Shared troops? (give temporarily control top teammates)

[Ceres]

What about shared troops? A teammate tells me via mumble that he garrisoned some units in one of my CCs close to his territory that is under heavy attack. While he is fighting also on the other side and thus already very busy, he would like to give me control over his units. I can already now ungarrison, but then I have to tell him they are out and he needs to take over. Therefore, I thought that maybe taking/giving control from/to allied teammates could be an option. There are surely lots of hurdles and special situations to consider, and maybe it's technically too complex, but I just wanted to bring this up - for a mod or in-game.

[Jofursloft]

I don't like the idea of having the possibility to take control of allied units just because currently many of this "hurdles and special situations" happen because allies are not able to cooperate in synergy. Being in synergy as a team is a skill often too much underrated.   

I would personally prefer a feature that allows you to select the exact point where to ungarrison a definite number of soldiers you placed into an allied building. Currently if you can garrison some sword cavs into an allied building in order to defend it from rams when you press U your units will be ungarrisoned randomly and they won't immediately start to attack the ram.   

 

[alre]

they don't exit randomly, they follow the current rally point of that building, so you have to ask to your ally to set it appropriately.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

It would be neat to have an "apprentice mode" where another player can help a less-skilled player for a period of time.

Also, it would be nice to have "co-op mode" where two players can control the same civ for the duration of a match.

[Freagarach]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Also, it would be nice to have "co-op mode" where two players can control the same civ for the duration of a match.

My sibling and I do this all the time. But it's kind of hacky for now.

[Ceres]

23 hours ago, Jofursloft said:

I don't like the idea of having the possibility to take control of allied units just because currently many of this "hurdles and special situations" happen because allies are not able to cooperate in synergy. Being in synergy as a team is a skill often too much underrated.

In general, I agree with you but see it from our current perspective, i.e. parent playing with kids, which is sometimes difficult regarding "team play". But I understand that this is no excuse and maybe no reason to put programming effort into it. We will better learn how to better communicate. But if my topic/question triggered some further thoughts beyond/besides the initial idea, I am happy, too.

[Ceres]

6 hours ago, Freagarach said:

My sibling and I do this all the time. But it's kind of hacky for now.

Funny, our kids are siblings, too. What do you and Justus mean about controlling the same civ for the duration of a match? If 2 players have the same civ, they can control also eath other's units? Or also independent of the selected civs? Anyway, wouldn't this be what I suggested above, or is this something different?

[alre]

if we consider the initial example by @Ceres, we see that communication is not the issue, we may even be telepathic, but if I send troops to help in a battle my ally is leading, while I'm also busy elsewhere, there is no way I'm gonna be as effective in managing those troops, as he/she could be with shared command. Also it's not like the option to share troops excludes the need for good communication anyway.

However, this could escalate quickly and it's up to developers to decide how far to allow sharing control between allies: worse players could take the habit to give control of their troops to better players, and also couples of players could specialise so that one always works on the eco of both of them, and the other follows the military expansion, for the benefit of both (this is actually an example of how sharing units could foster communication, rather than avoid it).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 hours ago, Ceres said:

What do you and Justus mean about controlling the same civ for the duration of a match?

I said civ, because "2 players playing the same player" sounded awkward, if accurate. But basically, it would be 2 separate people playing as 1 player in game, sharing responsibility. It's called coop or co-op mode in other games. It could be as simple as just allowing multiple people to choose (or be assigned) the same player in match setup.

[Dizaka]

Coop games would be awesome.  It's an alternative to 16 players games.  Coop games and the ability for players (or disco player teammates) to vote on "coop players" mid-game to replace a disconnect player would be great too (and if disconnected player reconnects they can take over and/or continue with coop).

Edited August 29, 2021 by Dizaka

[Ceres]

Yes, coop would be cool.

[Freagarach]

8 hours ago, Ceres said:

Yes, coop would be cool.

Yes, coop _is_ cool. (https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2459)