Tactical Combat: Increasing AI's Role-- you might want to flame...

My friend, of course I'm not going to Flame you. That would be just plain Un-called-for. I will how-ever say I strongly disagree with this idea.

When you say "I believe such a concept would help resolve much of the six points noted above....", you're right. It would. It would also how-ever, in my Opinion, take far too much control away from the player and simplify things to the point of "Why even have Tactical Battles in the first place?".

When it comes to Micromanagement and Large Armies...well, points can be argued there too. Let's compare this to X-Com, which they are using as a partial inspiration.

If you think about it, in X-Com and games like it, every time you tell a squad member to "turn around", "kneel down", "shoot" with either a "aimed" or "snap shot"....ALL OF THAT could be considered Micromanagement. In fact, it almost IS Micromanagement. X-Com is still a classic though. X-Com is considered to many, Many people, to be THE Greatest Computer game of All Time.

For those that don't like that level of player interaction, or Micromanagement if you choose to call it that, those people wouldn't like the game X-Com.

So, I'm NOT saying this is a "Bad Idea". I've even already updated my list (this went under [Gameplay] ) .

Note: The List I keep I update almost Daily. You won't see it added to the Posted List until I do my next update, but it's already been added. To keep from getting too far behind I add up to four or five ideas that have been posted Per Day on the list I have here on My System. This way when I make a List Update I don't have to add every idea to My List all at once as it's quite a bit of work.

Sorry for the double post, just had another thought. For Multi-Player, this Idea could be GREAT. I just don't think I'd like it in Single-Player, that's all.

Sorry to both of you, but for MP "I will run my Army myself, thank you very much!" You may keep your AI... Just so there is no misundertanding...

For MP "I will run my Army myself, thank you very much!""

I have always liked how some wargames simulate chaos in the battlefield, messengers, flags and other things that were used to give orders using dice or some other method. So every turn, you can't use your full army, but just a part of it, so deciding which units to "activate" becomes an interesting part of the strategy (the units that aren't activated do nothing, I prefer that than them been managed by the AI and doing a dumb thing :S).

It also makes an interesting thing appear during gameplay: the losing player doesn't lose faster and faster, as he is able to activate more and more units of his army, so he can answer better to the enemy tactics.

Why not indirect control ?

Like in majesty : you don't give direct orders but give "goals" : you flag units you want to be dead fast, units you shoudl ignore, pincer flag (units that coudl pincer th eflagged unit will try to do so) burte charge flag, hit and run flag, etc ... Youwould only control your sov and heroes. Eery other unit would choose what they do thanks to your flags (take high ground, flee, help that unit in battle, etc..)

Elemental: War of Flags?

 Hmmm!

Ok, after some thought.

NOT!

Well, that's just an idea. You could replace it by "You say what you want, and your soldiers "try" to do it". Sometimes I dream of a "Fantasy Combat Mission" with the tactical depth of Fantasy General, and graphics and mood of the Witcher.

And I was just being a bit pig-headed.

I seem to have this rather large dislike for spending a large chunk of my game play, building Infrastructure, accumulating resources, building a varied Military force, only to have to turn it over the AI. In any fashion...

But that is just me...

Is that not a description of "player controlled" troops?

No it's not. In almost any TBS you say 'do this" and your unit do it. Your unit won't try to take cover before killing its target for instance. You still can do it, and micro everything, but your unit is like a "puppet". With indirect control and just "orders" they feel more alive, with their own agenda but trying to please you.

In close combat the game was real time but slow enough to be like a WeGo system. Moreover a WeGo system is better to handle ambushes. In classic TBS if a unit see someone that was hiding it ends its turn or you can't undo your move. It feels really segmented. Like if any unit would wait somewhere to be found. Moreover in a WeGo system you can review the entire battle like a film. Battles feel more alive, there is more interesting choices (it feels a lot less you are playing chess with magic) and it's easier to create ambushes and "outmind" your opponent.

I'd have to say I Completely Agree, John, as usual with you and I. I would rather have Complete Control of my army in Both SP and MP games.

