Topic: Frozen Time

  • Author
    Posts
  • #4466
    ManaSeed
    Participant

    It seems even if you fought 100 rounds in a battle, the in-game time would not advance by an hour. Would it be nice if every 3 rounds advance time by an hour?

    Two purposes to defrost the time during battle
    1) Minor purpose: A little more realism.

    2) Major purpose: The meaning behind the additional realism. Does it make sense if you take your sweet time to battle an enemy unit near their base? What would you do if some strangers bashing your men just outside your base? Would you send every last men in your base to surround them and beat them to a pulp? Probably when time is not frozen in battle, the whole system becomes more solid and vivid.

    #4467
    Sky
    Participant

    Not sure if 3 rounds is the right spacing, but the idea itself is quite interesting. So the enemy would be able to reinforce, and the militia would be able to reinforce you. While other factions would be able to enter battle and fight you both. Unfortunately I do not think that would be easily doable (connecting the battle and strategic map) but let’s see what the devs say about this.

    #4469
    GOD
    Participant

    I don’t think its a good idea to implement something like this. To start, the realism of it is questionable since the battles themselves don’t seem to be on a scale that would take hours to resolve. The lengthy amount of time spent on manoeuvring into position, cornering the enemy and choosing the battlefield are already part of the world map, with the battles themselves being about the tactical manoeuvring at relatively close-range. The point at which battle takes place itself would be resolved relatively quickly if it were to actually take place.

    Rounds increasing time also creates hypothetical situations where you can win a battle, but come out of it severely starving and broke. That’s not a fair kind of pressure, since there’s no way for you to influence it in battle unless you rush to finish the fight, which is not something you want to encourage in a tactical battle system. Time tension should be a natural occurence in certain battle scenarios (reach the caravan before they kill it), not a constant factor.
    You’d also be breaking some intuited abstractions about what is actually happening on the battlefield. If fights actually take hours and potentially days, then it gets really weird that no-one just keels over from exhaustion or just outright starves. That’s currently not a problem, since the pace of the battle is inferred to be short enough that this isn’t an issue, from the kind of actions you take, scale, etc.
    Additionally, there’s the effort involved in implementing it since this change would mean that the game would have to simultaneously keep track of what happens on tactical-battle map and everything on the world map, plus making them interact with each other. That would take a lot of time and effort to implement for something that you don’t need.

    #4474
    ManaSeed
    Participant

    Nonono I don’t mean a battle with 12 v 14 scale would take an hour. All I want is the time to flow within battle. Please allow me to begin with a quiz.


    Question: How long do you think it takes to travel from blue circle to red circle?

    Answer: I think it’s about an hour (you can travel forth for 11 times and back for 10 times in a day = 21 times divided by 24 hours).

    Sometimes when I engage an enemy unit, I find another enemy unit/base at half the illustrated distance or nearer. I was like, who cares about stuff like other enemy unit or enemy base? An enemy is already in front of me, I have to take care of it first. The enemy is surprisingly strong, so I use careful planning and take extra steps just to make sure I can win. But things are not that easy, those bitc… beaches are strong. Really strong. Two of my men get in a pinch and I was forced to delay my victory and prioritize on saving them first. After a long and gruesome battle, all my men survived to see the victory. When I return to world map, my first thought is…

    “Phew~~~~ You guys are still here?”

    Then the enemy unit replies.

    “Yup, we’re still here. At the exactly same location. Waiting for pizza delivery.”

    =========================================================
    If the battle begins in a manner where combatants from both sides stand face to face with each other, with zero distance, I agree the fight would end within 1 minute thus time system in battle is not needed. Does enemy block your attacks with their shields several times before you end his life? Or you one hit kill him with the samurai style?

    Remember the last time you’re ambushed in the woods, where enemy comes from all directions? Did you take time to locate the enemy, regrouping your scattered brothers, and spend even more time to traverse the difficult terrain(enemy also take more time to reach you)? Not to mention you might spend even more time to protect your archers if you have one.
    =========================================================
    Regarding rushing in a tactical battle……. Who wants to rush a battle? Me? Why should I rush if all my reinforcement is on the way? I won’t even bother to take the risk to go melee with the enemy. I would simply fire arrows as I draw back slowly, hold out as long as possible. When my friend’s friend’s friend have surrounded you…. We can ask you to perform naked dance with all our swords sheathed.

