possible bug?

Dogboy · #1 August 9th, 2007, 12:54 PM

We are playing v 3.08 multiplayer. This turn, Man stormed Ulm's castle and took it. He then was informed that the newly stormed castle was beseiged by barbarians. A barbarian attack is a common random event. But, according to the turn sequence, (pp. 71-72) in the manual, random events should occur 10th (10: Random events, "Like it says. This is where theose Fortune/Misfortune events happen"), before resolution of battles ("14, Movement battles: battles caused by movement are resolved"), followed by 15 Castle storming: Castles are stormed and battles resolved. One might imagine that the random event moves the barbarians into the province after which battles occur in a random order. But even if that is true, storming (15) should occur after movement battles (14). Any theories about why this could happen, or is this a genuine bug? If so, what should I do by way of allerting Illwinger/Shrapnel?

I also observed on the same turn that there was a graphics bug in the storming battle. The walls of the castle were transparent grids. I've played multiple games with v 3.08 and not found this bug before.

Thanks.

thejeff · #2 August 9th, 2007, 01:05 PM

Known bug. On the shortlist:

# EVT Siege & Indie Monsters: If a castle is under siege and the province is hit with an event that causes a monster attack (barbarian horde, knights, vine men, vampire count, necromancer, Bogus etc), nothing happens. The siege goes on as usual and after the sieging army successfully storms the castle or the defender successfully breaks the siege and kicks the invaders out, the monsters from the event emerge out of timewarp and attack the victorious player, shutting him inside the castle and requiring another break siege. Presumably such independent army should attack the besieging army on the turn it appears.

Dogboy · #3 August 9th, 2007, 01:32 PM

Thanks for clarifying! So, if I re-ran the turn, they would in all likelihood well appear anyway, unless the barbarian horde happened to arrive on the current turn. We'll just assume that the barbarians were led by a cowardly barbarian chief who saw the sieging army and held back, but then regretted his cowardice and is now overcompensating by sieging the castle.