I seem to remember Frogboy saying though, that it might be "possible" that MP battles "might" be "Auto-Calculate" only. I'm NOT saying he said "That's How It Will Be". I do recall him saying that might be "possible" though.

Not to be argumentative but, I was not privy to the fact that troops will be provided the ability to use "Cover", other than the obvious, (although, as yet confirmed) items such as Forests or walled off areas.

A WEGO system would be great. I posted a Pic before which I think actually described that idea without knowing the term itself.

But still the AI is to run AI players, not my troops...

I don't like to knock other peoples Ideas... But whats the point in playing a strategy war game if you have no control over the military?

It might be fun if you could turn control over to other commanders optionally and then have them control a small portion of your force just for kicks... All in all though, typically if you were to do so, they probably wouldn't be used to their best potential... You know how AI can be.

I like controlling my army... I don't like MP ( I know I'm in the minority there.) So any idea made strictly to aid the MP cause at the cost of enjoying my SP experience will get an automatic thumbs down from me.

-(I hate dealing with cheap tactics and Egos... You find too much of both in MP.)

You are actually in the vast majority! The fraction of people who play games online, even games like Demigod which were built as MP games with singeplayer as a sidenote is very small. Obviously MMOs and online-only games are exceptions.

And thankfully, the devs have promised that singleplayer features wouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of MP. 

Exactly

Right... Forgot I was on a PC exclusive title's forum...

I'm to used to all these console playing teenagers and their MP love fetishes. Feels good to be among my peers for a change.

Just the idea of being back amongst the over inflated egos of yonder teenage FPS bumpkins fills my heart with anguish and a desire to dole out enormous amounts of pain and suffering... I need counseling. 

Oi..I very rarely post, mostly I just lurk in the shadows and observe the varying debates. But on this subject, I must serve you folks a notice ..The hubris. It is only teenagers that enjoy playing with their friends? Now while I do enjoy SP more so than MP, I and 4 others are planning on playing the MP together weekly. So you see, when the crew is up and about, we'll play MP, when they're away..Well, I'll be enjoying the SP experience. However, just because I'm more of an SP guy, that shouldn't imply by any standard that I want any less of a rich MP experience.

In my opinion, you should be able to solve the issue of MP combat by having a sort of "tactical turn" and "global turn". Basically, everyone is playing at the same time, but then when a battle is taking place, the player can either zoom in (ala sins of a solar empire) and take control of the battle directly, or stay at global observer position and the AI will handle it /auto-resolve. So should the player choose to take direct control, that is when a set number of turns is imposed for him/her to make decisions and advance the battle, at the end of which he or she clicks the "global turn" button and it'll move on to the next turn for everyone. That way the games pace isn't quite as broken, but will still allow you to fight your own battles and not impede the experience for the other players.

And that is the conclusion of my thoughts on the matter. While it isn't a perfect system, it is a thought. And on a side note..RavenX, I've been a fan of yours for a long time, and agree with most of what you say, however in one of the other threads, where you took it upon yourself to expand the horizon of thought in an effort to give new ideas a chance to grow..You seemed a bit too timid. If it was your job to go over to Closed-Mind Street and kick in the door on the big house of Stubborn..I wouldn't expect you to knock first and ask politely if anyone was home. Just kick in the door, and proceed to kick ass and..repeat.

Rath my friend, clearly you've never played on a console with strange teenagers online... Or you'd know my pain.

I like to lan too, with buddies I know in RL. I don't much care for playing with or against foul mouthed, poor losers... And thats pretty much all you find on the consoles in MP. I actually agree with most of what you said though.

That's a very Good Post, Rath3130. Firstly, thank you for being a fan. There was a time (on MySpace) when I had hundreds of "Fans". How many of them actually "meant something" to me? Very few. A few of my "Fans" became very close friends. Others though acted more or less the same way we see people respond to Frogboy and other Staffers here on the Elemental forums. Ass-Kissing Sycophants who are "Yes Men". Even when they hate a thought or idea, they say they like it and ass-kiss their way around it. I don't do that...Ever.

