That clears it up for me. If normal troops can't go in, then flyers can't either. I will do my best not to do this, but when moving in the alternate view, sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between an owned tower and unowned tower or between a unoccupied tower and a drawbridge. I won't be doing it on purpose in any case.
Thanks for getting the answer Mog!
H.

I think there was a Requiem siting a day or two ago, and he fixed something...was it this bug, Mog?

He did visit, but I have no idea, I certainly doubt it.

What happened was: I was going to make a new identity of Mogette and post in the forums with it. I used the same email address as Mog and when I tried to log in with either one I was denied. I flipped out and emailed a HELP email to Req and he showed up here to see what he could do. By that time it had fixed itself and I decided to never again tempt the hand of fate by being a multi!

Bad Mog

I had completly forgotten about this as I noticed that my Wyngerns supposedly could enter hulios drawbridges. So I tried it and attacked. Afterwards I started to get second thoughts and now after reading these posts here, I feel like a bug abuser. Lod bows his head down in shame

I thought it was a feature of the flying units (and regular units if ZOC allowed), because my memory of Req's position was that he set it to be allowed.

I remember a huge debate/thread that we had about the entry into towers, drawbridges AND the ownership/possible takeover of walls.

I lost the debate with Req, but I remember attempting to use his position of enemy troops entering towers/outposts/drawbridges as my argument for the 'takeover' of walls/pallisades.

As I remember, he was stating that attempting to compare the game mechanics to 'real life'...where an enemy could attack, kill occupants of a tower or outpost and after doing could enter and occupy the building...that wouldn't mean ownership abilities would be gained by doing so (selling back/destroying), but the entry would be permitted under normal ZOC rules.

I was using his position for that to gain the ability for comms (and similar class units) to 'takeover' walls/pallisades. Just as an enemy could attack/clear an enemy from a tower/outpost/drawbridge and basically 'control' that area, the same should be allowed for walls.

Like in real life, if a military unit didn't defend/occupy a wall/trench/bullworks, an enemy could move in and use to their advantage. Thus, my argument (plus his position on the tower/outpost/drawbridge) for the ability to take over undefended walls.

Last Edited : Monday, 20 May 2013 - 13:56

It would make the game very imbalanced. In theory a demon player could land troops onto the barracks of a medi player making it impossible to deploy

No, military academies and such wouldn't be 'allowed'....just the towers/outposts and drawbridges......but......I'm not 100% sure of how the debate ended on the tower side...seems he did wish to allow that....but I am 100% sure he didn't agree on 'taking over' walls.....but you're right Lod, that couldn't (landing on barracks) be allowed.

It actually happened to me recently in the proving grds, a player quit AND a new player joined...resulting in a unit of mine 'on' a barracks with an invisible enemy unit occupying the same space. I had to click on every space within the castle after killing all (visible) enemy troops when I didn't get the takeover option, to 'discover' the enemy unit.

Last Edited : Monday, 20 May 2013 - 14:12