One of the biggest issues for me is the fact that 1 player can move their entire army before the 2nd player can do anything.
it puts far too much emphasis on who attacks first.

this may not be an issue for smaller battles, but in large battles or huge campaign wars, its a big issue IMO.

it will also be a big issue when it comes to the new versions Battles & Duels (1vs1 Campaigns).

so I am currently thinking of ways to make sure that each turn you cant attack with everything you have in 1 turn while the other player sits and watches as their troops die.

one idea is to only allow X points of troop action per turn.
eg, can only move 100 points worth of troops per turn (some troops worth 5, some worth 25,etc).
and perhaps have techs to increase that limit to 200 max.


Campaigns will be trickier since they are tick-based and thus move slower than turn-based games.

any thoughts?

maybe an idea for the battle games, but I would not even think of this option for campaign games.

I don't know that this is really an issue in battle games, because the point has always been to maximize the usage of your troops and minimize the effectiveness of your opponent’s. Only being able to move part of your army anyway would, in effect, nullify that crucial aspect of battle strategy.

In camps the problem is certainly present, as it stands there is a lot of emphasis on logging in at the right time and making your moves first. Of course you can always log in at the same time as your opponent and find that the unit you were about to attack with has been destroyed, as has happened on a few occasions , but otherwise you are forced to 'play the clock' so to speak and take into account that your opponent can decimate you in a single turn if you leave yourself vulnerable.

On the one hand that's a problem, no one likes to have to wake up at 3am to get a jump on their opponent or defend against it (even though it can be a rush ). On the other hand this is not a RTS, and limiting the amount of moves players can make would slow game play down considerably (think chess: moving all your pieces or one at a time). Also, managing multiple fronts would be practically impossible, because while your opponent may be able to utilize his full turn limit on your battle, you may have to split yours between two or three different battles. In essence you're encouraging gangbanging.

The only way I could see this working is if the limit were tick based, i.e. players could only move so many units in one hour. This, however, forces players to log on two, maybe three times in a row to move all their forces, and some of us just can't manage that.

In the end any 'solution' to this problem is going to have its drawbacks, and it'll be a challenge to find one for which the costs and benefits improve upon the problem we have now. Some people, I know, don't mind the fact that you can move everything (it's more exhilarating), and it does speed up game play. You also have to consider that, the first turn aside, people are not going to be attacking with full movement and bp anyway, so it's not quite as 'devastating' an attack as it seems. It's also something you can adequately compensate for (by planning a good def), so I don't see it as too much of a problem.

I think, for this game, it may just be a necessary evil; but if someone can save me from getting up at odd hours of the day I'm all for it .

Basicly I go along with BloodBaron's thoughts and especially with the hourly increments I like the present system but I have presented some additional thoughts that I'm not really advocating (i.e. they are just ideas).
I have seen games that when an engagement occurs, the action is transferrerd to a "battle board" where a battle within a campaign is fought to completion with each player moving a few units at the time, and really there is not a total feel for the campaign LOST because each player puts on the board the units he is willing to commit to battle;
but it is not as good as our present way of campaigning IMO.

I can't see limiting the number of units that can be moved/turn unless a battle within a campaign can be fast forwarded (i.e. I move 5 units and end turn and then he moves 5 units and ends turn etc.) If two players at war within a campaign can go into some sort of "battle mode" I can see how it can be done but not really because I doubt that it can be done that way ... too many variables to try to control.

TR

PS:
Req I think you should get us into the new version so we can help you solve some of these problems by testing possible solutions.

TR

What a brilliant idea, TR! . Req, just let the floodgates open and let everyone into the site. You can see what is buggy, and then the development will be much easier.

Unfortunately, I think the only way you're going to get away from an advantage of one player making a move before another is if you change that entire portion of the game mechanics.

For example, each player could issue orders for the turn, then they would have to be resolved simultaneously. But that would require a lot of "what if" situations to be address in the issued orders...

It would be very difficult to work in such a change, and without a very clearly defined improvement I don’t think it’s worth the trouble to tinker with regular camps.

TR brings up a good point regarding the one on one camps, you COULD work in a system where players can only move so many units, but special care would have to be taken to ensure that quality doesn’t always win out over numbers.

Even for these games I feel the regular camp system would work fine, but since we have more tinkering room we might want to try three variations. One standard tick based, one turn based with all units moving at the same time, and one moving only a portion of the units at any one time.

TR’s right, the only way we’ll really know what works and what doesn’t is by testing it out, and I would favor small scale testing over another ‘double trouble like’ mass experimentation. Even though I never was fortunate enough to experiance that update myself .

