Endless Space 2

Discuss games not related to Limit Theory.

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby Flatfingers » Fri May 12, 2017 1:32 am

Happily, our DSL line is back up. Briefly. So, this had better be good....

Talvieno wrote:I'm not saying I dislike 4X altogether; I'm just saying I've had some bad first experiences with them. The ones I played were fun until you got closer to endgame, where they became a micromanaging grind just to stay afloat. As you got even farther, it got to where you almost felt like you could just sit back and skip most turns - although, if you did, the AI would beat you in the end anyway. I found the experience frustrating.

This is 100% the experience most people have with strategy games. So to the extent that 4X (eXpand, eXplore, eXploit, eXterminate) games tend to be varieties of strategy games, they elicit a similar "this is it?" reaction.

The essential problem, however, is not end-game micromanagement. That's a symptom. The underlying problem, I believe, is actually inherent in the nature of strategy itself: a good strategy wins (or loses) long before you find out whether you've actually won (or lost). The rest is just waiting to see this finally happen.

Waiting, generally, is not fun. This is the fundamental problem of making a game out of strategic play.

The nature of strategy is that it applies over large areas and long spans of time. You can set a strategic plan into action, to be carried out at the operational and tactical levels, but because all the individual results at those levels must accumulate over time into strategic information, it takes a while before you find out if your strategy was good or bad.

Seen in this light, the problem with strategic games, including most 4X games, becomes clear. One you're at about the 2/3 or 3/4 mark in 4X games as typically designed, your final strategy has been set in motion. The game, at that point, is essentially over. As your strategy gets applied, it will either win or lose the game for you. Now you're only whacking the "Next Turn" button repeatedly to see how you won or lost. And that can't help but feel like pointless busy-work. It's an unsatisfying ending.

This problem is compounded by 4X games that define the core gameplay loop as frequent management of units, perhaps in the belief that "players will get bored if we don't give them something that needs to be done every ten seconds." At this point you have what says it's a strategic game, which should elicit and reward deep, perceptive thinking, but whose actual mechanics demand and reward quick, focused thinking. Players who feel something is off are correct. They are recognizing an unresolved game design conflict, wherein the tactical-level mechanics of the game (unit movement) block the player from experiencing the strategic-level fun (large-scale pattern perception and planning) that a true strategy game must deliver.

Even the most highly-regarded 4X-style games, such as Civilization and Master of Orion 2, fall victim to this. The last stage of these games, like other 4X games, is just button-mashing mop-up. It's boring.

This appears to be a hard problem in game design. How do you deliver actual strategic fun without resorting to lower-level mechanics that eventually become tedious? No developer of whom I'm aware has figured out a good solution to this problem yet. (Proposed counter-examples to this are welcome.)

So we keep getting 4X games that either devolve into pointless end-game grindfests, or else have some feature bolted on that causes them to stop being true strategy games (I'm looking at you, real-time clock). And we wonder why 4X games aren't more popular.

I don't pretend to have The Answer to this problem myself. I took a swing at it a few years ago in words in Key Features of a True Strategy Game, but I haven't had the chance to actually implement any of these notions to see if they work or not.

That said, I think the following design choices would result in more satisfying 4X games:

Get rid of individual units. The moment you include individual player-movable units as a feature, even if you "chunk" them to a strategic level (e.g., one object represents an army or a fleet), the temptation is nigh irresistible to make the core gameplay loop all about the player moving those individual units around on the map every single turn... and that is how you get the end-game micromanagement grind. In a truly strategic game, the most you would do is provide goal guidance to administrators and general officers: "Admiral, I expect you to secure these three key resource centers within the month," or "Doctor, this agency must produce one breakthrough technology in both of these two sectors by month's end." Note that the key concept here is delegation. (The power of delegation -- of telling an NPC to convert a general goal into individual practical actions -- to support strategic play is why I got so excited when Josh started talking about the delegation of projects to NPCs in LT.)

