Game Rules & Questions Thread: Battles

[Xeniphon]

Im a bit confused, in the JieTing battle Han Zhong reinforcments arrived on turn 6 (the only reason I can possibly see is snow) however in the Mian Zhu Guan battle this doesnt happen. If snow doesnt dely reinforcments why were the Han Zhong reinforcments deployed 3 turns after they were supposed to be?

[SCZhuge13]

If I recall correctly, your I-net level affects not just your ability to reinforce, but when those reinforcements arrive at a battle (if at all). So I'm going to guess your I-net level was insufficient for them to arrive earlier, Xen.

-SCZ

[fate]

Just to elaborate, unless you have 19/20 I-Net, any reinforcements you can get will arrive at the end of turn 4 to act on turn 5, which is, having gona back and double-checked, what happened at Jieting. With 19/20 I-Net, reinforcements arrive at the end of turn 2 to act on turn 3.

[Xeniphon]

Odd, as I recall we had well over the max cap which translated to 20 (if it werent capped it would have been 41)... Thats why I was confused.

[Aureal]

You had 18 i-net.

[JohannXIV]

Spurred by the fleet footed battle of Mian Zhu Guan gate this month. If a successful arson attack drops a fort or gate locations troop total to 0 is it considered abandoned, or is it still considered "occupied" by one general who couldn't hold it if an enemy invaded?

Also, if it's still occupied by no troops, would reinforcements still arrive on turn 3 or would they show up at the start of battle much as they would contesting a fort building?

[Kentalot]

Spurred by the fleet footed battle of Mian Zhu Guan gate this month. If a successful arson attack drops a fort or gate locations troop total to 0 is it considered abandoned, or is it still considered "occupied" by one general who couldn't hold it if an enemy invaded?

Also, if it's still occupied by no troops, would reinforcements still arrive on turn 3 or would they show up at the start of battle much as they would contesting a fort building?

Great eye for what we were trying I think the general rules are that if either no commander for the fort or nor troops for the fort (or both), the gate/fort still belongs to whoever held it at first. However, it doesn't serve as a fort anymore for either side. Like what happened in Hang Song I think between Gao Wu and Miao where neither side owned it even though it was nominally held by one side, but since no troops were there, people can go through it as if it didn't exist.

So as an example, if our arson worked and destroyed that 1(5) troops, then we could've actually invaded Zi Tong directly (though they can choose a field battle, which would be at MZG where MZG is open to both sides). If we successfully pushed on to siege, we'd get MZG nominally (though we have no one there so we'd have to move people there via KT), but if not, they would've nominally kept MZG (which then they can restock with troops in a KT etc).

They would have no chance of sending reinforcements if we invaded MZG and not Zi Tong btw, which is what we did.

[JohannXIV]

Thanks, most of that made sense. It was just a situation I could've seen cropping up as fort building is becoming very popular.

[Shien Dun]

I know Valor, Loyalty, and Stealth all contribute to the success of a Raid. However, does getting expertise in any of these skills (other than Raid, of course) increase the chances of a raid's success?

[Aureal]

No, just the effects listed for them.

*continues glaring at red*

[Carpevis]

Okay, hypothetical question regarding the burning of cities:

Under what conditions can a city be burned by it's own ruler? The scenarios I'll use are Xiao Huang who burned Wan and is now in a field battle at Che (Che has more sequels than Star Wars...). Can he retreat from Xu Chang, and burn it, go to Lou Yang and eventually burn that city too? In other words, does a ruler have to have a city of his own to which to fall back in order to burn the city he's leaving behind?

[JG Chan]

Well, from the Battle Rules, we have this:

•Burn the city, and then abandon the city to retreat to a connected city/fort. The burned city will lose 50% of its stats, but at the cost of your kingdom’s prestige and reputation. Forts cannot be burned in this manner.

My reading of it would suggest that yes, the ruler must have someplace to go, though it doesn't have to be a city. Plus, common sense would say that he can't burn down his very last city even if he has a fort nearby...because at that point, he'd become an Independent holed up in a fort, not a kingdom, and that isn't in the scope of the game right now.

Of course, considering how rarely this has come up, a staff answer would be better here.

[fate]

I believe that the option comes up when you are notified of an invasion against you and have enough I-Net, therefore it can only be done prior to the battle taking place. And yes, you must have another city to pull everything back too, as it is an alternative option given with just surrendering the city and moving out.

[Legend]

No, you can only make that decision before making your defending post. Once you choose to defend, burning is no longer an option for you

[Sun Tang]

I think i have an easy question.

Scenario: Imagine a city with Max I-net and 500 troops is attacked, and sends out a field unit. For the field unit they send out 300 troops. They decide they can not win the field battle after suffering 50% casualties so they retreat to their city/castle walls.

Question: is the defending city allowed to reorganize their units for the siege battle and supply fresh troops to accomodate for the casualties of the field battle?