Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Bug or not?

Expand Messages
  • wacky_wizard001
    hello i will give it a go to answer this. i havent even attempted to look at the battle code yet but i have seen this before and other examples where you
    Message 1 of 22 , May 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      hello
      i will give it a go to answer this.
      i havent even attempted to look at the battle code yet
      but i have seen this before and other examples where you actualy get
      the ERROR attack: unit dosnt exist (not exact error)

      this is becouse you chaned the attack so you had two attack orders.
      (maybe not you but a player, but will use YOU)

      the order attack 1310 5 is actualy two attack orders.

      so the first battle on unit 5 went off correctly and unit 5 came to
      its help.

      then your second attack order went off. and you attacked unit 5 (as
      there were sevivers or you wold get the no attack: such unit error).
      but as unit 3010 was damaged or totaly killed then it did not come to
      the seond battles aid.

      Peter


      > Hi, All.
      >
      > Look at this situation. Unit A attacked units B and C gave order
      > unit A
      > attack B C
      > After battle in unit C saved men. And began a new battle
      > where unit A attacked unit C. Is this bug or not?
      >
      > Orders:
      > unit 9805
      > attack 1310 5
      >
      > Result:
      >
      > ========================================================
      >
      > Workes Guard 2l (9805) attacks Permanent Workers of Mihas in
      Fanders (1310)
      > in jungle (10,30) in Canna!
      >
      > Attackers:
      > Ataman (4487), behind, leader [LEAD], double bow [DBOW], winged
      horse
      > [WING], tactics 5, crossbow 5, riding 5.
      > ...............
      >
      > Defenders:
      > City Guard (52), behind, 600 leaders [LEAD], 600 mithril swords
      [MSWO], 600
      > winged horses [WING], 600 amulets of invulnerability [XXXX], combat
      15,
      > riding 15.
      > Permanent Workers of Mihas in Fanders (1310), behind, 1000
      tribesmen [TMAN].
      > Unit (5), behind, 500 tribesmen [TMAN].
      > Unit (233), behind, tribesman [TMAN].
      >
      > Total Casualties:
      > Permanent Workers of Mihas in Fanders (1310) loses 1497.
      > Damaged units: 5, 1310, 233.
      > Workes Guard 2l (9805) loses 0.
      >
      >
      > Workes Guard 2l (9805) attacks Unit (5) in jungle (10,30) in Canna!
      >
      > Attackers:
      > Ataman (4487), behind, leader [LEAD], double bow [DBOW], winged
      horse
      > [WING], tactics 5, crossbow 5, riding 5.
      > .............
      >
      > Defenders:
      > City Guard (52), behind, 600 leaders [LEAD], 600 mithril swords
      [MSWO], 600
      > winged horses [WING], 600 amulets of invulnerability [XXXX], combat
      15,
      > riding 15.
      > Permanent Workers of Mihas in Fanders (1310), behind, 2 tribesmen
      [TMAN].
      > Unit (5), behind, 2 tribesmen [TMAN].
      >
      >
      > Total Casualties:
      > Workes Guard 2l (9805) loses 2487.
      > Damaged units: 9805, 4108, 6812, 4493, 8415, 9657, 85, 7035, 9035,
      161,
      > 4486, 4, 9034.
      > Unit (5) loses 4.
      > Damaged units: 1310, 5.
      >
      > ========================================================
      >
      > --
      > GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
      > gm@d...
      > http://atlantis.dsnlab.com.ru
      >
      > Origin: Documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very,
      very good; and when it is bad, it is better than nothing.
    • wacky_wizard001
      ... due im not sure here. i beileve even avoiding units help. avoide i think stops then aiding if there on the attackers side. and invisible and non-catchable
      Message 2 of 22 , May 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        > My understanding:
        >
        > Unit 9805 attacked unit 1310 causing a battle between unit 9805 and
        > the faction controlling unit 1310 (including all units except those
        > avoiding and invisible/non-catchable.) Unit 9805 won the battle
        due

        im not sure here. i beileve even avoiding units help. avoide i think
        stops then aiding if there on the attackers side. and invisible and
        non-catchable only stops them being targeted but still help if so.

