Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

ORIGINAL: ggallagher

Great list...but I perceive that the "Undo" function is missing....has this been put off to a later patch?

Oh, sorry. There is an undo feature that's been tested and which seems mostly to be working. The backspace key undoes unit orders (things like movement, attachments, strength transfers). It's a global undo, so you can't selectively undo just the movements of one unit (this because the movement of pieces is inter-related). It also doesn't undo player-orders, such as builds and subsidies -- these would be significantly harder to implement and no one seems to be doing these things accidentally.

Sorry to sound so negative, but if I'm understanding that post correctly, the undo feature seems almost worthless. Does a 'global undo' mean that I'll lose all orders I've given to all my troops up until that point, even though I only want to reverse one move? Or is it just badly worded and means that everything that the one unit has been ordered to do will be cancelled, not just movement? And I can't change my mind on any production or development decisions? Please tell me I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here.

Hi Reg
I think Gobal means what area it works in

but over all, it works backward, so, if move a ship to the wrong area, you can undo the last move, and the ship is back where it started, and pretty much, you can keep going backward though all of your moves

now, if you move a army first, then make 20 or so other moves, and then decide, you don't want that army to more, you would have to undo everything to get to it, you can't pick and chose what to undo

but to be honest, after using it to make sure it worked and how it works, I HARDly ever use it, it is to fix mistakes and works well that way

Sorry to sound so negative, but if I'm understanding that post correctly, the undo feature seems almost worthless. Does a 'global undo' mean that I'll lose all orders I've given to all my troops up until that point, even though I only want to reverse one move? Or is it just badly worded and means that everything that the one unit has been ordered to do will be cancelled, not just movement? And I can't change my mind on any production or development decisions? Please tell me I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here.

Let me describe how the undo feature works in laborious detail.

Every time you give a unit-order to a unit it goes on a stack. The first order that went onto the stack is at the "bottom of the stack" and the most recent order that went onto the stack is at the "top of the stack" -- just as one might stack a deck of cards (I think British English refers to this as a "pack of cards") by putting one card down on the table and then the next card on top of that card and so forth. So every movement order is put onto this stack: the first order is the first element of the stack, second order is the second element of the stack, and in general the Nth order is the Nth element of the stack.

What the undo function does is to work backwards through the stack, taking the top, or most-recent, element from the stack, undoing that order, and then removing that order that it just undid from the stack. It undoes all the unit-orders given to all your units one order at a time in the reverse-sequence with which you gave the orders.

Say you move Corps I into Flanders then into Soisson, then move Corps II into Guyenne and then into Piedmont, and then move Corps I into Ile de France. Hitting backspace once will move Corps I back into Soisson. Hitting it again will move Corps II back into Guyenne. Hitting it again will move Corps II out of Guyenne. Hitting it again will move Corps I back into Flanders.

So *global* in this context refers to the fact that there is only one stack for all units; it is not the case that each unit has its own stack of orders, but there is only one stack of orders for all the units. That orders cannot be undone selectively means that one cannot select one piece and undo only that piece's orders.

Completing the analogy with the deck of cards: one can undo the stacking of the deck of cards by taking the top card off of the deck, and by the iteration of this process one can undo the stacking of the entire deck. What one cannot do is, for example, to undo the stacking of only the hearts-cards or only the 9-cards.


We are considering allowing the undoing of development and purchasing orders, but this would not be part of the normal undo sequence. The reason not to make them part of the normal undo sequence is to allow players to undo them at any point in the orders phase, independently and selectively of other orders; unlike unit-orders, the sequence of development/purchase orders is not important, and so -- unlike unit-orders -- these sorts of orders *can* be undone in any sequence. To try to make this more clear: if you think of stacking a list of development and production orders, it should be possible to remove any card from the stack from any position within the stack. At this point, however, it is not clear whether these two types of undo features will be in the next update.

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

What the undo function does is to work backwards through the stack, taking the top, or most-recent, element from the stack, undoing that order, and then removing that order that it just undid from the stack. It undoes all the unit-orders given to all your units one order at a time in the reverse-sequence with which you gave the orders.


We are considering allowing the undoing of development and purchasing orders, but this would not be part of the normal undo sequence. The reason not to make them part of the normal undo sequence is to allow players to undo them at any point in the orders phase, independently and selectively of other orders; unlike unit-orders, the sequence of development/purchase orders is not important, and so -- unlike unit-orders -- these sorts of orders *can* be undone in any sequence. To try to make this more clear: if you think of stacking a list of development and production orders, it should be possible to remove any card from the stack from any position within the stack. At this point, however, it is not clear whether these two types of undo features will be in the next update.

Thanks, Eric, that's much clearer now. [:)]

Oh be that way, I said the same thing, only simpler

I'll pat you on the back Hard Sarge, good job ![;)]

Oh thank you, at least some one respects the work I do [&o]
[:-]
[:-]
[:-]

hehehehe

i dont see any mention of fixing the set policy screen so it works. u mentioned in another htread u were lookin at it

BUG: it wasn't on the list.
FACT: eric thinks he has fixed it (so it should have been on the list) - I haven't tested it yet, but I will!

