Autobattles need to feel more like battles. Here's my idea for that!

  • 2 Replies
  • 2356 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Because we all need advice from random first time posters, right?  ;D

Well you're getting some anyway!

Honestly, I have no clue how autobattles work right now. They seem to be a mess, to be honest; overwhelming odds seem to have very little impact and consequently AI wars are long, inconclusive affairs and human players try to avoid them at all costs. So what to do? Here's my idea, and I hope you all like it.

First of all, keep the idea of skirmish, assault, melee.

When two armies engage in autobattle, each army forms a "battle line." The line consists of three rows:

Infantry are placed at the front row closest to the center. Units with the highest defense are placed in the middle, and in the event of a tie, units with the highest attack are placed at the ends.

Cavalry are placed at the front row closest to the ends. Cavalry with the highest movement are placed closest to the edge. Cavalry are always placed to oppose enemy cavalry (when present) even if that would leave a gap in the line.

Archers are placed in the middle row. Higher damage archers are placed in the center.

Melee siege units are initially placed in the third row in the middle, but move forward one row each phase (staying in the middle, parting the archers and infantry as they reach each rank). Therefore, melee siege units will do no damage until the melee phase.

Ranged siege units are also placed in the third row at the edges. They move forward to the middle row during the skirmish phase, and come online during the assault phase.

Forts are placed front and center.


Now, what happens with this arrangement? Well, different things, depending on the phase!

Skirmish phase: During skirmish, the ranged units from each army fire on one another (they are considered to be out front, i.e. skirmishing). Each unit fires on the unit directly opposite it. If a unit has no target (i.e. one army is bigger than the other) it fires on any unit adjacent to where its target would be. If there's no unit opposite or opposite and adjacent, it fires on a randomly selected unit from the enemy's front line. If one army has ranged units and the other doesn't, the ranged units fire directly on the opposing front line instead.

At the end of the skirmish, forts fire at a randomly selected enemy unit, and siege units move to the second line.

Assault phase: The assault phase has two segments. First, surviving archers from each army fire directly on each others' front line (initiative order). Second, each army's frontline units engage the unit directly opposing it (in initiative order, first strikers first). Units opposing a fort are forced to engage it, but in return the fort does not get to fire at other units this round.

Any melee unit which has no opposition attacks a unit adjacent to where its opposition would have been, and if there is no unit there it attacks a random archer. If there are no archers, it attacks a random siege unit.

At the end of the assault phase, ranged siege units fire at forts. If there are no forts, they fire at a random unit. Melee siege units move to the front.

Grand Melee phase: Grand Melee functions as assault phase does with a few exceptions. First, turn order changes; higher initiative always goes first, regardless of unit type. Second, unit targeting becomes more random. Siege units always select forts if any exist, but other melee units select enemy melee units randomly to attack; if none exist they target ranged units, then siege. Ranged units select randomly from all enemy units, as do unopposed forts.

Cavalry have an additional bonus in Grand Melee phase. If they have no unit opposing them in the enemy battle line, they select the weakest enemy unit on the field to target instead of selecting randomly.



So that's my idea. Any details I missed can be easily ironed out. It doesn't work so well for naval combat, but naval combat is historically less decisive than land combat anyway, so the current indecisive system IMO works great there.

Anyone else have any ideas? Or just support mine?  ;D

*

Offline Lord Zimoa

  • ******
  • 1401
  • Timeo hominem unius libri.
Thanks for the feedback!

On a side note revamping the auto-battles is one of the many points we already have planned. We note your points.

Cheers,

Tim aka LZ

Re: Autobattles need to feel more like battles. Here's my idea for that!
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2016, 05:35:37 PM »
Thanks for the feedback!

On a side note revamping the auto-battles is one of the many points we already have planned. We note your points.

Cheers,

Tim aka LZ


good to hear that revamping the auto-battles is on top your plans. i will look forward to make it happen. thanks again!