        > to rout (caused by casualties from the faction owning unit 1310.)
        > Since the faction owning unit 9805 did not take any casualties
        > (Damaged units: 5, 1310, 233 = all defenders,) they did not lose
        > their ability to attack again that turn. Since the second unit to
        be

        id didnt actualy see this until i saw your reply at same time as mine.
        but its interesting in the first battle how the attacking unit did
        not take any damge when he also had to fight the 600 city guards with
        amulets invonrabilty. where the attackers also were them. as there
        are 600 city guards and only 501 units in the defending faction. a
        route should never happen as far as i know you have to take half
        damage to route. so some of the city guards would have to die to get
        a route.

        so the battle had to come to a no conclusion and therefore the
        attacker unless invinsible should have taken damage.


        > attacked on the order line (unit 5) survived the first battle, it
        was
        > still an eligible target and the battle again took place between
        the
        > faction controlling unit 9805 and the faction controlling unit 5
        > (including all units except those avoiding and invisible/non-
        > catchable.) And since the faction controlling unit 5 did not have
        > enough men to cause a rout this time (due to the 600 city guards
        with
        > amulets of invincibility,) unit 9805 lost the battle. Unit 9805
        > should have attacked just the first unit... ;)
        >
        >
        > >
        > > Orders:
        > > unit 9805
        > > attack 1310 5
        > >
        > > Result:
        > >
        > > ========================================================
        > >
        > > Workes Guard 2l (9805) attacks Permanent Workers of Mihas in
        > Fanders (1310)
        > > in jungle (10,30) in Canna!
        > >
        > > Attackers:
        > > Ataman (4487), behind, leader [LEAD], double bow [DBOW], winged
        > horse
        > > [WING], tactics 5, crossbow 5, riding 5.
        > > ...............
        > >
        > > Defenders:
        > > City Guard (52), behind, 600 leaders [LEAD], 600 mithril swords
        > [MSWO], 600
        > > winged horses [WING], 600 amulets of invulnerability [XXXX],
        combat
        > 15,
        > > riding 15.
        > > Permanent Workers of Mihas in Fanders (1310), behind, 1000
        > tribesmen [TMAN].
        > > Unit (5), behind, 500 tribesmen [TMAN].
        > > Unit (233), behind, tribesman [TMAN].
        > >
        > > Total Casualties:
        > > Permanent Workers of Mihas in Fanders (1310) loses 1497.
        > > Damaged units: 5, 1310, 233.
        > > Workes Guard 2l (9805) loses 0.
        > >
        > >
        > > Workes Guard 2l (9805) attacks Unit (5) in jungle (10,30) in
        Canna!
        > >
        > > Attackers:
        > > Ataman (4487), behind, leader [LEAD], double bow [DBOW], winged
        > horse
        > > [WING], tactics 5, crossbow 5, riding 5.
        > > .............
        > >
        > > Defenders:
        > > City Guard (52), behind, 600 leaders [LEAD], 600 mithril swords
        > [MSWO], 600
        > > winged horses [WING], 600 amulets of invulnerability [XXXX],
        combat
        > 15,
        > > riding 15.
        > > Permanent Workers of Mihas in Fanders (1310), behind, 2 tribesmen
        > [TMAN].
        > > Unit (5), behind, 2 tribesmen [TMAN].
        > >
        > >
        > > Total Casualties:
        > > Workes Guard 2l (9805) loses 2487.
        > > Damaged units: 9805, 4108, 6812, 4493, 8415, 9657, 85, 7035,
        9035,
        > 161,
        > > 4486, 4, 9034.
        > > Unit (5) loses 4.
        > > Damaged units: 1310, 5.
        > >
        > > ========================================================
        > >
        > > --
        > > GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
        > > gm@d...
        > > http://atlantis.dsnlab.com.ru
        > >
        > > Origin: Documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very,
        > very good; and when it is bad, it is better than nothing.
      • Jason A. Cortina
        ... No. Defending side had 1501 figures plus 600 city guard, which means 2101 figures total and 1051+ needed for rout. If the TACT-5 gave free round and that
        Message 3 of 22 , May 9, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          On 9 May 2002 at 23:20, wacky_wizard001 wrote:

          >
          > id didnt actualy see this until i saw your reply at same time as mine.
          > but its interesting in the first battle how the attacking unit did
          > not take any damge when he also had to fight the 600 city guards with
          > amulets invonrabilty. where the attackers also were them. as there
          > are 600 city guards and only 501 units in the defending faction. a
          > route should never happen as far as i know you have to take half
          > damage to route. so some of the city guards would have to die to get
          > a route.
          >
          > so the battle had to come to a no conclusion and therefore the
          > attacker unless invinsible should have taken damage.

