[Major Bug?] Victorious general attacks on way home

[Lordebon]

As the title says... I sent my general after Chuck's camp (coming in the little side path) knowing that the camp to the left would intercept it and it would attack that instead.

That part went to plan, the general won. But then instead of simply walking home, he attacked the camp to the south and was wiped out.

A general should only ever fight one camp per attack sent. Regardless of if he wins or loses, he should turn around and either take the EXACT SAME PATH back or walk home safely just as if you'd hit retreat. Why should the general be safe walking past enemy camps when you hit retreat and not when he is automatically retreating home?

It makes no sense and is a MAJOR annoyance. Please fix this so that your general is considered "retreating" (ie safe) after any battle, successful or not.

[DarthEzor]

Was your general in the southern camp's "territory" after he destroyed the camp? Also, I'm not exactly clear on what you said. You said you went to send your general to attack "Chuck's Camp" and saw that if he did, a camp to the left of it would pull him in to attack it. You then gave the order to attack. As you planned, he attacked the left camp, winning, but then instead of returning to his garrison, he attacks a camp south of that camp. Now, why would he return home if he attacked and destroyed a NON-TARGET camp? That wasn't the order you gave him. The order was to destroy the target (Chuck's Camp), and the camp to the left of the target was in the way of his path to the target, so, therefore, basicly having TWO targets to attack. You said he was suppost to attack the left camp and then return home? Why? What abbout Chuck's Camp? And is the southern camp Chuck's Camp? Would you please clearify everything for/to me (like how many camps there are {Chuck's, left, south, OR left and south is Chuck's, visa-versa}, and is Chuck's Camp a camp or a region/zone, etc.), that would be a great help for me. And to HELP answer, NOT compleatly answer, your question about attacking on way home and retreating thing, when you're Retreating you're FLEEING back home, therefore not attacking anyone on the way (think of it as this: on a way to attack a camp you must deal with every other camp you encounter on your path or they'll just get free attacks on you while you're passing them, because obviously they arn't going to let you pass them for free to attack their allies, are they, and you are not travelling at a fleeing pace to a target because you'll have less energy to battle them and you need more energy to battle, but when you're retreating, or FLEEING, you're moving at a fast pace to get away, using more energy to travel, and if you are fleeing you obviously arn't going to attack anything on the way back home, why would you start a battle if you are trying to get away from one? Now, if you don't retreat from an attack order and you compleat that attack order, you return home since your task is compleat, but you are going to have to travel at a normal pace, because that order you did took alot of your energy, so you must battle anything on the way back because you cant flee due to your lessened energy. And also, maby who ever made this game made it so that if you attack and destroy the main target, and you are ethier in a territory of another camp after the target falls or you come across one/multipul ones on the way back home, you can't hit the "Retreat" icon after the main target falls or it would be kindof a exploit in the game. Think about it, you can flee before you compleat the attack because if you flee you will probably have to attack that target again anyways {mostlikely using the same path}, but if you compleat it you can't flee because you obviously arn't coming back in the same exact path, since the target is now gone, and you have to face everyone on that path back since they weren't your objective in the first place and also because who are you going to be retreating from, your mission is done so you can't retreat from it any more, right?) I hope I helped in some way. Please once again clearify the whole mission plan and its results for/to me, thankyou very much.

[Lordebon]

Woah there, wall of text dude.

Chuck's camp is the bandit leader camp in center-east sector; the other two you can see to the left of it. If you place your garrison by the sea to the east you can have your general go through the small gap to reach Chuck's camp without clearing as many other bandits. The problem arises in that when your general gets intercepted, he may take a different, more direct path back to his camp and in so doing wander into another camp's aggro radius (causing him to fight them). The rest of the stuff you're saying I can't make out of that wall of text.

In either case, the point remains that a general should only have to ever fight one camp when you send them out. Which camp is decided by the aggro mechanics, but if they win they should NOT start taking a different path home and fight other camps along the way. Any battle is theoretically a costly one, and thus the general should take the path they came in on (which they know is then "safe," since they got there by it) so they can return home and rearm, not just pick the newest quickest path home and wander into bandits along the way.

