Non-instantaneous battles

I suppose it's also noteworthy that a decision would have to be made as to whether a party was considered attacker or defender (important for determining their battle effectiveness relative to their unique stats).  As I see it, there's two reasonable ways it could be handled:

1) Anyone present before a battle starts is a defender (like now), and anyone initiating battle or arriving after it begins is an attacker (regardless of who's side they take).

2) Anyone present before a battle starts is a defender (like now), and whoever sides with the defender after battle begins is also a defender.  The other side's participants are all attackers regardless of when they arrive (thought it's obviously after the first defender).

Which is better isn't nearly so clear-cut as what I've discussed so far.  #2 is probably simpler/more compatible with existing battle resolution code (handling terrain modifiers etc.) and also more equitable, but I haven't fully thought it through yet.


Edited by HonoredMule - 26 Sep 2010 at 05:36

HM, your ideas are interesting regarding the excitement of a battle. And we must consider that would be useful for fighting Factions as we could reinforce an attacking ally/NAP member.

More, this is intersting because we could have big battles bettween 2 sides without doing any siege and risk to demolish/destroy a city.

And this is important to precise with that idea you are creating a flee option with messengers.
For me there are some things to think about this subject:

1)  to be more realistic an army may not flee instantaneously, it may have a certain amount of loses by trying to flee... for exemple, we can imagine that when occuppying time is ended or when a messenger arrives, it put the army in raid mode.

2) we may consider if it would be judicious to add an option when you are occupying a square. I think about order to this occupying army either to flee if it is underattacked either to defend against any attacks... either to flee only if the attacking army is bigger.



Finally what about assassins? For you would they be able to enter a battle what stays on a square? and if yes what would happen if a division lose its commender, or if the army lost all its commenders.





Edited by Mandarins31 - 26 Sep 2010 at 07:01

Mandarins31 wrote: 1)  to be more realistic an army may not flee instantaneously, it may have a certain amount of loses by trying to flee... for exemple, we can imagine that when occuppying time is ended or when a messenger arrives, it put the army in raid mode.

Perhaps it would be sufficient that messenger travel time still delays withdrawal.  Otherwise, adding a relatively small delay with continued losses (at rates altered by yet another recalculation from the latest change) should suffice.  Presumably the person recalling troops is losing and will lose troops even faster but for a shorter period, thus saving troops overall but at the cost of reduced killing effectiveness.

wrote: 2) we may consider if it would be judicious to add an option when you are occupying a square. I think about order to this occupying army either to flee if it is underattacked either to defend against any attacks... either to flee only if the attacking army is bigger.

It sounds like you want more fine-grained stratagem options, in which case I think that could already be added as a separate feature with or without non-instantaneous battles, and it's an idea worth considering (at least in my opinion).  In the mean time, just having the option to personally react by sending messengers is an increase in human interactivity thanks to having options where before there were only reports of foregone conclusions.

Mandarins31 wrote: Finally what about assassins? For you would they be able to enter a battle what stays on a square? and if yes what would happen if a division lose its commender, or if the army lost all its commenders.

I don't think diplomatic options against battles should be implemented until diplomatic options against occupations are implemented.  The issues and features required to resolve them are virtually identical for both.  The latter is already on the dev list, I believe.

Mandarins31 wrote: For you what would happen if more than 1 army (each one owned by a different player) are trying to occupy the square as they are all ennemy/neutral with both players that initiate the battle?... tricky

HonoredMule wrote: ...the following exceptions: ...  - 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.

As I said, this could get very complicated.  But ideally, I think (and that's an uncertain thought) that anyone trying to hold the square should get a chance to fight for it.  It might be good enough to pigeonhole everyone into a round-robin affair, where newcomers get paired with the earliest nap/confed found, or if there are none, takes a new side.  Every time there's 2 idle sides, due either to new arrival or battle completion, those two sides duke it out.  The results would be very chaotic and costly, but that's probably how it should be in hotly-contested space.


Edited by HonoredMule - 26 Sep 2010 at 07:17

Actually I think what I was saying has been completely mis-interpreted. What I was saying is that if P2 is the smaller player and gets re-inforced by a VERY small force then P1 will recieve less casualties. Ie initial calculation

However P2 recieves a re-inforcment of 2 half way through so troop size is now P1 87.5  P2 25+2=27

P1 is now 3 times larger than P2 so final outcome may be 80 0 dispite the fact that the re-inforcments were for the smaller player.

 

My point is that the act of interupting a battle and re-calculating the result will in itself reduce casulaties for P1 (the larger player) as the larger player will outnumber the smaller player by a greater percentage halfway through a battle than at the begninning.

sort of.... it's more that half way through a battle the smaller player will have lost 50% troops where as the larger player will have lost perhaps a simmilar number, but a much smaller percentage of their total force. Say 100 Vs 50 to 80Vs 30 (same change in numbers much greater difference in percentage)