          No. Defending side had 1501 figures plus 600 city guard, which means
          2101 figures total and 1051+ needed for rout.

          If the TACT-5 gave free round and that many or more were killed in the
          free round, then the rout round accounted for the rest (total of 1497
          lost in first battle).

          The post doesn't show full size/equipment of attacker, but they lost
          2487 and only 300 or so would have been lost in their rout round
          (600 guards with at most 50% chance for kill). So, 4000+ figures
          killed 1051+ in free tactics round so avoided any casualties. Not
          very surprising.



          **********************************************************
          * Jason A. Cortina *
          * Reply to jacortina@... *
          **********************************************************
        • stabliser
          Hi I think you are suggesting that if 2 units are attacked with the first attack order, then the second unit should not be considered for any follow up attack
          Message 4 of 22 , May 10, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi

            I think you are suggesting that if 2 units are attacked with the
            first attack order, then the second unit should not be considered for
            any follow up attack orders.

            However I think this is a rather unlikely situation, since most
            battles in which you soundly trounce your opponent leave to little
            resistance for the second battle to be lost.

            Allowing battles in safe regions where the city guards are invincible
            is bound to create some very messy battles, and quite likely by
            mistake.


            Pete


            --- In atlantisdev@y..., GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
            <gm@d...> wrote:
            > Hi, All.
            > Look at this situation. Unit A attacked units B and C gave order
            > unit A
            > attack B C
            > After battle in unit C saved men. And began a new battle
            > where unit A attacked unit C. Is this bug or not?
            > Orders:
            > unit 9805
            > attack 1310 5
            > Result:
            > ========================================================
            >
            > Workes Guard 2l (9805) attacks Permanent Workers of Mihas in
            Fanders (1310)
            > in jungle (10,30) in Canna!
            >
            > Attackers:
            > Ataman (4487), behind, leader [LEAD], double bow [DBOW], winged
            horse
            > [WING], tactics 5, crossbow 5, riding 5.
            > ...............
            >
            > Defenders:
            > City Guard (52), behind, 600 leaders [LEAD], 600 mithril swords
            [MSWO], 600
            > winged horses [WING], 600 amulets of invulnerability [XXXX], combat
            15,
            > riding 15.
            > Permanent Workers of Mihas in Fanders (1310), behind, 1000
            tribesmen [TMAN].
            > Unit (5), behind, 500 tribesmen [TMAN].
            > Unit (233), behind, tribesman [TMAN].
            >
            > Total Casualties:
            > Permanent Workers of Mihas in Fanders (1310) loses 1497.
            > Damaged units: 5, 1310, 233.
            > Workes Guard 2l (9805) loses 0.
            >
            >
            > Workes Guard 2l (9805) attacks Unit (5) in jungle (10,30) in Canna!
            >
            > Attackers:
            > Ataman (4487), behind, leader [LEAD], double bow [DBOW], winged
            horse
            > [WING], tactics 5, crossbow 5, riding 5.
            > .............
            >
            > Defenders:
            > City Guard (52), behind, 600 leaders [LEAD], 600 mithril swords
            [MSWO], 600
            > winged horses [WING], 600 amulets of invulnerability [XXXX], combat
            15,
            > riding 15.
            > Permanent Workers of Mihas in Fanders (1310), behind, 2 tribesmen
            [TMAN].
            > Unit (5), behind, 2 tribesmen [TMAN].
            >
            >
            > Total Casualties:
            > Workes Guard 2l (9805) loses 2487.
            > Damaged units: 9805, 4108, 6812, 4493, 8415, 9657, 85, 7035, 9035,
            161,
            > 4486, 4, 9034.
            > Unit (5) loses 4.
            > Damaged units: 1310, 5.
            >
            > ========================================================
          • JT
            ... Hash: SHA1 ... The code should have prevented any battle in the starting city if that city was considered safe (which given that the guards had amulets,
            Message 5 of 22 , May 10, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
              Hash: SHA1

