Swap land units

[Dabrion]

I managed to get through the setup phase for the first time. There have been only about ~10 crashes and restarts.. I am amazed.

Now, I want rotate some hexes on the front, read; move units from one fully stacked hex to an adjacent fully stacked hex. Game tells me the move is invalid and it would exceed the stacking limit.

I guess the question is.. why are stacking limits checked per move and not at the end of the step? I remember we had this issue several years ago.. Seems to be a trivial thing.. has it been addressed or worked around?

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

I managed to get through the setup phase for the first time. There have been only about ~10 crashes and restarts.. I am amazed.

[:D][:D][:D] Lucky you! I was never able to reach that far.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

Stacking limits are checked after every move. You are able swap 2 units, but not all 3 between hexes (move one unit away, swap units and undo the first move).

[Dabrion]

Ok. The undo stack is not managed properly as it seems. I can swap one unit per hex this way, if there is a free stacking slot adjacent.

This seems to be a rather arbitrary limitation and is based on a faulty implementation and/or understanding of stacking limits. Is that ever going to change?

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Ok. The undo stack is not managed properly as it seems. I can swap one unit per hex this way, if there is a free stacking slot adjacent.

This seems to be a rather arbitrary limitation and is based on a faulty implementation and/or understanding of stacking limits. Is that ever going to change?

It's on the bug list to change this.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Ok. The undo stack is not managed properly as it seems. I can swap one unit per hex this way, if there is a free stacking slot adjacent.

This seems to be a rather arbitrary limitation and is based on a faulty implementation and/or understanding of stacking limits. Is that ever going to change?

It's on the bug list to change this.

it was reported years ago. but we decided that it was a low priority bug.

and as i understand, there are no codes in the game to support this. so steve need to write some

it should be fairly easy, just a long way down the list.

[paulderynck]

Nothing in programming a game of this complexity is easy.

Even when it appears to be easy, it will undoubtedly cause a bug somewhere else.

[Dabrion]

Ok, has this never been an issue? I mean late-game fronts in Russia/France tend to be several hexes deep; or breakouts after landings? Basically any concave front line should have issues with this flaw at some point.

p.s.: Is the bug list available for public consumption?

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Ok, has this never been an issue? I mean late-game fronts in Russia/France tend to be several hexes deep; or breakouts after landings? Basically any concave front line should have issues with this flaw at some point.

p.s.: Is the bug list available for public consumption?

That's for Steve to decide.

[davidachamberlain]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Ok, has this never been an issue? I mean late-game fronts in Russia/France tend to be several hexes deep; or breakouts after landings? Basically any concave front line should have issues with this flaw at some point.

p.s.: Is the bug list available for public consumption?

The work around is simple enough that it is not really a problem in my opinion.
1) move a non-swapping unit from hex A to hex C
2) move swapping unit from hex B to hex A
3) move other swapping unit from hex A to hex B
4) use Undo for unit in Hex C to return it to hex A

Yes, it is an extra couple steps to do this swap, but I would not make this a priority.

As to why, I suspect managing a queue of all overstacked units until the end of the phase could be brutal and require stepping through all of those before you could end the phase.

In this way, the overstaking is prevented.

No, that is not how the rules work, but this is very minor compared with other problems to be looked at.

Dave

[rkr1958]

I know how to swap two stacks with a few edits to the game file. [:)]

I wonder though would that be considering cheating within the mechanics of MWiF even though that move is legal withing the rules of WiF?

[Dabrion]

I understand how the workaround is supposed to be conducted. Yet, it does not resolve the issue in full (it does not swap the hexes, only one unit) and it depends on the availability of a vacant stacking slot in an adjacent hex (your Hex C). If you say it is minor, I can only conclude that you haven't played '44+ fronts, opposed invasion breakouts or tried to exchange HQs for engineers in a mountain hex.
I fail to understand how a clear deviation from a core mechanic (stacking) gets a low priority. What can be more important that getting the basics right?


Have a collection of all moved pieces; determine their locations at the end of the step and advance after combat; do a stacking violation check over that set of hexes; resolve the violations; flush the collection;
This procedure has a clear upper bound and is not more complex than checking for a stacking violation whenever you move a stack in your hand over a hex.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

I understand how the workaround is supposed to be conducted. Yet, it does not resolve the issue in full (it does not swap the hexes, only one unit) and it depends on the availability of a vacant stacking slot in an adjacent hex (your Hex C). If you say it is minor, I can only conclude that you haven't played '44+ fronts, opposed invasion breakouts or tried to exchange HQs for engineers in a mountain hex.
I fail to understand how a clear deviation from a core mechanic (stacking) gets a low priority. What can be more important that getting the basics right?


Have a collection of all moved pieces; determine their locations at the end of the step and advance after combat; do a stacking violation check over that set of hexes; resolve the violations; flush the collection;
This procedure has a clear upper bound and is not more complex than checking for a stacking violation whenever you move a stack in your hand over a hex.

