Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR

[dplummer]

So first time with an early Japanese - USSR war. Japan took Vlad and USSR lost Zhukov in Persia to a lucky suicide attack. Left with only one HQ
USSR would benefit from peace. My understanding is during Peace step something should present an option for mutual peace between the two but that
doesn't seem to happen. Am I mistaken and should expect something else?

Thanks.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

From what I understand, the option is broken. I'm not sure if you can sign mutual peaces at all, to be honest.

[paulderynck]

That option is not broken, it is not yet implemented in the code.

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

That option is not broken, it is not yet implemented in the code.

I'm holding in my hand a beautiful hardbound book. This book was part of the justification for the premium price tag of this game, and it's nice to look at. I've been told again and again that I can't play the game without the book, or that I wouldn't want to. The book says on its cover "THE RULE AS CODED". It does not say "The rules as we wish they were coded" or "the rules as they might someday be coded" or "the rules, some of which are coded and some of which are not yet implemented."

According to "The Rules As coded" there is a mutual peace step. And yet there is not. Quit being such an apologist - it is broken. I too look forward to the day when all the rules have been coded. That day should have been before the game was released, but that horse has left the barn. I agree that making the game, even in an incomplete state, playable takes precedence at this point, but that's just the best of a set of bad options. In the meantime, you do yourself no great service by being so dismissive to entirely reasonable comments.

[Mike Parker]

Have to agree with Zartacla here and normally I am one to go the other way on such things with MWIF. This is a broken feature of the game. Its not just unimplimented code its somethign that is documented as coded and its not. It is a minor issue, but in some games I think it could be a very major concern... i.e. when war breaks out there.

I'm not about to beat my chest and rend my clothes and pour ashes on my head but it is broken, any other interpretation is just erroneous.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

Have to agree with Zartacla here and normally I am one to go the other way on such things with MWIF. This is a broken feature of the game. Its not just unimplimented code its somethign that is documented as coded and its not. It is a minor issue, but in some games I think it could be a very major concern... i.e. when war breaks out there.

I'm not about to beat my chest and rend my clothes and pour ashes on my head but it is broken, any other interpretation is just erroneous.

warspite1

Gents, to be fair to Paulderynck I do not think he was trying to split hairs or be clever over language.

My take on it is that it is important we use the right terminology given the mess that things are in at the moment. Broken suggests its been coded and doesn't work, whereas uncoded is just that.

Just my 2 cents - we are all on the same side here. Frustrated, annoyed and desperate for the game to work.

[dplummer]

I'm aware option 50 isn't yet implemented, just checking on the peace step in general (RAC 13.7) and the mutual peace step in particular (RAC 13.7.3) and 7.4.22 in manual 1.

Seems I'm reading it correctly (should be able to have a mutually declared peace between majors or major - minor) and while the compulsory USSR - Japan option doesn't exist the choice should.

In this case it may well stop the game (its early at least) as it seems the Japanese response to a USSR invasion of Persia should likely be a quick capture of Vlad. But if it can't be a limited war then it is a very different choice.

Until changed I may play with my own house rule (wonders of solitaire) of no USSR taking Persia and no Japan limited war. Sets the Chinese up for a problem though.

Thanks.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

That option is not broken, it is not yet implemented in the code.

I'm holding in my hand a beautiful hardbound book. This book was part of the justification for the premium price tag of this game, and it's nice to look at. I've been told again and again that I can't play the game without the book, or that I wouldn't want to. The book says on its cover "THE RULE AS CODED". It does not say "The rules as we wish they were coded" or "the rules as they might someday be coded" or "the rules, some of which are coded and some of which are not yet implemented."

According to "The Rules As coded" there is a mutual peace step. And yet there is not. Quit being such an apologist - it is broken. I too look forward to the day when all the rules have been coded. That day should have been before the game was released, but that horse has left the barn. I agree that making the game, even in an incomplete state, playable takes precedence at this point, but that's just the best of a set of bad options. In the meantime, you do yourself no great service by being so dismissive to entirely reasonable comments.

What the F do you want me to say? RTFM? It was a simple statement of a fact, not an apology. It's on page 4 of Volume 1 of the Players Manual. Quit being so vacuous and insulting.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: dplummer

I'm aware option 50 isn't yet implemented, just checking on the peace step in general (RAC 13.7) and the mutual peace step in particular (RAC 13.7.3) and 7.4.22 in manual 1.

Seems I'm reading it correctly (should be able to have a mutually declared peace between majors or major - minor) and while the compulsory USSR - Japan option doesn't exist the choice should.

In this case it may well stop the game (its early at least) as it seems the Japanese response to a USSR invasion of Persia should likely be a quick capture of Vlad. But if it can't be a limited war then it is a very different choice.

Until changed I may play with my own house rule (wonders of solitaire) of no USSR taking Persia and no Japan limited war. Sets the Chinese up for a problem though.

Thanks.

Here's what RAW7 says about Mutual Peace:

Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units). Both the nationalist and communist Chinese must agree before China can come to peace. A neutrality pact is then in place between the parties.
Players can also agree to reach a peace between a major power and a minor country. In that case, they return to their pre-war borders (exception: see Soviet border rectification 19.6).

Tell you what - you produce a flowchart that covers "any terms mutually acceptable" in its complete entirety, and I'll do the coding for Steve.