Req...I like the system the way it is now. The current system is what attracted my attention and is probably what has kept me here so long. It's very similar to the game, Advance Wars, which is extremely popular (the first Advance Wars spawned a sequel, and Advance Wars 3 is now in the making). Everybody who has played Advance Wars would quickly adapt and enjoy our current battle system...that's a huge audience...we just need to get the word out.

The system you're suggesting doesn't sound beneficial enough to merit the change. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. The current battle system isn't broken. Battles are a TURNED BASED GAME. Of course you have to sit there and watch your troops get slaughtered, because it's NOT YOUR TURN . One of the first things we learn as young children is to wait your turn for everything, including games. The fact that you have to wait your turn isn't as horrible as you make it sound, and I don't think any potential player ever got turned off by it.

well i do see your point reg i have no clue on camapins how to solve this
battles on the other hand i think limiting the number of troops to be moves is a horrble idea i know i for one would never ever attack first as its imposible to attack and defend in that situation and your enemy will always get a much better counter to your move
if you want to simulate realtime battles more accurtily i would sugeset that each turn you only get 40% mp and bp back (to keep the place of retaltaters as valuble)

so long ass any attack still takes 100 percent of your bp
this would work i think also be a bit more realistic in the fact that archers and raged would beable to attack every halve turn simmulating voleys

I've thought of something or maybe rather I'm understanding better or maybe this is just another bad idea but anyway I'm in a "Beta mood".
First of all my first impression here was that we were being presented with a state of relativism (i.e. move our entire army or attack with every unit relative to our present knowledge of the size of an average present army).
Anyway IMO here lies the crux of the problem.

Again we are from a varied audience of participation through no fault of our own but the parameters or proportions of the existing game have been fine tuned to where most of us are happy but at our limits of tolerance (i.e. pertaining to how much is enough or not enough and how long is too long, etc.). In other words it seems that most all of us are not willing to divide our ideas of the present parameters of the game. I realise now that an overview of the new version may have been too much of an additional burden but I think it may have helped here.

So with that said we presently have approximately X# of units that we can move/turn. I think we might be able to be persuaded to be able to move X# of units divided by 3 plus or minus Y# of units/turn where a GOOD reason is give to increase or decrease the value of Y and if we are possibly made to understand that in the new version the value of X may be much greater than it is now.
I hope that is clear.

TR

PS:
Not intended to be a joke but rather to make an attempt to clarify my meaning ...
in other words if we were talking about a tomato pie I would simply say,
"no we don't want smaller slices ...
if anything we want bigger slices;
So please make a bigger pie with more slices."

TR

Last Edited : Wednesday, 27 April 2005 - 01:53

ok, the problem is this...

In a Battle, assume a 5000 point game, Player 1 gets to move 5000 points worth of troops while Player 2 waits.

Now unless Player 1 is a BAD player, this means for the first attack they will be able to use 5000 points worth of troops against Player 2.
So when Player 2 has their turn, they will end up having LESS than 5000 points to retaliate, and so cannot in any way inflict the same amount of damage.
Remember, this is assuming both players are of equal skill (the only way to balance things).

Even the act of moving 5000 points of troops means in 1 turn, regardless of Player 2's skill, Player 1 can out-manouver Player 2. Simply due to the number of troops being moved in 1 turn without Player 2's intervention.

Imagine a 20,000 point game!
Could anyone honeslty claim that moving 20,000 points of troops in 1 turn while the other player waits is fair and balanced? Of course not!

This is why, like most other games of this genre, I was looking for ways to shrink the impact of 1 turn.
By moving only 1000 points per turn, it means a more balanced game.

In any strategy game, the smaller the steps, the greater the strategy.

It still comes down to this ...
I don't think we feel that we can endure only 20% of our present portion of action in the same amount of given time;
So if the same game that is now, e.g. 5000 points could possibly be made to be, e.g. 12000 points so that we could move 3000 points/turn, I think there might be a possibility of compromise.

Also I'm speaking of campaigns.
I don't really see that there is a problem to reduce points/turn in battles except that it may prolong the game.

TR

well, remember that with Battles, it's turn-based so it goes as fast as you can move.

Moving 5000pts of troops takes much longer than only 1000pts.

So while it would take more turns, the time involved per turn would be much less.

Campaigns is a different matter than requires more consideration.

PS:
It also has to be considered that the hourly increment of "MPs and BPs" has significantly reduced the impact of the TURN in campaigns.

