France not able to attack Russia

[Grognot]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This is definitely an issue with how I handle loaned corps.
I have changed this for 1.05 so that if you enter an area with loaned corps (Where the original owner is hostile to you) then the corps reverts to the original owner thus allowing combat. This has also been done for fleets (Only if you attempt an attack).

You could either wait until BETA 1.05 OR I could revert the corps back to Russian control? Your call...

To clarify, the original owner's DOW status should also be used if it's the borrower who is the phasing player, correct? Because otherwise, you run into scenarios where France loans his blockaded fleets to Spain, who merrily steers them past the British fleet (an obviously game-breaking abuse if the loaned fleets are allowed to pick up and drop off French troops while on loan...).


Edit: of course, if the UK fleet moved after the Spanish fleet, he might DOW for carrying French troops just as if the borrowed fleet were neutral. There would still be problems in land operations, however, and merely being able to escape the blockade might be useful.

[Jimmer]

It is used correctly. The same ruleset (logic) is applied to both situations. The one with the "guard" premise clearly fails (except, see below). Thus, the original premise also must fail.
 
Either the rules are complete (in this situation, that is), or they are not. If they are complete, then the premise that an at-war corps cannot be attacked if loaned can only be allowed if all non-listed options are also allowed. The "guard" situation would thus fit as well ("The rules don't SAY that they can't become guard factors when loaned. ...").
 
The only way out for the original premise is to conclude that the guard premise is also possible (i.e. to deny that what I claim is "absurd" is not really absurd). But, I can go further and say that "The rules don't say that the factors don't become 10 morale super-infantry."
 
A good rule of thumb when using logic against a set of rules is that anything not listed does not happen/apply/etc. While this is not an absolute, for most sets of rules, it works pretty well. Most rules are written in the form "general rule first, specific rules after that, each being an exception or clarification of the general rule". In this type of rule grouping, the logic I outlined above almost always applies, if the rules themselves are correctly written.
 
NOTE: An argument can be made that the rules are not correctly written. Such an argument would invalidate my reductio proof. However, such an argument would also render the game unplayable. "The proof this last statement is left as an exercise for the reader." (My paraphrase of those terribly evil statements in college mathematics textbooks.)

[NeverMan]

The rules don't SAY a lot of things but that doesn't mean you can use that argument for each and every one of them. You need to reread the link I gave.

I don't see why we should revert when the rules clearly don't say anything about this situation and the game is implemented the way it is.

[bresh]

Neverman this is a BUG. Its almost identical to one of bugs reported in 1.0-1.2, where lend corps could be used by a controlling ally against a enemy the owner was not at war with.
This is just the reverse effect where now they dont get attacked if the controller is not at war with the enemy.

Your reference that if something doesnt follow the manual its not nessecary a BUG. Is in this current situation is like arguing because you can not accept you might be wrong.

There has been previous bugs where players could transfer factors to from stuff(dont remember how), but by doing so they generated new "Free-extra" factors. Here you argument "if its not in the manual" and you dont need to follow logic its not a bug..... Very bad Argument..


Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

The rules don't SAY a lot of things but that doesn't mean you can use that argument for each and every one of them. You need to reread the link I gave.

I don't see why we should revert when the rules clearly don't say anything about this situation and the game is implemented the way it is.

The link is essentially correct, but you are misinterpretting it. It is precisely because the rules "clearly don't say anything about this situation" that the logic applies and the contradiction surfaces.

The premises and logic are:

A: The rules do not speak to it (regarding loaned corps -- going much further in the rulebook would needlessly complicate matters),
B: The game allows it
C: It must be allowed

If A and B, then C.

In the specific case here, A = loaned corps are no longer at war, and B is clearly true. Therefore, C must be true.

However, this scenario also fits: A = factors inside of a loaned corps turn into super-infantry with 10 morale, and B = an assumption for the argument (that the game allowed it).

IF the game did allow this, then, we arrive at an absurd conclusion. Since B is part of the assumed scenario, this means that A must be false.

On a side note, I hadn't heard of the "cubing the cube puzzle". It's obvious that their logic is correct and thus it can't be done, but the proof stated there is very elegant (this word has a different meaning to a mathematician; see definition 6 of this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elegant).

[Jimmer]

Oh, and I LOVE the Hardy quote at the end:

Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game.

[gwheelock]

The best argument that it is a bug is that Marshall is FIXING it in 1.05.
 
