RETIRED Dr. Horace
Private
Proposal: Give an option to hide/unhide the units selected for the 'city defenders' / defending army.
"Have you checked the forums for the same or similar idea?"
- I have searched the forum and found nothing of the sort.
Reason: The defenders appear at the front of the list, this causes different 'unit type tabs' to have different numbers of units 'at the front of the list' that need to be 'skipped over'. This needlessly slows down unit selection and/or causes errors and thereby losses (both battles and units).
Details:
Being able to hide the defending army (a simple check box would suffice and work on all versions of the game equally), would forego any issues of accidentally sending a defending army rogue or 'very rare and prized future era unit' in place of an 'intended unit', thus avoiding accidentally losing 8 rogues and a battle (or losing the said prized future era unit in error).
For me personally, more than half my losses are the result of 'miss clicks', not all of them due to defending army units, sometimes I accidentally hit the auto battle button instead of the scroll bar, that's on me and that will happen. But a good portion of the delays and losses I suffer in fighting are due to having '(as an example) 4 light units, 1 ranged, 1 cavalry and 2 heavy units' in my defending army, which means I need to skip a different number of units depending on which 'unit type tab' I am on).
By hiding the defending army, the units we see at the front of the list are all the 'right' units, regardless what unit type tab I'm on and regardless what era I've selected from the dropdown.
Visual Aids:
I have none, but imagine if you will, a list of units with 4 blue rogues all the way to the left and then the same list of units but without 4 blue rogues on the left.
Balance/Abuse Prevention:
As this feature would be available equally to all players and does not change any actual combat ability or production factors, I see no issues with balance and the only possible abuse would be that illegal scripts would become slightly less complicated to write, but I should hope we're not needlessly keeping things complicated 'because it tests the lengths cheaters will go to'.
"Have you checked the forums for the same or similar idea?"
- I have searched the forum and found nothing of the sort.
Reason: The defenders appear at the front of the list, this causes different 'unit type tabs' to have different numbers of units 'at the front of the list' that need to be 'skipped over'. This needlessly slows down unit selection and/or causes errors and thereby losses (both battles and units).
Details:
Being able to hide the defending army (a simple check box would suffice and work on all versions of the game equally), would forego any issues of accidentally sending a defending army rogue or 'very rare and prized future era unit' in place of an 'intended unit', thus avoiding accidentally losing 8 rogues and a battle (or losing the said prized future era unit in error).
For me personally, more than half my losses are the result of 'miss clicks', not all of them due to defending army units, sometimes I accidentally hit the auto battle button instead of the scroll bar, that's on me and that will happen. But a good portion of the delays and losses I suffer in fighting are due to having '(as an example) 4 light units, 1 ranged, 1 cavalry and 2 heavy units' in my defending army, which means I need to skip a different number of units depending on which 'unit type tab' I am on).
By hiding the defending army, the units we see at the front of the list are all the 'right' units, regardless what unit type tab I'm on and regardless what era I've selected from the dropdown.
Visual Aids:
I have none, but imagine if you will, a list of units with 4 blue rogues all the way to the left and then the same list of units but without 4 blue rogues on the left.
Balance/Abuse Prevention:
As this feature would be available equally to all players and does not change any actual combat ability or production factors, I see no issues with balance and the only possible abuse would be that illegal scripts would become slightly less complicated to write, but I should hope we're not needlessly keeping things complicated 'because it tests the lengths cheaters will go to'.