This is something I have to seriously disagree with. If you want to make it so that a player doesn't have to deal with details, you have a few options
1. let them ignore it, because it doesn't do much anyways
2. give them the Option of having an AI do it
3. give them a customizable set of tools for simplifying the commands (so they give a general order and an AI handles the details)
4. eliminating that game mechanic
looking at each of those
1 ... doesn't fly if it does ANYTHING then it will be necessary to play on the higher levels (if it doesn't see 4)
2 ... If the AI is better, then why give the player the option, if the AI is worse, then why is it there
3 ... This is just # 2, except #2 at the detail level
4 ... this is preferable
As a variation on 4, combine #4 with #3... the details are not part of the game Mechanic
This is what what was done with FO's economy... You could have done something like MOO2 and given a planet the "Food AI" so it would focus on building Soil Enrichment, Weather Controllers, etc. or the "Production AI" for Auto Factories, etc. However, instead we still give the planet those "targets" BUT there are no things to build, no buildings to manage.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "doesn't fly if it does ANYTHING then it will be necessary to play on the higher levels". This statement, I simply cannot comprehend. Could you break it down further for me?
2 ... If the AI is better, then why give the player the option, if the AI is worse, then why is it there
The idea was to give the player control over how the AI itself behaves in general -- assign the AI priorities, and then allow the player to override in specific cases where there's a unique situation or opportunity the player sees that the AI does not. This reduces overall micromanagement to a minimum but leaves the tacticians happy.
It really seems to me that again this conversation is having an overwhelming focus on the end-game scenarios where there would be a large number of vessels, to the detriment of early game scenarios where there is a sufficiently limited number of ships that total micromanagement is feasible in realtime. For the life of me, I simply do not understand this blindspot on the part of the current design team. I am at a loss. Am I simply missing something?
However, instead we still give the planet those "targets" BUT there are no things to build, no buildings to manage.
Frankly, I'm not too precisely keen on this idea, but since in any game I would play, there were generally
thousands of planets within my empire (MoO III anyhow) I can understand the intent and yeah -- I'm sure it would be quite useful. I would make my comment about scalability once again, but... that was messy in MoO III and FO isn't MoO.
The point I'm trying to convey here -- and maybe I'm just too poor of a communicator -- is that combats scale gradually over the course of a game. And there's no reason why the command&reporting side of the UI can't scale up just the same. Let the AI handle the
obvious so the player can handle the
subtle. This enriches the combat experience of the game, which only adds to the total replayability of the finished product.
Let's not forget; by and large combats are going to be
interruptions. This means, given the way human memory works, that they will also be some of the most memorable aspects of the game. Depending on the study you want to review, people remember the first and last 15% of any given sequence and tend to blur out the middle material. Since combats will be interruptions, this means that however great the rest of the game is, combat will always be much more memorable --
especially since we want to limit the total amount of time the player spends
in combat. The way it seems to be going right now, I -- and at least a few others -- would have the strong impression that one of the most memorable aspects of the game was an afterthought.
That's not good for the total game quality.
This Should not be a problem... the Battle sequence should begin when you First SEE (or ar attacked by) enemy forces in the system. (not when you enter the system)
And what happens when one side sees the other, but then looses sight? (I actually had that happen in MoO III a few times. Quite obnoxious.)
The fact is those strategies will only Really be valuable if they are the ONLY means by which you interact with your troops (my favored approach, but not for the tacticians I know) if you can give them exact orders, then the human will be better than the AI at executing a lie in wait, so a Human will Have to do it on higher levels.
Why is this even remotely a problem? Again, we're limiting a combat to ten units per player, here. Hardly unreasonable for a player to directly control one or two units and leave the rest to a competent AI because it's obeying generalized orders as issued by the player before combat began. After that, it's mostly supervision and tweak an action here, an action there. The player is left with the
feel of total control without having to execute every single action. And, again -- an AI
wouldn't be better than the player at these things; that's the point. But it would be sufficiently competent at executing generic actions on behalf of the player's whims that 'routine, run-of-the-mill' actions would require little-to-no player input. Once you get to the grind-and-gut-em phase, the player can sit back and enjoy.
Here's a more visceral example; Long range v. short-range ships. Any player worth his salt with the long-range beam weapons is going to want to take advantage of his distance advantage to keep himself out of harms' way whilst 'discouraging the enemy troops'. So of course you could give an AI a "keep away" command as higher priority for your long-range fleets. This would then tell them to keep moving away from the enemy so that they are at the edge of their range; thus ensuring the enemy can't hurt them whilst they hurt the enemy. But say, for example, the enemy then retreats away from your ship. Do you start chasing after or sitting still? They could be attempting to lure you into a trap.
This is where the player should step in. Allow your ship to chase? Or issue it a one-time command to not move? Four or five turns could go by -- and only one intercessionary action by the player. With additional fleets this gets a little more complicated, but that's the general gist. We want an AI that is competent at following prioritized orders by the player, which leaves the player available to try and implement his ingenuity as only a human can (well, pre-singularity anyhow! :p) do. Having the proverbial cake and eating it too.
That should not be the only objective... while it is always a nice BONUS to destroy your enemy's fleets in battle and if you can do that it will allow you to achieve almost any goal. Your goals may be to
1. Capture a Planet
2. Destroy a Planet
3. Defend a Planet
4. Blockade a Planet
5. Break a Blockade
6. Destroy enemy forces
7. Stop enemy forces from going further
8. Spy on enemy forces
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 boil down to "crush your enemies." While your end-actions in the turn might result in these things, if you do not have the effective capacity to project force, you will never achieve these objectives
tactically. 4 and 8 are mere preludes, tactically speaking. If there are only a limited number of ways by which one
can project force, there's little to no guesswork. You are left with no tactic higher in complexity than the hybridized mass-assault/echelon. Which we humans invented going on ten thousand years ago.
Might I suggest that this total thread (Battle UI Scaling v. Simplification) be taken elsewhere? I wouldn't know where to place it.