Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

michaelm,

I've given two lengthy replies on the main forum regarding this matter and I have seen no evidence of a bug.

However, there might now be a graphical glitch. In days of old, when both sides had LCUs in the same hex, the hex was contested and both the white "A" and white "B" would be displayed when the show hex control was switched on. It appears that since you introduced the supply chain notification (ie it shows the numbers in an AI game but in PBEM only a dot to show which hexes a supply flows through) that both letters no longer are displayed for a contested hex. Now only one letter appears to be displayed.

Alfred

Funny, I can't see where it would have but "AJ" in the hex. The test for control is "A" OR "J" not both.
The supply chain is totally separate to this hex control.

I'll see if the other is possible or not.
When you refer to 'In days of old' was that for old WITP or new AE?
[Looked up old WITP code and it use to show "A" and "J" separately as hexcontrol was held for both sides.]

[Alfred]

Definitely AE, before the Betas.

I don't use the Betas so I still see the combined "A" and "J" for a contested hex. However, if you look at the thread in the main forum where this discussion is taking place, you will see viberpol has screen shots for contested hexes but only the white "J" seems to appear. I believe he uses the Betas which is why I'm suspicious that somehow a graphical glitch has been introduced with the Betas.

Alfred

[Rainer]

I agree with Alfred.
Playing 1108p9c I checked all hexes with Allied and Japanese forces, and I never saw more than one indicator of control.
It's either J or A, never both.
At the same time I vividly remember seeing both indicators with AE (before I decided to go with the patches).
Alfred, you should provide a screenshot plus version you're playing, if at all possible.
I deem it important to clear this up because I believe Viperpool and others may be mislead if the (false) concept of "Hex Ownership" is maintained.
Showing again both indicators of the contending forces could be a step to prevent this.

[michaelm75au]

I checked the code again.

A hex can only be controled by one player, so only a A or J will show. Never both. There is no value for a contested hex. Been that way from start as far as I can see.

Went back to original released code (1079) and this is the same as it is now.

Here is a screen dump of running with last official patch (1106i)
It only shows J even though both in hex

[Rainer]

Now Alfred has to come up with the screenshot I had asked for [;)]
I could as well dig into the old versions (which I all archived).
Is it possible to load a 1108p9c save with an outdated version?
EDIT: No, it shows "Saved game fails to load" (1106i).

PS: Michael, please do not perceive this as questioning your competence.

[Alfred]

Very sorry michaelm for setting you off an a wild goose hunt.

I went back and turned on the display hex control and I saw nothing to back up my claim of displaying both letters for contested hexes. I rarely use that filter but I could have sworn I had seen both letter displayed previously for contested hexes. Yep fell into the common trap of not verifying first, always a dangerous thing to do with software. Will go back into main forum and grovel although it doesn't invalidate anything i said there.

However, on the positive side (and to recover some lost reputation[:)]) any chance of having both letters displayed when it is a contested hex ... pretty please[&o]

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Now Alfred has to come up with the screenshot I had asked for [;)]
I could as well dig into the old versions (which I all archived).
Is it possible to load a 1108p9c save with an outdated version?
EDIT: No, it shows "Saved game fails to load" (1106i).

PS: Michael, please do not perceive this as questioning your competence.

Apology extended to you too Rainer, see post #446.

Alfred

[Rainer]

Never trust a Matrix Elite Guard [:D]

Seriously, I could swear I had seen A and J in a contested hex. If only I could remember what version, and if only I had an appropriate save.
Then again, your suggestion to show in future version both indicators if and when both parties are present in a hex would certainly clean up things.
If Michael can do it without too much trouble, that is.

Apology extended to you too Rainer, see post #446.

Yeah, saw it. We were both typing simultaneously (spelling?).
Definitely no need to apologize.

[michaelm75au]

To be honest, I am having trouble trying to make sense of the river crossing rule:  "50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

It is written from the perspective of an attacker crossing a river to assault a defender. And I assume that the last part means that 1/3rd of the defender AV is already in the hex.

