| Author |
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
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.
|
 |
Llyr
Forum Warrior
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 267
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 12 Jan 2013 at 16:43 |
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.
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).
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
|
|
|
 |
Loud Whispers
Wordsmith
Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Location: Saltmines
Status: Offline
Points: 196
|
Posted: 13 Jan 2013 at 10:18 |
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
|
 |
Hora
Postmaster
Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
|
Posted: 13 Jan 2013 at 11:08 |
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...
|
 |
Loud Whispers
Wordsmith
Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Location: Saltmines
Status: Offline
Points: 196
|
Posted: 13 Jan 2013 at 13:58 |
Hora wrote:
It has been a major lack in combat, for defenders ganging up, while attackers can't...
|
9 squares around a city where sieges can be placed. Nine :P
|
 |
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 13 Jan 2013 at 15:52 |
Loud Whispers wrote:
Hora wrote:
It has been a major lack in combat, for defenders ganging up, while attackers can't...
|
9 squares around a city where sieges can be placed. Nine :P |
I think Hora meant the defenders as the troops defending a siege, and the attackers being the force trying to break the siege. But I'm not sure...
|
|
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 13 Jan 2013 at 19:07 |
Nine? really?
I've only ever seen eight.
|
 |
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 13 Jan 2013 at 20:08 |
Rill wrote:
Nine? really?
I've only ever seen eight. |
You've never seen an underground siege before?
|
|
|
 |
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 13 Jan 2013 at 20:09 |
Rill wrote:
Nine? really?
I've only ever seen eight. | Siege by air, maybe?
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
 |