[Multiple Sets of Orders Per Player for 1v1s](http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/2621380-multiple-sets-of-orders-per-player-for-1v1s)

At the moment, team games are more strategically realistic. Having the option of making 1v1s more realistic and more strategic would make for more interesting 1v1 games.

To do this, simply add new options to the game settings:

- Number of allies with independent orders (AWIO): 2-10
- Number of starting territories per AWIO: 1-10
- Ally colors: You pick the new colors for the allies you control.

Why do this? Turns and orders are equivalent to time. Turns are equivalent to months or years; orders are equivalent to minutes, hours or days.

In a real war, multiple ally armies attack the enemy at the same time. In team games, this holds true: I attack turn 1 order 1, my teammates do too. For 1v1s, the time factor is messed up: none of the attacks are simultaneous.

In addition, having 2+ sets of orders per player in a 1v1 would make for a more interesting luck: if nobody uses an order priority card, currently, each player has a 50% chance of getting first order. With 2 ally armies with independent orders per player, the probability of getting first order is 25%; with 3 ally armies, it's 1/6; and so on.

A new ladder with these settings would be great. Personally, I'd like it because I've made at least a dozen Europe 1v1 tournaments based on different settings, in an attempt to replicate the 3v3 Europe game. All were failures. This change would make great 1v1 Europe games possible.

What happens when two of your attacks target the same territory? Does the defender get to kill 70% of both attack waves before taking hits himself? In that case, I don't *want* to attack at the same time. But, if you don't, then the only real change is that as soon as the first attack happens, your opponent cannot get lucky and have a transfer order take place, reinforcing the territory (also, he cannot get very unlucky, by trying to do an attack with those same armies, leaving it defended by only a single army which will get utterly crushed by your next attack).

In general, how do you plan to solve conflicting orders? Let's say at the start of the turn I have 9 armies in some territory. I give orders for two (simultaneous) attacks of 4 to two other territories. Except, when those orders come up, there's only 5 armies left (a counter-attack by my opponent killed 4). Which attack happens? One of them, which one? Both of them, with how many armies each? And, what if only 2 armies remain, what happens then? Now to make things really interesting, let's say I didn't give orders to a number of armies, but used the `By percentage` option; if two attacks happen after each other, I give the first 50% and the second 100% to split them evenly (no matter the number of remaining armies), but what would happen if they are simultaneous, how would the percentages work out?

Practical question: do you have to fill all order slots, or only at least one per turn? I love stalling by just moving some armies around (as a kind of poor man's order delay card). It would kinda suck if I needed two, three or even more dummy moves for each order I want to stall.

Also, are those orders *really* simultaneous, or are you just re-proposing the same idea Seroslav posted in [Stupid teammates - legalize multi-accounts in one team?](http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=3084)

simultaneous here = turn 1 order 1 has multiple attacks by the armies i control (like a team game, unlike in 1v1s)

i'm reproposing an idea i had months ago. that thread inspired me to make a uservoice idea. whenever i make a uservoice i then make a thread.

though, i assume it is all a waste of time anyway.

|> simultaneous here = turn 1 order 1 has multiple attacks by the armies i control (like a team game, unlike in 1v1s)

Ehm, that's *unlike* how it works in a team game. Let's say we have two teams A and B. Team A consists of players 1 and 2, team B has players 3 and 4. Then the order of turns will be:

ABBA ABBA ABBA ABBA
1 4 4 1 1 4 4 1
23 32 23 32

With uneven teams, WL will "snake", alternating giving "first move" to each team like normal (which, for two players looks like giving each team two moves in a row, below I'll show for three teams, maybe that's more clear), then giving all remaining members of the biggest team their turn. After that, it reverses (also just like normal):

ABBABB BBABBA ABBABB BBABBA
1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
34 56 65 43 34 56 65 43

If the bigger team gets first move, it will look like this, which might show the principle more clearly:

BAABBB BBBAAB BAABBB BBBAAB
12 21 12 21
3 456 654 3 3 456 654 3

For three teams of three players each:

ABCCBAABC CBAABCCBA ABCCBAABC CBAABCCBA
1 23 32 1 1 23 32 1
4 5 6 6 5 4 4 5 6 6 5 4
78 9 9 87 78 9 9 87

So, I'm not sure how multiple attacks within a turn (but not actually simultaneous) is like a team game. Also, team games work (for turn order) pretty much the same as 1v1: which team gets a turn is determined exactly the same as in 1v1 (assuming equal-sized teams), then within a team, which players gets a turn is also determined the same way as in 1v1.

Also, I don't see how this would revolutionize the game. Sure, it's a difference, and things will play out in slightly other ways, but I don't think you'd really change your tactics very much (except that with x orders per turn an order priority card would give you x first orders, instead of just one).

---

|> though, i assume it is all a waste of time anyway.

