Page 23 of 23
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:34 am
by NeverMan
ORIGINAL: Jimmer
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?
With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.
In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.
Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.
In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.
There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.
I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.
Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:47 pm
by bresh
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: Jimmer
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?
With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.
In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.
Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.
In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.
There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.
I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.
Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.
So if there is a way like there was in version 1.00 to "get free factors" just by doing some tricky factor transfers it would be ok, since its not in the manual it can not be a bug.. ?
Regards
Bresh
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:27 pm
by gwheelock
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: Jimmer
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?
With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.
In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.
Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.
In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.
There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.
I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.
Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.
Actually; there is something ON THE CORP ITSELF. It still has a RUSSIAN
FLAG on it.
As soon as you can REMOVE the Russian FLAG from the corp; THEN I'll agree
that it is no longer yours.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:34 pm
by NeverMan
ORIGINAL: bresh
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: Jimmer
In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.
Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.
In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.
There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.
I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.
Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.
So if there is a way like there was in version 1.00 to "get free factors" just by doing some tricky factor transfers it would be ok, since its not in the manual it can not be a bug.. ?
Regards
Bresh
I believe that the manual covers how to get factors, so no, that would be a bug.
I'm done arguing about this it's just a waste of time. Think what you want I don't care.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:37 pm
by NeverMan
ORIGINAL: gwheelock
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: Jimmer
In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.
Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.
In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.
There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.
I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.
Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.
Actually; there is something ON THE CORP ITSELF. It still has a RUSSIAN
FLAG on it.
As soon as you can REMOVE the Russian FLAG from the corp; THEN I'll agree
that it is no longer yours.
Maybe the corps flags should change when the corps is loaned. This would be much like the "border" color others have suggested Matrix use. I don't know.
If the rule doesn't suit you and you want to change it fine.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:22 pm
by gwheelock
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: gwheelock
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.
I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.
Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.
Actually; there is something ON THE CORP ITSELF. It still has a RUSSIAN
FLAG on it.
As soon as you can REMOVE the Russian FLAG from the corp; THEN I'll agree
that it is no longer yours.
Maybe the corps flags should change when the corps is loaned. This would be much like the "border" color others have suggested Matrix use. I don't know.
If the rule doesn't suit you and you want to change it fine.
RULE?? WHAT "RULE"? Show ME the RULE that says they are NOT
YOUR corp. The Flag says they are.
I am at war with anything flying a Russian flag.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:38 pm
by bresh
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: bresh
So if there is a way like there was in version 1.00 to "get free factors" just by doing some tricky factor transfers it would be ok, since its not in the manual it can not be a bug.. ?
Regards
Bresh
I believe that the manual covers how to get factors, so no, that would be a bug.
I'm done arguing about this it's just a waste of time. Think what you want I don't care.
Using your own argument about its not a bug just because its not described in the manual.
The manual shows one way to get new factors, but it doesnt say you can not get factors other ways...
So basicly the same argument you use about corps-lend.
Regards
Bresh
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:16 pm
by Jimmer
I presented what I believe is a perfect argument proving that you are wrong. The logic is valid and the premise creates a contradiction. Once something is disproven, it cannot be ressurrected. You must damage my argument (either the logic or the foundational assumptions) in order to revive yours. It is insufficient to bring up another argument that could be true. The premise has been proven false.
As I said earlier, q.e.d. And, with that, I'm done with this debate.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:47 pm
by Murat
The short version of the fight comes down to this: loaning Russian corps to Austria is now a known exploit, so is Russia going to take back their corps and finish the game or is Russia going to continue to use the exploit? If you do not understand what I mean by exploit it is something that the game allows but which runs contrary to the way it should run and gives an unfair advantage to the exploiting player, for example this loaned corp situation or the very early problem of being able to 'make copies' of factors by transfering them between corps and garrisons.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:02 pm
by NeverMan
ORIGINAL: Murat
The short version of the fight comes down to this: loaning Russian corps to Austria is now a known exploit, so is Russia going to take back their corps and finish the game or is Russia going to continue to use the exploit? If you do not understand what I mean by exploit it is something that the game allows but which runs contrary to the way it should run and gives an unfair advantage to the exploiting player, for example this loaned corp situation or the very early problem of being able to 'make copies' of factors by transfering them between corps and garrisons.
Marshall, hopefully, will make the corps "unloaned" and we can move on with the game. I didn't agree with the way it was written and I'm not a rules rapist (aka someone who uses exploits), I just wanted the point driven home.
Secondly, your latter example allowed something that Marshall purposefully didn't want while the former was only a mistake AFTER Marshall realized this exploit. They are not the same.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:36 am
by gwheelock
There has been a suggestion to call this game & start "CleverDevils3"
What is everyone's vote?
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:17 am
by Jimmer
I can go either way. This game had so many hiccups that it's hard to "count". However, I have never seen France played so masterfully as this. Granted, you got a lot of help. But, as far as I can tell, you made no significant mistakes. The same cannot be said of your enemies (myself included).
Excellent work!
I also want to applaud the Turkish play. If this game had continued, it would have been interesting to see if the Turks could outdistance France, even though France was getting a score 1 point off the maximum possible. Even as it is, it is clear that both of you well-deserve the title "winner" for this one.
Congratulations!
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:47 pm
by delatbabel
So what was the decision? Are we to see a CleverDevils3 AAR?
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:24 pm
by NeverMan
ORIGINAL: delatbabel
So what was the decision? Are we to see a CleverDevils3 AAR?
CD2 has ended to my knowledge. Guy was the winner.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:41 pm
by gwheelock
ORIGINAL: delatbabel
So what was the decision? Are we to see a CleverDevils3 AAR?
I think the concensus for CD3 is to wait for 1.05 to be available (non-beta)
& then start with that as the minimum level.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:52 pm
by Jimmer
TWO winners: France and Turkey.
I'm OK with waiting, but how about allowing the in-between BETA version of 1.05? There's the version only official beta testers get (which I plan on using, once I get the paperwork done), plus the "almost released" beta versions that might come out. Then, there's full 1.05 released.
I would opt for waiting for the second beta level, not the full release. Does anybody know a reason not to? Also, does running multiple versions cause problems? I didn't see any in any of the attempts I tried.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:06 pm
by NeverMan
1. Personally, I only consider there to be one winner per game.
2. I'm out because I am done with this game.
EDIT: Plus, doesn't the version the beta testers get reveal info that is not available to others not using this version? That's enough reason for me not to play.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:25 pm
by gwheelock
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
1. Personally, I only consider there to be one winner per game.
2. I'm out because I am done with this game.
EDIT: Plus, doesn't the version the beta testers get reveal info that is not available to others not using this version? That's enough reason for me not to play.
Personally I wouldn't use the beta-tester copy on a running game. I would be too
worried about messing up the datafile in some manner.
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:02 pm
by Jimmer
Good point. Forget I said that.