Page 1 of 1

Determination of Attacker / Defender does not match manual

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:04 pm
by mgardner
The manual says this about determination of Attacker / Defender (10.7.1):

Each side is either defending or attacking. The defender in a battle is the side with the biggest number of units not having moved this impulse (the only exception to this is if the defenders have sortied from a besieged city).

Situation: my army (Pictes) is in enemy region (Usurper Claudius). I am besieging the enemy city and did not enter any movement orders this turn. The next turn, Rome, who is also an enemy of Usurper Claudius and me, marches into the region. During the battle between Pictes and Rome, the attacker is determined to be Pictes and the defender is Rome. Uh... what? Seems like a bug. Rome got the mountain terrain defense bonus and turned what should have been an easy Pictes victory into a crushing defeat.

Re: Determination of Attacker / Defender does not match manual

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:16 pm
by devoncop
I can see that as you have not moved and the enemy had moved that according to the rule described in the manual you should have benefited from the defence bonus....

Caught between two (admittedly competing) Roman forces with your army manning positions around the city and unable to both maintain the siege v the Usurper's forces and the loyal Rome forces approaching from your rear in real life I would suspect the battle may have played out correctly :wink:

Re: Determination of Attacker / Defender does not match manual

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:51 pm
by Pocus
There might be a bug where if you don't control the region (in this case, you don't as you besieged the city) then the less numerous is the attacker. I'll double check that.

Re: Determination of Attacker / Defender does not match manual

Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:09 am
by PDiFolco
Pocus wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:51 pm
There might be a bug where if you don't control the region (in this case, you don't as you besieged the city) then the less numerous is the attacker. I'll double check that.
Just happened to me, I confirm there's a bug😉