If you don't want it to be a waste of time, try to explain your idea as clearly as possible. Assuming that I'm not the dumbest person on WL: if I don't understand what you have in mind exactly, then there will be more people who don't; people are unlikely to vote for an idea which they don't understand and without votes, it's very unlikely any idea will end up high on Fizzer's priority list.

I was thinking about that. It is same like when you play 3v3, have 2 new players for teammates and tell them what to do. Only this is better because it will be ALWAYS as you wish. :-)))) This is new player mode......lets say mode for generals.
New thing is that you have lets say 3 different armies and 3 different incomes to take care about.

It is good idea.

yeah, high. though i'm asking that the # of independent armies in the 1v1 be 2-10. so the setting options could allow you to make a 2v2, 3v3...10v10 in which only 2 people play (a 1v1). this would be great i think. i like the idea of it being called 'general mode'.

i'd add this too: limit it to members only. (the more benefits to membership, the more people will want to become members.)

rvw, 'simultaneous' within its proper context: i compared the game to real warfare, saying:

- turn = larger unit of time: eg, years/months
- order = smaller unit of time: eg, days/hours/minutes

the attack i make turn 2 order 2 is 'simultaneous' with your turn 2 order 2 in the sense that they happen within the same 'time period' (same year/month, same day/hour/minute).

in the game:

- obviously, one attack happens before another
- but their 'time period' is the same

to illustrate this:

ABRACABRA HOLYMOLY
123456789 01234567

I'm not here to tell you your idea's bad, but here's my question. What is the point of this? Why would one person need to control multiple armies? Why not just have teams (like the 2v2 ladder)? Is the only reason because you wish to control an entire team in a team game? If so, why not just make a second account, buy the membership, and team the two up? To me this seems like it's a benefit for those who are so full of themselves as to think that they don't need teammates, because nobody is as good as them.

it's more strategic than the current 1v1 format. it adds a new option to make games more interesting. if you prefer team games but dont have teammates to play with or nobody is joining your game, it is easier if you only need 1 other player to join. if we want to see who the best team player is, this is the best way to do it. if we want the game to be just a bit more realistic, this would be a great first step. if we want a format in which 1v1 specialists and 3v3 specialists can play each other on common ground, this would work. it'd make for cool tournaments. and most importantly, it'd be the only way myhandisonfire would join a 1v1 tournament!

None of what you said made any sense to me until you talked about controlling multiple independent armies with independent incomes.

Sounds like a pretty good idea if im interpreting it right

|> the attack i make turn 2 order 2 is 'simultaneous' with your turn 2 order 2 in the sense that they happen within the same 'time period' (same year/month, same day/hour/minute).
|>
|> in the game:
|>
|> - obviously, one attack happens before another
|> - but their 'time period' is the same

But... what is the effect of a "time period"? Currently the game has no notion of "time" other than that things happen in a strictly defined order. Nobody knows whether an order takes a second or a year but that's okay since it doesn't matter anyway... Could you please just describe what the actual effect on the game is?

---

|> to illustrate this:
|>
|> ABRACABRA HOLYMOLY
|> 123456789 01234567

Oh stop complaining, that diagram was perfectly easy to read. I even put it in fixed-width to make it all line up and even simpler to read. But if you honestly didn't figure it out, here goes again, with even more explanation:

Order number: 123456789 ...

Turn for team: ABCCBAABC CBAABCCBA ABCCBAABC CBAABCCBA

Turn for player
- in team A: 1 23 32 1 1 23 32 1
- in team B: 4 5 6 6 5 4 4 5 6 6 5 4
- in team C: 78 9 9 87 78 9 9 87

- The order numbering of course continues after order 9, but "10" doesn't fit in a single column, so you'll just have to imagine.
- After each "full turn" (one turn for each player) I inserted an empty column. That's just for clarity; in the game nothing special happens there.

---

@Eagle: Hush, you're supposed to only *think* that! ;)

@ Rvw, your picture is easy to see, but it is still off. It would be better seen as:

Team 1: ABRACADABRA
Team 2: HOLYMOLYYES
Team 3: OHMYGODYEAH

REGL eagleblast Quote: To me this seems like it's a benefit for those who are so full of themselves as to think that they don't need teammates, because nobody is as good as them

Certainly cant benefit you. A teamgame with a random partner will almost always increase your chances of success. In Gui`s case, its the other around.

the hand that rocks the cradle...

You wanna be an arrogant prick? Sure, have fun.

But when you're done being conceited (no hurry, I'll wait (the heat-death of the universe won't though, so don't take too long)), how about you explain what you are actually proposing? Because what you've said so far (having one account control multiple "allies") will simply *not* accomplish what you claim to be after (changing turn order).

