I do find it “odd” that in a 4x game the player is required to micro combat so much.
Personally, I play it more as a grand 4x game, and would prefer to see “doctrines” invoked and the battles to be more of Rule the Waves Admiral mode.
That said, ship combat has the same primary purposes as ground combat really:
To forcefully expand territory
Put a strain on the economy
Drive research
Everything else is more or less user preference.
With the amount of micro required it is possible to “win” scenarios where one should “lose” by doing the “most optimal” with perfect knowledge. That isn’t a bad thing really, it is a player choice. Just wish there was a player choice for player ships to play like AI ships without much user input. It’s one thing to attribute a player mistake/oversight to “fog of war” or “miscommunication” it is another to see it and have to deal with the stress of “what the hell are you doing?!?!?”
I just like playing Aurora because no other 4x game lets me design my fleet and armies to such detail. I can design, build and use whatever I want however I want with all the risks and consequences involved. It’s also the first 4x game that has ground AND space logistics play a very big part and a challenge that I like to tackle.
I do find combat fun. It’s when I find out whether the doctorine, design, logistics, and tactical decisions I made are any good or need to be improved. E.g. things like including a commercial hanger on all my tugs that houses a boarding shuttle for emergency protection from commerce raiders. Or putting a military hanger on my battleships to carry small scout fighters to jump through a gate to confirm it’s clear before the main fleet goes through. Etc.
I’ve had some fights that were balanced on a knife’s edge. Other fights were always going to be won, but the question was whether I’d lose a major ship before winning. I love opportunities for combat, although less so when it’s a survey ship being run down.
So much philosophy in these answers, but yeah when I read the original question I did not understand it and I had the feeling like it was already aimed to put Aurora in a dark shade, so I avoided to reply.
Honestly, if the guy reads me, I love Aurora because it is a “Total 4x strategic game” which is exactly how I like games (for example Europa universalis) and the combat part is fun because it is part of the whole thing (4X system).
I do not like limited strategic games, for me a strategic game must encompasses everything in a total way, in this case Aurora has all and you are not limited, the entire (and real) universe, an economic system, deep logistic, other races and new ones generated while playing, mega detailed, random things, espionage, Diplo, no bullshits.
The combat system is not fun? Still not clear why, for me is fun, engaging and well integrated with the rest enough to be fundamental to the game.
For me, it ultimately ties into how I play Aurora. Since I do “playing multiple sides”, the combat of the game fulfills for me a very specific itch that no other game really does: adaptive doctrine.
Most games of this sort never require you to update your doctrine in response to an enemy updating theirs to match yours. Either doctrine doesn’t exist, doesn’t matter, or only needs to be updated when facing one particular foe versus another all of which have preestablished doctrines of their own. Because I can with Aurora play both sides of the equation, I can actually make doctrinal changes in such a way that I actually get that “both sides evolving to meet the other in battle” effect that you just cannot get anywhere else.
May I condense the sense I feel in this discussion? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
And I love you just the way you are.
Most of us, here, likes Aurora the way it is (or, at least, likes most of the parts and the mechanics of the game). Someone else don’t.
I think we never settle our ideas about it, no matter the time and the words we could use.
Fortunately, all together we can try to motivate some requests of changes, to improve the game experience. And we have to strongly thanks Steve for paying attention to us and sometimes accepting the suggestions.
This makes the game also ours, a little bit.
And it’s an important part of why I like it.
Bit of a noobie here, since I started playing this year, but I would say I do find the moment to moment gameplay of combat exciting and fun. The mechanics were a bit difficult to grasp at first but once I did I really started to fall in love with this game.
In isolation, I would describe Aurora’s combat as adequate. However, removing the combat from the context of the rest of the game, that being the logistics, doctrine, strategy, etc that led up the individual encounter is silly. Combat is a single set of mechanics in a pool of dozens of others, and Aurora is a 4x/Strategy game. The amount of time in combat compared to everything else is tiny (depends on your game / playstyle of course) and so hyperfixating on the moment to moment while ignoring everything else is absurd.