    On the other hand, if you want to take out enemy units in danger zone (area close to enemy’s base or activity). You might not want to use time consuming, defensive tactics or formation to wear out your enemy steadily and slowly for a certain victory. Because you have no idea about the patrol route of their scouts. Instead, you might prefer blitzkrieg, guerilla, ninja style to dispatch enemy units. And this is actually a viable way for a 12 men group to raid a 40 men base. If you’re good enough, the colossal base will be weakened to its last stand after days and nights of “divide and conquer”.
    =========================================================

    It’s even better if the fatigue cost increases by 1%(round down) for every 2 rounds. Battles doesn’t always end in victory or defeat through annihilation of either force, it can be stalemate (which considers victory to the defending force but also not exactly a defeat to the invasion force) which results the retreat of invasion force (exactly the way you run like hell in battle when you find an enemy fortress too badass to be taken down.)

    Since your weapon gets “tired” too, despite they are metal, and you’re just…. flesh and blood. Unless your brother has “Iron Man” perk or “Man of Steel” perk.
    =========================================================

    Long story short. The time in battle can flow very slow, the time tension can be very small, but I hope the time will not be entirely…… frozen.

    #4479
    GOD
    Participant

    The point is that you’re not face to face, but seconds away from engaging. Terrain might slow units down before they reach each other, but not by that much. Everything about the map suggests this, through the size of the map, the scale of the units and objects, the amount of AP you get per turn, the lethality, how far you can move, etc. To clarify, It does not take minutes to swing a sword twice and for the other to dodge and counter-attack, but seconds. Same goes for running past a tree or readying your shield.

    You’d want to rush when time becomes something that can result in your position on the world becoming worse, which is what would happen if time moves at such a pace that reinforcements become viable. This is because for reinforcements from either side to a viable factor, time would have to move at a rapid pace as otherwise they’d never show up. Time moving that fast results in the player always getting punished for taking their time, rather than their approach being dictated by the circumstances of the battle itself, because time passing is bad for the player as it means losing resources. Furthermore, you’d get a disconnect between what you see happening in combat and the amount of time that you’re told is actually passing.

    Also, having fatigue cost increase by a percentage per turn would also quickly result in combat being completely crippled. Having low-fatigue characters would be impossible, undead would become invincible and the only viable way of fighting would be killing the enemy as fast as possible.

    I just don’t see adding passage of time being worth the effort or actually improving the game. It’s pretty much fine the way it is now.

    #4480
    ManaSeed
    Participant

    >>The point is that you’re not face to face, but seconds away from engaging. Terrain might slow units down before they reach each other, but not by that much. Everything about the map suggests this, through the size of the map, the scale of the units and objects, the amount of AP you get per turn, the lethality, how far you can move, etc. To clarify, It does not take minutes to swing a sword twice and for the other to dodge and counter-attack, but seconds. Same goes for running past a tree or readying your shield.

    Well, we have different opinions about how fast a human can act in a seemingly-hard-to-move forest, where he has never visited before. And different opinions whether human warriors will rush straight towards opponents at the first sight, like a salvage.

    About “seconds away from engaging”….. I dunno. It always seems to me that a 12 v 25 battle takes a quite a while. Walk here and there, kill the undead, undead revived, and killed him again. It sure look very strange to me that a nearby enemy unit doesn’t come to join the battle while I’m spending time to fight his friends. It’s even stranger that I can take down multiple enemy units that gathered right in front of their bases, one by one.

    >> You’d want to rush when time becomes something that can result in your position on the world becoming worse, which is what would happen if time moves at such a pace that reinforcements become viable. This is because for reinforcements from either side to a viable factor, time would have to move at a rapid pace as otherwise they’d never show up. Time moving that fast results in the player always getting punished for taking their time, rather than their approach being dictated by the circumstances of the battle itself, because time passing is bad for the player as it means losing resources.

