1.01 Patch release notes preview!

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I resent those remarks, Richard! I have no order in my thinking!

Richard

[:D]

Sometimes the order is good but reads backwards.

Marshall,

[Jimmer]

In the "Known Issues" section at the top, it mentions the "Not enough storage ...". I've seen this once when the problem was NOT EiANW's problem. I run Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0 without any patches. Apparently, Reader 8 has a bug that sometimes allows memory usage to grow without bound.
 
Now, when playing EiA, sometimes I keep the manual open. What I found was that the Acrobat session with the manual in it was gradually growing in memory usage, until it ran me out of both real memory and virtual.
 
So, if anybody sees that message, check your Task Manager Processes tab, and look for a humungous memory pile in use by Acrobat before you decide to restart EiA or your computer.
 
If the problem with Acrobat is present, killing that window solves it in about 30 seconds (when the system finally clears out all of the virtual memory that is no longer in use).

[Jimmer]

From the "Fixed issues" document:
 
      "* Changed so that the higher PS MP will get the surrender"

In the boardgame, if two MPs sued for peace at the same time, then both would get an automatic informal peace, with no political point loss to either side.

[WJPalmer1]

I had similar memory problems in other games when I tried to keep large PDF manuals open in Adobe while playing the game. To fix it, I downloaded, installed and now always use the free Foxit Reader. It's much more memory-friendly and has superior presentation of the manual IMO.

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

[argaur]

i have 2 games waiting, some release day please?

[MarshallEllis]

Hey guys:
 
I did change the sue for peace issue (Each MP sues the other for peace) to be an automatic informal peace for the 1.01 patch.
 
BTW: I am doing a final build and will submit the patch for the building of the installation package this evening. We'll probably use tomorrow to test the install build then hopefully release on Wednesday (Given that nothing burps on us). Sorry for this delay but we have almost 90 fixes / enhacements incorporated so we need to make sure that all fixes play well together.
 
 
 

[Jimmer]

No problem.
 
Should make 1.02 a piece of cake, right?

[MarshallEllis]

Jimmer:
 
Yea, right .. Piece of cake [X(] LOL!

[zaquex]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Just so you guys know:

We will be working on the AI but this patch was to get critical bugs (game crash, etc.) addressed. I expect to spend more and more time on AI and general enhancements (Scenario editor) as the bugs get fewer and fewer.

Great to hear Marshall! Once again not a programmer, but may I suggest that you guys look at the method that WIFFE is using to develop their AI?

Here's a link
tm.asp?m=979605

It's obviously a lot more complicated, but I think that it should work to fix many of the issues. I'll be willing to help you as needed with "generic rules" as well as country specific ones.

Keep up the good work. It's appreciated.

Jason

This is a variant on how I think you can make the AI reasonable in EiA - the use of doctrines/agendas/strategies to restrict the AI's choices and streamline them in a direction that is consistent and reasonable, is in my oppinion the only way to create a competative AI with the resources at available.

Clearly the system presented for WIFFE deals with completly different goals and mechanisms than what a similar system for EiA would. One of the areas where WWII much differ from this and other earlier conflicts is that politics and alliances are very static and a similar system for EiA would need to put much more emphasis on this on the other hand the resource and economy functions are very simple etc .

Clearly there is a lot of work needed to develop such system for EiA but if the goal is to make EiA a strong or even reasonable game for computer controlled opponents there isnt much room for shortcuts and the investment would be well worth it.

If the system also allows a simple way to add agendas and strategies either by the devs or by player moding, the game will also be easily adapted to cover other conflicts.

To be reasonable the AI will have to have several agendas and strategies to choose from, and this will be another big task, but once the community know the format for these im sure the community have people who would be very helpfull or even eager to supply these for the different powers.

I would be very interested in such a system for EiANW and if it would help I'm very willing to provide input or in any other way I can support such development.

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: zaquex

This is a variant on how I think you can make the AI reasonable in EiA - the use of doctrines/agendas/strategies to restrict the AI's choices and streamline them in a direction that is consistent and reasonable, is in my oppinion the only way to create a competative AI with the resources at available.

