Playing a PBEM game as USA and took Little Rock Arkansas with an Encircle Siege in June '62. Have garrisoned with one Bge and city has about 32% Defense. Own all but two provinces now in Arkansas. Am actually building a mine in L.R. per request of governor...
UNFORTUNATELY, I have not been give ANY victory points for taking L.R. Ark. I thought it might be related to Unrest but the province containing L.R. is no longer in Unrest...
I "think" I saw this issue once before in the beta patch but can't be sure....
Is there something I am missing or is this a serious bug?
Regards,
LeBlaque
No VP for Little Rock Capture
Moderator: Gil R.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
I've e-mailed the last five save game turns from both sides to ericbabe...that should cover the transition from CSA to USA
LeBlaque
LeBlaque
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
I just stepped through one of the save files you sent. In the scenario you're playing, Little Rock seems to start the scenario as a Union city -- that's what the debugger seems to indicate at least; as such, when it is under Union control it provides no victory points to the Union.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
To further clarify my post: there was a bug in the routine that captures cities that are empty. Cities that are captured via sieges seem to be captured properly, cities that are empty that are captured via the "conquer territory" routine are having their OriginalPlayer data member set -- which was proper behavior in Crown of Glory but not in FOF. I shall fix. I'm surprised none of our testers or open beta players saw this before, but it's probably fairly unusual to abandon cities outright.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
To provide you some additional feedback-- Little Rock was NOT empty or abandoned when I began an encircle siege. It had one Brigade of CSA troops and, at least according to the interface, was CSA controlled. If my PBEM counterpart had abandoned it, I didn't see a Bge moving away on the replay. I shall have to ask him.
As I was working with the beta patches I noticed this behavior once before against the AI, but don't think I reported it as I ended that game when the second beta patch came out. I also believe it was NOT happening in Little Rock in that particular game but occurred in Kentucky's or Tennessee's capital. Consequently, this may require further review beyond this one capital?
Regards,
LeBlaque
As I was working with the beta patches I noticed this behavior once before against the AI, but don't think I reported it as I ended that game when the second beta patch came out. I also believe it was NOT happening in Little Rock in that particular game but occurred in Kentucky's or Tennessee's capital. Consequently, this may require further review beyond this one capital?
Regards,
LeBlaque
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
The way the code treats cities, there's probably nothing intrinsic to Little Rock or to its being a state capital involved.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
I am playing the Basic Game as I am still learning to play FOF. I seem to be having the same or similar problem as LeBlaque with an additional twist. The problem did not seem to happen in the first game I played but as it was my first I may just not have noticed it. The last game I played and the one I am playing now does not give me VP for capturing Confederate state capitals, including Nashville, Baton Rouge, and Jackson; it also did not deduct from National Will for Baton Rouge or Jackson. The game also gave me 1 VP for capturing a city and is not giving me any more VP for capturing Confederate cities, including a large one like New Orleans. Am I misunderstanding the rules or is there a bug? It is making winning as the Union a real tough challenge. Thanks for your help.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
There is a bug involved -- there are two ways of capturing inside the code, one less common (to players as a whole) than the other, and that way doesn't award VPs properly. I've programmed what I hope is a fix and we're in the process of testing it right now.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
ORIGINAL: ericbabe
There is a bug involved -- there are two ways of capturing inside the code, one less common (to players as a whole) than the other, and that way doesn't award VPs properly. I've programmed what I hope is a fix and we're in the process of testing it right now.
Given my other thread report on capturing cities via the PBEM "Attack the Fort" command and resultant via QB, hopefully your bug fix above will address the VP problem associated with this capture-type as well....
Regards,
LeBlaque
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
ORIGINAL: ericbabe
There is a bug involved -- there are two ways of capturing inside the code, one less common (to players as a whole) than the other, and that way doesn't award VPs properly. I've programmed what I hope is a fix and we're in the process of testing it right now.
In my game, I have captured: lynchburg, knoxville and chattanooga, but I have only 1 point in cities.
I understand that this is the bug you had said in this "quote" ???
When this fix will appear??
This bug it's very bad, because I amb loosing a lot of VP's to win the game.
Thx !
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
Shouldn't be too much longer. I'm trying to get a new build to the testers today that'll be a candidate for official release, though it'll take at least two weeks to be sure. We don't have anything else planned for the next update other than what I'll hopefully finish up working on today, unless of course we find any issues with the new features/fixes.
