Unit skirmish button!

Tbh, I feel like having every unit evade the attack range of every other units when set to evade could be quite annoying to both sides.
AA and combat fabbers should try to stay out of range of other units as you described (but should probably be slower than many other units so they can be caught) but e.g. Dox running away from tanks could be quite annoying...because to fight a mixed army of Tanks and Infernos, you would have to turn Evade off and therefore the whole purpose would be defeated.

Attack commands override roam, etc. I'm pretty sure. Could be wrong about that. You could also use it to kite infernos that happen to roam too far from the laser tanks. And let's be honest, with the current balance your dox won't stand much of a chance inside the tanks range anyway. The point of the command is not to help a unit like the dox fight mixed armies, especially those with longer range units in the mix. If you want to walk into range of some units but not others because you're up against a mixed army, you would probably have to micro, and you probably wouldn't want to use evade mode.
Otherwise you would need a skirmish mode to chase down enemies or kite them depending on the range difference between units. Not much more complicated for the computer, but this is what people were worrying about because it seemed too automated; it's making behavioural decisions based on the units involved.

I really think that most of the arguments here boil down to what kind of general game experience players want to have between what I call "being the General" (coordinating the battle from a distance) and "being the Sergeant" (coordinating every action of each tactical force) on the battle field. Some call this Macro vs Micro, but I am beginning to think that those terms are too watered down to illustrate their meaning effectively. Most players in this thread see the need for both elements in PA, but are arguing for more of one element over the other, based on personal preference (which is based for the most part from limited past experiences), or personal strengths (which would give them an advantage in the game). The arguments that I have seen are mostly based on specific references to what is currently in the game, because it is hard to see beyond it. I'm thinking that it needs to be more abstract.

I really believe that arguing exclusively for one element over the other is really kind of pointless, for the simple fact that you will never be able to effectively win an argument that is based solely on opinion. Arguments based on opinion will go on and on forever. To that end, it would be much more effective to just take a poll and see how many prefer which thing. The challenge with a poll is presenting meaningful options to vote on, however, so as not to influence the outcome.

Having said that, my opinion is that I would like to have the opportunity to be both the General and the Sergeant in PA at any point in time, throughout the course of each game. Smaller scale games should require more Sergeant level play, and larger scale games should require more General level play. To me, it doesn't make sense to force too much Macro-management on players involved in a quick 10-20 min game. Conversely, it doesn't make sense to me to to force too much Micro-management on players involved in a 60+ min game.

In general, there should be tools/options available in the game to enable the player to effectively incorporate any level of play that they prefer. However, effective Micro-management as well as effective Macro-management should be rewarded equally (if possible). I generally agree that "being the Sergeant" in any focused engagement should deliver an advantage to the human player over allowing any amount of AI control. However, as the scale of the game increases, that advantage should diminish and not grossly outweigh the advantages of focusing on "being the General" in the overall outcome of the game. I also believe that, like a real life General on the battlefield, you should be able to make strategic decisions and rely on your troops/units to be able to carry out your orders with a certain level of autonomy. Once again, any force should benefit from direct control, but should also be able to operate on their own somewhat effectively as well, without requiring direct control. I really see this as satisfying almost everyone, if implemented properly. I don't think that anyone saw the Kickstarter video and bought PA thinking that it would be all high APM, or all Risk style play, that would win every game. I really believe that there is room for both styles of play to be incorporated effectively into the game, and deliver a satisfying experience for everyone.

I'm all for making units smarter, making this game more macro based, and making the player feel more like the 'General' rather than the 'Sergeant'. The last one is, actually, what was marketed to the players in many early videos. It's one of the big things that made me buy into it.

The opponents of this thread deny wanting to even play with the idea of anything similar to the 'skirmish button' while promoting heavy micro-play. Now, I don't mind micro, but there is no god damned way anyone here is going to be microing every army on every planet at every angle in the game sizes we don't even have yet. This game scales to the point where we can have multiple dozen people controlling the same exact army to help relieve that issue. The issue remains, and it's an issue caused by limited player control. We can only do so many things at once. Some of us way more than others, but nonetheless it is an inevitable fact. No one person can do everything. We will eventually hit the limit.

