Strategy/tactical thought

...as the idea is usable in both categories

Hi guys;
Very recently I read a post on here concerning ETA's on movement orders, similar to the Supreme Commander setup. I was wondering whether it would be possible in an update (as it is probably to hard to do so close to the release date, but I wouldn't know)to add the co-ordinated attack idea, wherein one can order two different groups to attack the same target and arrive at the same time.
However, I found that in Supreme Commander it was difficult to use this function to attack, say, two different sides of a base simultaneously, seeing that the function only worked on single targets.
Perhaps a more general, "co-ordinated movement" function could be implemented to facilitate, say, simultaneous arrival of two task forces from different directions into a gravity well, or, tactically, to fudge a quick pincer movement in-battle, etc. etc. Like I said, this would perhaps be better in an update or even a mod.

As a quick example, consider two groups arriving at a gravity well; once there, you could tell the one to go "west" of the planet, shift-click (or whatever) on its destination to activate the function, and tell the other to go "east", such that the game automatically programs the same ETA on both destinations.
Just a note; I haven't played the game at all, so I don't know whether I'm way off with this or not :)
Thanks for having the patience to read this!
What do you think?
49,928 views 26 replies
Reply #1 Top
Thats an interesting idea.  I find this type of thing rarely comes up, but I could see it being useful when it does.  Of greater concern is keeping units of one group together as they attack and travel between planets.  There are several features in place to make sure this is easy to do!
Reply #2 Top
Part of the first idea could be solved if you could give us a "prepare for jump" command that would function like telling units to jump to the next system... except they don't actually jump, they just form up and align themselves and all that fun stuff. That way, unless there was a (large) difference in the length of the lanes, you wouldn't have very much trouble. It would also be useful for co-ordinated assaults done by allies, so they jump in at the same time.
Reply #3 Top
True true! Yes indeed; a good idea.
Thanks for that :)
And indeed, for Craig's answer too.
Reply #4 Top
I just want flanking maneuvers to work. Direction of attack should be a factor.
Reply #5 Top

I just want flanking maneuvers to work. Direction of attack should be a factor.
End of quote


That would make too much micro :/
Reply #6 Top
Really? How, then, would one be able to flank without micro-ing? Your statement suggests that the only way anyone can ever flank, or act tactically for that matter, would be through an unfavourable amount of micro. I've never liked micro, but your statement sort of takes tactics (and on the grander scale, strategy) out of the game...
No offence meant :)

Furthermore, I'd like to find out how to quote :P
Reply #7 Top

Furthermore, I'd like to find out how to quote
End of quote


Hit the quote button? Or, highlight the text you want quoted then hit the quote button.
Reply #8 Top
Quote button?
*looks around* Ah, THAT quote button! Dammit, I'm a moron... first typos then lack of observational skills.
Thanks for that.
Reply #10 Top
That's not very nice :P

Reply #11 Top
Don't take me seriously... Ive done my share of moronic things, and made many people looks smarter by comparison. :LOL:
Reply #12 Top
Oh I didn't - and I think it applies to us all :)
Thanks for the input... good to know I'm not alone :P
Reply #13 Top
tactics is always micro.

A GOOD rts would remove unnecessary micro by MINIMIZING activated unit abilities and using mostly passive skills and traits to differentiate units, but would generally have to keep focus on manouvering smartly.

If the game is about sending the most biggest units as fast as possible then it ends up being a strictly strategic game. If thats the goal, then its just fine, but RTS gamers need their tactics. Its what makes the game fun for us -- outmanouvering our enemies on the field, being in the action. This in no way detracts from the strategic element, they're just two things vying for your attention, tactics and strategy, and a good player balances them as appropriate for the situation.

If manouvering during combat does little to affect combat, then there's no tactics in the game.




And in any case, the only true problem is our input mechanism technology. If we could tell a unit to use an activated 'throw grenade' ability with but a thought, through telematic/neural input/output jacks directly to our brain, games would be much much more fun :>
Not to mention that people couldn't anymore use that lame 'he just clicks faster than me' excuse.. they'd have to use 'he just thinks faster than me' as an excuse, which isn't that valid really :)
Reply #14 Top
I do hope that there is plenty of tactical elements to consider in Sins. The fantastic scope of the game would only be enhanced if the option was there to utilise tactical manouvers etc. It shouldn't be required(I read that the AI is pretty good at fighting for you), but should still be an option.