Like someone else already pointed out: Aurora is not (primarily) a battle simulation game. You aren’t picking out a fleet and testing it against an AI’s fleet in a vacuum (no pun intended), you’re creating the infastructure, doctrine, and general disposition of your space navy and deploying it in whatever manner you desire. This context is what makes elevates the combat so much to me; it’s everything that led up the moment of contact, the decisions you made about the design of your ships, how you’d deploy them, where they are, and of course the uncertainty of your victory.
I admit I have my own gripes with the combat system and things that I wish were easier to automate / mechanics that I may type up a lengthy suggestion for in the future, but it has never dissapointed me. Even when it kicked my butt, several times I may add
First and foremost, Total War series is in no way, shape, or form a 4x genre, 3x is debatable.
But to use that as an example, ignoring the WEGO Aurora 4x system versus RTS of Total War, it would be akin to having to give orders to every single member of every single unit. So can’t just tell Archer Block 2 to target Pikeman Block 1, no, would be going and telling each archer individually whom to target.
Second, it not being fun for you is a moot point, simply don’t use the option. As far as “hard to implement”, same logic NPR’s use currently, so not sure why a “toggle” would be “hard”. To use Total War, Auto-Resolve, but preferably not as boring as just a result like that series does.
Something more akin to HOIIV’s “front” system, where one tells an army what to do, and then click “go” and they try to do it. One still has the option of microing the units to get more desirable results, but there would still be the option to “masterplan the battle” like doing a single plan in Doorkickers and let it run without pausing and adjusting on the fly, but still having the option to do so.
Note the AI/NPC combat logic might only work with the way the AI designs ships and fleets. The logic might not work at all for player designed forces. The level of abstraction and detail to make combat logic work for all possible designs or even reasonable designs might be more than is currently coded so it might be a lot of work, if the decision were made to implement that.
Yes, that is true. The AI works for fleets with a defined role and ship designs with a pre-defined purposes. The AI will try to assess the intent of a player ship design and use it accordingly, but there are too many potential variations to do that very effectively. That is why giving player-designed ships to an AI can cause problems.
Allowing player to select a fleet role would be adequate. Player then designs within those constraints. May “force” to run fleets “together” to get “best” results depending on role restrictions.
With any given ship design, there is only one optimal way to fight a battle with it. And if a ship wins or loses, it’s already mostly set in stone (with the exception of minor randomness) There is no player agency or any decision making involved in a battle.
I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. In many sessions, slight adjustments of tactics changes the outcome of a battle. I have, on multiple occasions, won a battle because I realized what their strategy was and countered it.
Example: In one game, I was outclassed and outgunned by a foe that had faster ships. The only advantage I had was numbers and slightly thicker armor. Once I realized that they were chasing a ship they’d already damaged, I broke off the rest of my forces and did a pincer maneuver. They were slowed by chasing my ship, and because I came at them from both sides, they couldn’t maneuver to stay out of range. I ultimately won against a superior foe without losing any ships, though I practically had to tow the one they were chasing back to Earth.
The outcome was not set in stone. My inferior ships won the day because I saw a chance and took it. It was exhilarating to win this engagement, and quite fun.
I’ve read AARs describing armed geo- and grav-survey ships.
Which role should the player select for them?
Being able to imagine ships that can be extremely flexible in their actions is a huge (and fun) tool in our hands, that Steve has given us.
Maybe, as you say in your messages, there could be on/off options to activate some variant in game mechanics for the player, to use AI automation. I just say I wouldn’t use them, because I prefer to adapt to the incidental situations choosing my actions.
The important thing is to enjoy the game.
My thoughts on AI managing ships were more related to broader, repetitive tasks such as identifying enemies, selecting weapons, assigning fire controls, and deciding when and what to fire.
I do understand that the logic behind this is far from simple, and that the existing systems are closely tied to predefined ship designs and doctrines. As I mentioned before, many of these forms of automation already exist through bulk commands, and my feedback does not change the fact that I am overall very happy with Aurora’s combat system.
However, large engagements involving 30–50+ ships and 50–100 fighters can become quite demanding, and I can see an appeal, from an RP perspective, in directly controlling only the admiral’s fleet while subordinate commanders manage the other two or three task forces.
