3 ms·

"the whole captain simulation system hadn't really been explored before" There was a science fiction story a long time ago, probably from the 70s or 80s that I

by vba616 4y ago

"the whole captain simulation system hadn't really been explored before" There was a science fiction story a long time ago, probably from the 70s or 80s that I don't recall well enough to identify, but in the story people were playing a war game where each human player was sort of like a general without direct control over their side's forces. The simulation was extremely detailed and the battles were recreations of historical events, but the gameplay was very high level. When WarCraft and StarCraft came along, I wasn't that impressed because the skills required seemed so micro-manage-y and unrealistic. Has anyone ever come up with an AI that lets players be commanders at a very high level? Where things unfold in real time, with elaborate graphics, but without the ability to control each individual unit. Even if it was dumb, it could cause interesting problems with command and control.

puffoflogic 4y ago
I think your request needs more clarification. By the letter, Total War (tactical level) would qualify since combat at least nominally happens soldier-by-soldier, but the player has control over larger groups of soldiers only. But I don't think this is quite what you're looking for. The player is still freely able to order units to take action and they will at least attempt to obey instantly, albeit fallibly due to mechanics like momentum, close engagement with the enemy on one or more sides, or routing. In fact I think TW is an anti-example because the units having failed to obey an immediate directive cannot be made to accomplish a general goal without repeated direct commands. There's also something like Gratuitous Space Battles (or worse, Stellaris' combat mechanics) where the player has no combat control at all, but it also doesn't seem quite right. I fear the formula may simply not be very fun. GSB may push the envelope on how much you can take the player out of the loop without losing the plot, but even there I suspect it borrows quite a lot from strategic games like Stellaris (or any Paradox grand strategy) where the tactical layer exists solely to validate or falsify the players' strategic decisions in a slightly more dynamic way than "bigger number wins".
rasz 4y ago
Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord. You can play Starsector completely hands free during battles.

by vba616 4y ago

puffoflogic 4y ago

I think your request needs more clarification. By the letter, Total War (tactical level) would qualify since combat at least nominally happens soldier-by-soldier, but the player has control over larger groups of soldiers only. But I don't think this is quite what you're looking for. The player is still freely able to order units to take action and they will at least attempt to obey instantly, albeit fallibly due to mechanics like momentum, close engagement with the enemy on one or more sides, or routing. In fact I think TW is an anti-example because the units having failed to obey an immediate directive cannot be made to accomplish a general goal without repeated direct commands. There's also something like Gratuitous Space Battles (or worse, Stellaris' combat mechanics) where the player has no combat control at all, but it also doesn't seem quite right. I fear the formula may simply not be very fun. GSB may push the envelope on how much you can take the player out of the loop without losing the plot, but even there I suspect it borrows quite a lot from strategic games like Stellaris (or any Paradox grand strategy) where the tactical layer exists solely to validate or falsify the players' strategic decisions in a slightly more dynamic way than "bigger number wins".

rasz 4y ago

Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord. You can play Starsector completely hands free during battles.