A rework of some of the exodus code now means that any city exodusing should no longer have blockades, sieges, or diplomatic unit attacks remain for very long after the exodus has begun.

There's now a "clean up" process that runs every 5 minutes that basically checks to see if there are any inbound military or diplomatic units to a city that is currently in exodus.  If there is...

Best wishes,

GM Stormcrow

nice to see this bug fixed.

What exactly would happen, if the hostile units aren't more than 5 min away?

I mean, it would be realistic, if they hit anyway, as the refugees didn't run fast enough =)

But apart from that, would it cause anything in the code to break, or is there additional safety?

kindest regards,

Hora

In terms of encampments, sieges would be cleared up (as there's another process that sorts out "unfeasible sieges", and they take 12hr minimum to set up) but blockades (that take effect instantly) may not be cleared out.  

Cheers,

SC

perhaps you could add a (e.g. 5 min) set up time to blockades, so you wouldn't have yet another high frequent routine, but could integrate both blockade and siege check into the movement check?

Just kidding, but while I expect that WILL happen at some point, it will probably be rare enough that it won't be a huge issue, so this fix should clear up 90% plus of any remaining issues with Exodus under incoming attack.

Thank you for making things better!

No, not gibberish at all Hora!  It's just that anytime we introduce another step (ie a siege army arrives at a location and then has to wait X time before Y happens and then Z bombardment happens every hour thereafter) there's a very very small chance for things to get scrambled / lost etc in the handover points.  

It shouldn't happen that way, but it occasionally does - as per the "inexplicable database weirdness" as both ourselves and our db vendor are describing the supposedly-unrelated-but-actually-not herb regeneration/stuck army issue that occurred earlier this month.

In that event we managed to accomplish the impossible, apparently, by getting a NULL value into an explicitly NOT-NULLable column in a table.  This is kinda the database equivalent of whatever the inverse of winning a Nobel prize would be - and both ourselves and our db vendor are hard at work trying to discover how we/you (the players) managed to do it.

Best wishes,

SC

Maybe you should put an exorcist on the payroll to deal with the DB? 

Best of luck with finding the error!

It does mean that people have to be quick with messengers.  On the other hand, any armies in the Exodusing city would be attacking without the benefit of the wall, as I understand it (since wall has only a defensive bonus).

Edit:  Of course, if you used it, I can bet you wouldn't be complaining about it.  It works both ways and no the enemy forces do not fight the city, they reinforce it.  :D

While the problem should most definitely be fixed as soon as is possible, we'd not even know about it had they not discovered and used it. I applaud you sirs/madams!

What I think is just that we've spoted a specific case that the dev hasn't even figure out when they wrote the exo rules cause really, do you think that it's logical to succeed in exodussing a city (just imagine it) on the top of an ennemy encampement without a single fight??? Do you think that it's logical that armies sent to occupy this sq before the city move ends up reinforcing an ennemy city instead of attacking the garnison?

To me there's just something wrong there.

If it's to be a 'working as intended' feature, it should at least be balanced... as it is there is little risk to the town in making the maneuver, which makes little sense if you think about what's actually going on... you've just ordered your town dismantled only to be re-constructed on top of the enemy's camped forces!

...but hey, what do I care? Have fun with it while it lasts!

edit:: perhaps the results of the subsequent battle should determine the cities fate? Would certainly make more sense...

Stormcrow also said in that thread that he believed they needed to give additional consideration to changing those mechanics in the case of a city landing on a hostile army.  So Stormy, how about some reconsideration?

By the by, that thread is an amusing glimpse into the history of Illy featuring such luminaries as StJude, Celebcalen, HonoredMule, Starry and Kumomoto (as well as some contributions by yours truly).  Remember all that stuff?  Makes me smile now, seemed so serious at times then.

Good for perspective!

It should not be changed, the rules of the game are being followed.   There needs to be enough flexibility in the game for people to be creative, isn't that what you are always espousing?   This is a sandbox and the players find new uses or strategies in the game?     Just because the use of this strategy went against your "group" does not dictate change, there needs to be some room for players to fight a war with new and innovative ideas.   You cannot have it both ways, Rill.   Destroy the ability for players to use their imagination in this game and you doom the game to boredom and predictability.  You don't see H players demanding change for some of the ways your group are using the game mechanics and trust me, there is a very long list of creative strategies being used on both sides.

If you do read the thread, you were one of the people most vocal about this very mechanic before.  In both cases -- then and now -- I have mostly focused on how the mechanic is actually working rather than expressing a strong opinion about how it should work.  What I think most important is that people are able to consistently predict what will occur (that is, what game mechanics will occur if Player X does Action Y, rather than being able to predict what Player X might do), and then as you said, to interact with that creatively.

Edited to clarify that the game mechanics, rather than the players, are what should be predictable.

1.

Yes, Rill, I read your post, did you read mine?   Obviously not, the fact is the Devs have not felt it needed to be changed.    Just because you don't like a tactic does not mean it needs to changed.  I agree with Angrim, iIlly is not YOUR game, perhaps you should give the Devs credit for allowing players room for creative game play which has been the hallmark of this game from the start.

Exodus has been used defensively in battle since it was released, this is no different and well within the rules of game mechanics.

There is actual a glitch/bug with exodus that will do just that.  I have had crafted material drop from my cities inventory to be left behind as spoils.