If need be; I will wait until 1.05 is out.  Then the PROGRAM will
not work the way that it does now & that will REMOVE the support
for your argument.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This is definitely an issue with how I handle loaned corps.
I have changed this for 1.05 so that if you enter an area with loaned corps (Where the original owner is hostile to you) then the corps reverts to the original owner thus allowing combat. This has also been done for fleets (Only if you attempt an attack).

You could eithe
This is definitely an issue with how I handle loaned corps.r wait until BETA 1.05 OR I could revert the corps back to Russian control? Your call...

This is the best argument why Marshall is CHANGING (not fixing) this is 1.05.

NOTICE he even says:

"I have CHANGED this for 1.05..."

"This is definitely an issue with how I handle loaned corps."

He can back track now because it suits his needs but these things remain the same, I believe this is how he originally intended the game to work but now realizes this was a mistake and so he is CHANGING it.

Are you going to take your ball and go home too man?

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This is definitely an issue with how I handle loaned corps.
I have changed this for 1.05 so that if you enter an area with loaned corps (Where the original owner is hostile to you) then the corps reverts to the original owner thus allowing combat. This has also been done for fleets (Only if you attempt an attack).

You could eithe
This is definitely an issue with how I handle loaned corps.r wait until BETA 1.05 OR I could revert the corps back to Russian control? Your call...

This is the best argument why Marshall is CHANGING (not fixing) this is 1.05.

NOTICE he even says:

"I have CHANGED this for 1.05..."

"This is definitely an issue with how I handle loaned corps."

He can back track now because it suits his needs but these things remain the same, I believe this is how he originally intended the game to work but now realizes this was a mistake and so he is CHANGING it.

Are you going to take your ball and go home too man?

Nope! I'm not that good.
I didn't look into the potential side effects of the loaned corps function deep enough and frankly we didn't test the function deep enough either. Nothing against the testers, it was just a situation that we did not see. Had I seen this side effect, I certainly would not have allowed it.

[eske]

This seems to be an illustrative example of a futile rules discussion between players of a game.
"Surpricingly" they are not able to agree who is to benefit of the game stumbling into a situation not covered by the written rules, and thus the games probably nonintended handling of that situation.
Even if they try to augment their argumentaion by including nonrelevant mathematical theory or some poor hardworking employes dropping of words they wont convince anybody.
 
To you guys playing in this game: Thanx for contributing to the improvement of this game by uncovering this jinx.
Now be a bit manly about this and simply take a vote between you, how to get on with the game. Either it happened they way it did, or it must be changed before you go on. Remember to accept the majority, right. The other players also have a right to enjoy your game.
 
The rest of us reading this forum don't really need to witness this dragging on, do we ?
 
Apologize for dropping in ...
 
/eske
 
( And please don't start hazzle me now. I probably won't read it anyway [;)])

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: eske

This seems to be an illustrative example of a futile rules discussion between players of a game.
"Surpricingly" they are not able to agree who is to benefit of the game stumbling into a situation not covered by the written rules, and thus the games probably nonintended handling of that situation.
Even if they try to augment their argumentaion by including nonrelevant mathematical theory or some poor hardworking employes dropping of words they wont convince anybody.

To you guys playing in this game: Thanx for contributing to the improvement of this game by uncovering this jinx.
Now be a bit manly about this and simply take a vote between you, how to get on with the game. Either it happened they way it did, or it must be changed before you go on. Remember to accept the majority, right. The other players also have a right to enjoy your game.

The rest of us reading this forum don't really need to witness this dragging on, do we ?

Apologize for dropping in ...

/eske

( And please don't start hazzle me now. I probably won't read it anyway [;)])

Actually; no vote needed. MARSHALL has said that this is an error/bug/unintended whatever & it
is being fixed in 1.05.


I claim that Marshall is the final say on the way the game works.

[Marshall Ellis]

We're good here guys so let's save the keystrokes LOL!
 
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

ORIGINAL: eske

This seems to be an illustrative example of a futile rules discussion between players of a game.
"Surpricingly" they are not able to agree who is to benefit of the game stumbling into a situation not covered by the written rules, and thus the games probably nonintended handling of that situation.
Even if they try to augment their argumentaion by including nonrelevant mathematical theory or some poor hardworking employes dropping of words they wont convince anybody.

To you guys playing in this game: Thanx for contributing to the improvement of this game by uncovering this jinx.
Now be a bit manly about this and simply take a vote between you, how to get on with the game. Either it happened they way it did, or it must be changed before you go on. Remember to accept the majority, right. The other players also have a right to enjoy your game.

