Delayed attacks

I do like your idea so much. could give us very epic battles with new tactics. and this idea would bring more realism to the battles.

also it respects the time you spent to produce your army. actually it takes months to have a good army, and you can lose it all instantly during a battle.
while if battles had a duration, you could have the time to have some reinforcements, and that joins the grouped attacks idea we are talking about also.
the advantage of this idea on the idea to just have ticks for the arrival of the armies, is that the defender would have the time to ask reinforcements. while actually, and even more with delay ability, the attackers are able to do surpise attacks and the defender can lose his army instantly without asking reinforcements.

 SC said, it would also ask more playing time, and people cant be connected 24/7.
but personnally i think this can be discussed.
battles would have a duration and could take a long time (according to the number of troops and the difference of power i guess). to me this is similat to our actual tournament. we can see this as a long battle too. and that doesnt ask more playing time. just the time it take to organize your armies for the battle and launch it.
for me, as far as you cant directly give orders to your army while the battle began, it wouldn't ask more playing time than actual battles.


Edit:

HonoredMule wrote: An important distinction of my proposal from a "ticks" based combining of troops was that timing was still crucially important--battles still always began immediately.

if the ticks are short, and 1 minute would be the best for me, the battle will begin instantly. the ticks idea comes with the delay idea. if an army is only able to arrive somewhere minute per minute, your army will arrive at the begining of that minute and attack immediatly. it suppose that each mouvement will be automatically delayed by a few seconds for the army to arrive at the begining of the tick (minute).
im not sure if im explaining my idea very clearly.

 


 


Edited by Mandarins31 - 21 Jan 2011 at 00:10

An important distinction of my proposal from a "ticks" based combining of troops was that timing was still crucially important--battles still always began immediately.  If, for example, a bunch of small armies tried to hit a heavily fortified tile, then whichever army arrived first would be sustaining high casualties (comparable to the way it would be overpowered in the current system) until more allies arrived.  Thus, the closer together armies arrived, the safer individual participants were from getting singled out and decimated alone.

Also, because larger battles took longer to resolve (and sustained casualties over time), players would have opportunity in the big operations to influence the outcome of a battle after it has already begun and partial/to-date outcomes are being reported.  The whole proposal was largely focused on making battle more engaging and empowering reactionary decisions without compromising the payoff of a well-planned and executed operation.  Ongoing attention to a situation was worthwhile and interesting but not necessary (even in the most intense conflicts, provided the right strategy is applied).

Mr. Ubiquitous Feral wrote: I fell asleep twice reading this.

 

Edited by Zeus - 20 Jan 2011 at 21:59

What woke you up?

Createure wrote: Personally If I send my crack army of 10,000 advanced cavalry to ravage a plains occupation I don't want it being combined with my alliance-mate's army of poorly lead mixed defensive unit force and messing up my kill ratio. ;)

as i said, if your super army + your mates's weak armies (:p) attacked at the same time (then a grouped attack), and if we pulled off the overpower bonus of this addition (to do as if your 2 armies were attacking separately), then that's true taht you would have less experience but also you would have less loses, as i explained just after. and if really the ones who attack with you are weak, you can still have 99% of the kills/experience.
that would work as during a siege or a sailly forth. the xp is distributed between the commanders, in fonction of the strength and the efficiency of theire army.

Edit: the advantage of a grouped attack for the attackers, is that the defenders cant reinforce while the attack began. and also all armies will lose the same % of loses. then the first to attack is not disavantaged compared to the last to attack (if the armies attacking at the exact same time had to attack 1 by one 1).
and for the defender, if the additionnal overpower is pulled off, that makes no difference. they would lose the same units if the attackers did a grouped attack or attacked 1 by 1.

Createure wrote: re: what bartimus said about HMs idea: I haven't read HMs idea but it sounds like a kind of "tick" system... for example every army that arrives at a location will wait until the first minute of each hour before attacking so the combat reports are generated on the hour every hour, and all armies that arrive before each hour will combine into 1 force... like SC said though I think somethink like that would require a complete reworking of the combat system.

if i remember well, HM's idea was more to make the battles have a duration in fonction of the strengh of both armies... and as it would have a duration you could reinforce the defender or join the attacker while the fight has already began.
but your idea about the ticks seems very nice to me. moreover that is obvious that to do grouped attacks we need to have a tick system. As in BattleDawn (i already talked about this game in a previous post) that works tick per tick and allows to do grouped attacks.
maybe that ticks of 1 hour are a bit too long, but that's a nice idea.
that could also work with 1 tick per minute, as if we are able to see our arrival time and delay automatically, we could say to attack at 16h18 and all the players that delayed to attack at 16h18 will attack together as said above.






Edited by Mandarins31 - 20 Jan 2011 at 20:25