Unit skirmish button!

No, you don't need to agree with me? Although when someone tells you that shooting yourself in the leg will hurt, it's probably wise to understand that it's quite likely.

Like i said, it's your own business whether you want to believe the earth is flat or not. I will just switch games, no harm done to me. You'll enjoy PA, and it will continue to have a very small niche following from certain types of players who want very certain types of dumbed down gameplay experiences. Though not very many other people will stay around for the replayability - that's just how shallow game design plays out.

If you don't want to know why poker is more fun than blackjack card counting, or even entertain why that might be, then why are you still trying to discuss this with me? That is just sticking your head in the sand and repeating the same old words over and over again hoping they become true. You can do that if you want, but don't expect me to respond in any meaningful way.

I have played those games thankyou - though I never said all automation is bad did i? You're trying to widen the net as far as possible to reach for any half baked arguement in support of a very specific automation mechanic.

In the context of PA,
Do i think continuous build is good? Yes.
Do i think area orders are good? Yes.
Do i think shoot while move is good? Yes.
Do i think skirmish automation is good? No.

Your stage magician way of handling a discussion has yet to lead to a concise and convincing argument from your side. All you present is anecdotes and non-analogies that are not even fleshed out. Why would I want more of that?

Answer those questions and I might at least get to know your rationale behind your big 'NO'. Because that is all that you bring to this discussion.

And again:
If you do not want automation do not use it.
If it is superior to micro what is the point of micro anyways?
If it takes away from the game in such a way that it leaves you with fewer meaningful choices to make and actions to take the game had not enough of those in the first place.

Wow, really?

Ok, I did know about how the manoeuvring thing was actually affecting the units, which is why I asked.

Haven't seen or experienced that sort of thing before, never seen it in game.

My line of thought was, I have never seen it before, so wasn't that a a-move? And I was wrong.

If I can't be corrected without people taking the piss, then what is the point quite frankly?

The arguments here seem like: "I can't micro. Micro shouldn't determine who wins in a conflict."

Yet you then support the ultimate Korean micro god, which is the AI and can only be enabled defensively.

This is nonsensical. We are not only arguing that evade would dumb down gameplay, but that it is clearly FAVOURS the user. A human microed group of units is less efficient than a computer, also, the automated micro allows the user player to do other stuff while the human microer has to chase as I've said about 100 times but no one has gotten a grasp on it.

Saying we shouldn't use it if we don't like it is like saying that Uber should add a command that insta-kills the enemy commander and 'if we don't like it we shouldn't use it'.

Quite frankly, yes. For twitch gameplay I rather play shooters or platformers. I just can not handle that stuff in 'strategy' games. It is too much muscle memory and too little brain effort for me to appreciate. I enjoyed Rise of Nations for its degree of automation: It automated a lot of the things that were just tedious to maintain. And in exchange it provided scale, options and a swathe of interesting mechanics. Fair trade in my book.

On to your Korean micro god. You are of course partly right. If complex skirmishing behaviour is implemented this makes chasing down units with superior range and/or speed very frustrating for the attacking player. But that only hints at an imbalance between units again which would make for frustrating encounters anyways.

I have the impression that Starcraft-video scared the hell out of you. Note that automated behaviour is bound to be very, very basic - the micro-bot example is computationally expensive even though it is played out against static defenses. True skirmishing in a dynamic environement is so non-trivial and expensive to implement that such a thing would never see the light of day as a mere convenience option.

I for one would advocate a very, very simple 'evasion' behaviour: Move away from enemy units entering vision range and do so in a straight line; move until the reference unit has not been in vision radius for at least 5 seconds. If there are several enemy units to evade choose one at random. That should be easy enough to exploit for the attacker - sent in a few fast-movers and watch the enemy units scatter. Hell, you could even send units around the group and drive it straight into your main army.

Elodea I want to thank you for taking the time and expressing your concerns in an constructive way. I read your post and I see why u think it might be a problem.

But the mechanics of combat are more complex then the engagement of 2 unit types. What I ask you to think is would that be a problem in a mixed unit army? Why shouldn't I be punished for building a army that consists of only one unit type, why shouldn't you be awarded for properly scouting it and building a counter?

The other thing is territory control, battles in this game don't take place in a void, if your units are puling back ad my units reach your base what happens then?

Latter you said that you are in favor of the attack move automation, and then i ask you, if you are in favor of automation that reduces the burden of micro for the attacker, why not for the defender?

Even if what you said could be a real problem what i ask of you then is could you balance the game so it is not? Things like twiking the units acceleration and accuracy wile moving?

I understand that we all love this game and wanna see it at it's best. And I think you are a great player, and really respect your opinion, so can you discuss these points? Give us your feedback?

Attack is the best form of defence.

Really? So how is that you can beat the AI?

Exactly. And we want to focus on other stuffs, instead microing a dozen of tanks. Point taken. Thanks.

That's already in game. It's called Vanguard.

ps. And if you complain about Vanguards being OP Scathis will add them wings and make them amphibious. Perhaps also cloaking. In fact, we're lucky that Walls can't shoot, yet.