Clearly the system presented for WIFFE deals with completly different goals and mechanisms than what a similar system for EiA would. One of the areas where WWII much differ from this and other earlier conflicts is that politics and alliances are very static and a similar system for EiA would need to put much more emphasis on this on the other hand the resource and economy functions are very simple etc .

Clearly there is a lot of work needed to develop such system for EiA but if the goal is to make EiA a strong or even reasonable game for computer controlled opponents there isnt much room for shortcuts and the investment would be well worth it.

If the system also allows a simple way to add agendas and strategies either by the devs or by player moding, the game will also be easily adapted to cover other conflicts.

To be reasonable the AI will have to have several agendas and strategies to choose from, and this will be another big task, but once the community know the format for these im sure the community have people who would be very helpfull or even eager to supply these for the different powers.

I would be very interested in such a system for EiANW and if it would help I'm very willing to provide input or in any other way I can support such development.

I know that WIF is much more complicated in some regards (rules and such) and much more simple in others (ie. no diplomacy). I was suggesting utilizing the model of how they went about developing the AI. (Not that anyone knows how it'll turn out...[X(] )

So, for Ottomans go for Ottoman Empire. That's kinda a no brainer. Yet in several games I've seen they've gone after Finland, Tuscany, Hesse. What the heck? I've seen Prussia at war with every major country on the board but me. I have 3 or 4 corps stacked together and my opponent has 6 and he marches one in at a time over several turns, giving me PPs every time. I've seen the ottoman go bankrupt every turn. (HUH?) I've seen Napoleon running around with a single half-filled FR corps. (Actually, almost all of the French leaders do this. Have a stack of 4 FR corps in a space with no leader and Davout, Massena, and Nap running around on one corps...before I captured them.) [:D]

So, the way that the WIF guys appear to be doing their AI is listed out in the above thread. Once again, I'm not a programer and I don't know how hard this is. But it appears to be a series of choices, kind of in order, I think. As someone on another post pointed out. Our EIA community is somewhat small and I want to make it bigger and the game better.

Ciao!
Jason

[qgaliana]

 Engine is allowing hostile MP to move into and steal a minor from a neutral MP that is already in nation
• Making AI stay away from areas that have neutral MP forces attempting to conquer a minor FIRST.

I'm not sure this was an AI issue. It seems to me the problem was that the minor was going to war with everyone that it's controlling major power is at war at. The game is blurring the difference between a controlled minor power and a free state if the controlling major power is already at war.
 
E.g. - France and Austria are at war. Prussia, at peace with both, declares war on Bavaria. Austria gains control. Bavaria, in the game, will go to war with both France and Prussia. My reading of the rules is that Bavaria, should _only_ go to war with Prussia until such time as war with Prussia lapses - then it becomes a free state. However if Prussia had been at war with Austria then it makes sense for Bavaria to go to war with all of Austria's enemies.

[Grimrod42]

Hi

When is the patch suppose to come out ... read somewhere where it said Wednesday...?

thanks
Pat

[Grimrod42]

Ok I see the beta is out

thanks

[bresh]

Im bit courious what does the FOW affect in PBM-games ?
 
IF no AIs involved ?
 
If  fow doesnt show battlelosses, how do we justify it showing forage looses ?
 
Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

 Engine is allowing hostile MP to move into and steal a minor from a neutral MP that is already in nation
• Making AI stay away from areas that have neutral MP forces attempting to conquer a minor FIRST.

I'm not sure this was an AI issue. It seems to me the problem was that the minor was going to war with everyone that it's controlling major power is at war at. The game is blurring the difference between a controlled minor power and a free state if the controlling major power is already at war.

E.g. - France and Austria are at war. Prussia, at peace with both, declares war on Bavaria. Austria gains control. Bavaria, in the game, will go to war with both France and Prussia. My reading of the rules is that Bavaria, should _only_ go to war with Prussia until such time as war with Prussia lapses - then it becomes a free state. However if Prussia had been at war with Austria then it makes sense for Bavaria to go to war with all of Austria's enemies.

