I think that there should be more than 2 civs in battle make battle interesting. Please share your views on it.

I would really like this. I think that if there's a third party close enough, they should be able to assist their allies in combat.

Unfortunately, that is not how it works in Humankind. We like the idea and thought about it, but had to accept that we would not be able to deliver this, at least not for the release version of the game. We cannot tell yet if we will be able to add this later.

Well, at least you're upfront about it. Would be cool if it's added in later on, once all the main stuff is taken care of.

Well I know this post is old, but having multiple sides in a battle and fighting along allies would be really cool.

One solution that I could think of, is the "lending of units". Imagine a 2 vs 1 battle, suppose Greeks and Romans vs Chartaginians. When the Greek player is about to engage in a battle against the Chartaginians, and there are Roman units close to the battle tile (say, no more than 2 tiles away), the Greek player can use those Roman units as if they were their own. It would be something like the Greeks are the commanders in the Greek-Roman alliance, for that particular battle. If the battle continues during multiple turns, the Roman player can keep bringing units to the battlefield to join the fight.

Of course, the usage of allied units should be agreed via diplomacy when the alliance is signed.

aguaacrobata wrote:

Well I know this post is old, but having multiple sides in a battle and fighting along allies would be really cool.

One solution that I could think of, is the "lending of units". Imagine a 2 vs 1 battle, suppose Greeks and Romans vs Chartaginians. When the Greek player is about to engage in a battle against the Chartaginians, and there are Roman units close to the battle tile (say, no more than 2 tiles away), the Greek player can use those Roman units as if they were their own. It would be something like the Greeks are the commanders in the Greek-Roman alliance, for that particular battle. If the battle continues during multiple turns, the Roman player can keep bringing units to the battlefield to join the fight.

Of course, the usage of allied units should be agreed via diplomacy when the alliance is signed.

That's a good idea because it can make game less complex.

Hello,

I can't wait for this game to release ! BUT !!!!
I just made an account because of this thread, due to delay and making game "more fun to play" i want to shout out that sides in battle should be implemented, as alliances make multiplayer game so much deeper than making battles 1v1. Players just want to interact with others, only "nerds" (no offense) are typing that they like to play alone and make some roleplay with singleplayer but common players want the fight ! Imagine, like lord of the ring there is a battle and the white rider comes to your aid ! I just cant wait for the multiplayer game to start and wreck havoc on my friends with them to make alliance vs me :D Later on the battles like WW2 with all players to be present in. When i looked at mechanics of combat first i thougth that this will be 100% sure to implement but happens that is no, its so sad because this mechanic is much much important that those UI changes, animations and other cosmetics ... DEVS  I BEG YOU CHANGE IT

Ciabat wrote:

Hello,

I can't wait for this game to release ! BUT !!!!
I just made an account because of this thread, due to delay and making game "more fun to play" i want to shout out that sides in battle should be implemented, as alliances make multiplayer game so much deeper than making battles 1v1. Players just want to interact with others, only "nerds" (no offense) are typing that they like to play alone and make some roleplay with singleplayer but common players want the fight ! Imagine, like lord of the ring there is a battle and the white rider comes to your aid ! I just cant wait for the multiplayer game to start and wreck havoc on my friends with them to make alliance vs me :D Later on the battles like WW2 with all players to be present in. When i looked at mechanics of combat first i thougth that this will be 100% sure to implement but happens that is no, its so sad because this mechanic is much much important that those UI changes, animations and other cosmetics ... DEVS  I BEG YOU CHANGE IT

Thanks for supporting the thread, i also think that if i am doing alliance it won,t be beneficial in battle because my ally cannot fight on my side. 

I think that ally can jump into my battle after starting of battle because battle happen on engaging with enemy troops.

My ally or enemy ally can enter as ally reinforcement. 

Abhi2410 wrote:

aguaacrobata wrote:

Well I know this post is old, but having multiple sides in a battle and fighting along allies would be really cool.

One solution that I could think of, is the "lending of units". Imagine a 2 vs 1 battle, suppose Greeks and Romans vs Chartaginians. When the Greek player is about to engage in a battle against the Chartaginians, and there are Roman units close to the battle tile (say, no more than 2 tiles away), the Greek player can use those Roman units as if they were their own. It would be something like the Greeks are the commanders in the Greek-Roman alliance, for that particular battle. If the battle continues during multiple turns, the Roman player can keep bringing units to the battlefield to join the fight.

Of course, the usage of allied units should be agreed via diplomacy when the alliance is signed.

That's a good idea because it can make game less complex.

Of course there should be some sort of mechanism preventing the "commander" player (in my example the Greeks) from using his allied (the Romans) units on the most vulnerable positions.

A sort of "penalty" can be triggered when a disproportionate number of my allied troops are killed when I am the commander of the battle. For example it can go from grievances against me from my ally, to the denial from using his troops in further battles, to the break of the alliance.