    Well, time doesn’t have to move fast. Why reinforcements have to come? Reinforcements don’t have to come…. unless it’s justified. Should enemy reinforcements come if you’re bashing their people in front of their base? What makes you think you shouldn’t act fast in enemy territory, especially when you’re alone with no reinforcement?

    A time-consuming battle should be resource consuming too. I thought a long war spent A LOT of resource?

    =================================================
    >> Furthermore, you’d get a disconnect between what you see happening in combat and the amount of time that you’re told is actually passing.

    Err… *look left and right* Well…. I don’t quite understand. Why?

    =================================================
    >> Also, having fatigue cost increase by a percentage per turn would also quickly result in combat being completely crippled. Having low-fatigue characters would be impossible, undead would become invincible and the only viable way of fighting would be killing the enemy as fast as possible.

    Imagine a high fatigue contestant fighting with a low fatigue contestant. The contestant with high fatigue will definitely use the difference in fatigue to his advantage. He will hold out as long as possible and deliver the final blow when the other contestant is tired. But it doesn’t mean the latter contestant can’t win. So please do not discriminate people with low fatigue. Yes, of course he has to fight faster. That’s exactly what it means of having low fatigue!

    You mean Skeleton would be invincible because their morale cannot be lowered? Or they would invincible because they’re extremely resistant to ranged attacks? But that’s exactly what it means to be a skeleton!

    You see…. I really hope you would respect the dead. I mean, accept the way they are. They might not be the same like us but you can’t ask them to be like us. Because…… they’re just different, but not less.

    >> Also, fighting a spear with a dagger from far away would be impossible…

    That’s exactly what it means to wield a dagger!

    That’s exactly- etc etc etc
    =================================================
    >> I just don’t see adding passage of time being worth the effort or actually improving the game. It’s pretty much fine the way it is now.
    Well…. *smile* you pretty much can guess what I’m going to say against this, after I’ve been talking for so long. Still, it’s just something I prefer. I do realize it is not easy to implement this, even if anyone likes it. Because everything changes if time moves in battle.

    #4483
    GOD
    Participant

    That would be relevant if you had to actually find each other in the forest. That’s not the case, so it isn’t about familiarity, but distance. The distances in combat are short and would not take much time to traverse. The same applies to the ability of the unit’s to quickly engage each other in combat, as I described above. They might not always want to, but they can if they so choose. This is different from a game that has the assumption of larger distances as there you cannot engage each other quickly, even when you want to (Rome Total War). As for the time spent on the battle itself, that just seems long because it’s turn based rather than real-time. The events taking place of which the turn-based system is an abstraction, actually happen much more quickly in this case.

    Because units within range of the battle already take part right now. This means that for reinforcements during the course of the battle to be implemented, you’d need to make it possible for units farther away to join the fight. For those units to ever join, turns need to take a relatively large amount of time, otherwise they will never show up. You’d also always have to act fast as the entire map is effectively enemy territory.
    The enemy bases already sent out groups depending on whether they think they can take you, they just don’t leave the base unattended (to my knowledge).

    A time consuming battle is already resource intensive in that you have to replace everything used and lost, plus that you already expend further resources through moving around, recovering, buying, etcetera on the world map. Having the amount of time you spent on the battle itself have an effect on this is an unnecessary punishment that does not facilitate interesting gaemplay

    Because the time suggested by the combat itself would not reflected by the passage of time, as I have outlined above.

    Fatigue already reflects this so you don’t have to change anything if you want to see that kind of dynamic. Adding incremental fatigue increase however, would result in it eventually becoming impossible to act, since a unit’s recovery would eventually be unable to keep up with the cost of actions. This will happen much sooner to a low fatigue character, giving high fatigue characters a game breaking advantage on top of all the advantages that it already offers. As for the undead, most of them do not tire, so unless you’d manage to kill them all in a few turns it’ll become next to impossible for you to beat them.

    Spear and dagger? What are you talking about?

