Joint-Defend

In most cases, especially in team games, it is pretty sad to witness your teammate get capped when you have more than enough troops to defend for him. But since you are playing defensive with infratry as troops majority, it is difficult to recap for him.

Having joint attack already, why not adding a joint-defend feature?
It will help make team games more exciting and cooperative

Agreed.

Details could be discussed later when the idea is accepted by everyone first.

Support we need more tactics

How would it be implented? How would we see it? I like it, but how are we gonna understand how many sides and units of the sides in the city?

Heavily support

Massive support, as for the player dying his units can be left out of the city.

I support

Support!

Support.

Please awnser me question

作者： Guest, 16.09.2013 at 01:13

How would it be implented? How would we see it? I like it, but how are we gonna understand how many sides and units of the sides in the city?

Could be handled similarly to joint attacks; owner troops stay in city, remaining ally units stationed outside on next turn.

Supported by hedinho.. xD

作者： Grimm, 20.09.2013 at 14:48

作者： Guest, 16.09.2013 at 01:13

How would it be implented? How would we see it? I like it, but how are we gonna understand how many sides and units of the sides in the city?

Could be handled similarly to joint attacks; owner troops stay in city, remaining ally units stationed outside on next turn.

No they need to be able to joint occupy but only one controls it, you should be able to go in their city even if they have troops in, the normal city icon would show the owners colour and total units, rolling over would provide separate units and who controls which. You should be able to switch who controls it but this would cancel any income bonus that was previously there. That option would obviously be only available to the owner, with this you can get rid of 0 troop occupy which is major bait for trolls. It would have 3 options, 1 is closed no occupy, 2 is closed with occupy, 3 is leave open for allies to take.

作者： Grimm, 20.09.2013 at 14:48

作者： Guest, 16.09.2013 at 01:13

How would it be implented? How would we see it? I like it, but how are we gonna understand how many sides and units of the sides in the city?

Could be handled similarly to joint attacks; owner troops stay in city, remaining ally units stationed outside on next turn.

I mean is, how will we SEE the troops in foreign, but allied cities.

作者： Guest, 21.09.2013 at 15:37

I mean is, how will we SEE the troops in foreign, but allied cities.

My idea would be that you would defend an ally's city much the same way that you would attack an enemy city.
For example, you could move a stack of infantry into the ally's city. During the battle phase, those infantry would help defend the city. Any remaining units would appear outside the city on the next turn.

Stick's idea is that you could actually station your units inside an allied city (without taking the city over). To do this, you would need some visual indicator that you have units stationed there.

作者： Grimm, 21.09.2013 at 15:43

作者： Guest, 21.09.2013 at 15:37

I mean is, how will we SEE the troops in foreign, but allied cities.

My idea would be that you would defend an ally's city much the same way that you would attack an enemy city.
For example, you could move a stack of infantry into the ally's city. During the battle phase, those infantry would help defend the city. Any remaining units would appear outside the city on the next turn.

Stick's idea is that you could actually station your units inside an allied city (without taking the city over). To do this, you would need some visual indicator that you have units stationed there.

example your ally is yellow and your red. your ally controls the city so its yellow but you station troops in the city and the yellow city will have a red ring around it

作者： GOD 2.0, 21.09.2013 at 18:54

作者： Grimm, 21.09.2013 at 15:43

作者： Guest, 21.09.2013 at 15:37

I mean is, how will we SEE the troops in foreign, but allied cities.

My idea would be that you would defend an ally's city much the same way that you would attack an enemy city.
For example, you could move a stack of infantry into the ally's city. During the battle phase, those infantry would help defend the city. Any remaining units would appear outside the city on the next turn.

Stick's idea is that you could actually station your units inside an allied city (without taking the city over). To do this, you would need some visual indicator that you have units stationed there.

I had that idea too. Okay, support.
example your ally is yellow and your red. your ally controls the city so its yellow but you station troops in the city and the yellow city will have a red ring around it

Support.

作者： Guest, 19.09.2013 at 02:50

Please awnser me question

what question?

