Ground Invasion SIMULATION vs. Ground Invasion SYSTEM

[Larknok1]

A Ground Invasion System is a complicated, micro-management heavy, total over-haul that forces players to focus on ground invasions and make tactical and strategic decisions specific to each unit's movements, attacks, etc.

I don't want this. I don't think anybody wants this. Wiz certainly doesn't want this.

A Ground Invasion Simulation is (to the player) simple, completely free of micro-management, requires absolutely zero attention or focus, and happens as long as the player hasn't paused the game.

We already have this.

All I want (and many other people, I think) is a more interesting Ground Invasion Simulation.

If you think that's dumb, and a bad attribution of development resources, hear me out:

---

Ship to ship combat is also a simulation, and not a system. Players currently have the same control over ship to ship combat as they do over ground to ground combat. You can hit abort or you can watch. That's it.

They both run unit specific math in the background.

The only difference is that one of them is pretty, and the other is ugly as sin.

All the recent threads have asked for (in the simplest form expressible) a prettier, more-interesting-to-look-at ground-to-ground combat.

I honestly don't think that's a wild demand. It certainly isn't the sort of thing Wiz has openly expressed contempt for.

---

And here's the reason why ground-to-ground combat should be pretty: aesthetics makes or breaks games. If people can't feel immersed, many players simply can't have fun.

Stellaris could just be on a spreadsheet, but it wouldn't be too much fun. Thankfully, it's got beautiful star-ships, lens flares everywhere, a gorgeous galactic back-drop, and lovely planetary and stellar palettes.

The only aspect that doesn't feel real right now is ground-to-ground combat and, in general, land armies. They just seem like 1s and 0s during combat and occupation.

I can't be the only one who creates Xeno-morph armies or Gene Warrior armies and is upset that all I get to look at is an un-representative green circle within an un-aesthetic UI.

 

[Magdaki]

See my reply in the other thread. And did we really need *another* thread???

In short, there's no such thing as a non-impacting feature.

 

[Larknok1]

See my reply in the other thread. And did we really need *another* thread???

In short, there's no such thing as a non-impacting feature.

I'm beginning to think you're choosing to be difficult.

Graphics are a non-impacting feature.

I made this thread specifically so you would get the message that I don't want (and nobody wants) to impact gameplay, but I guess you're just going to stick with your ego on this one.

 

[Magdaki]

Graphics are a non-impacting feature.

So is it simulation or graphics? Make up your mind. These are not the same thing.

Oh and graphics are not necessarily a non-impacting feature. Consider the classic example of the shadow under Mario when jumping. The designers found that players had a much better experience when the shadow was present than when it was not present. They felt that when they succeeded or failed at a jump it was because of their skills/action.

 

[Zwollenaer]

I agree very much with this. If I want to fight circles with other circles I'll play checkers. This game deserves better.

I'll be happy with ANY improvement to how the ground combat is presented visually.

 

[Noomie]

I kind of agree that there needs to be something more to ground combat, even if the focus is mostly space.

I don't however find the ideas being passed around appealing in the slightest. No offense to anyone but fighting tile to tile or moving units on checkers boards sounds incredibly tedious while you're trying to wage interstellar war on multiple fronts (assuming we ever get a solution most people are okay with to the doomstack problem)

That said
|
|
v

I'll be happy with ANY improvement to how the ground combat is presented visually.

 

[Emraldis]

I kind of agree that there needs to be something more to ground combat, even if the focus is mostly space.

I don't however find the ideas being passed around appealing in the slightest. No offense to anyone but fighting tile to tile or moving units on checkers boards sounds incredibly tedious while you're trying to wage interstellar war on multiple fronts (assuming we ever get a solution most people are okay with to the doomstack problem)

That said
|
|
v

Just want to point out that the checkerboard movement of troops was set up to be completely automatic and not require players to involve themselves. Would be just as tedious as the current way it's done.

 

[Noomie]

Just want to point out that the checkerboard movement of troops was set up to be completely automatic and not require players to involve themselves. Would be just as tedious as the current way it's done.

Ah, misinformed on my part.

 

[AvalancheZ250]

A Ground Invasion System is a complicated, micro-management heavy, total over-haul that forces players to focus on ground invasions and make tactical and strategic decisions specific to each unit's movements, attacks, etc.

I don't want this. I don't think anybody wants this. Wiz certainly doesn't want this.

A Ground Invasion Simulation is (to the player) simple, completely free of micro-management, requires absolutely zero attention or focus, and happens as long as the player hasn't paused the game.

We already have this.

All I want (and many other people, I think) is a more interesting Ground Invasion Simulation.

If you think that's dumb, and a bad attribution of development resources, hear me out:

---

Ship to ship combat is also a simulation, and not a system. Players currently have the same control over ship to ship combat as they do over ground to ground combat. You can hit abort or you can watch. That's it.

They both run unit specific math in the background.

The only difference is that one of them is pretty, and the other is ugly as sin.

All the recent threads have asked for (in the simplest form expressible) a prettier, more-interesting-to-look-at ground-to-ground combat.