Of course, I guess I shouldn't be *too* surprised you don't know the first thing about how team games work...

rvw:

- first, you claimed (in a thread a week or two ago) to only play single-player games. if that is true, i cant take anything you say seriously when it comes to multi-player games. if you are in fact a mask for a more experienced player, then you are a liar. upon seeing your real account (if you have played multi-player games), i might consider your ideas: if a dentist has never studied dentistry and never checked anyone's teeth before, i will not go to him when i have a tooth problem.
- second, you don't even understand the idea i proposed. so why should i act like i understand yours? before making elaborate charts and number waves, try to understand the other person's initial idea. you didn't. maybe it is bc you play single-player and you are not sure about the strategic concepts in multi-player.
- third, let's not resort to name calling. your number waves look nice. but since they are unrelated to the strategic concepts at hand, i'm not interested in them.

turn order probability is a strategically less significant part of the matter. "independent armies" is the important part: this means they have their own colors (see above) and their own incomes ("own colors" + "independent"), as if they were other people (see above). *independent armies with their own colors and base incomes attacking independently each turn and each order* (if you put all the ideas together, like simple math: 1 + 2 + 3 = 6) is the thrust of the argument. your pretty number waves do not address the strategic significance of this.

The way I see it you're making two different, albeit related, proposals in this thread:

- Letting one player control multiple colours, creating a single-person-team game. Okay, this is easy enough. Just make multiple accounts and play a normal team game. (As long as your opponent agrees to this, I guess that doesn't break the `You shall not operate more than one WarLight account in a way that gives you an advantage in a game, tournament or ladder.` rule.) Anyway, nothing Earth-shattering, that's why I didn't really respond to this part.

- Doing something with "simultaneous orders". This is the part which I don't get, but sounds potentially-interesting, so this is the part I responded to.

---

|> first, you claimed (in a thread a week or two ago) to only play single-player games. if that is true, i cant take anything you say seriously when it comes to multi-player games. if you are in fact a mask for a more experienced player, then you are a liar.

This is my only account (not that I expect you to believe me, but if I don't even object, you'd probably take it as a confession). However, just doing single player doesn't mean I can't play team games, there's no reason the AI can only be an opponent.
Sure, I'll readily believe there's a huge practical difference between having an AI or a human player for a team mate, but *the game mechanics* (such as move order, which is what we're talking about) work identically.
Besides, how many team games I've got under my belt is irrelevant; when it comes to game mechanics, I can just set up a quick test game to double-check what I say is accurate (in fact, that's exactly what I did, better sure than sorry).

|> second, you don't even understand the idea i proposed. so why should i act like i understand yours?

I'm trying to understand, but when I ask you to explain your idea, you either repeat exactly the same thing you said before (which, surprisingly, doesn't clear anything up) or simply don't answer at all, instead just being rude.
Secondly, I'm not proposing an idea, so there's nothing for you to understand; all I was trying to get you to do is describe your idea coherently enough for me to understand what you have in mind.

---

First, let's make terminology clear:

- Colour: Belligerents / warring parties, each with separate income and such (I can't call this "armies" since that already means something else, "countries" has the same problem)
- Turn: Deployment phase + attack/transfer phase
- Order: One attack/transfer
- Attack: Abbreviation for "attack/transfer"; the difference between an attack and a transfer doesn't matter here, and doing it like this saves a lot of typing

Okay, so let's try this again, from the start. You want to have multiple orders happen simultaneously. The way you count "one order" is *for every player* to perform one attack, right? Which would mean that in a team game (let's say with three people on each team), during "one order", each team would actually perform three attacks.
What I'm trying to show you is that this doesn't matter at all. Sure, three attacks happen per team, but if you were playing by yourself and look at groups of three orders, during each of those groups three attacks would happen per player as well.
Now, the crucial part is that it's entirely valid to look at groups of three orders at once and call it "one order", because the sequence in which those attacks are actually executed is identical (that's where the diagrams come in).

So, that means the only difference between current WL and what you are proposing is an option to easily control different colours from one account. Sure, that's a valid suggestion, but please leave out all the talk about simultaneous orders, since (1) that's not what would happen, (2) that doesn't seem to be what you want anyway and (3) it adds lots of confusion for no reason.

in the context of a metaphor equating turns/orders to periods of time, 'simultaneous' has a meaning. without this context, it is confusing and not true.

i think if the settings i proposed were already an option, and then you played 100 1v1 games with the current settings and then played 100 games with the settings i proposed, you'd realize (in the first game) the strategic implications.

it'd go from being a duel (each man with a muzzle-loader that takes time to reload and fire) to a war (each man with [buddha-like arms](http://www.travelchinaguide.com/cityguides/tibet/buddhist-statues.htm), each with a rifle).

Maybe, maybe not, until you actually explain how this new mechanic of yours is supposed to work it's impossible to tell.

// Giving up...

@Gui

Think more out of box if you want more strategic game. For general mode you need different types of armies. Different attack and defense kill rates. Some armies will be better for attack other better for defense. So....in picking stage you chose what type of armies you will use and where you will put them.....like in real life.