[triqui]

kasnavada said:

All of this is details and possibilities. There are a dozen solutions to this, and that's not my game. I can however, tell you a system that makes sense, of course :

The province enters a contested state where no one controls it, change the tax, control it, assassination targets anyone not of your nation (I assume the assassin is able to see the difference between his own race and the other ones), the contested province could stay that way for years. Both armies would be in the province too, and the contested state would prevent you from giving them orders.

I dont think that makes any sense from a thematic point of view. Two warriors fighting in the same province for years with no rest? That destroy my suspension of disbelief.

The very point of the proposal I made is to change the fact that there is a winner in that fight. As far as provoking more "complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle" that is what every single change to the fight system does, so obviously, this one would also cause some.

I still it does not make sense from a game design point of view. Games HAVE rules to avoid infinite cycles for a reason. Chess have a rule to end the game if there is a perpetual check situation for example.

With all due respect, I really don't get why you put a point of stopping any thoughts of an answer that work to point the "impossibilies" that are easily bypassed,

Becouse of a science principle called "occam razor". It *^might^* be possible to get a solution that avoid every possible danger and exploit in a perpetually stalled province (imagine a battle like that in someones capitol...). The point is.. WHY bothering with it? Finishing the battle at a point (turn 50) is easier and cleaner. The only problem is when some unit does not behave as it is supposed in the turn limit (like not retreating at turn 50). Otherwise, it is a thousand miles ahead a better solution than putting a province in some weird limbo for several months.