Page 1 of 1
This doesn't seem right...
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:13 am
by Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
I got a pretty messed up result during a battle in 1.14. I've never posted pictures and files so I hope this can be used by the powers that be
. I included the zipped backup file of the turn I think and I hope this pic works.
Anyways, unless those 4 remaining cannon were manned by ghosts, I dont think they could scare off 20000 troops...
[ATTACH]8449[/ATTACH]
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:40 pm
by Inside686
Seems something goes wrong with battle results.
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:53 pm
by Redeemer
Did you capture a artillery unit from the battle?
If so, I have seen it say the winning side has lost before when capturing units, but every other result points to the victory, ie your leader will get credit for a victory and you will get the VP and NM from the victory as well.
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:58 pm
by Gray_Lensman
deleted
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:37 pm
by Redeemer
I would have to double check the NM, but I have seen the other side lose everything, with me capturing units and the battle report says I lost. Then in the events my "losing" generals are congradulated for their victory.
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:43 pm
by MrT
Redeemer wrote:I would have to double check the NM, but I have seen the other side lose everything, with me capturing units and the battle report says I lost. Then in the events my "losing" generals are congradulated for their victory.
That normally happens when your driven out the region after the battle by another enemy unit arriving, giving you the impression that you lost, and also battle results say you lost, yet you won the battle.
Had it a few times when i routed my enemy but i lost and withdrew lol, yet had victory congratulations in the events list, was due to the enemy having fresh troops arriving few days later and my generals withdrawing.
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:48 pm
by runyan99
I have some issue with how the game decides who 'wins' and who 'loses'. It is totally obscure, and often leads to poor results, of which this is a gross example. I suspect there are a few flaws in the method. Not having access to the algorithim, I don't have a clue what those flaws are.
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:53 pm
by MrT
Isnt grey always chanting on about the numbers mean nothing there just there for flavour? Although admitly the yankees here need a bit more flavour lol
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:56 pm
by Gray_Lensman
deleted
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:00 pm
by MrT
So when you at the result like that, the one none destroyed unit (artillery)drove the rebels off. More logical definately, but still unlikely.
But i must say given the number of battles that are fought results like this are few and far between.
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:34 am
by phantomfeather
Redeemer wrote:I would have to double check the NM, but I have seen the other side lose everything, with me capturing units and the battle report says I lost. Then in the events my "losing" generals are congradulated for their victory.
I have had the same thing happen on more than one occasion when playing against the AI.
i don't know what it means either. Even had battles that said I won yet I was the one that retreated.
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:10 am
by ShovelHead
runyan99 wrote:I have some issue with how the game decides who 'wins' and who 'loses'. It is totally obscure, and often leads to poor results, of which this is a gross example. I suspect there are a few flaws in the method. Not having access to the algorithim, I don't have a clue what those flaws are.
IMHO this appears to be a bug. One of the forces was practically eliminated, but is declared the victor?
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:34 am
by Gray_Lensman
deleted
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:23 pm
by Chaplain Lovejoy
"It's not a bug, it's a feature" as programmers are wont to say!
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:54 pm
by Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
I just noticed that the ruthless Magruder killed the union to a man as well. I presume this is because the loser can't capture prisoners. Anyway, I'm not complaining too much, the engine is what it is by now. Just something to look at for AACW2.
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:04 am
by kglorberau
Sometimes funny thing happen........I just came on to the post to say I like your pick in Generals....my favorited CSA General is Patrick Cleburne as well....."The Stonewall Jackson of the West".
KgLorberau
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:27 am
by Mickey3D
Gray_Lensman wrote:It's not a bug... It's working as Pocus originally designed it. We are taking issue with that design decision, but it's not working against his original design itself. A bug would be an error that is either crashing the game OR working counter to the way it was designed to work by design. I'd call this more of another of those "dicrepancies".
Perhaps the game engine should not declare who is the victor but just who keeps the field of battle ? At the end it's the player who decides if keeping the ground with huge losses is a victory or not.