Non-instantaneous battles

+1 very simple solution

Edited by col0005 - 26 Sep 2010 at 00:51

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