Oh, let's just do one at a time, we can keep on with this one!

Ooops, damn, I moved three guys! I forgot we were doing one turn, so I guess you better move three guys too. Let's just go to three now, ok?

This is SLOOOOWWWW, lets start a new one with better rules.

You got it, you won this one hands down.

Ok, so I like the idea of limiting numbers of attacks. The thing is that 3 units moving and attacking is not enough to end the game quickly. Specially if we are playing turns at an average of one per day like you and me are. Why dont we first highlight exactly what all the issues with current battles are? You first cause I do not have a ton of experience with it.

My major objection to the way battles currently work stems from the otherwise good change where one can pass through one's own troops. This wasn't the case during most of my days of battling here. The effect I find is such that allowing a first strike on one's troops effectively means not having enough troops left to fight back, hence, losing.

In the old days, once you used your front line you couldn't advance past them into holes you caused by attacking the opponent's front lines. The idea back then was to offer a crummy first strike, one that didn't continue rolling on forever. It still made for some antsy play, for instance, Sage would NEVER allow any kind of attack that wouldn't be devastating for the attacker. It could be frustrating jockeying around for a long time. I usually lost my patience first and therefore never did beat Sage even once! But nowadays, if I allow a first strike as a ploy, I am wiped out.

That is why I considered limiting amount of troop movement. Perhaps just self-limiting ourselves to not pass through our own troops would restore the balance, but unfortunately it seems hard to remember things like that once the blood is flowing! But, we could maybe just try that, no passing through one's own troops. Zone of control might become a bit of an issue, but I can't really mentally gameplay it to put forth an example. We'd just have to see what happens.

So, I'll make another battle up?

So the goal for a game would be, not to move anything THROUGH your front lines? Around if possible is okay? or if you do need a troop to attack that is in the back you have to literally make space for it to move through? Essentially sacrificing a unit's full attack on a given enemy unit?

I guess, never move what would be through your own troops. It may be hard to achieve in practice.

Lets try it Unranked till we get the jist of it of course!

OK, sounds good. I'll message you the password.

Shall we up the ante for the next battle?

I imagine you mean going real? I can do that! The last battle was far better than the usual ones of late, and it wasn't even particularly tough to not use the "pass through" feature, either. Good win, btw.

I meant more troops
I am definitely not confident enough for a live battle.

OK, I'll make one up with lots of troops!

Excellent play there good sir. Now a little dissecting: Is it me or is the person who hits hardest first the automatic winner? I could be wrong about this but I rarely play battles...

In this game my mistake was under estimating your ability to reach my troops in that first run. I did not see your squires so I immediately assumed I was ok. Wont happen again though...

The person who gets a first strike of real magnitude is usually the winner. It is exacerbated by being able to continue to plow through the front line at will, hence, not allowing moving through one's own troops as a solution. However, it is still somewhat of a problem, though lessened, I think.

I have been in horrible battles where my opponent will not allow even a single troop to be hit unless he got a massive first strike. The battle could drag on nearly forever with both players jockeying for a position or waiting for a tiny error on the other's part.

Unfortunately, in those situations I tend to lose patience first and therefore: lose. I still have no complete solution to how to limit battles such that they are not decided by first strikes.

This battle was at least close, and as you said, I was allowed a lucky shot at you. You had the advantage of using towers for your ballistas which is pretty useful.

Well you would be surprised. My experience teaches me that the only use for ballistae in tower are defense and range. Attack at full tower range is affected too much imo to be used as an actual attack. For example, in our battle, a ten pop ballista at full tower range could not kill a 2 pop squire, something it would have been able to do otherwise.

Also, feel free to join the battle I set up after this one is done.

I think you are underestimating the value of your towers, you have +25 defense, I have +3 due to experience. You may win this battle due to the difference.

Impossible for me to win this

Also, this difference is only useful at melee range if you have noticed.

You mean to say it doesn't affect ranged assaults?