Single life strat field battles

The TDM strat battle is just a mash up, with some people rushing in wasting ticks (yeah, I’m guilty) and gear, and any attempt at tactics falls apart as soon as casualties start mounting. It’s push forward till you are outnumbered, then fall back until they are outnumbered.

I suggest single life battles, pretty much the same as regular cRpg. Each strat battle would last 5 minutes, with a flag on each side (it would be nice if the general could set where the flag is). If time runs out, only the casualties are subtracted from the army’s ticks. If a flag is captured, the losing team loses all the ticks used for that round, even if half their team is still running around.

Oh, and if we had a minute between battles where commanders could still add or reject people
it would solve the problem of late arrivals and trolls.

This would encourage team work, and prevent buffoons from purposely wasting ticks and gear. The only con I can think of is if the armies are too large. 1000 vs 1000 with 50 players would take 20 rounds, or 120 minutes (5 minute battles with 1 minute between them), which is reasonable. But 2000 vs 2000 would take 40 rounds, or four hours… getting a bit much.

Two solutions occur to me- just continue the battle again the next day, which could lead to pretty hefty back log, or limit army sizes. I prefer limiting army sizes, as it would encourage ‘wealthy’ players to hire noobs or casuals as mercenaries.

But I do think most cRpgers prefer one life battles. If it paid gold just like regular fights, I would think we would have a lot more participation… which might lead to the need for more strat servers.

1 Like

Giving the ability to designate several commander for a battle that would be able to kick people wasting ticks could also solve the problem.
Concerning the extra minutes between battles i’m all for.
The problem with single life battle is that it would force both team to play in a very defensive and conservative in fear of losing the flag and all your tick.
The second problem i see with your solution is siege battles. Single life battle would give a lot of advantage to the defending party. Siege requires the attacking army to sacrifice a lot of ticks to get into the town. With single life sieges it’s impossible for the attacking army to win.

All the above is has not yet been discussed and only reflects my opinion.

I like the single life idea. I think @_Pecores_Namidaka already suggested army size limit so clans have to get organized in order to gather a big army.

For sieges we would do a team deathmatch like before.

But I think I prefer like before but fine tuning the spawning waves.

@takeo I would actually like to see army size limits too. People get into arms races, and soon you have massive armies either just sitting there growing, or doing 5000 shiny man trade runs. I think, however, that armies should be able to group together to attack settlements… unfortunately army size is really dependent on how many mercs we have playing.

And @_Pecores_Namidaka siege definitely would stay TDM. But, to keep soldiers aggressive in field battles it would be nice if the larger army could have more mercs on their team. Not sure what the value should be, but say if you had twice as many men your side would have 55 and the other 45… or more or maybe less. We’d have to see how it works. That way only one side would play defensively… probably.

And to make it really interesting, have the odds even out if possible, like Warband Single Player did. So if the defenders do really well, the attackers get less people in the next round, while the defenders get more. There are usually lots of mercs who don’t care what side they fight for, and the commander can decide if he wants them or have an empty slot.

But I think most people would prefer single life battles over before… at least NAers.

After rereading your topic i realize i completely misread it.
It make sense. Single life battle with as many round as needed to end up all ticket.
Losing to the flag would be like instakilling the remaining players. It would only make you lose around 1-50 ticket depending on how many were already dead.
In this scenario no need for a minute between battles. If possible we’d implement a way to dynamically edit the roster and give both team a pause function like CS:GO .

Before reading your post what i was thinking was doing waves of respawn. There would be a permanent timer that would loop between say 30 seconds to 0 . If you die when the timer is at 4 , you wait four seconds to respawn with the next wave . We’d edit the max number of player that can respawn in a wave and time between waves depending on whose side has more ticket.

Now that i’ve understood well i’d say make strategus battles single life for small battles like (200vs200) and use reinforcement waves for big battles 1000vs1000 . That way it’d feel like small battles are won by tactic and individual prowess , and big battle would be won through meticulous planning and discipline.
We also talked about limiting party size to say 2000 , and have a time windows to make joint attacks. People not afiliated with the clan would also be able to give a hand in exchange of a reward like in single battle. This way a patrol would be able to help a commoner against brigands.


2000 max armies would be great. It would give mercenary commanders a chance since the rich and powerful would need people to run their armies. But single battle could potentially work 100 vs 100 if we had the mercs. I had heard 100 vs 100 battles in Warband worked fine for most people until the amount of dropped weapons and riderless horses and donkeys lagged it out.

But in single life battles there is a limit to how many dropped weapons and riderless horses there are, so potentially it could work. 100 vs 100 would take two hours to kill 2000 vs 2000. I guess it all depends on how popular strat is.

I was more thinking of a limit around 200. 2000 seems like a lot. You wouldn’t need to gather many people to create a big army.

EDIT: ok let’s move the party size limit topic here: Limited armies and strat movement

you spawn with 100 troops. 100vs100 battles take something around 3-4 minutes
200 is way too low in my opinion.

1 Like

Limiting to a low number of tickets the size of independant armies would force players of a same clan to gather during battles.
It would also limit the possibility for a small company of disposable troups to stop for 24h the advance of a large army because the other players could continu their movement event if an friendly warband is blocked by a battle.

I think the old method is still preferable to limiting players and spawns. An hour of slugging it out and call it a day. If you did rounds, you’d have a few people stick for a few of them then go back to battle or siege, there would be nothing different then the main modes.

I like the idea of the reinforcements but I certainly don’t like the thought of capturing objectives, when the point was to eliminate the enemy. The idea of fixed positions makes me nervous, we had spawn flags yes and I can live with those over fighting over an objective flag like Conquerors blade.

It would be nice if the commander could set his own flag at the beginning. If you are defending, you could choose the best spot and then play very defensively. But then the attackers would definitely need more mercs than the defenders. To get more mercs, you’d have to have a much larger army.

This would add a lot more strategy to the game. The way it was you could defeat a 2000 man shiny army with 200 shiny by having better mercs.

And at @ATS_Sellka why would people go back to battle if strat field battles were the same and offered better rewards (strat battles should give gold)? I found most people preferred battle to strat, but played strat for the XP and out of a sense of duty, or were begged to.

People left early in previous strat due to real life, and that left the battles unbalanced. At least with rounds you can reset the teams.

you’re guaranteed nothing. There is a good possibility one can get more ticks from battle then from those rounds. If I remember correctly it was a based on the equipment used and lost. So less equipment used per battle, less XP per round/battle. The system would have to be adjusted if you want that flow of super XP.

Yeah, the XP based on equipment was silly. It left some very important battles under populated because the gear was low tier.

you asked why would people play strat via those battles if the rewards were better butt, I’m assuming the old system is whats in place and if that’s the case you answered the question yourself.

With single life round, we can use the same XP system for Strategus battle and standard battles (i’m not a big fan of the round bonus system of cRPG by the way but it’s an other subject)

The Extra XP was incentive for players who didn’t want to engage in strat/play it. So taking away any incentive could leave gaps in the lines when needed.

And for us who do like strat it added extra to the roster, allowed us to have bigger battles which we all enjoy.

I only played a few strats battles because of timing of the battles and the battles in my timing were always full. After a few week I lost interest in strategus and only played cRPG.

I played a lot of those NA battles/siege/Strat and they generally were in the evening and not too late into the night due to timing for players, even in the early days.

Generally, timezones be a bitch and thats all that can be really said to the timing.