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

+1 for the delayed attacks or programmed attacks

We're following this whole discussion carefully (and the more specific one about prolonged battles on HMs other thread).

HonoredMule wrote:   I've not had much to add to this discussion directly, but I do also favor the idea of allowing players to schedule launches around 8-9 hours in advance and I don't mind if an active prestige account is required.  Having to spend prestige for each scheduled launch, however, would likely be pushing for too much--it would be perceived by those who don't use it as an unfair advantage, and for those who do as a tax on player activity.

Yes, very much our thinking.

What will probably go to production is that *all* players get the ability to forward schedule troop movements, probably between 8 and 12hrs in advance, but those players with an active prestige account get an extension to this period, probably up to 48hrs.

SC

Mandarins31 wrote: 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. This idea is not the greatest. I once played a game that did this. It sucked. My armys would engage another army and I would leave(the battles took hours). I would check up on them and my army would be gone with the enemy wrecking havoc. Most times I won but then I would give them new orders and then leave. I come back and they are slautered. Or they are sucessful. It was 50-50. Sometimes I would check up and half my country was gone. I would fight and take it back but it happened alot. Now this game was called supremacy 1914. Its a fun game ecept for a lot of drawbacks. It was very long if you were really good like the best(which I was:P). That was why I quit. If you were good it took forever and got boring. Anyway this idea can have a lot of drawbacks. Prolonged battles are effy.

You can edit your message (post option (next to the yellow gear icon) / edit post)