Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
150/170/190 changes
#1
In the past it was possible to issue a tenative 170 or 190 order in case your 150 was blocked by a Dome of Protection spell.

I thought this was a fair rule.

It seems that this tactic is no longer possible as it now produces the result: The group had already taken an action.

1) is this correct or an error?

2) did i miss an update re: this change?

3) I see nothing regarding it in the 2015 commands

Thanks!
Reply
#2
Ran into this a few weeks back and support says it is correct can not do both. I used to use a lot of 180 190 orders in case someone domed I would start a siege. Made since to me as well figuring you would likely be threatening the PC from your army formation outside the city walls easy enough to siege while threatening.
Reply
#3
I don't see anything that has changed visa vie the Rules.  In the General Rules, it says:

"Groups may attack a population center outright, in order to directly overcome its defenses, or it may attempt to lay siege to the population center."

As with group vs. group, you can attack or defend against a given group once.  You can't attack twice or defend twice or attack and defend.  You get one action against that group, or by extension, against the PC.
Reply
#4
The older system may have allowed issuing multiple military orders against a pc in the same turn due to bugs in the software so it was more of a correction in the code rather than a change in game mechanics. For new players who may not know, you may issue Order #180 Threaten Popcenter which acts as "two" orders in one where if a peaceful effort fails, your group will still attack the pc in an attempt to conquer it. The attack will be at a disadvantage though (defense at 135% normal) to compensate having "two" interactions with the pc.
Reply
#5
These can be grey areas. although you guys find them as bugs when you change them without anyone knowing your are still in effect changing the rules because they are common tactics known and taught to others. I do not understand why this is a hard idea to grasp to just keep the players informed of changes including "bug" fixes. technical explanations are not required brief notes are great. I also still believe changes should not take effect the very next turn unless they a a true abuses.
Reply
#6
Folks,

You have a document on what has happened to move from Clipper to Java. 

There wasn't a straight conversion of Clipper code to Java per-say.  We did not try to replicate in java some aspects that may have been against intentions that had evolved in Clipper, this case being an example: where in the rules is there Double Friendly?  That shouldn't have been there, and any player that has joined in the last few years would be shocked to hear there was such a thing.  We didn't deliberately "undo" Double Friendly or any of the other departures that had emerged over time from the design.  But we aren't inclined to re-insert those flaws, if they did in fact exist.  We have it the way it was designed, and have purged various exploits and yes, some tricks that existed in the old code won't work now.  I've been trying to say this in various ways: don't rely on old nuance not supported by the rules that most players wouldn't know existed because someone found a crack in the execution of the intent and it became an underground thing for the illuminated as advantage.  That is part of what I mean by an exploit.

There may be a couple other quirky things like Double Friendly that are not in the new code, and no, we can't tell you about what those might be, because we weren't looking for them.  Let's just get past all the old secrets that weren't in the rules and go forward.  If there IS something in the Rules that isn't working, then we will want to fix it.
Reply
#7
Fair enough. I guess we will all learn together the new nuances. Good gaming all.
Reply
#8
(05-05-2015, 08:32 PM)VballMichael Wrote: Fair enough. I guess we will all learn together the new nuances. Good gaming all.

Thanks VBM.  Hopefully, there aren't many "new" nuances that aren't in the rules.  We have tried to be explicit in the Rules without becoming a technical manual - not many games have as many rules and subtleties as are built into Alamaze.  We aren't trying to hide anything in the Rules, but we aren't trying to become a cure for insomnia either by covering every possible potentiality and the permutations of same in writing. 

When I first designed Alamaze, I learned that something as complicated as Alamaze group movement: kingdom, terrain, type of movement, sea move, flight, etc., was only a fraction of the endeavor.  More effort was to identify all the exploits.  As the Dark Elves, I want to move the Black Dragon groups.  Or I want to move my own groups twice, or I want to move an inactive group, or make a transfer that allows me to move my brigades twice, etc. 

When I turned it over to Phil at the peak with 1000 positions and didn't see Alamaze again until two years ago and I still can't see the code like I could when I programmed it.  So in all humility, I don't know what remaining exploits still exist.

My intention though is that there are none: that all players are on an even table as regards the rules and execution, at least.  Then skill and experience and strategic planning make the difference.  Not exploits.
Reply
#9
Makes sense Ry Vor. I had no idea that there were so many "exploits" in the old code that was not in the rules (or did not follow the intent of the rules). I probably would have never figured them out because I typically re-read the rules and orders when issuing various commands to make sure I am allowed to do something or not...which would give other players that know about the undocumented features an advantage over me. I am glad that they are either being fixed or being documented for everyone to see. Thank you and thanks to Cipher & Uncle Mike for cleaning these things up.
The Frost Lord,
Centurion in the Military War College
Pioneer of Alamaze
Reply
#10
(05-06-2015, 09:16 AM)Frost Lord Wrote: Makes sense Ry Vor.  I had no idea that there were so many "exploits" in the old code that was not in the rules (or did not follow the intent of the rules).  I probably would have never figured them out because I typically re-read the rules and orders when issuing various commands to make sure I am allowed to do something or not...which would give other players that know about the undocumented features an advantage over me.  I am glad that they are either being fixed or being documented for everyone to see.  Thank you and thanks to Cipher & Uncle Mike for cleaning these things up.

My 2 cents-  Issuing 150 and 190 was not an exploit.  The troops are already there to attack the city.  If they are blocked by an invisible wall they commence siege.

Here is what i think is an exploit:

Small army with wizards casts Wall of Flame and then attacks an opposing group on a 1.  They are blocked by their own wall of flame and protected from the larger enemy group.
Later that same turn the small army either sieges the pop center in the square or casts 171 to take it.   This seems wrong to me.   The block by the wall of flame should prevent the 171 or 190 order.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)