I believe those who don't want any type of autonomy whatsoever are either afraid of losing to players because their Starcraft APM won't carry them to win anymore, or don't have a true understanding of how large this game will eventually scale. Or both. I really don't know. Boy, I bet that statement made a lot of people mad. Good, get mad. <3

What I'm curious is what exactly you envision with what level of autonomy. What do you want to see your units do when encountered by advancing Infernos? What do your dox do?


Personally, I'd like for them to strafe around the target but never actually leave the area, so if you can pincer them in two angles, they fall prey to focusing on one unit instead of the entire force. The unit AI has to be smart, but not that smart. Micro can win, but I'm thinking about movement angles, pincers, flanking, a more 'strategic' micro instead of a 'tactical' micro. If that makes sense?

The video Elodea posted is exactly what I want units to do and not do at the same time. They circle-strafe the attacking units. This is good, and what I think PA needs. They backtrack forever eventually killing their attackers. This is the grey area that I don't want. If you're bringing a wide wall of units into a base, I expect defending units to either look for a way around the army (and perhaps die in the process), or hold the line. If they find themselves walking backwards through the base that's now destroyed, they've already failed, so it shouldn't even be a factor. A wise one once said, "Do.. or do not. There is no try."

My views on what kind of autonomy may not even be what we really need, but what I do know is that this game will become bigger than we ever will. If it doesn't have some type of scaling unit behavior.. If we don't even think about the high-end future scalability, this game will never reach it's true potential.

Thank you, good sir, now I am utterly confused as to what *I* want. Intuitively I would have taken the exact opposite stance on the subject matter. But now I am not so sure anymore. Circle manoeuvres are more interesting, backtracking is easier and both more efficient and predictable.
Normally I would just say let us mod both things in and see which one is better, but that should prove difficult. I shall ponder the possibilities and come back with a conclusion of my own.

I wholeheartedly agree with the first half of your post (which was as long as mine, by the way ). It was pretty much what I stated in my earlier very long post that probably not many people read. haha I thought it was curious that nobody from the purely micro-management side of the argument attempted to address how the game would be playable at larger scales (of which we do not see being created at this point) without some level of automation. I personally think that would be like you were effectively disconnected from the game from the perspective of never being able to directly manage over 90% of your forces at any time. How could that gaming experience possibly be satisfying for anyone?

Having said that, I think that I completely (and respectfully) disagree with your ideas about how the unit automation should work. I would like to see unit automation that mimics human control of the group more closely, or else you are feeding into the argument that elodea was trying to make, and I agree with him about not making unit automation too powerful. If it worked so brutally efficiently, who would ever choose human control? I do like the element of human control, and I don't want to see it completely lose out to unit automation. Essentially, effective human micro should be rewarded. Using the same example, units should not efficiently split up and back up at the same time, because no human would ever be able to perform that level of coordination. Instead, I think they should stay in a group and generally retreat in the direction of your forces, so as to be intelligently reinforced at some point. And to address your point about them backing up into your base only to have it destroyed, I think that their behavior should be configurable by the player to do what they want. If unit self-preservation was the preference, then retreat to a point of reinforcement, which could possibly mean a base. If holding the line at all costs was the preference, than that should be a choice as well, as well as find the safest path to a destination (so attempting to travel around an enemy army).

Again, the main point here is that these unit behaviors should not be necessary in a small scale game, and shouldn't be brutally efficient either. My thought here is that if a General came out of the command center to direct his troops in the field of battle, then they should benefit from that direct control in a meaningful way. If not, then it would be a very different game, and in my opinion, not as interesting. In this way, I really support both perspectives, and I think a good balance between direct control and automation can be achieved without forcing the player to do either one. However, player skills being equal, more effective low level control should usually win in small scale games, and more effective high level control should usually win in larger scale games.

