Maximum Number of Units Reached

[DCWhitworth]

Marshall,

I'm getting this issue in 1.05.05. Can you tell me -

1. Has it been fixed in 1.06 as this thread tm.asp?m=2019854 implied it would be ?

2. Is it a whole game limit or nation by nation ?

[Dancing Bear]

One thing that might be contributing to this problem is allowing minors to place garrisons out side their home minor boundaries. Under the original rules (7.3.3.3) this was not allowed (maybe because there were only so manay colours available for counters, or maybe because there was some intention to prevent vast garrisons of minors from taking over the world).

Also, on the subject of garrisons. Rule 7.3.3.3.2 says that "Corps may form all or part of a garrison without detaching factors, so that any types of army factors in such a corps could also be a garrison". Has the game been changed to allow corps inside the city to use the Harbour defenses?

[MarshallEllis]

This has NOT been fixed in 1.06. I have a ceiling in place for the whole game that was based on the original design assumption of one garrison per city and minors NOT being able to place outside their home nation. I can fix this but it gets tricky when trying to maintain compatibility with older saved games! I will keep you posted on our progress!

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This has NOT been fixed in 1.06. I have a ceiling in place for the whole game that was based on the original design assumption of one garrison per city and minors NOT being able to place outside their home nation. I can fix this but it gets tricky when trying to maintain compatibility with older saved games! I will keep you posted on our progress!

I don't understand why backward compatibility is required ? Or do you mean the new version of the program won't run older saved games ? If so couldn't you produce a one-off migration utility ?

This is proving a real problem in one game I'm playing. The game has just reached the end of 1809 and the majority of cities have garrisons. The problem is that most cities are either provincial capitals or ports, both of which are advisible to garrison.

[MarshallEllis]

We have a built in migration utility that helps with area issues (Forage, names, nations, etc.) but it only helps us mod exisiting values and not increasing ceilings. We are looking at ways to do this.

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

We have a built in migration utility that helps with area issues (Forage, names, nations, etc.) but it only helps us mod exisiting values and not increasing ceilings. We are looking at ways to do this.

I think you need to make this something of a priority. There probably aren't too many PBEM games out there that have got as far as we have so you may well get a whole load more games hitting this issue soon.

[Dancing Bear]

Marshall
why not allow all existing garrisons to stay in place, and only prevent the furture placement of new minor garrisons outside their home minor country. That will cover all the games except DC's. For DC's, you might have to eliminate a bunch of minors, or make another special consideration.

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Marshall
why not allow all existing garrisons to stay in place, and only prevent the furture placement of new minor garrisons outside their home minor country. That will cover all the games except DC's. For DC's, you might have to eliminate a bunch of minors, or make another special consideration.

It would be a real shame to lose one of the definite positives of the computer version as opposed to the board game.

[NeverMan]

If making this thing backwards compatible is holding things up and causing a major pain then just say screw it!

[MarshallEllis]

You have that liberty (To say screw it), Neverman. I do not.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

You have that liberty (To say screw it), Neverman. I do not.

I'm just saying that if you say "this game could be 100x better if I didn't have to insure backwards compability" then I would say, as a user of this game, go for it!!

The games I'm in now have been so skewed and altered due to major bugs anyways that it really wouldn't matter to me at all..... I mean, us users have to make so many concessions now as it is that what's another big one if it's going to make the game better.

If people want to finish the games they're in then let them do it with the version they are using now.

[MarshallEllis]

Got it.

[Jimmer]

I agree with Neverman on his last post: Let games locked to an older (incompatible) version stay at the version they are at.
 
Note that there have been people who have been playing continuously in several games since release, and they have only allowed released versions to be used. This says that the game is technically playable, since they obviously would have had to quit if this weren't the case.
 
Thus, choosing one version about which you officially state "Games at this version or older cannot be upgraded." are just fine.
 
------------
Now, to give you a way to have pseudo backward compatibility anyhow (even if it officially doesn't), just do this:
 
Count up all the troops in the old game, positions, corps placements, leaders, VPs, etc. Then, set up a new scenario, using the editor, that has all of these items as starting elements of the "scenario".
 
This could be done manually, but I'm guessing it would be a heck of a lot easier (and more accurate) if done by a computer.

[Mardonius]

Any progress on addressing this bug? Just took a nasty turn with deleting exisiting garrisons.

We have been at it since 1.01b and are now in May of 1810. Be a shame to lose all our time since then.

best
Varick

[MarshallEllis]

Mardonius:

This is easy to do BUT not easy to maintain compatibility with existing games! I am still looking at ways to do this and understand it is an issue but this will not be in 1.06 and probably not 1.07 at this point.