Non-instantaneous battles

Currently, whenever opposing armies meet, battle is automatic and instantaneous.  This is a simple and functional implementation of battle, but I believe it can be much better, more realistic, and more exciting with little increase in complexity.  Battles should take time.

Results can still be calculated immediately, but instead of reporting them immediately, add a calculation for battle duration based on relative and total size of the armies as well as the stratagem used (i.e. raids should be shorter).  Keep the attackers and defenders occupying the square "in battle" until the duration is concluded, then send the messages and return surviving troops, with the following exceptions:

 - An occupying (defending) army that is scheduled to leave (or recalled by messenger) at a time between battle start and end will still do so.  Battle result becomes truncated to a percentage of losses/side equivalent to the percentage of battle duration completed.  If forces from both sides are still present, a new result and duration is calculated and set for the remaining troops.  Emails are generated showing progress so far and what has changed (an army retreated).

 - Another army arrives and adds its forces to either side.  The same sort of result scaling + calculation of additional result again occurs.

 - A scout arrives.  In this case, the email generated will report troop counts adjusted once again by the same "interrupted duration" technique, though without other intervention the final result is still not known nor altered.

 - An army arrives that is or NAP/ally of both sides.  The army returns without doing anything.

 - An army arrives that is enemy/neutral of both sides and set to occupy.  The army waits for existing battle to complete (at least until occupation duration expires) and fights the winner if the winner stays.  During this time, another player sending to occupy that is enemy of all will battle the waiting 3rd party.  This final exception could get complicated and therefore be excluded, but could add considerable excitement if included.

---------------------

In plain English then, battles should take time relative to the balance and magnitude of participating armies, and by this means attackers should be able to work together by right of landing at the same time.  This potentially upsets balance, but I believe it's fair and controllable, especially since failure to coordinate timing well could mean each army is destroyed by overwhelming force before the next arrives to reinforce it.

The gameplay advantages are not really about balance, though, but excitement and getting more bang for your buck than a single battle report.  When battles take time, the tide of battle can change by fluctuating circumstances (such as reinforcements and retreats), and various automatic messages and interim scout reports would give players a feel of greater control over and opportunity for involvement in the proceedings of battle.

Also, large coordinated alliance operations would be more equitable in that everyone who shows up on time gets a piece of the action, rather than multiple battles being calculated in short succession where the first to arrive are the first served both death and experience,while others get nothing.


Edited by HonoredMule - 25 Sep 2010 at 20:21

+1 very simple solution

Edited by col0005 - 26 Sep 2010 at 00:51

Without being interrupted, the outcome would be exactly the same--it just takes longer to finish.  However, you could use scouts to track progress even before you know the final outcome, and recall if you don't like how its turning out...or if close enough, send reinforcements.  The basic behavior of battle and calculations that determine outcome would be unaltered, but making it span a non-instantaneous time frame and holding the participants there means that additional forces can participate in the same battle--yet only to the extent that said forces are present during that battle.

Balance would be altered somewhat given that (for example) two equal armies could attack an occupation matching their combined strength and the battle would be balanced instead of outnumbered 2/1 twice (provided the attackers arrive at the exact same time).  Some additional territorial control is enjoyed as well; battles close to a participating player would be in that player's advantage as he can reinforce or withdraw quickly and the long-distance enemy cannot.  But by far the greater difference would simply be that warfare becomes something that participants can observe over time.  This is more about making the game interesting than fairness or even control.  Battle conditions could actually change in response to additional (mostly pre-planned and executed/launched) actions.  And instead of simply being told the final result, players would be told every time the course of battle is altered, having the opportunity to carry out further instructions.  Players become much more involved/engaged spectators.

----

In my opinion, live player-controlled battle is a drastically huge change from how browser-based games normally work and infeasible socially if not technically as well.

I think this is a great idea because of all the new tactics it could allow. For example, if army 1 attacks army 2 from the west, then the owner of army 1 might be able to send another attack to the same point, but from the east (Using the not yet implemented rally points maybe?). This flanking could give a % attack bonus to the flankers, or maybe even scale the bonus with speed, which would make a lot of sense in my mind.  This is just one of the many possibilities.

this idea needs to have a bit more refinement, as all good ideas do. for instance, if two armies begin an engagement and a third party wanted to reinforce one of the original combatants, how would the third army know what to do?