another question on target selection

[graf spee]

Hi,
Just performed this attack.

Attacker: 2 artillery
2 inf.
7 armor
Defender :3 militia
4 inf.
1 AA

This is what happened:
For the attacking force :
arty1=militia1
arty2=militia2
arty1=militia3
armor1=inf1
armor2=inf2
armor3=AAgun
armor4=inf3
armor5=inf4
armor6=inf1
armor7=inf2
inf1=inf3
inf2=inf4

For the defending force:
mil1=armor1
mil2=armor4
mil3=arty1
inf3=inf1
inf4=inf2
inf1=armor1
inf2=armor2
AAgun=armor3

1)Why did arty 2 not fire at range 1?
2)Why was armor 1 shot at twice ? I thought every unit was shot at once before"doubling"on a unit and there are still armor5,6 and 7??[&:]

Thanks
bob

[JanSorensen]

Bob,

Please send me the save in question. Its just easier for me to comment if I can see the combat in WaW.

[JanSorensen]

Bob,

1)Why did arty 2 not fire at range 1?
The fact that one of your ART did not fire again is per design - not a bug. Let me exemplify with a smaller example
Lets say 1 INF, 1 AA and 1 ARM attack 1 INF and 1 MIL

Targeting is done first:
1st pass: INF targets INF (same kind targeting but only units not targeted yet)
2nd pass: Either AA or ARM targets MIL, lets assume AA (target other type units that havent been targeted yet)
3rd pass: ARM targets either the INF or the MIL randomly - for the sake of the argument we assume it picks the MIL

Next firing occurs - note, not till after ALL units have picked a target.
1) INF misses INF
2) AA destroys MIL
3) ARM picked the MIl to fire at but thats destroyed already so the ARM does not fire

Something similarly happened to your ART


2)Why was armor 1 shot at twice ?

This is a bug as far as I can tell. The bug is that a unit that was destroyed at range 2 can pick a target yet the target does not take into account that its been targeted thus allowing another unit to also target it. Thus two units get to wrongly target the same armor because the first unit is already destroyed (and getting a heftly penalty to firing but thats besides the point here).

A bit complicated but I hope its understandable. I cannot say if this will be fixed or just remain a sneaky feature - but thank you for bringing it to attention either way.