              On Fri, 10 May 2002, stabliser wrote:
              > I think you are suggesting that if 2 units are attacked with the first
              > attack order, then the second unit should not be considered for any
              > follow up attack orders.
              >
              > However I think this is a rather unlikely situation, since most battles
              > in which you soundly trounce your opponent leave to little resistance
              > for the second battle to be lost.
              >
              > Allowing battles in safe regions where the city guards are invincible is
              > bound to create some very messy battles, and quite likely by mistake.

              The code should have prevented any battle in the starting city if that
              city was considered 'safe' (which given that the guards had amulets, it
              should have been as those are only given out when starting cities are
              considered safe).. I'm not really sure what happened here, but you should
              definately have your GM look into it.

              - --JT

              - --
              [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
              [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ]
              [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
              [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
              -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
              Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
              Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

              iD8DBQE8285blZQYYI16LJQRAhy5AKCUpQQTGVAHAMLggFOLz2A1vDDPnQCeIJ7+
              j/OtHvOitzSd1tsF9zB9ZUQ=
              =0pFp
              -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
            • tmartel_99
              ... that ... amulets, it ... are ... should ... Why bother with amulets if the city is safe ? I like the action that seems to have happened. The defending
              Message 6 of 22 , May 10, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                > The code should have prevented any battle in the starting city if
                that
                > city was considered 'safe' (which given that the guards had
                amulets, it
                > should have been as those are only given out when starting cities
                are
                > considered safe).. I'm not really sure what happened here, but you
                should
                > definately have your GM look into it.


                Why bother with amulets if the city is "safe"?

                I like the action that seems to have happened. The defending faction
                made a mistake by not setting its units behind. The attacking
                faction took advantage of that and wiped them out (the attacker knew
                that they could win by a rout in the free round and thus not have to
                actually battle the invincible guards.) Good igenuity.

                Unfortunately for them, they made a mistake in their orders - they
                should have attacked just one unit and thus avoid the potential for a
                second battle which would pit them directly against the invincible
                guards.

                Or maybe I am giving them too much credit... :)

                Anyway, a "safe" city would have prevented this, which would be a bad
                thing in my mind.
              • tmartel_99
                ... think ... For the defensive side, if a unit is AVOIDing *and* (unseen and/or uncatchable), then it will not take part in the battle.
                Message 7 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  > im not sure here. i beileve even avoiding units help. avoide i
                  think
                  > stops then aiding if there on the attackers side. and invisible and
                  > non-catchable only stops them being targeted but still help if so.


                  For the defensive side, if a unit is AVOIDing *and* (unseen and/or
                  uncatchable), then it will not take part in the battle.
                • JT
                  ... Hash: SHA1 ... Legacy :) Seriously, that s the only reason. - --JT - -- [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [
                  Message 8 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                    Hash: SHA1

                    On Fri, 10 May 2002, tmartel_99 wrote:
                    > Why bother with amulets if the city is "safe"?

                    Legacy :) Seriously, that's the only reason.

                    - --JT

                    - --
                    [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
                    [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ]
                    [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
                    [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
                    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                    Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
                    Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

                    iD8DBQE82+ShlZQYYI16LJQRAqO1AKCuDGMquYVjJiuhfO3BDfirFQhdWACgnkgA
                    O+GOC48Pe+6bRrUlnirCnSI=
                    =w/GO
                    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                  • GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
                    Hi, tmartel_99, Friday, May 10, 2002, 2:51:43 AM, you wrote: t My understanding: t Unit 9805 attacked unit 1310 causing a battle between unit 9805 and t the
                    Message 9 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi, tmartel_99,

