Development wishlist

[rbodleyscott]

Minor addition (I think) suggestion:
Ability to select "Pot Luck" allies, as it is now on armies, when creating Custom or MP battles. Right now, selecting "Pot luck" on the army lists it means they won't have allies.

Not sure that would be a good thing. What do others think?

[Jorgito78]

Minor addition (I think) suggestion:
Ability to select "Pot Luck" allies, as it is now on armies, when creating Custom or MP battles. Right now, selecting "Pot luck" on the army lists it means they won't have allies.

Not sure that would be a good thing. What do others think?

I forgot to mention that besides the "Pot Luck" on allies, there should be the option "no allies", like Karvon pointed out on discord, of course, or else I understand that wouldn't be a good thing.
To clarify my suggestion, when choosing "Pot Luck" on the army, on the Allies option there could be two settings: "Pot Luck", "No Allies".

[kronenblatt]

Minor addition (I think) suggestion:
Ability to select "Pot Luck" allies, as it is now on armies, when creating Custom or MP battles. Right now, selecting "Pot luck" on the army lists it means they won't have allies.

Not sure that would be a good thing. What do others think?

I forgot to mention that besides the "Pot Luck" on allies, there should be the option "no allies", like Karvon pointed out on discord, of course, or else I understand that wouldn't be a good thing.
To clarify my suggestion, when choosing "Pot Luck" on the army, on the Allies option there could be two settings: "Pot Luck", "No Allies".

I like this suggestion.

[matlegob]

I like to see the kill the C-in-C scenario in last battle of a campaign

[macdonncadh]

I doubt this is too high on most lists, but I would be ostentatiously grateful for the ability to name generals, in both custom games, and in sandbox campaigns.

Thank you for your kind attention.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks

[MrCrow]

Not sure if the engine will allows It, but I would really love to have coop battles (for example 2vs2)

[rbodleyscott]

Not sure if the engine will allows It, but I would really love to have coop battles (for example 2vs2)

We didn't include coop battles because the amount of development work required was deemed too much for the proportion of players wanting it.

[MrCrow]

Not sure if the engine will allows It, but I would really love to have coop battles (for example 2vs2)

We didn't include coop battles because the amount of development work required was deemed too much for the proportion of players wanting it.

Thank you for your answer. I want just to clarify that I was not talking necessarily abaut 2 factions vs 2 factions. It would be great even if the units of one faction were divided between the command of 2 different players. Furthermore I personally think that there are a lot of players that would be interested in this.

[rbodleyscott]

Not sure if the engine will allows It, but I would really love to have coop battles (for example 2vs2)

We didn't include coop battles because the amount of development work required was deemed too much for the proportion of players wanting it.

Thank you for your answer. I want just to clarify that I was not talking necessarily abaut 2 factions vs 2 factions. It would be great even if the units of one faction were divided between the command of 2 different players. Furthermore I personally think that there are a lot of players that would be interested in this.

It might get done one day, but is a low priority at present.

[Karvon]

I wish the odds of leader loss was scaled to the size of the unit he's attached to. The more troops in the group, I think the less the chances should be that the leader is a casualty.

Regards,

Karvon

[DIVM]

I'd like to see a further constrain in the "rallies" of troops routing. I've just had a couple of games where the amount of enemies rallies was incredibly high. I know it is just "luck", randomized; but it doesn't make much sense that a troop rallies when it has several other troops routing around him (unless it has a general, that I could understand). Also, it makes for a sad game having several fragmented troops far from the action (Id rather have my opponents' and my troops rallying as "disrupted" and come back to action).
Not sure if limiting the ratio of rallies between both players is a good idea (for example, player A cannot go over 3:1 number of rallies compared to his opponent), but somehow having a way to make the games not go into "very unfair" areas?
We all have lost games that would have won if the opponent troops didn't rally in mass. I don't mean troops rallying and coming back to battle, that's cool and adds flavor. What I mean is troops rallying to fragmented status and staying at the edge of maps just for score purposes.

Cheers!

[rbodleyscott]

Noted.

[Hari72]

Is part of a good plan to chase down fleeing troops! If One let them fleeing away and rally is a player fault! Not a bug of the game!

[DIVM]

Is part of a good plan to chase down fleeing troops! If One let them fleeing away and rally is a player fault! Not a bug of the game!

I'd say there are historical references to say that's not always the case, in fact troops getting away and chasing a routing enemy while the battle was on going brought plenty of defeats as well :p

In any case, Im not saying to eliminate the routing. Im saying to limit the unbalance when it gets too one-sided, or create more conditions where those troops cannot rally (enemy general within 3 squares? 2 or more Routing troops within 3 squares?).
Also, putting aside the historical factor or the logic, it is not fun having 15% of the enemies troops fragmented and unreacheable in the edges of the map. I'd rather lose by having those enemy troops coming back and hitting me again than by score.

[Hari72]

As I said that is the result of a poor plan

[SimonLancaster]

I think rallying from routing is fine. It was changed already and we could see the difference. Maybe just unlucky in that game?

[kronenblatt]

I agree: let randomness run its course. Sure, likelihood of rallying from routed could be adjusted and conditions to be met, but not balancing between players. Because it’s fine (frustrating, but fine) in my view for one player to be lucky and the other unlucky, since it adds to the nice nerve of the game.

This said, maybe rules could be changed so that units rallying from routed back to fragmented do not improve their side’s casualty percentage until becoming again disrupted or steady.

[Karvon]

I would prefer if rallying was either only possible if within command range of a general, or maybe cut in half if beyond it.

I wish the morale side of the game took into account more factors. The combat side has a lot of modifiers influencing it; why not incorporate more elements into CT checks?

Karvon

[Aetius39]

I think, with the previous update that routed troops have less rounds to be on the field, it is fine as it is.

On saying that, if things were to change slightly, I would suggest that if a unit rallies, that first turn it is rallied it is fragmented and doesn't count as a percentage, but the NEXT turn it automatically rallies to disrupt and counts again.

This way can help stop that useless units that stay fragged and do nothing, while people don't get lucky and have a few extra points just cause a unit rallied that last turn.

Just an opinion!^^

Aetius