Hey guys:
Just updating you on my current work status for 1.03. This is not a closed list and is living.
Just as a reminder:
WIP means that I have duplicated and am working on it.
Cannot duplicate does not mean that I'm saying there is no problem, I just have not been able to duplicate this yet which is typically necessary before a fix can be coded.
ID# [Status] Description
R013 [Cannot duplicate] Unable to force march into Anappa
R219 [Cannot duplicate] Cities in conquered MP province are staying under the control of the former MP
R229 [Cannot duplicate] Forces teleporting after breaching a capital
R245 [Cannot duplicate] in PBEM games, some units disappear when they are clicked
R256 [Cannot duplicate] Garrison dissappearing after loading turn file
R284 [Fixed in 1.03] Erroneous messages "None controlled by" are happening in text log during PBEM games
R285 [Fixed in 1.03] When first loading a game and seletecting Ally rural units the unit display will fill with French corps
R286 [Fixed in 1.03] Need to add new alliances and broken alliances as headline news events
R287 [Fixed in 1.03] When doing unit to unit transfer in PBEM, the results of the destination unit are not carried over in the turn file.
R288 [Fixed in 1.03] Need to add starving messages for garrisons
R289 [Fixed in 1.03] Need to add xfer messages for garrison transfers telling the player where they went.
R290 [Fixed in 1.03] AI: Need to change AI diplomacy to be more aggressive and more intelligent in DOWs.
R291 [Fixed in 1.03] AI: Need to change AI diplomacy so that MPs ally with each other more often but also more intelligent in ally selection
R292 [Fixed in 1.03] AI: Still leaving some forces unblockaded even when they outnumber the opposing navy! This is allowing the channel to be taken easily taken!
R293 [Fixed in 1.03] AI: Presence of one unit in hostile minor can prevent other units from moving in, thinking the first unti is another neutral MP!
R294 [WIP] Change move order messages not making the transfer to any other MPs
R295 [Fixed in 1.03] S Pommerania not showing consistent MP/$ values! This fix is for NEW GAMES ONLY!
R296 [WIP] Need to change pp gain/loss so that all participating MPs gain the same in victory and lose 1/2 the number of their corps in a loss
R297 [Fixed in 1.03] Economic manipulation should freeze to "0" when capital is occupied
R298 [Cannot duplicate] MP reporting instability when clearly not in instability
R299 [Cannot duplicate] MP reporting instability BUT it is the wrong MP (Pr losing minors when should be Ru)
R300 [Fixed in 1.03] AI: AI is trying to manipulate minors that they are DOWing!
R301 [Cannot duplicate] Reinforcing corps are not being counted in the pp results
R302 [Fixed in 1.03] Armenian provincial capital is set to Alexandretta making it switch control when it should not!
R303 [Fixed in 1.03] Some blockade resolutions were causing human players to become AI thus kicking them out of the game.
R304 [Fixed in 1.03] Some battle wait states are blocking the game from moving forward in the dipomacy phase
R305 [Cannot duplicate] PBEM games are simply enabling ALL alliances where boxes are checked!
R306 [WIP] Sieges are being relieved EVEN when relieving force does not win the field combat!
1.03 Work Que
Moderator: MOD_EIA
-
MarshallEllis
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
- Location: Dallas
RE: 1.03 Work Que
Don't forget R307 (perhaps?): Besieged garrisons don't have to forage when the siege is relieved by combat.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
-
MarshallEllis
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
- Location: Dallas
RE: 1.03 Work Que
Jimmer:
This will be a part of R306. If the relieving force does not win then the siege will resume thus forcing the garrison to forage in its phase.
This will be a part of R306. If the relieving force does not win then the siege will resume thus forcing the garrison to forage in its phase.
RE: 1.03 Work Que
No, that won't work. The attempt to relieve occurs in the same phase that the garrison must surrender, generally (that major power's land movement phase). Yes, if one is from a second nation and the other is from a third, they would be separate phases. However, the typical case is when the nation attempting to relieve the besieged forces is the same nationality/control as the forces in the city.
What SHOULD happen is that the attack is declared, then the factors forage, THEN the corps are moved to the field. However, programming considerations probably prevent an easy solution using this model. But, the other model I suggested would both work AND carry the intended-by-the-rules activities to completion:
At the beginning of the major power's land movement phase, all besieged factors of that major power are given a notation that says "I'm besieged. Must forage." The notation could even include the forage values it should operate under (city spires, troop count inside the city). This could be a variable or a table entry.