I need to go back and see how this was  in old WITP. [Well that was no use. Old code just assaults if a river hexside]

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: viberpol

Michael, in some old patch the following rule has been introduced:

The new rule says: "50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

I have posted to an old thread but kindly ask for your comments here too.
This turn (p8) I've got an assault triggered by a division sent to aid the defense E of Sibolga.
Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force Assault Value = 652
Defending force Assault Value = 1752
Japanese adjusted assault: 0
Allied adjusted defense: 3490
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99

True, there may be not enough troops to met the 1/3 AV rule (although the 652 vs 1752 AV seems ok).
I'm perfectly ok with shock attacks when crossing the river without enough AV.
But maybe, just maybe, a shock attack should not be triggered regardless of who own the hex?

I owned the hex. I own it for months! Not from the previous turn.
Why the crossing trigger shock attack if the hex is mine?

Based on (my) simple logic, IMHO its seems a bit weird that the forces crossing into friendly hex well secured for months suffer such terrible losses. I think that if I own the hex, I've got total control of the place and the crossing is secured.

Creating bridgeheads and getting into an enemy occupied hex is one thing, normal troops movement in secured hex is something different. Should it trigger the shock attack if my troops are simply moving on a bridge to fill the long owned trench line somewhere 40 miles away?
Some losses from long range enemy bombardment attack ok, but a shock attack and annihilation of a whole division? [&:]

If in your view hex control doesn't matter during river crossing, maybe there should be some check of who owns more hexsides of the contested hex? (in metaphore -- who has more land secured, check if the forces there are not encircled etc.; like 0 - 2 shock attack, 3 bombardment attack, 4 - 6 no punishing attack at all)?

Do you still have the save when this assault happened???

[michaelm75au]

If both the hexes that the attacker is moving from and to, are controlled by the attacker, and the river hexside is also controlled by the attacker, then wouldn't the attacker be free to move into the hex.

Or stepping thru the process.
1. Attacker crosses river hexside into the enemy controled hex - shock  attack
2. Hex control stays with defender as he was not forced out of hex. River hexside controled by attacker.
3. Attacker moves more units into hex over river hexside - possible shock attack based on AV comparison (1/3)
4. Defender forced out of hex - hex control goes to attacker. [Hex control stays with a player until no-one in hex (nuetral) or just one player left]
5. Defender moves back into hex.
6. Attacker moves units into hex across river hexside - no attack forced as attacker controls both hexes and river hexsides (NEW).

Can anyone see any flaw in this logic? All steps but (#6) is how it is now.

[edit]
Just changed 'ownership' to 'control'

[USSAmerica]

Sounds reasonable to me, Michael.  

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

If both the hexes that the attacker is moving from and to, are controlled by the attacker, and the river hexside is also controlled by the attacker, then wouldn't the attacker be free to move into the hex.

Or stepping thru the process.
1. Attacker crosses river hexside into the enemy controled hex - shock  attack
2. Hex control stays with defender as he was not forced out of hex. River hexside controled by attacker.
3. Attacker moves more units into hex over river hexside - possible shock attack based on AV comparison (1/3)
4. Defender forced out of hex - hex control goes to attacker. [Hex control stays with a player until no-one in hex (nuetral) or just one player left]
5. Defender moves back into hex.
6. Attacker moves units into hex across river hexside - no attack forced as attacker controls both hexes and river hexsides (NEW).

Can anyone see any flaw in this logic? All steps but (#6) is how it is now.

[edit]
Just changed 'ownership' to 'control'

#6 as currently worded would not require the additional unit to cross the river at the same hexside. The specific hex captured by the attacker as a result of steps 1-5 inclusive, could be on a river bend and therefore have more than one of its hexsides anchored on a river. In theory the defender could repeat step 5 many times (from the land side thereby bypassing the auto shock attack trigger) before the new owner (aka the "attacker" who has really been transformed into the defender) does step 6. However if the hex has 2 or more hexsides anchored on a river, one of the multiple steps 5 could be the defender (aka now really the attacker) moving units in from a river hexside, thus depriving that hexside from being controlled by the controller of the hex. With sufficient force already in the hex, this new river crossing need not necessarily trigger an auto shock attack.

In that eventuality, the hex controller does not really control all river hexsides.

