could eliminate a lot of that tedious stuff. also, for the phase out or the missile barrages, ship ai should be smart enough to make out useful targets.

the role of micro is then to adjust and optimise an already functioning fleet behavior and adjusting for specific targets. you may for example determine that you want that particular capships dead or that not enough fire is focused on krosovs or whatever or that if two capships have shields depleted, one is to take priority even if your dunov wants to heal the other.

in short: smart battle ai. and I wouldnt even mind setting a lot more parameter before the battle, like conditions when abilities are to be used when ships are to retreat and so on, because then it would still be my decision and it would be a tactical one, but in the heat ot battle itself I would only have to improve upon an already good foundation.

well, my opinion on how micro should work for a game of this scale.

THANK YOU! p5yy pretty much nailed it on the head. Its not the quantity of micro that needs the attention. Sins doesnt need any more micro (except for formation management). It is the "quality" of the existing micro that needs the work. For example if i form a fleet with a Kol, Marza, and an Akkan, right now i will have to select each cap ship individually to manually fire their ability's (if i dont have them on autocast). Why not have all of their ability's easily accessible in the control panal when i select that whole group? Same thing, less clicking. Thats one example on how to improve the existing micro.

Of course microing should be better than letting the AI handle things. Thats why micro is there to begin with. However, there can be, and "should" be situations to where you wont be able to micro everything. That is why the Macro AI should be the best it can be. So you dont have to worry if your garrison fleets are going to get stupid (like the AI is now), and hand over the enemy a world on a silver platter.

On very small maps i can see how one can stick with a single fleet.. hell i have done it myself. Especially in AI games. However the few multiplayer game i have played i have seen this metality on big maps. From what i gather in the posts some have broken that habit, and are exploring the other possibility's. It is correct to assume that steamroll is a noob tactic. Sure steamroll will work in the short run, but against a smart player with well balanced multiple fleets i can almost guarantee a defeat for the steamroller.

On big maps like areolan sector, or 50+ planet single star maps you need to divide your forces up, or else you are begging to be defeated. 3 well balanced fleets should be a minimum for any large map plus raiding/distraction fleets. Remember it is a large game of chess. Not spam, and rush until 1 side breaks. Place you pieces to best advantage then strike. While your opponent is trying to do the same. That is grand strategy. Not focusing on 1 single objective, but looking at the entire scenario, and planning the best course of action to take. Of course in critical battles it is intended for the player to personally take over that particular fleet. Then that is when you go into the tactics, and micro

The auto casting needs work, example, my KOL will activate its sheild ability , as soon as it sees an enemy fleet, by the time the first shots are fired, the ability is already finished :NOTSURE:

The problem with the autocast is that I cant really see how improved AI is going to help some of them

imo , what needs to change is how the abilities are used.

forexample the Shield Restore...

It should instead restore minimal shields to all within a sphere of influence. This results in two things...

Firstly for manual use , all you need to do is just press the shield restore button
and Secondly autocast would be better at mimicing what a player would do since its simplified. And because an autocast can better mimic what you would do manually , you then dont need to have to constantly manually micro it.

I'm really wondering why some people did vote for "More RTS" in the poll. Can it be more RTS? I mean, go wait for StarCraft 2 if you want an RTS game.

Could one of them explain us why more RTS and how?

Space RTS's has been few and far between.

We have had Nexus and the Homeworlds to name a few but nothing recent , need I say more?

No need to say more. It's just that this game has been announced as an RTS-4X blend. Having that in mind and knowing that right now Sins is really more RTS than 4X, I'm just surprised to see that the RTS community isn't satisfied with the actual RTS dose of Sins (knowing that it's supposed to be a mix).

I think what people are saying is they like the game speed. i.e. the current rate of build up, they just want the research to take longer so it A) Has more of an impact, and means we aren't done with research by the time we reach out of our first star system.

This is the end of the Plain Games review. It speaks for itself I think.

What game holds that crown atm??? :NOTSURE: 

HW 2, if not HW 1

Some may say Empire at War.

Certainly Not ORB, Hegemonia, or Nexus.