    #4485
    ManaSeed
    Participant

    <<<<< LONG TEXT WARNING >>>>>>

    >> That would be relevant if you had to actually find each other in the forest. That’s not the case, so it isn’t about familiarity, but distance. The distances in combat are short and would not take much time to traverse. The same applies to the ability of the unit’s to quickly engage each other in combat, as I described above. They might not always want to, but they can if they so choose. This is different from a game that has the assumption of larger distances as there you cannot engage each other quickly, even when you want to (Rome Total War).

    Hmm, I’m not sure why would you say that. I thought when we’re ambushed/surrounded in forest, you know they’re coming in all directions (as opposed to the right side in usual battle), but you won’t know how many of them coming in a certain direction, unless you have spotted all of them, which takes several rounds. Well, in a forest you’ve never been before, with so many trees hindering your sight, and the terrain is rather uneven, how can you easily traverse the area and locate/attack the enemy? I not sure about it, but I doubt ordinary fighter can sprint in forest, zipping left and right between thick layer of trees, and deliver a lethal blow to enemy by charging into him. I think makes more sense if the human warrior treads carefully in forest, trying to locate enemy before enemy does the same on him, so he can launch preemptive strike on the enemy. It just doesn’t feel right if the warrior can dash in such situation. I can definitely foresee the scene where he was tripped by a large emerging root. If a unit can quickly engage another on plains, I would definitely accept it. Because you have clear sight thus better grasp of the situation(less uncertainty or hesitation), and the even terrain allows you to charge at the enemy.

    =======================================================
    >> As for the time spent on the battle itself, that just seems long because it’s turn based rather than real-time. The events taking place of which the turn-based system is an abstraction, actually happen much more quickly in this case.

    Yes. I realize what you’re trying to say. It’s not just happening much more quickly, but everything is actually happening simultaneously. If a slash takes about 5 seconds (or 4 AP), a round would be about 11 seconds. If you take 7 rounds to finish a battle, you would have spent about 80 seconds.

    I dunno… even if I always realize how the AP depicts the pace of the battle…. Even if you describe the battle as if it happens within a split second….

    BUT my men just travel from left side of the map to the far right, and one of my men guard against a bandit boss with shield for several rounds at far left, then other brothers come back to rescue him, finally we kill the last archer at far right. It doesn’t look like everything happens in a flash. These people are moving too fast! Everyone is moving too fast! It’s weird that a confrontation has no hesitation or contemplation at all. I mean, even boxers would wait patiently for an opening to attack. And these people just….
    bam! Bam! Bam!
    … end of battle.
    I dunno, maybe it’s just me. (Does anyone else think 7 rounds definitely take more than merely 80 seconds?)
    You can’t convince me, leave me be.
    oTL

    =======================================================

    >> Because units within range of the battle already take part right now. This means that for reinforcements during the course of the battle to be implemented, you’d need to make it possible for units farther away to join the fight. For those units to ever join, turns need to take a relatively large amount of time, otherwise they will never show up. You’d also always have to act fast as the entire map is effectively enemy territory.

    Well, I’ve thought about enlarging the radius for NPC to join a fight. But it just doesn’t feel right, according to what I feel towards time. But it’s far easier for devs to enlarge the radius so it’s good in its own way. I can’t stop getting the feeling there should be a chance for you encounter a second enemy scout group when you’re battling the first at night time, where you’re not expecting it to happen at all because you didn’t spot the second enemy scout, and you didn’t expect the battle to drag on.

    =======================================================

    >> The enemy bases already sent out groups depending on whether they think they can take you, they just don’t leave the base unattended (to my knowledge).
    Hmmmmm? Seriously. Why is it different in my case? Can someone else confirm this? Anyone routed enemy units in front of enemy base before?
    =======================================================


    >> A time consuming battle is already resource intensive in that you have to replace everything used and lost, plus that you already expend further resources through moving around, recovering, buying, etcetera on the world map. Having the amount of time you spent on the battle itself have an effect on this is an unnecessary punishment that does not facilitate interesting gaemplay

    Fatigue already reflects this so you don’t have to change anything if you want to see that kind of dynamic. Adding incremental fatigue increase however, would result in it eventually becoming impossible to act, since a unit’s recovery would eventually be unable to keep up with the cost of actions. This will happen much sooner to a low fatigue character, giving high fatigue characters a game breaking advantage on top of all the advantages that it already offers. As for the undead, most of them do not tire, so unless you’d manage to kill them all in a few turns it’ll become next to impossible for you to beat them.