The rest of us reading this forum don't really need to witness this dragging on, do we ?

Apologize for dropping in ...

/eske

( And please don't start hazzle me now. I probably won't read it anyway [;)])

Actually; no vote needed. MARSHALL has said that this is an error/bug/unintended whatever & it
is being fixed in 1.05.


I claim that Marshall is the final say on the way the game works.

That's funny because that's exactly what Marshall did NOT say in his first post. He only then started backtracking afterwards, but whatever.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

ORIGINAL: eske

This seems to be an illustrative example of a futile rules discussion between players of a game.
"Surpricingly" they are not able to agree who is to benefit of the game stumbling into a situation not covered by the written rules, and thus the games probably nonintended handling of that situation.
Even if they try to augment their argumentaion by including nonrelevant mathematical theory or some poor hardworking employes dropping of words they wont convince anybody.

To you guys playing in this game: Thanx for contributing to the improvement of this game by uncovering this jinx.
Now be a bit manly about this and simply take a vote between you, how to get on with the game. Either it happened they way it did, or it must be changed before you go on. Remember to accept the majority, right. The other players also have a right to enjoy your game.

The rest of us reading this forum don't really need to witness this dragging on, do we ?

Apologize for dropping in ...

/eske

( And please don't start hazzle me now. I probably won't read it anyway [;)])

Actually; no vote needed. MARSHALL has said that this is an error/bug/unintended whatever & it
is being fixed in 1.05.


I claim that Marshall is the final say on the way the game works.

That's funny because that's exactly what Marshall did NOT say in his first post. He only then started backtracking afterwards, but whatever.

Huh?
I mentioned that this was an "issue" in my first post, Neverman and I never intended to backtrack on anything here so if that perception is there then I certainly apologize because it was my fault, issue, bug, oversite, screwup, miscalculation or whatever you choose to call it LOL!

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: gwheelock




Actually; no vote needed. MARSHALL has said that this is an error/bug/unintended whatever & it
is being fixed in 1.05.


I claim that Marshall is the final say on the way the game works.

That's funny because that's exactly what Marshall did NOT say in his first post. He only then started backtracking afterwards, but whatever.

Huh?
I mentioned that this was an "issue" in my first post, Neverman and I never intended to backtrack on anything here so if that perception is there then I certainly apologize because it was my fault, issue, bug, oversite, screwup, miscalculation or whatever you choose to call it LOL!

I quoted you on what you said and it was:


"This is definitely an issue with how I handle loaned corps."

You do not say this is a bug INSTEAD you say this IS the way it is being handled, implying that it is being handled that way on purpose. It's an easy implication to get.

If you want to change your mind or the game (I think you should) then that's ok, but please don't backtrack, it's just not a good thing.

[Marshall Ellis]

Nope, sorry sir. I said it was an "ISSUE" with the way it was being handled??? As in I am not doing it the right way or it could be done better??? I am not backtracking nor did I want to imply such a thing??? I'm not sure why this really matters???
 
For future reference:
 
ISSUE = BUG
I DID IT WRONG = BUG
 
BUG, BUG, BUG, BUG, BUG, BUG, BUG, BUG!
 
Now is that better? LOL!
 
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Nope, sorry sir. I said it was an "ISSUE" with the way it was being handled??? As in I am not doing it the right way or it could be done better??? I am not backtracking nor did I want to imply such a thing??? I'm not sure why this really matters???

For future reference:

ISSUE = BUG
I DID IT WRONG = BUG

BUG, BUG, BUG, BUG, BUG, BUG, BUG, BUG!

Now is that better? LOL!

Well, if you did it wrong = bug then there are still a MILLION bugs in this game.

Marshall, can we get a "I did it the wrong way" topic in Mantis so I can start reporting bugs under this title? That would be great, thanks.

[Marshall Ellis]

I think almost everything in Mantis could be generically classified as me doing it the wrong way, no?
A MILLION? Wow! That's just a bit over what I thought!
 
I love you Neverman (Not that way)! LOL!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[Jimmer]

A "million" of anything is an awfully large number. I've been coding every day (more or less) for 43 years. I would have had to write 63+ bugs every day of that time in order to hit a million.
 
If I told you once, I told you a billion times, don't exaggerate!
 
< snicker >

[NeverMan]

LOL, I'm sorry you guys took it so literally, or not.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure my point was made so let's move on with the game.