Master your own destiny! Command a nation!

Battle System

One of the core mechanics for Heroes & Generals is the way action and campaign games intermingle to introduce causality – actions of one game effect the outcome in the other. A major part of that is how the strategy game detects conflicts and assigns resources for the action game – we call this the “Battle System”.

In short, battle system handles detection of conflicts on the campaign map, and creates appropriate mission types for the action game players. When players in an action game have finished the mission, then the battle system shows what their efforts have achieved in the campaign map and recalculates if another kind of conflict needs to be triggered.

In the upcoming ‘Jefferson’ build, we’ve reworked the battle system to better differentiate conflicts on the campaign map, and what action game missions they lead to. This is the first iteration in a sequence of builds we intend to release, which will help shape the world of Heroes & Generals – through the actions of ‘Heroes’ (action game players) and ‘Generals’ (strategy game players).

A big step towards that aim is that skirmishes should have the real meaning of what we’ve always intended them to be – stepping stones to the actual assault on a town rather than being created because of the defender who clicked a button quicker than the attacker. Some of the highlights of the new Battle System are:

  • An all new auto-resolver – has been re-made from the ground up to help us iterate on it faster.
  • Transportation logic now moves ATs to access-points instead of towns
  • Conflicts are automatically triggered and no ‘Attack’ button is shown
  • Skirmish missions are contests for the access-point – winners can slowly work their way towards the assault on the battlefield
  • Assault/Defend missions are contests for the town’s control – winner gets control of town centre and is the defender of the next assault mission on that town
  • Winning ATs in a mission stay at the location and losing (depleted) ATs are undeployed (generals need to reactive/redeploy team near their faction capital)
  • Remaining ATs at the town immediately start a new mission
  • No ‘Cancel’ button is shown on conflicts
  • All ATs (except the ones in the action game) are allowed to retreat (by clicking and dragging away)

An allied general (blue in the example) may experience the new battle system as:

  1. The general can see that the enemy has ordered some forces to move into ‘Brandenburg’ from ‘Potsdam’ and ‘Oranienburg’.
  2. He judges that the enemy’s position is weak and orders 2 teams of his own to assault on ‘Brandenburg’ – from ‘Genthin’ and ‘Niemegk’. This creates an Assault Mission for the action game players to fight out and decide the fate of the town for.


  1. As a precaution, the general also orders another team to fallback from its current position at ‘Neuruppin’ to ‘Rathenow’ and hold position.
  2. The German commander has figured out that his teams are at a disadvantage and tries to reinforce the battle via ‘Neuruppin’ and ‘Rathenow’. But the waiting Allied troops at ‘Rathenow’ engage them into a skirmish mission at Rathenow’s accesspoint ‘A’.

As I said earlier, the new battle system is the first step towards working on the core game feel for Heroes & Generals. But we’ll need some more iterations on this model in order to move closer to that goal. You can find more details about the battle system on the wiki.

  1. Finnboy11Finnboy1106-03-2013

    No attack button? Woooohoooooooo!!!

  2. cRo4Ti4cRo4Ti406-03-2013

    What , no more waiting need that send into battle unit arives and this damn atack button shows up… no more i need triger that fuuu button as first or my units will get depleted in skirmish feeling, no more unrest and flaming ongoing on players who atack but didnt press that button in right time fast enough and all other into war send units will get catche in skirmishes what kills fun vibes of this commanders who send few seconds later units in.

    No more cancel uttons who overlay otjer missions ans mappoints where you not been able to click on it vhithoutbthat this fuu retreat scren pops up.

    I stil think i will miss a bit the urgency to need be faster trigger atack, but reading info , all other bad vibes created by this old version will disapear.

    Hmmm… i think i will like it.

  3. ApplayApplay06-03-2013

    Do we still have a penality for retreating an AT in the next build?

    • Reto.indusninjaReto.indusninja06-04-2013

      Only penalty is you can’t move away if your team is in the action game. Otherwise moving away has no penalty.

  4. PegoPego06-03-2013

    great job !!
    finally a battle system that makes some sens !!

    You changed the autoresolve !

    Does this mean there will be no more “Capt’n ‘merica” lone infantryman holding back a 3000 man strong army ?

    Does it also mean Fighter plane ATs wont be able to hold back ground ATs in autoresolve?

    good job can’t wait !