I agree with you that this is something which needs to be coded.
I also agree that if you've got a 1944 front where you want to do this, it's an awful lot of work to get it done at this moment.
However, I'm afraid that with the resources now at our disposal, other problems have priority...

[davidachamberlain]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

I understand how the workaround is supposed to be conducted. Yet, it does not resolve the issue in full (it does not swap the hexes, only one unit) and it depends on the availability of a vacant stacking slot in an adjacent hex (your Hex C). If you say it is minor, I can only conclude that you haven't played '44+ fronts, opposed invasion breakouts or tried to exchange HQs for engineers in a mountain hex.
I fail to understand how a clear deviation from a core mechanic (stacking) gets a low priority. What can be more important that getting the basics right?


Have a collection of all moved pieces; determine their locations at the end of the step and advance after combat; do a stacking violation check over that set of hexes; resolve the violations; flush the collection;
This procedure has a clear upper bound and is not more complex than checking for a stacking violation whenever you move a stack in your hand over a hex.

Well you can't always get what you want. Life is like that.

Regarding not playing 44+ fronts, apparently (since this is the first time you are trying to play MWIF) I am way ahead of you. I have completed 4 full games in MWIF and have 2 in progress and there are several full cardboard version games completed before MWIF. I certainly understand the problem, but can deal with it.

I stated that there are more important problems to solve. Obviously you have not encountered those yet. At least, this can be worked around. That does not mean that it should never be resolved. However, there are certain things that can not be done at all, right now - not to mention several optional rules that many believe are very important.

You need to get a better understanding of priorities.

Steve is a one-man-show can can not solve every problem in a minute.


Dave

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Ok, has this never been an issue? I mean late-game fronts in Russia/France tend to be several hexes deep; or breakouts after landings? Basically any concave front line should have issues with this flaw at some point.

p.s.: Is the bug list available for public consumption?

That's for Steve to decide.

p.s.: Is the bug list available for public consumption?

there is really no point in that. just report any bugs you see, and we will see if they are already on the list.

if not, they are often reposted on the private forum.

so most of the time the report is seen, recorded and fixed.

but as I said before, all bugs are is fixed in priority order. so madexcpts and game ending bugs first. then steve fix bugs by phases. lately he have focused on production, fixing almost all bugs there.

[brian brian]

I kind of like this little problem. If anything, it gets closer to historical reality. Hitler was fond of screwing up Corps A by ordering Corps B to change it's axis of advance in a way that would cross over the logistical tail of Corps A, screwing up the advance of both Corps.

I have never thought historical Army Group commanders could endlessly shuffle the Corps/Divisions under their command the way WiF players can. We would rather have the playability of the movement system in WiF, sure, but I think things worked a little differently in history.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I kind of like this little problem. If anything, it gets closer to historical reality. Hitler was fond of screwing up Corps A by ordering Corps B to change it's axis of advance in a way that would cross over the logistical tail of Corps A, screwing up the advance of both Corps.

I have never thought historical Army Group commanders could endlessly shuffle the Corps/Divisions under their command the way WiF players can. We would rather have the playability of the movement system in WiF, sure, but I think things worked a little differently in history.

The only game I have seen that takes this sort of thing into account is Decision Games remake of Wacht am Rhein. In every Bulge game, the Germans have to decide what to do with the Panzer Lehr division. It can go south, straight ahead (historical), or north. In every other Bulge game, the answer is easy: go south, where the US is weak and the terrain is not as bad. In 2nd edition WAR, you can go south if you want to, but you have to spend a turn or two adjusting the boundary between 7th Army and 5th Pz Army. The Germans really don't have a couple of turns to waste.

[brian brian]

On the other hand, WiF players shuffle their corps based on attack "factors" in a way that Army commanders, particularly German ones, just would not need to do.

Rather than change around a half-dozen corps so the ones with the best factors on the counters are the ones in the key attack while the ones with lesser factors cover flank areas not involved in an attack -- well, real Army commanders would simply keep the Corps in their same positions in the line but would reinforce the Corps at the point of attack with new military assets arriving from the rear (fresh tanks, larger ammunition supplies, replacement personnel, reinforcing formations of various sizes and types), &/or re-arranging the internal structure of those Corps by withdrawing a division from a Corps on a static sector and assigning it to one going in to attack. So the Corps making the attack was actually the strongest available to them.

That is something below the scale of the game and instead the German player sends the 1st INF Corps into every key battle anywhere close (4 hexes) to the axis of advance for that corps.

[Dabrion]

Brian, I agree corps were not the element of operational warfare. Yet, brigade groups, Kampfgruppen and other temporary operational formation are not represented in WiF. Many game mechanics in WiF are removed from history and reality, yet they work well for the game (supply, stacking, multi corps sized invasions, etc..).

Dave, if you want to tell me what you are actually doing to "deal with it" im listening.

Michael, why is there no point in that. What is the point in hiding it?