comparison to TA, supcom, supcom 2, starcraft 2 and the rest

You have valid points and i agree. However i want to clarfy that i'm not arguing for apm as my prefered measurement of skill, just trying to point out why i'm afraid it is hard to get away from apm as a factor. Maybe a clever enough ui and good configs can combat this, i honestly can't tell. Concerning multitasking, i see it as the skill your strategical thinking has to be channeled through so to speak. You need to have good strategical thinking and a good understanding of the game, but can you express them in gameplay? This is what i mean with multi-task. Again this might be something that can be changed, but i'm not sure i see how.

edit: i wanted to stress how important i think your point about radar, scouting and intel is, but i fucked up my formating...

whether or not people understand APM is going to be a factor regardless doesn't matter.


the people here defending APM are just against mechanics and tools being created that would help out and favor macro.

this would take from them the current edge they have ...or it wouldn't and they don't know, they're just scared.
In anycase it is Neutrino's belief that this should be -at the very least- a macro-oriented game, as we aspire for the dream of "the ultimate macro game" which now obviously seems quite unreachable.

We should indeed be trying to find ways to help our favorite developer along to their goal.

As they said themselves creating a game is an adventure; you have a vision in mind, you start with a block and start to shape it, it gives birth to something wonderful and fantastic in it's own way but completely different from the original intent and you don't try to kick it into the mold you have in mind because it may never fit but you at lease keep working on it, because as you chisel away it just keeps getting that much closer to the dream you envisioned.

Europa Universalis is an ultimate macro game. Limited resources are pitted against a ludicrous number of empire building demands. These demands are exquisitely interlocking and the path to war is not as simple as building lots of troops.

The Macro game for PA is always going to be simple. Why? Because the economic guide is simple:
- Take metal.
- Spend metal.
- Take more metal.
- Spend more metal.
- Don't run out of energy.

You don't have to worry about romantic entanglements or prestige or alliances or advisors or the legitimacy of your right to rule. Base building has a single goal- to create an army with which to destroy the enemy. Only two mechanics stop you from building an army- having enough resources to build a BIGGER army, or getting killed by the enemy because your army was inadequate.

The success of TA was not due to creating ultimate macro. It was due to REMOVING and streamlining tons of macro based mechanics. The player can pay attention away from his base, and enjoy the eye orgy that is a war centered around robots. If anything, the simple base building and huge number of battles draw the game to become even more micro focused than Starcraft.

Yes, and that is exactly what we have been getting in several patches now. Area commands, continuous build etc. Orbital and interplanetary stuff just isn't finished.. can't expect it to be particularly streamlined at this point, when even the gameplay mechanics are not clear.

PA on several planets is like playing several regular RTS games at once. It is more demanding than a "normal" RTS game in that sense, and probably more suited to team games on multiplanet systems.

So, this is probably one of the most exciting things about this game, in my eye. A truly epic, team effort to take over a star system.

I think pa needs alot more micro/macro than a competitive fa 1v1. I have watched several pa games and all the people were just too slow for the game.

Takes a lot of clicking atm, but I will stop my tanks just short of the enemy just to begin to send my bots to the sides. I also do this from turret cover, send my bots out from the sides.

Partially because of this ^^

I gave PA a try and quickly understood, that most games are planar for a reason.
As for me, PA is going to be a great game, but not exactly for humans. Humans, they have their brain limitations, like limited short-term memory, and single attention focus. This is why all we sometimes find things supposed to be boiled on kitchen well-fried. And this is why humans are not actually good in keeping in mind multiple things, while fully focusing on others. Some amazing aliens from outer space might have no problem with it at all, and I actually expect some to state so on this forum

Anyway, trying to struggle with the formula sphere's are with brilliant interface ideas, notifications, multiple views and such, is a valiant effort.

Probably at some point modders will make the UI as good, as it gets, and better, than it ever got. Will it help - yes, will it cure the thing, IMO, - no.

Apm........ skunked a player last night whose apm was double mine..... just saying.

really doesn't mean s hit.

That was my point Mr foul language....

There is definitely alot of micro in this game but none to me that is bothersome. I for one thought sc2 was more a clickfeast with the maps being smaller and the enemies being closer to your base then this game. Try the hotkeys for planets. They really do help out alot when skipping planet to planet. The hotkeys will simplify your game a bit if you havent already tried them.

There are situations where you can't retreat your commander. If your commander is "alone" and facing 4 Slammers/28 Doxen/28 Pounders, it's GG. The only way you can retreat your commander in that situation is if you have nearby forces that can decrease the dps of the force attacking your commander. In many cases, if the first thing you know about an attack on your commander by forces of that magnitude is "Delta Commander is Under Attack", it's already too late.

So what do you do, particularly if you're under attack by an overwhelming force of Ants? You retreat your commander *before* he comes into range.

Can you play it before you knock it? It means you actually have to make sure your force are advancing in a column that is easy to turn into a defensive posture. You don't rush your archers ahead, because if they run into melee troops they die to a man.