Then, the battle is declared. Thus, the besiegers are (temporarily) moved to the rural area for combat.
BUT, the besieged factors inside the city are still considered besieged, for foraging purposes, anyhow. When the time comes to pay for supply/forage, they FIRST read the notation that they are besieged (even though they are not technically besieged at this instant), and forage based on THOSE values, rather than forage normally (which, for loose garrison factors, means they don't forage at all OR pay for supply). This should be an IF...THEN...ELSE process, because we don't want them foraging twice.
When a force is besieging a city, that force should have a reasonable expectation that the garrison should starve to death some day, if it waits long enough. But, there is no guarantee of this, as all the besieged player has to do is keep attacking the stack. It is theoretically possible that the force in the besieged city could survive forever, if the owning player simply attacks with a 1-factor corps every month. Now, one might say "Yes, but they pay a stiff political price to do that: Giving 1 PP to their opponent every turn. But, they still would consider it if the site were important (say, Paris, or a city with Napoleon stuck with the garrison).
What SHOULD happen is that the attack is declared, then the factors forage, THEN the corps are moved to the field. However, programming considerations probably prevent an easy solution using this model. But, the other model I suggested would both work AND carry the intended-by-the-rules activities to completion:
At the beginning of the major power's land movement phase, all besieged factors of that major power are given a notation that says "I'm besieged. Must forage." The notation could even include the forage values it should operate under (city spires, troop count inside the city). This could be a variable or a table entry.
Then, the battle is declared. Thus, the besiegers are (temporarily) moved to the rural area for combat.
BUT, the besieged factors inside the city are still considered besieged, for foraging purposes, anyhow. When the time comes to pay for supply/forage, they FIRST read the notation that they are besieged (even though they are not technically besieged at this instant), and forage based on THOSE values, rather than forage normally (which, for loose garrison factors, means they don't forage at all OR pay for supply). This should be an IF...THEN...ELSE process, because we don't want them foraging twice.
When a force is besieging a city, that force should have a reasonable expectation that the garrison should starve to death some day, if it waits long enough. But, there is no guarantee of this, as all the besieged player has to do is keep attacking the stack. It is theoretically possible that the force in the besieged city could survive forever, if the owning player simply attacks with a 1-factor corps every month. Now, one might say "Yes, but they pay a stiff political price to do that: Giving 1 PP to their opponent every turn. But, they still would consider it if the site were important (say, Paris, or a city with Napoleon stuck with the garrison).
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
RE: 1.03 Work Que
Another option would be to have (after the r306 fix) all besieged garrison factors forage at the end of land combat. However, this isn't fair, either.
Picture this scenario:
GB is besieging a French port that contains blockaded ships. France attacks the British corps. The British corps is small enough that, were the city open, it would fit inside the city.
Now, when France attacks, the garrison it has in port should forage. Further, if that garrison dies, the British corps should have the option of immediately retreating into the city, thus avoiding combat with the French field forces. That's what SHOULD happen.
But, what WILL happen is that the garrison will never be required to forage, so the British corps must ALWAYS fight a field combat (which it very likely will lose).
Picture this scenario:
GB is besieging a French port that contains blockaded ships. France attacks the British corps. The British corps is small enough that, were the city open, it would fit inside the city.
Now, when France attacks, the garrison it has in port should forage. Further, if that garrison dies, the British corps should have the option of immediately retreating into the city, thus avoiding combat with the French field forces. That's what SHOULD happen.
But, what WILL happen is that the garrison will never be required to forage, so the British corps must ALWAYS fight a field combat (which it very likely will lose).
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
-
MarshallEllis
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
- Location: Dallas
RE: 1.03 Work Que
Jimmer:
I see what you're saying! The siege relief would not be resolved until after the supply step (land combat phase) so a relieving force could keep them alive. Good eye!
I see what you're saying! The siege relief would not be resolved until after the supply step (land combat phase) so a relieving force could keep them alive. Good eye!
RE: 1.03 Work Que
Oh, it wasn't my "eye" that caught it. It was playing as the British trying to kill fleets (against the AI). The French would run one corps back to defend themselves. If I didn't actually break in, I noticed I never got the chance to retire into the city, even though it should happen roughly 1/2 of the time (3 spires, 1 factor = 50/50 chance of dying outright). It's pretty annoying.
