Just curious if anyone else has had this happen in a game before? I noticed that you could actually get armies to move two territories in one turn under certain circumstances. It is not a bug, but just a consequence of the fact that the origin of armies are not tracked once a order is complete. Unfortunately I do not have a game to post here that shows this happening.

To illustrate suppose that you have three territories (A, B, and C) where A does not border C. A is owned by one player and B and C are owned by another player or teammates. Each of these territories has 5 armies. The following series of order executions would allow armies from C to attack A within one turn:

1. A attacks B with 4 armies but the attack fails, leaving A and B both with 1 army.
2. C transfers 4 armies to B.
3. B (now with 5 armies again) attacks A with 4 armies and wins.

Since B's armies were lost in order 1, there is no way that any armies from B could attack A. But following the transfer from C there are armies in B to execute the order. However these armies have already moved one territory in the turn. It would seem that the execution of the attack order from B does not separate armies newly arrived from those that were present at the beginning of the turn, allowing the order to attack A from B to be executed.

Of course this will only happen rarely be apparent because B would have to have originally contained the number of armies required to place the attack order at the beginning of the turn and you would have to have the attack order from B come after the transfer from C. Both of which would have to be preceded by A attacking B.

Not sure if you could strategically make use of the quirk, but I was wondering if anyone else had seen this/used it?

Cheers
NoZone

Yes this is a feature I use it all the time how did you not know this?

Does it really work that way? I've only seen this, with different order:

1. C transfers 4 armies to B.
2. A attacks B but the attack fails, killing at least as many armies as there were in B and the beginning of turn.
3. B (having some more armies) attacks A and wins.

I've never seen a situation like you described. In my version, it could be assumed that "first armies killed are the ones coming from somewhere else".

I too have only seen it in the order Matma describes. The armies that weren't originally in the territory at the beginning of the turn (the ones that transfer there first) are the ones that die first in the attack, and only after all those armies are exhausted do the ones that were there from the start get killed off.

I just tested and it only works "my" way.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1282912

No Ive worked it the first way I am nearly sure maybe I did it matma way but I think it was 1st way

I'm pretty sure it works matma's way.. because the troops from C head to B, then are used in the defense of B, and the then the troops originally from B are used in the assault on A.

I've had issues with the turn-order being wrong and not ending up with the full attack because of it.. /*IE, A attacks B and leaves 5 on each, C reinforces B with 20, B attacks A with 4, leaving A still controlled by the opposing player, despite B having plenty of forces*

Well it could be that I have the sequence wrong. Matma, I assume in your example that you placed a order of 7 to attack and only had one attack despite having >20 available? If so, maybe I am not remembering correctly because that should be the scenario I described. Wish I had the link for the game I saw it in, I don't know which one it was. Never mind I guess.

I've used Matma's explanation countless times, it's a great tool. I've never seen the other way work. It might be helpful to try and find that game, because if it did happen, it's probably a bug.

in the foreseeable future I will attempt to replicate both situations using a friends account then post the game here.. if i remember it'll probably be done on tuesday