Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/19/2008 5:50:41 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascaris

Solo play as Austria. Game post error message during the Naval Phase with an "Invalid Floating Point Operation" error message. Pressing "OK" will leave you in the program but if you try to hit "End Current Phase" it will post a "Port must be evacuated" message.



Unfortunately, that’s because the file that the program is looking for, in order to auto evacuate, does not exist.

Thanks for those files.

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to Lascaris)
Post #: 91
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/19/2008 9:15:35 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Found a new end-case bug. I don't have saved game files, but it should be trivial to reproduce:

As Russia, I have a depot in St. Petersburg. I have another depot in Viborg, one space west of St. Petersburg. Finally, I have a depot in Sveaborg. I am at war with Sweden/Finland, so Sveaborg is not a supply source. This is a valid supply chain, obviously. Supply can be traced to either St. Petersburg or to Viborg. Both are home-nation cities in controlled home-nation provinces.

I also have a fleet at sea, just outside Stockholm. It currently has no depot, but I want to build one (I'm dropping factors onto Stockholm this turn).

If I remove the depot in St. Petersburg, I should still have a valid supply chain: Viborg to Sveaborg and then via sea to the ships. However, the game won't let me place the depot.

If I leave the depot in St. Petersburg, then I can build the depot at sea.

I suspect that the game is only checking whether the port itself is a supply source, and not that it may be part of a valid supply chain that itself ends in a supply source.

If you need saved game files, I can try to reproduce it for you, but I suspect you don't need them.

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 3/20/2008 6:13:39 PM >


_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 92
Ice Line violation - 3/19/2008 9:16:36 PM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
If you have a fleet in the sea zone NE of Stockholm (just north of the ice line), it can move into Stockholm even if it's winter, and then continue SE out of Stockholm into an iceberg-free zone.  OTOH, if you're in Stockholm during winter, you can't move NE into that iced-over zone.


(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 93
RE: Ice Line violation - 3/19/2008 10:41:03 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Excellent point: I should point out that in my previous post, I'm referring to spring (March, 1805, to be precise).

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 94
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/19/2008 11:07:47 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I suspect that the game is only checking whether the port itself is a supply source, and not that it may be part of a valid supply chain that itself ends in a supply source.

If you need saved game files, I can try to reproduce it for you, but I suspect you don't need them.


Correct, I duplicated what you found. Confirmed bug. Thanks for the files.

Richard



_____________________________


(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 95
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/19/2008 11:09:59 PM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
Oh, my post wasn't even in reference to yours, Jimmer -- just posting what I noticed last night.  My bad for not noticing the coincidence and spreading confusion.  :p



(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 96
RE: Conq Ruski territory won't allow garrisons or corp ... - 3/19/2008 11:16:43 PM   
Tater

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

The first one (post #54) we have fixed in 1.02b (related issue was L26).

Edit: fixed in your game but just found another incident, of what you had described, in a test game here. Added it to bug list (L34).

The other one (not yet addressed) is listed as LC11. Thanks for the files Tater.



No problem...

One thing though...
quote:

LC11 LAND COMBAT PHASE
From: BruceSinger and Tater
Problem: Ottoman component corps does not participate in combat
File: LC11- Ottoman not fighting
Status: Confirmed bug – Pending


The Otto-corp not attacking wasn't the only thing. It also repatriated my Turkish regular corp back to Turkey (as though Naples were a MP that just surrendered).

_____________________________

Later-

Tater

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 97
RE: Ice Line violation - 3/19/2008 11:57:28 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

If you have a fleet in the sea zone NE of Stockholm (just north of the ice line), it can move into Stockholm even if it's winter, and then continue SE out of Stockholm into an iceberg-free zone.  OTOH, if you're in Stockholm during winter, you can't move NE into that iced-over zone.





Got it - Thanks Grognot

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 98
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/20/2008 6:14:00 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I suspect that the game is only checking whether the port itself is a supply source, and not that it may be part of a valid supply chain that itself ends in a supply source.

If you need saved game files, I can try to reproduce it for you, but I suspect you don't need them.


Correct, I duplicated what you found. Confirmed bug. Thanks for the files.

Richard



I don't understand the "thanks for the files" comment. I didn't include them. Are you saying you need them? Or, was it supposed to say "Thanks for the bug report"?

Thanks.


_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 99
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/20/2008 6:15:22 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

Oh, my post wasn't even in reference to yours, Jimmer -- just posting what I noticed last night.  My bad for not noticing the coincidence and spreading confusion.  :p




That's OK. It uncovered a flaw in my post anyhow.

When I get too proud to admit and correct mistakes, will somebody please remember to put some daisies near my tombstone? Thanks.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 100
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/20/2008 7:40:13 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I suspect that the game is only checking whether the port itself is a supply source, and not that it may be part of a valid supply chain that itself ends in a supply source.

If you need saved game files, I can try to reproduce it for you, but I suspect you don't need them.


