I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Here is the setup. Two huge enemy armies, one sitting in a castle,
the other in the open. A task force teleports and besieges the
castle. On the same time, the armies move against each other.
The army in the castle someone avoids the siege, somehow misses
the incoming horde, and the two armies end up trading places.

I call it a bug. And a rather serious one, that I think just
lost me a game. I realize that one could say that this is just
the engine working as designed, i.e. armies moving into friendly
provinces. What do you think?

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Well, I might agree that it's a bug, in that in produces behaviour that doesn't fit the gameworld.... but I wouldn't agree that it's a 'serious' one. I imagine that this sort of event would only occur quite rarely, especially as the two armies usually fight in one province or another.
Presumably the issue is that being besieged stops move orders from being given but not from being carried out if they're already assigned.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

I think more study is in order to determine if it was caused by the designed chance that armies don't meet when moving in opposite directions (which I don't think I've ever seen with two large armies) or some other cause (due to the teleporting group?).

BTW, I assume after this move, the teleporters and friends are beseiging the castle, not actually inside it, correct? And of course, stealth wasn't involved, right?

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

No stealth, and yes the castle was besieged. And there should be no
chance that armies over 600 men with 50 commanders each miss each other.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

i am confused at what you are saying...

an enemy teleporting task force would land and besiege, your task force would land inside the castle.

a break seiging army would fight before the storm castle took effect, and if they won, the storm wouldn't happen.

what it sounds like is you broke seige, lost, your army routed, the stormers won.... and that would mean the teleporters are routed as well.... unless they are your army beseiging the castle, in which case thats weird.

we need more information or at least to have it worded better.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

I found this bug a while back. What happens is that the server does not recheck movement orders for an army unless that army is attacked. Therefore, if you teleport in forces that would disrupt movement without actually attacking the force in question, it will have no effect.

In the case I tested there was only one province that an army could move through in order to get to a second prov. But I teleported an SC in to cap the middle prov. The army moved "through" that province regardless of the fact that I held it. It is the same scenario for you except that the province in question just happened to be containing a castle (which is what prevented combat with the main force from taking place).

It's definitely a bug. Whether anything will be done about it is anyone's guess. I brought it up... I dont even recall how long ago.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Oh, and as for the armies "switching places" thats not technically what happened. The order of events would have been as follows:

*Magic Phase: Teleporters gain control of castle prov
...
*Friendly Move Phase: Your army moves to the (now friendly) castle prov
*Attacking Move Phase: Enemy army moves into your (now vacant) prov

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

I think that Ironhawk got it EXACTLY right. But you must agree
that it makes no sense, as the last step is basically:

The enemy army moves, unopposed, out of a besieged castle.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

I keep hearing veterans say they've never seen armies miss each other, but since becoming aware of the possibility I've seen it a couple of times with small armies. Yesterday in a SP game (which is all I play) I had 1 Atavi chieftain coming out of a castle miss 40-odd C'tisians attacking the castle.

I'm not sure what formula the game uses to determine whether armies meet, but it's not a bug, just part of the difference between IGO-UGO vs. WEGO. You can only be in one province each turn, and although Illwinter decided to allow for the possibility of armies on the move meeting up and fighting, it's not realistic that they're going to do so every time. It would be a nice game option though if you could specify whether a given army is *trying* to engage a moving enemy (lots of pickets, scouting forces, etc.) or trying to keep a low profile and mainly trying to move into its destination province.

-Max

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Yeah the paradox of players reporting the "armies missing" bug and vets never seeing it is an odd one. I have never seen it in all my games. But since people have mentioned it a lot I've been trying to keep an eye out for it. Still nothing tho.

This leads me to believe that perhaps the veterans are familiar with some nuance of dominions behavior that isnt readily known to new players? My explaination of the armies-missing scenario above is a case-in-point. To an inexperienced player it would certainly seem as tho they missed when, technically, they had not.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

I think that it`s a bug.
But i didn't get clear is what happened to the army moving to the castle. They attacked the teleporters or were put inside the castle?

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Ironhawk,

Another possibility might be that it somehow works differently in SP than in MP. Given how Dominions is designed I don't see how that would happen, though--perhaps your explanation is more likely.

-Max

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Max, your Atavi is stealthy, I believe...Non-stealth units can't get out of a sieged castle, even if they fly, so there's no chace for a miss in that case.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Ya, I agree. BTW, I was saying I thought I hadn't ever seen it with "large" armies. I have seen it with small forces.

This sounds like it's a buggy side-effect of the teleportation, however.

