Issues that were addressed in 1.01b and 1.02

[ecn1]

Ah Jimmer,

No, thats not what the rule book says. You might want to bone up on your reading. To quote:

"It is possible for one major power to conquer a secondary district (by controlling its capital) while another major power controls the major district For example, one major power can conquer Norway, by controlling Christiana while another major power conquers Denmark (the district) by controlling Copenhagen. When this happens, Sweden is considered a separate minor country from Finland, Denmark is considered a separate minor country from Norway. Once separated, the program will not allow for multi-district countries to re-form."

This paragraph clearly states that the secondary district is ONLY seperated if conquered by DIFFERENT MAJOR POWERS.
It implies that minor countries with secondary districts that are conquered by the SAME MAJOR POWER can be reformed.

If this is not correct, either the rules are misstated, or there is a programming error. Which is my point.

Erik

[Grognot]

Oh, right -- the Danish fleet must have evac'd there.

If they're actually blocking supply, though, shouldn't the intervening depot also be marked as out of supply? There's no city on that island; it's in the same sea zone; and Prussia doesn't have any fleets at all in that game, IIRC, so sea supply isn't a possibility.

[Murat]

This rule you quoted only means that a secondary district CAN (has the ability to be) be conquered by another power. Wars will also lapse if you do not watch this rule - I have seen several Finlands conquered and then Sweden going to whomever their controller was because the war lapses. Your problem is that once conquered each part becomes it's own minor so Denmark and Norway become conquered by whomever takes them, same country or not. Making a free state can only be done if a minor has corps and Finland, Norway, Sicily do not. Only by supporting the minor country with 2 provinces and WINNING that war (or it lapsing) will allow you to keep the 2 parts together.

ORIGINAL: ecn1

Ah Jimmer,

No, thats not what the rule book says. You might want to bone up on your reading. To quote:

"It is possible for one major power to conquer a secondary district (by controlling its capital) while another major power controls the major district For example, one major power can conquer Norway, by controlling Christiana while another major power conquers Denmark (the district) by controlling Copenhagen. When this happens, Sweden is considered a separate minor country from Finland, Denmark is considered a separate minor country from Norway. Once separated, the program will not allow for multi-district countries to re-form."

This paragraph clearly states that the secondary district is ONLY seperated if conquered by DIFFERENT MAJOR POWERS.
It implies that minor countries with secondary districts that are conquered by the SAME MAJOR POWER can be reformed.

If this is not correct, either the rules are misstated, or there is a programming error. Which is my point.

Erik

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: 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

Erik,

It’s an EiANW deviation due to programming restraints. When a player declares the major district a free state, the program annexes the secondary district. Once separated, they cannot reform.

Richard

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: Grimrod42

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

Actually, we purposely left that as [2], relocated Stockholm and removed the forest per EiH 4 map. Then we moved the ice line up so that Stockholm would not be iced in during the winter months (per EiA).

Richard

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Grognot

Oh, right -- the Danish fleet must have evac'd there.

If they're actually blocking supply, though, shouldn't the intervening depot also be marked as out of supply? There's no city on that island; it's in the same sea zone; and Prussia doesn't have any fleets at all in that game, IIRC, so sea supply isn't a possibility.

Well cant see in pic if its valid as part of supply chain, could had been when placed, but doesnt have to be now.

Regards
Bresh

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

Actually, we purposely left that as [2], relocated Stockholm and removed the forest per EiH 4 map. Then we moved the ice line up so that Stockholm would not be iced in during the winter months (per EiA).

Richard

Have you ever visited the Baltic in the winter months?

"Iced in" doesn't even begin to cover it, especially in a particularly bad winter.

[mariom1au]

ORIGINAL: 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

Umm.. how do you know?
From the information displayed on the screen I could be 24 or 25?
Why do we have an estimated PSA?
I want to know my current status not a computer generated estimate, however that might be for a different place in the forum [:(]

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: mariom1au

ORIGINAL: 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

Umm.. how do you know?
From the information displayed on the screen I could be 24 or 25?
Why do we have an estimated PSA?
I want to know my current status not a computer generated estimate, however that might be for a different place in the forum [:(]

Think if you look at the French bar you get the better picture.
The French bar shows 30.
But French estimate PS is 27.
Or the Austrian bar shows 21.
Austrian Est PS 14.

Actually didnt notiche that feature before now.

Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: mariom1au


Umm.. how do you know?
From the information displayed on the screen I could be 24 or 25?
Why do we have an estimated PSA?
I want to know my current status not a computer generated estimate, however that might be for a different place in the forum [:(]

Look at the very end of the blue bar for each power. Mentally trace a straight line down from the end of the blue bar to the numbers below.

The easiest one to see this with is Austria's, as Bresh pointed out. The bar for Austria happens to be just a few pixels above the numbers. In this case, 21. Russia is at 30, Turkey 24, etc.

I believe there is an explanation of what goes into the estimated value in the manual (not the in-game one, but the full PDF version or the paper one).

[Murat]

You can also hold your cursor at the end of a bar and it will give you a popup with the current position number.

[Jimmer]

Hey, Matrix guys: This discussion of the PSD brings up a point: The PSD could certainly stand to have a little more heft to it. I would say making it twice as big as it is wouldn't fill the screen, but would help people read it better.

[WJPalmer1]

"No, port supply source...depot on fleet lost" bug

This has happened twice in the same PBEM game. A GB one-factor HF had a depot onboard for invasion supply. The depot was suddenly removed and the event recorded (see language above) even though there are at least 2 unblockaded British supply-source ports with fleet counters and depots. The fleet with the depot was not moved in any way. In the files attached, this occurred immediately following the June British naval phase. Earlier it happened in the April Land/Land combat between the Prussian and French phases.

Annoying in that it requires GB to spend an additional $$ to place a new invasion supply depot.

Thanks,
Ron

[gazfun]

Richard and Marshall
I was having a email conversation, with someone that made a claim about EiANW

  
[font=arial]Garry,[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]I don’t wish to get into a pointless argument but here is a good and constructive criticism of the game. The game should store the game name and phase information in the header of the .pbm file, not in the physical name of the file. This would have prevented several problems during our game that were due to people processing renamed files. Any system that relies on physical file names is inherently insecure because it is so easy for people to manipulate them. If the  game instead checked a header within the file, it would know whether the file was the right one and it would be harder for people to “spoof” the game.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Jon[/font]

I was just wondering if this is possible? by doing just that, and also about file name issue?

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: exp101

"No, port supply source...depot on fleet lost" bug

This has happened twice in the same PBEM game. A GB one-factor HF had a depot onboard for invasion supply. The depot was suddenly removed and the event recorded (see language above) even though there are at least 2 unblockaded British supply-source ports with fleet counters and depots. The fleet with the depot was not moved in any way. In the files attached, this occurred immediately following the June British naval phase. Earlier it happened in the April Land/Land combat between the Prussian and French phases.

Annoying in that it requires GB to spend an additional $$ to place a new invasion supply depot.

Thanks,
Ron

I've seen this bug many times, too. As GB, it's not so bad, because it just costs $1 to rebuild it. But, it's money that shouldn't need to be spent.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: gazfun

Hi Richard
I was having a email conversation, with someone that made a claim about EiANW

I was just wondering if this is possible? by doing just that, and also about file name issue?

Yes, it's technically possible. However, the code designer could just as easily make it not possible, too (by including the name of the file in the checksum hash). And, the only way to find out is to try to cheat. If the designers did it right, this should trash the game and force a restart from saved backup just prior to the attempt.

If that were to happen more than about twice, I don't know about you, but that person would be out of any campaign I was running.

[Grognot]

This naval phase is giving me a CTD. Tried issuing no orders, tried issuing some orders -- a dialog box appears very briefly, but there's no time to read it before it crashes.

[Grognot]

CTD still occurs even if host skips that.  It is likely that the dialog box says 'Stack overflow'.  A possibly reasonable hypothesis is that it may have something to do with DOW while co-located with an enemy (enemy in French territory, due to previous grant of access).

[Grognot]

A corps belonging to a major power, moving into a region with a depot belonging to an ally of that major, still destroys the depot and results in the 'do you want to use the depot for an automatic forage success at the cost of remaining movement?' dialog box.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Grognot

A corps belonging to a major power, moving into a region with a depot belonging to an ally of that major, still destroys the depot and results in the 'do you want to use the depot for an automatic forage success at the cost of remaining movement?' dialog box.

Is this a question or statement ?
You dont need to eat depots, not even the one of your enemies.
Ahh tested it, you dont even get the chance to eat your allies depots.
Think I remember in EIA you could also convert a "lonely" depot into your own, atleast one from your ally.
I do miss that.


Regards
Bresh