Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Curious: Why are battles resolved instantly?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedCurious: Why are battles resolved instantly?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 4.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2013 at 11:08
Originally posted by Llyr Llyr wrote:

Having battles drag on like that would make the game unplayable for anyone who has a real life to lead. It's fine for those who can sit in front of their computer playing games all day, but not so good for the rest of us.

I don't think it would be more time consuming, if you aren't able to send commands to a fight in progress.
But it would alter strategies of timing armies, i.e. when to send them.
And it would make sieges easier (and far more realistic) to break. It has been a major lack in combat, for defenders ganging up, while attackers can't...
Back to Top
Loud Whispers View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Location: Saltmines
Status: Offline
Points: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2013 at 10:18
Originally posted by Hadus Hadus wrote:

Well, for your blockade example, isn't this how it SHOULD work?
Player B wouldn't even need allies - a token force could be left behind, not meant to win battles, but to hold off attacks until the relief force returns home. This would be possible with long battles.
"These forums are a Godwin's Law free zone."~GM Luna

Back to Top
Hadus View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2013 at 16:43
Originally posted by Mandarins31 Mandarins31 wrote:

This non-instantaneous battle idea have been well discussed already in the topic Anjire gave a link to. 
Would be quite an ineresting improvement... but as battles take time, it brings a real issue imo: it's about diplomatic relations between amies. Imagine player A defends a spot with large armies, Player B who has no Diplo relations with A can attack him. Player C is in Confed/NAP with A and B but decides to help A defend for exemple... here there's an issue because with current diplo mechanics, he can help none.

If Devs are willing to make some PVP battles non-instantaneous, the diplomatic relations system should be first reworked to avoid incoherences. Like someone in a goup of confeds can't be as well in NAP/Confed with an enemy his group is at war with. Currently, to take the exemple of the current war, any Consone alliance could be confed with H? or Dlords while still confed with the rest of Consone.

In the interaction exemple i gave, it's a hard case as B has no relations with A, and C is Confed with A and B. As B attacked A one solution would be to automatically change diplo status of B with C from confed to without relation or War. Same way, C could have an option to chose to defend A or to attack A, which would be seen as a betrail for B or A and change his diplo status automatically. 

Though, this means 1 player would make his whole alliance change automatically diplomatic status with an other alliance, if he supports one or the other side. And here it's an exemple with 3 players from 3 different alliances... sounds like a nightmare if more alliances with various diplo relations fight on a same spot.


An other idea though, would be to let alliances change their diplo status first, before being able to do anything. In my exemple, alliance of player C could first manually change its relation with B from Confed to War/no-relation in order to let player C help player A. But here the interaction exemple is just between 3 alliances... how does it work between more alliances battling on a same spot, and with various diplo intereactions?

I personnally think non-instantaneous battles would need to first re-view the current diplomatic relations system (which has to be re-viewed anyway, imo), it wouldn't work with the current one.


That's a very valid point. But then again, if an alliance is NAP/confed with both of two warring parties, should they really be choosing sides before severing one of their ties? I think your suggestion--that alliances should have to manually cancel one of the NAPs or Confeds before supporting either side, is a good one.

Thanks for bringing this up though, it probably deserves it's own discussion too.

Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:

A problem I could see with such a system, imagine Player A sends a large force as a blockade against an ooponent in a war (that being Player B), then Player B sends his troops out to destroy the blockade.  Therefore Player B has little or no troops left in his city.

So then all Player A's friends send their troops in to ransack the city.

Due to the time factor, I imagine the entire combat system would need reconfiguring, ie a battle against a city would need to involve all attacks, ie every seige blockade and reinforcement sent against it just to make city defence possible.

It is not a bad idea par-say but I would rather see the upgrades already in planning worked on than this.


Well, for your blockade example, isn't this how it SHOULD work? It sounds like Player A is employing an effective bait strategy utilizing timed battles. Assuming the fight is fair, Player B should have friends too, who can send their armies to defend Player B's city while the home city armies attack the blockade (or reverse the roles and have Player B's friends attack the blockade).

Originally posted by Llyr Llyr wrote:

Having battles drag on like that would make the game unplayable for anyone who has a real life to lead. It's fine for those who can sit in front of their computer playing games all day, but not so good for the rest of us.


I can't imagine battles taking any longer than the days-long sieges that already occur. The only time I could see this being an issue is during war, and I think we have all seen from recent events that war is indeed a very time-consuming process.

As an anecdotal note, I rarely spend even an hour a day total on Illyriad (and when I do it's usually because I'm chatting on GC or AC), and I don't see battles taking time to be a problem.


Edited by Hadus - 12 Jan 2013 at 16:44
Back to Top
Llyr View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 267
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2013 at 14:09
Having battles drag on like that would make the game unplayable for anyone who has a real life to lead. It's fine for those who can sit in front of their computer playing games all day, but not so good for the rest of us.

