Evasion bug?

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:48 am

On my opponent's turn my skirmisher breaks an enemy skirmisher and then pursues it but does end the pursuit move in contact. At this point my opponent's HF charges the skirmisher which now stands to fight the HF rather than evading. This seems like incorrect behavior and is definitely inconsistent with the TT rules.

Chris

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:29 am

We'd need to see the exact example. If it was not in contact it would evade if it could - did it have a path to evade through?

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:22 pm

iainmcneil wrote:We'd need to see the exact example. If it was not in contact it would evade if it could - did it have a path to evade through?

Yes. My opponents skirmisher attacked mine during my opponents turn and broke as a result. It routed away and my skirmisher pursued. This left it standing completely in the open in front of a large block of my opponents impact foot. Three of these proceeded to walk up and impact my skirmisher which routed by the time that was done. Had a very similar thing happen again a turn or two later in the same game. The scenario is Sentium 295 BC(PT) from the map pack. My skirmishers in both cases were Roman velites. It pretty much looked like the game was treating them like it would a BG that had already evaded that turn because I had done the pursuit move during my opponent's turn.

Chris

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:25 pm

iainmcneil wrote:We'd need to see the exact example. If it was not in contact it would evade if it could - did it have a path to evade through?

It would be helpful if there was some way to save a copy of a position in a game or to record what is happening. Otherwise I don't know anyway that it would be possible to let you see the exact example. Someone should at least check the program logic for the state of a unit after it has pursued in the opponents turn to see if there is some sort of already moved flag that has the same effect as if the unit had already evaded once. (Or at least that would be the first thing I would check to debug the situation.)

Chris

arsan · Post by **arsan** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:29 pm

I've also seen this kind of thing.
And another (maybe) related one: when a unit of yours rout an enemy unit and auto advance to occupy its position he can become adjacent to a light foot enemy unit that will not evade but became entangled in combat, ready to be destroyed next turn.

Not sure if this is WAD or not by the TT rules.
Cheers

keithmartinsmith · Post by **keithmartinsmith** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:37 pm

We have had a couple of evasion bugs where a unit or units in a scenario are incorrectly coded e.g. they look like lights but are coded as MF or Cav etc. and visa versa. As far as we know these are all fixed here and will be part of the next patch/system update. This is due with the release of Rise of Rome. Keith

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:36 pm

keithmartinsmith wrote:We have had a couple of evasion bugs where a unit or units in a scenario are incorrectly coded e.g. they look like lights but are coded as MF or Cav etc. and visa versa. As far as we know these are all fixed here and will be part of the next patch/system update. This is due with the release of Rise of Rome. Keith

All of the Velites in this scenario display as light foot when I position the mouse cursor over them so this does not sound like it explains the issue I saw. Is there some way the units could be incorrectly coded but still display as light foot? They also look correct in the scneario editor when I copy the scenario to the custom scenario's folder. (There are other mis-classifications in the scenario. Two out of eight Roman Auxilia are classed as HF rather than MF and one of the remaining MF is classed as undrilled.)

Chris

keithmartinsmith · Post by **keithmartinsmith** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:35 pm

Can you confirm the scenario name - very precisely - thanks Keith

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:33 pm

keithmartinsmith wrote:Can you confirm the scenario name - very precisely - thanks Keith

Sentium 295 BC(PT)

This issue may have been there all along or a least since the latest patch for the non-evading skirmishers. Having a skirmisher break and pursue an enemy skirmisher on the opponents turn isn't very common and you often end up away from other non-skirmishers after pursuing. In this case it was egregiously obvious when the skirmisher stopped all by itself in the clear a couple hexes in front of the mass of barbarian impact foot and three of them just waltzed out and mugged my skirmisher. I think all three were HF but there may have been MF involved.

Chris

keithmartinsmith · Post by **keithmartinsmith** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:18 pm

Hi, Thanks, found and fixed all the unit coding/image issues - the MF now look like MF in that battle. This will form part of the next update. Keith

arsan · Post by **arsan** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:24 pm

arsan wrote: And another (maybe) related one: when a unit of yours rout an enemy unit and auto advance to occupy its position he can become adjacent to a light foot enemy unit that will not evade but became entangled in combat, ready to be destroyed next turn.
Not sure if this is WAD or not by the TT rules.

Sorry for self quoting myself

But i've just played Trasimene as the Carthaginians and had the problem i explained above happen to me 2 or 3 times.
It seems nor LF nor LH will evade an enemy BG that gets adjacent to them as result of an involuntary move (like after routing an enemy unit and advancing on it's now empty hex).
Is this WAD or could this be a problem with the evade routine??
It don't seem to be a problem with how the units are coded, as they show as LF and LH, and have normally evaded voluntary enemy movements on previous turns.

Cheers!