User avatar
Emx77
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:53 pm
Location: Sarajevo, BiH
Contact: Website

Game engine breaking his own rules?

Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:54 pm

First, this is what manual says about entering hostile territory:

Hostile territory is defined as being a region in which a player has less than 6% military control. Entering such regions with friendly forces has the following effects: A Force that enters a hostile region automatically
assumes an Offensive Posture. (Forces consisting of cavalry Units or support Units ignore this rule when transiting hostile territory.)



I'm experiencing following situation:

1.) Thurn Army (Protestants) decided to enter Krems region. Sitting in Krems there is HRE Army under count Bucquoy in defense posture. Region is under 100% HRE military control.
2.) Thurn army arrives in Kerms at day 18. According to rule described in manual, Protestant army should automatically assume an Offensive posture (resulting in attack and battle).
3.) In reports I can find line which says: "Count Bucquoy' Detachment engaged Protestants in region Krems, at day 19". However, battle didn't happen.
4.) Now, at the beginning of next planning phase, we have two opposing armies sitting in same region. Region is still under 100% HRE military control.

Image

It seems that game engine violates rule described in manual. As far as I remember, this rule is present in other games on same engine and it's working as described in manual.

If it is not bug what is other explanation for such behavior? Saves attached.
Attachments
TYW_Bohemian_Revolt.zip
(178.1 KiB) Downloaded 155 times

allan_boa
Colonel
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:54 pm
Location: France

Sat Sep 19, 2015 2:21 pm

Good point ! And good question.

I have an additional question, not necessarily related: why are the two provinces south of Budweiss are highlighted in red ?

User avatar
Emx77
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:53 pm
Location: Sarajevo, BiH
Contact: Website

Sat Sep 19, 2015 2:30 pm

allan_boa wrote:I have an additional question, not necessarily related: why are the two provinces south of Budweiss are highlighted in red ?


At screenshot Von Thurn is selected. He cannot pass south in HRE controlled provinces (both red provinces are under 100% HRE military control). In order to proceed Von Thurn first has to defeat count Bucquoy army and to achieve military control over Krems.

User avatar
Philo32b
Captain
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 5:36 am

Sat Sep 19, 2015 2:55 pm

This is from the GameLogic file:

ctlContested = 5 // Minimum control gained upon entering a region (if not passive)

So it is odd that the Catholics still have 100% military control. I assume the Protestants entered the territory in a non-passive state?

User avatar
Emx77
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:53 pm
Location: Sarajevo, BiH
Contact: Website

Sat Sep 19, 2015 3:06 pm

Philo32b wrote:This is from the GameLogic file:

ctlContested = 5 // Minimum control gained upon entering a region (if not passive)

So it is odd that the Catholics still have 100% military control. I assume the Protestants entered the territory in a non-passive state?


This is AI plan for that turn:

Image

Icon besides Thurn Army indicates that AI is targeting one of HRE stacks (probably Bucquoy). Even if they entered in passive posture I think they should switch to offensive because they don't have at least 6% military control. Also, note that at the end of turn resolution Von Thurn is in defensive, not passive posture. Additional puzzle which doesn't correspond well with "pasive posture theory" is engine message: "Count Bucquoy' Detachment engaged Protestants in region Krems, at day 19". It seems there was a engagement but without battle report.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:19 pm

Text message might be misleading. They probably tried to engage to enemy.

User avatar
Emx77
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:53 pm
Location: Sarajevo, BiH
Contact: Website

Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:49 pm

Ace wrote:Text message might be misleading. They probably tried to engage to enemy.


Ace, I know that you are very proficient in AGE engine (at least you, Orso and couple of others have always useful tips, comments and explanations in CWII forum). Do you have any idea why engagement failed? I replied that turn couple of times with same result. If I understand rules correctly, enemy stack entering into hostile territory should always engage in battle (or retreat if he is attacking against much stronger enemy). But here, enemy stack simply switched to defense posture and stayed in province together with enemy army. it seems like bug or something not documented in rules.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25659
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Mon Sep 21, 2015 8:59 am

The rule is in fact 'an enemy entering a region under 5% MC will switch to offensive posture', but this don't mean combat is 'automatic'. It can still be aborted because of a retreat before battle.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Emx77
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:53 pm
Location: Sarajevo, BiH
Contact: Website

Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:11 pm

Pocus wrote:The rule is in fact 'an enemy entering a region under 5% MC will switch to offensive posture', but this don't mean combat is 'automatic'. It can still be aborted because of a retreat before battle.


Pocus, failed engagement started on day 19. That left 11 days for Von Thurn to retreat from enemy province. Instead of retreat, he stayed. Why? My best guess is because low cohesion.

Return to “Thirty Years War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests