Ambush bug

ID:79B52C66

February 23 of YR6 HERO (#:#) captured 46 acres of land from OTHER villian guy (#:#).
February 23 of YR6 HERO (#:#) captured 130 acres of land from VILLAIN (#:#).
February 23 of YR6 HERO (#:#) captured 104 acres of land from VILLAIN (#:#).
February 23 of YR6 HERO (#:#) captured 84 acres of land from VILLAIN (#:#)).

March 3 of YR6 VILLAIN (#:#) attempted to invade HERO (#:#).
March 3 of YR6 VILLAIN (#:#) ambushed armies from HERO (#:#) and took 52 acres of land.
March 3 of YR6 VILLAIN (#:#) ambushed armies from HERO (#:#) and took 65 acres of land.
March 3 of YR6 VILLAIN (#:#) invaded OTHER heroic guy (#:#) and captured 68 acres of land.


Villain fails an ambush, then gets to retake land from the two larger Traditional Marches. This is a flaw in game play.

In this instance, Villain didn't have enough offence to trad 'Other heroic guy' and ambush my three attacks. I purposely sent a ton of extra offence on my last (84 acre) grab. So purposefully bounces the first ambush with almost no offence, then gets to retake land from the larger grabs.

Ambush has to be successful in order to progress to the next ambush, otherwise, this is highly exploitable.

forces him to burn a general, seems a fair trade to me.

he got an extra 23 acres for burning a 5% modifier that wasn't doing any good for him. not really a fair trade.

(pretty sure, it use to be as I said, ambush must succeed to proceed)

I don't recall it being that way.

In this scenario it did work out to their advantage to use a general in this way, it doesn't always. I guess in future you can stack up units on a larger amount of acres... I don't really see a need for this 'option' to be removed.

I don't think this is a bug- That's how I understand Ambush to work.

You can't ambush if the person who hit you used Anon or War Spoils and you can't ambush the same hit twice. It's logical therefore that if you fail an Ambush, your next attempt to ambush is against the next available army. I don't think "succeed to proceed" was ever applicable I'm afraid.

Has always been this way, feel free to do the same to anyone hitting you...

I'm 99% sure there is a thread on this somewhere where Bishop has commented to say it is unintended and people doing it are exploiting a bug.

It certainly isn't new anyway.

Personally I think it should either be 'fixed' or it should be open to use generals like this if they wish.

Actually I had a vague memory that might be thinking of something else so I revise my 99 to 50 ;)

Was there a thing with the opposite ie sending 1 gen/sold after a trad march for some purpose? If so that's probably what I was thinking of..

If 'succeed to proceed' is implemented, what happens if you legitimately fail your first try due to a math error? The other possible ambushes available to you are now impossible?

Is that fair? or punishment for failure?

On the same token, if you knew you were going to have spare offense to send on your last hit, why not send extra offense on all the hits to make each of them difficult to ambush? Or, sending more offense on your first (largest) grab to protect those acres? I always recall sending specs on my first hit(s) to increase the ambush defense just for that purpose.

I feel it works both ways, you were also trying to exploit the mechanic of the game that ambushes happen in a certain order and filling that first ambushable hit with extra defense.

Re your first point, presumably if we changed it we would just code it so that if you fail on an ambush, your next ambush is on that same attack again (rather than preventing you from making any more ambushes on the target)?

Ambush if fine how it works. Please dont tinker with something that doesnt need changing. There are other things on the need to fix list in sure.

Burning a general with no gain can be a pretty big cost. You only have 4 of them that can hit out. This is especially true in war, when as a chained province, every acre counts. I think it is fair as it is.

yeah, the 1gen/sold after a TM has been a tactic to force them to burn an extra general when you don't have enough effective offence to be productive.

and DavidC... if by exploit you mean take full advantage yes. If you mean exploit in a negative way, then no.

This isn't a bug. This is as intended, and has always been a thing. It's well known, and utilized in strategy for both offense and defense. Generals are highly valuable; they aren't just modifiers...that one hit meant one less hit on somebody else on your kingdom.

If that's a bug, then casting storms on somebody to burn Mystic Aura is a bug.

You may not like it, but it's a mechanic. If you want it to change....post it in suggestions where it belongs, so we can all burn the suggestion down into oblivion since you're probably the only person around that has an issue with this.