Make gameplay choices continuous, not discrete. In other words, the actions the player performs most frequently in a strategic game should not be a hundred repetitions of "do this one specific thing," but rather "continuously seek to accomplish this general goal until it's completed, impossible, or I tell you to stop." Another way of saying this: let the player manage logistics at a high level. Even if the player doesn't move units, it's a necessity for strategic (and thus 4X) games that logistical choices must matter. Minimization of logistical cost is half of strategy. (Maximization of resource value is the other half.) So players need to be able to tell the game "move this strategic resource from this source to these destinations," and for the game to keep doing this on the player's behalf until it no longer needs to, or it can't, or until the player tells it to stop. The commitment of resources as a one-way and continuous choice that can't be altered immediately makes strategic choices matter. So when the player directs the distribution of a particular strategic resource from its creation point to its usage points, it has to take time for this movement to happen, and it needs to apply continuously over time. These features enable strategic decision-making to be, and feel, different from the much more frequent and immediately responsive tactical gameplay. (I'm aware of the argument that Master of Orion 3 was unpopular because it tried to abstract away micromanagement. My rebuttal: had it tried harder, and been called something else, it might have been more successful.)

Include personnel management. This isn't as crucial as the above two suggestions, but it's valuable enough that it's worth considering. Because strategic play choices are carried out indirectly and have consequences over time, there's room for the personalities of leaders to play a useful and fun role in accomplishing the player's strategic goals. (This may make more sense when you think of NPC leaders as a strategic resource.) Grooming new leaders whose skills and weaknesses better align with the player's strategies, and letting the player manage conflicts among leaders on how best to accomplish goals, can add intriguing variation to how a player goal is executed. Human influence can do fascinating things to "the best-laid plans"! Thus, leader management can become engaging gameplay activity that to some extent replaces not being able to move individual units.

Opposing strategies should be perceptible and plausible. In additional to the internal challenge of smart logistical choices, a strategist must face the external challenge of competing strategies that are intended to accomplish other results. A 4X game needs other players, human or AI, whose goals oppose the player's in some way. This usually isn't too hard; what's not always done well is reflecting these opposing strategies to the player. This doesn't mean explicitly telling the player things like, "Emperor Alex -- Primary strategy: economic theft." Part of the fun of strategy (or the problem, outside of games) is to try to figure out an opponent's large-scale intentions, based on seeing the individual tactical actions taken in the world and perceiving a pattern to those actions. So these patterns (for a game) need to exist as an opposing player's intent; they need to be comprehensible so that the player can figure out an opponent's intent based on that opponent's visible low-level actions; and these intentions need to seem rationally plausible as a plan for advancing the opponent's interests and not merely random, irrelevant activity. A good strategy/4X game will be designed so that opponents have a strategy, their gameplay choices seek (like the player) to execute this strategy effectively, and, given data and time and perceptiveness, the typical player can figure out an opponent's strategy so that it can be countered.

Know when the game is over. A good strategy game will continuously assess the state of the game world versus the selected victory conditions and will know when further player choices will have a negligible effect on the final outcome. The game may may continuously tell the player the odds of strategic success, or it may try to simulate the strategic version of the "fog of war" as a way to encourage the player to try to accurately perceive the pattern behind an opponent's actions. Either way, once this calculated "chance of victory" value reaches a certain point, the game should announce that the contest is all but won or lost, and give the player the option to stop playing or to keep going to see the final state of the game world. It may even offer to simulate some additional turns until a stable state is reached. The important thing is that the game itself recognizes when the victory conditions are met, and it doesn't mindlessly ask the player to keep performing mechanical actions that no longer have any meaningful strategic consequences.

These ideas apply to any strategy game. But they should also improve 4X games in particular because they're directly aimed at supporting large-scale exploration, pattern-perceiving, and planning fun -- the features that combine in 4X games to make this a genre unlike others.
User avatar
Flatfingers
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby JFSOCC » Fri May 12, 2017 6:47 am

I think I have a solution to the micromanagement problem of many 4x games.

I"ve long been playing games, and 4x always has had a bunch of issues for me. It just didn't quite fit with what I wash hoping to see.
Still, since supply of good 4x games are limited, I did while away many hours trying to figure out what was wrong with them. I've got a great interest in game design despite, sadly, having no interest in learning a programming language. My thoughts always have been about structure and potential. I think that's one of the reasons why I have taken such a keen interest in the development of Limit Theory. I've always liked Josh's belief in getting the core right so that any upward potential isn't limited by the fundamentals.

I've taken long thought about what I would have my 4x game be.
I'm going to describe my hypothetical ideal game. but please stay with me it goes somewhere.
It takes place on earth, but there is a random map generator as well. you can pick any location on the planet in an early time period. your culture will develop based on the environment it encounters so pick carefully.
In this empire simulator, technologies, spread of thought and information are limited by the infrastructure of your empire. The larger you get the longer it takes to get information from one side of your empire to the other. Same for troops. This presents the problem of imperial overstretch, which not only plagues games, but reality. Technology progress is entirely based on how you adapt to your environment. An empire without mountains and enough rainfall will not be capable of developing the type of terracing for farms as would one that did. There are several types of terracing in the world, and they developed for different environments. So too should it be in my ideal empire game.