Good post. This is exactly what I was looking for that I didn't see whatsoever from many people here.

The way you read mine and explained your side feels to me like.. if we saw one specific scenario played out exactly the same way, we both like what happens, yet we both think it's the exact opposite of the other's view. Weird, but that's sort of what it feels like.

That said, it's 10:25 in the morning and I haven't slept yet. I'm really broken right now, so I'll come back groggy and grouchy as I am every morning and give your post a much more thorough read. More accurate post-processing is preferred. (Pun totally intended) Won't be grouchy in my post though, promise. I won't even bite.

Unless you want me to. ;D

Blar. Imma vampire. goawaygoodnight.

Haha...yeah, I'm thinking that you need more sleep! Not sure that we are on the same page with that one, but give 'er another try in the morning.

Oh, and I'm a vampire too. Got a good 3 hrs of sleep last night myself! My big average is about 5 hrs most nights! In fact, I'm surprised I even make sense to anyone half of the time!

Right, so I tried to do some type of visual thing to explain what kind of scenario I'm imagining, but the in-game cheats either don't work, or something's broken. I can't create a game in sandbox mode, there's literally no option, and then to top that off, even if I did add an AI, he'd control everything I tried to set up, which is total garbage.

And there's also no way to bring up the spawn units menu that's supposed to be enabled in the cheats menu. It does nothing in-game. Alas, I've got no idea how to put my thoughts into images. I'm not even going to touch paint because I've been there, tried explaining ideas with that thing for several years, to dozens of people. Doesn't work. Never did.

I guess until I have the ability to explain thoughts through images without everything failing in some way, I've got nothing. :/ Feel free to throw ideas at me, though.

The game you were describing (sorry it's from like, page 2!) sounds a lot like Gratuitous Space Battles. You set up the formation and design of your ships and the weapon AIs and let them go at someone else's design, you do NOTHING else during the battle.

I don't know, I think that a storyboard kind of thing using Paint, or whatever, with multiple frames to show complex action would work for me personally. Not sure about everyone else. Not sure if the mod "Sketch Tools for Casters" still works or not, but that might be cool to use to enable you to draw over an actual PA replay/stream, or you could use something like the Snag-It Editor with screen captures as well, I guess.

Neutrino said that he is against this skirmish mode idea today on the reddit, during the QA thing.

Edit: http://www.reddit.com/r/planetaryan...ibf2/planetary_annihilation_qa_with_neutrino/

It's way down in there somewhere. But the whole thing is worth a read anyways.

As expected.

I´ve been reading this thread, and it seems like most players expect a automated kiting, since the skirmish button vill be to attack from maximum distance, and run away if enemy comes close, which would seem like it does take out a bit of management that should require micro. A suggestion of how to balance it would be if it was a pure reatreat button, where the troops will run back when enemy is too close, but wont walk back but stay at the position they end up with, not start chasing after enemy units, only firing at units in range and not engage. this would be a small automation that keeps your units alive while away, but you could still micro your units away from reatreating units, and maybe do a ''dumb'' reatreatment where units only may reatreat straight backwards from enemies, resulting in flanking from two directions a good micro move to defeat the automation, but also giving the defending player a little more time which he may see the flanking and micro the units out of the situation and start kiting by micro. Although i do see the problem where the player may just move his units straight up away from the attackers, so that they will all end up on one side of the army and the automation could begin reatreating the units.

So basically a pure reatreat-button instead of ''auto-kiting.''

The only way to balance it would be that the retreating unit will make sure the enemy doesnt enter it's own weapon range. This means that every unit has their own retreat distance. Units will be running away on their own, but they wont be 'kiting' since they're staying out of range.

That was very informative. Thanks for that.

I understand his view of the game playing itself. That's a grey area for me as well. My only problem is that attack move is literally the same aspect in reverse, yet it's totally ok. You don't tell your units to stop and attack things on their way, they do all of the micro automatically. No matter how many things are in their path. This is the definition of automation. If someone wants to hide behind the 'Well I gave the attack move order' excuse, then I'll expect them to show me how to micro each individual unit the same way attack move units function in one action. One click. But they can't because it's not physically possible.