Could anyone say what the tactical options are for the final release?
Reply #16 Top
End of quote


Cool linkage. Great read to.
Reply #17 Top
 ;p 
Reply #18 Top
" And in any case, the only true problem is our input mechanism technology. If we could tell a unit to use an activated 'throw grenade' ability with but a thought, through telematic/neural input/output jacks directly to our brain, games would be much much more fun :> "

Waiting for that! USB 2000000.0!
Reply #19 Top
I agree. I see micro as the inane ability to click faster than someone else, instead of intelligently managing units in combat, though this is bound to disagree with someone else :P I don't like clickfests, I like intelligence - if the ability to manage units in battle in an intelligent manner is what is required, I support it wholeheartedly. If those units are programmed (as it seems to be in this game... yes!) to behave intelligently, that's even better - i like to think of myself then as the general (obviously at the strategic level) making the major decisions with lieutenants under me (characterized by the A.I. in the units) making tactical decisions.
What I like even more is the fact that if I want suddenly to become both the general AND all my lieutenants at the same time, I can do that and make all tactical decisions myself.
Well done Stardock and Ironclad! They supported me with GalCiv 2 and I will support them with whatever game they release, especially if it's one I like :P

Thanks for the input guys. What do you think?
USB 2000000.0 FTW!!
Reply #20 Top

I agree. I see micro as the inane ability to click faster than someone else, instead of intelligently managing units in combat, though this is bound to disagree with someone else I don't like clickfests, I like intelligence - if the ability to manage units in battle in an intelligent manner is what is required, I support it wholeheartedly. If those units are programmed (as it seems to be in this game... yes!) to behave intelligently, that's even better - i like to think of myself then as the general (obviously at the strategic level) making the major decisions with lieutenants under me (characterized by the A.I. in the units) making tactical decisions.
End of quote


I agree. That's one (of many) things attracting me to this game. When I play a game like this, I, like you, imagine myself as the leader. A general or colonel or admiral, whatever is appropriate for the scale of the game. A leader does not say, "You, move left, now right, now take two steps forward, incoming! Take three steps back." Dawn of War is a good example of this, where you have to micro units to kite enemies or to avoid special abilities. A leader would be more apt to say, "Take these troops and take that objective. Hit them from the left flank, that's where they should be weakest."

Reply #21 Top
while sin doesnt have a direct tactical flanking system in place, it a) has a strategic one ( which planets - preferably weak ones) to attack and several factors determining battle plans. I had some cool and very tactical fights with better players where we clearly saw for example maneuvering beforehand to exit at the optimal point in a grav well, circumventing stationary guns to attack undefended structures or the planet itself. then the deployment and use of repair stations and special buildings come into play. a defending player will usually retreat to his positions, set on hold and use them to wear an enemy down. it can also be a stalling tactic to buy time for reinforcements to arrive. then you have tactics concerning retreating capships, when you do it, what you do when your enemy does it. follow through multiple grav wells? follow into repair center with point defenses.

in short: I sincerely think this game has lots of tactics, but in another way that baby sitting single units and telling them when to use ability xy or evade being hit by yz. I think it ties a lot more into the strategic layer in behind. what type of tactics are used depends on what aims every player pursues with this battle in the grand scheme.
Reply #22 Top
I like both of your points. Anyone know what plural for "generalissimo" is? Surely not "generalissimi"?

I think in short: Sins FOR THE WIN!
Can't wait to verse some of you on multi, once I get Sins in April *disgusted with Aus release date while irrationally unwilling to order online*
Reply #23 Top
I'm still baffled by the fact that people are stating that flanking is too much micro...
Reply #24 Top
I think the idea that flanking will require a lot of micro in Sins is becasue the battlefields (grav wells) are relatively small, and it would probably be a lot of work to try and keep your units from engaging while scooting around the edge to get into position (and even then, with no fog of war the enemy will see you the whole time). As I understand it flanking in Sins is better done via jumping in from multiple directions at once, which wouldn't really require any micro at all.

But who knows, I seem to recall someone saying the grav well size was increased so maybe it is viable now. They will still see what you are up to though.
Reply #25 Top
I'm more than baffled, I'm outraged. What an insult to tactics even to suggest that it is micro. What the hell would make one think that? To flank is not to micro. That's clear. Why would it be?
Raymundus seems to have a point, though, but in the end it comes down to what flanking is. What does it mean to flank? Does it mean to tell your units, and I quote Fobok, "You, move left, now right, now take two steps forward, incoming! Take three steps back"? Of course not? It simply means: "You move there, and you move there. Now we've got them!" Any additional details should be carried out be the AI. That is what intelligent tactics is. Intelligent tactics is not the overarching word for clicking lots and telling units exactly what to do.
So let's get it out of our heads that flanking (as an example of tactics) is too much micro. It's both a misconception of what micro is, and more of what tactics is. Some people just don't think, no offence :P