Login

**VballMichael** · 09-06-2016, 07:03 PM

Please fix the relocating capital issue. So tired of losing princes to a 330 at a capital when it was just a town when the order was issued....

**Frost Lord** · 09-06-2016, 07:20 PM

VBM: Not sure I understand the problem?

You issue a 330 and gain control of the PC, then your opponent issues a 355 to move their capital to that PC. Wouldn't the relocation fail because the PC is no longer controlled by your opponent?

....or is that the problem?

**IMPERIAL_TARK** · 09-06-2016, 07:27 PM

The capital is taken by a 150 order by another kingdom which then causes it to be relocated. You just happen to have your Prince at that newly re-located capital (it was just a normal town at the start of the turn) attempting a 330 order. It fails and your prince is imprisoned because you can't Usurp a capital. You lose your Prince with no fault of your own.

**Frost Lord** · 09-06-2016, 07:38 PM

I do not know if I see that as a bug...

A turn is a month, so early in the month, the old capital gets attacked and the King moves to the new town and brings his Royal Guard. A few days/weeks later, your Prince sets up a town meeting to try and sway the population. The King's royal guard comes in and squashes the rebellion in the town square.

I have held off having my emissary perform actions many times before to prevent this very thing from happening. I have also (on many occasions) took a wild guess as to where a capital was moving so I could use some of my emissaries and not use the ones where the capital "might" be moving.

**VballMichael** · 09-06-2016, 08:40 PM

Hard to move a cap secretly. My prince would not start his diplomacy at a capital. And I have also held up where I am battling someone. But taking a random town where the cap suddenly relocates from across the board? Not a good outcome.

**Hawk_** · 09-06-2016, 08:40 PM

It officially became a bug when the game was changed to announce you have moved to a capitol to prevent this annoying problem from occurring.

I am with Vball Mike on this topic. This error really annoys me.

Since nobody is getting thrown in jail while intentionally trying to usurp a Capitol why not just make 330 orders at Capitols fail instead of the current result.

**Lord Diamond** · 09-06-2016, 08:54 PM

(09-06-2016, 08:40 PM)Hawk_ Wrote: It officially became a bug when the game was changed to announce you have moved to a capitol to prevent this annoying problem from occurring.

I am with Vball Mike on this topic. This error really annoys me.

Since nobody is getting thrown in jail while intentionally trying to usurp a Capitol why not just make 330 orders at Capitols fail instead of the current result.

I'm with you guys on this. A 320/330 at a capital should be an automatic failure and not something that results in the noble gong to prison.

I wouldn't call it a 'bug' so much as an undesirable game feature.

**Frost Lord** · 09-06-2016, 09:09 PM

Okay, so now I see what you are saying. A 320/330 should simply fail if the PC is a capital (as opposed to fail and imprisonment).

I still would not consider it a bug, but I can see where it would be undesirable.

I mean, when I try to usurp a neutral city, not knowing that there is a concealed emissary there also trying to usurp control. If I go last, I am now trying to usurp a controlled city as opposed to a neutral city.....it is undesirable, but I would not call that a bug either.

09-07-2016, 03:01 AM

Agree. Seems like the emissary wouldn't go forward with the usurp or rebel if all of a sudden the king is present and the only result is jail.

**Jumpingfist** · 09-07-2016, 02:12 PM

This was talked about in a different tread. I think emissary should just abort the order if there is no chance of success.