                      Friday, May 10, 2002, 2:51:43 AM, you wrote:

                      t> My understanding:

                      t> Unit 9805 attacked unit 1310 causing a battle between unit 9805 and
                      t> the faction controlling unit 1310 (including all units except those
                      t> avoiding and invisible/non-catchable.) Unit 9805 won the battle due
                      t> to rout (caused by casualties from the faction owning unit 1310.)
                      t> Since the faction owning unit 9805 did not take any casualties
                      t> (Damaged units: 5, 1310, 233 = all defenders,) they did not lose
                      t> their ability to attack again that turn. Since the second unit to be
                      t> attacked on the order line (unit 5) survived the first battle, it was
                      t> still an eligible target and the battle again took place between the
                      t> faction controlling unit 9805 and the faction controlling unit 5
                      t> (including all units except those avoiding and invisible/non-
                      t> catchable.) And since the faction controlling unit 5 did not have
                      t> enough men to cause a rout this time (due to the 600 city guards with
                      t> amulets of invincibility,) unit 9805 lost the battle. Unit 9805
                      t> should have attacked just the first unit... ;)

                      But units 1310 and 5 controlled by ONE faction!

                      --
                      GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
                      gm@...
                      http://atlantis.dsnlab.com.ru
                    • GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
                      Hi, JT, Friday, May 10, 2002, 5:42:51 PM, you wrote: J The code should have prevented any battle in the starting city if that J city was considered safe
                      Message 10 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi, JT,

                        Friday, May 10, 2002, 5:42:51 PM, you wrote:

                        J> The code should have prevented any battle in the starting city if that
                        J> city was considered 'safe' (which given that the guards had amulets, it
                        J> should have been as those are only given out when starting cities are
                        J> considered safe)..

                        In my game starting cities are not safe regions, and battles are
                        allowed.

                        J> I'm not really sure what happened here, but you should
                        J> definately have your GM look into it.

                        Look at the sender :)))

                        --
                        GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
                        gm@...
                        http://atlantis.dsnlab.com.ru
                      • JT
                        ... Hash: SHA1 ... If the starting cities aren t safe you should make sure they don t have amulets of invincibility :) ... Doh.. remember I was responding to a
                        Message 11 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                          Hash: SHA1

                          On Fri, 10 May 2002, GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server wrote:
                          > J> The code should have prevented any battle in the starting city if that
                          > J> city was considered 'safe' (which given that the guards had amulets, it
                          > J> should have been as those are only given out when starting cities are
                          > J> considered safe)..
                          >
                          > In my game starting cities are not safe regions, and battles are
                          > allowed.

                          If the starting cities aren't safe you should make sure they don't have
                          amulets of invincibility :)

                          > J> I'm not really sure what happened here, but you should
                          > J> definately have your GM look into it.
                          >
                          > Look at the sender :)))

                          Doh.. remember I was responding to a response to a response.. I'd
                          forgotten who'd sent the original one.

                          - --JT

                          - --
                          [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
                          [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ]
                          [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
                          [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
                          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                          Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
                          Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

                          iD8DBQE82/e3lZQYYI16LJQRAlUjAKCcG2jwvXHeiIy2kOSJpFZNp63I6QCgjeOV
                          7s51QEFAIxjnKQ7AJtoo+uE=
                          =rl03
                          -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                        • tmartel_99
                          ... and ... those ... due ... 1310.) ... to be ... it was ... the ... have ... with ... Exactly. The code worked as designed. You can attack multiple units
                          Message 12 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In atlantisdev@y..., GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
                            <gm@d...> wrote:
                            > Hi, tmartel_99,
                            >
                            > Friday, May 10, 2002, 2:51:43 AM, you wrote:
                            >
                            > t> My understanding:
                            >
                            > t> Unit 9805 attacked unit 1310 causing a battle between unit 9805
                            and
                            > t> the faction controlling unit 1310 (including all units except
                            those
                            > t> avoiding and invisible/non-catchable.) Unit 9805 won the battle
                            due
                            > t> to rout (caused by casualties from the faction owning unit
                            1310.)
                            > t> Since the faction owning unit 9805 did not take any casualties
                            > t> (Damaged units: 5, 1310, 233 = all defenders,) they did not lose
                            > t> their ability to attack again that turn. Since the second unit
                            to be
                            > t> attacked on the order line (unit 5) survived the first battle,
                            it was
                            > t> still an eligible target and the battle again took place between
                            the
                            > t> faction controlling unit 9805 and the faction controlling unit 5
                            > t> (including all units except those avoiding and invisible/non-
                            > t> catchable.) And since the faction controlling unit 5 did not
                            have
                            > t> enough men to cause a rout this time (due to the 600 city guards
                            with
                            > t> amulets of invincibility,) unit 9805 lost the battle. Unit 9805
                            > t> should have attacked just the first unit... ;)
                            >
                            > But units 1310 and 5 controlled by ONE faction!