One final thing to note: According to the original rules, you had the chance of retreating into the city if it was vacant. Well, if they forage to death, then it will be vacant. However, I'm not sure the game will put the formerly besieging corps into the city automatically, or give the player an option. This really should be an option available to the formerly besieging forces at the beginning of the land combat phase (after foraging, but before actual combat). However, this note is not limited to just former besiegers; this problem exists everywhere.
Now, I know that there are programming considerations. But, if one granted the about-to-be defender the option of retreating into a city before combat at the very beginning of the combat phase (before actual die rolling, but after movement is complete for the phasing player), this would have roughly the same effect as the original rules.
Finally, there's one last effect that you can help with in this area: Preventing your opponent from knowing that your factors are in or out of a city. When strolling through the countryside, one may come across an enemy corps. However, if one knows that this corps is already in the city, one might send a different-sized force against it (perhaps, just enough to besiege it effectively, not enough to squash it in the open field.
The problem is that the game forces the other player to have already decided whether his corps is in or out of the city. Now, this was done to make PBEM more reasonable, and makes sense. However, one really should have a choice.
The above solution (asking the owner for any battle area whether to retreat into the city -- if vacant -- just prior to battle) solves both problems.
However, if that solution is not feasible or would take too much work, there's another way to solve THIS piece of the puzzle: Simply change the view that ones enemy sees. If I'm attacking, my screen shows me that the enemy's forces are in the field, regardless of where they REALLY are. The OWNER'S screen would show the correct location, but the screen the enemy sees would be an artificial display.
One final thing to note: According to the original rules, you had the chance of retreating into the city if it was vacant. Well, if they forage to death, then it will be vacant. However, I'm not sure the game will put the formerly besieging corps into the city automatically, or give the player an option. This really should be an option available to the formerly besieging forces at the beginning of the land combat phase (after foraging, but before actual combat). However, this note is not limited to just former besiegers; this problem exists everywhere.
Now, I know that there are programming considerations. But, if one granted the about-to-be defender the option of retreating into a city before combat at the very beginning of the combat phase (before actual die rolling, but after movement is complete for the phasing player), this would have roughly the same effect as the original rules.
Finally, there's one last effect that you can help with in this area: Preventing your opponent from knowing that your factors are in or out of a city. When strolling through the countryside, one may come across an enemy corps. However, if one knows that this corps is already in the city, one might send a different-sized force against it (perhaps, just enough to besiege it effectively, not enough to squash it in the open field.
The problem is that the game forces the other player to have already decided whether his corps is in or out of the city. Now, this was done to make PBEM more reasonable, and makes sense. However, one really should have a choice.
The above solution (asking the owner for any battle area whether to retreat into the city -- if vacant -- just prior to battle) solves both problems.
However, if that solution is not feasible or would take too much work, there's another way to solve THIS piece of the puzzle: Simply change the view that ones enemy sees. If I'm attacking, my screen shows me that the enemy's forces are in the field, regardless of where they REALLY are. The OWNER'S screen would show the correct location, but the screen the enemy sees would be an artificial display.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
RE: 1.03 Work Que
By the way, you are a credit to your industry. Matrix, and you specifically, both go above and beyond the typical support person for a typical game company. I've heard "We don't support old games" for games they were still actively producing and advertising. I've heard "Get a different video card" even when it is known to be their bug. You guys don't seem to act that way. If it's broke, I get the impression it WILL be fixed.
Kudos!
Kudos!
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
RE: 1.03 Work Que
And u know why Jimmer? Because they are strat gamer fanatics like us [:D]
How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org
RE: 1.03 Work Que
I like that.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
RE: 1.03 Work Que
Other things to consider:
When an inconclusive battle is fought, and one side chooses to leave, they should be given the ability to choose their retreat path. I had a game as GB where we were fighting at Toulon and it automatically moved my forces to Marseilles after I withdrew after the first day of battle (and the French stayed).
When an inconclusive battle is fought, and one side chooses to leave, they should be given the ability to choose their retreat path. I had a game as GB where we were fighting at Toulon and it automatically moved my forces to Marseilles after I withdrew after the first day of battle (and the French stayed).
