patch 2.08 is out

I personally wouldn't call it a design flaw as much as it was a limitation of the engine. You have commonly called things design flaws in the past which were ignorance. Whereas I don't think the solution at current accurately describes some sort of fantasy game which there is no way to describe it would or wouldn't happen logically, but I would hardly call it a "design flaw".

Just the concept that they changed the engine so that the game wouldn't crash when such a stalemate happens means they have thought about it, and this is the solution they have used.

I'm sure you'd get much more of a positive of a reaction from the Dev's if you didn't try to point out everything as a flaw instead of a limitation.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Zen:
Just the concept that they changed the engine so that the game wouldn't crash when such a stalemate happens means they have thought about it, and this is the solution they have used.

Whether what IW chose as the solution is a "flaw" depends on perspective, and it also depends on whether the very reasonable suggestion that's been made, namely that of auto-retreating into adjacent provinces, was considered by the devs at the time they decided to opt for auto-kill.

I do agree with you, though, that there are more tactful ways to approach the topic than what we've seen.

Originally posted by Arryn:
Whether what IW chose as the solution is a "flaw" depends on perspective, and it also depends on whether the very reasonable suggestion that's been made, namely that of auto-retreating into adjacent provinces, was considered by the devs at the time they decided to opt for auto-kill.

Well as Kris said, what happens with the immobile units and how are they supposed to Flee? Does that mean that they have to code things specifically for immobiles? And what about if it's in a Castle? Why would the defender flee if he's holding his castle in a titanic struggle? And does he die if he has nowhere to flee to?

There are more ramifications than just blanket ones, which have to be considered and considered for coding.

I'm not saying that something couldn't, wouldn't shouldn't be implemented, but it's hardly cut and dry.

[ February 19, 2004, 01:12: Message edited by: Zen ]

[Arryn]

Zen, as usual you raise valid points. This time in regards to immobile pretenders. Personally, I feel it's silly to just assume that an immobile defender is killed after 50 rounds when the pretender and the intrinsic castle defenses (ie: ballistae, etc) are still alive.

EDIT: The problem comes in that if mobile pretenders auto-retreat, and immobile ones don't (perhaps auto-winning), then game balance goes right out the arrow slit.

[ February 19, 2004, 01:23: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[Zapmeister]

Zen is spot on. The devs get to choose between the status quo, or opening a can of worms that will not leave the critics satisfied until every alleged "unrealistic" scenario is addressed.

If I were a developer in this position, I know which I'd choose. There are way more important issues to worry about.

[Gateway103]

(humour)

Or you can just think that the Gods to whom the Wish spell is directed to are watching every battle as well as the development in whatever lands as "entertainment".

And they simply got bored after the 40-turn time limit and decided to will the combatants out of existence so as to relieve themselves of the boredom (additional "entertainment"). And to be impartial, they willed all sides into nothingness, so as not to favor anybody.

(/humour)

-Gateway103

[navrunner]

Was the "Automeele: molesting the dead" error fixed in this patch?
I guess there is actually two parts to this question:
1) Was the situation that caused this error fixed so that it will not occur with new, 2.08, games?
2) Or was the error fixed so that old, 2.06, games that got the error will no longer generate the error?
3) Yes, I cannot count , the occurance of this error is low and is toward the bottom of the list?