Armies moving against each other
 

The manual suggests that when two big armies move against each other, the
larger is somewhat likely to push back the smaller one, and invade the
enemy province. I'm playing Ermor in a test game, and moved four 500+
armies against Ulm. Not once, but four times out of four, my hordes were
pushed back by armies numbering in the twenties.

Can one of the developers look into it? I would not be surprised if a
comparison operator is inverted somewhere. Or maybe undeads' numerical
superiority does not count.

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

I can also verify this unfortunate event. It's happened even in a recent MP game where my 100 mercenary troops were pushed back by an army of 15 men.

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

IF that's indeed the case, it looks like the comparison sign is switched the wrong way around or something equally simple that doesn't throw up code errors but results in strange behavior. Worth looking into.

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

I have always thought it was related to the slowest speed in the army, with a caveat that armies may not be detected.

As Ermor is exceedingly slow, this usually means the location of the battlefield is usually the opponents choice.

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

I hope this is not what's happening... otherwise a fast small army could prevent a stronger opponent from advancing causing balance concerns.

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

I've had this happen as well, although not with the disparity you have.

Twice I've had my army try to invade a province and twice I've been pushed back and both times I won the battle. However that was largely due to spells as I was outnumbered and outclassed in troops both times so it may be largey random with people just not noticing when the huge army attacks and pushes back the smaller one.

Another worrying thought I had was that movement order may be determined by unit ID, so certain commanders will keep being pushed back due to an attribute you can't see...

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

I have an impression that sometimes the movement order is determined by nation number(especially when summon the unique units or an army move into an enemy province from where the opponent launch attack to somewhere else). It seems like the nation with the smaller nation number always take action first.

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

If anyone bothers to set up a few tests and run them, it would be much appreciated.

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

This leading to armies being prevented moves with scouts on retreat orders...

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

I happened to me on a recent game. I was pushed back by a smaller army that lost the fight. I just makes no sense...

The modification I would suggest when armies fight each other (and I'm not even speaking of the problems it causes when armies regroup) is make them fight regardless of movement and only then decide where the armies move (or not). The worst being against the AI where I had the case where a dozen units blocked a 500-man army for 7 turns. Or just let the largest force push the other one around.

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

I am 99,99% sure that if scouts is set to move from A to B and enemy army from B to A both moves are resolved and there are 2 battles. So you cannot stop enemy army with scout. I wonder if stealth has anything to do with that.

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

You can stop an army with scouts. It's just not likely.

Armies can pass each other and either can stop the other. I believe the larger is supposed to complete it's move more often, but it's hard to show that.

kasnavada: Having the armies fight before movement would be problematic. Whose dominion? Whose temperature? Which terrain? Whose PD gets to fight? What about reinforcements to the province you're attacking from? Or attacks from multiple provinces?

Re: Armies moving against each other
 

True.

About dominion : it currently is "random", depends of the one that is chosen as defender. Therefore it isn't any better than the solution I propose is (could be half or the same system).
About PD : same as above, the one chosen as defender gets it. The solution I propose is the middle, so there would not be any PD, which makes more sense. PD would trigger another battle afterward though.
About terrain : same as above. It's currently randomly chosen. Being in the middle, it would still be at worst randomly chosen, or the "best" solution would be to create new frontier battlefields with some characteristics of both.
About reinforcements : the one being pushed back in that situation doesn't get reinforcement, whereas the one that has the chance of going where it's ordered gets it. It's much more unfair than the middle ground solution in my opinion, where the reinforcement would join the fight against the PD.

Exemple (the idea I propose) :
- A1 moves to B
- A2 moves to B
- B moves to A1
Fights : B fights A1. If A1 win, it moves to B where it is joined by A2 (that did not fight). If B wins against A1 : it doesn't fights A2, and A2 gets the provinces where B came from.

The current system is (same movements) : B randomly fights A1+A2 (gets trashed) or just A1 depending on the movement being done or not, with A2 taking the B province.

In my opinion, what I propose is not in any way worse than what currently "works". Problem remain, of course, but problems where there at the beginning and forever, and are mostly irreparable due to the choice of simultaneous movement.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif

About joint attack, the only solution would be to be able to set a "joint attack" command, so armies would not be separated. I do not know if it's possible already.

EDIT : error in one scenario. Added joint attack possibility.