Ulallà... what a drama queen

That's a very good point.

True but inconsequential to this discussion.
In the end 'skirmish' mode is a unit stance rather than the be all end all of tactical decisions. I do not see the harm in having it.

1. The AI does dumb things so that is hardly a comparison. Of course, that's not to mention that it's mainly focused on macro and can't assess danger as well as humans i.e. an ai t1 tank will charge a bomb bot etc. It has no idea of kiting.

2. But don't you see that the attacking player doesn't get an auto micro feature that would split the units in groups, flank etc on its own? Man, you still don't see it. How about you read my posts?

3. Lol no. There's a difference between choosing not to use a feature which doesnt affect game mechanics e.g. choosing to build mexes individually rather than in area build, and choosing not to use a feature which does. It's like saying if I don't like nukes, don't use nukes...but the other player will - they'll have the advantage.

1. Micro-AI will do dumb things, too, see my above posts.
2. Evasion is much, much simpler than flanking, splitting and other behaviours. It is more on the level of getting into range before firing.
3. Using area commands allows you spend less time on execution. As does automated unit behaviour. Add in a 'pursuit' stance doing the opposite of the 'skirmish' stance and everyone is set. Even though the existing stances should already cover that.

I have a hard time writing this because I feel like you act in a slightly arrogant and disrespectful way to anyone who disagrees with you in this thread.
Maybe you are absolutely right and all of those other people are wrong and an RTS game that tries to eliminate micro and offers interesting gameplay on the macro side of things cannot be created.
You are a "pro" player (or whatever you would call yourself), so there is a decent chance that you have a deeper understanding of how such games work than most other people.
But the attitude with which you present your arguments devalues your whole statement.

So, on to my actual post:

I agree with you in the way that if we take PA the way it currently is and simply add skirmishing behaviour, we might actually end up with a shallow and boring gameplay experience.
But I see the reasons for that not in those possible micro-reduction features, but in other flaws PA currently has.

If Uber was to create an interesting strategy game that can claim to be "the ultimate macro game", it is not enough to try to remove "micro" (and by micro I actually don't mean all of the micro but simply tedious tasks that don't have that much meaning to me...I will elaborate on this later in this post) but it would be direly needed to actually add some more meaningful MACRO.
Someone (I think it was taxman) compared the macro to Sim City and actually he was right with that. Currently most of the "macro" comes down to building mexes, factories, energy plants, when and where to expand into orbital (e.g. building orbital stuff) and how to compose your armies (which only takes time because we lack proper UI features for that...another of those tedious things that should be eliminated).
There is not much "interesting" macro. Why that is the case is something that would be a whole different discussion but some reasons are probably that there are not enough unit types that would allow for more varied and interesting strategies, the terrain is mostly flat and doesn't promote some more interesting strategies and that well...most of the game revolves around the micro right now, anyways...
And since you are good at the game you are probably very good at microing which is probably because you enjoy it and therefore noone can expect you to like it if PA was to move away from micro.
But that doesn't mean we can't hope for PA to become a more macro focused game. Maybe that is not what Uber is actually trying to create but it surely is what they made us hope they were creating during the Kickstarter campaign and it is what made us pay money for it.

And as I said, to me, making PA a more macro-focused game does not just mean adding some skirmish mode to remove some of the micro, but to me that is just a prerequisite to shift the focus to a more meaningful macro (that still needs to be added into the game...).
And to elaborate on what I mean when I say "micro":
I don't want units to conduct any elaborate maneuvers on their own. I simply want them to do the most simplest of things so I don't have to babysit them. Right now I actually construct my armies in a way that eliminates micro (in Supreme Commander I don't feel like there is too much micro, btw...why ? Because that game mostly has units that really don't NEED much micro....micro helped but your armies wouldn't get completely evaporated if you didn't issue commands to them a few times a second...that's why I am building SupCom armies in PA...)
To bring up the old example of Dox vs Inferno:
If I have a group of Infernos and want to take out whatever army, I can issue a SINGLE attack move command and the enemy gets attacked more or less effectively, EVEN if the opponent microes the hell out of his troops. Of course, if he doesn't he probably will get completely destroyed and if he does he might not take a single loss, but if his army is composed of units that are faster than Infernos and have longer range, he would have been able to defeat me anyways, even if I had microed, so I don't lose much by not microing (but I am forcing him to micro).
Of course, I could still have won, if I had had superior "macro" before that engagement (either building units better suited to that engagement, avoiding his army altogether and sneaking into his base or attacking him from multiple directions (maybe even in a location that prevents him from escaping...more interesting terrain would be important here...), preventing him from keeping a distance to all of my troops).

