Siege & Sally Forth

Ok, mine does show that on the second as well.  I do wish that attack reports showed alliance names.  I spent enough time already coordinating our response to an opportunity Harmless won't get again, so someone else can sort out the pieces.

I'm off to do the wiki-theme work I would have done yesterday.  Cheers.

HonoredMule,

Take a look at the second sally report from Kuuptown.   Lun Far's two commanders Wormy and 0opsy are both listed on the attacker side, as well as 9 of Wuzzel's armies joined the attacker side.

On the frist sally, we had 56k troops at the siege, but the battle report only shows 45k for us, so 11k went to your side and that is huge.  If they had stayed, the battle would have gone alot differntly.

I haven't looked closely at the first report to see which armies switched sides, and for all I know some of H? armies might have switched as well.

As soon as I saw the first sally report, I submitted a petition, and when I looked closely at the second one, I was able to identify the issue, and I updated the petition.

This seems quite fair to me.  The only other thing I suggest, SC is that you also repatriate troops who are currently reinforcing the sieged towns as well as reinforcements who are still moving to either of those towns.

-Selon

Hi all,

There's a major issue with Sally Forth, whereby - at the point of combat resolution - *some* armies have been assigned to the wrong side of the combat.

Even though this has only affected some armies, this *has* had a major impact on the outcome of some recent Sally Forth battles.

We can't disable Sally Forth without also disabling Siege.

We can't disable Siege without also taking into account all the support activity around sieging armies.

And we can't fix these issues and make them right until we've:

• a) stopped the flow of wrongness, and
• b) found the root cause of the issue

1. What we've done right now:

• The ability to start new Sieges has been disabled with immediate effect
• The ability to Sally Forth has been disabled with immediate effect

2. We will shortly repatriate home all armies:

• currently surrounding a town under siege, or
• on their way to a square surrounding a town that is - or will be - under siege
• reinforcing a town under siege
• on their way to directly attack a town under siege
  

This will stem the issue of Sally Forth certainly not working as intended.

3. We will then refund all troops lost during the 3 Sally Forth events at:

• 2010-07-16 19:30:56.493 (Wuzzels' Town)
• 2010-07-17 01:38:23.213 (Braque's Town)
  
• 2010-07-17 17:43:43.017 (Braque's Town)

on both sides of the engagement.

These troop refunds will be made to the home town Unit Pool for the troops lost, where your army will be repatriated.

We understand that many players may have readjusted their tax rates and may not be online at this point, so we will also provide 24 hours' worth of gold upkeep for each of these units refunded.

4. Reconstruction
We will then reconstruct the building damage caused to the the towns (and refund any prestige spent) from the Sally Forth event onwards for both players Braque and Wuzzel.

5. Fix
Finally, we will try and work out why Sally Forth is not working as intended, and fix it.

Once fixed, we will re-enable Siege and Sally Forth.

-------------

We'd like to apologise profusely for this issue. 

We realise that this has messed up a lot of players' strategic plans, and we have examined many options for rectifying this issue - this, whilst not perfect, is the best we can come up with.

Best regards,

GM Stormcrow

EDIT: Added reinforcing armies plus inbound direct attacks


Edited by GM Stormcrow - 17 Jul 2010 at 18:49