There's no way for two armies to be in the same spot/city, unless it's battle phase. That would be very difficult to implement and to show in a comprehensible way on the map.

作者： Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 06:13

There's no way for two armies to be in the same spot/city, unless it's battle phase. That would be very difficult to implement and to show in a comprehensible way on the map.

This is what I meant to say, but can you do a circle?

作者： Guest, 01.10.2013 at 06:25

作者： Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 06:13

There's no way for two armies to be in the same spot/city, unless it's battle phase. That would be very difficult to implement and to show in a comprehensible way on the map.

This is what I meant to say, but can you do a circle?

It's a decent solution, but it's still very complicated for us to implement. It's a low priority thing, sorry.

作者： Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 06:28

作者： Guest, 01.10.2013 at 06:25

作者： Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 06:13

There's no way for two armies to be in the same spot/city, unless it's battle phase. That would be very difficult to implement and to show in a comprehensible way on the map.

This is what I meant to say, but can you do a circle?

It's a decent solution, but it's still very complicated for us to implement. It's a low priority thing, sorry.

We'll live. But could you give a approx date when you guys will start working?

作者： Guest, 01.10.2013 at 06:29

We'll live. But could you give a approx date when you guys will start working?

I can't even promise that we'll ever implement this.

作者： Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 07:33

作者： Guest, 01.10.2013 at 06:29

We'll live. But could you give a approx date when you guys will start working?

I can't even promise that we'll ever implement this.

D: But you CAN do it in the battle phase? Is it viable to make a feature where we can at least move troops over an allys city to defend that one turn?

作者： Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 06:13

There's no way for two armies to be in the same spot/city, unless it's battle phase. That would be very difficult to implement and to show in a comprehensible way on the map.

What about my idea? Wouldn't this be easier to implement?

作者： Grimm, 21.09.2013 at 15:43

My idea would be that you would defend an ally's city much the same way that you would attack an enemy city.
For example, you could move a stack of infantry into the ally's city. During the battle phase, those infantry would help defend the city. Any remaining units would appear outside the city on the next turn.

This way, the two defending armies aren't in the same spot. I'm guessing this is easier to program into the current game structure.

作者： Grimm, 01.10.2013 at 14:05

作者： Grimm, 21.09.2013 at 15:43

My idea would be that you would defend an ally's city much the same way that you would attack an enemy city.
For example, you could move a stack of infantry into the ally's city. During the battle phase, those infantry would help defend the city. Any remaining units would appear outside the city on the next turn.

This way, the two defending armies aren't in the same spot. I'm guessing this is easier to program into the current game structure.

It is easier and I promise to check how possible it is to implement (Amok is primary programmer though).

Intrestingly enough, I thought this would be never put in, because you ally puts troops in, way more then you. Then he threatens to attack or just attacks and breaks alliance and breaks your walls in the process (if troops are automaticly kicked out of the city when alliance ends) and threatens you if you don't pay a ransom or just kills you. Cool for a UN game but would also toilet gameplay to less battling and more diplomacy with people hiding behind computer monitors. BORING! And worst this supports backstabbers. Maybe if the troops are in the city they are "impressed" ( refering to the royal navy around the war of 1812) into there army I would support this.

Joint defend could work where you put your units in your ally's capitol, and the number combines together in lets say green (I have 10 units, my ally has 5, I put my units in his city which makes 15 units in the city but with a green number) when you mouse over it you will find a list of both country's units in the city, ally can move his unit out of city freely as if moving units regularly and the owner can construct units in the city (His ally's units will NOT be shown in the build list)

To prevent it from being abused, you can ONLY join defend with alliance. If I have units in joint defend in a city with my ally and I break alliance, my units are instantly kicked away from his city a certain distance away (Possibly resent to the nearest city/capitol) {Similar to the Sid Meiers Civilization series where declaring war on an ally with units in the enemy territory will instantly teleport them to your shared boarder with your new enemy}. The distance should be far enough where if would not break your 'walled city' if you have one. Additionally, the person who breaks alliance (If I broke alliance with my ally and declared war) can suffer a +1 defence for the enemy units for a couple of turns.