If I have a group of Dox and attack an army of whatever composition, I can issue a single attack comand and my troops might attack the enemy army relatively effectively (by effectively, I mean, I will do a decent amount of damage instead of getting completely evaporated), EVEN if the opponent microes the hell out of his troops.
Micro from either side will affect that engagement, but the other side will still put up a decent fight.
Except if the army I am attacking contains a decent amount of Infernos.
If the Inferno doesn't stand around and dies while being shot at (it shouldn't if things were to be going my way, but even if it would, a SINGLE command would be enough to make it attack), suddenly I am FORCED to micro, or my army of Dox will get completely evaporated.
I can't defeat the Infernos in any economic way. My opponent issues a single attack command and suddenly I am forced to spend at least multiple seconds (probably longer depending on the Inferno/Dox ratio) making my Dox keep their distance and shoot at the Infernos. There is nothing else I can do. I don't have a CHOICE (that's BAD in a strategy game).
If I don't micro my Dox, I might not even destroy a single Inferno, but lose 200 Dox.
If I micro my Dox, I might be able to destroy 200 Infernos using only a single Dox (extreme example, but you should get the point).

I am not against good players like you being able to get the most out of their troops by paying attention to them. Just about every casual player can do that, as well, to some extent. I am against being FORCED to micro a group of units for them to actually do anything in a game where I usually have hundreds of units spread across multiple planets.
That's why we need simple behaviours like these to remove tedious micro like that (because..what else would you do than make your Dox stay out of range ? There is no choice...it's plain boring. It's shallow game design if the game makes me do the most obvious things. That's like clicking on the icon for the Dox every time I want to build one..it's meaningless, tedious management of microscoping tasks...Of course you retreat into a specific direction, split your troops up or bunch them up while retreating and other things like these..that's meaningful micro...and you should still be able to do that if you micro your troops manually).
If someone needs one click to make the Infernos fight decently against my Dox, I should not need 20 Clicks for my Dox to do the same. Infernos force other players to micro.
So I want units that promote such tedious micro to be removed or I want them to be properly balanced against other units by the other units being able to fight effectively with just as much effort by the player as Infernos.

If PA is to become another of those micro focused games, then I feel like it is a wasted effort.
There are literally dozens of great games that focus on that kind of thing and many of them do it better than PA will probably ever be able to do it.

Btw, to me spending time on doing obvious things (e.g. preventing your ranged units from charging into flamethrowers) IS shallow game design.
Giving players the time and ability to actually make more important decisions is hard.
Because it is actual game design.

This, just this. The whole "strategic" part of the game is almost entirely pointless if you can just outperform your enemy with micro.

User made Starcraft 2 AIs have shown very well how bad it is when the game awards APM and micro over proper tactical and strategical skills. These AIs wipes the floor with any human player. Not because they are playing smart (actually these AIs are rather dumb and have almost no adaptive components at all), but only because they out-micro every human being in late game.

The very same will happen with PA if the possible gains from micro aren't diminished in the first place by default.

And one minor difference towards Blizzards SC2: PA isn't a locked down platform. AI assistance isn't considered cheating. But those not using any augmentations will suffer from the stubbornness of a few because it means that they have an significant disadvantage by default.

This game really really does need a possible skirmish mode for units. Lordofthenoobs said it pretty well. Not having some basic defensive unit mechanics just results in further punishing defense in an RTS that already goes out of its way to punish people trying to defend. Excessively one-sided micro like this really has no place in such a macro game.

First off I would like to thank everyone for a great read while I was bored on the beach. Excellent arguments on both sides. I am more open to the idea of automation than before reading but am still opposed.

I don't see micro as just clicking, it is mainly time management, this is one of the most underrated factors in these forums. I choose to click my dox left and right while you may continue with your macro game, Finish your air lab, q up your bomber first and tell him to attack the dox. Not as much micro but similar outcomes. Whereas I
Most likely have idle fabbers/coms/factories because I spent the apm on the wrong things. Should I them have automated builds for my commanders and fabbers so they are not idle?

If dox could automatically kite infernos or vgs then the whole role of vgs and infernos just need to be changed in the formation. You want them at the back so they can do damage when they get to the base. Then you will have your units escorting his death blob straight into your base. You are losing the game of tug of war and under more pressure than possibly needed.

I use the word possibly because are these units just kiting for the sake of kiting or have they big enough numbers to stop this push before it reaches mex fields etc. I remember when the ai would stop 4 infernos just outside of a t1 turret range unable to calculate risk reward like a human player can. This is the main reasons I don't want automation. Trust issues.

Human error is also a major part of rts games. No matter how
Good you are or how good your apm is, you forget units. You bomb his energy instead of the aa.

You don't scout enough to see the turret so you send your units into a fortified area. Do pro automation want these units to retreat outside the turrets range automatically? Or continue on and maybe destroy the turret or perish? When do you want automation to override human error?

I personally see skirmish mode as basically a mode on its own. If you have a unit set to "skirmish" it will automatically try to kite enemy units that get within range that it can see or when it starts to get shot at. If you have told it to move, or attack something then it isn't in the "skirmish" command mode, and therefore will go marching to its foolish death if you gave it a stupid command.

At this point I'm curious to know what folks at Über think about this thread, and an improvement/change in units automation in general for PA.