As an aside, there must be some different style of play some people use that our testers haven't used -- we went through several iterations of the game with only one tester noticing this in one case. Yet for other people this seems to affect almost every city they capture.
As an aside, there must be some different style of play some people use that our testers haven't used -- we went through several iterations of the game with only one tester noticing this in one case. Yet for other people this seems to affect almost every city they capture.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
ORIGINAL: ericbabe
Shouldn't be too much longer. I'm trying to get a new build to the testers today that'll be a candidate for official release, though it'll take at least two weeks to be sure. We don't have anything else planned for the next update other than what I'll hopefully finish up working on today, unless of course we find any issues with the new features/fixes.
As an aside, there must be some different style of play some people use that our testers haven't used -- we went through several iterations of the game with only one tester noticing this in one case. Yet for other people this seems to affect almost every city they capture.
Perhaps is a stupid question [:D] but, it's possible during this 2 weeks of testing that we could edit the save to modificate this VP ??
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
Here's a variant on the problem:
In the CSA game I was playing last night I moved to relieve sieges on both Little Rock and Lynchburg. The forces involved were division sized and evenly matched so I opted to pull the city garrisons into the detailed combats. I won both battles. Both relief forces had instructions to move further in the turn- The division in Little Rock did so and the Lynchburg force did not.
The Union siege works were still in place the next turn and my city garrisons were left, after the battle, in the province rather than in the city. I ordered the garrisons back into the cities.
On the next turn, the event report showed that the Union had captured both cities and my will took a hit for Little Rock, even though province control remained with me. Apparently my garrisons were unable to enter either city because of the empty siegeworks.
When I play as the Union I tend to only receive VP for about half the cities I capture and I am unable to detect any difference in the mechanics of my play that correlates to the different results.
In the CSA game I was playing last night I moved to relieve sieges on both Little Rock and Lynchburg. The forces involved were division sized and evenly matched so I opted to pull the city garrisons into the detailed combats. I won both battles. Both relief forces had instructions to move further in the turn- The division in Little Rock did so and the Lynchburg force did not.
The Union siege works were still in place the next turn and my city garrisons were left, after the battle, in the province rather than in the city. I ordered the garrisons back into the cities.
On the next turn, the event report showed that the Union had captured both cities and my will took a hit for Little Rock, even though province control remained with me. Apparently my garrisons were unable to enter either city because of the empty siegeworks.
When I play as the Union I tend to only receive VP for about half the cities I capture and I am unable to detect any difference in the mechanics of my play that correlates to the different results.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
The capture may have happened before the garrisons can move -- the siege subphase is resolved before any movement.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
Eric,
OK, so an empty siegeworks can capture an empty city. I can deal with that now that I know.
Forgive me if you've explained this elsewhere and point me at that thread-but- What are the things we should be aware of when trying to capture a city and get the VP? Are there things we can do to avoid the bug?
Best,
OK, so an empty siegeworks can capture an empty city. I can deal with that now that I know.
Forgive me if you've explained this elsewhere and point me at that thread-but- What are the things we should be aware of when trying to capture a city and get the VP? Are there things we can do to avoid the bug?
Best,
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
An empty siegeworks shouldn't be able to capture a city, but the siege is resolved before movement and so you may not be able to relieve before it is captured.
I'm not entirely sure what the best strategy is for avoiding the VP bug -- I'm not exactly sure what our beta testers were doing differently.
I'm not entirely sure what the best strategy is for avoiding the VP bug -- I'm not exactly sure what our beta testers were doing differently.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
It's been happening to me more often than not. I'm not using any special tactics or strategy and so far, I have used "normal siege" exclusively. Hope to see a fix soon.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
ORIGINAL: Johnnie
It's been happening to me more often than not. I'm not using any special tactics or strategy and so far, I have used "normal siege" exclusively. Hope to see a fix soon.
Me too, I always choose normal siege.
RE: No VP for Little Rock Capture
Any word on when the bug fix is to come out? The bug is really messing with my play, e.g. I am playing a game as the Union in which I have conquered just about everything but the James River province, it is in 1865, and by the VPs I am about to lose the game as soon as a month or so more goes by. Thanks.