Semi-Auto Assault

[wcaclimbing]

Too many buttons. remember everyone complaining when new ones were added?

[cicero]

I believe that a good interface, taking into account clicks and clarity for all levels of user, would be as set out below. Since Lack has raised Advance in addition to the original Auto-Attack discussion I've included that too.

I think that auto-attacking, to a user-defined army limit; "whilst I've got 20 armies or more left" for example, is better than for a user-defined number of attacks. (Note "whilst I've got 4 armies or more left" is the equivalent of the current auto-attack.) Limiting by number of attacks still leaves you particularly vulnerable to:

... got down to u havin 2 and them havin 6 ...

... if I understand his meaning correctly.

Note that, in my personal-just-made-it-up-notation, this:
[12] is a dropdown
and this:
<Attack> is a button.

attacking
<Attack> or <Auto-Attack> with [4] armies or more.

The dropdown list defaults to 4, since that is the current auto attack equivalent, but it will be coded to include all values from 2 up to one less than the maximum number of armies the player has on any one territory. (There will have to be some checking producing a warning similar to the existing "illegal attack" warning if a dropdown value inappropriate to the attacking territory is chosen.)
This interface allows players to be more cautious or more reckless than the current auto-attack allows and with the efficiency of the auto-attack button.

advancing
<Advance All> armies from East Anglia to Lincolnshire or <Advance Specified> [0]

The dropdown list defaults to zero since this allows an "advance none" order with one click and doesn't add too much clutter to the interface. (The dropdown, as now, will be coded to included all values up to one less than the number of armies in the 'from' territory.)

The italicised 'or' is intended simply as that - italicised text on the page.

Cicero

[cicero]

re attacking
The <Attack> button could be called <Single Attack> for emphasis, but that would go against the established norm.

Hence, for the same reason, ...

re advancing
The <Advance Specified> button should perhaps just be <Advance>.


Cicero

[khazalid]

im a firm advocate of auto attack.

the dice are always better when you use it.

to the death i say, be damned.

[MOBAJOBG]

After reading all the above recommendations, I would like to suggest ...

attacking
<Attack> or <Auto-Attack> until [3 by default or scroll to select a number] attackers.

advancing
Please don't change it as I may decide to advance all, none or partial armies.

[KevinL]

I like the idea of a partial auto-attack, some level between attack once and attack until the end.

This should not only improve gameplay but also should lower the number of page-loads on the server. If I choose to attack 20 times and quit, now my page is refreshed 20 times. If there was a x10 button, my page would be refreshed twice.

Exactly how flexible / configurable this should be is up to our wonderful game-creator, but I think something (anything) would be an improvement.

[Dunk90]

I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[reverend_kyle]

ok I've got the solution



(attack) attack options x1 [x] x5 [ ] x10 [ ] to death [ ]
button check boxes



and x1 would be default. and that would control the attack button.

I'm not a fan of this at all because I love the auto attack button.

[reverend_kyle]

would we have to check it each attack, or would it remember which one you used last time?

check it each attack. the default should be normal because your next attack might be something completely different.

to me, that doesnt sound like a great idea.
I think it should keep both the attack button and the autoattack button, with the auto-attack button defaulted at attack until 3 are left like normal, but with check boxes under just the auto-attack button.

Having to check the boxes for EVERY attack would take a lot of time, and would also just be another "I CLICKED ATTACK WITH ALL INSTEAD OF ATTACK ONCE!!! YOU NEED TO FIX THE BUTTONS!!!".

If you are going to do this, at least leave the two buttons the way they are, just add the check boxes under the Auto-attack button.

I like this best actually.

[BobHacket]

instead of having the different attack amounts correlated with the "auto-attack" button, (check boxes, manual type or whatever mode you want) you could have the different attack amounts correlated with just the attack button so you wouldn't have the "I did the auto-attack instead of the 10x attack" or whatever.

This way if the person wanted to do a 10 army attack and forgot to either put in that amount or to check a box prior to attacking, they would have only lost that one attack instead of losing all their armies with the auto-attack.

In case it wasn't clear, if nothing is checked, or entered, and attack is pressed, a regular attack ensues. If a box is checked or entered and attack is pressed, then a person would attack down to that many armies. Leaving the "auto-attack" button all by its lonesome in case you want to go full bore and take it down to the 3 army like normal.

[Anarchist]

I like it, Hate having to load up the results 50 times(slow pc)
but hitting auto attack to find your legion destroyed is even worse.

Couldnt this just be an option?

My Profile>Auto Attacks>7

[yeti_c]

I said attackers instead of armies to differentiate between defending armies.

How about this...

Auto: [] 5 rolls [] 10 rolls [] to the death!


EDIT: Now I'm having second thoughts about this whole thing. It will mean an extra click to do an auto-attack which would annoy me because I use it very often!

Why don't you have

[Auto] [] 5 rolls [] 10 rolls

If you don't check anything it's standard "to the death!" attacks...
If you check something then it uses that?

C.

[Forza AZ]

Why don't you have

[Auto] [] 5 rolls [] 10 rolls

If you don't check anything it's standard "to the death!" attacks...
If you check something then it uses that?

C.

Yes, good idea. In situations that you have 30 vs 20 or something it takes very much time to do 1 attack a time, but auto attack can suddenly leave you with 3 vs 10 or something like that. I would use the 5 rolls option in such cases.

[BobHacket]

How about this...

Why don't you have

[Auto] [] 5 rolls [] 10 rolls

If you don't check anything it's standard "to the death!" attacks...
If you check something then it uses that?

C.

I don't like the idea of the multiple attacks being correlated with the auto-attack, in case of an accident or computer lagging and me multiple clicking (as happens freaquently with me). I'd rather have it like this

[Attack] []5 rolls [] 10 rolls
[Full-Attack]

or maybe

[Attack] [Full-Attack]
[]5 rolls [] 10 rolls

or something like this so that the 5 and 10 rolls work with clicking the "Attack" button instead of the Auto, or full attack button, that way if there is a mess up with anything you have just a single attack instead of a full blown attack.

[edbeard]

I definitely prefer cicero's idea above. It seems the most logical to me. sorry the rest of my post is a rehash of what he said.

eg: When I'm attacking like 50 vs 30 i want to make sure I don't want to get lower than 30. So just type 30 into the box and the lowest I can get to is 29.

5 or 10 attacks at once is definitely good idea too, but why not put it all. seemingly if the code is done in such a way that it auto attacks with a minimum of 4 armies, then it can be fairly easily setup where 4 is the default, but it can be changed to a higher number if necessary