Issues that were addressed in 1.01b and 1.02

[Grognot]

I'm trying to build a depot in area 512, immediately north of Cairo. The Egyptian corps has not moved; there is ample money in the treasury to buy depots or pay for depot supply; there is a long-standing depot in Cairo itself. Egypt has been a Russian FS since the initial Turkish DOW.

The game tell me that area 512 is not within a valid supply chain when I try to place a depot there. The game is clearly letting me supply the corps, however... ?

[ndrose]

Follow-up to post above re:non-conquest of minors with corps.

In the attached file, France begins its land phase with corps in three Italian minors sponsored by different majors. All garrisons have been previously eliminated, and the corps are standing in the rural areas of the capital cities. If you just forage through the land turn, making no moves, all three minors should fall at the end of the phase. But only Rome does.

My suspicion, based on this situation and others I've been observing, is that conquest by corps (i.e. without detaching a garrison into the city) is not working properly IF the minor's sponsor is a country to which the invading major has forced access (by prior peace treaty). In this case, both Britain and Austria, but not Spain.

If these minors were "real" possessions of the controlling powers, this would be the correct behavior--I can't conquer the possessions of a major with which I'm not at war just by moving into them by virtue of my access rights. But the program seems to be applying the same rule to sponsored minors.

Nathan Rose

[ndrose]

I just saw AI Austria surrender to France, even though we are not at war. I know this bug was reported in 1.01a, but thought it had been addressed. Maybe not? This is in 1.01b.

Also, when that happened, Austria went into instability and Austria's sponsored minor, which France had invaded, became French. Now, I should have gotten conquest before (see posts above), but it should NOT happen this way, I think.

Control should be transferred only if there are ENEMY forces present. France and Austria were not at war, of course, but even if they were, this sort of transfer should only happen if instability occurs WHILE they're at war, right? In this case, instability was the consequence of surrender--at which point the "war" was over. Maybe the program, having invented the war in which Austria surrendered, also invented a state of war continuing after the surrender?

I wonder whether this surrender bug is actually related to the forced access/sponsored minor bug. Is the AI reacting to imminent loss of its territory by pre-emptive surrender, whether there's a war or not?

Nathan Rose

[ndrose]

One more:

The program still doesn't recognize ceded provinces as no longer the original MP's territory. For instance, France defeats Austria, takes Moravia. Russia and Austria are at war; Russia feels free to send troops through Moravia. [:-]

Nathan Rose

[Grognot]

Bug with lapsed war and POWs --

Spain DOW'd Morocco.  My Turks got control.  Blake crosses with a Spanish corps, gets beat-down,  and retreats into eastwards through Morocco (can't retreat across the crossing arrow).  He starves a bit, attacks the Moroccans again, and loses.  I hit him again and capture Blake.

There are no longer any Spanish forces in Morocco, so the war lapses... and Blake remains a prisoner of the Turks, who are -not- at war with the Spanish.

[ecn1]

Excuse the cross-posting, but wasnt sure if this bug was posted here...

Naval Retreat Bug - Retreats are not made to nearest port...

Read Bug reports here:
see tm.asp?m=1694550

[Monadman]

Sorry guys, the list has not been updated while I have been away. Will be returning shortly after Marshall and with any luck, but no promises as to when; we can get out a 1.01c patch that is obviously needed (what else is new).

Richard

[Jimmer]

New bug: Tracing supply through enemy corps (with friendly corps in the same area). See the attached file.

Turkey is at war with Egypt. It's the January, 1805 Turkish land phase. I've moved the Turkish Imperial cav corps to Cairo. According to the manual, the Egyptian corps next to Jerusalem should not block supply, because I have unbesieged friendly corps in that same location (see the EXCEPTION in rule 10.3.3, top of page 59). However, as you can see, the cav corps would have to forage if I left this situation as it is.

I didn't include a screenshot, but I also tried having the cav corps sitting two spaces from Jerusalem (with only the battle area between it and Jerusalem). In this case, the game was going to charge me $3 for supply.

So, what is happening is that it believes the unbesieged corps is blocking supply, even though the exception clearly applies in this instance.

[Jimmer]

Check out the new math:

Turkey has the wind. 15% of 16 ships is 2.4 or 2 ships. This is correct.

