My playgroup is finding that the multi-attack can really imbalance a game, as it synergizes with the snowball of one player recieving more armies than the other (winners keep winning, losers keep losing). The steamroller tactic with multiattack is very devastating when you have significantly more armies than your enemy.

The solution: Allow the host to set the number of moves per multi-attack. It is a more realistic and balanced approach, in our opinions. It simply doesn't make sense to be able to roll across an entire continent in a single turn.

Proponents of multiattack say that it adds complexity and speeds up the game. I agree, and I think having the option to set the number of moves is a great compromise.

I agree completely with this Idea.. it would add a sort of Blitzkrieg feel to combat, without having the complete continent moving force the current MA has.. however I could understand it could be much more difficult to program and possibly more difficult to understand..

Personally, if this were implemented, I would likely start making a ton of games with MA: 2-3

I fully agree with this option. But other Warlighters wouldn't accept this. For example, some of my (internet) friends will only play multi-attack games. Multi-attack botheres me because you can lose it all (territory/bonuses) in just one turn because of it.

Bad examples of multiattack:
1.) You can lose a game between 1-3 turns on some maps (small earth, usa, etc.)
2.) It's unfair for people who don't understand it

Good Examples of Multiattack:
1.) If your in a tight spot (the corner of a map for example) you can use multiattack and get out of your enemies big army and break their bonuses (if they have 50 armies in one spot and 1 army behind it)
2.) On large maps (Eastern Asia, Large U.S.A., Ireland, etc.) you can build your bonuses quickly.

I for one would love this change and hope it is recommended to the creator of War-Light. (Fizzer)

Practical problem (using "MA2" as an example, but the same applies for every limited number of attacks larger than one).

---

Let's say we have five territories, arranged like this:

A -- B -- C
|
|
\-- D1 -- D2

You have A and B (each with, let's say, 10 armies on it), the others are neutral or owned by an opponent (each with only a few armies, maybe just 1 or 2). Let's say I enter the following orders:

- A -> B (100%)
- B -> C (50%)
- B -> D1 (100%)
- D1 -> D2 (100%)

Will that work or won't it? In other words, will the 50% transfer use "fresh" troops or troops which are near their attack limit? I don't see how the game can possibly work that out for itself, meaning there's only one option: (enormously) complicate the user interface, making it possible to give incredibly complex orders.

Poseidon, when I play MA games, I like chokepoint maps and put large armies in my back area's so I can lol when their desperate assault smacks into a wall..
*Examples are Iran, Svalbard, Spain, South Pole, etc.*

|> Good Examples of Multiattack:
|> 2.) On large maps (Eastern Asia, Large U.S.A., Ireland, etc.) you can build your bonuses quickly.

This would be solved by having a restricted form of multi-attack where you're still only allowed to perform a single attack, *but* attacks against neutrals don't count.

|> I for one would love this change and hope it is recommended to the creator of War-Light. (Fizzer)

What's stopping you? Just go ahead and [propose it](http://warlight.uservoice.com/)!

RvW, this would not be in question... remember that in MA, once you transfer, those troops are inactive.. so A -> B (100%) would give you 10 inactive troops in B, which could not be moved to C, so the B -> C (50%) would be required to use fresh troops...

Considering how MA currently reacts with Transfer, I don't see how this could be a relevant problem in any situation... as all the troops in any given territory are either inactive and fresh, or inactive and partially used.

Even in this hypothetical situation..


|>A1
|
|

A2 -- B -- C


|>|
|
\-- D1 -- D2

With A1 and 2 being owned by you, and b c D1-2 being neutral..

•A1 -> B (100%)
•A2 -> B (100%)
•B -> C (50%)
•B -> D1 (100%)
•D1 -> D2 (100%)

the troops from A1 would be partially active, while the troops from A2 would be inactive, so B -> C would use half of the partially active troops, while B -> D1 would use all of the partially active troops, leaving the inactive troops remaining in B.

Ofc' I don't know if the issue has been resolved concerning 50% MA orders counting inactive troops as a part of the whole or not..

Ehm, I stand corrected (not to mentioned slightly ashamed :( ), you're correct. All troops on a territory which can still attack at all, always have the same number of attacks left.

Just so long as nobody requests a multi-transfer we'll be okay. :p

I believe it's already been requested.. having both, combined with this, would be very complicated, lmao

Rvw, i don't know how to propose it. Please tell me.

To simplify the limited multi attack, you could only be able to give orders on territories two or three territory connections away.

Also, I would like to see multi-transfer. If you transfer armies they can't attack on the same turn, but they can keep going.

@Poseidon:
Didn't you notice that the "[propose it](http://warlight.uservoice.com/)" in my post was a link? I made it a link again here; just click it and follow the directions on that site.