• Good day, Stranger! — Are you new to our forums?

    Have I seen you here before? To participate in or to create forum discussions, you will need your own forum account. Register your account here!

Battle Preview of Battlefield

DeletedUser

Guest
I would like a way to see the field of battle and the disposition of enemy troops before selecting what troops I want where.
The only way I know to do this now is to enter the battle with a default troop selection, have a look at the situation, surrender and go back with a more appropriate deployment. It works but it's ugly. And time consuming.

I have suggestions on how to implement this:
You enter the battlefield as now is but WITHOUT your troops deployed, and with the hexes where you can put them highlighted. Possible enemy moves are still shown when that enemy is highlighted, same as now.
The troops you have available are shown also, similarly to when you now click "fight" button, and when you click a troop type and then an available hex, or visa versa, a squad is placed on that hex. Some means of changing this choice to be made available other than by restarting the whole process (we all make mistakes).
The order in which you place troops of the same initiative is the order in which they move.

Further suggestions:
That if this is implemented, ALL hexes in the back row be made available for deployment, not just the center five. This would allow for the deployment of more squads later in the game when another twelve units for your squads does not make much difference to your military

That later in the battle each squad be given the ability to postpone it's turn, by means of a "wait" button or similar, which would have the effect of placing it at the back of the "move" queue for troops of that initiative for that turn


I don't think that any of this would be that hard to implement (but I'm not a programmer), and I can't see it having any effect on any other aspect of the game
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser462

Guest
You know, I've been thinking about this for quite a while. But I've never got a bright idea how exactly it could fit as a menu and a feature on the World Map in order to suggest it. There also may be some technical difficulties as well. Maybe.

Anyway, I do the same as you have described. Always entering the battlefield once - to see the positions of the enemy troops before surrendering, and then a second time - to actually fight them with a good strategy. Always. So, brother, you are not alone in this.

I would support any concept that can help me doing it quicker at least.
 

DeletedUser1295

Guest
I like this suggestion :) although indeed it probably would be difficult to implement as Rexxagor noted.

However, imho it would even be nicer to have more control over the deployment of the attacking troops.
Sometimes I'll surrender 4 to 5 times :p playing around with the deployment... which seems to differ each time depending on the order in which one chooses the troops + the kind of troops.
(Btw, more control over deployment may have been suggested before, not sure about that atm... I'm still familiarizing myself with all topics on this forum and did not yet search on such a suggestion :oops: )
 

DeletedUser219

Guest
Deployment is always the same, and depends on the order your squads are chosen.
4
.2
1
.3
5
The order in which they move seems to be a random choice of similar initiative types. There was recently a suggestion to give us control over that order.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I like this suggestion :) although indeed it probably would be difficult to implement as Rexxagor noted.
However, imho it would even be nicer to have more control over the deployment of the attacking troops.

I have a suggestion that could cover both of these:
.................................................................................

Now added to the initial post as requested by Amy
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser3

Guest
Hi VeryWicked :)

Could you possibly add your amended suggestion to your initial post in this thread please? This is so that this extra detail you have provided does not get lost in the thread, and can more easily be forwarded. You can edit your initial post by clicking 'Edit', at the bottom left of the post, thank you :)

If you have any problems with this, please let us know and we will be happy to help :)
 

DeletedUser277

Guest
Yes, +1 from me also. VeryWicked's more detailed explanation sounds like a very sensible and helpful set of improvements to the battle system. It maintains the challenge and interest whilst removing some of the most frustrating aspects of the current system, such as the need to start a battle just to scout terrain and then surrender just to re-organise deployment. This process strikes me as cumbersome and VeryWicked's suggestions would be far superior.
 

DeletedUser1295

Guest
+1 from me too!

PLUS: I'm very grateful for Horanda's reply :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Hi VeryWicked :)

Could you possibly add your amended suggestion to your initial post in this thread please? This is so that this extra detail you have provided does not get lost in the thread, and can more easily be forwarded.

Done
Added a bit more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
+1 to this idea. I was always frustrated with having to do the "scout by surrendering trick" in FoE, so I can understand the frustration about having to do it here - even if Elvenar is a different game and I don't use its battle system. Simple and well thought out suggestion. :)
 

DeletedUser3366

Guest
I like the idea, but then again must wonder: "How real is it to easily get perfect information about the enemy lineup before a battle?" They are scouting you at the same time you are scouting them. A mutual little dance before the fighting commence ;-))
+0
The real problem is more that there is an "enter battle and immediately surrender without loosing anything at all" loophole/bug to gain such perfect information.

But I really appreciated Horandas post about how my battle lineup is affected by the order in which units are are added to the army.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top