Correct, I duplicated what you found. Confirmed bug. Thanks for the files.

Richard



I don't understand the "thanks for the files" comment. I didn't include them. Are you saying you need them? Or, was it supposed to say "Thanks for the bug report"?

Thanks.



Hmmmm . . . whoops, I don’t understand the comment either. Working on auto-pilot yesterday.

Richard



_____________________________


(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 101
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/20/2008 7:50:50 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Richard,

Can you please tell me the next time you make any change to the very first post in this thread? I wrote a tool that analyzes that first post against the last iteration, and informs me of any changes. I want to test it the next time it changes.

NOTE: The tool only tracks changes in the actual bug list, not the opening paragraphs or the manual changes at the end. It stops and starts at the two rows of equal signs.

Thanks.

(P.S. Entry LC3 is missing the colon after the word "File" at the beginning of the "File" line. I found this while writing the tool. However, this change will not trigger my routine to flag me; it has to be a "real" change, not just formatting.)

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 3/20/2008 8:33:53 PM >


_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 102
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/20/2008 7:52:28 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

Hmmmm . . . whoops, I don’t understand the comment either. Working on auto-pilot yesterday.

Richard



< And the audience BURSTS into gales of uproarious laughter .... >

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 103
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/20/2008 11:29:59 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Richard,

Can you please tell me the next time you make any change to the very first post in this thread? I wrote a tool that analyzes that first post against the last iteration, and informs me of any changes. I want to test it the next time it changes.

NOTE: The tool only tracks changes in the actual bug list, not the opening paragraphs or the manual changes at the end. It stops and starts at the two rows of equal signs.

Thanks.

(P.S. Entry LC3 is missing the colon after the word "File" at the beginning of the "File" line. I found this while writing the tool. However, this change will not trigger my routine to flag me; it has to be a "real" change, not just formatting.)


Sure, I’ll let you know the next time I make an addition.

Richard



_____________________________


(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 104
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 12:11:12 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Thanks.

NOTE: Or, a subtraction or change to the text. Just the real text, not the labels (From:, Problem:, File:, etc, do not count).

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 105
RE: Commander Schmidt - 3/21/2008 7:48:00 AM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
French naval phase, but what you want to watch is the Russian fleet at St Petersburg. Russia has already had its naval phase, and everything looks normal, but either the French naval phase or the beginning of the land phase triggers some weird behavior.

France is at war with Russia. The St Petersburg garrison has fallen, and a French corps is in the area, but no French troops have entered the city. Even though it is not driven out, one of the Russian heavy fleets shifts from in port to the blockade box. The other Russian heavy fleet and the transports remain in port.

This is not just some graphical weirdness. If you now move a French factor into garrison, forcing a port exit, the heavy fleets fight a battle. The surviving fleet flees to another port, while the losing fleet is scuttled.

It's a little early for the Revolution....

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 106
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 4:48:32 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
Okay Jimmer, new issues (LC14 and LC15) and text (Fixed N16, N17 and LC7) were added to bug list.

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 107
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 5:13:59 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Well, I officially like my tool:

I show

R13, N15, and L35 changed from "pending" to "fixed in 1.02f"

N16, N17, and LC7 changed from "pending" to "fixed in 1.02g"

Text changed in LC8

and new entries LC14 and LC15.

This REALLY helps. Now, I can see at a glance whether a newer patch note (since the last time I looked) exists, and go directly to those entries, rather than having to read the whole thing in order to figure it out.

Thanks!

Jim

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 108
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 5:35:54 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Combat Table Losses Calculation Bug

Hello Richard: My apologies if this has been covered, but if not please include.
I was running a battle between AI Spain and solo Turkey Assault versus Counter Attack

Round 1
Turkey: Table 3-1 rolls a 4 (should be net 5) with a plus 1 modifier for a 10% casualty and 0.8 morale
Spain: Table 3-1 rolls a 4 with a minus 1 (should be a net 3) modifier for a 10% casualty and 0.8 morale

It does not look as thought he plus and minus one was being calculated.

Round 2 (if you need it)
Table 4-2 Turkey rolls a 4 with a plus 1 modifier (should be net 5) for a 15% casualty and 1.6 morale loss. (Spain Breaks)
Table 4-2 Spain rolls a 1 with a minus 1 (should be net 0) modifier for a 0% casualty and 0.4 morale loss.

The crux of the issue is apparent in Round 1 where the casualty/morale loss result was identical despite differing modifiers.

