Well done your battle programming is excellent

[Iveadenuf]

In reality historically, except for the thieves ALL SOLDIERS WILL TAKE OUT DEFENDING SOLDIERS AND UNITS, before ransacking the city..... fairly bloody obvious.

SO WHY ON EARTH DOES ALL MY TROOPS RUN RIOT AROUND THE DEFENDING CITY UNCONTROLLABLY?
Time and time again players have asked to have some control on their troops
Yes any means any, but the point is without control they are f'in useless.

We should be able to go into a battle with a strategic plan, how to get the best of our troops.
Allowing the attacker to have a plan, would give a slightly better gaming experience.

But as it seems their is extremes in your programming moderation. At this rate if the game is still going about 10 years you might have a really good game.

[<-:->Drachma]

Conversely the defenders should have control of there defences to target your high damage troops. but the battles occur with out your knowledge. If you are online the only way you know you were attacked is after the fact. So to give the attacker control and not the defender would be unfair to the extreme!!

[<BAM>HotHed]

How much more of an advantage do you want?

This game is skewed far too much in favor of the attacker already.

[Iveadenuf]

I dont know if you have come across them but their are some really hard cities out there,

[Iveadenuf]

Conversely the defenders should have control of there defences to target your high damage troops. but the battles occur with out your knowledge. If you are online the only way you know you were attacked is after the fact. So to give the attacker control and not the defender would be unfair to the extreme!!

I agree, in this; with the defending hero as good as a soggy cabbage leaf, their needs to be a player control system on both sides, but my suggestion was for attack only:
It is hard to get a strategic defensive system, when
a) you are told of the attack after the event.
b) the replay system is so good you are missing half of the replay
c) every player has a different way of attack.
d) regardless how the generals are now, they all have different attack tactics, and their response timings are very slow
So it is fairly hard to try and control your defence when we have these and many other issues.

[<ALM>Friend]

Attacking forces should behave more rationally so we can maximize our attacks without resorting to goofy magic powers. As it's currently set up, it's almost impossible to win with troops alone ... and almost impossible to lose if you use your General's spells.

[<0BS>Gooseman]

They cant even get enough synchronization in the game to freaking successfully do kingdom orders and you expect them to give players the ability to battle real-time directing defenses and offenses to battle each other? Really? LMFAO.

[Imlaris]

I had a bug just now where my archer tower attacked my town hall. Also, the number of seige forces was smaller. Pretty entertaining to lose because of mutiny.

[<0BS>Gooseman]

I had a bug just now where my archer tower attacked my town hall. Also, the number of seige forces was smaller. Pretty entertaining to lose because of mutiny.

Might wanna look up Cleopatra and the Charm spell.

[<18+>Cobalt]

I agree with OP completely. Soldiers will attack a farm while they get plummeted with arrows from the archer tower sitting RIGHT NEXT to the farm. If there are two targets near attacking units, and those targets are near one another, surely the AI can choose to attack the threat, as opposed to the non-threat. Right?

[<XWX>Linoge]

That would take more programming, which they obviously can't seem to do.

[Dawnseeker]

Part of your strategy involves placing your troops in such a way that they will tend to go to the places you want first. You cant take direct control of troops on the battlefield, but you can effect the outcome with careful placement and good use of your General!

[<ALM>Jonathan]

Part of your strategy involves placing your troops in such a way that they will tend to go to the places you want first.

Then please tell us what the priorities are. There is frequently too little separation between potential targets to know with certainty which opportunity the "Any" target troops will take first ... and if they don't do the logical and sensible thing (attack defenses first), we're left with an arduous trial and error process for learning the game.

But then, Evony's never been willing to give people any real guidance on the rules of their games.

[Dawnseeker]

Then please tell us what the priorities are. There is frequently too little separation between potential targets to know with certainty which opportunity the "Any" target troops will take first ... and if they don't do the logical and sensible thing (attack defenses first), we're left with an arduous trial and error process for learning the game.

But then, Evony's never been willing to give people any real guidance on the rules of their games.

Unless otherwise stated, troops always attack defenses before economic structures (assuming the defenses are in range). If you see different behavior it could be a bug.

[<Abu>Mallard]

Unless otherwise stated, troops always attack defenses before economic structures (assuming the defenses are in range). If you see different behavior it could be a bug.

WRONG! Troops, all of them can currently be released right next to a defensive tower. They will then turn in to opposite direction and attack resources, barracks, and builders houses while getting slaughtered. Troops will hit walls, break a hole in them, and then move to the next post and start hitting it, or turn in the opposite direction to hit something else. Troops will get into a city, then fight the walls to get back out instead of attacking the items in the city. Thiefs, released next to a silo or gold storage will try to run to the other side of the map to attack a level 1 farm instead. Infantry will get into a city, then run in circles hitting nothing. It is way beyond "could be a bug".