Hence I would modify step #6 to be the controller of the hex will launch no shock attack if the reinforcements corss at a river hexside also controlled. But then we really have the same practical outcome which we currently have.

Essentially your six steps will slightly simply the process if there is only one hexside anchored on a river. It introduces a new potential "loophole" if there are 2 or more river hexsides.

Alfred

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: michaelm

If both the hexes that the attacker is moving from and to, are controlled by the attacker, and the river hexside is also controlled by the attacker, then wouldn't the attacker be free to move into the hex.

Or stepping thru the process.
1. Attacker crosses river hexside into the enemy controled hex - shock  attack
2. Hex control stays with defender as he was not forced out of hex. River hexside controled by attacker.
3. Attacker moves more units into hex over river hexside - possible shock attack based on AV comparison (1/3)
4. Defender forced out of hex - hex control goes to attacker. [Hex control stays with a player until no-one in hex (nuetral) or just one player left]
5. Defender moves back into hex.
6. Attacker moves units into hex across river hexside - no attack forced as attacker controls both hexes and river hexsides (NEW).

Can anyone see any flaw in this logic? All steps but (#6) is how it is now.

[edit]
Just changed 'ownership' to 'control'

#6 as currently worded would not require the additional unit to cross the river at the same hexside. The specific hex captured by the attacker as a result of steps 1-5 inclusive, could be on a river bend and therefore have more than one of its hexsides anchored on a river. In theory the defender could repeat step 5 many times (from the land side thereby bypassing the auto shock attack trigger) before the new owner (aka the "attacker" who has really been transformed into the defender) does step 6. However if the hex has 2 or more hexsides anchored on a river, one of the multiple steps 5 could be the defender (aka now really the attacker) moving units in from a river hexside, thus depriving that hexside from being controlled by the controller of the hex. With sufficient force already in the hex, this new river crossing need not necessarily trigger an auto shock attack.

In that eventuality, the hex controller does not really control all river hexsides.

Hence I would modify step #6 to be the controller of the hex will launch no shock attack if the reinforcements corss at a river hexside also controlled. But then we really have the same practical outcome which we currently have.

Essentially your six steps will slightly simply the process if there is only one hexside anchored on a river. It introduces a new potential "loophole" if there are 2 or more river hexsides.

Alfred

Step 6 already is "same player as the moving units owns the hexes AND the river hexside (both ways) being crossed."

[edit]
in my step by step I was referring to the same river hexside in all steps. If more than one river hexside, each would apply independently until step 4, where attacker would take control of all hexsides on his side of the hex. The river hexsides on the other hexes could still be controled by enemy.
Don't forget that a river hexside can be controlled by either or both player as each of the 2 hexes has a 'side' towards that river.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

To be honest, I am having trouble trying to make sense of the river crossing rule:  "50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

It is written from the perspective of an attacker crossing a river to assault a defender. And I assume that the last part means that 1/3rd of the defender AV is already in the hex.

I need to go back and see how this was  in old WITP. [Well that was no use. Old code just assaults if a river hexside]

As best I recollect the discussions held by developers at the time it means that the player crossing the river (AKA "Attacker") already has in the hex AV equal to or greater than 1/3 of the Defender's AV ("Defender" meaning the other player). The rationale being that friendly forces equal to 1/3 of the enemy forces, while still inferior, is enough to have established a bridgehead and thereby negate the bloody river-crossing shock attack.

I am not suggesting what way is best at this point in time, just trying to help by clarifying what people communicated that they meant way back when.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

If both the hexes that the attacker is moving from and to, are controlled by the attacker, and the river hexside is also controlled by the attacker, then wouldn't the attacker be free to move into the hex.

Or stepping thru the process.
1. Attacker crosses river hexside into the enemy controled hex - shock  attack
2. Hex control stays with defender as he was not forced out of hex. River hexside controled by attacker.
3. Attacker moves more units into hex over river hexside - possible shock attack based on AV comparison (1/3)
4. Defender forced out of hex - hex control goes to attacker. [Hex control stays with a player until no-one in hex (nuetral) or just one player left]
5. Defender moves back into hex.
6. Attacker moves units into hex across river hexside - no attack forced as attacker controls both hexes and river hexsides (NEW).

