i think the battle mode should be more free flowing like age of empires, since it takes too long. also if you want it to stay as turns then you should be able to force a turn after 5 minutes not 11.

Nay. Battles are turn based. If you can't wait your turn...sorry, learn some patience.

5 minutes isn't long enough in the larger games, and it's DEFINITELY not long enough if you have slow internet, or your computer crashes or something. This is a strategy game...we want people to think before they move.

And if Req sees this suggestion, he's going to go ape again about the idea of "only moving 5 of your troops a turn." NO REQ! BAD! WE LIKE MOVING ALL OF OUR TROOPS EVERY TURN.

Last Edited : Friday, 5 August 2005 - 15:24

i'm with sage on this one i think the battles should stay the same as they are now i know i've had a couple of battles when my computer can't find the server and i have to wait like 8 or 9 minutes for it to find it

YES!! We should move fewer troops per turn!!!

This makes faster turns, and far more balanced and strategic.

If Battles were timed like Campaigns, there would be no way on earth you could move and attack with ALL your troops before your opponent could do anything.

It would be more like half and half.

So why in Battles is it ok to move everything while the opponent sits and does nothing, and can only retaliate (with fewer troops) when it's his/her turn?

Take a look at Heroscape (great boardgame), and it shows why its so valuable to break up turns into smaller actions.

I'd even think something like you can only action 1/3 or maybe 1/2 of the game's Points worth per turn.
(eg, a 6000 point game means you could move 2000 or 3000 points of troops per turn)

Much more interesting, strategic, and balanced for both players.

plz no Req anything but that GOD NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
even though Heroscape is cool maby u should at something like making ur own maps

Why noooooooo?

Suggestions or comments without explainations dont count when it comes to decision making.

Remember, please dont think on a personal level, but rather what would improve the game as a whole.

I know you may not WANT some changes or limits because it changes what you are used to, or it seems you can do less in begin, but often they can improve the game considerably (and this has been proved in the past with many of the changes I made).

part of battle strategy is thinking of how your actions will effect your position at the end of your turn.

Contrary to what some may believe, first strike doesn't decide a battle.

No, first strike doesnt decide the battle.

However, 1 turn can decide the battle.
In 1 turn, Player A can move all their troops while Player B cannot do anything. So in that 1 turn, Player B's strategies/options can be completely destroyed simply because Player A has so many troops to move in 1 turn.

This is why the best strategy games out there have some limiting factor, or an "initiative" skill which determines which "troop-types" move first. So that one player doesnt get to move/attack with everything in 1 turn.

The combat system used here is very similar to Heroes Of Might & Magic 3 (it's what I based it on anyway), yet they also do not allow 1 player to move everything in 1 turn.
If they had the same rules as we have here (move everything), the game would not have been as successful.

So I dont know why some people cling so strongly to the concept of the current unfair system that reduces the potential strategy of the game.

What is so wrong with moving fewer troops in 1 turn??

What's the difference if you make 2 turns of 5 minutes moving 1/2 your troops, or 1 turn of 10 minutes of all your troops? Nothing!
Except that with 2 turns, your opponent gets a 1/2 move in between making the game much more tactical and strategic.

Ahhh come on, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I think the basic tactics and strategy are abundant enough. What we need is more variety and a more user friendly system.

How about the [remove] option when picking the troop combinations?

How about natural terrain maps (like we used to have back in the farm days) randomly generated each battle? I pray to God you have preserved that code Req.

How about another class of troops/creatures to play around with?


*bored warhound crawls back into his hole*

dont change it !!!!!!this is the best way!!!!ill bake u a pie if u dont!!!!!

I have to say something here for Req that I think he is trying to say but isn't saying exactly. When armies engage in battle the defenders fight back ... they don't just stand there and get slaughtered and the method he wants to use is the only way he has to balance the battle other than to program AI into the defenders so that they respond on their own which would probably be full of other problems and bugs.

The difference is that his idea gives the attacker and defender the ability to repond to each other in a battle more homogeneously (i.e. with a better mix of attack/defend),
But there is NO difference in that a game is played by the game dynamics that are given (i.e. everyone learned to play by the OLD methods So they can learn how to play by the NEW methods);
and Req thinks his New methods will provide a better game.

TR

Last Edited : Saturday, 6 August 2005 - 11:26

PS:
Of course I haven't played a battle so I guess I'm not supposed to know, but some things are just common sense folks.

TR

Look at the very successful game Warhammer 40k. 1 player gets to move and attack all in one turn, and in that game, the defending player doesn't even get retal. Look how many people play that game, its extremely successful. Part of the game is putting yourself in a position at the end of the turn where you will take the least amount of casualties, a good battler will always have that on his mind. You've made a good system here Req, you don't need to change it.

ya warhammerwas fairly cool iused to collect eldar.....anyway req u should wait until war of kings to
make that decision

Another example of a game that uses the system we do is Advance Wars for gameboy. The first one was so popular that they made a sequel, and they're in the midst of making Advance Wars 3. A great game where you move all your troops at once. Figuring out a defensive positon so that you can't be destroyed in one turn is a big part of the strategy.

Besides...the guy who attacks first usually has to move his troops pretty far before attacking, so when he gets there he only has 70-80% BP.

This wouldn't make turns go any faster! How often do I have to point this out...what makes turns so slow is not that it takes a long time to move your troops. I can move all of my troops in under a minute (even when I'm playing demonic with 40+ stacks). What takes time is the thinking and strategizing! That won't change, and turns will take just as long...the difference, though, is that it would take longer to finish a game because it would take more turns to complete. So you'd be making the game LONGER and more time consuming.

Req...the current system is good. Please don't take one random new player saying "this takes too long" as a reason to ignore the HUNDREDS of players who support the current system and change everything around.

yeah Req he hasnt even completed a battle yet

This is a good example of how some of us if not most of us want realism and pertaining to this issue Req is trying to create it and yet some of us don't want it. It's not really relevant that a battle hasn't been completed yet. He's complaining that the action doesn't flow freely enough, that turns take too long. You don't have to complete a game to lose interest.

How much time/turn is given in those other games?
There's a good suggestion for the game queue (i.e. choose game speed relative to turn duration).
Anyway for those who don't know, Req has been trying to promote this idea for well over a year IMO because he has always viewed a battle like a game of chess where he is trying to give more action/move than a game of chess but basicly still create a fast pace chess-like atmosphere.

Try to think of an animation of a knight and a maceman slashing and parrying at each other with each slash and each parry considered a move and then I think you can get an idea of the exaggerated detail of a battle (i.e. with each knight or maceman that falls another moves up to continue the battle).
This is the realism that I think Req is trying to create.

TR

if he really wants it to seem real just leave in the medivial times everyone moved at once and if a knight and maceman fought which ever one was faster would end up winning they didnt base battles on chess

I'm willing to try a version like that, sounds interesting, can't we experiment?

Mystic,
we still don't want a game where the guy who is fastest with the mouse or has a faster connection wins either so that's why it's turn-based
and as long as it's a turn-based battle, chess is an appropriate comparison.

Also yes as Mog says,
"can't we experiment?"

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 7 August 2005 - 08:45