Unit skirmish button!

I still don't understand this at all? Why do you think defense shouldn't be in a strategy game? I know PA has a system massively balanced against defending but that's probably one of the biggest issues with the game rather than a strength.

Why on earth do you think that I don't want defence in a strategy game?

I have no idea where you have gotten that idea, I like defences, using static guns to hold a position while mobile elements patrol around, giving me the ability to command forces aggressively against enemy positions.

Defence is as important as offence, but that doesn't mean that their equal, as offence can do defences job by simply removing the enemy from attacking back.

Offence by it's nature is superior to defence.

But that's not to say defence shouldn't be included at all.

So why in the hell do you believe I don't like or want defence?

Well, that the attack is the best defensive strategy is true in many scenarios.

But I personally read it as a complex dynamic, where having some units retreating and others flanking and others perhaps impacting with the enemy's front line, all work together in harmony (if harmony could be told about a battle).

So, in order to out smart my adversary I will have some softness in my lines, and I will have to maneuver carefully my troops (in groups). Specially if out numbered or closed to vital assets of my base.

In this scenario, having a little help will not change the outcome. It will just make my life easier, and allow me to focus on a bigger picture of the battle.

At least, that's how I see it.

More automation (implemented in an appropriate way, and on a well balanced game) can lead to more sophisticated dynamics in combat.

Hmmmmm................ it will take....time for me to accept this idea. It still seems wrong to me, but im not going to outright say................no to the though of it.

Because you seemed to be against having the ability to have your units act more defensively. As you said the concept seemed "so wrong". And I disagree with your idea that offence is somehow better than defense because it can do both jobs. The opposite is almost always true. Attacking should mostly be risky, vulnerable and expensive. If you can defend a strategic area well you waste the enemies resources and significantly improve your ability to attack.

Attacking should only be as risky as you choose to make it.

But this game is based on mobile warfair, not static trench based conflicts.

So defending is and always will be much much harder to pull off.

skirmishing is very unlikely to be a defensive mode, but rather a highly offensive mode to make high range units much more powerful.

Actually, come to think of it, none of the ideas suggested here even help with defending, you are either skirmishing or retreating, not holding ground.

Honestly, 'evade' and 'defend' aren't and shouldn't be synonymous. Its usefulness depends more on a unit's optimal range than on whether it's attacking or defending.

That's the thing though; right now the advance can work well automatically while the retreat can't. You can tell your units to move somewhere, to patrol something, area attack, you name it; roam will let them chase down units automatically. Will it be smart about it? Probably not. But it's much better than not having it.


Because of maneuver & roam slower, relatively short-ranged units without micro will still be fairly successful. You can often string up commands and then leave it be because of the maneuver & roam features. The gap between micro and no micro is there, but it isn't huge (although it used to be, back when inferno pathfinding was broken, making maneuver/roam a lot less useful for them).

Without constant micro, your units will get within range of your attacker, regardless of their speed or optimal range. For faster, longer ranged units this is far worse than with constant micro, so the gap between micro and no micro is massive.

By introducing an evading/retreating analog to maneuver/roam, yes, defending without constant micro becomes more effective. But if retreating proves to be too effective, then that means micro-ing those units is too. Unless you want those units to be balanced solely around whether or not they're micro'd, this can be seen as a balance problem with the unit.

(and for the record, I think shellers should have to stop for X amount of time in order to fire. Not a fan of their current mechanics)

I'll have to test that out, but yeah, that'd definitely be a problem.

I'm also not sure if using agressive_distance is the best idea; you don't have control over whether or not it's active, and ideally it would depend on the range of units you have vision of, and not an arbitrary range.

Yes, as you said, there is no way to defend without attacking.

But, what's the point for few tanks to hold ground against Vanguards? In order to defeat them my tanks need first to survive long enough. That sticks me with quite some micro that I would rather avoid.

On the other hand, what's the strategic value to send just few Vanguards into my base? This is a poor strategy and it works simply 'cos it forces me to out-micro the attack, wasting my time.

Vanguards shouldn't be so strong, and shouldn't be so effective in absence of other supporting units. But first, it should be easier to out maneuver them if they've been sent with no escorts.

If your tanks were put into a position to defend, without a command to purposely roam and patrol the area, then yeah, shouldn't they stand their ground against a approaching enemy?

Vanguards as currently, are horribly balanced, so yeah.