-
JanSorensen
- Posts: 2536
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:18 pm
- Location: Aalborg, Denmark
RE: 1.03 Work Que
On the list I see a couple of AI issue - but nowhere do I see a bullet concerning the actual tactical movement of corps by the AI. That is - to stack corps into armies and never to send in a lone artillery or cav corps against several enemy infantry corps.
RE: 1.03 Work Que
Odd you cant duplicate [R305].
It happend in 2 of my pbm games.
My pc died other day, so i havent had times to test anything about disapearing factors etc.
Its also rather nice summer weather these days, so not much time sitting indoors.
I will try create some tests-saves if i get time.
Regards
Bresh
It happend in 2 of my pbm games.
My pc died other day, so i havent had times to test anything about disapearing factors etc.
Its also rather nice summer weather these days, so not much time sitting indoors.
I will try create some tests-saves if i get time.
Regards
Bresh
RE: 1.03 Work Que
I had two reported bugs that I'm not sure were resolved with v1.02k and don't see on the queue for v1.03:
Edit. And a third item regarding depot placement from a few months back. Again not sure if it got resolved or not?
L19 LAND PHASE
From: pzgndr
Problem: When a major power garrisons a minor country first and then a common enemy of that minor country was to garrison that minor AFTER the first, the program gives immediate control to the second major power and will eventually allow the newcomer to steal the conquest.
File: Stealing conquests.sav
Status: Confirmed bug – Pending
In August 1806 Russia DOWed Turkey. In September, Russia lost 3 minor states, supposedly due to instability but Russia is clearly in the normal zone. Prussia, however, had been at war with France for several months and has dipped into the instability zone. Typo somewhere mixing up Prussia and Russia in the database?
>Got it.
>I think it's a little deeper than a typo.
>I'm concerned about the PS slipping into instability then coming out. I'll do some digging...
Edit. And a third item regarding depot placement from a few months back. Again not sure if it got resolved or not?
I think we're going to let common sense prevail and make it necessary to have a friendly unmoved corps if a home nation city is enemy controlled.
After looking at the actual operation (Placing a depot in an area with an enemy controlled city and not friendly unmoved corps present) it seems that this is ludicrous and should be illegal. Maybe this wasn't addressed because there is no strategic reason to do this
I guess this technically could be a deviation but does anybody have a problem with this?
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Empires in Arms Developer
-
MarshallEllis
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
- Location: Dallas
RE: 1.03 Work Que
pzgndr:
I showed L19 fixed in 1.02h??? Are you seeing something wrong?
R299 should address the instability, I just haven't duped this yet.
Yea, on the third issue, I cannot see what we did or if we even logged this issue??? We may have missed this one??? We did say it should be illegal correct?
I showed L19 fixed in 1.02h??? Are you seeing something wrong?
R299 should address the instability, I just haven't duped this yet.
Yea, on the third issue, I cannot see what we did or if we even logged this issue??? We may have missed this one??? We did say it should be illegal correct?
-
MarshallEllis
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
- Location: Dallas
RE: 1.03 Work Que
ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
On the list I see a couple of AI issue - but nowhere do I see a bullet concerning the actual tactical movement of corps by the AI. That is - to stack corps into armies and never to send in a lone artillery or cav corps against several enemy infantry corps.
JanSorensen:
I haven't assigned this as an issue yet although it will be. I have a few program designs that will allow the setting of army locations where stacks will meet and leaders will be placed to get ready for major pushes. I'm still in the middle of the AI trying to take minors right now. AI MP tactics will be coming. This list is living so you will see additions.
-
JanSorensen
- Posts: 2536
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:18 pm
- Location: Aalborg, Denmark
RE: 1.03 Work Que
ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
JanSorensen:
I haven't assigned this as an issue yet although it will be. I have a few program designs that will allow the setting of army locations where stacks will meet and leaders will be placed to get ready for major pushes. I'm still in the middle of the AI trying to take minors right now. AI MP tactics will be coming. This list is living so you will see additions.
Marshall Ellis,
Thank you for the reply. If I may make a suggestion then it would be to "fix" the diplomatic part of the AI (along with the bugs you have listed) and post 1.03a before trying too hard to improve the tactical movement aspect. That will let the player base test your diplomatic measures and provide feedback on those rather than sit idle while you work on movement.
