Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags

I'm doing a major overhaul for exactly those reasons. The system in game is a bit too much. Too restrictive - as you said, it makes your army feel less impressive.

The performance side was only one half of it. The larger problem was the loss of control and chaos in such large battles.

I'm really excited for the changes coming out in v062.

You're saying the group composition is annoying - well, I need a bit more feedback. Compared to the live version, the groups I'm working on will be more focused on a few select units, very rarely coming up to four different units in a single group. If you could create your own groups, how would they look? Mix of ranged/mellee in each, or keep them separate? Straight groups or more heterogenous?

I'm not opposed to implementing personal group design, but I want to see if I can do enough with adjusting randomness the result will be almost as good - and much less finicky and time-consuming.

(2 edits)

To be honest, i’m afraid i am not sure there is an general statement i can make. It depends. (Ok, i can actually be more helpful. :-) ) Thinks i consider when placing troops on the field:

  • unit type
  • number of units in that group
  • obstacles to movement
  • Types and likely trajectories
  • what group would attack which one

I have constructed 3 scenarios where i would choose different groupings

In a head to head battle where the enemy also has ranged units and trash units but his ranged units are stronger, i would place my halbadiers in two groups and place swordman and albalests behind the lines.

When there is an obstactle the abalests can hide behind and one enemy flank is stronger i would place it as the middle picture.

If in the bottom right there is a group of enemy wolf riders i would place a mix of speer and sword units so that the wolf group will run into them and have the abalest use my melee units as an obstactle.