Issues that were addressed in 1.01b and 1.02

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: Monadman

#102-LC5 LAND COMBAT PHASE
From: Bresh
Problem: When one major power attacks another in a neutral minor country, there was no land combat phase.
File: No combat when in neutral minor.sav
Status: Confirmed bug - Pending

Richard

Richard i dont think its because of the battle happening in a neutral minor. Since if Austria doesnt move there. France - Pr will have battle during their phase.

I belive it has more to do, on how the engine solves if something triggers a battle.
If you need to, though bit time consuming, I could produce the same elsewhere.
Im just using Austria/Prussia/France nations since its easier to test.
Say if all happend in Prussia controlled minor/prussia, and until the X-month, Prussia had allowed "France" & "Austrian" access, so that both nations could stack in the same area. (In this case Fr-Pr).
Then in the running diplomacy month, France/Prussia breaks alliance and dows. Ending with Fr-war vs Pr+Aus,
and moving in this order: Aus-Fr-Pr.

What could also be tested is if battle happens, if prussia had no leaders attached.

I added 2 saves from a testgame i created today, to prove my point.
This time the "no-battle" doesnt happen in a minor, but in Magdeburg province inside Prussia.
Scenario is still Moveorder Aus-Fr-Pr. With current phase Austrian land.


Save-A is with no Prussian Leader attached to the Prussian Force. When Austria sends troops(just use Mack corps) or Austrian corps in Saxen, to test, to engage France, battle will happen, as expected, both ways.
Save-B is with Prussian Leader attached to the Prussian force. No matter how Austria sends its troops into Magdeburg province, no battle will be triggered, and the Austrian turn ends, without any battle.

Note you do need to move the Austrian forces yourself
Hope this helps you more finding the bug.

Regards
Bresh

Thanks again Bresh. Just trying to work thru a few problems associated with the new temp access function before releasing 1.02. After that release, we will refocus our attention on this issue and all the others on the list.

Richard

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: BruceSinger

#102-L4 LAND PHASE
From: Grollub
Problem: Poland’s cavalry corps is reported to have a MA of [6] when controlled by France.
No file available
Status: Not Confirmed Yet - Pending


I can confirm this with a 1.01b game. Can upload file if needed.

No need to ever ask Bruce, just post what files you can. Thanks for all the other files you already uploaded.

Richard

[Grimrod42]

Would it be possible to restore Russian OoB to either original EiA or EiH 5 in patch 1.02
It should be a really easy fix.

or could it be pointed out how to change it?

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Grimrod42

Would it be possible to restore Russian OoB to either original EiA or EiH 5 in patch 1.02
It should be a really easy fix.

or could it be pointed out how to change it?

Dont, use time on enhancements !

But include it once you guys get time to upload the game editor.

Regards
Bresh

[Grimrod42]

I would argue that this is an enhancement
I would argue that using EiH 3.0 is a major bug esp when it weakens Russia and makes the others stronger

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Grimrod42

I would argue that this is an enhancement
I would argue that using EiH 3.0 is a major bug esp when it weakens Russia and makes the others stronger

This is a bug thread though.
If you want rule changes about russian corps.
Not that I do agree, Russia is hurt. But oob is in my eyes the most minor part.

Changing oob wont help as much as fixing some kind of combined movement.
Also the PP gain/loss for "lend" forces.

OoB in the game is about the playability for some nations, such as Russia. So not really a bug.

About the OoB, You might wanna post comments in this thread, for better relevance.
Though you already posted it there, so i wonder why I show you
tm.asp?m=1672204



Regards
Bresh

[dodod]

new question/bug..

Program allows committing guard on day 1 round 1.  Rules state this should be after round 1.  Which is correct and can you fix whichever is not correct?

ALSO, can you PLEASE tell us if 1.02 will remedy the loaning corp political point problem?

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

ORIGINAL: Monadman

#102-LC5 LAND COMBAT PHASE
From: Bresh
Problem: When one major power attacks another in a neutral minor country, there was no land combat phase.
File: No combat when in neutral minor.sav
Status: Confirmed bug - Pending

Richard

ORIGINAL: Bresh
Richard i dont think its because of the battle happening in a neutral minor. Since if Austria doesnt move there. France - Pr will have battle during their phase.

I belive it has more to do, on how the engine solves if something triggers a battle.
If you need to, though bit time consuming, I could produce the same elsewhere.
Im just using Austria/Prussia/France nations since its easier to test.
Say if all happend in Prussia controlled minor/prussia, and until the X-month, Prussia had allowed "France" & "Austrian" access, so that both nations could stack in the same area. (In this case Fr-Pr).
Then in the running diplomacy month, France/Prussia breaks alliance and dows. Ending with Fr-war vs Pr+Aus,
and moving in this order: Aus-Fr-Pr.

What could also be tested is if battle happens, if prussia had no leaders attached.

Thanks again Bresh. Just trying to work thru a few problems associated with the new temp access function before releasing 1.02. After that release, we will refocus our attention on this issue and all the others on the list.

Richard

Nice, I actually belive, fixing this. Could be a little step toward combined movement (*Daydreams*)

Regards
Bresh

[Grognot]

In the attached saved game (PBEM, GB and FR human), at Linz, Austria --

My French stack is in 'ER' (besieging, rural), and
AI Austria's John is in 'AR' (rural) -- without any corps. I'm seeing this in an economic phase, not a land phase or land combat phase.