-
MarshallEllis
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
- Location: Dallas
RE: 1.03 Work Que
JanSorensen:
Those are my intentions! I will certainly post a BETA (or two or three ) to get some feedback on how much (or little) it has improved. I know you asked earlier and I will answer that my first BETA is a little ways off since I am now bringing some new testers online so they will see all of my changes before we goto BETA. I would say that I am at least 1-2 weeks away given no surprises!
Those are my intentions! I will certainly post a BETA (or two or three
) to get some feedback on how much (or little) it has improved. I know you asked earlier and I will answer that my first BETA is a little ways off since I am now bringing some new testers online so they will see all of my changes before we goto BETA. I would say that I am at least 1-2 weeks away given no surprises!RE: 1.03 Work Que
[I showed L19 fixed in 1.02h??? Are you seeing something wrong?
R299 should address the instability, I just haven't duped this yet.
Yea, on the third issue, I cannot see what we did or if we even logged this issue??? We may have missed this one??? We did say it should be illegal correct?
It wasn't clear in the notes if L19 was fixed or not, but if it is fine. I haven't had a chance to recreate that situation.
If the other two items still need resolution, then they should be in the queue. I'm just following up.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Empires in Arms Developer
-
MarshallEllis
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
- Location: Dallas
RE: 1.03 Work Que
Hey guys:
Just quick update on the 1.03 work...
Still not certain of BETA date. We have much AI work in front of us still.
R013[Cannot duplicate]Unable to force march into Anappa
R219[Cannot duplicate]Cities in conquered MP province are staying under the control of the former MP
R229[Cannot duplicate]Forces teleporting after breaching a capital
R245[Cannot duplicate]in PBEM games, some units disappear when they are clicked
R256[Cannot duplicate]Garrison dissappearing after loading turn file
R284[Fixed in 1.03]Erroneous messages "None controlled by" are happening in text log during PBEM games
R285[Fixed in 1.03]When first loading a game and seletecting Ally rural units the unit display will fill with French corps
R286[Fixed in 1.03]Need to add new alliances and broken alliances as headline news events
R287[Fixed in 1.03]When doing unit to unit transfer in PBEM, the results of the destination unit are not carried over in the turn file.
R288[Fixed in 1.03]Need to add starving messages for garrisons
R289[Fixed in 1.03]Need to add xfer messages for garrison transfers telling the player where they went.
R290[Fixed in 1.03]AI: Need to change AI diplomacy to be more aggressive and more intelligent in DOWs.
R291[Fixed in 1.03]AI: Need to change AI diplomacy so that MPs ally with each other more often but also more intelligent in ally selection
R292[Fixed in 1.03]AI: Still leaving some forces unblockaded even when they outnumber the opposing navy! This is allowing the channel to be taken easily taken!
R293[Fixed in 1.03]AI: Presence of one unit in hostile minor can prevent other units from moving in, thinking the first unti is another neutral MP!
R294[Cannot duplicate]Change move order messages not making the transfer to any other MPs
R295[Fixed in 1.03]S Pommerania not showing consistent MP/$ values!
R296[Fixed in 1.03]Need to change pp gain/loss so that all participating MPs gain the same in victory and lose 1/2 the number of their corps in a loss
R297[Fixed in 1.03]Economic manipulation should freeze to "0" when capital is occupied
R298[Cannot duplicate]MP reporting instability when clearly not in instability
R299[Cannot duplicate]MP reporting instability BUT it is the wrong MP (Pr losing minors when should be Ru)
R300[Fixed in 1.03]AI: AI is trying to manipulate minors that they are DOWing!
R301[Fixed in 1.03]Reinforcing corps are not being counted in the pp results
R302[Fixed in 1.03]Armenian provincial capital is set to Alexandretta making it switch control when it should not!
R303[Fixed in 1.03]Some blockade resolutions were causing human players to become AI thus kicking them out of the game.
R304[Fixed in 1.03]Some battle wait states are blocking the game from moving forward in the dipomacy phase
R305[Cannot duplicate]PBEM games are simply enabling ALL alliances where boxes are checked!
R306[Fixed in 1.03]Sieges are being relieved EVEN when relieving force does not win the field combat!
R307[Fixed in 1.03]Loaning units function will not allow leaders to be loaned
R308[Fixed in 1.03]Loaned corps not allowed to move into an original MPs freestate
R309[Fixed in 1.03]Successful withdraws from an area with a defending depot (causing depot to be eliminated) are causing depots to surrender to wrong player.