Can anyone see any flaw in this logic? All steps but (#6) is how it is now.

[edit]
Just changed 'ownership' to 'control'

Looks good to me.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: michaelm

To be honest, I am having trouble trying to make sense of the river crossing rule:  "50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

It is written from the perspective of an attacker crossing a river to assault a defender. And I assume that the last part means that 1/3rd of the defender AV is already in the hex.

I need to go back and see how this was  in old WITP. [Well that was no use. Old code just assaults if a river hexside]

As best I recollect the discussions held by developers at the time it means that the player crossing the river (AKA "Attacker") already has in the hex AV equal to or greater than 1/3 of the Defender's AV ("Defender" meaning the other player). The rationale being that friendly forces equal to 1/3 of the enemy forces, while still inferior, is enough to have established a bridgehead and thereby negate the bloody river-crossing shock attack.

I am not suggesting what way is best at this point in time, just trying to help by clarifying what people communicated that they meant way back when.

Ah..Thanks
That makes sense to what I read in the code. As written that change was NOT quite clear.

[michaelm75au]

Here is the build with the change to river crossing as described.

Let me know what you think and it may stay for the weekend build

[p9d]
Tweaked River crossing

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: viberpol

Attacking force Assault Value = 652
Defending force Assault Value = 1752
Japanese adjusted assault: 0
Allied adjusted defense: 3490
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99

True, there may be not enough troops to met the 1/3 AV rule (although the 652 vs 1752 AV seems ok).
I'm perfectly ok with shock attacks when crossing the river without enough AV.
But maybe, just maybe, a shock attack should not be triggered regardless of who own the hex?

I owned the hex. I own it for months! Not from the previous turn.
Why the crossing trigger shock attack if the hex is mine?

Based on (my) simple logic, IMHO its seems a bit weird that the forces crossing into friendly hex well secured for months suffer such terrible losses. I think that if I own the hex, I've got total control of the place and the crossing is secured.

Creating bridgeheads and getting into an enemy occupied hex is one thing, normal troops movement in secured hex is something different. Should it trigger the shock attack if my troops are simply moving on a bridge to fill the long owned trench line somewhere 40 miles away?
Some losses from long range enemy bombardment attack ok, but a shock attack and annihilation of a whole division? [&:]

If in your view hex control doesn't matter during river crossing, maybe there should be some check of who owns more hexsides of the contested hex? (in metaphore -- who has more land secured, check if the forces there are not encircled etc.; like 0 - 2 shock attack, 3 bombardment attack, 4 - 6 no punishing attack at all)?

Do you still have the save when this assault happened???

Yup.
Attaching.
The terrible results IMHO were because of the division operation mode. But it was in such a operation mode because I didn't even think crossing from friendly into a friendly hex would/should trigger the shock attack. [:)]

I'll check now if this turn works differently with the latest beta.

ORIGINAL: michaelm
To be honest, I am having trouble trying to make sense of the river crossing rule: "50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

It is written from the perspective of an attacker crossing a river to assault a defender. And I assume that the last part means that 1/3rd of the defender AV is already in the hex.

ORIGINAL: witpqs
As best I recollect the discussions held by developers at the time it means that the player crossing the river (AKA "Attacker") already has in the hex AV equal to or greater than 1/3 of the Defender's AV ("Defender" meaning the other player). The rationale being that friendly forces equal to 1/3 of the enemy forces, while still inferior, is enough to have established a bridgehead and thereby negate the bloody river-crossing shock attack.

Yup.
As said that part of the code has been written from perspective of an attacker crossing a river to assault the defender not moving troops between two 'friendly/owned/controlled" hexes.
That rule was somehow misleading because an owner of the hex had to become an attacker once again, though he didn't aimed at creating or strenghtening a bridgehead. From old WITP days when any crossing triggered shock attack with no ZOC/hex & hexside control, seems as if there was no alternative foreseen that one side can control both hexes and a hexside.

[michaelm75au]

Running the save on the new build didn't trigger the attack when the unit moved into the hex.
Real test will be to see what happens in a proper opposed river crossing. It should behave as originally designed.