Once your society has reached a size where measurement might be necessary for accurate maps, In your hud will appear a distance tool, it will be as accurate as your technology, which means that you will only focus on developing that technology if it becomes relevant.

When your empire develops from it's natural habitat, You'll have acquired technologies which may be useful in different environments as well, which other empires may not have developed. As your empire spreads and it's infrastructure improves, you will find itself approaching the game world in a different manner than if you controlled an empire set elsewhere. Because of the unpredictability of technological development there is no way to know if you have an ideal spawn, and you'll be forced to adapt new techniques in playing the game in each playthrough.

It also means that every game will be completely different. There is no way you're going to encounter the same technologies if you start in a different place. So if you want to get far away technologies, you need to grow your empire and it's infrastructure.
And when I talk about technology, it's very granular, diverse, nonlinear, and locked. You can create the conditions for the development of tech, but that's it.

Well then, that brings me to my point, thanks for sticking with me

When your empire reaches a certain level of bureaucracy, something which can only develop from becoming more sophisticated as a society, it unlocks the ability to automate tasks you previously HAD to micromanage. You'll have a ministry of agriculture if you have an empire with a high crop yield. If your empire fields a large army, you're more likely to create efficient bureaucracy in the military field. Each of these unlock HUD info when developed far enough.

These themselves could be seen as technologies, and will unlock further development of your empire.

So developing your empire actually makes it easier to manage your empire.
But there is a cost, automation will inevitably lead to losing control of micromangement, this happens unannounced and is irreversible*
*don't panic, you'll now focus on the bigger stuff. You'll still always be able to see all the information, but you can't make the same decisions the further you develop.
JFSOCC
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:43 pm

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby JanB1 » Fri May 12, 2017 6:48 am

First: Thank you VERY much for your post. I read through it all, and your ideas are very interesting.

I think this kind of game you are describing here would more identify as "War simulation", rather than a 4X game. And I would really love to see this type of game.

I play some ARMA3 Milsim games from time to time, and it is really interesting ti be a commander and command the troops only on the map. You tell platoon xy to go and secure this area and platoon xz to secure that area. And company y shall move in this general area and secure these targets. Support platoon shall establish a FOB and send out armoured transporters to deliver ammunition and shall guarantee immediate light artillery support (mortar). Everything else is up to them.

But it is difficult to fulfil these missions. Even for human players. Now imagine an AI army, army group or even a theatre that just gets the general mission to secure a certain area. The AI would have to be really smart to do this stuff.

What I really like about TW is, that you send out armies, and can fight battles by hand. It is so much fun to see the fronts clashing into each other. If you would take the direct control of troops away from the player, a game isn't a game about fights anymore, it's a game about organising and strategic planning. It's a really interesting concept, but I don't know how many people would play this.

But 1 thing is sure: if done properly, militaries of this world will start using it to train their higher ranking officers. :lol:
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here

Flatfingers wrote:23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
User avatar
JanB1
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:14 am
Location: Europe

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby JanB1 » Fri May 12, 2017 6:51 am

JFSOCC wrote:I think I have a solution to the micromanagement problem of many 4x games.

I"ve long been playing games, and 4x always has had a bunch of issues for me. It just didn't quite fit with what I wash hoping to see.
Still, since supply of good 4x games are limited, I did while away many hours trying to figure out what was wrong with them. I've got a great interest in game design despite, sadly, having no interest in learning a programming language. My thoughts always have been about structure and potential. I think that's one of the reasons why I have taken such a keen interest in the development of Limit Theory. I've always liked Josh's belief in getting the core right so that any upward potential isn't limited by the fundamentals.

I've taken long thought about what I would have my 4x game be.
I'm going to describe my hypothetical ideal game. but please stay with me it goes somewhere.
It takes place on earth, but there is a random map generator as well. you can pick any location on the planet in an early time period. your culture will develop based on the environment it encounters so pick carefully.
In this empire simulator, technologies, spread of thought and information are limited by the infrastructure of your empire. The larger you get the longer it takes to get information from one side of your empire to the other. Same for troops. This presents the problem of imperial overstretch, which not only plagues games, but reality. Technology progress is entirely based on how you adapt to your environment. An empire without mountains and enough rainfall will not be capable of developing the type of terracing for farms as would one that did. There are several types of terracing in the world, and they developed for different environments. So too should it be in my ideal empire game.