    The current fatigue system doesn’t reflect the mental and physical impairment of prolonged battle.

    How can a team be in a battle for 30 rounds, when their weapons are on the verge of breaking, yet their fatigue is as good as new? I just can’t believe it…
    1% extra fatigue cost(rounding down) per every 2 rounds is a punishment? JUST HOW MANY rounds you’re intended to stay in a battle!!?
    Well… if weapon getting exhausted can be fun…. why are you discriminating fatigue? I don’t get it… I don’t get discrimination at all.

    =======================================================

    >> Spear and dagger? What are you talking about?

    Hehehe. Nothing.
    =======================================================

    #4486
    Sky
    Participant

    I know that the devs already said that many things are made considering a fast pace combat like having no need for facing of the units since to turn to an enemy takes mere secounds, same goes for lots of skills. For example the rally that is basically a horn blow, it would take few secounds to execute. That is the reason I wrote about 3 turns being an hour is way off, more like 30 secounds. Sure the extra long battles with tonns of undead could be an hour worth or a mechanic where the nearby enemy could reinforce. Tho it should take considerable turns, symbolizing a long exhausting battle in time equivalent. And it still is not a fast work to connect the battle to worldmap in a good way in any circumstance.

    #4488
    GOD
    Participant

    I’m not so much talking about how difficult fighting in the woods would actually be, but about what it is like on the actual game map – that being that while the forest terrain is an obstruction, it won’t slow down either parties approach to a degree that they can’t still usually engage on the first turn. The map is basically built around a fast pace.

    That’s the thing though, the big time consuming part is left out of the battle. The tracking, choosing position, drawing out, chasing, hit and fade, retreating, and so, that is what takes up a lot of time. Time that is abstracted to the strategic layer of the world map (moving around the enemy, following them, luring them to a location of your choosing, trying to shake them off, etc). We only really see the part just before both sides engage in close-quarter fighting. The battle is like the climax of all the preparation that surrounds it. Kind of like what enemies on the map do isn’t actually retreating, as you usually can still catch them, while the catching of people on the world map (who’ve actually retreated) takes a long time.
    Boxers are actually an interesting example, as the reason as to why those fights last so long is that they’re lengthened with pauses, specialisation and not being allowed to use techniques that run the risk of killing their opponent. Fights would be much shorter if they didn’t (and would probably always end up with a boxer dying). Basically, think of what would happen if both boxers suddenly pulled knives and went for the jugular.
    If they want, they could have the engagement vary a bit depending on the group. For example, fast hunters, like werewolves, having a larger engagement circle than slow wiedergängers. Coupled with differences in sight range, this could result in a night battle where you didn’t notice that the enemy ahs reinforcement, before the battle actually starts.

    Sure, you can beat a group in front of a base. They just won’t get help from their comrades because you’re probably too strong for them to come out. They’ll come out if they think they can take you and reinforce the fight. They’re basically chickening out, so to speak. ;)

    Physical and mental are currently represented by fatigue, hitpoints and morale. They’ll get more depth with the injury system and more status effects. Those would probably add the bits that you’re looking for.
    Incremental fatigue only serves to handicap low-fatigue units even more and just makes the fatigue stat even more important than it already is. I can’t see how this would be a good change.

    #4489
    Jago
    Participant

    In real life where battles could last for days, the actual fighting was much shorter. It could take a few hours, including capturing fleeing men, but most of the time was spent of camping and waiting for a good time for an attack (an extreme example, the battle of Tours lasted for 7 days Battle of Tours. Also these were large scale battles with thousands and ten-thousands of soldiers on each side.

