Why do my berserk commanders disappear after winning fights

[Psycho]

Originally Posted by thejeff

Is it actually true that attackers can't route if defenders have already routed?

I know I've seen the reverse recently. Attackers route, then defenders.

It is true and it enables a situation when an immortal (think vampire lord thug) behind the pd has the possibility to destroy the whole attacking army to the very last mage. When pd routes, the attacking army will not route no matter how many casualties inflicted to them.

[thejeff]

I definitely have an example of both sides routing.
I can post the turn if you'd like. The attacker routes first with the message, then he has a berserk Ice Devil and my forces can't kill him and the routing (fatigued or bound) troops fast enough so they route. Now with the "Atlantis has routed" message alternating with the "Pangaea has routed" one.

I didn't count turns, so it's possible one or the other of us routed for different reasons. I can run it with debug on, but that'll take awhile, so it'll have to wait.

I wonder if it only works in that order? If the defenders route first (for % of hp reasons, or whatever) then since the attackers are supposed to autoroute first, the game doesn't bother to try to route them. Whereas if the attackers have routed and the battle keeps going long enough it's happy to try the defenders next?

[Psycho]

That's possible. I can't remember any such situation when the attacker routed first. This all sounds like one of those WAD bugs.

[chrispedersen]

I believe I've seen it the other way as well.

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

If you are really saying that you can't stand the versimilitude (vs wanting to make sc's more powerful) then you would be fine with any solution that kept the 75 turn limit autokill, so long as it had a reasonable backstory.

The point is reasonable backstory. I don't doubt that you can make something up but ... your backstory would have to be more believable than this:
They are all just living inside a computer simulation with arbitrary rules designed for an unknown purpose, cynics say it's just for the entertainment of an extradimensional species, and the 50-turn rout 75-turn autokill rule was included to reduce hosting and coding times.

That two angels duking it out for 50 rounds makes the world "unstable" in some way could be but two drunken vikings in a barfight?

And I don't think that is really what anyone is saying. I think they are just using the versimilitude gripe as a way of attacking the turn limit.

No...? Why should anyone complain about the turn-limit if it wouldn't be a problem to them? Oh, yeah, I can loose to turn limit. But I can also win, no? Only that winning by using "gamey strategies" is somewhat stale even more so if you are actually forced to use them.
It's only because the game is not balanced that you can even say you need the autokill because you can't kill SCs in another way. Anyway do you really think the game is balanced, I think you said something else about Hinnom?
The game is only balanced in the sense that there is no game winner unit and there are a lot of options. People find their own way of playing. Saying that implementing a more beautiful solution than turn limit and providing other ways to deal with SCs will kill balance is just like saying that planting new trees will make the forest chaotic. It was chaotic all along the only difference is that the guides don't apply anymore...

Originally Posted by Psycho

It is true and it enables a situation when an immortal (think vampire lord thug) behind the pd has the possibility to destroy the whole attacking army to the very last mage. When pd routes, the attacking army will not route no matter how many casualties inflicted to them.

It's certainly possible unless they changed it.
I've had a thug routing after he had routed the enemy (he routed after chasing the last two crippled militiaman to the other side of the map and was even faster from the field in the end).

[Rookierookie]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Gregstroms point is exactly.. on point.

You could arbitrarily say that combat makes the world unstable and that each round increases the likelihood of death.

Now, if it were me, I'd have horrors show up increasing in numbers and severity. But I have no problem abstracting that part of the equation.

I mean, if you think about it, no one has complained that undead simply go poof. Why should you complain therefor if an SC goes poof?

similarly you don't complain that we abstract the turns - the entire months turn is abstracted to one click. We don't see the armies progressing.

The preeminent question is a balance question, not a versimilitude question.

If you are really saying that you can't stand the versimilitude (vs wanting to make sc's more powerful) then you would be fine with any solution that kept the 75 turn limit autokill, so long as it had a reasonable backstory.

And I don't think that is really what anyone is saying. I think they are just using the versimilitude gripe as a way of attacking the turn limit.

Give me a reasonable backstory to this:
SC attacks province.
Defending army routs.
Some defending units can't run because their fatigue is over 100.
After 75 turns, berserker couldn't kill all defenders and is killed.
SC fatigue is 0 at all times and HP is always full.

[chrispedersen]

I can create reasonable backstory all day long - so can a lot of people. Kind of immaterial because it wouldn't be official, and it would be subjective; ie., what you find perfectly reasonably, I may not.

[chrispedersen]

It's only because the game is not balanced that you can even say you need the autokill because you can't kill SCs in another way. Anyway do you really think the game is balanced, I think you said something else about Hinnom?

Quite the opposite: I can say we need autokills because SC's aren't balanced.

I am against the removal of the autokill because it makes the game *less* balanced.

Hinnom as a nation - is an option. Game administrators have the ability to remove it or not.

Players, have the ability to compensate either in the game setup or in diplomacy.

Autokills are a game mechanic that are not subject to modification.

As for finding a better way to balance SC's; or a better way of implimenting autokills - I'm certainly not opposed to it. However given the developers statements the discussion it rather bootless.

[Sombre]

So is 'defending' autokill.

[Psycho]

Originally Posted by Illuminated One

It's certainly possible unless they changed it.
I've had a thug routing after he had routed the enemy (he routed after chasing the last two crippled militiaman to the other side of the map and was even faster from the field in the end).

Yes, he would route at 50 turn limit. That's why I wrote that it's possible (not certain) to destroy the whole attacking army - you still have to do it in 50 turns time.