Although...

During my time in The Industry, I had to learn to walk a very fine line between being the "Yes Man" and standing up to my employer over what I Knew the players wanted, because they were saying so all over the place. Some of it I agreed with, others I did not. Either way a compromise must be made as to "appear" to be Diplomatic in my response. In other words, being strong willed and then a few sentences later having to rebuke my previous statement while still keeping the original point. I Understand Completely what you mean by having to be "timid" at times.

As for dealing with MP games. I too am Greatly Looking Forward to spanking some ass in MP games. I want them to be fun and have strategic and logistical depth. In a SP game this level of depth can work extremely well. When you take those same mechanics though and apply them to MP games...well, you get a big clusterfuck at that point. Even though the game plays the same, those very same Fun and In Depth mechanics turn a MP game into a grand epic that will take you and a few friends a whole week of play time to get through because everyone has to wait (or be a spectator) when another player goes into a battle with someone else.

Napoleon:TW does a great job of mixing these. In that you can play a "Drop In" multi-player game. Meaning I can play a Single Player Campaign, but when I come to a battle, ANY BATTLE, if I have the "Drop In" option turned on, then when I enter that battle the server the game is tied to will find another person playing on-line, pause their game, and put them in charge of the other army I'm fighting for the length of that battle.

I'm STILL playing a Single Player Campaign, once the battle is over, all other "enemy strategical moves" are handled by the AI just as in a normal Single Player game. The only difference is, for actual fights, someone else online takes over my enemy so we can have a good fight. I don't have to worry about it being a "easy win" against the AI, because another actual Human is playing against me for the length of the battle.

It's a awesome system to implement. I'd love to see a "Drop In" system like that implemented for Elemental. That also raises the problem, what if the MP game in question has more then 2 people playing, which again in turn leads to people sitting around and waiting for-ever and loosing interest in the game.

There won't be a simple answer to this in Elemental. No matter what though, I just don't want them to go back on what they said and compromise the single player gameplay for sake of faster MP games.

Some mechanics simply Can Not cross over to a "Fun" multi-player game.

This is why I think they are headed more towards a "Wizard Duel" when it comes to battles in MP. Something that could be over relatively quick or last for a little while, without everyone else who's waiting getting bored and quiting the game.

Still, even if I end up looking like the Biggest Prick on the forums, I won't let them compromise the SP game, plus they said they wouldn't.

Again, excellent post my friend.

Honestly, idiots are everywhere in MP, not only in consoles. I have had my own fair share in W3:TFT or DOTA...

Saije, you are quite correct. I haven't played with teenagers on a console system. I play console games (traditionally) for SP, and mostly just RPG games. And while I do understand that you obviously can't transfer everything from SP to MP, without running the serious risk of crossing the streams..*cough* Anyway, when it comes down to the MP battles, I personally believe it would be best if the duration were left up to the players.

If for instance you were to join a game with some random players..You'd probably be less inclined to have full-length battles and what not. However, coming from a heavy RP group of RL friends, we've spent many hours leveling up our inner-geek with dice rolls, storytelling and yelling across tables. I'm quite certain we'd not mind a bit in the tedium of having to wait a few minutes for each player to finish their respective turns. And yes, I'm well aware that others out there would be driven batshit-crazy waiting for the turns to end, well they can select one of the other options. At the very least, if such a scheme can be modded into the MP experience..Then I'd be quite satisfied with that.

And Raven, good sir..I hear ya. Having been on the inside, I'm quite sure you'd have your own reasons and perspective for how you handled yourself. Brad and the rest of the Stardock crew give me butterflies in my stomach when I think of how I feel about their company and most of their products, but ass-kissing has it's own time and place, and should generally involve edible underwear. Wait..I'm sure I had a point in there somewhere, but I cut myself on my own sharp wit..or lack their of..I digress.