TR

Req says: "Could anyone honeslty claim that moving 20,000 points of troops in 1 turn while the other player waits is fair and balanced? Of course not!"

Well, I claim it is very fair and balanced. Why? There is a grat enough distance between the two players that moving first is of no real benefit. You do not really gain any positional advantage on the maps provided. So here is the advantage?

You have the time to maneuver your troops into a formation and position you wish to be just as effective as the other guy. That seems pretty fair and balanced to me.

you forget that only 1 player can attack first.

at some point in the game, one player will move 5000 points of troops against another player. there is no situation where that can be balanced.

with 1 attack i can cripple your army. nothing can be done as you just sit back and watch.

sure, when its your turn, you can retaliate. but that retaliation will only be with 4000 points of troops.

It really does not matter who attacks first. One thing you seem to forget is that if I am positioned well I WANT you to attack me first. More than likely you had to travel a distance to do so and are attacking at less than 100% in a battle game. That really compensates for the issue of going first.

If you notice, most of the time people attempt to retailiate a first attack and prefer not to be the first attacker. Once you attack at less than 100%, the person attacked has less troops overall, yes. But they more than likely will have more troops positioned in a better matchup at a higher percentage than the troops you sent in.

Keep in mind, while you may get 5000 points with which to attack, the most you can muster for a single attack due to space and movement limitations for a first attack is often half of that.

Last Edited : Thursday, 28 April 2005 - 13:00

Corflu is absolutely right in my opinion, I didn’t realize the issue here was with battle games, so I’ll speak to that.

In games I’ve played with evenly match players, most recently (even though in actually it was several months ago ) my games with Fulcrum and giurm, there is a ridiculous amount of positioning in the opening game. We spent 10 turns or so adjusting back and forth before our forces even clashed (especially in demonic battles, because the lack of ranged units means you can posture much closer to your opponent). A few chips were taken with ranged when applicable, but neither of us wanted to make that first move before the other for exactly the reasons Corflu stated. Not only are you NEVER able to attack with all your troops (all-ranged armies aside, because they are impractical), but your troops have to close the gap first, meaning they must diminish their bp significantly on that first attack. The waiting player not only has to move very little (if at all), meaning more bp, but they have a better chance of utilizing all their forces do to the movement gap being significantly diminished. The only reason I, or any good player I think, will take that first stab is if we can exploit an advantage, otherwise we’d much prefer the other player to attack first (and will, in fact, be trying to lure the player into doing so).

The first attack, even when well executed, is rarely the massive advantage it’s made out to be. In my game with giurm, a demonic auto-battle, I got off the first attack on a weak spot in his line. It seemed like, and probably was, a powerful attack, and giurm sent me a msg conceding defeat (i.e. acknowledging that I’d made a very strong move). Obviously we played on, and little by little, through small mistakes in my play and good tactics on his part, he managed to climb safely back on top, decisively winning the battle.

In my game with Fulcrum, when we finally got into battle, it was evenly matched for most of the contest. I’d tried to lure him to attack me first, but he did not take the bate; other then that, however, the first attack was not very memorable or significant. It was back and forth for quite a while before he finally was forced to bring his HC against my pikemen, and I had to make a decision to hold my position or retreat. I chose the latter, and it turned out to be the weaker move, costing me the game. Up to that point, however, it was anyone’s game.

The point of all this is that the opening of a battle game, between two evenly matched players, is rarely significant enough to notice, and even more rarely a decisive advantage for either player. The game is usually evenly balanced until one player or both are forced to make ‘turning point’ decisions, or until one player makes a mistake which the other presses into an advantage. As I said before, half the fun of a battle game is finding ways to make use of as many of your troops as you can in the best way possible coupled with the fact that a mistake such as miscalculating zoc or def strength can instantly cost you the game (against a good player).

“In any strategy game, the smaller the steps, the greater the strategy.”- Yes, slowing the game down would increase strategic thought, but bump up the 10 min timer so I can better plan my moves, don’t get rid of the ability to move all my units, because that diminishes the need for strategy in the first place (i.e. if your opponent can’t do serious damage in one turn why do you have to worry all that much about what you’re doing?). You’re essentially dumbing down the strategic element because players no longer have to look and plan very far ahead, they can see patterns developing in a few units and not have to deal with the possibility of a massive strategic shift in one turn. It would slow down the game, make the battles less intense, and make (I think) a lot of battle players very unhappy .

I know you all missed my page long posts

Last Edited : Thursday, 28 April 2005 - 17:54