    • Reto.indusninjaReto.indusninja06-04-2013

      That’s what we hope. However, this is the first version, so there might be some tweaks we still need.

  5. s0wbears0wbear06-04-2013

    Very nice idea, i like it!
    The whole thing looks more intuitive that way.
    With new ats being selected while the action game is runnig there will also be no more confusion about why you’re running out of resources just minutes after joining a battle with 1000+ troops left.

    One question though: The attack button is gone, but it looks like after a battle has ended it’s still about who moves his troops faster to occupy a supply line – is that true, and will this be addressed later on with skirmishes on supply lines?

    • Reto.indusninjaReto.indusninja06-04-2013

      exactly. We haven’t implemented skirmishes on supplylines in this version. But that would be the next version.

      • s0wbears0wbear06-04-2013

        ok thanks for the reply :)

  6. fagadabafagadaba06-04-2013

    Does that mean that noobs using matchmaking will start Assault missions before we’ve set up a safe amount of access points by fighting skirmish missions?

    • Reto.indusninjaReto.indusninja06-11-2013

      This might happen for now. But there’s already a fix for this in the works in the build after. Hope it doesn’t cause too much trouble.

  7. GrDHanibalGrDHanibal06-09-2013

    more skirmishes booooooooooooo
    and any other thing this forces us to play i liked the being faster gets the mission feeling this is gunna waste alot of w.f. because you must skirmish resupply and assault or skirmish next town after the assault is won. But with w.f. being nerf by 1,000 to 2,000 points is B.S. stop digging for gold reto and make a real free to play game there was no need to drop earnings. Especially if we must skirmish every battle first now

    • Reto.indusninjaReto.indusninja06-11-2013

      By our calculations you can still earn MUCH more warfunds in battle than you need to resupply. So, we still expect people to almost never use gold for resupplying – hardly digging for gold in my opinion.

      The changes for warfund are related to creating scarcity of resources – as it is now, one faction has too many ATs supplied at all time to disrupt balance. No strategy game is fun if you have all the resources in the world at your disposal – that’s not digging for money, that’s game design.

  8. s0wbears0wbear06-11-2013

    hm, another question:
    does this mean that there could be up to 5 skirmishes at the same time around 1 town?

    • Reto.indusninjaReto.indusninja06-11-2013

      Yes. The scenario would be kind of hard to trigger in the current situations, but its possible.

      • BonuxBonux06-12-2013

        IMHO, I hate skirmish maps and I’m not the only one out there (make a poll and you will see).. I undestand the desire to “realistically” fight around a town to capture it but we are heading towards endless Stalingrad like battles. We will die of boredom after a month of painfull skirmishes sometimes wasted by noobs starting the attack before we have enough access points, triggering more skirmishes. We will then be fustrated to wait for the next build that will prevent them from doing so but at the same time acheiving the Stalingrad endless fight process.

        Only a major nerf of WF gain will compensate by creating a costly AT depletion, meaning less WF cuz ATs will die and not come back, then less ATs spawned back. Doubt it? Remember autoresolve is there (which until now was a GOOD thing). If so we need more varied maps!

        I only hope and wish that I am completely wrong.

        Then Reto devs will have to make theirs mind: is this a realistic strategic teamplay oriented game or a casual fun balanced game! I’m sorry it can’t be both and right now, I see a once of “realism” and two onces of “arcade playstyle”. I am not asking for an ArmA clone! Just something that makes sense one way or the another! It just feels more and more awkward, final result and end game are getting more blured than ever.


    i really dont think that you should remove the cancel button….real life generals have the option to remove their troops from existing battles if it is needed somwhere else more….

    • Reto.indusninjaReto.indusninja06-18-2013

      you should have read the line below “no cancel button”:
      “All ATs (except the ones in the action game) are allowed to retreat (by clicking and dragging away)”

      and as far as ATs in the action game go, a general’s actions have to have “some” ramifications. Think of it from your faction’s point of view, if the opposition’s ATs never get locked down in battles (and they can always pull back to reinforce another flank), your faction can never really attack from a new avenue.

      • PFAHLMANNPFAHLMANN06-18-2013

        valid point…thank you

What are you waiting for soldier? We need heroes on the battlefield and generals to lead them!