alliance broken for separate peace that did not occur

[ndrose]

I can't remember whether this has been reported already. GB (AI) and Austria (human) allied and at war with France (AI). France surrenders to both. I had not checked the "allow separate peace" button, but that should be irrelevant as there was no separate peace. However, the alliance was broken supposedly for that reason.

The log reads as if what happened is that the surrender to GB was processed first, and counted as a separate peace because the surrender to Austria had not yet been processed (though in fact it was in the same phase).

[NeverMan]

I think this was alread posted, but I could be wrong.

[bresh]

Yeah, i posted about this some months ago.
My group wanted to continue, but i thought it to essential a bug to play on, so i would not feel comfortable.
I emailed Marshall but nothing happend.
So i left the game for the rest to continue.

Regards
Bresh

[Marshall Ellis]

When was this? I cannot debate it but I have HUNDREDs of saved games. Refresh me a bit and I will look at it. Apologize if I missed it??? What email address would it come from?

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

When was this? I cannot debate it but I have HUNDREDs of saved games. Refresh me a bit and I will look at it. Apologize if I missed it??? What email address would it come from?

Was actually "only" 1 month ago, time sense drops fast when on 4 weeks vacation.

tm.asp?m=2058454&mpage=1&key=?

My email to you had Title "[EIANW] Regarding bug forced break alliance when "turkey surrenders to both"."
From me, you should have my gmail address from our game (unless you deleted it), i dont post my email address in forums.

In our case, Turkey surrendered to both Russia & GB who where allies, GB only chose conditonal while Russia took unconditonal.
My guess was the bug was due to different "surrender-Classes". Official 1.05.




Regards
Bresh

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: bresh
In our case, Turkey surrendered to both Russia & GB who where allies, GB only chose conditonal while Russia took unconditonal.
My guess was the bug was due to different "surrender-Classes".

I have found in the code where this is happening. Yes, there are settings for who a nation is suing for peace: conditional, informal, or will accept unconditional or conditional. For whatever reason, it looks like the code used to screen out conditional surrender to an ally, then got changed to screening out conditional and unconditional. But that doesn't make sense either.

The resolve_separate_peace logic should first verify if allies have checked separate peace for a victor. If yes then no problem. If no then there should be second check to determine if the loser is also suing the ally for peace, and if not then go ahead with the break alliance penalty for the victor. Note that a separate peace should apply to all surrender types: informal, conditional or unconditional. I'm not sure how we could handle the case where the loser is suing the ally for peace and then the ally refuses during a subsequent surrender check.

I think I will leave that case alone; players can always break their own alliance if they are upset with their ally. At the end of the day, players should recognize that this separate peace option does not really have any effect on the loser, only upon one's allies if you want to punish them for making a separate peace and leaving you at war. Murat made some good comments on another post about always letting his allies take separate peace because he likes having allies, so NOT checking the separate peace box should be carefully considered.

I'd appreciate any additional thoughts/comments about this before I lock in any changes to the v1.21.03 public beta before going official. Else I will press ahead and we can come back to this later if it's still an issue.