I get it. But it doesn't change the issue with things like "minimum" hour long battles that someone suggested. That's not practical.

What makes those long, epic, crazy battles so good is that they're rare. A typical encounter being 3 minutes means the one that takes 45 where your entire army is nearly wiped out but you win the day by the skin of your teeth is all the more special. When every battle takes 45 minutes you'll have players in a coma before the good one happens.

So I think what we can agree to is pretty much what Annatar said: a combat system that keeps combat moving but scales up to accomodate those rare crazy really large multi-army battles. I certainly wouldn't want to see a turn timer in single player. (In multiplayer, such a thing as an option might make sense.)

The only thing that concerns me are the short 3 minute battles. To be honest, I would like to see the capability of longer, more "epic" battles, that consist of back and forth tooth and nail fighting on both sides.

If you want an idea of a great fantasy turn-based system, take a few pages from Pox Nora's system, at poxnora.com

I like to play games at settings hard enough that I don't know if they're winnable. More often than not I abandon a game before finishing because I'm utterly doomed or because winning has become too easy.

For my style of play, "without taking massive losses" just doesn't cut it. Each battle must be optimized for everything I can squeeze out of it. Auto resolve will not be an option for me.

And as others have said, the AI will not do as well as a great human player. Tree search algorithms with trimming heuristics can not find perfect solutions unless the problem is simple to begin with. (In anything remotely like a reasonable amount of time.) In many cases the AI probably won't even try for what I would consider to be the best outcome from a battle (after I've played for a while and know the game) - I may prefer to take more damage on different units in any given battle depending on what I plan to do next.

I am on the same page as you. I want tactical battles. I just want them to be tactical and indepth. And perhaps for mp they could be tweaked accordingly for time. I am just asking a fundamental question really. Why have them if they are going to be too quick. But I regress until I actually play and explore the system.

I just brought up that number because I heard it mentioned a long time ago.  I think it may have even been from Brad but I don't remember anymore.  I can't see 10,000 man armies with what we currently have but things are constantly changing.  I don't think it's safe to rule it out just yet.

I immedietly thought "turtler that hates rushers" when I read your post.

Your suggestion makes early attacks less valuable by a great deal and simultaneously makes turtlers (people who don't want to spend a cent on defense) stronger. This can't be allowed to happen.

Minimum battlerating to attack a town (empty or not) also weakens smaller armies and rewards stack of doom and turtlers.

Don't ad hominid me by interpreting me as an "inferior" player based off a forum post about a game that isn't out yet. Also, turtles DO spend a cent on defense. In fact, the primary characteristic of a turtle is that they buy no OFFENSE. Only defenses (like turrets or forts or whatever) and economy buildings. Pure eco "boomers" are the ones who tend to purchase no defense, and will do a small offensive harass to preoccupy the opponents while they build up their econ. 

I actually play rush strategies.

---

Early game, cities wouldn't have a population of more than 50, at most. They start at 10, correct? This mechanic might trigger, but it won't be USEFUL. One peasant isn't going to help against a dedicated army. The minimum battle rating isn't to disable attacking. It's if you don't meet that threshold, you meet resistance. Dropping into a tactical battle. Which would enable both sides to use spells... like summon an Elemental or use a Fireball. Both the attacker and the defender.

We also currently have no mechanics that award defending (that I know of, at least). This is one. It should be more difficult to attack than defend... that is nothing new, really.

Civ V is doing this as well (cities defend themselves).

Civ IV: Colonization is also similar. There is a resource called "guns" that exists. If you have a city that is attacked for every 25 guns one of your civilians will form a militia to protect themselves (you can have "soldier class" civilians as well who have a higher battle rating). Finally, you will have one unarmed peasant defend the city after your gun-wielding civilians have been defeated. That game is different than other Civs because, in fact, it's BAD to have a "standing army" garrisoned as a city. If you aren't planning on attacking someone soon, you should always settle your soldiers into a city for a few turns.

So... this isn't something that doesn't ever happen in other games?

I also only pointed this out to "mundane" attackers. An enemy sovereign or a high-level champion or a fantastic monster would be able to conquer an enemy without this punishment. Which is what a rusher would be doing. So, an army purely composed of low level "thugs" without a leader would have difficulties just occupying a city, even if they destroyed their weaker defenses. Similarly, if there is a very close battle but you (as a defender) manage to kill the enemy leader and a large portion of the attackers, the civilians are "rallied" into defending their homes.

However, Brad mentioned that animals and bandits will start being aggressive now. Peasants defending themselves (and their wife and children) MAKES SENSE in this context. These people have been wandering the wilderness for 100 years without a home. they finally have one now, and they have learned how to defend themselves over the years.

A powerful army is one thing. He was talking about 5 peasants with pitchforks conquering a town of 100 people... which would have more then 5 peasants with pitchforks in it.

Civ 4 had something like that actually. While you could conquer a city with anything strong enough to overcome the defending unit, holding a city in revolt required enough force to subdue the population. One spearman couldn't hold an industrial era city in revolt, the revolters would win and take the city back (flipping it back to its previous owner). Civ 5 is taking it a step further and giving the city intrinsic defensive ability, such that you have to actually attack the city and suppress the population to take it, rather then simply walking in.

Given the store behind Elemental, people have been scraping by a living. It makes a certain amount of sense for townsfolk to have a limited ability to defend themselves. It certainly won't stop heavy bear cavalry, but  one guy with a dagger conquering a city doesn't make much sense.

Well, that's why I was saying it would be something like 1 free Peasant per 10 pop. And I doubt that a Kingdom would be happy to be conquered by an Empire, think about allll the different ideals they have. It surely would be something that they would hate. 

I don't think that this mechanic should prevent a powerful army from just walking in with no resistance. And a Sovereign or strong hero wielding terrifying powers conquers a city, it shouldn't be met with resistance either. People will just be quiet and accept their new ruler, more or less. 

That's why I was saying there is a minimum battle rating in a city. If you have equal to or greater that amount, there won't be a riot or "militia" facing you when you get in. If you don't meet that threshold, then the Peasants arm themselves to fight you, at a rate of 1 free Peasant per 10 pop. Maybe larger cities would have a slightly-upgraded peasant or two (maybe you get 1 guy with Leather Armor per city level or something).  

These people have been struggling to stay alive, and they've probably fought many times before to save their lives. 

That's why I'm saying it makes sense to have this mechanic. 

Too much reading in and misinterpretation.

I said a typical battle would last 3 minutes. We're not hard coding battles to a time limit (it's turn based, you could go to bed and come back the next morning).

That doesn't mean late game battles won't be more epic but what % of your game is spent in late game climatic battles versus the typical skirmish of a dozen vs. a dozen?

As someone who loves to turtle, and also loves to rush, i feel like slapping Mr. Campaigner as he doesn't seem to know that turtle defense is.

But as for this discussion I think it's a good idea for those pretty little city guards sitting on the watch towers to stop 1 man from waltzing into a town and conquering it. Basically what i am getting at is citys should have some kind of defense against small/weak scout units conquering it.

I have faith that Stardock will balance out the game and keep everybody happy. i highly dislike games that cater only to Rushing or Turtling tactics.

I don't think there will be any saving mid-fight or auto-resolving in a war with China.