It's just not intuitive that the general would do that. And things that aren't intuitive either have to be explicitly stated (less preferable) or corrected to be intuitive.

[DarthEzor]

I have now explored that region and now see what was going on. You are going to have to fight all three, if I'm correct, because of the aggro situation.

But I see your point in taking the same path to there back home. But I think the general takes a dif. path because when he aggros to the other camps afterward, he does not end up in the intended location, therefore taking a new and dif. path back home since the new path is 'shorter' than the original path which he came. Yes, it is not realistic or intelligent that a general uses a new, possibably unsafe path to go back home, but the computer doesn't see it that way; it sees it as making the shortest path possible back to the garrison; it does not account for "safety", but rather 'time'.

And the point of fighting not only the target camp but all other camps that aggro as well is because (at least, what I think): they don't want you to make an army for only one camp, but many camps, since it's easy to use a certain type of army for that type of camp, but a challenge to use a certain type of army of multipul camps of dif. types; and also if you can only attack 1 camp at a time, it takes longer to take out multipul camps.

Example of no aggro:
It takes 30 sec. to travel to a target, 1 min. to attack, and 30 sec. to come back. Now to attack another farther target, it takes 45 sec. to get to it, 1 min. to attack, and 45 sec. back. Okay, now one more target, 40 sec. to it, 1 min attacking, and 40 sec. back. Alltogether it takes 6 min. and 50 sec. to destroy all 3 and be back in your garrison. Now how about if you have aggro.
Example of aggro:
30 sec. to T1, 1 min., 10 sec. to T2, 1 min., 5 sec. to T3, 1 min., 45 sec. back to garrison. Alltogether it takes 4 min. and 30 sec. to do everything.
Difference of examples:
It takes 2 min. and 20 sec. more w/out aggro, and 2 min. and 20 sec. less w/ aggro.

W/ Aggro : Less Time Taken :: W/out Aggro : More Time Taken


P.S. need to fix signature.

[Cenzton]

As the title says... I sent my general after Chuck's camp (coming in the little side path) knowing that the camp to the left would intercept it and it would attack that instead.

That part went to plan, the general won. But then instead of simply walking home, he attacked the camp to the south and was wiped out.

A general should only ever fight one camp per attack sent. Regardless of if he wins or loses, he should turn around and either take the EXACT SAME PATH back or walk home safely just as if you'd hit retreat. Why should the general be safe walking past enemy camps when you hit retreat and not when he is automatically retreating home?

It makes no sense and is a MAJOR annoyance. Please fix this so that your general is considered "retreating" (ie safe) after any battle, successful or not.

Sorry dude but... that's on you. The game is made so that if you walk into the red zone of a camp, your general will go attack it, and if by going to a camp in which you get intercepted into multiple red zones, that's pretty much your fault for not paying attention to where your general will path. If your general just turns around and retreats after every battle you could easily circumvent a ton of bandit camps, and that's not how it's meant to be.

[EpsilonSilver]

That's what you get for trying to take shortcuts.

[Lordebon]

So by that argument you guys are then saying that it's intended that when you send a general against one of the 4 camps near Wild Mary that your general will just keep attacking them one after the next until he's dead? But wait, if you're watching and don't get timed out you might be able to have him retreat safely after one attack?

That is what I'm saying doesn't make any sense. This particular case made the issue obvious, but it's an issue nonetheless; how does it make sense for general to be able to walk within 2 feet of a bandit camp with a full load of troops and then wave a white flag and walk home... and yet after clearing an entirely different camp to automatically take all comers? Honor and comraderie among bandits now?

But in either case even if this is currently intended behavior it ought to be changed or explicitly mentioned. Numerous folks have lost units unnecessarily because of how it works and it's frustrating. Games that frustrate their players don't do as well -- just look at Valve, who playtests their games to specifically locate and remove frustrating / unclear gameplay. A "free" web-based game, even one as developed & complex as this, has an ever greater chance of people walking away.

I lost some units, that part I don't care about -- its easy enough to make more. But that doesn't mean that something that could be an obvious source of frustration and that isn't evident until you get hit by it shouldn't be changed.

