[Battle] Choosing Army size

[DeletedUser205]

@Lauwi, you got my idea

 

[DeletedUser442]

Yep, I like that idea.

 

[DeletedUser43]

I've forwarded this idea, because of the support and the "tactical possibilities" (as sorella has nicely said) it would offer.

 

[DeletedUser967]

So I like this idea too

 

[DeletedUser]

Me too

 

[Marindor]

We have now added a poll to this idea

 

[SoggyShorts]

I'm not clear on this, would we be able to make more than 5 stacks? Or is this only an option to bring less troops into battle?

 

[Marindor]

It's indeed only about an option to put less troops in your squads (for tactical reasons - You could choose to have 1 stack of 1 unit get killed first, before performing your own turn with your other units). More than 5 squads on the player side will not be implemented in the (near) future for certain.

 

[DeletedUser651]

You certainly wouldn't have to use less, but you could. It just gives you more flexibility. I often have one type of troop that is only there as a suicide squad. Why are the folks who voted against this idea against this idea? I don't see a downside.

 

[DeletedUser1657]

Why are the folks who voted against this idea against this idea? I don't see a downside.

I fail to see the benefit of and need for such a function and would prefer to see other things implemented. Well, I do see one benefit in respect to scouting a field but I would prefer a better solution to fix that rather then a "workaround".

 

[DeletedUser651]

The benefit is that troops that you know are going to die, don't have to die in such huge quantities. Many times you send out a suicide squad that has no chance, but you need it to draw fire. If this would be of no benefit to you, then you would never use it. If it is, then you would.

How would it hurt you to have this implemented? Why vote no and block something that others want? I don't get it. I can see not having an opinion and not caring, but I don't see voting against it. So what am I missing?

 

[SoggyShorts]

I don't see a downside.

The only downside would be Dev time that could be used on changes people want more.
It's just a time thing-- If this was an open multi-step process it'd be easier for us
What I mean is if the devs were given all of our positive feedback suggestions and then gave us an estimate on the time it would take to implement each item we could then rank them or something.
As is, some players feel that voting yes or not voting at all on a suggestion that although it doesn't negatively impact their game is a misuse of resources, and would delay the implementation of ideas that they feel are more important.
I did vote yes on this one though, just for you bobbykitty =)

 

[DeletedUser1657]

The benefit is that troops that you know are going to die, don't have to die in such huge quantities. Many times you send out a suicide squad that has no chance, but you need it to draw fire. If this would be of no benefit to you, then you would never use it. If it is, then you would.

How would it hurt you to have this implemented? Why vote no and block something that others want? I don't get it. I can see not having an opinion and not caring, but I don't see voting against it. So what am I missing?

Sorry but I still don't see the point. I have no issue voting yes for something I won't use and have done so previously but I have been able to see the benefit for others. Perhaps I just don't get the reason for a suicide squad. All I can think of is:

• For scouting
  • But if I send too few troops they die before I can scout
  • There are better options to solve this issue which avoid the need for a scout entirely
• For kamikaze troops - those with a specific purpose to kill counter troops but almost guaranteed to die before the end of a fight
  • While I can see a possible use here the risk of not taking enough troops to do the job and they die before reaching the objective could mean a significantly higher cost in troops overall, or lots of trial and error defeating the point.
  • They usually die due to higher initiative which can be used as distraction and protection of other troops, either way your troops are likely to take a hit.

Having read many threads with people miss-clicking on all sorts of things and asking for confirmations I can see people potentially sending an undersized troop into battle and getting massacred as a result. Which potentially means they will then want a confirmation for this function in time which is annoying when it could not be changed in the first place.

In writing this I can see a very small possible benefit but I can also see a possible issue. Personally I think the issues with this outweigh the benefits.

 

[DeletedUser283]

considering the training spped in the barracks, I do not see the point for not sending full squads into battle
hence I voted no

 

[Buttrflwr]

I don't really have an opinion on this, as I fight so rarely now. I do see the benefits of a smaller kamikaze unit, but, like Soggs, I also see it as potentially time away from implementing things that are needed/wanted more. Catch 22 for me.

 

[Marindor]

Unfortunately this idea didn't meet the minimum requirements of 20 voters and 80% of the voters in favor of the idea, so we'll have to archive this thread now