Non-instantaneous battles

+1 to this general idea.  Push and pull of a battle with outside influence... Make it so its ok for people to split their armies up instead of lumping them into 1 huge one.  The only problem is that military will be 'gone' longer then it is now.  (Perhaps return time can be faster to make up for it?)

1. Basic military reinforcements.  Simple and predetermined.
1a. Flanking or Hitting the rear of engaged enemy, with pathfinding.  Only affects 1st turn.
1b. Positive or negative modifier from terrain reinforcement comes from.  Only affects 1st turn.

2. Combat Spells
2a. Temporary enhancement and/or debuff spells.  Players can cast onto on-going battles, if in range.  (Perhaps send a 'Messenger Mage' to cast a spell on an on-going battle... or time their arrival with the battle.)
2b. Perhaps these spells can be prepared before hand, so that it doesn't favor the more active player too much... 
Commanders have limited spell slots/cast conditions. 
With limited conditions like... 'if enemy majority is sword, use Tenaril's Rust'  Debilitates sword weaponry, -% for opponents swords for X turns.  (Does not apply to reinforcements)
Even a spell to allow the commander to reflect 1 debuff and/or steal a bonus off of the enemy in reaction.  (Would take more spell slots or something.)
Also, add a after X turn condition.   >.>  Especially when you expect reinforcements of your own or enemy reinforcements.

3. 'Diplomats' assigned to the army and/or incoming as support from other players.
3a. Scouts, if you have more can enhance the terrain effects in your favor.  (Scouts tell the commanders what the best spots to fight on.) [Bound to be losses as they get caught.]
3b. Spies, increases command efficiency(Divisional Soldier Bonus) of the commander.  (Spies give reports on the enemy movements, plans and troop make-up.) [Bound to be losses as they get caught.]
3c. Thieves, either assigned to 'steal' stuff from enemies, lowering their battle efficiency -or- defends your camp from getting stolen from.  [Bound to be losses as they get caught or fight each other off.]
3d. Assassins, either assigned to try to specifically kill enemy diplomats, wounding/killing the commanders, or defending the camp from that happening. [Bound to be losses as they get caught or fight each other off.]
A 'wounded' commander would not fight(no 'hero' bonus), but still be able to give command bonus.
A dead commander is just dead, no more bonus.  [Very low chance to happen?  Or at least commander needs to be at really low health and 'wounded' first for this to happen.]

3e. Saboteurs, blows stuff up, chance of 'killing' some enemy troops, lower chance of backfiring on yourself, nothing happening, or just blowing themselves up.

Yes, more is still better, but, now, players that specialize in stuff other then military can now contribute.  Heavily.

My biggest issue with this game is the battles, being as it is, 'win it or lose it all' in an instant and that defenders can stack in their favor for an all in-one-overwhelming force, while attackers from multiple players have to trickle in one by one.  (Though the game at least balances it to favor attackers.)
The only way to have mass battles of this sort is siege...  Though.... siege could be a long on-going battle with this change...

I do (now) recognize the issue you're describing, and I could speculate at a few methods of addressing it.  However, it's more of an implementation issue and only the devs will ever really know what works best.

I'm gratified that others see my vision of potential in the basic concept.  It is more for the devs' sake that I presented it in a manner attempting to prove by example that the idea is at a medium level both feasible and implementable without bringing chaos to the higher game balance.

HonoredMule wrote: I'm pretty sure that's already precisely covered.  The 3rd party has to be in a NAP or confederation with the side it is supporting (as it would have to be anyway), and then automatically stacks with that side against the other upon arrival...regardless of whether the side it is supporting is the attacker or defender. And I also already noted that if the 3rd party is friends with both sides, it just turns around and goes home.  The only time things get even a little vague or complicated is when the 3rd party has no friendly relationship with either side and in particular also wants to occupy the square.

Edited by Shrapnel - 27 Sep 2010 at 22:01

Only for occupy order:
Instead of stacked occupies, an army could wait on the last adjacent square it was on before it encounters the battle.

Once battle is resolved, the army could move in and occupy if winning party went home, and if winning army is occupying, then reinforce/attack based on same principles as reinforcing a siege.

If encountering a waiting party then wait at your last adjacent square, etc..

Time the army starts waiting is the decider for order.

col0005 wrote: Waiting in that manner is far to ordered. If an army wants to get to a location only to find 2 forces already fighting then yes they may wait. However If another force arrvies I imagine that they'd attack the rear of the force watching the battle. If there are multiple sides then an impartial algorithm should allow a joined battle but with a random distribution of attacks and therefore a random outcome. Ie P1 is the defender.     for P3         213 troops attack P1         537 attack P2            P2       763 troops defend against  P3         321 attacks P1       P1       375 defend against P2       472 defend against P3       Each attack and defence set is determied seperately each round ie  there are 3 randomly generated, independant battles.      Note that a higher numbered player is the attacker against a lower numbered player (order that they arrived) Oh commander divison bonus applies to all battles but individual stats would apply to only one battle.

I like this.

'Hey guys, just wanted to see what you are doing.'
*Attacks the other players.*
'Now get out of my area.'