[joshuamnave]

I'm being vacuous and insulting? You pompous, condescending, jerk... It's not bad enough that people are frustrated by a 4 month old game still plagued with bugs, or with patches that break the game and go unfixed for a week at a time, you have to come and be condescending toward anyone that dares hint that the game isn't perfect or imply that it's our fault for not being more helpful in fixing it?

And by the way, he wasn't asking about optional rule 50, nimrod. He was talking about NON OPTIONAL RULE 13.7.3 which is in the RULES AS CODED on p. 113

RTFM yourself.

[paulderynck]

See above yours.

[Dabrion]

Paul prolly just wanted to be informative. Yet, Zartacla didn't want to be clever about language either, he just used one of the words to describe the effect of: feature not working as advertised.

I wish the time spent on the books would have gone into implementation and testing; would have saved a small portion of the embarrassment for $litherine..

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Tell you what - you produce a flowchart that covers "any terms mutually acceptable" in its complete entirety, and I'll do the coding for Steve.

Geee that was helpful and not at all vacuous or insulting.

We didn't write the rule book. We didn't publish the rulebook. We didn't sell the rulebook. If it was a divergence, it should have been listed as one. But that's not what you said above... you said it just wasn't implemented yet. Are you saying now that it's not going to be implemented at all? When you settle on an excuse, let us know which one you want us to pick apart.

[dplummer]

Wasn't hoping to start a flame war, just wanted to make sure I understood how / if the rule was implemented. Was assuming I just didn't know where / how to come to a mutual peace.

I wouldn't want to try to code that particular rule statement as it seems pretty much impossible and likely not worth the effort.

[Dabrion]

Btw I remember a thread where Steve and Patrice iterate the option 50 implementation. Why is this not in the game?

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I'm being vacuous and insulting? You pompous, condescending, jerk... It's not bad enough that people are frustrated by a 4 month old game still plagued with bugs, or with patches that break the game and go unfixed for a week at a time, you have to come and be condescending toward anyone that dares hint that the game isn't perfect or imply that it's our fault for not being more helpful in fixing it?

And by the way, he wasn't asking about optional rule 50, nimrod. He was talking about NON OPTIONAL RULE 13.7.3 which is in the RULES AS CODED on p. 113

RTFM yourself.

there are rules for conduct on the forum.

your posts are valid, but please be a gentleman.

[Dabrion]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I'm being vacuous and insulting? You pompous, condescending, jerk... It's not bad enough that people are frustrated by a 4 month old game still plagued with bugs, or with patches that break the game and go unfixed for a week at a time, you have to come and be condescending toward anyone that dares hint that the game isn't perfect or imply that it's our fault for not being more helpful in fixing it?

And by the way, he wasn't asking about optional rule 50, nimrod. He was talking about NON OPTIONAL RULE 13.7.3 which is in the RULES AS CODED on p. 113

RTFM yourself.

there are rules for conduct on the forum.

your posts are valid, but please be a gentleman.

This should be directed at Paul as well.

[Finarfïn]

Peace on earth...euh in MWIF

[CrusssDaddy]

This is a replay of arguments that were begun three and four years ago if not longer but they are enjoyable again nonetheless. You cannot embarrass peytonbaldur for one-sided scolding re: board etiquette, do not even try. Has anyone checked their IP addresses, I think he and paul could be the same silly person.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I'm being vacuous and insulting? You pompous, condescending, jerk... It's not bad enough that people are frustrated by a 4 month old game still plagued with bugs, or with patches that break the game and go unfixed for a week at a time, you have to come and be condescending toward anyone that dares hint that the game isn't perfect or imply that it's our fault for not being more helpful in fixing it?

And by the way, he wasn't asking about optional rule 50, nimrod. He was talking about NON OPTIONAL RULE 13.7.3 which is in the RULES AS CODED on p. 113

RTFM yourself.

I wanted to but I cant let this go, you are one of the most informed knowledgeable posters here Zartaclca, I trully respecte your opinion and whether you believe this or not I am mortified when something goes wrong, I did not hesitate when I saw your tech post to inform Steve what you had put in your post to do with the supply popups, It could have gone many more hours before Steve saw it. It is not my job nor my duty to report anything to Steve from the main forums.

I did it out of concern for the game and to try and solve a respected posters question which I did and Steve acknowleged the problem and as he said ASAP. And he is, you will have a hot patch shortly.

With that said there is no reason to insult a respected beta tester like paul. I did not see where his anwer required that kind of a retort. Jesus we are all under pressure here, we really try to help and cruss you are no freaken help thats for sure, mind your own business unless you buy the game I feel you should not be complaining.

Enough is enough this kind of bullcrap from everybody is not helping the situation, the beta testers want this game maybe alot more than you do trust me I want to play not answer questions.

If we cant act civil to each other to get this wonderful game fixed then this game aint worth it, shove it.

And if it goes on I will ask all the beta testers to not answer anymore questions legitmate or not [all questions are legitmate] because I will not take that kind of insult from anyone. You can sit there and stew over your questions. Whether they will listen to me or not I do not know, or if it is even legal with my NDA but right now I dont care what anyone thinks including Matrix. I am really surprised at you Zartacla that horsemanure was not neccessary. It really did not help things.

Bo