It seems Uber has basically excluded the possibility of advanced unit behaviors like auto-swarm, but garat confirmed stuffs like projectile dodging will still be a big deal in the game, so I'm a bit in doubt, how can PA's unit interactions be truely scalale? Since the game will be majorly played on multiple spheres, I'm pretty sure multitasking will be hindered by camera controls a lot, it's hard to imagine unit interactions that need a lot of manual management to function can be truely scalale in this case.
I think you might be reading too much into garat's statement. I interpeted it as saying that projectile dodging will be in the game and it will have some influence on battles. Not that when you are battling across 4 planets, dodgin rockets will be your primary concern. They repeatledly stated that they don't want micromanaging armies to be a thing in PA so I don't see why would they change their minds now.
I hope this won't be the case, unit interactions are much more interesting with stuffs like kiting, dodging, hit and run etc, all of them need a lot of management, I still think it is better to automate them than simply make them not important.
:roll: What do you want? Massive Battles or Micromanagement? You can't expect to have both. The Total-War series gets away with very little micromanagement for the size of battle it presents. I can sit in my armchair giving about seven or eight orders per minute and still win 99% of my games against the AI... and about 60% against humans. Ideally for myself I'd prefer my APM to not have to exceed about 20 or 30 even when dealing with 10+ celestial bodies.
Well I might be missing something, but if those are automated doesn't it kinda defeat the purpose? I mean yeah, it probably looks cooler, but if both armies are automatically managed, then the end result is as if they weren't managed at all.
The purposse is about the unit interactions, not about the micro skill. With kiting the ranged units can counter slow close combat units, with dodging fast units can counter units with low projectile speed, with hit and run high alpha units can counter low alpha units etc. Without them the game's counter relationships would have to be a lot more simpler, unless it use some damage/armor types, but using damage/armor types is really not a intuitive way to establish counter relationships.
There are a lot of ways to achieve desired units interactions. Basing it on scripted unit behaviour is problemtaic, f.e scripted behaviour would need to outperfom human control or the added benefit of micromanaging would have to be small. In general automated unit behaviour such as kiting has a lot of gameplay implications. There may be situations where you would prefer your units not kite, this would require a behaviour switch which in itself would be a micromanagment task. Not to mention that coding such unit behaviour is a challenge in itself. Unfortunately these types of discussions doesn't work well in vacuum since the exact gameplay is still largely unknown. EDIT: Unit interactions based on autmated behaviour at heart aren't really different form armor/damage types. The beauty of micromanaging, kiting/dodging etc. is that it is not binary, it depends on how well a player performs it. Counters are soft. If you automate it you end up with a situation akin to damage/armor types: fast units counter slow. Armored units counter light. A binary matter, either something works or not. It seems to me like a lot of effort for smilar returns.
I guess we are in loop discussion now, so I won't speak much. But unit interactions based on autmated behaviour are acutally quite different to armor/damage types since they are related to the game's physical aspect, for example, a fast unit can't dodge well if there isn't enough room for its movement, a ranged unit can't kite well if it's being sandwhiched by enemies etc.
Why are these mutually exclusive? Nanolathe, I find you typically have well formed opinions so don't take this personally. Frequently members of the community confuse managing a battle with starcraft-esque micromanagement. The difference between these two is an order of magnitute - employing feigns, retreats, formations, delay tactics, skirmishing, flanking, pitching, etc. are a strategic level higher than unit micromanagement. The equivalent of starcraft micro would be dodging projectiles, strafing and kiting. The latter being something many want automated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_doctrine I'm also not sure what these players expect to do while playing if they aren't managing battles. How fun is managing your stream economy, buildings MEXs and click dragging lines of power generators, maybe putting the occasional factory on loop? Removing the necessity of battle-level management would in fact add more micromanagement. It would increase the burden of resource micromanagement, managing unit compositions and factory queues. If you plan on spending the entire game building bases and automating their production while neglecting actual battles I think you might be playing the wrong genre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_strategy An RTS combines resource scarcity, unit production and unit management. I understand the aversion to unit micromanagement, indeed I share it. I don't understand the aversion to unit macromanagement.
The problem as I see it is if you're trying to manage a single battle on a single planet You've just shown me your weakness. In Starcraft... or any other RTS I can to date, think of, I'll be able to attack you on about two fronts... maybe three due to the way the map is set up. In Planetary Annihilation I'll engage you on any planet that I can, simultaneously. Six, seven, eight or even more planets suddenly thrown into chaos, with twenty or more different battles happening at once. I'll throw units at every conceivable world you own, each with the "usual" two or three fronts. I'm putting you on the defensive on eight Planets from 3 different places each. Are you seriously thinking you'll want to manage, let alone be able to manage twenty battles at once? If I see you microing... I'm going to swarm you. I'm going to Macromanage my economy and my forces. I won't pay an overly large amount of attention to composition. You'll beat me in one battle by Microing. I'll beat you in the other nineteen by Macroing. Removing the Micromanagement from battles does not increase the Micro in any other area. All it does is free my mind to be concerned about more than just clicking my mobile units around as fast as possible.
That's fine, battle-savvy and theatre-savvy shouldn't be mutually exclusive though. Naturally as the scale of conflict evolves, from the minute to the obscene, your focus will change. I don't understand though, even if you are launching multiple operations within multiple theatres do you plan on actively ignoring the battles as they develop? I absolutely agree that a single battle should not demand your full attention. But I feel this would be accomplished by mitigating the value of unit micromanagement (e.g. high HP to low DPS, Unit AI) not battlefield management. If I am overwhelmed, attempting to retreat should not be a fool's errand. If I am strong where my opponent is weak, pressing my advantage should not be a waste of time. In both scenarios I would hope the result is less binary than victory and defeat. I imagine between battlefield orders I will be gathering intelligence, assessing my unit composition, improving my infrastructure and planning my next move. That doesn't mean I won't be responding to the battle as it develops, I think though we share a similar concern. Battles should not demand your full attention, they should be long enough that you can make assessments, give orders and move on to more pressing matters before checking back in. It is not lost on me that RTS is more than just battlefield management, I hope more remember that it is more than just resource management and unit production.
Many people have expressed the desire for high HP low DPS units more in the vein of Total Annihilation than the SupCom series. It is a cause I sympathise with.