Back to Top
Darkwords View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2013 at 11:42
A problem I could see with such a system, imagine Player A sends a large force as a blockade against an ooponent in a war (that being Player B), then Player B sends his troops out to destroy the blockade.  Therefore Player B has little or no troops left in his city.

So then all Player A's friends send their troops in to ransack the city.

Due to the time factor, I imagine the entire combat system would need reconfiguring, ie a battle against a city would need to involve all attacks, ie every seige blockade and reinforcement sent against it just to make city defence possible.

It is not a bad idea par-say but I would rather see the upgrades already in planning worked on than this.

Back to Top
Mandarins31 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2013 at 10:08
This non-instantaneous battle idea have been well discussed already in the topic Anjire gave a link to. 
Would be quite an ineresting improvement... but as battles take time, it brings a real issue imo: it's about diplomatic relations between amies. Imagine player A defends a spot with large armies, Player B who has no Diplo relations with A can attack him. Player C is in Confed/NAP with A and B but decides to help A defend for exemple... here there's an issue because with current diplo mechanics, he can help none.

If Devs are willing to make some PVP battles non-instantaneous, the diplomatic relations system should be first reworked to avoid incoherences. Like someone in a goup of confeds can't be as well in NAP/Confed with an enemy his group is at war with. Currently, to take the exemple of the current war, any Consone alliance could be confed with H? or Dlords while still confed with the rest of Consone.

In the interaction exemple i gave, it's a hard case as B has no relations with A, and C is Confed with A and B. As B attacked A one solution would be to automatically change diplo status of B with C from confed to without relation or War. Same way, C could have an option to chose to defend A or to attack A, which would be seen as a betrail for B or A and change his diplo status automatically. 

Though, this means 1 player would make his whole alliance change automatically diplomatic status with an other alliance, if he supports one or the other side. And here it's an exemple with 3 players from 3 different alliances... sounds like a nightmare if more alliances with various diplo relations fight on a same spot.


An other idea though, would be to let alliances change their diplo status first, before being able to do anything. In my exemple, alliance of player C could first manually change its relation with B from Confed to War/no-relation in order to let player C help player A. But here the interaction exemple is just between 3 alliances... how does it work between more alliances battling on a same spot, and with various diplo intereactions?

I personnally think non-instantaneous battles would need to first re-view the current diplomatic relations system (which has to be re-viewed anyway, imo), it wouldn't work with the current one.





Edited by Mandarins31 - 12 Jan 2013 at 10:24
Back to Top
Hiei View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 168
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2013 at 08:17
Hey very nice idea, but there must be some sort of a thing were people can not reinforce or something, it would be too easy to break up a fight. Clap
Back to Top
Arctic55 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 379
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2013 at 00:40
Originally posted by Rorgash Rorgash wrote:

-.- I take it you didnt bother to read anything on this topic not even the title...


please learn to read then come back to the forum.


I did read the title and the forum. The name of THAT game just makes me so angry from my experience there.

And any new machanics for time taking battles would take alot of work. I don't know, the devs are already working on so much, and the battles taking time to resolve would add so much complications. I sometimes send my troops out to fight a camped army and have them back in time to counter another. If the battles were not instant, the calculations would be all mixed up.

All I am saying is that you might want to consider the bad side to making the battles take time.
Back to Top
Hadus View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 19:07
I'd just like to add that the devs could (presumably easily) add a limiting factor for NPC combat so that a battle against 1000 animals would take far shorter than the same battle versus player troops.

I wonder how this would affect blockades? It would be interesting if you could send an army out to attack a blockade as a "distractions" weakening that particular blockade by a __% factor while they try to fend off the attacking force.

Same for occupying squares: would an attacking force have to defeat EVERY defender to claim control of the square, or would it be based on number of troops still standing?

And a third, awesome thing: since you could send reinforcements and scout battles midway, hosting awesome tournaments becomes SO much more strategic and exciting!


Edited by Hadus - 04 Jan 2013 at 19:13
Back to Top
geofrey View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2013 at 18:46
Originally posted by Bonaparta Bonaparta wrote:

If bombardment happens every hour, why couldn't combat rounds also happen every hour? I think that server could handle it...

Farming NPCs shouldn't be a problem, if you would send overwhelming army poor animals would loose in the first round. But for large more even sided battles many rounds sure sounds more fun and more strategy. Multiple attackers would join in the next combat round to form a larger army... 

50 well coordinated small players could kill big defending army and each would share the troop losses. In current combat system 50 small players can kill large defending army, but many of attackers loose their entire armies and commanders. Using commanders with more hit points would also make more sense in round based combat system. Messengers could also be used to retrieve attacking army before next combat round...

Great suggestions. 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.