[UI] Semi-Auto Assault

[Soloman]

i think either this or the selection of a specfice # of armies would be spectaclar

[chessplaya]

Is there not a better idea already in circulation? i.e. the one where you get to choose the number of your armies killed

they r both great ideas

[Gilligan]

Instead of stopping at 3 or 2, is there any way we could get a tab that says what number you want to stop the attack at if we lose? The dice crap me sometimes. I autoed a 10, attacking with a 23, and lost, which lost me the game. Think this is possible?

[s.xkitten]

been suggested before...

[CreepyUncleAndy]

Is there not a better idea already in circulation? i.e. the one where you get to choose the number of your armies killed

they r both great ideas

BUMP

[drose]

make your own greasemonkey script.

[Wisse]

already suggested look at the sticky "to-do list"

[Wisse]

already suggested look at the sticky "to-do list"

[MadRMax]

I sugest the possibiliti of Chosing when to stop Auto Atack!

Like a box where we chose how many armies max. we want to lose until auto stops!!

i think this 1 is not in the TO DO LIST!!!

[RobinJ]

There are a couple of other threads on it though...

[Wisse]

already in the sticky called "to-do list"

[MadRMax]

THAM!!!

[yorkiepeter]

I sugest the possibiliti of Chosing when to stop Auto Atack!

Like a box where we chose how many armies max. we want to lose until auto stops!!

i think this 1 is not in the TO DO LIST!!!

WRONG!!!! it is

[HighCommander540]

This is a great idea. I have always wanted this...For the option that you can either stop if you are getting hurt badly or if you want set it to go all the way to 1. That would be nice.

Also, for the other side. Make sure that if nothing is entered it still deals with the go until you get to 3 and then stop.


To SirSebstar...Although, yes the roll is entirely random on the basis of how the randomizer on the site works. The chance to get a ceratin number is not as similar as you would think.

The random number generator that this site uses is atmospheric noise. Which although is very radom does reoccur at times and is always changing. So hitting the attack button at a certain time does actually affect it in this case. Even if we didn't use that the fact that there are 83k+ people on this site all pulling on the processor at the same times affects how that random number will come out, because of the amount and the fact that you are not the only person asking for a random number that is supposed to be random ever time.

[haoala]

perhaps another option is to stop once you have = to or less than your opponent's troops

[Jafnhár]

When you auto-attack, you are either going to get the territory you're attacking or end up with 3 armies (or 2) left on the attacking territory.

Specifics: How about adding a little box next to the auto-attack button that gives you the option of writing the number of armies you want to keep, instead of having it 3 automatically? For example; if I auto-attack with 30 vs. 25, but end up with 10 vs. 19 at one point, I doubt I would like to continue. If I had, however, written in the box "10" previously and the above happens, the attacks will stop and I can decide if I still want to attack.

Why it is needed: It could spare some time.

Priority: I don't think I should decide that.

[Keredrex]

Good Idea I think it would be a great option.... POLL

[Dancing Mustard]

Now there's a good idea! I can't imagine it'd be too hard to program either. Good luck with this one J...

[Puff]

I like the idea but I think you will need to use the form before it gets looked at

[RobinJ]

It was suggested before but nobody ever did anything - keep pestering the mods (moz really) until they actually give a verdict this time cos it's a damn helpful idea, especially when army numberrs get huge.

[Herakilla]

been suggested MANY times

[Coleman]

I'm tired of things getting suggested a lot only to get put in a magical box saying they will be implemented sometime, sometime could be years from now. It is irritating.

On this, I like it, but I'd only like it if you could turn it on or off in settings as it would clutter things a little.

[Jafnhár]

I'm tired of things getting suggested a lot only to get put in a magical box saying they will be implemented sometime, sometime could be years from now. It is irritating.

On this, I like it, but I'd only like it if you could turn it on or off in settings as it would clutter things a little.

That is not my fault, I didn't find this is in the suggestion box. And I looked twice!

[Risktaker17]

I don't really like the idea because it will make attacking take a lot longer. It is good but it will make it take a lot longer to take a turn. So I give it one thumb up.

[Jafnhár]

I don't really like the idea because it will make attacking take a lot longer. It is good but it will make it take a lot longer to take a turn. So I give it one thumb up.

I disagree. I think it would actually make the attacking time shorter since careful players would be able to auto-attack without risking too much, without using the simple "attack" button (which is much slower). Besides, you'd always choose how much time you'd take for attacking since you'd easily ignore the feature. It also barely matters how much time your opponents take for attacking. Most of the time you use for waiting for your turns is when they are not online anyway.