                            Exactly. The code worked as designed. You can attack multiple units
                            of the same faction. Each battle will involve all of the defending
                            faction's units (i.e. all units that *are* seen and catchable, and
                            all units that are *not* seen and/or catchable but only if they are
                            *not* avoiding.)

                            So,

                            Unit Z (Z controlled by faction 1)
                            ATTACK A B C (A,B,C controlled by faction 2)

                            Assumption: A,B,C can be seen and caught (otherwise, they cannot be
                            attacked - but they might *join* a battle based on their AVOID flag.)

                            If unit Z wins the first battle and takes no losses, unit Z can then
                            attack unit B (if unit B survived the first battle.) If unit Z wins
                            the second battle and takes no losses, unit Z can then attack unit C
                            (if unit C survived the first and second battles.) Etc.

                            Does that help?
                          • GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
                            Hi, JT, ... J If the starting cities aren t safe you should make sure they don t have J amulets of invincibility :) Why? My players voted and decided, that
                            Message 13 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi, JT,

                              Friday, May 10, 2002, 8:39:18 PM, you wrote:

                              >> In my game starting cities are not safe regions, and battles are
                              >> allowed.

                              J> If the starting cities aren't safe you should make sure they don't have
                              J> amulets of invincibility :)

                              Why? My players voted and decided, that guards mast have amulets and
                              they mast contain 600 leaders. And with this guards battles in
                              starting cities are not rareness.

                              --
                              GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
                              gm@...
                              http://atlantis.dsnlab.com.ru
                            • GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
                              Hi, tmartel_99, Friday, May 10, 2002, 8:57:22 PM, you wrote: t Unit Z (Z controlled by faction 1) t ATTACK A B C (A,B,C controlled by faction 2) t
                              Message 14 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi, tmartel_99,

                                Friday, May 10, 2002, 8:57:22 PM, you wrote:

                                t> Unit Z (Z controlled by faction 1)
                                t> ATTACK A B C (A,B,C controlled by faction 2)

                                t> Assumption: A,B,C can be seen and caught (otherwise, they cannot be
                                t> attacked - but they might *join* a battle based on their AVOID flag.)

                                t> If unit Z wins the first battle and takes no losses, unit Z can then
                                t> attack unit B (if unit B survived the first battle.) If unit Z wins
                                t> the second battle and takes no losses, unit Z can then attack unit C
                                t> (if unit C survived the first and second battles.) Etc.

                                Ok. How about
                                unit Z
                                ATTACK A A A A A A A

                                One skilled leader may attack non skilled peoples again and again.
                                After that will survived only small part of unit A, not around 50%

                                --
                                GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server
                                gm@...
                                http://atlantis.dsnlab.com.ru
                              • JT
                                ... Hash: SHA1 ... Okay.. that just doesn t make a lot of sense to me, but hey.. if your players wanted it, who am I to say them nay. - --JT - --
                                Message 15 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                                  Hash: SHA1

                                  On Fri, 10 May 2002, GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis server wrote:
                                  > J> If the starting cities aren't safe you should make sure they don't have
                                  > J> amulets of invincibility :)
                                  >
                                  > Why? My players voted and decided, that guards mast have amulets and
                                  > they mast contain 600 leaders. And with this guards battles in starting
                                  > cities are not rareness.

                                  Okay.. that just doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but hey.. if your
                                  players wanted it, who am I to say them nay.

