Slitherine

First of all, as a point of disclosure, I'm really only interested in single-player procedurally generated content - I really don't generally play scripted maps or multiplayer modes. I also expect a lot from strategy games. So I may not be the core target for the game.

And with that in mind, I had (and still do have) a hell of a lot of hope for this mode. I REALLY want this to be something special in the future. I hope I don't come across as overly critical but I will be brutally honest. TBH, I wouldn't bother giving feedback if I didn't care about the outcome - so I really want the game to provide me with the gaming experience I hope it can.

Unfortunately, for me, Planetary Supremacy 1.0 is severely lacking in many key areas - some may be easier to fix than others.

As a point of comparison, games I love in this genre:
- Age of Wonders: Best tactical battles from any game with punishing AI. Great Strategic AI. Challenging planets. Crap combat mechanic.
- WH40k Gladius: Best AI in any strategy game I've played. Loads of factions (even the start factions were great). Probably errs on the side of being too difficult.
- Distant Worlds 2: Each game feels different. Launched with a lot of problems that are being addressed (I feel this should have been launched in Early Access).
- Dominions: Loads of strategic choice. Mainly multiplayer but still challenging as a single-player game.
- Shadow Empire: Incredibly diverse planets. Challenging AI. Very immersive for a game that looks like it came from the 90's.

Strategic Metagame
In all the games I mentioned above, the placement of armies matters. They need to be close enough to key areas so you can't rely on doom-stacks. In Planetary Supremacy the goal is to just create a doom-stack and ROFL-stomp the map. The metagame really needs to be thought out properly so that choices matter and that whoever is leading can't just build these doom-stacks.
I really feel this is an aspect that needs to be completely re-thought. I can't think of a way of salvaging this so suggestions would probably be a bit of a waste of time. Perhaps start with a list of objectives you want from the metagame. Maybe look at how board games do this. Even old games like Risk have a way of controlling armies (not that I recommend that game).
- Terrain should be meaningful. Choke-points. Combat bonuses. Garrison bonuses etc.
- Find a mechanic that stops just building large armies that attack everywhere.
- Would be great if the map was more random.
- Games should be different each time.
- Don't just have one type of defender.

Tactical Maps
I was really disappointed with the randomly placed items on flat terrain (I know there was mention of a hill you could hide behind in one of the terrains - but that isn't enough). These should have a much more interesting algorithm to build based on terrain types. And some terrain should have features that don't change from battle to battle but that add something to the combat.
Some of the randomly placed objects also don't really work. Eg. Ramps that don't allow you to fire from the top of them.
Again, this to me would be a start again.

Army Build Mechanics
I don't mind the concept of the build mechanics using Requisitions and army points - but it would be much better if your army on the field couldn't magically appear anywhere it likes. I would much prefer a way to give players choice on how much they put into an army but then also need to share the points for secondary armies or perhaps for garrisons. Maybe garrisons get to spend 5x the points allocated to specific regions. Maybe when you allocate points to garrison a region you get bonus points the longer you keep it. Maybe you need to commit points from a repository to defend terrain that you slowly get back.
There needs to be a way to keep the army sizes controllable and still reward gaining territory.
To me, this has the start of a mechanic but without any sort of strategic balance. Not a start-again, but not at all close either.

AI - Strategic
The Strategic AI seemed terrible. Blindly attacking and never gaining a single hex in the games I played.
This is a start-again in my books. Unfortunately, this is probably going to be the most difficult part to get working because the game has never really needed to have a strategic AI before.

Tactical Unit Mechanics
I love the basic unit mechanics and the way the way combat can potentially be played out. This aspect doesn't need to change.

AI - Tactical
While the underlying game mechanics are really solid - the AI doesn't really appear to make the best use of their units. They seem to just march forward and attack. This was fine for scripted maps and/or Tyrannids - but not for a strategy game.
Look at the development of Panzer Corp 2 which had to transition from scripted maps that triggered scripted units to a full-blown strategy game with random content. It ain't easy and takes a lot of time and effort to get this right. They appear to have had a lot of teathing problems getting this to where it currently is.
Gladius also ended up employing a modder who specialised in AI to really fine-tune how the AI handled threat levels. This meant the AI knew when to retreat and then pulse for another attack.
For me, this is going to be another very difficult task to get even half-right.

Unit Diversity
Within the three fleshed out factions the diversity is awesome. The Battle Sisters are not fleshed out at all and should be either supplemented with other Space marine units or provided with new models.
In the Planetary Supremacy mode, the fact that only Battle Sisters are protecting no-mans-land is a major issue. You need to find a way to make this much more interesting.
Another issue is that the enemy doesn't seem to mix up their build using the points and so you end up with just playing the same battle over and over and over amongst random (and non-important) terrain.

Visuals
Awesome. Love these. But ultimately one of the least important factors for strategy gamers.

Voice and Sound
These are really good as well. I was actually really worried after playing Battlestar Galactica because the dialogue and voice acting in that game were not what would happen in an emergency - which I found really jarring. But BattleSector is great.

Dev Skill Set
I do have a concern based on the poor strategic map aspect of Battlestar Galactica that the dev team doesn't have a lot of experience in really tackling a full strategy game with a meaningful metagame and strategic mechanics. I feel the proven strengths of the team are in visuals and tactical combat. I hope that there is someone on the team with experience in this higher-view aspect of strategy gaming.

Hope this is helpful.

Cheers

DasTactic

DasTactic wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:58 am First of all, as a point of disclosure, I'm really only interested in single-player procedurally generated content - I really don't generally play scripted maps or multiplayer modes.

I'm in the same boat, and have held off on buying Battlesector so far (even though the tactical combat looks excellent) just because it's limited to canned missions and multiplayer skirmishes. So a procedural single-player campaign system like this--done well--would be enough to finally get this game off my Steam wishlist and into my library. Having watched a few streams (including yours), it doesn't look like it's there yet. But I know this is an early version, and it has potential.

In all the games I mentioned above, the placement of armies matters. They need to be close enough to key areas so you can't rely on doom-stacks. In Planetary Supremacy the goal is to just create a doom-stack and ROFL-stomp the map. The metagame really needs to be thought out properly so that choices matter and that whoever is leading can't just build these doom-stacks.
I really feel this is an aspect that needs to be completely re-thought. I can't think of a way of salvaging this so suggestions would probably be a bit of a waste of time.

It seems like the core problem is that the game mode is explicitly about building a doom stack, by design. Each faction just has one army. If you fight that faction--anywhere--you fight that army.

This means that there is no downside to controlling territory in this game mode, aside from any attrition involved in claiming it. In a regular strategy game, more territory might give you more resources, but it also gives you more area that you have to defend. Expansion requires caution, because you might bite off more than you can chew. In this game mode, holding more territory is always a net positive. Defending ten hexes is no harder than defending one hex--your army doesn't even have a physical location on the map. So the hexes are just bonuses that you have accumulated, and more bonuses is always going to be better. With the game mode working like this, I suspect that runaway leaders will always dominate every game.

One way to address that issue would be to actually put the armies on the map, and perhaps allow the factions to split their armies and spread them out. Force the players to defend the territory that they claim. That way, more hexes will still equal more bonuses, but also more places that need defending. That would obviously require a significant rework of the game mode, but I don't see how it's possible to get rid of the runaway leader problem without some sort of significant rework, so...

Maybe your issue would be solved by more factions - there are more factions on your border, meaning you cannot just relentlesly attack faction A as faction B will jump on you immediately once you are weakened by your previous battle. You are free to build your doomstack, but still, you need to keep an eye on all enemies on your border.