G3t Pr3m1um t0 h1d3 4ll 4ds
P0sts: 2   V1s1t3d by: 88 users
03.03.2012 - 09:25
I noticed a few discussions about turn blocking and its undesirability in the game but also the question of how to replace it properly if at all.

I think I have a mechanic that would both work... as well level out the wants and don't wants of turn blocking.

Best way to explain this would be to give an example. In this example...

Player A will have 4 different groups of units... Player B will have 1 group of units.

Player A has unit group 1 in the front... Player B has his 1 unit group in the front... which he engages Player A's unit group 1.

Player A moves the other 3 unit groups towards his unit group 1... however his actions were in later sequence than Player B's move. The result would be this... Player B's unit group engages player A's unit group 1... and for this turn that is all the combat for this encounter... however Player A's 3 other unit groups still move to the position of the engagement and because they were focused on unit group 1 in their actions... they combine.

So the end result is (for sake of argument) player B's unit group defeated Player A's unit group 1 however now Player A's new unit group created from the other 3 unit groups are right next to Player B's unit group. Think of it like what happens when bombers attack a city and clear it...but are not able to capture the city. It is simply placed beside it.

This would allow reinforcing to still happen... and also work with the action sequence that is currently in place while not stopping units that are trying to be moved in to reinforce.
L04d1ng...
L04d1ng...
03.03.2012 - 10:48
This is already in the game, except that third unit would just join the battle instead of staying next to it.
----
Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
L04d1ng...
L04d1ng...
atWar

About Us
Contact

Pr1v4cy | T3rms 0f s3rv1c3 | B4nn3rs | Partners

Copyright © 2024 atWar. All rights reserved.

J01n us 0n

Spr34d th3 w0rd