SE5 release is only 3 weeks away!

[Puke]

well, yes. same with se4. which is why im more concerned with the large scale empire management than with the combat aspects.


as long as the auto-resolve provides consistant and predictable results based on the statistics of the units involved in combat, i dont care what the graphics and effects look like on the back end. i'll never see them anyway.

[Captain Kwok]

The combats do look somewhat better than how they are presented in the screenshots... MM seems to like big weird zoomed-in shots.

Tactical combat in SE:V is only available as it was in SE:IV so I don't see any problems with that. And I think a lot more people were in favour of expanded ground combat than those against it.

[Kamog]

I think the ground combat screen shots look pretty good.

[The Frenchmen]

Yeh, they look bad to me =P
Ever played imperium galactica 2? Space empires with that ground combat is my dream.. here.

I only have 1 question i know cant be answered -
in a TCP/IP game when two players enter combat, is it strategic, or an option of tactical or strategic? I know the NDA won't allow anybody to talk about it, too bad even a PM wouldn't be allowed. Guess i'll have to wait.

[thorfrog]

Puke said:
i have to admit, the ground combat does look pretty bad. im sure its nice being able to have different troop types, and fighters, and possibly orbital bombardment all playing a factor.

But I think that I would have much prefered it in a non-interactive axis-and-alies style interface. much like se4, where you line up the us-vs-them and the various assest plunk away at each other.

even if facilities were going to come into play -- for defense, destruction, and capturing -- they could have been represented iconically on a summary page, instead of out of scale and in mid 90's 3D.

I agree as well. Ground combat is not what I was expecting for this game.

[Fyron]

I'd much rather have a complex ground combat engine to run by the host at turn processing than the craptacular SE4 ground combat system...

Graphics aren't what brings us to these games anyways, right? I'd rather have mid-90s graphics than force everyone to spend $800 US to be able to play the game.

[Puke]

the only things wrong with the SE4 GC system, is where the mechanics dont operate as you would expect.

Iron out the mechanics behind the combat (hell, even make them visible in a log or something) and you dont need 3d graphics. have range, firepower, combat modifiers, and other factors all ground out into some mathamatical function, throw some minor randomization in, and you're done.

The only tactics I would want to assign to individual units are Firing Priority, and either Front-Line, Main-Force, or Rear-Support.

Ground combat can be very detailed without being graphically demanding. It could still be caried out with an interface similar to the SE4 interface. Sometimes less is more.

[Suicide Junkie]

You can just look at the results in your log...
Nobody is forcing you to watch the replays.

[Captain Kwok]

The strategic mode is just the RT execution without the graphics so it takes into consideration all the factors (i.e. strategies, weapon ranges etc) which sounds like what you want Puke. However, I think it's a good idea that the tactical option is available for those who want it. Kind of satisfies both crowds.

[scJazz]

OK ummm silly question but it has been years and I've totally forgotten...

What is SE3 style Intelligence and Research mean?