PvK

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Actually, non-stealth units can get out of a sieged castle as long due to another movement bug I and Kaljamaha just discovered.

Stealthy commanders can sneak out of a castle. If you give them move orders, then give the m a squad of non-stealthy units, the move orders remain but only change from 'Sneak' to 'Move' and the army gets out of the castle. They can either move to a neighboring friendly province or attack a neighboring hostile province, but they WILL get out of the castle.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Edi,

It sounds like Ironhawk has tested and isolated a significant bug here. Is this not worthy of inclusion on the short list?

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

I seem to recall shamelessly exploiting the "give a stealthy commander non-stealth troops" bug in dom2.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Yes, it is.

However, remember what happened in this thread? I suppose it's time I expanded somewhat on the things I said there.

If something that is clearly an issue is reported and does not get shortlisted even after several days despite my activity here, then the probability of it having been overlooked or forgotten obviously increases and reminders could be in order.

If it's a completely new thread we're talking about (like here), I do not like to be immediately prodded and second-guessed on my timetables. The above post of mine was made, after a whole evening of playing Dom3 with Kaljamaha (hence not reading the forums at all during that time), at 1 am, approximately one minute before I went to bed so I'd wake up in time for my 8 am work shift (phone tech support, so I have opportunities for posting from work on breaks and idle time). I'm active in these forums, meaning I do read most threads, so this sort of things I WILL notice. But the fact that they do not appear on the shortlist two seconds after being posted, even if I have entered a post or two in the thread, does not mean that they are being ignored.

If you feel I am neglecting my duties as the moderator in charge of managing bug/issues reporting, then you can ask me by PM or bring it up with another moderator. This is the second time I'm getting just short of a public accusation of neglecting my duties from you and the second time I'm required to address it.

If I have to bring these points up again in the future, especially to the same people, it's going to be open flames from the get-go. Do I make myself clear?

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Edi,

It looked to me like a misguided attempt at being helpful by calling your attention to something, without thinking about the fact that invoking somebody's name doesn't automatically PM them. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I could imagine making that mistake myself.

Thanks for the work you do so we don't have to. : )

-Max

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Thanks, MW.

It probably was, but there is a proper way to go about these things. If things are formulated in a manner that assumes I am supposed to be on a 24/7 lookout for things posted here, in essence being "Why isn't this already up there, what's the delay?", it's going to get a poor reaction.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

I might as well hurl my thoughts in here, since you're all clamouring to hear them;

Edi: Don't be so touchy. I think you're misreading Hellboy. You also shouldn't really be threatening people with flames, since they break the forums rules non? The silent majority appreciate what you've done and I don't see anyone else lining up to do it.

Hellboy: Next time you might as well stick it in the buglist discussion thread yourself, in the preferred format. Takes a little bit more time, but that way it's more likely to be fixed. Helps everyone out.

Both: Chill. This is a community. You're both active in it and help keep it going. You're on the same side, effectively.

Sombre: Don't be so patronising, even if you are right. You come across as a dick.

Oh, good point.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Sombre:

I know he almost certainly doesn't mean it the way it comes across, but that hardly lessens the first impact. The way it was formulated was very much like getting slapped across the face.

I've suffered from the occasional instance of foot-in-mouth muyself and it isn't once or twice that I've said sorry for some misunderstandings (and that's just these forums). If it happens occasionally in unrelated context, not so bad, you don't make omelettes without breaking eggs after all. But when it happens in the same way in the same context so as to be a virtual repeat of a previous not-so-long-ago occasion, that tends to garner a stronger reaction.

It's also the implications: I feel very strongly about my duties toward the community, about the responsibility I was given. So if it appears as if my carrying them out is under question when not warranted, I'm liable to go up in flames instantly.

On the other hand, if somebody flames me to a cinder over my views on some issue that is a matter of opinion, I'll cheerfully take it on the chin and return the favor and nothing to it afterward, it's all cool.

I do appreciate your words, though.

Also, regarding the last two lines of your post: The medical bill for the broken ribs is in the mail, it has GOT to be illegal somewhere to make people laugh that hard... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Edi,

I get the point (now), and I'm sorry (especially sorry that this came up twice). I do greatly appreciate the work that you do.

My apologies,

Hellboy.

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

It's okay. Apology accepted. I do happen to like you and see a lot of good qualities in you, which might have played its own part in how this turned out. It's all cool now.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: I call this a bug... Is it?
 

Well, I'm a man of many flaws, but I do have at least one redeeming quality: when I screw up, I admit it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif