Marshall -- bug 358

[Jimmer]

Have you taken a look at bug 358 yet? You might want to do that sooner rather than later. It's a biggie.

[delatbabel]

I think that this was reported earlier, and the game was incorrectly reporting a roll of "1" for a unit that could auto forage.  So it's an incorrect display bug I think.

[Jimmer]

Oh, no, that's not it. I saw the Turks roll non-auto rolls all over the place in our recent war, and they came up almost all 1's. Specifically, there were some that were in besieged cities, none of which can ever be auto-foraged.
 
I think most of this is real. I can provide the saved game, if needed.
 
One other thing: Look at the last entry I made. It didn't start until about 1.02k. Before that, the rolls were approximately normal (within 3 standard deviations, anyhow).

[Dancing Bear]

There have been a few reports of erratic dice rolls. Has anyone tried to do some stats on those die rolls reported in the log?

[Jimmer]

Yes. See the bug report (358), but I did an exhaustive analysis of all of the rolls in our game.

[MarshallEllis]

There was a problem with the autoforages showing a roll of "1" (As Del said) but that was the only die roll problem I have seen??? Jimmer, is there something else?
 

[Jimmer]

The entire problem is foraging and getting a lot of 1's. However, auto-forages show up in the log as "auto-forage" (or, possibly, auto-foraged or something like that). I only scanned for actual rolls "entries that contained the word 'Roll:'", and then I broke it down further. I will keep my eyes open for proof that they are not auto-forages displayed incorrectly. That shouldn't take too long.
 
At what version was the auto-forage becoming 1's issue resolved?

[MarshallEllis]

Jimmer:
 
What I meant was that autoforages showed as "Roll:1". It actually said the die was rolled and that was incorrect. This must be what you are seeing (BUT this should be fixed in either 1.03 or 1.04???) because I am randomizing too much for you to see any type of pattern without logging years (Actual years) of rolls. If it is a randomize problem then you will have to refer to either Microsoft OR Intel for that fix
 
 
 
 

[Jimmer]

It would be Borland, in this case, I think.
 
But, I'll watch carefully for the next couple of game months. Part of the problem is that I can't tell which corps is which, and most of the forage rolls have been for other players (I'm GB, who never forages unless it's auto-).

[MarshallEllis]

Yes, please check this out! Let me know...

[Jimmer]

It isn't up to my turn in the game yet, so I haven't tried 1.04.07 yet. However, I want to point out that the file includes lines that say "<name of corps> auto-foraged". Unless some are displayed one way and others another, this doesn't seem to be the issue.

[MarshallEllis]

You're right BUT there may be some issues on autoforaging reports for different types of players (AI, PBEM, etc).
&nbsp;

[Jimmer]

Good point. Keep the case in its current status (closed?) I'll keep my eyes open and let you know the results.
&nbsp;
One thing that would help: Can you pinpoint the builds into which you put any fixes to this area? I can then correlate that to my log-parser program, and hopefully pin down if fixed, broken, or no change occurred.

[AGT4533]

I notice when I manually auto-forage a forage roll of "1" is always generated in the game log. By manual autoforage, I individually forage each corp that cannot fail (forage value + unused movement points + controlled territory modifier) instead of hitting the auto-forage button.

[Jimmer]

THAT might be it, AGT4533. That would explain why the words "auto-foraged" show up in some instances, and in others a 1 for the die roll (which is NOT the right way to calculate things, but on an otherwise automatic forage, I guess it's OK.
&nbsp;
In any event, there's a bug. However, AGT4533, can you mention what version you are running?

[AGT4533]

Ver 1.03

[MarshallEllis]

This should be gone in 1.04