Like Corflu said, Req...first attack is not unbalancing because of the issue of BP %. You designed that system very well...moving before you attack makes it pretty much equal in the end.

I hardly ever see an army crippled on the first attack. Ever. Unless you're hideously bad at this game, you'll be in a nice, defensive position so that you can retaliate well...preferably WITHOUT moving very far, so you're attacking at 100% or 90% BP, whereas your opponent, depending on how far they moved, is going on anywhere from 80% to 60%. I'd say that's pretty balanced.

Maybe not completely balanced...who knows...do you really want to take away ALL of the advantage of first strike? Getting first strike is a strategy unto itself...as is provoking your opponent into a bad first strike

Req I support Corflu, the current system doesn't make first attack an advantage. I to perfer to play defensive and let my opponent attack first. I tend to lose if I launch the first attack.

Keep in mind your enemy is getting retal so you are already losing troops. if they are equivalent opponents then the defensive set-up should allow the range to make swiss cheese of the guy who had first attack, with the front lines doing clean up work.

Why do you constantly try to make massive changes that aren't needed, instead of minor solutions to fix the problem? In this case there isn't even a problem. limiting troop movement will actually cause the games to take longer. After all if I can only move 1000 points at a time, I'm going to need more time to think about my moves. You would have to start leaving twenty or even thirty minutes before a turn can be forced.

Please listen to the players on this how many of them are saying there is a problem and how many of them are saying it works fine the way it is?

I haven't played any battles yet because I have too many real life matters that I'm even putting off now. I just can't afford to get hooked on them for a while So is it possible to make a good first attack with 5000 points?
If it is then Req has an argument but I do understand the idea of drawing a bad first strike and I have also made mention of prolonging the game with extra turns.
Req has countered by saying that turns would be faster to move less troops.

Anyway here's my reason for doing a recap and putting in my two cents again. Weren't we discussing the possibility of very fast turns at one time in battles (i.e. I mean with Req). If this is a prelude to very fast turn/based battles, might that not be the reason to promote this? I mean if turns are expected to be even less than a minute at some future time, we certainly wouldn't be able to move all the units we can now in that much time. I know some may scoff at the idea of a one minute turn but if everyone is doing it, It's fair and just a matter of learning how to deal with it.

TR

TR turns wouldn't be faster, I can garuntee they will take longer as each player has to take more time to think about their moves.

Yes if the defending player is completely inept, it is possible for a player to get an overwhelming advantage with first strike.

But good players shouldn't be punished so that bad players can have a chance. Also Req wasn't talking about just battles, he said he wanted to do something similar in campaigns.

Req has developed a good combat system already. I hate what he has done with walls and towers, but if he massively changes the combat system to then this game will be ruined.