I honestly don't think that's a wild demand. It certainly isn't the sort of thing Wiz has openly expressed contempt for.

---

And here's the reason why ground-to-ground combat should be pretty: aesthetics makes or breaks games. If people can't feel immersed, many players simply can't have fun.

Stellaris could just be on a spreadsheet, but it wouldn't be too much fun. Thankfully, it's got beautiful star-ships, lens flares everywhere, a gorgeous galactic back-drop, and lovely planetary and stellar palettes.

The only aspect that doesn't feel real right now is ground-to-ground combat and, in general, land armies. They just seem like 1s and 0s during combat and occupation.

I can't be the only one who creates Xeno-morph armies or Gene Warrior armies and is upset that all I get to look at is an un-representative green circle within an un-aesthetic UI.

I'm not sure how you can make ground battles more "immersive" when your viewpoint is from space. The planetary bombardment and ground battle explosions on the planet already look good if you look at the planet in question.

 

[Tulwath]

So you want MOO2

 

[PalmettoExplorer14]

So you want MOO2

Ah! You beat me to the punch! But yeah that is actually a good idea there to do.

As one can see even a small force can defeat a bigger force depending on different factors. Plus, you do get to see your species in battle suits!

 

[enpi]

Beside bad graphics, the ground combat system has 3 big problems IMO.

1. no room for strategic decisions
2. no meaningful space/ground/orbital interaction, just bomb and land
3. no defense advantage due to terrain or installations - beside being not logical this also favors the attacker

Atm it serves its purpose in some way, but when you see how much attention other aspects of the game are getting (like ethics etc.) I consider ground combat as the unloved stepchild of Stellaris.

 

[Milten]

Plus, you do get to see your species in battle suits!

Never going to happen in Stellaris with it's hundred of portraits (and people keep asking for more). You can turn circles into squares, but symbolic army icons are here forever.

 

[Elimdur]

Beside bad graphics, the ground combat system has 3 big problems IMO.

1. no room for strategic decisions
2. no meaningful space/ground/orbital interaction, just bomb and land
3. no defense advantage due to terrain or installations - beside being not logical this also favors the attacker

Atm it serves its purpose in some way, but when you see how much attention other aspects of the game are getting (like ethics etc.) I consider ground combat as the unloved stepchild of Stellaris.

It pretty much is. Wiz himself told it in a way I would compare to Tywin Lannister speaking to his son Tyrion telling him, he would have wanted to drown him in the ocean would he not have been born a Lannister. He hates the ground combat, didn´t want it in the first place, yet cannot take it out without giving a meaningful exchange. So it remains living its live as a hated dwarf bastard.

 

[Knightroglycerine]

Beside bad graphics, the ground combat system has 3 big problems IMO.

1. no room for strategic decisions

I think this is by far the most important problem with the ground combat system.

It is about as interesting as tossing wood on a fire, except instead of fire you get flashing circles.

 

[PalmettoExplorer14]

It pretty much is. Wiz himself told it in a way I would compare to Tywin Lannister speaking to his son Tyrion telling him, he would have wanted to drown him in the ocean would he not have been born a Lannister. He hates the ground combat, didn´t want it in the first place, yet cannot take it out without giving a meaningful exchange. So it remains living its live as a hated dwarf bastard.

Wait!? Wiz said he never wanted the ground combat in the first place!? That's not good. I mean ground combat is an important part of sci-fi stories, movies, and games!

 

[Noomie]

Wait!? Wiz said he never wanted the ground combat in the first place!? That's not good. I mean ground combat is an important part of sci-fi stories, movies, and games!

Yes but the main focus of this game is space, space exploration, space combat, space empires- you get the point.

If you don't mind a bit of interpretation; he doesn't like ground combat as an idea going into Stellaris, I highly doubt he dislikes ground combat as far as sci-fi in general. I also doubt he'll just leave it as is, but we'll have to wait and see.

Personally I was thinking something that was sort of... rock-paper-scissors-ish with army compositions mattering more, but it's not an idea i've really thought through enough yet.

 

[Hype Train]

I personally would want at least a bit of strategy in the ground combat. Something like maybe a rock scissors mechanic.
Clones/normal troops beat Droids due to more better decision making, droids beat psionic forces due to not being effected by their mind tricks, and psionic beats clones/normal because they can affect them with their mind tricks. It would tie in quite nicely with the whole ascension thing we got going here. Also, i am a firm believer the invasion phase should come BEFORE the bombardment phase, to destroy the shield generator, star wars style. Would make armies have more purpose and more importance.

 

[efrim black]

Look - if the artists can waste time making plant ships - I'm baffled as to why we can't have a visual representation of the combat happening.

 

[nestorius]

Hmmm I personally think the ground system could use some work but definately not in graphics changing icons would have zero effect.
The main thing I think that are bad at present is Generals. I think admirals should fill this role or slots for military leaders should be seperate from others actually this would be a good idea in general. At present noone uses generals unless they really have leaders to spare.
The master of Orion combat system was just like Stellaris but less developed and just had a pretty screen I really dont need this to slow the comp down. I dont really know what and how they could improve the setup but graphics is not the way.