This CAN be thought of as a problem. OR, it can be thought of as an opportunity.

I can't remember if it worked this way in the boardgame or not. But, this can be an opportunity.

From a realism perspective, it kind of depends on whether the major is simply controlling (making the moves for) the minor, or are they, in fact, taking it over completely (for the length of the war)? Since the "influenced" and "allied" minors become the property of the major that has the counter on them at the start of any war against that major, it seems as though the other way should work as well.

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: bresh

Im bit courious what does the FOW affect in PBM-games ?

IF no AIs involved ?

If  fow doesnt show battlelosses, how do we justify it showing forage looses ?

Regards
Bresh

Bresh,

Nothing . . . yet

There were complaints about not seeing the results of battles between one AI major power and another so we put the FoW option in so players could decide for themselves if the information was needed. Unfortunately, it does fall short of what was intended for that option and we know there is more work to do. (i.e. detailed battle information concerning force compositions and strengths in human v human games).

Richard

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

 Engine is allowing hostile MP to move into and steal a minor from a neutral MP that is already in nation
• Making AI stay away from areas that have neutral MP forces attempting to conquer a minor FIRST.

I'm not sure this was an AI issue. It seems to me the problem was that the minor was going to war with everyone that it's controlling major power is at war at. The game is blurring the difference between a controlled minor power and a free state if the controlling major power is already at war.

E.g. - France and Austria are at war. Prussia, at peace with both, declares war on Bavaria. Austria gains control. Bavaria, in the game, will go to war with both France and Prussia. My reading of the rules is that Bavaria, should _only_ go to war with Prussia until such time as war with Prussia lapses - then it becomes a free state. However if Prussia had been at war with Austria then it makes sense for Bavaria to go to war with all of Austria's enemies.

This CAN be thought of as a problem. OR, it can be thought of as an opportunity.

I can't remember if it worked this way in the boardgame or not. But, this can be an opportunity.

From a realism perspective, it kind of depends on whether the major is simply controlling (making the moves for) the minor, or are they, in fact, taking it over completely (for the length of the war)? Since the "influenced" and "allied" minors become the property of the major that has the counter on them at the start of any war against that major, it seems as though the other way should work as well.

I sadly lost my rules to the last campaign I played something like 15 years ago, but my recollection was that until war lapsed, the controlling MP was basically just providing someone to move the minor. It goes along with the controlling MP not having to be at war with the MP attacking the minor. Also note you usually couldn't have more than one MP at war on the same minor without them declaring war on each other (or being at war with the controlling MP).

But if it's a re-design decision to make the minor immediately go to war with all it's patron's enemies, it doesn't make sense for the AI to have to be complicated with this special case.

Still, if I'm the king of Wurtemburg, I don't think I want my enemy list to be even longer than Austria's or France's...

[zaquex]

I sadly lost my rules to the last campaign I played something like 15 years ago, but my recollection was that until war lapsed, the controlling MP was basically just providing someone to move the minor. It goes along with the controlling MP not having to be at war with the MP attacking the minor. Also note you usually couldn't have more than one MP at war on the same minor without them declaring war on each other (or being at war with the controlling MP).

There are generally two schools when it comes to controll of "neutral" minors one tht advocates that control is absolute and permanent but there is also a significant group advocating the view that you just move the minor, these often also say that the neutral reverts back to neutral status if the minor survives the war. The second group often also use an optional rule that allows neutral minors to mobilize with money and manpower from any economic phase between they where demobilised (reverted to neutral) and the mobilisation and they keep any forces they had when demobolised. I never tried this variant but would be interested to do so.
 
There is so far as I know no conclusive help to find in the rules on which variant is correct, they are rather ambiguous. I'm however convinced it would change the game significantly and possibly provide a less static and more interesting game.   

[baboune]

Is the official patch going to be released?

[Soapy Frog]

zaquex; simplest reading of the rules leads us to control of a minor being absolute, and on lapse of war the controlling power retains that country as a freestate (or conquered minor if a minor without corps).