Best,
Mardonius


< Message edited by Mardonius -- 3/21/2008 5:36:58 PM >


_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 109
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 5:55:25 PM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
In the bug list, the disappearing garrison issue is listed as "besieged garrison vanishes". I just wanted to clarify that it's not just in the case of siege; it seems to apply to any garrison in a ceded province after the original owner surrenders. Here's a savefile: French diplomacy phase, France at war with Austria; Bohemia is ceded from a previous war, and Prague is garrisoned. Austria should surrender; if it does, watch the (unbesieged) garrison at Prague: it goes away.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 110
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 6:06:48 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Unable to Move Garrison Off of a Depot into Capital City Garrison of Ceded Province

Situation: Turkish Depot in ceded Austrian Province can not move garrison from depot into city. Note city is capital of ceded province. Same methodology used in non-ceded Austrian province (Turkey has forced access) worked to move into non-capital Austrian city. No other forces are in the city.

I can post file if desired.

best
Mardonius.

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 111
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 6:19:37 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Combat Table Losses Calculation Bug

Hello Richard: My apologies if this has been covered, but if not please include.
I was running a battle between AI Spain and solo Turkey Assault versus Counter Attack

Round 1
Turkey: Table 3-1 rolls a 4 (should be net 5) with a plus 1 modifier for a 10% casualty and 0.8 morale
Spain: Table 3-1 rolls a 4 with a minus 1 (should be a net 3) modifier for a 10% casualty and 0.8 morale

It does not look as thought he plus and minus one was being calculated.

Round 2 (if you need it)
Table 4-2 Turkey rolls a 4 with a plus 1 modifier (should be net 5) for a 15% casualty and 1.6 morale loss. (Spain Breaks)
Table 4-2 Spain rolls a 1 with a minus 1 (should be net 0) modifier for a 0% casualty and 0.4 morale loss.

The crux of the issue is apparent in Round 1 where the casualty/morale loss result was identical despite differing modifiers.

Best,
Mardonius



The “Die Roll” is really the modified roll and should probably be changed to read “Net Roll” or “Mod Roll” to clarify this.

Thanks

Richard



_____________________________


(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 112
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 6:42:07 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ndrose

In the bug list, the disappearing garrison issue is listed as "besieged garrison vanishes". I just wanted to clarify that it's not just in the case of siege; it seems to apply to any garrison in a ceded province after the original owner surrenders. Here's a savefile: French diplomacy phase, France at war with Austria; Bohemia is ceded from a previous war, and Prague is garrisoned. Austria should surrender; if it does, watch the (unbesieged) garrison at Prague: it goes away.



Got it and changed D30 to read:

Problem: Program repatriates victor’s garrisons from ceded provinces after original owner of those provinces surrenders for a second time to that victor.

Thanks again

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 113
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 6:46:58 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Unable to Move Garrison Off of a Depot into Capital City Garrison of Ceded Province

Situation: Turkish Depot in ceded Austrian Province can not move garrison from depot into city. Note city is capital of ceded province. Same methodology used in non-ceded Austrian province (Turkey has forced access) worked to move into non-capital Austrian city. No other forces are in the city.

I can post file if desired.

best
Mardonius.



We have this one fixed in 1.02d (under L34 on list)

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 114
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 7:10:58 PM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
Richard, all this 1.02 d,e,f,g stuff--is that just for you and Marshall to track changes, or are these available as patches?

Nathan

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 115
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 7:53:12 PM   
sw30

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: San Francisco, CA
Status: offline
the militia not taking losses is back.

If the round starts with morale high enough, and there are other factors, and the casualties require more than the sum of the other factors, the militia should be taken even if the morale loss passes the cutoff, it is not.

If the casualties taken is greater than the sum of ALL factors, then the battle correctly ends with a complete elimination regardless of whether or not the morale cutoff is reached or not.

If the round starts with only militia, everything is fine, whether or not the morale cutoff is reached or not.



_____________________________


(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 116
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 7:55:15 PM   
sw30

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: San Francisco, CA
Status: offline
It looks like pursuit loss groupings are done by corps, which I don't think should be the case. If you are required to take 2 groups of pursuit losses, and you have 3 corps each with 2 inf, it looks like you only lose 4 inf, as opposed to 6.

_____________________________


(in reply to sw30)
Post #: 117
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 10:35:47 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ndrose

Richard, all this 1.02 d,e,f,g stuff--is that just for you and Marshall to track changes, or are these available as patches?

Nathan


I just changed it so that all but [d] show up as [g].

We had hoped that 1.02d would have been uploaded for everyone earlier in the week (Matrix has it) as it contained some important fixes (Complicated Path problems and problems recognizing valid depots), which were broke in 1.02.

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 118
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/21/2008 11:28:17 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Would that be in the entries for d27 & 28, r12 & 13, n15, and l35, by any chance?

Just testing my tool. :)

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 119
RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) - 3/22/2008 12:15:32 AM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Ottoman Component Countries not treated as "At War" with Enemy

Situation: War between Prussia and Turkey. Multiple Constituent North African Nation's corps are in battle area(s) with Prussia. Note, that some of these North African nations are part of OE and some are not. None of them are recognized as hostile by Prussia. I believe but am not 100% certain that Austria did treat the Syrian Corps as hostile in a previous war.

best

Mardonius

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.186