I'm amazed that you think Sins is any different. Any capital ship with an ability to stunlock your forces will keep you from retreating whatever vital part of your force it is that you want to retreat. Likewise, any player with half a brain is just going to keep shooting at you throughout the jump and then jump his forces after you. Likewise, with units like the Marza, you want the fleet battle to already be engaged so that when the enemy starts focusing his units on your Marza, the fleet loses cohesion.'

Quite frankly, in Sins if you try and do anything other than maximum damage once you're in combat you will lose out, because units aren't maneuverable enough to successfully retreat. And what if the enemy has a titan? If you're trying to retreat your frigates *after* the titan is in range, they're just casualties of war.

Likewise in Sins, once your fleet is already engaged you can't really retreat or maneuver because you lower your firing cohesion. It's why units have abilities which are aimed at forcing you to maneuver, like "telekinetic push".

The simple fact of the matter is that you can get Doxen to retreat out of battle even after they are committed, and you can get Pounders to retreat out of battle so long as you turn them around before they actually engage the enemy (which is in itself a rearguard action) . There are often games where there is a very clear front line, which is why the "sneak units into the back of a base" tactic is so effective.

The problem with just making units more survivable is that you then get a scenario where you can just run your army past the enemies army as if they weren't even there. Praetorians solved that problem by making it so that every unit that got engaged in melee combat stayed in melee combat.

there is a difference between apm and eapm .... wanted to throw that just in here

Pointing out specific situation where you can't do this with the commander is missing the point, especially if you are using current unit balance in the process. Of course there's situations when you can't do this, especially if you are that outnumbered. I may have been wrong about Sins (haven't played it in a while, forgot about the various abilities), but your explanation of why is also missing my point (PA doesn't have stuns etc, so it's not applicable).

Planning still matters whether units have survivability or not. With higher lifespans though, if you do get caught you won't lose the entire game in a matter of seconds. That sort of thing only increases the difficulty and fragility of the game. The combination of a fragile, difficult and very apm & attention heavy game is just a recipe for frustration, not fun.

You'll take disproportionate casualties doing so, it's very rare that this is a good thing to do at the moment.

When I say front line, i'm not referring to open ground where units have occasional skirmishes or are not actually fighting. I mean a somewhat constant battle being engaged and reinforced. Being able to "sneak units into the back of a base" is always effective regardless of the balance of the game, because you're inside their base.

And TA never had that problem even with units that had far higher survivability, so it can clearly be avoided. The thing is, unless your talking about only a couple of units fighting each other, there is still a lot of firepower flying around, and individual units will still die quickly to alpha strikes. But they don't get single-shotted (or near enough), and you don't lose dozens of units to a single mobile artillery hit, which makes your army much more durable and increases it's effective lifespan. Trying to run through another army will still get you slaughtered unless you are at a massive unit advantage.

Planning for a party can be fun, but the point of doing so is to have fun at the party itself. What's happening here is everything is about the planning, and the outcome of the "party" (combat) is more or less predetermined and over way too quickly.

Kiwi, I agree with your overall point, but as a Sins player I have to point out there are times you can jump away, and that often a retreat is better than fighting to the death in sins. When a battle starts going south you still have a window where you can retreat. You'll loose a lot of ships, especially if the enemy has an AoE titan and stun lock capitol ships, but in most cases you can get most of your capitol ships and carriers away at the cost of your frigates and cruisers. You can preserve your experienced crews by sacrificing the fodder. If you are jumping back to a fortified position the battle can still swing to your favor if the enemy pursues.

But my overall point is retreating after you have made contact with the enemy and expecting not to take losses is naiive at best, and no amount of unit survivability will make such a retreat a lossless endeavour. According to Raevn, that's a pointless retreat where you are better off leaving your forces to do as much damage as they can before they die. According to me, that retreat is done too late to expect a lack of casualties

Retreating is useful to retain the majority of troops where the damage you would do would be rather negligible to what you could do with them else where.

Like running after your bots realise that there is indeed 7 pelters and 16 missile turrets in that walled area......

Please avoid putting words in my mouth, especially if you want to call me naiive

I never said no casualties. Indeed I expect you'll have to sacrifice some portion of your troops to act as a rearguard while the rest run. That's how armies retreat in real life when engaged in all-out warfare. But in doing so, you leave the integrity of your army intact. As it currently stands, retreat during combat will most likely get your army annihilated. And therefore, what we see is players tiptoeing their armies and not actually engaging, because the penalty for a slight mistake is massive. Why is this a good thing? Why is the removal of combat strategy beneficial, and what is the downside of having it? Why is fragile gameplay, which adds a steep learning curve and actually removes most of the combat proper, a good idea?

Why do you need a rearguard? Most units in TA and SupCom can shoot while they move so there is no benefit to leaving them behind when you retreat.

I don't see how fragile gameplay increases the learning curve. Arguably it decreases the need for combat micro like focus firing which likely decreases the learning curve.