Realtime battles

[DeletedUser720]

Just thinking out loud here:
why do my troops take hours or days to travel and attack, yet a battle is over in less than a second?

What if the battle stretched over time, Giving the opportunity for both sides to deploy additional troops, and stack up?
Whatif the attack took hours or days to resolve, allowing The attacker to stack offensive troops. Now coordinating an attack is more realistic. Attackers could amass troops
What if defensive troops sent to support the castle had to arrive before the attacker arrived add war breaks out to be garrisoned in the village for defense?
As to not just benefit the attacker, what if other defending players could send troops to the villages for support, and if the troops could not be garrisoned in the village because the battle started, they would attack the attacker on the battlefield?

How about some transparency here too, after all, a war is a big thing:
All players who have troops involved get reports of how the war is going on a peridocic basis( hourly? ). All players that control a village within a radius ( not sure how far is reasonable) also are aware of the battle and can see it on the screen and can get updates.
Also if and enemy marches troops by your village ( with a small radius) or through a province your tribe controls, you see it on the screen, and get an enemy movement report. Take it a bit farther, and realistically, I should be able to target and attack Them as well.

 

[DeletedUser1260]

Can I please get some other thoughts on this subject from the community? I would like to hear other opinions on this before forming an answer.

 

[DeletedUser491]

i like the idea. but i feel it is impractical

 

[DeletedUser1260]

Why do you like it and why is it impractical?

 

[DeletedUser255]

So what you are saying is that attackers could tie up and hold defense at a village and then attacker somewhere else knowing those troops are trapped?

 

[DeletedUser1260]

Yato the way I read it is, instead of our troops hitting and coming back, they would siege the village and other troops then could join the battle.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sounds a bit intense, but I like the concept. This may have the making of new game altogether with real-time play.

The length of the battle would have to be determined by how many troops are attacking vs how many are defending+the wall level.
Maybe even have extra defenses the village/castle can create, such as moats, drawbridge etc. requiring the attacker to be needing counter siege items (cats/rams)
The attacking player(s) would have to coordinate to arrive in time as either a stronger first wave or a second wave arriving 20-30 min into the battle.
Defending tribes arriving during the battle would help deter the attacking player(s)
Which ever side receives the aid will boost moral, thus giving a bonus toward victory. The higher the moral the less casualties or time it takes to finish the battle.
With this in mind, a highly defended castle with a tribe close by for support vs a highly fortified army with tribal support could result in a lengthy battle (2-3 hrs)
Players would have to coordinate their attack when the bulk their tribe is online and able to send their army

In this game I believe co-play should not be created.

 

[DeletedUser1260]

Now you do this change wouldn't it negate the use of nobles to capture a village? Once the battle was won the original attacker would win the village because all those troops would have been defeated. It takes nobles sometimes several hours to capture a village in the beginning. This may be something to look at once the world has closed for a part of endgame strategy to keep people engaged.

 

[DeletedUser]

The attacking tribes would then have to hold the castle until the noble came in. That would give the defending tribe more time to send support in hopes to take back the castle. If the defending tribe timed it right, they may try to retake their castle while the noble is inside doing his thing.

But as I stated, This may be for an entirely different game set up, where you wont need nobles. Just whoever wins the drawn out battle.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't think anything else is needed other than shortening the march times by maybe 50-75%

Doing all that other stuff would just lengthen the battle time which defeats the whole purpose imo. I mean, who really wants to play a game where 1 battle takes days to finish?

..oh, and I'd like to see nobles have no cook time, just let us have em as soon as we get the resources required.. that takes enough time as it is lol

 

[DeletedUser]

Different game... no need for it here.

 

[DeletedUser1272]

if it takes longer than that.. i believe it might change the gameplay of TW completely..
although logically indeed it usually hours or at least days to capture a castle in medieval war... but if that happens here... does that meant the support army to the attacked village pass through the *attacking army* and walk in the castle door and increases its strength with walls?
or should the *support army* directly attacks on the *attacking army* ? would that mean the *support army* should be composed of offense troops?
theres simply too much things to be consider...

 

[DeletedUser1260]

I agree sieghart. An army can not just walk through an army attack a village and go through the gate. The attacking army would be all over that.
It would be the village being attacked by the invading army and the support armies then setting up a perimeter around the attacking army and so forth and so forth.