It would be cool to have this feature. AoW - SM had a system like this, and I loved that. Example [How is this system works?]: If an enemy army is surrounded by 2+ allied armies [player or computer controlled], and one of the allied armies launch an attack on the enemy army, the other allied armies will participate in the battle as well. => So basically it's attacking 1 tile from multiple directions. Hopefully the tactical battle engine will be able to handle a system like this...
Example [Overland map - Armies -> Side A: X1,X2 ; Side B: Z1,Z2,Z3,Z4]
Army Z2 attacks X1 or X2 => X1+X2 vs Z1+Z2+Z3+Z4
Army X1 attacks Z3 => X1+X2 vs Z2 + Z3 + Z4 [Army Z1 won't be placed on the battlefield]
I like this. Rome and Medieval II had a similar system. Would love to see this make it´s way into Elemental.
This would be nice to have.
I'm definitely in support of this idea. I think it should apply to allies too. If an ally attacks an enemy adjacent to one of your armies, you should get the option to participate (possibly having diplomatic penalties if you choose not to aid).
Or you could get the option to negotiate with him. For example, you could demand money or ressources für aiding him in this battle. Including diplomatic penalties for not helping him.
We've had this come up many, many times and I don't think anyone has voted against it. Might want to list the other duplicate topics so everyone isn't just saying the same things again.
Sounds nice. I don't know if you ment this to be included, but if this is implemented, it shouldn't only work for the attacker, but also for the defender. If 2+ allied armies are in bordering tiles and one of them get's attacked by one (or more) enemy armies, the bordering armies should help in the defence.
Really? Well, I haven't seen a topic about this yet, this is why I've created this one.
Ah, sounds good and logical!
Thanks, I try to be...
I'll see your lazy rotter remark and raise you one: why didn't you add some of those links yourself? (I'd try, but my memory goes on break whenever it wants and searches like this are only so helpful when you're starved for just the right keywords.)
Hehe....well perhaps this should be added to the Comp. Suggestion List?
I like this idea!
*bump* .. because of the ongoing discussion about "epic" battles. [https://forums.elementalgame.com/396516/]
i wouldent min this - but they would need to also implement a initiative system - so the units move interdepentent of each other instead of group based.cause a few casters if they attack first have won first round with their aoe spells. and having multiple armies join in the fight would just give their aoe spells the better effect.but i love this idea regardless!
I guess you misunderstood my suggestion? What you see on the picture in the OP are armies [X1,X2,Z1,Z2,Z3,Z4] on the overland map. So the suggestion is: multiple armies involved in 1 battle in the same time, just like in Age of Wonders - Shadow Magic.
*edit* I updated the OP, so it should be more clear now.
I think the adjacent units should not physically enter the battlefield but the attacker/defender should get global adjustments for "being outflanked" or the likes.Battle Isle was probably the first (non-asian) computerized board game that used such a system.Even in a turn based game you had to cover your flanks...
There can be more than one army stack per square.If any adjacent units would enter the battle (regardless from what particular squares) then there could be an infinite number of units involved.That obviously cannot work.
With 40 units on your side you couldn't even move...
Infinite number of units? 1 army = 12 squads/groups max. right now. The maximum number of armies in 1 battle would be 12 using this "joint attack system". -> That is 12x12 squads/groups maximum...the size of the battlefield is not an issue -> it's dynamic. [Ex.: If there are 20 squads on the battlefield, the size of the battlefield is 10x10 ; if there are 100+ squads on the battlefield, the size could be 30x30 or something like that.]
There is no limit for how many stacks can be in one square. That means infinite or if you'd like to split a few hairs, one square containing all units that your empire controls. There could be 7 complete armies of 12 units each in either X1 or X2.
Not everyone considers turn based combat with huge numbers of units fun. Or at least not when they can't be organised into formations but have to be played as 96 unique and independant units.
MOO2 is probably a close analogy because the ships there could have different abilities and clickies and you would aim different weapons at different ships... The larger battles really bogged down the game.
With the current AI not caring how many millions of upkeep debt it has, a tactical battle for a useless piece of road could easily take an hour or two. If the AI does not stack armies like that, but only the player would, you'd be guaranteed whatever odds you wanted, regardless of the situation. That's not such a good idea, either.
Magic is (theoretically) balanced for the current size of battlefield.With 30x30 instead of 10x10, an AE spell covers 1/9 of the relative size it covered before. And since casters couldn't buff a lot of units (one by one), either,magic users would mostly be there to look pretty or provide teleportation to the battles.
"You don't have to do it" isn't really an option. When the AI learns to do so, everyone either does or is crushed by overwhelming odds.
And no, I'm not saying it's an entirely stupid and ridiculous idea. It just has to be solid in all scenarios. IMO, breaking/disadvantageing magic is not desireable.
nono. i mean as the game is currently - if you initiate a attack (you are the one that starts actions)so lets say i had my hero group 3 casters i happen to move and attack 4 different groups that all where bunched up together (say total of 24 units)now the casters would just go -ZAP with aoe spells and everything would be dead because it would be bunched up in a massive bundles of AOE goodness (though if the units where places differently on the battlemap acording to how they where place on the stratetic map i guess it could work.but i still would say the game could benefit from initiative so it isent always (attacker wins -(if have casters)
- Well, everything can be balanced easily regarding the max number of units/squad, max number of squads/army and max number of armies/tile [this should be 1]
- ...as for the dynamic-sized battlefields: I don't understand your concern to be honest.
PS. This system worked like a charm in AoW-SM. [Note: The size of the battlefields is fixed in that game.]
Ohhhhhh ok I got it. Well, that will be changed for 1.08 or 1.1 [I am not sure], because it will be based on combat speed.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
