|
|
|
 |
|

August 26th, 2008, 10:57 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,099
Thanks: 56
Thanked 122 Times in 48 Posts
|
|
Re: Movement priority
In my experience, missing a confrontation between two armies heading for each other only happens when one of them flies. One should be careful to observe the means by which an army moves. Sailing and flying may very well act differently then normal movement.
|

August 26th, 2008, 11:06 PM
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 525
Thanks: 17
Thanked 17 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: Movement priority
Quote:
Originally Posted by AreaOfEffect
In my experience, missing a confrontation between two armies heading for each other only happens when one of them flies. One should be careful to observe the means by which an army moves. Sailing and flying may very well act differently then normal movement.
|
That is not true. In a game I am playing, my SC with attacked an enemy's province, while his mage with some calvaries counterattacked. Both armies are regular foot movement type. They bypass each other and fought in their destinations respectively.
Last edited by konming; August 26th, 2008 at 11:16 PM..
|

August 26th, 2008, 11:26 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,099
Thanks: 56
Thanked 122 Times in 48 Posts
|
|
Re: Movement priority
Quote:
Originally Posted by konming
That is not true. In a game I am playing, my SC with attacked an enemy's province, while his mage with some calvaries counterattacked. Both armies are regular foot movement type. They bypass each other and fought in their destinations respectively.
|
Well, I did start by saying "in my experience".  I do however believe that flying increases the chance of a bypass. Size of respective armies may also play a roll and would explain the case you described.
|

August 26th, 2008, 11:38 PM
|
 |
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 148
Thanks: 9
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Movement priority
My experience is as follows:
Situation One:
A1-> B2 (player A in province 1 moving to province 2 owned by player B)
B2-> A1
Possible outcomes are a) battle in 1; b) battle in 2; c) both armies remain at their province; d) A end up in 2 and B end up in 1.
Antidotal evidence suggest that d) is very unlikely under normal circumstances. Virtually all (but may not be 100%) occurrence that I can remember have either one army having flight or stealth (but moving normally), or one army being very small.
Situation Two:
A1 -> B3
B2 -> A1
In my experience battles do sometimes occur at province 1. However, on those occasions that I can remember B has a castle at province 1. So it is possible that for movement purposes province 1 might still be considered to be owned by B (hence B moves before A). Nevertheless, I think a more likely answer is that movement order in this situation is random.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Ming For This Useful Post:
|
|

August 27th, 2008, 02:34 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Irving, TX
Posts: 3,207
Thanks: 54
Thanked 60 Times in 35 Posts
|
|
Re: Movement priority
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ming
My experience is as follows:
Situation One:
A1-> B2 (player A in province 1 moving to province 2 owned by player B)
B2-> A1
Possible outcomes are a) battle in 1; b) battle in 2; c) both armies remain at their province; d) A end up in 2 and B end up in 1.
Antidotal evidence suggest that d) is very unlikely under normal circumstances. Virtually all (but may not be 100%) occurrence that I can remember have either one army having flight or stealth (but moving normally), or one army being very small.
Situation Two:
A1 -> B3
B2 -> A1
In my experience battles do sometimes occur at province 1. However, on those occasions that I can remember B has a castle at province 1. So it is possible that for movement purposes province 1 might still be considered to be owned by B (hence B moves before A). Nevertheless, I think a more likely answer is that movement order in this situation is random.
|
Antidotal. I think you mean anecdotal. Other than that, the math is way too comlicated for me. All I know is: if an army moves away from an attacking army, they will not enage.
|

August 27th, 2008, 02:52 AM
|
 |
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 148
Thanks: 9
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Movement priority
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lingchih
Antidotal. I think you mean anecdotal.
|
You got me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lingchih
All I know is: if an army moves away from an attacking army, they will not enage.
|
Situation Two would be an exception to what you know. 
|

August 27th, 2008, 08:37 AM
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,327
Thanks: 4
Thanked 133 Times in 117 Posts
|
|
Re: Movement priority
Is it also possible in your situation Two, that a small force attacked 1 from 3 and that kept A from moving so the army from 2 also arrived and they all fought in 1?
There is (was?) also a rare bug that prevents movement between hostile provinces. That could add to the confusion.
|

August 27th, 2008, 11:39 AM
|
 |
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 148
Thanks: 9
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Movement priority
Quote:
Originally Posted by thejeff
Is it also possible in your situation Two, that a small force attacked 1 from 3 and that kept A from moving so the army from 2 also arrived and they all fought in 1?
|
Good point. I guess it is possible although the second force would need to be very small or invisible to me to escape my attention at the time.
|

August 27th, 2008, 01:28 PM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Forlì, Italy
Posts: 322
Thanks: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Movement priority
So I was remembering right ... it is an obscure matter ....
|

August 27th, 2008, 03:39 PM
|
 |
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chambéry (France)
Posts: 511
Thanks: 47
Thanked 19 Times in 14 Posts
|
|
Re: Movement priority
Sure 
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|