Unit skirmish button!

This is such a pointless thread, it's a shame so many people actually like the idea of no micro. I wish someone would close it to be honest.

Skirmish button is bad and limits a player's skill, end of story.

Well that game is based around the lack of control.

Again putting words in our mouth. PLEASE STOP.

It´s not about ''No micro at all'' but a button that will keep your units alive a little longer whilst not micro them, by making them avoid close combat with too many units/infernos and vanguards.

Maybe the real problem many of us have is not actually the absense of a Skirmish Stance but the inclusion of units like the Inferno and the Sniperbot that really force either the player that uses them or the player that opposes them into microing his armies.

I think there is a reason why such units were not in Supreme Commander, I never felt the need for such automization there.

Edit:
@neutrino
I understand that you don't want your words to be taken out of context and that you get annoyed if people interprete them in ways you didn't mean them.
But you also need to remember that all people have to go on when it comes to a game that is either unfinished or maybe even in the very first stages of development (which is when you said those words) are your words.

And some of the words you and your team said, appeared to have quite a clear meaning when it comes to the direction of this game or certain balance decisions.
Of course, there are logical reasons for changing your stance on such statements, or maybe they have just been misunderstood but you might agree that it is pretty easy to misunderstand those words.

So, while it is understandable that you are annoyed by people complaining about such things, you might consider being a bit more understanding about people being angry for wasting their money on a game you didn't intend to make

I am by no means telling you to shut up or something, but when there is communication there are errors and usually it's not only one side that has the right to complain.

no it does not ... at all
and no the thread is not pointless
it is asking for a function that helps players managing their armies a bit better from when they cant look because they have more important things to do like keeping their eco and production together managing logistic army transfers , stuff like that...
it's incredibly annoying and frustrating to lose a group of units just because you didn't look at it for those few seconds ...
nobody asks for full automatic combatmanagment but mere basic behavior
because losing an unwatched standing group to infernos that could easily just fall back in one general direction is such a waste ... and again this is a macro game people want as less micro as nessesary (yes ... as nessesary ... not as possible)
also stop putting words into peoples mouths ... no one ever said they want micro entirely removed ...

If everyone lets the game play itself then there will be a skill limit. If no one pays attention to their armies they will lose.

You never want a skill limit in any game, and you always want to pay attention.

Obviously this game is about macro more than micro, but if you lose tanks to infernos from not looking is your own fault. If your eco is being harassed, open up the secondary window to keep an eye on fabbers.

Let me use an analogy since some of you don't get it:
Huge conflicts like the Battle of Midway in WWII are obviously (dont laugh) macro intensive. The commanding officers gave the general direction and the units followed. But of course, that was not enough. In the small armies the units had to be micromanaged in order to be most effective. Like setting up snipers in the back instead of on the front line. Or, if soldiers were like robots and had no consciousness, and they were not microed to stay away from the army, they would lose. In some cases that micromanaging was the determining factor between victory and defeat.

I am not saying this would remove micro completely. I am saying whoever pays attention will win.

Any RTS game should be the same way, no matter how large the scale. If someone has a legit APM of 200, they will always beat a player with an APM of 80 (given they know how to play)

I really think a skirmish button would be bad for this game.

This is a STRATEGY game. Not a "I can click faster than you can therefore I win" game. If I can execute a better strategy than you can then the fact that your APM is 180 and mine is only 115 shouldn't matter.

NO ONE asks for the game to play itself
no one EVER did
people are asking for a simple BASIC retreat/fall backfunction ...

so every rts should be the same? so like starcraft f.e.?
were you have to babysit every single unit ?... stutterstepping ?
millimeteracurate spellcasting? needlessly complicated and clickintesiv gameplay?
he who clicks and executes faster wins?
so basicly anyone who knows well to macro but is a bit slower in commanding his armies is not allowed to have fun or ever win?
do you fear such a person to become number one in ranked just because of that function?
i want to enjoy the game ...
not be stressed out and frustrated ...

Well, I'd like reduced micro, since I'm not a competitive player.

Also, something this thread omitted, why should it be just as good as manual micro? Why can't it just make defensive units slightly more effective? Build up a powerful microing skirmish AI, then handicap the heck out if it. It's better than the units sitting there being stupid, getting killed, and it still isn't all that effective.

Micro should always be better, otherwise why play the game? Anyway, Neutrino said he doesn't think it's the greatest idea and doesn't really like it, so why are we arguing over it?

What part about a skirmish button has to do with strategy. Absolutely nothing. I even think it reduces strategy.

I'm not saying having a higher APM will win a game. But i do know the players that micro more win more. Take Foerest for example.

Hmmm, if there was a skirmish button maybe i would not lose so bad to players like him...

I will say it again and keep saying it: pay attention or lose.

To add to this, any argument about 'playing the game for you' or some other hyberbole or slippery slope argument is probably going to annoy people. And a different level of automation is NOT equivalent to a lowered skill ceiling.

You don't seem to be making a big enough effort to look at the other side of this argument. People aren't advocating this because they think 'micro too hard'. For me, it's not even about automation per se.
In my opinion, there is a balance problem caused by what is and is not automated right now, and I think it could have a negative effect on unit balance until it is changed. I don't think this issue can be fixed by unit stats alone.
Others have voiced their opinions that the level of automation doesn't scale well with the scale of the game. I don't really agree with that point, but arguing that less automation = more skill only applies if players have come near a skill cap for macro-management. Less time spent on micro = more time spent on macro if they're right. Arguing that less time spent on micro = a lower skill cap is only right if we've come close to the skill cap for macro too.

