Battles without micromanagement mode ?

I remember when Supcom was presented before and at E3, Chris Taylor wanted to have a game where player could focus only on strategy and let AI micromanage units during combats : No control on Units micromanagement during combat, simply asign a specific behaviour to a squad of units when sent to the battle front and let the AI do the best it can. Player would only focus on sending goups of units to a specific location on the map in order to control it or to beat ennemies controlling the position. Then having for each group of units an icon showing the health state and possibly having this group of units asking for re-enforcement.

Is this something we can expect to have in PA as a specific game mode and if not, is it something which can be modded ? Can we expect AI to be smarter enough to micromanage units during battles ?

Honestly, i bet it could be done but i would hate this.


Its essentially like Desert Strike in Starcraft, make buildings, spawn ai army, watch.

Good for a minigame, bad for an entire game mode.

Being able to select 100 units and send them at your units base and behave intelligently without micromanagement, yes.

Building 100 units and them deciding which base to attack, how to get there, and what tactics to use.. probably not.

If your intent was somewhere in between, please clarify, because it's an interesting question.

I would hate that. The thing I like about these games is that you can both control things strategically and at a micro level.

Don't take that away. Let me have as fine of control as possible.

All I want from the unit AI is to be able to correctly priority targets and pathfind well. I'm even okay with them being dumb enough to hit cliffs if they are obscuring the bullet path.

maybe he means something like this:
http://zero-k.info/Wiki/UnitAI

summary:
quick agile units strafe and dodge when approaching slower more robust units, units with longer range kite when being approached

This would make a good idea for a special game mode imo, you build buildings that spawn units that automatically go attack the enemy without your control.

Someone already made footman wars.

Those 2 definitions directly contradict each other. If units fire into cliffs when there are targets that could actually be hit they have a very bad way of prioritizing targets. It also strains your focus if you have to check every battle to see if your units are actually shooting at the enemy or into a cliff infront of them.
I really hope that units will do a proper Line of Fire check before they fire.

There already are games that fight for planets as actual 3d objects. Also TA an FA already exist. We should immediately stop PA.

I'm just saying it's not a particularly strategic game mode and what you end up with, at the end of the day, is DOTA.

The exact opposite of TA, a one-unit RTS.

i kinda agree, it would at best be like nexus wars, except if it used in game balance it wouldnt be balanced at all

They don't contradict at all. Using supcom as an example, if there were some bricks accompanied by loyalists and mobile missile launchers, i would want my percivals to focus the bricks first. Even if there is a hill in the way, I want as many shots being fired towards the bricks as possible. I will personally deal with physical obstructions.

So you rather have your units fire into the ground than the enemy. Okey...

On one hand units firing into terrain kind of supports the idea that they are just dumb bots that do exactly as they are told and nothing else.

On the other it would encourage micro heavy maneuvering.

On the third it would encourage taking the terrain into account when maneuvering, as opposed to just clicking attack and letting the units sort it out.

So... I'm split.

Well micro...
.. read my sig

Terrain is important even when units are smart enough to avoid firing straight into it. Actually in my experience terrain is even more important when units avoid firing blindly into terrain as you can actually use the terrain to your advantage without excessive micro.

Yes : This is exactly what i meant.

The idea is clearly to focus much more on strategy.

I select a pool of units, asign them a target (Destroy a specific ennemy base, Make as much damage as possible in an ennemy area, control a specific area on the map). Each 100 units squad would have a simple objective to achieve and would provide a regular update about achievement or would send an alert to request for additional re-inforcement if it's about to be defeated. But i would be the one who would decide what, when to send requested re-enforcement.

This would be helpfull in large scale battles.

I want to be the one who take strategic decisions.

This could be extended to engineers : I have a pool of engineers and i asign them a simple objective which is to build a specific base in a specific area, which would mean probably having templates : the pool of engineers would be assigned a target with a building template (meaning they would have to build mass extractors if there are some of them in the designed area and then put in place buildings. Power gens could be discarded from the template if there's enough power).

however i would be responsible for managing unit productions. But i could also assign an objective to the base which would be : produce 100 units, and send me an alert when objective is completed.

I would still be responsible for :
1) ensuring that mass and power is enough according to the objectives i have assigned
2) Deciding which pool and quantity of units i want to build
3) Deciding which target / objective to assign to a pool of units/engineers

This would mean that i would have some kind of reporting for each target/objective in the UI. Being able to monitor the status of each target/objective and take new decisions based on the status. For example i could decide with a single click to abort a base building, to put it on hold. I could also order to retreat. I could assign another objective.

But again these would be simple objectives/targets :
I decide when, what and where and of course i assign the required resource to achieve the objective.

If the AI is smart enough, i expect it to do the hard and boring stuff.
I'm the commander. A commander assign clear and simple objectives and then wait for status/report. Based on this it can decide what's to do next.

I will try to elaborate more on this later by next week.

I love it doud.

There are people loving to micro, there are people loving to macro. Why not combine both in teamgames?

Well there might not be enough sub-commanders.

This is my personal opinion.
Take it with a grain of salt.

Overall Point:
Micro can and should be able to turn the tide in an engagement.
However, it should not be able to win you the game.

1.
I have seen some SupCom matches where Player A has only 2/3 the Air-Superiority Fighters as Player B, but because of micro, managed to barely scrape by. This was done by micro. Manually turning the ASFs around to engage the enemy ASFs from behind.


2.
TLO (TheLittleOne), a Pro SC2 player made a very good point about SupCom once.
He said every unit can micro, and microing helps, however, even if he had 5000 APM (actions per minute), there is still more that he could micro, but it would take away from the bigger strat of the game if he only focuses on that.
My example: Micro Might help a t1 tank dodge a t2 point defense. However, if you focus your attention on the T1 tank, they your attention was probably distracted from something better spent, like your econ or scouting.


This is one of the major strengths of a game where units firing is simulated.
That units don't perfectly "lead" a target. And some units have a faster projectile speed making it more accurate.
This is the opposite of Starcraft 2 where every shot hits every single time.
IMHO, this brings a lot of flavor to the game. It helps differentiate units a lot more.


We've heard the word "emergent" play style or emergent strategy thrown around.
I think this is a prime example of something coming from a simple point that "units shoot differently".
Simulated fire for the win