However, once Spain's turn comes up, those two ships SHOULD be gone. I suspect they are not. 20% of 16 is 3.2 or 3 kills, not 4 as listed. 20% of 18 is 3.6, which would round to 4. I suspect the game is not properly honoring the wind gage in this case.

[Jimmer]

Someone can delete my last post. I think it is just displaying things out of sequence. The Spanish started with 20 ships, not 18, so their losses were already displayed in the totals.
 
This is NOT a bug.

[ndrose]

There seems to be a glitch placing reinforcements from minors that go neutral and then become someone else's free state.

In this case, France lost Holland awhile ago by being in the fiasco zone. Austria then manipulated Holland (and several other states) into alliance.

Spain declares war on Austria; all the allies become free states, including Holland. All other new free states' forces are placeable as usual. But for Holland, although the game shows infantry, cavalry and ships available as reinforcements, none of the corps or fleet counters are available. The infantry can be placed as garrison, but the cavalry must be converted. Even worse, the ships do not go into a port for later placement after purchase of a fleet counter; they just disappear.

I'm assuming this is a bug and not a rule; otherwise why show the forces available at all?

File attached.

[ndrose]

And another little one; security bug I guess you'd call it. No file; should have taken a screenshot, but I didn't think of it fast enough.

Playing as Austria against the AI, during a land combat phase (I think it may have been during France's phase, actually), as the game moved between battles, I could briefly see the corps ids on the counters (e.g. 1A for France's artillery corps--confirmed when I stepped on it next turn).

[Jimmer]

Another bug:
 
I moved a Serbian corps one space across the border (which is a river) to Odessa. There is one Russian cossack in the space, plus a 1-factor garrison in the city.
 
When I moved across the river, my remaining movement dropped from 3 to 1. It should have only cost 1 movement to cross, since there are no corps on the other side. But, it cost 2. I suspect the cossack is being counted as a "corps" for this purpose.

[bresh]

While running some test games, I encountered fail to autosave couple times. Is this a known bug ?
I tried rerunning turns, but it didnt reappear, so seems random. Last 2 times i notiched it was during naval move phases.


Another big bug, i tried test some with austria & prussia & france.
Situation :
France & Prussia both have corps in a minor country, move there previous months. Before war errupts they can stack same area.
Next month War errupts France vs Prussia and Austria, France decides to move inbetween the allies.

So Austria moves "first of the 3".
Austria moves some corps lead by Mack to the minor containing both French+Prussian corps(lead by Hoenloe). No combat happens there, during combat phase, instead it land move France now...........
Savegame attached !!!
Btw unless im remember wrong, you actually need to move macks stack by hand, i saved at that point to try some variants.
Also notiche Depot in Vienna, and Light inf 2 areas away at Regensburg, unmoved, but Game says no Valid supply chain ???


This situation is quite hypotetical. But stuff like this could happen in games, maybe not for France, but if 2 nations are at war with one who moves between them this can happen.
So Mps can prob be exchanged some, but im to lazy to try other scenarios


Regards
Bresh

[Mardonius]

Ottoman Empire Component Nation Bug:

As Turkey, I was at war with Spain when I created the Ottoman Empire. After the creation of the Ottoman Empire, the component parts of the Ottman Empire (Syria, Morocco, etc) still read as nations that Spain is still at war with. This by itself is not a big deal. Further, after I achieve peace with Spain these nation's still appear on Spain's 'at war' list. Once again, not critical, just untidy.

However, it does become a significant issue when I attempt to sail a Turkish fleet carrying a Syrian Corps past the Spanish Fleet. Although Turkey and its Ottoman Empire minor country are at peace with Spain, the AI interprets the Syrian Corps as being from the nation of Syria (which no longer exists, having been absorbed into the OE) and declares war (-4pp) on Turkey despite there being an enforced Peace. That noted, the DoW does not register on the nation's status display. It appears that Spain just took a whack Turks carrying the Syrians and suffered the -4pp for this alone.

Ottoman Port Bug

The Port of Varna in Bulgaria on the Black Sea does not allow ships to move into it

Russian Holding Prisoners After Surrender

Russia Unconditionally Surrenders to Turkey after having taken Pechilvan Khan prisoner about 18 months earlier.
After surrender PK is still held but no country is ID'd. Simply reads "PK held prisoner by (blank)"

Thanks

[ndrose]

This is to confirm the illegal channel crossing bug reported above by Termite2. I'm attaching a file in case you haven't recreated this one yet.