Once your society has reached a size where measurement might be necessary for accurate maps, In your hud will appear a distance tool, it will be as accurate as your technology, which means that you will only focus on developing that technology if it becomes relevant.

When your empire develops from it's natural habitat, You'll have acquired technologies which may be useful in different environments as well, which other empires may not have developed. As your empire spreads and it's infrastructure improves, you will find itself approaching the game world in a different manner than if you controlled an empire set elsewhere. Because of the unpredictability of technological development there is no way to know if you have an ideal spawn, and you'll be forced to adapt new techniques in playing the game in each playthrough.

It also means that every game will be completely different. There is no way you're going to encounter the same technologies if you start in a different place. So if you want to get far away technologies, you need to grow your empire and it's infrastructure.
And when I talk about technology, it's very granular, diverse, nonlinear, and locked. You can create the conditions for the development of tech, but that's it.

Well then, that brings me to my point, thanks for sticking with me

When your empire reaches a certain level of bureaucracy, something which can only develop from becoming more sophisticated as a society, it unlocks the ability to automate tasks you previously HAD to micromanage. You'll have a ministry of agriculture if you have an empire with a high crop yield. If your empire fields a large army, you're more likely to create efficient bureaucracy in the military field. Each of these unlock HUD info when developed far enough.

These themselves could be seen as technologies, and will unlock further development of your empire.

So developing your empire actually makes it easier to manage your empire.
But there is a cost, automation will inevitably lead to losing control of micromangement, this happens unannounced and is irreversible*
*don't panic, you'll now focus on the bigger stuff. You'll still always be able to see all the information, but you can't make the same decisions the further you develop.


THIS is a really interesting approach! Would totally play this. But this would be so incredibly difficult to make...
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here

Flatfingers wrote:23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
User avatar
JanB1
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:14 am
Location: Europe

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby Talvieno » Fri May 12, 2017 8:47 am

Flatfingers, that was a top-notch explanation as to why I find 4X games to be a grind! :clap: It also explains why I like Stellaris so much compared to "other" 4X games: Stellaris approaches the problem from an entirely different angle, with less micromanagement in favor of delegation to sectors, and less focus on individual units; the focus is more on large fleets, which require much less attention.

I'm going to think on your post a while, I believe, and come back with a more thought-out response. I'd like to be able to debate, but I find myself agreeing with everything you said. :P


JFSOCC - I like this idea. It keeps the game fresh for the duration. After all, you don't want to be dealing with the same decisions you made early on. Let the focus of the game shift to keep it dealing with strategy, but in new ways as the game progresses. In theory, it's fairly solid. :) In practice, it may be difficult to implement well... but that remains to be seen, I suppose. I haven't encountered a game that played like this.
Image
Have a question? Send me a PM!
User avatar
Talvieno
Community Manager
 
Posts: 8197
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:50 pm
Location: North GA, USA

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby Scytale » Fri May 12, 2017 10:05 am

That was a great post Flat
User avatar
Scytale
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby JoshParnell » Fri May 12, 2017 10:10 am

Talvieno wrote:Yeah, sounds like you aren't using sectors (which have improved tremendously since launch). I typically stick a lot of things into sectors... which, I think, is how they intended you to play it... although there's the option of not doing it that way if you prefer micromanaging. You can automate exploration now, too, though that works best (as you'd expect) in larger galaxies with more stars to explore.


Oh wow, I wasn't. Had no idea they existed! That sounds great.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:because sectors dont exist :ghost:


Honest ignorance is honest ignorance >:V I look forward to trying them.

(Also going to have to go back and read that epic Flatpost!)
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
User avatar
JoshParnell
Developer
 
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:06 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, LA

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby Flatfingers » Fri May 12, 2017 10:29 am

JanB1 wrote:I think this kind of game you are describing here would more identify as "War simulation", rather than a 4X game. And I would really love to see this type of game.

Me, too. :)

I wouldn't say what I described was too closely tied to "war simulation," though, although that's certainly the origin of the model I used. "Strategy" (and thus 4X) doesn't automatically imply guns. (There's probably a less severe version of the "eXterminate" component of the 4X name!)

