I think I just tested this, but I can't load the History to verify it.  If an Artillery border attacks a territory that has 2 troops on it (abandon off), should the defending territory roll 1 dice or should it roll 2 dice?  I believe it is currently only defending with 1 unit since that's all the Artillery border can really kill, however that makes it seem like a strike against the defender since he only gets to defend with 1 troop instead of his 2. 

I'll try and double check this, but wondering which is the right way anyhow.

Yes, it defends with 1. If it defended with two and lost two then you'd have to gift the unit back to the defender which seems wrong.

Why do they get to have one any way? I assume the reason that the artillery borders work the way that they do is because it was much easier to code it so that you simply could not attack if they only had 1 unit, but from a logical (in game) standpoint it doesn't make sense to me.

If you have an artillery cannon that you're firing at a group of enemy forces how is that one guy going to miraculously survive? Why are you able to aim your guns at a group of 20 troops and blow away 19 of them but still have that one lucky idiot thumbing his nose at you? It doesn't make any sense to me.

I would much rather see artillery borders work just like all others when attacking, just one would not be able to "conquer" said territory. The defending territory that was then reduced to 0 troops (rubble) would then follow the board settings as though it were abandoned. As in: revert to neutral, turn neutral at the end of the turn, or stay player controlled.

I'm sure that might be a bit trickier to code, but I think it would make artillery boarders so much more versatile and awesome.

Well if abandonment is on then you can reduce the artillery territory to zero units.

Having said that I do see your point, there's no real reason why it couldn't be a player owned territory with zero units even if abandon was disabled. I'd need to change the code so that the abandonment settings were checked when attacking using Artillery, that's all.

Awesome. I really like it when I talk (type) and people listen.

It may sneak into the current Player update all being well :)

Hmmmm, dunno if that's the way I was intending this to go :P But Toaster does make sense, although using the abandon settings when abandon is off will seem somewhat odd.
Will this effect any currently released maps? Medit Madness by EM perhaps? Cram might want to know about this for his 1774 map.

Like Toaster, I always thought that having an artillery attack should be the equivalent of reducing a territory to rubble, i.e. eliminating all units on that territory.

The question of whether or not the territory should stay player owned at 0, or revert to neutral at 0, is another question (only applies to abandon-off games, otherwise use game rules).

Ideally, I would like a rule that says if you have 0 units on a territory at the end of your turn (note: not the beginning of your turn), that territory reverts to neutral. Thus, artillery could not break a continent, but it would require players to repopulate bombed-out territories with at least one new unit if they want to keep that territory. The other option is to allow the map-maker to customize these settings.

Kjeld wrote:
Ideally, I would like a rule that says if you have 0 units on a territory at the end of your turn (note: not the beginning of your turn), that territory reverts to neutral.

That's how abandon revert currently works.

One complication is what happens when the territory you have attacked via artillery is a player's last territory. If the territory reverts to neutral at the end of the turn, did you eliminate them and get their cards or are they 'lost'?

Toaster wrote:
If you have an artillery cannon that you're firing at a group of enemy forces how is that one guy going to miraculously survive? Why are you able to aim your guns at a group of 20 troops and blow away 19 of them but still have that one lucky idiot thumbing his nose at you? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Because its a game with rules and not reality? If you want a simulation, turn on abandon. Or, from a (semi)realistic view, maybe he's at the bottom of a foxhole covered in a protective layer of the bodies of his comrades.

If abandon is not on, then for me the expected behavior is that one army gets left at the end. I think maps will play better/moreappropriately/asexpected if 1 army remains after an artillery onslaught. But in the end, the decision to reduce to 1 or reduce to 0 is more or less arbitrary, and I'm not going to get my undies in a bunch over it.

Other thoughts:

It might end up quite confusing to have an empty territory that can't be attacked by an adjacent territory with 1 army on it. I can already picture the flood of forum posts from people saying something is broken when there is an empty territory they can't attack.

If you take the territory down to 0 with abandon off, will the original player maintain possession or will it revert to neutral? This will affect per/ter bonuses. A territory turning neutral could also make a huge strategic difference. It would prevent a player from placing armies there on their next turn or from transferring through it. (I would strongly oppose having a territory turn neutral if abandon is not on).

Regarding the original question: I don't care whether the last two guys roll 1 dice and the offense is advantaged or if they roll 2 and the defense is advantaged. As long as the decision is made, documented, and remains consistent.

tom wrote:

Kjeld wrote:
Ideally, I would like a rule that says if you have 0 units on a territory at the end of your turn (note: not the beginning of your turn), that territory reverts to neutral.

That's how abandon revert currently works.

One complication is what happens when the territory you have attacked via artillery is a player's last territory. If the territory reverts to neutral at the end of the turn, did you eliminate them and get their cards or are they 'lost'?

I meant that the territory stays player-owned at 0, but if on my turn (not on any turn) I control a territory with 0 units on it when I click 'End Turn',  then the territory should revert to neutral.

Hence the attacker wouldn't actually eliminate me if that was my last territory, but somebody else who is near enough to actually conquer my territory could get the elimination before I could take my next turn.

Kjeld wrote:

tom wrote:

Kjeld wrote:
Ideally, I would like a rule that says if you have 0 units on a territory at the end of your turn (note: not the beginning of your turn), that territory reverts to neutral.

That's how abandon revert currently works.

One complication is what happens when the territory you have attacked via artillery is a player's last territory. If the territory reverts to neutral at the end of the turn, did you eliminate them and get their cards or are they 'lost'?

I meant that the territory stays player-owned at 0, but if on my turn (not on any turn) I control a territory with 0 units on it when I click 'End Turn',  then the territory should revert to neutral.

Hence the attacker wouldn't actually eliminate me if that was my last territory, but somebody else who is near enough to actually conquer my territory could get the elimination before I could take my next turn.

There's a whole thread dedicated to people who don't always remember to turn in their cards before they place (myself included), and that's a big part of gameplay and is a task that happens frequently. This is asking for trouble. It's not that forgetting some step in the process is a sign of idiocy. I wager the same people have never made that mistake in a tabletop game.  In an online setting, though, where a player might not get a turn for two weeks or more it is simply too easy to lose track of everything that's going on in our increasingly complex games.

I think its asking way too much of people to make sure they place an army on an empty territory, that they won't even be looking for because abandon is not on, at the start of their turn or else face consequences at the end of the turn. When I click the "End Turn" button and some territory in the middle of a continent turns neutral and I lose my bonus, I'd put a fist through my monitor and quit the site. Seriously. And this is coming from one of the least stupidity-sympathetic, draconian assholes on the internet.

Cramchakle wrote:

I think its asking way too much of people to make sure they place an army on an empty territory, that they won't even be looking for because abandon is not on, at the start of their turn or else face consequences at the end of the turn.

I agree with this.  I don't always examine every territory on the map (especially something like 1774), because it's not really needed.

Perhaps allow 0 units on territories taken down by Artillery borders to remain player owned regardless of abandon settings when abandon is Off, these would remain player owned until actually captured using an invading troop by another player.

That is if the player doesn't go ahead and get a "Last Hope" single troop replaced on the territory.