Attachment Cost Issue

[entwood]

Start a new GC as Axis:

Often want to assign the 255th Infantry Division (24th Panzer Corps) over to a AGS Corps, such as the 17th Infantry Corps under Kienitz. This is at the original German deployment area at the Pripyat marshes, at the border between AGC and AGS.

The weird thing is, and it seems pretty consistent is, if you do this attachment before other ones, the Admin cost is 3, not bad, BUT, if you do this attachment after doing a few others first, then this same attachment cost becomes 7. I realize there may be random numbers involved but is it possible this is a bug with some leftover value being used? I keep getting the same response in many games I have started.

[Joel Billings]

I can't swear to it, but I think this is just random. Basically up to the leader making an admin roll, IIRC, to cut the admin cost in half. I just tried it both ways and it cost 3, but some other transfers cost 1/2, and some cost the full amount.

[entwood]

Thanks for looking.  Can you try it this way?
1.  Attach 167 ID from 47th Pz Korps (Lemelson) to 43rd Inf. Korps (Heinrici)
2.  Attach 267 ID from 24th Pz Korps (Schweppenburg) to 12th Inf. Korps (Schroth)
as the 'other' previous attachments, then
3. Attach 255 ID from 24th Pz Korps (Schweppenburg) to 17th Inf. Korps (Kienitz)

The last transfer always results in 7 admin points.  Might this be due to 24th Pz Korps (Schweppenburg) losing 2 divisions? 

[Joel Billings]

I see what you mean. We'll take a look, although it may not be obvious why this seems to be happening.

[entwood]

Hoping this issue could still be looked at and fixed; if it is a bug, which seems so.

[Helpless]

It is not quire random, but using pre-generated roll values. So doing some steps in some order, may generate similar patterns.

[entwood]

pre-generated roll values ? If I stumbled upon a way to reduce Admin Cost for replacing some leaders via only the ORDER in which I do the tasks, a, b, c;
then that is WAD ?

[Tarhunnas]

This raises the interesting question if other rolls are also pre-generated, like the ones for combat for example?

[mmarquo]

I was thinking the same thing; perhaps there is a step where 1,000 numbers are generated and then used in order as needed instead of "rolling" every time a number is needed?

[Tarhunnas]

Actually, computer random numbers are only pseudo random. You provide a seed usually based on the time at a certain point that determines the sequence, which is as good as true randomness for most purposes.

[entwood]

Except none of it seems to be remotely random at all, the same reproducible attachment cost, 3 or 7, depending on the order done (the one example I stumbled on) ;
every single game start, where, I guess, if you picked to do one combat before another you could also get and enjoy unwarranted preferential treatment.

but using pre-generated roll values. So doing some steps in some order, may generate similar patterns.


I don't like it. I feel I am doing something wrong or 'gamey' now by taking advantage of an innocent task, doing something in a certain order, and getting a pre-rolled number and that number will be the same even in a completely new game.

Shouldn't a seed be something pseudo-random like the time of day you start the game in seconds or something?
that would at least get a different number set ; game to game?