R310[Open]Swedish income not being calculated correctly. Looks like Finland element not being added.
R311[Fixed in 1.03]Unable to detach factors from corps inswide city to garrison.
R312[Fixed in 1.03]Able to place depot in illegal area. FS minor city with no corps and city is besieged.
R313[Fixed in 1.03]Garrisons with besieged port supply are still foraging!
R314[Fixed in 1.03]Can transfer a factor from a depot to the same depot!
R315[Fixed in 1.03]Bristol port is not allowing movement of ships out of or into ports
R316[Open]Cannot add militia to corps inside city
Just quick update on the 1.03 work...
Still not certain of BETA date. We have much AI work in front of us still.
R013[Cannot duplicate]Unable to force march into Anappa
R219[Cannot duplicate]Cities in conquered MP province are staying under the control of the former MP
R229[Cannot duplicate]Forces teleporting after breaching a capital
R245[Cannot duplicate]in PBEM games, some units disappear when they are clicked
R256[Cannot duplicate]Garrison dissappearing after loading turn file
R284[Fixed in 1.03]Erroneous messages "None controlled by" are happening in text log during PBEM games
R285[Fixed in 1.03]When first loading a game and seletecting Ally rural units the unit display will fill with French corps
R286[Fixed in 1.03]Need to add new alliances and broken alliances as headline news events
R287[Fixed in 1.03]When doing unit to unit transfer in PBEM, the results of the destination unit are not carried over in the turn file.
R288[Fixed in 1.03]Need to add starving messages for garrisons
R289[Fixed in 1.03]Need to add xfer messages for garrison transfers telling the player where they went.
R290[Fixed in 1.03]AI: Need to change AI diplomacy to be more aggressive and more intelligent in DOWs.
R291[Fixed in 1.03]AI: Need to change AI diplomacy so that MPs ally with each other more often but also more intelligent in ally selection
R292[Fixed in 1.03]AI: Still leaving some forces unblockaded even when they outnumber the opposing navy! This is allowing the channel to be taken easily taken!
R293[Fixed in 1.03]AI: Presence of one unit in hostile minor can prevent other units from moving in, thinking the first unti is another neutral MP!
R294[Cannot duplicate]Change move order messages not making the transfer to any other MPs
R295[Fixed in 1.03]S Pommerania not showing consistent MP/$ values!
R296[Fixed in 1.03]Need to change pp gain/loss so that all participating MPs gain the same in victory and lose 1/2 the number of their corps in a loss
R297[Fixed in 1.03]Economic manipulation should freeze to "0" when capital is occupied
R298[Cannot duplicate]MP reporting instability when clearly not in instability
R299[Cannot duplicate]MP reporting instability BUT it is the wrong MP (Pr losing minors when should be Ru)
R300[Fixed in 1.03]AI: AI is trying to manipulate minors that they are DOWing!
R301[Fixed in 1.03]Reinforcing corps are not being counted in the pp results
R302[Fixed in 1.03]Armenian provincial capital is set to Alexandretta making it switch control when it should not!
R303[Fixed in 1.03]Some blockade resolutions were causing human players to become AI thus kicking them out of the game.
R304[Fixed in 1.03]Some battle wait states are blocking the game from moving forward in the dipomacy phase
R305[Cannot duplicate]PBEM games are simply enabling ALL alliances where boxes are checked!
R306[Fixed in 1.03]Sieges are being relieved EVEN when relieving force does not win the field combat!
R307[Fixed in 1.03]Loaning units function will not allow leaders to be loaned
R308[Fixed in 1.03]Loaned corps not allowed to move into an original MPs freestate
R309[Fixed in 1.03]Successful withdraws from an area with a defending depot (causing depot to be eliminated) are causing depots to surrender to wrong player.
R310[Open]Swedish income not being calculated correctly. Looks like Finland element not being added.
R311[Fixed in 1.03]Unable to detach factors from corps inswide city to garrison.
R312[Fixed in 1.03]Able to place depot in illegal area. FS minor city with no corps and city is besieged.
R313[Fixed in 1.03]Garrisons with besieged port supply are still foraging!
R314[Fixed in 1.03]Can transfer a factor from a depot to the same depot!
R315[Fixed in 1.03]Bristol port is not allowing movement of ships out of or into ports
R316[Open]Cannot add militia to corps inside city