Personally, I would prefer to retain direct control over every aspect when playing against myself, as it allows for a broader tactical approach and a richer narrative. As such, if a mechanic like this were ever implemented, I would most likely limit its use to my solo campaigns.
Again, this is not about simplifying the game or avoiding complexity. I go through the full campaign setup for WitP:AE at least once every couple of years, and believe it or not, if you have never done it, that setup process is practically a game in itself, and not always the most enjoyable one. Even so, it has a certain charm.
“9. Extremely tactical. You control each weapon, missile and fire control assignment. Sensor information is vital. Using active sensors and shields can give away your position. There is ECM, complex missile warfare, layered point defence, etc.”
Thank you to all that answered my question without prejudice. I really appreciate it. I loved Aurora4x too. But hard questions are the way for the community, and the game to grow and become better.
It seems like you are trying to win an argument that doesn’t exist, rather than understand the game. I’m not even sure what point you are trying to make. Everything you quoted above is true. There is no contradiction involved.
Aurora is an operational and strategic game, with the tactical battles set within that context (read all the replies in the thread). There is no maneuvering, turn rates, facing, weapon arcs, power allocation, etc. that you would find in all tactical-focused space combat games.
Even in an operational game, ships still have to detect each other and shoot at each other and that part is detailed. Mea Culpa for replying to someone four months ago and repeating their phrase when answering (within a much longer reply), because I also have played a lot of EVE Online and knew what the person meant
Also, it might be time for you to move on from this, because your behaviour in this regard is becoming a little odd. I’ve been developing Aurora for over twenty years, so there is a fairly good chance I know what I intended to create. If you want to ignore my explanations and also what the respondents in this thread have said, then please go ahead with your belief that Aurora is primarily a tactical game. People disagreeing with your opinion and explaining how the game works isn’t some sort of attack on you.
EDIT: Crazy thought but is your point that I really think the game is tactical-focused and when I say it is operational/strategic I am lying or trying to mislead you?
I’m long time Aurora player. Been playing since at least 2019, VB6 version days.
Will answer OP questions:
Auto resolve. No! At a certain point in my life I was working on a game design for a space game similar to Aurora and realized that I would not like an auto-resolve combat. It works for me in games like WITP AE, but in Aurora I want to have tactical control in battle. There are so many options and ways to run a battle, letting the ai do that would be less interesting to me. Not that automating some parts of combat is bad (point-defense and AMMs are great example).
Fun? Well, yes, Aurora combat is fun for me. Fog of war is one of the key components. Carrier warfare, missile barrages, interceptions, scouting. Many aspects of it all fuse strategic, operational and tactical levels of operations together. Controlling the battlefield is thrilling.
Immersive? Yes and no. Armor and HTK mechanics are not ideal. Direct ship movement is great, there is no need for real orbital mechanics (there are games like KSP for that). Speed factors are my main gripe. Fleets with higher speeds are usually the winners (and in a VERY LOPSIDED way). Or at least not losers. Slower ships are usually dead, or can’t chase their targets. It feels less than ideal. Also combat damage. In reality, a damaged ship can be destroyed or scuttled due to lasting damage or bad damaged control many hours after combat action ends.
Fleet scenario game mode? Not interesting to me. I love Aurora because I can have a long standing campaign. Fleet fights separately are not interesting in isolation for me.
This is my POV at the end of the day. The amount of micro needed in combat is a unicorn in the 4x genre. It’s not a “bad” thing, but it is a thing, a thing where the time spent to payoff ratio is negatively efficient many times. In no way am I advocating for it to go away, but some sort of checkbox to select a doctrine or prioritize targets and then let the combat go on would ease the load quite a bit.
How many folks have had more than one engagement going on at once? How about more than five? The micro becomes overwhelming in a non-linear fashion with an increase in not only ships, but battles.
Not sure would want ship-combat to go to current ground-combat level of abstraction, but would like to see a move towards the middle for BOTH to have/see a more unified combat system, where it doesn’t matter the location, just the tools used on the options/tactics/doctrines/weapons used are different, but the CORE MECHANIC would be consistent.
