Wrong battle reports
I'm starting to believe there are some problems with the battle reports.
Your army Timmetie92105 was attacked by WaywardTraveller outside the city of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Your army was killed in the battle. 1,128 attacking troops were killed.
this was a 10.100 man army. This could be luck but i could have sworn i saw a 10.100 man army take down only 79 men.
And waywardtraveller sais he lost more then those. Could i get my proper reports please? as to quote dr. Evil, I need the Info!
Doesn't show everything
That was only the stats from the casualties lost in my second army I attacked you with. I lost over 12k men in that battle.
There are deffinately some...odd...battle reporting eccentricities, but I haven't been able to nail down anything specifically wrong.
19:21:24 - November 11th, 2005 Your city of Washington, D.C., USA was attacked by babyjogger. None of your armies were killed in the battle and you lost 0 troops. 0 attacking troops were killed.You lost the city.
19:20:21 - November 11th, 2005 Your city of Washington, D.C., USA was attacked by babyjogger. None of your armies were killed in the battle and you lost 0 troops. 0 attacking troops were killed.You retained control of the city.
Right, they must have scared my huge army to death? and there was only one army outside washington.
i'm not asking you to fix it, just refund the 250.000 troops i had inside washington
Hmmm I created a topic about this at the same time?
Could it be merged?
right or strike it, i dont think he's cheating, i saw his army before he attacked and it was huge he probably just won so big the reporters died as well.
Its what i said...cheating or a bug...its not too huge to be reported as we've had bigger battles. So it would be interesting to know why this happens.
it happens, when you attack an army waiting outside the city (from inside) with your last army inside, who is inside the city. -> army is left with 0 troops. (but it is still there.
I had that happen to me when I took Harare, Zimbabwe. I attacked at the same time as Roger Andrew. His attack was first I assume and his army lost then I attacked him and lost, but I should have won... It beat all the defending armies, but it told me at the end of the battle report that Roger Andrew retained control of the city. Then it got even weirder, I clicked on my armies to send another army there and found that my original army was still outside the city, I attacked again and Roger Andrew had 0 defending troops, I then won the city 0 troops to 0 troops. It seems to be a weird bug, but in my case it was the correct outcome, I had superior numbers.
Originally Posted by Suomi