                                  - --JT

                                  - --
                                  [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
                                  [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ]
                                  [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
                                  [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
                                  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                                  Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
                                  Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

                                  iD8DBQE83BQxlZQYYI16LJQRAvvYAJsFJrSh0GVmxmmkyNLvdZ+1frAGdwCeKeVp
                                  NawauZp3mBtzeRYdZimJglo=
                                  =aapv
                                  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                                • Stephen Baillie
                                  ... It actually is an interesting mix - it means that starting cities are relatively safe, but that if someone there is really annoying you, you can attack
                                  Message 16 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > > Why? My players voted and decided, that guards mast have amulets
                                    > > and they mast contain 600 leaders. And with this guards battles
                                    > > in starting cities are not rareness.
                                    >
                                    > Okay.. that just doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but hey.. if
                                    > your players wanted it, who am I to say them nay.

                                    It actually is an interesting mix - it means that starting cities are
                                    relatively safe, but that if someone there is really annoying you, you
                                    can attack them - but you had better be prepared to lose the battle! It
                                    prevents someone from hiding under the skirts of the guards, as you can
                                    take them out with a suicide mission / phyrric victory, but it still
                                    provides sufficient protection for newbies. The downside is that it
                                    might play into the hands of large paranoid factions at the expense of newcomers.

                                    Might even be worth making a gamedef for!

                                    A question for the GameMaster of dsnlab Atlantis - what level of OBSE
                                    did you give the guards in the starting cities?

                                    Steve.
                                  • tmartel_99
                                    ... Only if a faction screws up and does not set his units to BEHIND-1. Setting all your units to be behind a unit with amulets of invincibility (i.e. city
                                    Message 17 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > It prevents someone from hiding under the skirts of the guards, as
                                      > you can take them out with a suicide mission / phyrric victory,


                                      Only if a faction screws up and does not set his units to BEHIND-1.
                                      Setting all your units to be behind a unit with amulets of
                                      invincibility (i.e. city guardsmen in this case) makes them
                                      completely safe.
                                    • wacky_wizard001
                                      ... as ... 1. ... This is however easier to say then do. this assumes that the attack on the city hex was expected. but if the units being set behind are
                                      Message 18 of 22 , May 10, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In atlantisdev@y..., "tmartel_99" <tmartel_99@y...> wrote:
                                        > > It prevents someone from hiding under the skirts of the guards,
                                        as
                                        > > you can take them out with a suicide mission / phyrric victory,
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Only if a faction screws up and does not set his units to BEHIND-
                                        1.
                                        > Setting all your units to be behind a unit with amulets of
                                        > invincibility (i.e. city guardsmen in this case) makes them
                                        > completely safe.

                                        This is however easier to say then do. this assumes that the attack
                                        on the city hex was expected. but if the units being set behind are
                                        needed to defend elswere then they may need to be left in front line.

                                        as this also incudes units from surronding hexes. so the units also
                                        next to the starting city has to be set the same (hold at least wich
                                        still has an efect on other battles). and now that you make 1 battle
                                        safe you can now weaken the outcome of any battle up to two hexes
                                        away from the starting city. as if a battle two hexes away ocures
                                        then the hex between the battle and the starting city want go to
                                        there aid either.

                                        as for Attack A A A A
                                        this would be wrong. as when you give an order you then would always
                                        use it to make sure they dont get away.

                                        but ATTACK A B is not realy ATTACK A and B it is actualy ATTACK A and
                                        ATTACK B.

                                        best way to stop this (if its not already done as i have never tryed
                                        it) is to flag the unit of an attack order as untuchable. this still
                                        allows multi attacks but not on the same unit.

                                        Peter
                                      • Zdenek Dvorak
                                        Hello. ... This is still wrong; the attack is against faction, not unit (as both rules state and code implements) if it is visible. Therefore the order attack
                                        Message 19 of 22 , May 11, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hello.

                                          >as for Attack A A A A
                                          >this would be wrong. as when you give an order you then would always
                                          >use it to make sure they dont get away.
                                          >
                                          >but ATTACK A B is not realy ATTACK A and B it is actualy ATTACK A and
                                          >ATTACK B.
                                          >
                                          >best way to stop this (if its not already done as i have never tryed
                                          >it) is to flag the unit of an attack order as untuchable. this still
                                          >allows multi attacks but not on the same unit.