But I can understand giving units a specific order to do so like a patrol command and such, but having my units just start running around......

I am very used to having to make sure to assign my units a task if I don't want them to stand in place.

Sadly this doesn't seem to work for ground units. I would imagine it's unique to air and orbital.

Most of the time, yes. That's what I want from my tanks.

But sometimes, I would like to order them to retreat in case of danger. Perhaps not that often for tanks. More likely for scouts, or mobile artillery.

What's the point in letting you destroy one of my scout? It should have vision or radar coverage enough to out smart an attack. It just lack the intelligence for. (of course, unless I order it to hold its ground).

In case of mobile artillery, those are expensive pieces, and I can't stay all night baby sitting them. I would like to just tell them to get distance with the enemy when necessary.

Now, scouts have no weapons (or a ridiculous one). And mobile artillery should be heavily penalized when moving. Plus it should be slower than the average units, like tanks, and perhaps unable to fire at a very close range.

Which means that I need to support my mobile artillery with other troops, or you would simply smash them, despite them trying to retreat.

Still, I would like to have a little help, thinking forward so to say, when I place my units to bring an attack, or to hold a position.

Funny you say that, because turn-based games are not tactical. They are strategic. Tactics is more about time than strategy is. Strategy is your goal, and what you will do. Tactics is how you go about doing it. Time only affects strategy at a grand scale from start to finish. Situations you encounter in real-time making you think on your feet and change plans is all tactical.

Your decisions on a large scale in turn-based games stem from countering enemy moves and/or skills and planning your own moves in what order. None of this is time-restrained, and you don't "use" a skill a different way, nor are you required to think on the fly. That would make it tactical, and you cannot do that in a turn-based environment. Not that there's anything wrong with a turn-based environment, that's simply beyond the mechanical limit of how the environment works.

I agree with this on a fundamental level, but not.. word for word because I see it as the opposite. If someone is completely focusing on micromanaging units from artillery fire, they're not focusing on flanking with faster units, nor how they could assault that position differently without needing to send ground units to die in explosive rain from the sky.

I see this as a fail on the strategic level, not the tactical level. You could be the best PA micro-er in the world. You saved several dozen individual units in this scenario, but you're not thinking on a strategic scale, and don't throw bombers at the artillery, or flank them with long-ranged units while they're focus-firing on the force you're so meticulously hell-bent on saving. It was an exponential success at a tactical level, but a colossal failure at a strategic level.


I keep looking at Elodea's video of the Starcraft AI doing exactly what the top players are so afraid of. We already have an assault version of unit AI. Units will stay at range and move forward attacking anything in their path with 'Attack Move'. Defending units don't have this option, and will die miserably without player command. Why should we not have 'Defend Move'? If the skirmish unit AI is added, it will affect both units using attack move and those defending from attack move. It will create well-defined unit roles within the units we already have, and encourage players to diversify their forces, making a more well-balanced group. In theory, anyway, ignoring balance issues.

The way I see it, if your infernos die to skirmishing dox, then you are at fault for not thinking strategically. One type of short-ranged unit will not break a line of longer-ranged units smart enough to avoid it, and if you're not smart enough to figure out why a shotgun will never work against sniper rifle as long as they can see you coming at a mile's length, you deserve to lose. (an exaggerated example, but accurate nonetheless)

If you only think with tactics, and ignore strategy, you will lose, regardless of skirmish AI or not. It's an error in your playstyle and your decisions, not the currently bias mechanics.

100% agree with OP. It would allow the player to spend more time thinking at a strategic (macro) level instead of on the tactical (micro) level. Trust me; I wouldn't have pledged if @neutrino didn't say "I want to see massive battles. And massive battles taking place across planets." in the kickstarter pitch video.

Not to demean your argument but could we please, for all that is holy, leave those dreadfully overloaded terms out of this discussion? I'd rather stick to micro and macro, as ill-defined as they may be. Strategy and tactics are whatever anyone wants them to be, using them as the base of discussion only leads to tears and madness.
That said, given my definition and understanding of those terms I agree with you wholeheartedly.

In blackjack with all players card counting, the outcome is always mathematically pre-determined. It doesn't matter if I have 5 humans playing or 5 computers playing, and if i were to do double blind tests you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. That is what skirmish automation does, more so than most any other kind of automation.

