This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
proving_grounds:proving_grounds:universal_vs_autocapture_hierarchy [2013/09/08 07:00] M57 |
proving_grounds:proving_grounds:universal_vs_autocapture_hierarchy [2017/02/28 12:26] (current) redshift |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
If a player owns T1 and T2, T4 will always be captured and have 1 unit. | If a player owns T1 and T2, T4 will always be captured and have 1 unit. | ||
- | One might think that if T1 fires first, it would bring T4 down to 1 unit (without changing ownership) and then T2 would AutoCapture and put 5 units on T4. Is this the intended behavior? If so, should it work this way? | + | One might think that if T1 fires first, it would bring T4 down to 1 unit (without changing ownership) and then T2 would AutoCapture and put 5 units on T4 |
+ | |||
+ | Is this the intended behavior? If so, should it work this way? | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Answer: The game engine first checks all territories for active continents and lists their actions. Secondly, it hierarchises the actions based on action type. Capture and Neutralisation take precedence over factory bonuses. In this case, T2 captures T4, and then, the bonuses from T1 and T2 are summed and applied - if T3 is active, its bonus will also be summed to the total. This results in a negative number of units in T4, but when this happens the engine sets the number to 1 if Abandon is OFF or to 0 if Abandon is ON. |