Less Direct Control During Combat ?

[nomadseifer]

As far as I know, Tynan doesn't specifically mention direct control during combat as a feature in the kickstarter

RimWorld uses an engine that I originally developed to power a tactical sim similar to Jagged Alliance 2. This means it has a lot of features designed to make small-team firefights interesting. For example:
•There's a cover system that models low cover and leaning around corners.
•There's a really nuanced algorithm for determining and reporting hit chances based on distance, skill, weapon, lighting, angle, and cover.
•Weapons have some pretty deep stats.
•The AI plans and executes tactical moves like flanking while trying to stay out of the enemy's line of fire. It uses a number of heuristic algorithms to analyze the battlefield and use the space effectively. It works with allies and avoids bunching up.

I think most base-builder developers wouldn't put this much effort into a tactics engine, but having inherited from that earlier project, RimWorld benefits greatly in unexpected ways.

Because of how important cover and positioning are in gunfights, our combat interacts deeply with the colony's layout and structure. This means players have to think about how they want to position their constructions to maximum advantage in future firefights. Combat in general is a lot more interesting than the traditional trading of blows you might expect in a base-building game. And it's possible to build a wide variety of base configurations for maximum tactical advantage against diverse foes.

[British]

Quote from KickStarter

As it has be said, there's a very neat and deep combat system... what's the point if we can't enjoy it by actually playing it ?

[Aerouge]

Quote from KickStarter

As it has be said, there's a very neat and deep combat system... what's the point if we can't enjoy it by actually playing it ?

The elephant in the room here is the question: Do we want a settlement-simulator like DF where we macro-manage everything?
Or do we want X-Com where we micro-management everything?
Or a mix-thereoff?

I genereally like the DF/Gnomoria Macro-aproach. Asign your colonists to a squad, have it patroul or guard an area and enjoy the show

Next question, what does Tynan want / what can he create (programming wise)?
That only he knows. But judging from the current state of the pre-pre-alpha I thing we wont see any change to the current system.

[nomadseifer]

Quote from KickStarter

As it has be said, there's a very neat and deep combat system... what's the point if we can't enjoy it by actually playing it ?

I guess that's like saying whats the point of a deep relationship system, if you can't directly make one character have an affair with another.  The depth comes from the interaction of the colonists and the world you create around them.  So relationships might live or die based on the placement of bedrooms, and the colonists might live or die during a battle based on the layout of the defensive structures and the weapons technologies you've made available. 

[AspenShadow]

I guess that's like saying whats the point of a deep relationship system, if you can't directly make one character have an affair with another.  The depth comes from the interaction of the colonists and the world you create around them.  So relationships might live or die based on the placement of bedrooms, and the colonists might live or die during a battle based on the layout of the defensive structures and the weapons technologies you've made available.

I'm really against the idea of 'farming out' combat to an AI it just feels wrong to actively remove something that works from the game; particularly as it's a major part of a currently-bare-bones project.
However I have to admit you make a very valid point regarding contrasting the micro-management (which I love for both sim/building AND combat btw), I'd considered the approach to relationship building myself and was unsure of how we should approach it.

Perhaps a way around it might be to choose a colonist(s) to draft to become the 'General' of sorts for the colony with generally-set behaviour and the type of leader you wish him to be. In battle it's not micro-management, it's farmed out to an AI as suggested, yet it's still somewhat player-controlled and not left to chance?

[nomadseifer]

I'm really against the idea of 'farming out' combat to an AI it just feels wrong to actively remove something that works from the game

I think this is the bigger issue at hand and will be more so once the kickstarter ends and more people are playing.  If micromanaging combat is fun and meaty, compared to the rest of the game, then people will gravitate towards keeping it in and most likely expanding it.  Already on the forums there are plenty of combat related suggestions that would add much more tactical depth. 

Another problem with micromanaged combat is that you have undue ability to 'beat' the game.  There is no way that enemy AI will ever compare to even an average player who has complete control over his colonists.  So the major inflection points of the game will always occur in combat where the player can really extract maximum value from situations.  The only way to counter this is to send many more raiders and then that puts you into the normal strategy game situation where you are clearly smarter than the computer and they stop feeling like an opponent and more like a cheating game system.  Think how high-difficulty levels in Civilization amp the bonuses available to the other civs.  Not smarter, just more. 

[Khellendros]

I agree with a previous comment that combat should be a mix of micro and macro management. The game seems to be rich on AI scripting so it should be possible to give individual orders to units or give the units AI controlled responsibilities. Just as with setting up the home base area to enable automatic actions, like putting out fires, similar auto AI can be given to combat. The use of check boxes/Drop down for AI tactics would give the player this sort of flexibility.

Examples:
Engage hostiles. Check/uncheck to create selected colonists for active or passive patrol duty. These colonists will primarily patrol the perimeter of the home base and will react to hostiles when encountered. If on active patrol the colonist will alert other combat colonist and engage in combat immediately. If passive patrol the colonist will not engage immediately and instead only alert other combat colonists and will only defend him/herself when being engaged. This would help so that a single watchmen doesn't go off on a suicide mission by engaging hostiles alone.

Option for melee or long range combat. For example you have a group of riflemen or archers and you want them to maintain distance in combat. Have a check box for long range combat and melee combat. Uncheck melee and the AI will try to run away and fire from a distance. Or a combat medic who only tries to heal or treat wounded soldiers and you don't want them engaging hostiles so you uncheck the box for auto-engage.

Another example would be reconnaissance. Set a few AI up for recon and they will either wander the map and will only report events on the world map. If hostiles are encountered they will try to escape and alert the home base. If they find resources they'll alert home base so the user can collect the resources. Or the player can direct them to recon specific locations on the map. Of course this would only be necessary in a fog of war scenario. If the entire map is already visible that wouldn't be necessary.

If having various options for AI do's and don'ts is too complex then a simpler system for assigning a group set of behaviors could be implemented. For example combat AI can be set to Melee or Ranged. Auto-engage or passive. Chase or not chase targets.

Micro management can still come into play if you want a more RTS approach by group selecting colonists and issuing commands like Attack and move, etc.

With a mixed system of combat it will give the player a broader experience so they can play the game best suited for their play style. One player may be more combat oriented and prefers to take direct control of their troops. By taking direct control said player will be able to minimize causalities and consequences.

Another player may prefer a more sim building experience and prefer to leave combat up to the AI scripts. While player controlled actions will be more effective and precise the AI should be made effective enough so they can overcome combat situations on their own however with more causalities and consequences because the player chooses not to intervene or intervenes infrequently.

P.S. I'm brand new to this forum and game so please forgive me if anything I've stated previous is already discussed or being implemented.