[Cenzton]

So by that argument you guys are then saying that it's intended that when you send a general against one of the 4 camps near Wild Mary that your general will just keep attacking them one after the next until he's dead? But wait, if you're watching and don't get timed out you might be able to have him retreat safely after one attack?

That is what I'm saying doesn't make any sense. This particular case made the issue obvious, but it's an issue nonetheless; how does it make sense for general to be able to walk within 2 feet of a bandit camp with a full load of troops and then wave a white flag and walk home... and yet after clearing an entirely different camp to automatically take all comers? Honor and comraderie among bandits now?

But in either case even if this is currently intended behavior it ought to be changed or explicitly mentioned. Numerous folks have lost units unnecessarily because of how it works and it's frustrating. Games that frustrate their players don't do as well -- just look at Valve, who playtests their games to specifically locate and remove frustrating / unclear gameplay. A "free" web-based game, even one as developed & complex as this, has an ever greater chance of people walking away.

I lost some units, that part I don't care about -- its easy enough to make more. But that doesn't mean that something that could be an obvious source of frustration and that isn't evident until you get hit by it shouldn't be changed.

So, I don't think you're quite understanding how the mechanic works.

If you send your camp against somewhere, if the general enters into the red zone of a different camp first, it will fight that. So, you sent your guy at Chuck, and it got intercepted by a different camp's red zone. Then, once done battling, your general kept on going to Chuck's, but oh wait, it ran into another red zone and so it went to go attack that.

I don't understand what your problem with that is, other than whining that's not how it should be. It's not a bug whatsoever, and considering it's not that hard to figure out where your general paths and where the camp's red zones are, you can easily maneuver yourself into a position to where you will only attack the one camp you want. And this is the important part here. IF your general paths into the red zone of the camp your told it to attack first, IT WILL ONLY ATTACK THAT CAMP. It's pretty simple.

Once again I say, this one is on you, and by extension everyone else who has run into it. Sorry you found out the hard way, but take a lesson from it, and remember it for next time.

[Lordebon]

No I understand the mechanic perfectly, but I still think it's a needless source of frustration and makes no sense that your general will keep on attacking other camps by default and yet you can retreat him safely. That's the part that I don't think makes sense and either should be part of the combat tutorial or changed. It may not be a bug in that sense if it is the intended mechanic, thats why I put a ? in the original thread title.

The fact that there is something to learn the hard way points out that it might be a somewhat bad mechanic choice unless it's taught to the player.

My personal suggestion would be for the combat tutorial to show a small variety of cases and what your general would do in each case; they could show 3 camps in relative close proximity and then show how the general would attack in sequence if intercepted, since the exact mechanics of interception (and in particular the fact that your general keeps on attacking after intercepted) aren't really taught during the tutorial.

[Cenzton]

No I understand the mechanic perfectly, but I still think it's a needless source of frustration and makes no sense that your general will keep on attacking other camps by default and yet you can retreat him safely. That's the part that I don't think makes sense and either should be part of the combat tutorial or changed. It may not be a bug in that sense if it is the intended mechanic, thats why I put a ? in the original thread title.

The fact that there is something to learn the hard way points out that it might be a somewhat bad mechanic choice unless it's taught to the player.

My personal suggestion would be for the combat tutorial to show a small variety of cases and what your general would do in each case; they could show 3 camps in relative close proximity and then show how the general would attack in sequence if intercepted, since the exact mechanics of interception (and in particular the fact that your general keeps on attacking after intercepted) aren't really taught during the tutorial.

Fair enough point, I agree that it's something that could be included in tutorials.

Still though, there's certain things that I think are fine being learned along the way. I think a tutorial could include something saying hey, be careful about where you walk your Generals, it's possible for it to go and attack other camps first, but I don't think it has to show you step by step of how exactly it works. Something relatively cryptic which still lends to learning on your own, or asking in chat for help of what that exactly means is fine, imo.

I was mostly just responding here to your initial outrage, which just seemed like a lot of complaining about something that's widely known in game already