In poker, you still have mathematical pre-determination, but there is also a player chaos element. You can bluff, read tells, high level mindgames etc. When there are 2 players left, it is usually almost always a mind game and never so much about what cards you actually have. The player with the better cards does not always necessarily win as would be guaranteed to happen in an automated system. There are just so many more variables that are all infused with a human variable - a skill curve so to speak.

Hope that explains the 'magic' for you.

In sc1, you had to individually select production buildings one by one. sc2 deemed this pointless micro and allowed players to select all production buildings at the same time to produce units from just one group hotkey. That's step 1

Step 2 is when you move from a pay upfront system to a pay as you go system, which makes continuous mode a good idea.

Area orders does not mean the 'better micro has no advantage'. It just means he gains less relative advantage because of the reduced minimum apm requirement and higher accessibility (a good thing).

This is not the same as skirmish automation where the most efficient command is to relinquish all control to the AI, and all human input becomes subpar.

You can stutter step in PA but for different reasons - to dodge predicted projectile fire. But the benefit is miniscule and situational as it should be, which is what keeps players playing as they try and master every single possible advantage with increasing difficulty. At the heart of it, everyone plays to beat their opponent/s, and that inherently means they play to become better at the game. All that needs to happen is a ladder that matches players of the same skill level.

As for no movement while shooting, sc2 needs this for very specific balance and legacy reasons that do not exist in PA. It's entirely contextual. For example, sc2 doesn't have resource points all over the map. It makes sense to allow players to move through mex fields while killing them at the same time as it lends value to the positional battle of preventing tank run bys in the first place (since you will not catch up to them once past). It is a different type of movement gameplay with planetoid maps.

Answered this one already in some detail, so i don't want to do it again for TL;DR. Basically, 'skill curve' and human control.

Your points are logically inconsistent.
1. If it was in the game, why would I not want to use automatic skirmish? It gives the best possible combat outcomes and is better than anything I could possibly achieve myself. Would i find it enjoyable to use? No. Would i still want to use it if ingame? No.
2. The point of micro is to further the goal of having a game between players with many meaningful levers and buttons for player interaction. I don't want to watch a movie as much as I want to play a game of 'wit and skill' with another human being.
3. This is the same as taking the sauce out of your bigmac, and when it ends up not tasting as good, claiming it's because the rest of the burger has not enough flavour - not because it didn't have any sauce to begin with... The sauce is an integral part of the package to begin with and proved it's value by making the burger more flavoursome.

When you automate skirmish, you no longer have a grey area in combat mechanics. There is only one mathematically best unit composition because the ai can exploit it's full potential without apm constraints. You can make the balance numbers complex as a sleight of hand, but the outcomes remain predictable and binary. Game design is about simplicity leading to complexity, not complexity leading to simplicity.

For example, I could make tanks accelerate slower so an attacking inferno + tank vs defending pure tank would mean that the first line of pure tank will get caught by the 2nd line of tanks in an attacking army. Skirmish automation pre-determines that the attacking player will trade some fixed number of infernos for the entire first line of the defending players tanks.

All of this is tightly controlled and simulated with no human error so there is negligible variation in the metal lost outcome. There is nothing players can do to get a better outcome. So either inferno + tank is better than pure tank or it is not. Everyone either builds inferno + tank, or just pure tank. Or if it is absolutely balanced, the choice of unit composition becomes just many different flavours of the same amount of icecream. Nothing but playing dress ups.

Manual control in the absence of automated skirmish however allows different compositions to be differently effective and avoids the above pre-determination. Player A might choose to spend his time controlling an evenly matched battle to gain advantage there, but loses more advantage than he gained in another battle somewhere else that Player B chose to spend his attention on instead.

Then those skirmishing units are being hard countered by the chasing units simple as that. No-one would build skirmish units unless the map greater than x size. Skirmish automation lays all cards on the table and says you either absolutely win or absolutely lose.

I also said you can't use this fools gold logic, and that's for two main reasons.
1. One automation ensures your units keep at maximum range, the other automation ensures your units stop moving at maximum range but does nothing to keep them there. A-move and auto skirmish are both very different in nature.
2. a move does not reduce the burden of micro for the attacker relative to the defender. These terms are dumb and once you're able to look past the dress-up you'll see how bankrupt this 'micro burden' arguement is. The attacker could be the one using the long range 'skirmishing' units just as easily as the defender. You don't need to be retreating to be defending.

