Mechanics to reduce micro

Basically what I'm reading here is you want the interface from Spring...

To be honest I'd tend to agree- Spring has got the TA interface down to a fine art, its easier to use than TA or SupCom in that you have plenty of basic automations if you want them. Factory repeat, area reclaim, automated transport routes (the suggestions here expand on that) and even automated metal extractor upgrading (area or totally auto).

Spring has had a number of experiments on tacking the more complex AI issue- particularity things like auto expansion, I remember a long time ago they added in a 'custom unit ai' box and for a while we could automate cons to do almost anything (although it was seldom used so it's been replaced with a simple mex upgrade option only).

I don't mind being able to hand over mundane tasks to the AI- as long as it is toggle-able. I agree that cons shouldn't just start building stuff if there is resources- you need to be able to save up metal and energy for a big project if you want. I think simple things like the auto factory guard function from spring are a must- somewhere in the main UI there needs to be a toggle for that one as it means your cons are being used for something until you decide otherwise (although some people don't like this, hence the toggle)...

As for auto retreat for armies- TA had this for aircraft (gunship especially) when you had air repair pads available... If on an all out attack it was a problem as your units would get damaged and drop back, on the other hand it was invaluable when using gunships on patrol to defend a border which I think is very relevant to PA given the scale.

The one thing that concerns me slightly is the issue with multiple planets- all these ideas work well on a single field of play, however things like auto retreat / repair, transport select, idle builders and alike are not going to be as helpful when multiple planets are concerned. Each planet needs to act like an independent map- with these micro functions only pertaining to the planet in question. The only question then comes into play when you consider orbital?

I am entirely supportive of TA Spring's interface, even if I haven't learned it down to the last detail.

That's why I posted this here, to see what good ideas everyone else might have.

This.

Bobucles, you've been called to task. Use your words, or let the forum know that you've run from the discussion like a little child.

That's a little harsh. I'm not entirely sure what he meant either, but I think mushroomars' first response was probably taking it far further than he intended.

IN the forums so far, i believe that the automation suggestions can be grouped into one of five categories.

1. Individual Unit Behaviours: These are behaviours that the unit requires no more information to use than what is happening to the unit itself. These are things like auto-roam, auto-fire, and auto-scatter.

2. Unit-Target Behaviours: THese are behaviours that require information about the unit, and it's target. They include such things as fire prioritisation, and auto-kite/doge.

3. Unit Group Behaviours: These require units to have some notion of a group, and what that group is doing in order to function. For example, auto-formations, overkill minimisation and auto-focus firing.

4. Scripted Behaviours: These are pre-defined scripts that combine the previously defined features with set actions, in order to create limited behaviour sets for specific uses. For example, the auto-build/upgrade mexes, and economy management type suggestions.

5. Full AI: This is the suggestion that the player relinquish some command of their units to the AI (presumably a slight modification of the one used for skirmishes), which will then continue to use them to the best of it's ability. Multiple styles of AI have been proposed in various threads.

We all agree some level of automation is necessary, the question is how much. My personal views go that the automation should go from type 1 up to partway through type 4. Before this point, the systems are only following very limited "if-then" sequences, and solving problems that are trivial for a person to solve, but take up additional concentration for the player to focus on and execute. Beyond this, the computer is no longer solving simple optimisation issues with a right and wrong answer, but it is actually making choices as defined by the internal heuristics of the AI and it's programmer.

With a good UI players would never relinquish control of their units. Giving high level orders doesn't remove control.

Give me TA-Spring automations and i will be happy, nothing is easyer than drawing a cycle over stuff to, repair, reclame, rebuild, patrole and upgrade.

i was realy effective and i miss it :|

Yeah, this would replace the need for a LOT of automation.

+1
I really like these suggestions. I would like this to be implemented in game, however some things like agro range would have to take into account fog of war and intel, as you could figure out where enemies are based on how your units move around them

This sounds like exactly the sort of thing I feel the game is lacking. Call me a lazy commander or whatever you want, but I don't want my units to be dumb as mud and require my direct input for every tiny thing.

If you could draw a circle on the ground and a little popup would appear with some toggle options for it. Like "patrol, repair, reclaim, rebuild".. etc I'd be very happy indeed. But you could take it a step farther and add "expand" so any fabbers would build mex within the circle, or "upgrade" where fabbers would replace t1 mex with t2. For "repair" fabbers would try to rebuild destroyed structures instead of just reclaiming them. This would be especially nice for your defensive line, because I know I get pissed off when my fabbers have to reclaim a wrecked turret and then I have to tell them to rebuild it in the exact same spot.

You could even add things for automated attacks like "raid" where units assigned to the circle would attack any enemies within but run away at half health and attempt to attack from multiple directions.

Raid might be a bit much though...

Either way, the ability to draw circles with behaviors assigned to them, and then assign units to those circles would remove a TON of pointless micro. especially considering the limitations of the patrol command I think this should be a priority to implement.