                                          This is still wrong; the attack is against faction, not unit (as both
                                          rules state and code implements) if it is visible. Therefore the order

                                          attack a b c

                                          where a, b, c are three revealed units of a single faction should only
                                          result
                                          into one attack (as otherwise the rout is simply senseless, as by attacking
                                          all
                                          units you might simply eliminate all of enemy units). On the other hand, if
                                          these units were not revealed, there should be three attacks.

                                          Even this is of course wrong (at least because I don't believe it is
                                          implementable
                                          so that all the possible situations are handled :-).

                                          Zdenek

                                          _________________________________________________________________
                                          Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
                                        • wacky_wizard001
                                          ... always ... and ... tryed ... still ... both ... order actualy even though it is known as attacking the faction. it is still realy an attack on the unit. as
                                          Message 20 of 22 , May 11, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In atlantisdev@y..., "Zdenek Dvorak" <rakdver@h...> wrote:
                                            > Hello.
                                            >
                                            > >as for Attack A A A A
                                            > >this would be wrong. as when you give an order you then would
                                            always
                                            > >use it to make sure they dont get away.
                                            > >
                                            > >but ATTACK A B is not realy ATTACK A and B it is actualy ATTACK A
                                            and
                                            > >ATTACK B.
                                            > >
                                            > >best way to stop this (if its not already done as i have never
                                            tryed
                                            > >it) is to flag the unit of an attack order as untuchable. this
                                            still
                                            > >allows multi attacks but not on the same unit.
                                            >
                                            > This is still wrong; the attack is against faction, not unit (as
                                            both
                                            > rules state and code implements) if it is visible. Therefore the
                                            order

                                            actualy even though it is known as attacking the faction. it is still
                                            realy an attack on the unit. as it is targeted.
                                            its just like going into a pub, walking up and start to try and thump
                                            a gang member. the attack was on the man you want to hit. but the bar
                                            fight that ensured after it was against the gang.
                                            so yes the attack is against the unit but the fight is against the
                                            faction. i know there are other opinions.but thats mine. as i know
                                            its been said that it was ment to be an attack against a faction. but
                                            it had to be on a unit so that someone not showing faction numbers
                                            can still be attacked. but this still just proves that it is realy
                                            and attack on a unit not a faction. as if others are showing there
                                            faction they could have been attacked. a unit was picked on for some
                                            reason (probably for not revealing) and his mates joined in.

                                            > attack a b c
                                            >
                                            > where a, b, c are three revealed units of a single faction should
                                            only
                                            > result
                                            > into one attack (as otherwise the rout is simply senseless, as by
                                            attacking
                                            > all
                                            > units you might simply eliminate all of enemy units). On the other
                                            hand, if
                                            > these units were not revealed, there should be three attacks.
                                            >
                                            > Even this is of course wrong (at least because I don't believe it
                                            is
                                            > implementable
                                            > so that all the possible situations are handled :-).

                                            it probably is implementable. first place i look at without knowing
                                            anything about the combat system is to not allow damaged units to be
                                            targeted by an attack order. i know this flag exists as its used to
                                            stop them joining in any other fights. as the ones who did not join
                                            in the first fight are ones that past the criteria of not_cachable or
                                            invisable and avoiding then they most likely they cant be attacked
                                            anyway.

                                            only place i can see this a problam is if the faction is attacked in
                                            two adjasent hexes. so once again without knowing what flags or
                                            ordering is done in the combat system. to counter this you could add
                                            a flag to a free spot (maybe the damaged flag dosnt use all the bits
                                            in its bytes) to say if they were damaged in a combat in the hex they
                                            are in. and this flag is use to prevent being the target of an attack
                                            order.


                                            while on this topice. can any one say what happens if a combat in hex
                                            A causes units from hex B to join in and unit from hex B is damaged
                                            so he cant be involved in another attack (unless he is the target).
                                            what happens if he is on gaurd and someone advances into the hex. is
                                            the block nulled as he cant attack to repell the advener (therfore
                                            the advancing unit just move in). or dos the attack go ahead as the
                                            advancing unit targeted him and therefore must fight.
                                            i believe its the second. but would like this confirmed.

                                            Peter
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.