That is, the grand strategy -> strategy -> operations -> tactics model isn't limited to overt warfare. Broadened slightly to vision -> planning -> processes -> action, it's a model that's applicable to most forms of conflict resolution or, in the general sense, to any large-scale organized activity (including productive activities) that must compete for finite resources.

JanB1 wrote:I play some ARMA3 Milsim games from time to time, and it is really interesting ti be a commander and command the troops only on the map. You tell platoon xy to go and secure this area and platoon xz to secure that area. And company y shall move in this general area and secure these targets. Support platoon shall establish a FOB and send out armoured transporters to deliver ammunition and shall guarantee immediate light artillery support (mortar). Everything else is up to them.

I've found this distinction between "what" and "how" when assigning work is one of the hardest concepts to communicate to new leaders. Someone whose job for years has been to figure out how to get a job done now has to learn that it's right and necessary to step back, figure out what the right thing to do is, and trust one's team to work out how to get it done.

I wouldn't be shocked to learn there's an entire course on this at OCS.

JanB1 wrote:But it is difficult to fulfil these missions. Even for human players. Now imagine an AI army, army group or even a theatre that just gets the general mission to secure a certain area. The AI would have to be really smart to do this stuff.

Mmmmmmmaybe.

There's a tension here between "it's a game" and the hardcore simulationists who would demand high fidelity to their conception of "really smart" AI opponents.

My personal feeling is that latter group will never, ever be satisfied. So a game developer is not required to try to do so. It is absolutely OK to make a game whose delegation AI is sufficient to do an acceptable job at the whats and hows most of the time, with the occasional bit of stupid and perceived-brilliant thrown in to keep things interesting. A dedicated milsim is one thing; a game has a different goal and is permitted to get away with some amount of dumb because it's no fun if the player can't possibly win. (This is why one of the harder jobs in pro-level game AI is not making the AI smart, but figuring out how to dumb it down in a way that's not obvious.)

JanB1 wrote:What I really like about TW is, that you send out armies, and can fight battles by hand. It is so much fun to see the fronts clashing into each other. If you would take the direct control of troops away from the player, a game isn't a game about fights anymore, it's a game about organising and strategic planning. It's a really interesting concept, but I don't know how many people would play this.

That's always a fair question when we talk about making a kind of game that's not been seen very often. Honestly, I have a hard time imagining any publisher would back this idea based only on the written description.

That's why I think something like this would have to come from an indie game developer. Some enthusiastic soul would need to make an actual game out of it, even if it's fugly to start with, and then bring in publishing (or crowdfunded) money to finish polishing once a proof-of-concept exists.

As to how many people would play it... that's in the hands of the gods. :)



JFSOCC, like others here, I also appreciate the ideas you suggested. Let me try to summarize them (some of them, anyway):

  • information travel speed is finite, not instantaneous
  • the exact tech tree for a controlled culture depends on environment and player choices
  • gameplay mechanics and UI change as the tech one's controlled culture changes
  • delegation is a critical gameplay feature that emerges at a certain point in a culture's development
If this seems about right, I can say you're playing notes in a song I've been wanting to hear sung for some time now. ;)

Regarding information travel speed, you might enjoy a thread we went round on a while back, called Communications Gameplay in Limit Theory. "How fast should information travel?" was one of the more entertaining questions in that exchange.

To your other suggestions... yep, I'd consider playing that game, too.

I actually worked for a while on a design for a sort of related game about "uplifting" young civilizations to join a galactic federation (or not). Part of my design process was to go collect and organize information about existing human technologies (and invent a few new Future Techs). Here's a single page of the 73 pages of technologies I eventually amassed:

Image

This was the first step. The next step would have been to provide numeric values for the relationships between these techs so that my game could have a plausible pathway for tech progression. So, what happened to that next step?

:squirrel: !

I still very much like the idea, though, of an extremely large tech tree of which any culture will see only a subset, allowing each culture to be interestingly distinctive. I wouldn't mind at all if someone made that game. (Note: Master of Orion 2 used the "subset" approach, but their tech tree was relatively very, very small. So while I liked the idea, I never felt enthusiastic about MoO2's implementation.)

...so how far have we strayed from talking about Endless Space 2? :lol:
User avatar
Flatfingers
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby JFSOCC » Fri May 12, 2017 2:06 pm

Flatfingers wrote:JFSOCC, like others here, I also appreciate the ideas you suggested. Let me try to summarize them (some of them, anyway):

  • information travel speed is finite, not instantaneous
  • the exact tech tree for a controlled culture depends on environment and player choices
  • gameplay mechanics and UI change as the tech one's controlled culture changes
  • delegation is a critical gameplay feature that emerges at a certain point in a culture's development
If this seems about right, I can say you're playing notes in a song I've been wanting to hear sung for some time now. ;)


Thank you, that's much more succinct than I could manage, and damn accurate.
Pretty damn good discussion going on in this thread.

