Why do my berserk commanders disappear after winning fights

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Sombre

So is 'defending' autokill.

Ya? So? Its still a free country.

[Sombre]

Er,.. ok. So it's only ok for you to point that out?

[Gregstrom]

That's pretty much the way America did the 'Free World' thing, so... sure.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Er,.. ok. So it's only ok for you to point that out?

Actually Sombre, I'm not really interested in getting in a flame war with you, especially as you're dead on on a lot of topics especially modding and code.

That said, your previous post left the distinct impression you were once again policing the threads and saying what points of views were valid and which were not; something I reject.

IlluminatedOne made several new statements to which I wished to respond. New content hence new discussion. Some of his points were contrary to what I actually believe. For example, I indicated that I'm favor of NT's spells that add insanity; I suggested that games should have an option to set what the autokill duration should be. I just don't believe that they are relevent to the essential points. Are SC's too limited or too strong? There are *very* few effective midgame and endgame tactics, and increasing the strength of SC's will only narrow effective strategies.

Finally, when posts get into the area of discussing people, as opposed to topics they are really falling afoul of the spirit and letter of the usage agreements, and I'd like to suggest that courtesy, is the more appropriate response.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Actually Sombre, I'm not really interested in getting in a flame war with you, especially as you're dead on on a lot of topics especially modding and code.

What does that have to do with anything? You're the only one 'flaming' by suggesting I'm trolling to provoke a flame war.

That said, your previous post left the distinct impression you were once again policing the threads and saying what points of views were valid and which were not; something I reject.

I don't see where you're getting that at all. I just pointed out a logical problem in your post.

I find the accusation that I try to 'police' what other people say insulting and amusing in equal measure. Since when is disagreeing with someone when they're wrong and pointing out the faulty logic and inaccuracies in their posts 'policing'?

IlluminatedOne made several new statements to which I wished to respond. New content hence new discussion. Some of his points were contrary to what I actually believe. For example, I indicated that I'm favor of NT's spells that add insanity; I suggested that games should have an option to set what the autokill duration should be. I just don't believe that they are relevent to the essential points. Are SC's too limited or too strong? There are *very* few effective midgame and endgame tactics, and increasing the strength of SC's will only narrow effective strategies.

Nice recap, but nothing to do with my interjection.

Arguing against the theory behind proposed changes, that's fine, that's discussion. Pointing out that the changes aren't going to happen, also fine, that's pragmatism. But using the fact that the changes aren't going to happen as part of your argument against them, that's silly. Your argument in favour of autokill is equally 'bootless' if you believe nothing will change. You level that charge against them, I turn it back on you. Recapped.

Finally, when posts get into the area of discussing people, as opposed to topics they are really falling afoul of the spirit and letter of the usage agreements, and I'd like to suggest that courtesy, is the more appropriate response.

You're the only one discussing people as far as I can see. But what would I know, I'm just a flame war starting troll trying to police the forums.

[Annette]

Please, let's get this discussion back on-topic.

[Rookierookie]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Actually Sombre, I'm not really interested in getting in a flame war with you, especially as you're dead on on a lot of topics especially modding and code.

That said, your previous post left the distinct impression you were once again policing the threads and saying what points of views were valid and which were not; something I reject.

IlluminatedOne made several new statements to which I wished to respond. New content hence new discussion. Some of his points were contrary to what I actually believe. For example, I indicated that I'm favor of NT's spells that add insanity; I suggested that games should have an option to set what the autokill duration should be. I just don't believe that they are relevent to the essential points. Are SC's too limited or too strong? There are *very* few effective midgame and endgame tactics, and increasing the strength of SC's will only narrow effective strategies.

Finally, when posts get into the area of discussing people, as opposed to topics they are really falling afoul of the spirit and letter of the usage agreements, and I'd like to suggest that courtesy, is the more appropriate response.

Are you aware that by accusing the people who are against the current autokill mechanism of being mindless SC proponents, and by saying things like "using the versimilitude gripe as a way of attacking the turn limit", you already stand on the wrong side of trolling?

[Annette]

I'm assuming we were posting at the same time, Rookierookie. But again, please return to the topic so I don't have to close this down.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

While I think your ideas of new spells are great, I would still be opposed to removing the autokill. Have you ever tried killing a properly kitted chayot, grigory, or regenerating sphinx? It can be bloody hard. One of the tactics I *like* to do is to get them to berserk and auto kill them.

I can equally argue that the problem is not the time limits - its wrong to leave unrealistic and autokill SP's!

AutoKill is a game function which has an extreme result which is not verisimilitude which was explained extremely well by Graeme Dice. Leaving the AutoKill would be like watching the move "Clash of the Titans" yet they kill the Kraken simply by having too many crippled units which could not flee the shore thus the Kraken is killed because it ran out of time. When I'm playing a game if some almighty powerful Kraken exists as seen within the movie... I don't want it killed because it ran out of time when logically it should be allowed to retreat and return another day. I can see the hero returning with the medusa head only for some villager to say, "Oh we killed the kraken because the mighty beast simply ran out of time trying to kill all the illusions some mages casted by the shore. No weapons could pierce it, no spells could harm it... the beast simply died due to taking too long to kill the illusions."

[kennydicke]

My computer was KIA recently but, in the days before, I had noticed an up-tick of battle replays that didn't match-up in SP. None of the battles had lasted long enough for autokills to happen.

I noticed somebody pointed out that mods contribute to this, is it related to the number of mods or their size? I had CBM, CPCS, Bogarus Scout, and 3 nation mods enabled at the time. Would there be less problems if I combined them?

Does berserking units contribute? Every battle with a discrepancy had berserked units but not every battle with berserked units had a discrepancy.

It happened a lot more UW; maybe it was because I started UW? I moved onto land very early and was having the same problems but, it seemed, noticeably less so.

Finally, maybe there was no up-tick and I was just looking for it?