The idea of the drop-in and play..I suppose it could have it's uses, though suddenly having a new (human) player on the field would/could radically change the dynamic of the current game. So if that were an option, I'd probably keep that one off. Also, I keep seeing this whole fear that the monsters from under our beds are going to reach out and grab our SP gameplay and do terrible, terrible things to it. I have full confidence that everyone at Stardock can do their job to the best of their ability and bring us the rich and vibrant world that they have envisioned. The very thing I love the most about this company, is that they still have their passion about what they're doing. It doesn't appear to be just another pay-check to these folks. They really seem to love what they do. And I'm sure if ever they have a lack of motivation, then Brad can re-educate them on why toes +   = .

Hey Raven in your suggestion post, do you have a section for the options we want attached to the combat engine?

I mean options like the ability to limit time of tactical, turn auto resolve on or off, meta-mechanic like options.

Because it seems to me if we had a thread like" When it comes to combat what options do you want included" it might help the Devs build it.

Example would be a screen at the very begginging of the game  that went with the screens Grphics/Audio/Combat

and checkboxes inside with things like

Comabt Style:      Turn-Base / We-Go / CT

Limited Combat:    5 Turn / 10 Turn / 20 Turn / Unlimited

Split/Merge Units:           Yes / No

Max Army Size:      10 Units / 20 Units / Unlimited Units

Multi Strategic Turn Combat: Yes / No

Now obviously this might not even be possible as they would have to make engines for all of them and such. and it might try to be everything to everyone which we all know ends up as a failure generally.

But meh it is an idea.

I keep it simple. I use 4 categories.

[Customization]

[Gameplay]

[Map]

[New Ideas]

I give slight examples of each in the "Please Read Before Posting" thread. The idea you give above I would want to put in one of two categories. Either [Customization] or [New Ideas]. That's why I really like when people put the category They Want in the name of the thread. That way I know right where they want it to go instead of having to guess or think about it for five minutes on each post.

It goes Sooooo Muuuuuch faster when people put the name of the Category in the post. Still, I'm no SD Staffer. I won't demand people to do something special just to make my job easier, but I might suggest it politely.

This is almost an interesting idea ... I am considering expanding on this for some sort of mod or something, just to try out.

Another idea that is "kind of" cool is the ability to only control x number of people, but honestly that type of fighting is only fun in a game like Dragon Age or Dynasty warriors, where you are controlling your champions and the armies are controlled by AI.

Honestly though, in all cases I prefer full human control, because it tends to be a good incentive to have a better AI ... and I also feel that full human control would be a great aid to frogboy in making the AI ... because he (may) get to see a full army AI vs a full army Player controlled, as opposed to AI vs AI. Now, obviously for frogboy watching AI vs AI is fun ... and you can get really far by only watching the AI fight each other, to see them (hopefully) not make stupid mistakes. I just think that allowing full player control allows for the AI to be developed even further.

Getting back to the quote, currently combat speed determines when players move, and I would say that in a tie of combat speed, the attacker should move first (although perhaps the attacker has to set initial unit placement first, and defensive army gets to see attacking army while setting their forces) ... and I think that it will be better overall (to have 10 phases per each battle turn) based on combat speed rather than based on X units per turn, however the idea is still interesting, hence possibly test mod.

My major reservation about any sort of system that restricts you to commanding a fraction of your army, and leaving the rest to the AI, is that there is no way to share thoughts or anything. The AI simply has no clue what I want from it, and will go do its own thing while I do my own thing with whatever part of my army I control. It would just be so unbelievably frustrating to have a great strategy but be unable to implement it because there is no good way of interacting with my AI counterpart. The only way to resolve this would be to give me enough control over my AI counterpart that I may as well just have full control to begin with.

It wouldn't be bad to have the option of turning over part of my army to the AI.  Wouldn't want it to be mandatory in SP, but it might help keep battles moving faster in MP.  It would have mattered more if combat were real-time.  Just not a big priority for me.

But it really, really depends on the AI being good enough.  I want to scream or puke when I think of what always happened to my troops in Rome:Total War when I let the AI command my reinforcements.