    In Battle Brothers we have only little skirmishes. These fights won’t be over in 80 seconds, but 10-15 minutes for a medium sized battle (12-12) with good armor on both sides sounds realistic. The largest battles would probably take 30 minutes at most, including hunting down routing units (i.e. finding that last archer).

    Hmm, I’m not sure why would you say that. I thought when we’re ambushed/surrounded in forest, you know they’re coming in all directions (as opposed to the right side in usual battle), but you won’t know how many of them coming in a certain direction, unless you have spotted all of them, which takes several rounds. Well, in a forest you’ve never been before, with so many trees hindering your sight, and the terrain is rather uneven, how can you easily traverse the area and locate/attack the enemy?

    Well, if you are ambushed in the forest, the enemy is probably very close, close enough for the combat to start in 1-2 turns. You could say the combat starts when your scouts notice something suspicious (shades moving between the trees) and then everyone prepares their weapons.

    In other words, there’s no need to chance the game in this aspect. Reinforcements arrive if they are close by. Other enemy groups outside the battle couldn’t move much further even if the battle lasts very long. It’s working, it’s simple, leave it as it is.

    #4495
    ManaSeed
    Participant

    >> Sure, you can beat a group in front of a base. They just won’t get help from their comrades because you’re probably too strong for them to come out. They’ll come out if they think they can take you and reinforce the fight. They’re basically chickening out, so to speak.
    About fear theory, I’m “away” and they are “home”, not to mention they have far larger numbers than me. If I’m fighting the enemy elsewhere, another flees due to spinelessness I can understand. But this is their home and their last stand. I basically doing something like putting a knife at their throats, there’s no way they’re not motivated to fight back. I believe they would fight with extremely furious spirit, like nothing you’ve seen before.

    Ahem, back to the game system. There are several times I raid multiple enemy units near their base. There is a time I raid 3 enemy units one by one outside their base. Their distances with each other is like, if they take several more steps they can touch other. But they just walk here and there, around the same location, while I slaughter their comrade. Each of them is just slightly weaker than me. If two of them join hands against me, I might take more trouble to win. If three of them join hands, I would have a hard time or an unexpected casualty. If their base deploys men too, I’m very likely to be wiped out. Of course, what happens in reality is that I take them out one by one, which I think is very strange.

    So I suggest to slightly modify the AI if possible, which is more viable.

    Enemy should have the ability to communicate within each other’s detection radius. Maybe by blowing whistle and rising signal flag or something, they should have something to signal each other within detection/visible radius, right? While enemy within communication accesses your strength, they will compare their total strength against yours.

    Now let’s assume the detection radius of enemy is same as us. So we saw them when they saw us.

    Scenario 1: you saw 2 enemy, both of them can defeat you without the help of another, they will simply chase after you.
    Scenario 2: you saw 2 enemy, both of them can’t defeat you without the help of another, they will immediately rush towards each other. After they stick close enough, they will chase you.
    Scenario 2b: an alternative to scenario 2, if you think enemy is smarter than they look, they will rush towards the interception point (somewhere between you and the two enemies) so they can engage you with less time. After they rendezvous at interception point, they will begin the pursuit immediately if you’re running away.

    Also, increase the detection of radius of enemy when he’s in his own territory. You might ask why. I can give reasons like they have better grasp of terrain so spotting enemy without getting spotted is like a piece of cake, but I will tell you honestly this is because of…….. fun.

    And about base chickening issue. Come on… o(-`д´- 。) even if their genius tactician is so paranoid about falling into a trap, they should send at least half their men if you’re pretty close when you bully their buddies.

    >> These fights won’t be over in 80 seconds, but 10-15 minutes for a medium sized battle (12-12) with good armor on both sides sounds realistic. The largest battles would probably take 30 minutes at most, including hunting down routing units (i.e. finding that last archer).
    This is EXACTLY what I think. That’s why I keep thinking that a 10~20 minutes battle has some chance for reinforcements or enemy scouts to join battle, depending on the battle location. Even if we put aside all these random encounters about being discovered by another enemy unit amidst battle, at least the enemy base and enemy should reinforce their friend if you bash him right in front of their eyes (or visible range), where the distance is 20 minutes walk or less.