I too want to see a large tech tree, with no tech being essential. I would also make it very granular, and flowing from gameplay. Plumbing might not be developed in a society where there are no cities only sporadic contact between tribes, and one type of plumbing may not be like another. Aquaducts will emerge only if the need for water is great enough, no other potential sources exist, your empire has the manpower and professionalism to build large architectural structures, etc. And irrigation could be different anywhere, do you use arroyos, terracing (which type) rocks for water trapping, underground canals, drainage ditches (for locations that are too wet), water mills?

If you use water mills that may lead you onwards to water power, using canals will improve digging equipment, building aquaducts will allow your architecture to feature arches and more sturdy shapes, etc. etc.

This means that while you may increase crop yields from learning irrigation tech, you may still benefit from learning the techniques of other locales, as they can be added to your repertoire of known techs.

This is also why I like the idea of Limit Theory's procedural tech tree.
JFSOCC
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:43 pm

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby Cornflakes_91 » Fri May 12, 2017 5:29 pm

Flatfingers wrote:stop being true strategy games (I'm looking at you, real-time clock).


oh noes real life isnt strategic because it runs in real time :ghost:
User avatar
Cornflakes_91
Admiral
 
Posts: 9192
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:53 am
Location: Austria

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby Flatfingers » Fri May 12, 2017 8:03 pm

Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Flatfingers wrote:stop being true strategy games (I'm looking at you, real-time clock).


oh noes real life isnt strategic because it runs in real time :ghost:

Oh, real life is strategic, all right.

It's just not a game.
User avatar
Flatfingers
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby JanB1 » Sat May 13, 2017 5:11 am

Flatfingers wrote:I wouldn't be shocked to learn there's an entire course on this at OCS.


Well, you will not be shocked to hear that there, in fact, is a class for this (at least I had a class for this). You can't lead people just by taking them and telling them "Do this over there!". It's a little more complicated.

Before you give orders, you have to really think em through. Think about the interplay between the task of this group and the task of another group. You have to think about the material they might need, specialists they might need, and the time they could need. And, if they will be able to tackle this task and fulfill it or will not be able to do it.

That is the stuff a group leader has to think about (or in the military a platoon leader). The higher up you get, the less specific you get and the more you expect the people you give the orders to do this stuff on their own. You just organize the material and manpower they might need. If they want to use the material or the manpower is up to them. You might give them a hint ("Hey, it might be useful to take this specialist with you, I didn't order them to be sitting here and drink coffee"), but in general, you let them to their thing and only approve it or don't.

You have more important stuff to do and don't have the time to think for them and plan it so far into detail. Because you will lose the sight of "the bigger target" and that could lead to an overall failure.

So yeah, it's really not easy to lead people or to delegate stuff. Because, as you said, you have to "let go" and trust in their skills to do the task in a good manner.
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here

Flatfingers wrote:23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
User avatar
JanB1
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:14 am
Location: Europe

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby Cornflakes_91 » Sat May 13, 2017 5:46 am

Flatfingers wrote:Oh, real life is strategic, all right.

It's just not a game.


so now can real time be strategic or does the flow have to be discretised into relatively big chunks for strategy to be possible at all?

because you are currently contradicting yourself :P
User avatar
Cornflakes_91
Admiral
 
Posts: 9192
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:53 am
Location: Austria

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby JanB1 » Sat May 13, 2017 9:57 am

Flatfingers wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Flatfingers wrote:stop being true strategy games (I'm looking at you, real-time clock).


oh noes real life isnt strategic because it runs in real time :ghost:

Oh, real life is strategic, all right.

It's just not a game.


The story can sometimes be a little shitty.

The graphics are nice, though!
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here

Flatfingers wrote:23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
User avatar
JanB1
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:14 am
Location: Europe

Re: Endless Space 2

Postby 0111narwhalz » Sat May 13, 2017 11:42 am

JanB1 wrote:The graphics are nice, though!

Yeah, but I think my shaders are borked. Sometimes the red things look like green things, and it never displays purple right. :ghost:
User avatar
0111narwhalz
Commander
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Games



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest