but you dont need to heal naturally

if you have regen you surely have heal too

and if you save the mana cost and upkeep of regen you have spare mana to heal

yeah i agree

i just dont see this job, also there are traits doing it, cities doing it

but well lets see how next build play

Oh no >_<

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I don't think having turn limits is an elegant solution to over-kiting, simply because it doesn't really solve the abuse but it just makes some battles a more drawn out and boring affair, maybe over several turns.

Another poster has rightly raised some valid points concerning turn limits that I think should also be properly considered:

https://forums.elementalgame.com/432506/page/1/#3236373

I dont think the solution is perfect, or ungameable, but it reduces the bar on the exploit considerably.  Streaching it between turns means that you as a player are losing turns when you could have been doing other things.  Finghting other monsters you could beat, gathering form other goodie huts.  The monster will heal, defending cities will get production (and the ability to rush).  Units will move, enemies will attack.

On the negative side you are right, it isn't perfect.  Im not to worried about defenders bouncing attacks by running around enemies.  If an obsidian golem attacks you fast unit on a horse and you want to run around him until combat times out, more power to you.  Better than spending 500 turns running around the golem and pinging it with minor arrow attacks (in my opinion).  And there is no real defensive reward for the bounce (unlike the pinging).

On the positive side I like that it may turn some big city battles into multi-turn affairs.  City heals, rushes production, sneaks in reinforcements between attack waves.  Could be cool.

But there is a reason we havent cut it in yet, we have to play with it, it is being considered.

Turn limits is just a band-aid for the deeper issue: the rock/paper/scissors relationship between initiative, movement, and range (known as kiting).  Crowd control needs to be addressed now that time and space have been introduced through initiative and tactical movement.  All units need strengths in at least one of the above areas, through stats, or abilities to hinder those of opponents.  A unit on one side of the battlefield should not be proficient in multiple methods of crowd control, while the opposition is weak in all of them.  Balancing this mechanic will solve quite a few higher level issues.

Any chance we'll get a UI visual added that would show the ZoC for a pioneer's Outposts or Settlements?

Improving the tactical AI so that it recognizes kiting (or specifically, the dangers of it) would go a long way to improving tactical combat without limiting the player to prevent kiting in the first place.

Yes. Turn limit is not enough to stop kiting. We need some additional fixes: adding combat spells (or buff existing spells) and counterattack to powerful monsters, Freeze spell should not affect movement in tactical combat, etc.

Ensure that every unit (& monster) in the game is proficient in at least one of the following: initiative, movement, or range; either statistically, or via abilities that weaken an opponent's stats.

I love this part of time limits.  

Is .981 going to be released today? I can play a few Demigod matches 'till then...

I don't really like the sound of limits on tactical battles - it sounds terribly arbitrary. I can strike the enemy - which I am in melee range of - exactly 7 times but NOT 8.

I want a REAL siege mechanic instead of that... thing... you are describing.

But I guess it could actually turn out to be fun to play with such a rule. Techs could improve the limit. Defensive improvements could reduce it. Special army leader champions could increase it. Mighty spells could extend it.

You absolutely need to come up with a reasonable lore-excuse for it though. The obvious being supply lines for your army. Which means you should have more time when attacking in your own ZoC, and less when in the enemy's. Outposts could help you as well.

Release today, Kael/Derek?

I agree with Heavenfall, if turn limit is to be introduced, an idea which I don't like, at least make it an organic mechanic, not an arbitrary number. You can improve it with technology, you can make a buff like Endurance, which increases turn limit by 50% for a given army, but this is a lot of work, and it has to be done if this mechanic is to be integrated into the game, and not be an annoying arbitrary limit to gameplay.

I would rather a 'number of turns of inactivity (other than movement)' instead of 'limited number of turns'. Still can be abusable, but with the regen nurf, to stay in battle you need to take the occasional hit.

I love the idea of turn limits in tactical battles.  Romance of the Three Kingdoms did it, and when you hit the end of the limits and had to fight the battle next turn with what you had ( + any reinforcements), you knew  things just got real.

turn limit just mess so many more things that the problems it solve

lets follow guide for game designer:

1. Does it match the games focus?

not at all game focus was never supposed to be on hit and run

2. Does it solve a problem?

well arguably yes even if there are 320 better ways to solve it

3. Does it solve multiple problems?

surely not, also it CREATES multiple problems

4. Does it have drool factor?

no, it totally sux and made ppl agry already

5. How difficult is it to implement?

its easy but then youll have to balance it again and also add content to interact with it so its not a deus ex machina setup

so basically while i think its easy it will take a lot of time to fix all accessory settings it will create

Since a turn is one season, does this mean that all militia stacks would regenerate in city battles?

And would each side get experience in tied battles?  I think this would be good too.

I love this idea. Not only does it solve some of the lamer exploits involving kiting but regardless of that it will add so much to the game. Multi turn battles would be awesome and add so much real strategy, instead of tactical blobbing. Just think a real intelligent retreat mechanic, instead of every battle being a grind to the death. 

First i thought that a time limit is a bad idea, but multi-turn battles are really interesting, because strategic spells could be cast between the turns to summon new units or kill enemy units.

Three things should be considered:

- The strategic combat spells will be much more important and should be scaled down.

- To encourage multi-turn battles it should be easier to flee. Escape scrolls should be sold from the beginning in the store.

- City defenders could have a higher turn limit and the turn limit could be increased with fortress improvements.

Another option, though this would most likely be a 'feature', would be to decrease the size of the tatical map every X turns. This way, ranged units are welcome to kite...but eventually they're going to run out of room to kite.

do you guys understand that this system totally DESTROY the balance that is already on the edge

with turn limit all melees will be even more useless

the point of melees is that it take N turns to start doing things, but when they do they are strong

making a limit means every melee is so much less effective

also its basically a kiting exploit even empowered

basically every battle restart with melee far aways FORCED to take n hits each restart from mages/archers etc etc

this is totally uncool

But wouldn't it be to the advantage of the defending cities for battles to have fewer turns, rather than more?

What about AoW's system where attacking units can flee any unit via any exit square (except for quests like the Arenas or Tombs or Underground Quests in FE)?  So any attacker that reaches an exit square can exit the battle and survive, in return for forgoing battle experience.  As in AoW, defenders (including city defenders) would not be able to escape the battle this way.

However, in this case, you could still have rare escape scrolls that could be used by attackers or defenders, that would always return you to your capital, like it said originally in the Escape scroll text.  If it was an attack on your capital that you are escaping from, the escape would take you to the city that would be your capital next, or if you were escaping from your last city, a selected place (which you would set before battle) up to 10 viewed squares away from your capital that you would escape to?

Having attacker escape squares and the ability for (rare) escape scrolls to actually take you to your capital would be an asset to the game, I think. What do others think?

I agree with this with some additional caveats.  For example I don't care if players kite weak monsters.  If a banished ogre doesnt have a good defense against a fast ranged unit, that's fine with me.

But it is a bigger deal for higher level monsters, and I will go through and review them all with an eye to figuring out which ones are vulnerable to kiting and what can be done to address that, especially if it makes the monster more interesting.  For example, drakes movement may need to be increased.  Powerful ogres may gain the Hurl Boulder ranged attack ability.  Obsidian Golems may gain an Imprison spell that removes a units movement for a few turns and does damage each turn.  All worth looking at regardless of the larger issue 9and it will feed into that larger issue as you note).