[Discuss] Rallying Militia Preventing Looting

[Jamie Cheyfetz]

On 7/12/07, Jeff Wilson <jjwilson61 at cox.net> wrote:
> A bug was recently closed with this message:
>
> "Not a bug - one of the militia units was rallying in the turn before and
> became stationary once again after the turn, which effectively acting up as
> the defender preventing you from looting."
>
> While this may be the way the code works, it doesn't seem right.  In the
> situation I was in, we were sitting in a defeated city but we could only
> loot or raze fortifications every other turn.
>
> Could the turn order be changed so that looting and razing fortifications
> happen before rallying units?

The issue here has nothing to do directly with rallying.  The issue is
actually that the unit that *did* rally did not engage in battle the
coming turn.  From you say above, looting was not a problem during the
turn that the unit was rallying, but during the turn *after* the unit
had rallied.

Now, if the unit rallied and did not engage in battle (or, at least
was not defeated -- that situation should be obvious), one must ask
why it did not engage in battle.  I can make some assumptions/guesses.

My first guess is (as Josiah already alluded to) that the realm you
were in was only neutral to you, not at war.  Hence, you were the
defenders, they were the attackers and since it was a militia unit, it
was not aggressive and did not attack you.  Since there was no battle
that turn, it is assumed that the region owners (if present) are now
the defenders in any following battles.  Since they are the defenders,
you cannot loot.

Then, the following turn, you are the attackers, you are set to
aggressive and you defeat the units again.

Is my guess correct?  If so, I think the standard refrain is: If you
want to war someone, set your relations to war.

If not, can you hazard a guess as to why there was no battle at the
turn the unit finished rallying?


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss