Let me start off this post with the acknowledgement that I'm completely new.  I have not actually really engaged in full combat yet so I'm only basing this information on what I found in help, on the forums, and from some information that I found out from players in game.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  Please correct me.  Otherwise, don't try to roast me too much since I did some research ahead of time.  :)  And I'm not fully criticizing, although I'm disappointed if the information that I did find out, and the assumptions that came from it, are in fact correct.

So I've noticed that a lot of aspects of this game are VERY detailed.  Detailed to the point that sometimes it's frustrating, at least in comparison to other games that I've played.  In order to make a spy, you have to make cows, cows turn into saddles, then saddles and horses for the spy to use.  That = detailed.  It's not just "click here to make a spy unit" or "click here to make an axmen", etc.  Very detailed.  Frustrating, but oddly I like it.  Usually.

Now, even with this type of detail.. combat is apparently absolutely bland.  Sure, you have a few changes based on geographical conditions and some luck (apparently), but there isn't much else.  There are no combat stages.  You send swords and ranged into battle in the same army, why is it not staged?  Why does ranged not hit first, then swords second?  Why is this lump summed instead of being as wholly detailed as the rest of the game?  I see a lot of intricacies on the simcity side, but lackluster on the combat side.  This would open up a whole realm to a better experience in the game by having to plan out your attacks and creating the best army depending on the situation, beyond if you're in trees or plains.

If this is just the way that it is because the game is rather new, then okay, that makes sense.. hopefully there are improvements are on the way sometime in the near future.  Or is this something that we should come to expect and it's to remain the way that it is?

Or am I completely off base in my assumptions because I have no field experience and should shut up?  :)

Let's discuss..

But maybe I am coming from left field on this.  I do find that due to the community (or perhaps due to the game, which influences the community), there is not much focus on the combat side of the game.  By no means am I a warmonger, or trying to become one, but I do look for balance in a game and this one just seems to lean heavily on civil communications between players and building/trading.

I've already considered that, but geographical overview is really not considered (in my opinion) to be an intricate factor.  Especially considering when everything else (for the most part) is HIGHLY detailed and micromanaged.

I understand the combat factors.. I'm just wondering why they stopped there.  I'm not asking for micromanaging when it comes to the actual battle (i.e. having to command the battle yourself in real time), but I think being able to impact what happens first (speed, range, etc) is vital instead of a lumped format of (a +b) = c, c * x = y, (y - d) = z, etc.

Complex battle systems lend themselves toward exploits, which yes can be interesting but also can be really frustrating.

Just my thought.

I suppose I'll just try not to be as picky for now until I experience more combat first hand.  I've noticed myself very picky today.. like wondering why Dwarves have a penalty to iron when they are typically viewed as miners in most games, and wondering why you can't view current quantities of diplomats/military on the same screen as your production one when wanting to queue troops, etc.  I'll just tack it up to that.

Do you send in one unified army or waves of different armies to wear down the advantages of what you are attacking; before mopping up with a more balanced army? etc.

Honored Mule's wiki has some interesting strategies on  http://illyriad.honoredsoft.com/wiki/Siege" rel="nofollow - Siege and  http://illyriad.honoredsoft.com/wiki/Defending_a_City_from_Siege" rel="nofollow - Defending a City from Siege  which a worth reading and give an insight into one type of combat.

I hope this helps

From where I'm coming from, I was looking at it from having the different options of a hybrid army or a unit-type army.  It's nice to have a solo cavalry army to raze an enemy if their defenses or down, or else have a hybrid one based on speed vs ranged.  Ballista having the longest range so their attacks would hit first (presumably hitting walls first, lowering their effectiveness), archers hitting second (against cav, other archers, or infantry), cav third for a quick mowdown of other cav and infantry, and lastly inf to clean up.. or if you run out of inf vs their army, your archers and ballistas will finish up or be destroyed.

I'm not necessarily looking for a rock-paper-scissors of pre-defined battle strategies set by the user (which could be interesting.. but yes, that would develop into luck), but more of a speed vs ranged argument that reflects the battle.  If you're saying that's already thrown into the algorithm, then please correct me and I'll withdraw my "complaints".  If it's simply unit a + unit b = combined c vs enemy though, that's where I have more of the issue.  It's the sequence of events vs a lump sum total (ratio'd out depending on how much of total quantity was cav, inf, ranged, etc) that I'm parading for.

it really sounds like you're looking for a battle that is broken down into rounds.  It's a really smart way to go about it and one that other games have tried but not always gotten it right. I'm assuming the devs want to avoid this so they dont end up with an evony-type battle system; evony's system would have been really good had they kept developing it (they abandoned development within a year of leaving beta).

In the Illy battle system it seems like a multitude of factors are taken into account (terrain, commanders, unit type, and some unknown secret dev magic) and the sum total of those factors are used to compute a result rather than determining a round by round battle sequence.

btw, everyone is dissing on rock / paper / scissor game play. The total war series uses rock / paper / scissors in their games and probably have the best battle system ever developed in a computer game. It can be a very good system if done right. - M.

this leads me to think that though the battle isn't computed by round, you can still use different techniques by sending different kind of waves against the target for different results. Something for the op and others to experiment with and might address the ops desire for a detailed combat mechanic. - M.

It's what I had in mind for down the road.  I wanted to discuss the different stages of combat first and see if it was in fact a lump sum or if there were other calculations/waves that were done outside of that.  If we got the ball rolling on the wave idea, I figured I'd lead it into what HM posted.  I was hoping for it to be more "realistic".. not only do buildings take awhile to be erected, but also for combat not to be over in a matter of seconds (outside of siege.)

The other problem that I've seen so far is that everyone keeps linking back to siege, but siege is not the only part of battle that we participate in.  It's the most overall complicated, but it's not the only thing we fight with.

Just my two cents, as a noob.