Britain's land phase; just forage and end phase, and the next thing you see will be a French corps in London.

[Jimmer]

This thread is WAY too hard to keep track of. But, in the hopes that these bugs have not yet been reported:

Bug number 1: When Egypt is a free state (happens to be under British control, which is why I know this), it is not receiving trade money for its one unbesieged port (Alexandria). It reports its money/manpower as $10/12 MP. This is correct if not including the trade, as Egypt has two corps counters on map. Damietta is besieged, but Alexandria (the $1/$2 port) is unbesieged. The capital is besieged, but not enemy-occupied (yet).

GB DID receive the trade value for Alexandria ($29 total, would be $28 without Alexandria). But, Egypt did not receive the money.

[Jimmer]

Second bug:

Piracy is stated to apply to "trade" in the rules (12.2.1, pg 85). This implies both American and Domestric trade. However, piracy seems to have no effect on American trade.

I am playing GB. I sent one 10-factor fleet on a piracy mission against France. I figured "What the heck? He MIGHT lose some money." However, the game did not even make a piracy attempt against France.

The other piracy entries (France vs. Prussia and Austria) were carried out correctly. Prussia lost nothing, because her capital was occupied and she thus had no trade income.

If there is a disagreement as to whether the manual is right or the game is right, I want to lobby HARD for the manual being correct, even though it would be easier to fix. Piracy MUST apply to American trade to be at all historical. Historically, GB was the big privateering nation. The game makes it totally useless to allocate privateers, except against friendly nations, even though the historical GB actually had formal laws and rules that applied to them!

As you may recall, in 1807, Wilburforce got his first anti-slavery measure passed because of French slaving ships which flew the American (neutral) flag. The law made those ships able to be boarded by her PRIVATEERS, legally, if they were flying a neutral (American) flag. They knew the ship owners would never allow their ships boarded by (legally-sanctioned) pirates, and so the slave trade would dry up almost overnight. Which is just about how it worked out.

But, in the game, GB can have no effect on French-American trade except by the other method (historically called Napoleon's "Continental System"!) Kind of backwards.

Oh, the saved game files are the same ones from the previous post.

[Jimmer]

This isn't so much a bug as it is a way to speed things up (probably VERY easily):
 
The economic phase is played sequentially in the game currently. However, there is no reason this has to be this way. There seems to be a "pre-economic" phase that happens anyhow (including the collection of money and manpower, victory point collection and that sort of thing -- all the automatic stuff). The only things the players really need to do is buy troops and counters, set manipulation, etc.
 
All of the things the players need to actually put their fingers onto can be done independently from each other. There's no tie-in (except for giving money, but that happens in the diplomacy phases). So, all seven economic phases could be done asynchronously, without any impact to game play other than not knowing which countries built how many ships, and if any other nation made a kingdom.
 
If you decide to use this idea, and thus give credit for this one, please include gwheelock, as it was a conversation we had together that got us thinking about this.

[zaquex]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

This isn't so much a bug as it is a way to speed things up (probably VERY easily):

The economic phase is played sequentially in the game currently. However, there is no reason this has to be this way. There seems to be a "pre-economic" phase that happens anyhow (including the collection of money and manpower, victory point collection and that sort of thing -- all the automatic stuff). The only things the players really need to do is buy troops and counters, set manipulation, etc.

All of the things the players need to actually put their fingers onto can be done independently from each other. There's no tie-in (except for giving money, but that happens in the diplomacy phases). So, all seven economic phases could be done asynchronously, without any impact to game play other than not knowing which countries built how many ships, and if any other nation made a kingdom.

If you decide to use this idea, and thus give credit for this one, please include gwheelock, as it was a conversation we had together that got us thinking about this.

It is not a bad suggestion, especially if some reactions/answers that are normally part of the diplomacy phase could be lifted out to the reinforcement phase, mainly change of movement order and responses to offers of alliance.

The alliance request is a bit more dodgy than movement as new alliances could shift where you want to place reinforcements, I personally dont think it will have any major impact on game play.

It could also open up for a possibility to resolve things like peace treaties and access requests interactivly in the reinforcement phase. Something that could be interesting, and make the flow of the game more like the boardgame, without slowing it down. This needs careful thinking though as it may have substantial impact on gameplay.