[Grognot]

Mr. Depot-Head, as seen in a PR/AU PBEM.

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: dodod

new question/bug..

Program allows committing guard on day 1 round 1.  Rules state this should be after round 1.  Which is correct and can you fix whichever is not correct?

ALSO, can you PLEASE tell us if 1.02 will remedy the loaning corp political point problem?

Ah, thanks dodod– I see what happened and have changed the first paragraph (not the bullets) in section 11.2.8 to read:

Before the resolution of a combat round, a player with a guard or grenadier corps may choose to "commit the guard". A player may do this only once per day of combat.
Note: the choice to commit the guard for the second or third round is actually done after the resolution of the combat round immediately preceding the second and third round (e.g. to commit the guard for the second round, click the “Guard” button after the first round concludes).

Btw, 1.02 does not address the PP distribution when corps are loaned.

Richard

[BruceSinger]

Version 1.01b. Playing Prussia. May of 1805 land phase. When I try to click on the III or 1G Prussia Corp, the gave gives a stack overflow.



Game attached.

[mariom1au]

I think I have found one with the PSA Chart.
I have started a PBM game as Turkey. I have DOW'ed Egypt (-1pp) and received control of Algeria and Tunisia (+2pp) then got an alliance with Britain.
So my net change is +2..
I should be at PSA24. However in the attached screen shot you can see it stated I am at 23.
It is interesting to note that the Vp, PSA adjustment and ELN are all correct if I had a PSA of 24.
Let me know if I need to send anything.
Mario

[Grognot]

In a two-player Russia/Prussia PBEM (Prussia host), the Prussian player needs to do some PBEM admin fiddiling to get past each land phase (PBEM_WHO_AM_I problem).

---
Grrr...that's the problem with the Pr/Ru game.  Everyone time I try to end
my land phase, it gives me the PBEM_WHO_AM_I error.  So what I do is
temporarily switch who is host and who is the client.  That works fine when
there isn't a back to back turn for one nation, such as my economic phase.
----

In the case of an economic phase, the AI then plays his -- and he's reporting that the AI is uselessly buying artillery factors that Prussia isn't even allowed to buy.  It may be worth checking whether the AI is also doing this even for nations which are completely AI, and not simply PBEM players being taken over by AI; to the human opposition, the bug would manifest subtly (fewer infantry factors than one might expect, but you don't have an omniscient view of its complete OOB).

[Murat]

you ARE at PSA 24. EST PSA is estimated PSA based on upcoming predicted changes due to minors being conquered, etc.

ORIGINAL: mariom1au

I think I have found one with the PSA Chart.
I have started a PBM game as Turkey. I have DOW'ed Egypt (-1pp) and received control of Algeria and Tunisia (+2pp) then got an alliance with Britain.
So my net change is +2..
I should be at PSA24. However in the attached screen shot you can see it stated I am at 23.
It is interesting to note that the Vp, PSA adjustment and ELN are all correct if I had a PSA of 24.
Let me know if I need to send anything.
Mario

[Grimrod42]

Bug
In Sweden the Stockholm area are should be forage value of 3 not 2 as it is now.

[Grognot]

Another depot bug. Neither the depots in Holstein nor Denmark are new, yet the corps in Copenhagen are supposedly out of supply.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Grognot

Another depot bug. Neither the depots in Holstein nor Denmark are new, yet the corps in Copenhagen are supposedly out of supply.

The danish fleet is blocking supply over the straight !
Makes me wonder how you even got there

Regards
Bresh

[ecn1]

Okay, I think this is a bug or programming oversight regarding minor countries with secondary districts

Here are two scenarios we have seen occuer in our pbem games.

Scenario 1:

Major Power A declares war on Denmark, Major Power B supports it and gains control of Denmark and conquered secondary district. In the econ phase, the secondary district contributes its manpower and income to the Danish Free State, NOT the controlling major power (major power B).

Scenario 2:

Major Power A declares war on Denmark, conquers it, and then later makes it a free state. The secondary district (Norway) contributes its money and manpower in the econ phase to Major Power A, NOT the Free State Denmark

Now, why the difference? Since Denmark and the secondary district were conquered by the same major power, shouldnt they be reconstituted together when made a free state? Why is Norway split off from the parent district in scenario 2?

Also, in our current pbem game, GB conquered Denmark as in scenario 2. GB made it a free state, had a garrison in it. GB went into the instability zone and Norway went neutral, but Denmark did not. I argue this is wrong. It should not have gone neutral unless the PARENT Major Districy WENT NEUTRAL. But, I think the reason was that the game things Norway is a conquered minor of GB - it should not, it should think its a conquered minor of Denmark, and should contribute its income and manpower to Denmark, not GB as outlined in scenario 2.

Is this a programming error or rules oversight? Because the rules imply that if both districts are conquered by the SAME major power, that the country can be reformed. However, obviously as noted in scenario 2, this was not the case when GB made Denmark a free state.

Erik

[Jimmer]

What you have described is exactly how the computer game's rule book says it should be done. There are no multi-district minors in the computer game; Matrix couldn't figure out how to get it done in the time allotted, so multi-district minors don't exist.
 
There is one exception to this: Those which start as such from the first time they are declared war upon (Sweden, Denmark, and Naples). Once conquered, though, they never again can be paired up. NOTE: If both of them becomeg neutral again somehow, they MIGHT become paired up again, depending on how it is implemented. I'm not sure about that, and the manual doesn't really speak to the issue.