    ============================================
    EDIT
    It might be particularly fun when you chase a slightly weaker enemy into the woods, just to see two enemy units coming out of the woods :D

    #4499
    GOD
    Participant

    I expect that we’ll see a slight change in the AI behaviour eventually so that it’ll attack with multiple groups that are individually weaker than you, but stronger combined. This could result in bases sending out troops to help, if the AI feels like it would tip the scales.
    Territory isn’t really a concept in the game, though .

    Your first post talks about advancing time by an hour for every 3 rounds, not by minutes. The range implied by a battle taking minutes is already included in the current engagement radius and is actually rather generous in who can join the fight. There’s no gain in trying to complicate it further and would not be worth the effort involved.

    In real life where battles could last for days, the actual fighting was much shorter. It could take a few hours, including capturing fleeing men, but most of the time was spent of camping and waiting for a good time for an attack (an extreme example, the battle of Tours lasted for 7 days Battle of Tours. Also these were large scale battles with thousands and ten-thousands of soldiers on each side.
    In Battle Brothers we have only little skirmishes. These fights won’t be over in 80 seconds, but 10-15 minutes for a medium sized battle (12-12) with good armor on both sides sounds realistic. The largest battles would probably take 30 minutes at most, including hunting down routing units (i.e. finding that last archer).
    Well, if you are ambushed in the forest, the enemy is probably very close, close enough for the combat to start in 1-2 turns. You could say the combat starts when your scouts notice something suspicious (shades moving between the trees) and then everyone prepares their weapons.
    In other words, there’s no need to chance the game in this aspect. Reinforcements arrive if they are close by. Other enemy groups outside the battle couldn’t move much further even if the battle lasts very long. It’s working, it’s simple, leave it as it is.

    Pretty much, yes, though interestingly enough, large battles like that are actually relatively less lethal than the kind of skirmishes found in Battle Brothers. There, having an army around means that you can prevent the enemy from pressing the advantage and annihilating a unit when they break or try to retreat, through the threat posed by others units (flanking, getting surrounded). This makes retreating more feasible, while in battles on the scale of Battle Brothers most of the troops would just die, since the enemy has no reason not to run them down when they can.

    #4501
    Sky
    Participant

    I expect that we’ll see a slight change in the AI behaviour eventually so that it’ll attack with multiple groups that are individually weaker than you, but stronger combined. This could result in bases sending out troops to help, if the AI feels like it would tip the scales.
    Territory isn’t really a concept in the game, though.

    That shouldn’t be hard to achive, since all the enemy groups enter the combat if you attack inside they aggro radius. Be they from same faction or different does not matter, they will be drawn into battle.

    Wish there were more 3 way battles and still looking to find a 4 way battle tho seems impossible.

    #4510
    Jago
    Participant

    >> These fights won’t be over in 80 seconds, but 10-15 minutes for a medium sized battle (12-12) with good armor on both sides sounds realistic. The largest battles would probably take 30 minutes at most, including hunting down routing units (i.e. finding that last archer).
    This is EXACTLY what I think. That’s why I keep thinking that a 10~20 minutes battle has some chance for reinforcements or enemy scouts to join battle, depending on the battle location. Even if we put aside all these random encounters about being discovered by another enemy unit amidst battle, at least the enemy base and enemy should reinforce their friend if you bash him right in front of their eyes (or visible range), where the distance is 20 minutes walk or less.

    Yup, it’s already works in the game like this. Having reinforcements appear on the edge of the map, instead of starting out in the center might be implemented at some point. Similar when you are aiding a battle, that has been going on for a while, and you start a few hexes away from the front line.

    So I suggest to slightly modify the AI if possible, which is more viable.

    I expect that we’ll see a slight change in the AI behaviour eventually so that it’ll attack with multiple groups that are individually weaker than you, but stronger combined. This could result in bases sending out troops to help, if the AI feels like it would tip the scales.

    I think we can all agree on this. The AI has to become a bit smarter concerning their troop movements.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.