ORIGINAL: Jutland
What about detailed combat for smaller forces, I continually lose battles in the quick battle screen, that I otherwise mostly win in the detailed screen. More leaders please!. I have been playing the 1796 scenario and it is now 1804, after countless huge battles I have not gained one new leader nad have lost several. I love the game, like the list of improvements, but would enjoy these add-ons.

a) There is no current plans to introduce detailed combat for smaller forces. I recommend you read my tips on quick combat (in the War Room - I think it will ship with the product in v1.2.x)

b) Leaders not being created by battle was a bug, and Eric thinks its fixed (and Hard_Sarge has posted screenies of new divisional and corps commanders being created!). Apparently he got 10 over a 10 year period, which sounds pretty good to me. I haven't got any yet, but I've been checking the economy mainly so far.

ORIGINAL: carnifex

* Fixed bug in army/corps use-forage order. Divisions attached to armies/corps should now correctly forego supply if the corps or army to which they are directly attached has the order to forage.

How about divisions not attached to containers? They have their own forage/supply setting.

Also, can you add that upon peace, the armies are not teleported to islands or provinces cut off from the rest of the world? Like Russian troops in Spain being ported to Algeria and being essentially stuck there forever if their fleet has been taken care of as per standard British plan?

I am testing this stuff at the moment. Eric thinks the divisional settings now work - I will check. I am - of course - also checking various mismatch settings, and the effect on reinforcements. And changed costs to garrions and etc etc.

WRT the teleport-on-peace, (a) there is code in the game now to try to avoid these situations, put in after testers complained. Its darn hard to code for, though, and there are still situations where silly things happen, which makes it open to exploit by a skilled player. (b) I have argued (strongly) that the feature should be removed - troops should march back: that would remove the problem all together, while adding realism. Anyone agree with me?

I'm worried about islands. Say France invades Ireland with ten divisions. The British surrender. How do the French units get back to France if they aren't teleported back from Ireland? The French player would have to send a fleet to pick them up, but under the current rules fleets can't land in British ports. Maybe some sort of compromise can be reached on this... (If one of our sequel products is the Anabasis we'll have to expand these rules ten-fold. [8D])

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

(b) I have argued (strongly) that the feature should be removed - troops should march back: that would remove the problem all together, while adding realism. Anyone agree with me?

Yep!

IMHO, allies should be able to use each other's ports, treaty-imposed-access should allow you to use ports, and Violate Territory should allow you to as well. Then the victor has the choice of either taking alliance or the access condition in the peace treaty, or just violating territory (which I assume further hurts their relations). Then there would be no problem.

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I'm worried about islands. Say France invades Ireland with ten divisions. The British surrender. How do the French units get back to France if they aren't teleported back from Ireland? The French player would have to send a fleet to pick them up, but under the current rules fleets can't land in British ports. Maybe some sort of compromise can be reached on this... (If one of our sequel products is the Anabasis we'll have to expand these rules ten-fold. [8D])

I see your point, but I have had Russian troops teleport to Corfu from Italy/Spain/N.Africa, needless to say thousands died of starvation and an art, cav, and two inf were disbanded.... how I laughed and thought what a splendid idea teleporting was![8|]

I agree, I agree

besides the fact that you would have your support set up for where the Armies are at, not where they will be, is a big factor for me

for Leaders, yes it is working now, and looks very good, (and may have more in store, down the road)

in my current test game, I have gotten 8 Div commanders and 2 Corp commanders

To answer the question behind the question that started this thread:
so far, although new versions of the game do seem to 'break' the old save game format, Eric has managed to provide an import filter, so that games in progress could be imported and then played. Although I can't promise anything, I would expect this to continue. So I would start your game with what you have.
[FWIW, the filter is usually one of the later things done, so the beta testers often have to abandon games. Ahh well.]

Congratulations H-S!

After several hundred hours of game play, this is the first time I have ever seen a new commander appear like this!!

Now all we need is the patch[;)]

Ian

Do new commanders come with a name from a set list, a name from a random list or just a generic 'commander' or 'general' label? And can we rename them if the latter is the case?

I am not sure if this names come from a list, or are random, only they are named (they do not come in as Commander, plus, I have not seen any that I know of from history, so do not think they are taking from the list of reinforcement names)

as of now, no, that is on "the List"

you get the name as it comes and are as of now stuck with it (which is not so bad)

renameing troops is still on the list too ????

There probably won't be a converter for the next version, unfortunately. Adding the undo et al. has radically changed the save game format. Sorry.

I can easily add a bit of code so that teleportation after war won't send units to islands. Don't know why we haven't done this before...

New commander names come from data files. In the Data\ directory see CmdName1.txt - CmdName8.txt. This is editable, just be sure to use underscores ("_") instead of spaces (" ") in any names that you add/change.

I do plan to add renaming of any unit as this is a popular request, but not sure if it'll make it in the next patch. Similarly, disbanding units is something I'd like to add but not sure it'll make the next patch.

Allies do get to use each other's ports, don't they??? Treaty access and violate territory could allow this too, I reckon.