Oh definitely! I understand that such option to "1 vs many" or "many vs many" couldn't be implemented in many games or in Endless Space for example. But when you presented the combat system it looked like designed directly for flexible team compositions. Now it is just lost oppurtunity. Such system may increase the downtime for other player who are not participate in the battle, just wait for his allies to make skirmishes against each other. With 5+ player other will wait as the fights won't be short and their results won't be solved instantly like in ES2, but it requires more focus and time, that the other players may feel they lose as they couln't even watch it and cheer. Plus the cooperative feel and tactical deep of the game may be lost in term of combat. It is really the shame it won't happen, becouse the game in general looks very promising. You say you want to provide the real simulator of civilization development, which (apart of obvious simplifications which I'm fine with) seem to be true, but war alliances and common battles are historically acurate among widely in human history being the real deal in many critical moments of civilization's fate, which mostly relied on single battles. Otherwise it's just unrealistic.

So pros for introducing that are:

- Realism.

- Tactical depth.

- Multiplayer user experience.

Cons found so far:

- Additional development effort.

- 

This feature could be also optional for those who don't like it, but anyway should be in base. Obviously I support this idea.

i3ackero wrote:

Oh definitely! I understand that such option to "1 vs many" or "many vs many" couldn't be implemented in many games or in Endless Space for example. But when you presented the combat system it looked like designed directly for flexible team compositions. Now it is just lost oppurtunity. Such system may increase the downtime for other player who are not participate in the battle, just wait for his allies to make skirmishes against each other. With 5+ player other will wait as the fights won't be short and their results won't be solved instantly like in ES2, but it requires more focus and time, that the other players may feel they lose as they couln't even watch it and cheer. Plus the cooperative feel and tactical deep of the game may be lost in term of combat. It is really the shame it won't happen, becouse the game in general looks very promising. You say you want to provide the real simulator of civilization development, which (apart of obvious simplifications which I'm fine with) seem to be true, but war alliances and common battles are historically acurate among widely in human history being the real deal in many critical moments of civilization's fate, which mostly relied on single battles. Otherwise it's just unrealistic.

So pros for introducing that are:

- Realism.

- Tactical depth.

- Multiplayer user experience.

Cons found so far:

- Additional development effort.

- 

This feature could be also optional for those who don't like it, but anyway should be in base. Obviously I support this idea.

This feature can give experience like ww2, ww1, etc that,s why i put this idea.

Two allied forces attack one enemy, there is first battle and then next to finish him off ? Its take time and morale of player who rage and alt+f4 after this because most of people cant loose
When they could attack at once there is better chance for the defender to win due to crowded and unfavorable terrain for attacking armies, but this make a question is battle in this game is more of quality play or quantity of units

I can imagine maybe later down the line battles grabbing your ally's units and your ally can "okay" you to deploy their units in combat, since you both cannot be in combat together against the other person since that screws with the synchronous turns. This could allow you to use your ally's units as cannon fodder, but that could then maybe provide a sort of diplomatic penalty or some such if one side loses a disproportionate amount of soldiery compared to the other. Maybe a bonus if you lose more than them or something.

I just don't know if that's even implementable as the combat system currently functions.

What if one side of the battle can move/attack at the same time ?
It will be like 1v1 but with more ppl
Look at civ game, their battle system is dumb, who click first win but it work and give a lot of fun for players ! Here we have a better system, is it that hard to implement two or three allied players moving/attacking at the same time in 2021 ?
 I know that battles should be fast so other players wont wait and this is the answer, and remember more battles more time it gets and its not fun when 1v1 because others wait

I'm not exaclty sure how it be implemented, but having turns per team orper player can be also balanced, there are already plenty of games where it is supported. People arelimited in their armies only by surroundings, so that wouldn't be a problem even more.

Having many players in one battle doesn't give a downtime for other player, becouse more of them are able to participate, so user experience is also balanced out. How the people bahave in the middle of the battle, like charging and then going back to make your ally being hit first can be also fun part of tactic the game could lose if such feature wouldn't be implemented.

I think that only 1v1 battles are the biggest problem this game have at this moment and this will take joy out of multiplayer in this game,
War in multi is the most fun moment in the game, thats why civ 6 have its popularity among players, civ is unbalanced  at multi, simultaneous turns are broken (who click first in most of the time) but playing it is fun and fast and thats why ppl love it. Humankind is BETTER, their combat system is perfectly balanced for 3v3 even more ppl ! They have few options like simultaneous team movement, it will be a little messy because 3 players will move at the same time but it will be a lot better with it implemented in the game than without it !

Allies are the first step, multi faction fights where everyone is on different sides however probably shouldn't be a priority. Would still be cool to have but I can already see the balancing nightmare and figuring out how to structure combat so that it involves extra parties that aren't just attacker and defender.

Maybe the turn order can go like;

Attacker

Any third party armies that are within the combat zone and wish to fight (I don't have an idea for an exact formula to decide turn orders if even more third parties participate in battle)

The Army the Attacker targets/The Defender (since you can only target one army with your units)