So the real question is, does attack move unfairly reduce the burden of micro for players using chaser units? No. It produces the same outcome as if the chasing player just used a vanilla move command, only the unit will stop to perform the attack instead of continuing to move. The only difference is the way the pathing is treated and how formations keep their shape - totally irrelevant variables when it comes to this claim of unfair micro burden.

It's funny, because sometimes a-move benefits the skirmisher more than the chaser because your units will stop at max range to attack. a-move does not systematically discriminate against any group of play or players.

The problem is not any sort of imbalance, but lower depth of gameplay. You could very well balance for auto skirmish just as you could most any design concept. You'd just take into account each unit is going to be exploited to their full mathematical potential regardless of apm.

There isn't any specific variable or attribute in particular, although acceleration will be a big one when it comes to trying to make the game feel halfway decent. You will probably even have to add some randomness to the underlying unit stats to keep it interesting and compensate for the lack of variable player input.

Importantly, these knife edge balance numbers would have to change from map to map. Otherwise on larger than average maps, the skirmish units would have advantage while on smaller maps, the chaser units would have advantage etc. So the question is, why bother with all this added round-about complexity when the benefit is questionable at best even when you yolo ignore all the obvious negatives

You keep repeating that argument. I don't think you know what it means.

The point of micro is to waste time. This is necessary in games which offer little diversion in the strategic layer in oder to distract players from those shortcomings, also since there is no other possible metric for "skill" in such games.
Also note that the maps in such games are ALWAYS designed in such way that you have three possible front lines at most, typically only two whereby one can be blocked off.

This differs fundamentally from higher order RTS with wide maps and a virtually unlimited number of possible attack vectors. There are other metrics to measure skill, and neither is there any need to waste time on purpose.

That's like saying "we should have dices in Chess because it works so well in Ludo".

Sigh...

An action is an action, whether its in the context of what we call macro management or micro management. I could switch 'micro' in your post for 'macro' vice versa and it would be just as indistinguishable.

You adjust the rewards for each type of action and increase accessibility where you can, but you do not completely remove them.

Ok, well this has got to be a troll post... If so, 10/10 you got me.

Rofl. no, it's simply saying the optimal move shouldn't automated. Is the optimal move automated for the player in either chess or ludo? Jesus christ.

If a game could go in auto-pilot as you say, better I go watching a movie.

I don't think PA is that kind of game. Battles are way more complex than what you describe. If you were to be right, PA is doing it very wrong (but it is not).

For once, small automatic behaviors (like retreating if ordered so), allow the player to put in action more complex strategies (and tactics), so that more factors will be in play. Because the player will be empowered with a better UI.

I think you are extremely over picturing an outcome that is far than probable. A Skirmish mode will change nothing in the essence of the game. It will simply allow us to better control our troops.

It's still us to give the order. Instead to use tons of click (and attention - time) we will pre-order units to do something we want them doing.

It's as simple as that.

PA is a Real Time Strategy game, millions tiny factors are in play, that's not a game with a dozen cards played by grandmas. And if you consider how critical intelligence is in PA, for absurd it's actually closer to poker than blackjack.

Again Elodea thanks for the responses, i can finally understand your worries. Your main concern is that such a unit stance can end up determining the outcome of battles always due to unit composition, so the battle is won and lost before it even begins, your input has no influence in the outcome, and for you and lot of people that is where most of the fun of the game actually is. Am I correct?
And i think you would be right if there were only a few vectors of attack. But this game has very open battlefields, and i think if this stance was introduced you would actually gain options. Right now we are so focused on making units do their basic things to survive that it leaves no time to do more complex maneuvers in one engagement. You rarely see flanking, envelopment, or any kind of advanced maneuvers in this game usually battles are a tug of war between two armies clashing head first into one another.
But if the basics of unit movement are automated the possibility of these kinds of maneuvers becomes a reality, and that is where your micro will be.
There is a side effect of this stance that haven't been discussed that it will probably separate your army into layers, where unit groups will be separated by range and speed when retreating. If right before an engagement u send a small force of tanks to the outside of the enemy army, they can catch a group of enemy light units completely unprotected. You send a bombing run against the main line that is now too far from the protection of the AA. This is real tactics. The combat is not automated, it just changes the level of the micro you will be doing. And i believe that that is the micro people find more fun.