Attack move is a bias mechanic. A good mechanic, but a bias one nonetheless. I think the idea of units backing up is what the pro-micro players don't want.

It's kind of like this.. *plays around in Macromedia Fireworks*

[/WAY later] ..and now Fireworks is being complete trash, and won't do anything I tell it to. Who's ever heard of drawing freehand? In fact, what the hell is a circle? Curved lines? Never heard of them. Explorer.exe keeps crashing to which I spend several minutes getting it back up and running just for it to stop responding and crash again. Over and over. Day keeps getting better and better. The only thing I've done in the last four hours is ruin a screenshot's entire canvas because I've saved over the original like a dumbass.. I can't use this software to save my life, and my computer won't even let me try. gg no re.

Spend years working with the thing without any issues about a decade back and suddenly I've regressed into a five-year old. Wtf. I'll get back to this when I can talk to someone who actually knows what the hell they're doing with the damn thing.


To make it clear, my original idea was to manipulate a single screenshot I was able to take during my failed attempt at facing the AI in a "sandbox" mode (since I have no access to the real thing). I had a decent shot but it's.. not exactly my ideal screenshot. I can always just use my own units instead of a separate color, but that'll bug the hell out of me. Not like I have a choice, I guess. Plus I can view the unit ranges too, so that'll help.

In fact, I think I'll get the sketch tools for casters sometime later in order to demonstrate it within the game so I don't have to play with Fireworks at all.

Unless the evasion manoeuvre is instantaneous, though, they would still have a short window of opportunity to fire a shot while commencing to run away.
So you would need to use a range significantly larger than a unit's weapon range as the 'evasion perimeter' to truly get rid of skirmishing behaviour.
But I fail to see the point in this. Why would I want my units to gimp themselves? If automated retreat causes annoyances and balance issues, then so does manual retreat. I would rather those imbalances be exposed than having to exploit/compensate for them by hand.

edit:
Just leaving that quote from @neutrino in here from the last Q&A on reddit:

"I think automated kiting is going too far. If a player wants to spend their time on micro they are allowed to but my guess is they will get rolled by the player who is expanding on all front and paying more attention to meta strategy."
In other words: Automated kiting is unfair, since the player having to micro to not get swamped will loose on the macro-level anyways due to the time spent on micro.
I do not even...

If the enemy would attack with artillery or other long range units, the defenders will still stand ground. If the attackers would engage with medium to short range units, the defenders units would then try to hold the ground, but reatreat if the enemy comes close to inferno/vanguard range the defenders would reatreat, unless there was other enemies behind or if flanked from left and right. It would be easy to defeat this automation with micro, but if attacker just sent in the troops and let them work themself, it would be attack AI vs Defence AI, and even with attack micro vs defence ai the defenders would have a little bit more chance against micro, although not much if the attacker knows how to micro this well. So those who thinks it would be like AI working out good kiting-defence, it would be a rather simple reatreat, that you can defeat, but will be harder still than just units standing still or engaging against possible infernos/vanguards, since those really easily can take down a non-micro defence.

Atleast that´s how i figured it could be .

Me, too, I just wanted to clarify a perveived (!) flaw in taxman's approach. Irrespective of the idea behind that.

Anyway, I will stay away from this thread for the time being. @neutrino 's post on reddit left me with the impression that there is no clear vision at Uber as to what constitutes a macro game and how lack of automation forces tedious micro and exacerbates balance issues.
'Do not worry about micro, it is ineffectual. Here, have some more micro to keep up with all the awesome automation we provided for the macro player. '
I need a cup of tea.

Well what can i say, ultimately it is them who are building the game. The design choices fall on their lap. I would just like to hear they discuss this with us, but it seems, Uber is not interested in the idea, not even to the point of engaging a discussion with the player base about it. Proof of that is that this is one of the longest and more prolific discussions in these forums and uber haven't got a single post in it.