But what on earth could my balance concern be? Well, I obviously don't have real figures here, but I'm going to use a mock-up graph because I'm not a fantastic wordsmith. It's not a good mock up either, it's just made by feel (the only thing that really matters in it is the height differences anyway), it also doesn't take any nuances or multiple scenarios into account because it's just a simple bar graph. It's also theorycrafting, but I think it conveys my point... mostly.


You have grenadiers at your base, I have infernos. I send the infernos toward your base, maybe queue up an attack command or two, and then go about my business.
Microing the infernos isn't exactly worth the effort here. Their auto-maneuver behaviour is pretty ideal, and while you can improve on it, you don't usually have to. If they start getting kited, retreating really isn't an option anyway. They're too slow for that.
So while letting them sit in a field is pretty useless, the advantage of microing them over a simple order isn't significant.

Now let's look at you and your grenadiers. You've built a counter to my infernos, faster and longer ranged, you should have the advantage on any even terms.
But there's one problem; the only way to take advantage of that extra range and extra speed is micro. Auto-attack will do nothing to keep your grenadiers from standing still while infernos hug them. You're not benefiting from automation here, but I am, even when you built my counter.
So in order to counter my infernos, you clearly need to micro your grenadiers. And keep microing them. And keep microing them. I don't.
Now you've wasted far too much time on a menial task, and haven't gained much for it. The cost of an inferno can be made up easily in wasted time.

Couldn't we just balance around this? I don't think so. If grenadiers are made effective against infernos in un-microed situations, by a damage buff or some other kind of buff, their effectiveness microed skyrockets even more. Now we've gone from a cheezy inferno problem to OP grenadiers. You'll have a hard time scaling a unit's effectiveness under one level of control without scaling the rest in proportion, there's no way to get a good relationship here without killing unit roles or changing/adding to the mechanics.
This is one reason why I suggested an evade behaviour mode alongside the maneuver and hold position ones; it gives you an option that lets you order your units to 'evade' instead of attack. You still need situational awareness to pick between these modes at a given time, but you don't need to continue babysitting your units in order to take advantage of range and speed differences.

Of course, all theorycrafting. I can't test an implementation yet. It's just a hypothesis, but it should still warrant a rebuttal.

telling your units what to do when not getting active orders is a very meaningfull decision to make otherwise why is there even a roam manuver and stand groundfunction in the first place ... so i already have options for my armies to attack hunt and defend without having to intervene all the time ... does that take away from strategy? i dont think so...
so why cant we have an option/function that tells units to get out of enemy range? how does that exacly take away from strategy when i still have to tell my armies where to go, were to position themselfes what to attack when to attack ...
so of all things that are possible why is a fallbackfuntion the one thing that under any circumstances is not allowed to be a thing ...
why do i allways have to intervene to tell my groups when to piss off instead of them knowing to piss off when under fire and not getting the order to move in and attack,
but everything else that can be considered offensive or a resistence is not nessesarily needing my constand intervention ...

I do think 'piss off'-mode should have to be manually set for the group ahead of time though. At least to quell fears of too much automation. It should be a conscious decision, but I don't think it should be one that requires a continuous effort.

Alright, guess i'm just a person that likes to do things manually. I'd rather not have anything automated TBH, except of course unit paths and some other stuff i can't think of right now. This has been one of the better arguments I've had on a thread.

If I had to vote on this idea I'd say no.

Here's a slightly off-topic question/comment that might help to show where to people advocating this are coming from.

RTS games are supposed to be about the player being a 'General' or similar leader, right? So why are we forced to play as everything from the Squad commander on up? (I'd say something about infantry, but it's not quite that bad in most cases)

In most armies a 'General' does not have to individually order each trooper to attack a specific target at a specific time. It is likely that instead each trooper is trained to react in certain ways to each circumstance and then follows that reaction unless it is overridden their orders.

This training is basically what we're talking about. Currently there is a single reaction that the units are 'trained' to use in all circumstances; 'Move into range, open fire while in range'. What we would like to have included is to have this changed to; 'Move into range, open fire while in range, if (target is closing while in range) move away from target'.

This is a simple change to the existing unit behaviour that would greatly increase the scalability of the control UI and also allow players to be far closer to the 'General' they are supposed to be rather than having to get bogged down with minutia.


A more perfect solution in my eyes (but horrendously more complicated) would be to implement something like the AI's squad command stuff for players and allow players to set-up how that reacts to different situations. With players giving things like 'Raid' commands as opposed to 'Move through this area' (and hope the group is big enough to kill what it comes across until you look again) or 'Assault this base, from your current location' vs 'Attack Move towards this point'.

I doubt this will be in any time before or even soon after launch, but it is something that I will likely look into trying to mod in if I don't see someone else doing so as I feel it would be good to see how the game changes just with this addition.

Yea this was a bit extreme. It is just hard to get any information when there is so little discussion. Real exchanges of opinions (and the possibility of opinions changing) need long discussions. But even talking to the most active people on the forum would take up all your time. So I suppose I have to hope that UI modding is powerful enough for a demonstration.

How does everyone feel about auto-dodge?

It could probably be quite annoying for attackers, but it makes some sense if you make it as a stance for bots, since they are easy to kill but very quick compared to other land units, and if you leave bots (about 20) for 5 seconds a few tanks (about 3) will destoy them.

It could maybe be part of the evasion/skirmish/reatreat-stance?

EDIT: fixed Grammar

not sure .... i think that could be too effective and annoying against artillery especialy with fast moving units