In todays livestream they've said that area commands will be in so we can look forward to that. :mrgreen:

I'm not sure how popular this suggestion will be as I'm still on the fence about it myself, but RTS games are constantly looking for ways to make units that are more innovative and different to the classic ones that are present in all RTS titles (AA, Artillery, Direct fire, Bombers etc). Maybe rather than new ways of firing missiles at each other, something like automation could come down to a new unit? It certainly fits with the lore of the game, and if your attention is focused on one area of the map or even a different planet, maybe you should actually have to build a subcommander to take charge while you're busy? I know there's an awful lot of debate about what automation should do, but how about making it a gameplay element as well as a game mechanic? If we're really going for macro, then a command structure is the logical next step. You could build one of a few different types of subcommander (Turtle, Tech, Rush, just like choosing an AI type in the game lobby) and put them temporarily in charge of a certain area, up to the size of a planet. Then all you need is an on/off switch and the equivalent of dual control, which already exists.

Keep in mind that I'm typing this very stream-of-consciousness and the idea could use some polishing, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of destroying the subcommander on one planet and forcing the player to then divide his attention.

Apologies if I started to ramble a little there.

EDIT: Reading through that I realize it might need clarification, but I'm off to work so I'll trust the forum to figure out/improve my idea here.

I think that Unit formations would be a great add on to the game.

Here is an idea I've had about the non-combative automation side. Would love to hear your thoughts about it

Instead of having it all in the UI on the right hand side, why not have a structure (for the sake of this post, lets call it the 'transport hub') that you need to build in order to have all the automation options that have been mentioned previously.

Kind of like the Targeting Facility from TA. Once built, you get all the automation options for build, transport, expand, repair etc. Until then it all has to be done via micro. These can be toggled on and off at will once the structure has been fabricated.

This would add a tactical side to this as players could target the transport hub to cripple their automated systems. Also, if a player didn't want to have automation. They simply don't construct it. It would also mean that a player has to have reached a certain tech level before they can start automating systems. That would eliminate commanders being lazy and relying on automation at the beginning of games.

I reckon a player should still be able to get a unit to repeat an action, like ferrying for transports, but that should have to be setup manually without the transport hub constructed.

Also a good solution.

Locking UI features behind an in-game resource barrier is a Bad Idea.

Well to my mind it would be changing automation from a stock UI element to an important strategical consideration. It is a fact that as an organization (like an army) gets bigger it gets more complicated.

The answer is, and always has been, intermediate authority; someone to whom you can say "Handle the main base, I have to deal with this attack". In the team armies game type this might not be too necessary unless the game gets truly huge, since there will be multiple humans involved, but the same issue applies if a human is eliminated. The amount of eyes on the battlefield is reduced.

I realize the resource barrier will be irritating at times, but it would be a great way to have a "super unit" of sorts that does something really useful, but also doesn't turn into a one-unit game ender.

I am strongly opposed to "locking UI features behind an in-game resource barrier", and I couldn't have put it any better xagar. There's a reason the Targetting Facility had its cost reduced from 157k in TA to 735 in TA: Spring. It was very annoying to have to build an extremely expensive structure so you didn't have to micro. It's kinda like holding a pack of sausages at the end of a fishing pole over a bunch of homeless people. You just don't do it, it's sad and completely pointless.

I lolled so hard at this one!

Sausages... check, fishing pole... check, now to find a bridge with homeless people under it....

On a more serious note, the targeting facility is still T2, I agree the cost of the structure shouldn't be silly however it could be something you have to progress to.

That way the player has something to actually do early game, later game with the 'command center' set up on a planet the player has bigger problems to deal with. I think the key will be matching functions to it (simple things like auto repeat queues, transport and so on should be standard UI, however this structure could provide more complex automatons and as someone else said it could become a key strategic target as at the moment the only thing worth bombing is a commander!)

I too want video games that play themselves. Have you tried EVE Online?? :roll:

Why would you want to remove micro from a real time strategy game? Isn't that the point of it being in real time? That's like buying lunch meat and bread and expecting it to assemble itself into a sandwich.

I am a bigger proponent of passive assistance vs active assistance. ie, an inactive fabricators/factories listing vs something like automatic construction of any sort.

I'm definitely against anything that automatically does anything with army units. Passive assists like formations or patrol/guard/roam orders are great. I certainly don't want my units automatically dodging artillery or anything ridiculous.

I always thought the targeting facility was a really novel concept, and I would like to see more experiments in this direction. That first attacking wave after you finished the facility was always so impressive to watch in it's destructive efficiency. If anything, it should be even more expensive.

It should be a conscious decision between a 150% larger army vs a smaller, more technically efficient force. Don't forget how expensive it was to have all of your massive artillery automatically firing nonstop. The addition of high value, high priority late game targets that aren't the commander are definitely welcome IMHO.

I never thought spring was very good. Cool concepts, but it wasn't very engaging. None of it ever really felt coherent or finished.