Page 1 of 1
2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:27 pm
by rkr1958
1. I've selected the BB Royal Sovereign, CA Trinidad and 4-3 Transport docked at Liverpool for movement.
2. First, they move into the Faeroes Gap, which is occupied by axis subs. They decline to intercept.
3. Next, these ships move into the North Atlantic, also occupied by axis subs, which also decline to intercept.
4. This task force wishes to continue on to the East Coast, however, the game makes them stop there and they can only go to the 1 or 0-box.
5. I'm playing with, "in the presence of the enemy." However, Both the Faeroes Gap and North Atlantic have allied naval units present in them at the start of this allied impulse. It's like 2.3.4 is not these forces present at the beginning of the impulse to negate the "in the presence of the enemy".
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:34 pm
by rkr1958
game turn.
By the way, this is my 3rd bug report on 2.3.4 since April 1st, all of which I've attached game turns. I bring this up because the game turns haven't been downloaded by anyone. And, while I did get a comment from Zartarcla on the April 1st bug report, I haven't gotten any comments from the testers or developer on the merits of these bug reports.
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:16 pm
by rkr1958
Update. I don't believe this critical bug has anything to do with whether or not one is playing with, "In the presence of the enemy". I took the above game file and edited it to turn off that optional rule and saw the same result, that is, naval movement bug.
No matter, if I'm understanding things correctly this is a very serious bug.
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:20 pm
by Viktor_Kormel_slith
I have reported this one some days ago. Steve knows it. Don´t worry. Here is
tm.asp?m=4265394
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:21 pm
by rkr1958
ORIGINAL: Viktor_Kormel
I have reported this one some days ago. Steve knows it. Don´t worry. Here is
tm.asp?m=4265394
Thank you.
[:)]
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:00 pm
by rkr1958
Well, this bug has to do with interception and is independent of whether or not the candidate intercepting force tries or not, or is successful or not. If interception is a possibility then this bug happens. In my current (solo) game I confirmed this by editing my game file and disabling 9 axis naval/sub units spread out in 4 sea areas and 5 sea boxes.
Hopefully this bug gets swashed soon because it's a game killer. I do have a couple of "workarounds" but they are painful and involve multiple edits, and unedits, of the game file. Not fun, but necessary if I wish to keep playing with this version. Honestly, I'll be so glad when the next stable official version is released. These frequent regression bugs are a bummer. [:(]
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:36 pm
by paulderynck
I DL'd the file, tried it with 2.4.3.1, and found the same problem.
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:17 pm
by rkr1958
ORIGINAL: paulderynck
I DL'd the file, tried it with 2.4.3.1, and found the same problem.
Thanks! [:)]
Well actually, [:(] , wrt/2.4.3.1 not fixing it.
I assume 2.4.3.1 is a beta version you have that's different and more current than the public beta version 2.4.3?
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:59 pm
by paulderynck
It should be identical AFAIK except it has beta tools turned on.
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:01 pm
by rkr1958
ORIGINAL: paulderynck
It should be identical AFAIK except it has beta tools turned on.
Thanks! Any ETA on the next hotfix or public beta that addresses these regression bugs?
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:42 am
by paulderynck
May be a while longer than usual. Check the monthly report.
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:07 pm
by rkr1958
ORIGINAL: paulderynck
May be a while longer than usual. Check the monthly report.
Is this what you're referring to?
I am less optimistic about how soon we will have an official release of NetPlay Ready! Partly that is due to the bugs on my task list, partly it is due to the Solitaire/Head-to-head players clamoring for attention to their hot button bugs, and lastly it is partly due to me traveling to Philadelphia for a week in April for my fifth annual checkup at Wills Eye Hospital on my eye surgery .
Also, and not meaning to, I guess we solitary/head-to-head players caused Steve some grief last month. We're mentioned three times in his monthly. [:(]
[1] Justifiably so, they complained about this neglect to me.
[2] partly it is due to the Solitaire/Head-to-head players clamoring for attention to their hot button bugs,
[3] players who had complaints about the code for Solitaire and Head-to-head play became more vocal
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:08 pm
by davidachamberlain
ORIGINAL: rkr1958
Also, and not meaning to, I guess we solitary/head-to-head players caused Steve some grief last month. We're mentioned three times in his monthly. [:(]
I get a sense that Steve is a bit more mature than that. I don't think he takes these personally, but probably does suffer from some personal disappointment on areas where there were less success.
It is unfortunate that Netplay wears the blame for the problems, since it is really a lot more additional testing and more fixes that inherit the risks from regression issues. This is a very complicated product and any time you touch something, there is a risk of breaking something related.
It is too bad that there is not a bit more help for Steve since he is doing a lot and with all of the additional testing that was going on with beta testers and Netplay players, it was a full court press to try to get to the end.
I am sure that Steve will work through these, but the additional care that is required to better retest problems before releasing the updates will slow things down, for sure.
Dave
RE: 2.3.4, Naval Movement Hosed Up
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 12:44 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain
ORIGINAL: rkr1958
Also, and not meaning to, I guess we solitary/head-to-head players caused Steve some grief last month. We're mentioned three times in his monthly. [:(]
I get a sense that Steve is a bit more mature than that. I don't think he takes these personally, but probably does suffer from some personal disappointment on areas where there were less success.
It is unfortunate that Netplay wears the blame for the problems, since it is really a lot more additional testing and more fixes that inherit the risks from regression issues. This is a very complicated product and any time you touch something, there is a risk of breaking something related.
It is too bad that there is not a bit more help for Steve since he is doing a lot and with all of the additional testing that was going on with beta testers and Netplay players, it was a full court press to try to get to the end.
I am sure that Steve will work through these, but the additional care that is required to better retest problems before releasing the updates will slow things down, for sure.
Dave
Just as a note, the only person I get really mad at is myself.
I taught 7th - 9th grade math in South Philly for a couple of years without losing my temper - ever. Posts about World in Flames (regardless of how they are worded) are simply data points about what work I need to do.