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: CleverDevils2 AAR

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/5/2008 9:39:50 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
And there is 1 Swede corp in Tripolitania & 1 British corp in Benghazi




Attachment (1)

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 421
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/5/2008 9:41:13 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hey guys:

In between flights here.
What is going on?
Did you guys upgrade to 1.04 yet?



I'm on 1.04.04 & will probably update to 1.04.07 today

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 422
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/5/2008 9:41:44 PM   
AGT4533

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/24/2007
Status: offline
The lesson I learned right after I felt the sting was that it is unwise attack the large French stack. For one, it reallly just makes it less costly for France to prosecute a war if he doesn't have to go after you, and second, you open yourself up to getting to fighting three battles wihtout pause. Also, I found it to be unwise when I elected to fight a second day.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 423
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/6/2008 3:53:19 AM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
... I do feel that I was slightly mislead when deciding to join this game.

No, I don't think so. I know I went out of my way to explain the lay of the land and to try to find some way of compensating for the bad position, but you were convinced that you would both make up the deficit and win. As I recall, I warned you that you could be wrong, but you weren't listening.

Also, France will be *A* winner. Not *the* winner. The rules have apparently been corrected, since the manual has been updated to match the original game's rules: There can be more than one winner.

_____________________________

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 NeverMan)
Post #: 424
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/6/2008 3:55:40 AM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Well, like I said, I attacked France because I am tired of playing EiANW and rather than drag the war out I was taking the "go big or go home" approach. It certainly wasn't a strategical mistake on my part, it was perfectly intentional.

Now THAT is a good reason!

Basically, it was the same reason Austria did it, earlier in the game. Good thinking!

_____________________________

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 NeverMan)
Post #: 425
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/6/2008 3:58:19 AM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AGT4533

The lesson I learned right after I felt the sting was that it is unwise attack the large French stack. For one, it reallly just makes it less costly for France to prosecute a war if he doesn't have to go after you, and second, you open yourself up to getting to fighting three battles wihtout pause. Also, I found it to be unwise when I elected to fight a second day.

Agreed. I hadn't even considered the cost of the maneuvers in my synopsis.

_____________________________

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 AGT4533)
Post #: 426
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/6/2008 4:57:50 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1250
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

The "war" was over before it started. This game was killed the minute everyone left Prussia alone to fight France in the beginning and amazingly enough Prussia did it voluntarily without help. After that it was ALL just going through the motions.


Agreed. Russia and Austria not coming to Prussia's aid, no matter who declared the war, is just the silliest thing ever. I point beginner players at this AAR as an object lesson to show what happens. "Oh no", they say "it's perfectly OK to fight against France as Prussia, I've done it against the AI" they say. "Bollocks" I say, "go check out the CleverDevils2 AAR".

It's possible to make this type of mistake and it's quite often that there is no recovery from it when you do make it.

quote:


GWheelock is one of the best EIA players you'll ever see in action


I take that as a challenge. Bring it.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 427
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/6/2008 5:12:36 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1250
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
Object lesson number 1: Don't use the GAP directly and only once. It can be used to set up a game and show who plays what. But, then those players should negotiate whether they want to be allies, declare wars, etc. Once decided, use the GAP again, but this time include any DoWs that are desired.


This is how I always GM it. Leeward Ho and Iron Topsail (AAR coming soon) are both done with a second round of bids submitted after the country allocation. Why it was not done this way in EIAGAP is a tragedy -- expediency aside.

At the very least there should be free pre-game DoWs in the setup phase.

quote:


But, Prussia also then performed some actions that really hurt his cause. He declared war on five minor nations in the first two months of the game. Naturally, France got control of all of them, and Prussia never had a chance to take them back.


I recall commenting on this earlier.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 428
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/6/2008 2:40:49 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
... I do feel that I was slightly mislead when deciding to join this game.

No, I don't think so. I know I went out of my way to explain the lay of the land and to try to find some way of compensating for the bad position, but you were convinced that you would both make up the deficit and win. As I recall, I warned you that you could be wrong, but you weren't listening.

Also, France will be *A* winner. Not *the* winner. The rules have apparently been corrected, since the manual has been updated to match the original game's rules: There can be more than one winner.


Actually, no, you don't remember that since you apologized to me early on about forgetting to tell me the whole scenario. Only then did you catch me up to speed entirely. Please don't rewrite history.

Either way it didn't really matter. It's a lesson learned on my part and a good one at that so I didn't really lose.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 429
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/7/2008 2:39:17 AM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
... I do feel that I was slightly mislead when deciding to join this game.

No, I don't think so. I know I went out of my way to explain the lay of the land and to try to find some way of compensating for the bad position, but you were convinced that you would both make up the deficit and win. As I recall, I warned you that you could be wrong, but you weren't listening.

Also, France will be *A* winner. Not *the* winner. The rules have apparently been corrected, since the manual has been updated to match the original game's rules: There can be more than one winner.


Actually, no, you don't remember that since you apologized to me early on about forgetting to tell me the whole scenario. Only then did you catch me up to speed entirely. Please don't rewrite history.

Either way it didn't really matter. It's a lesson learned on my part and a good one at that so I didn't really lose.



Here was the data that I posted for a replacement Russia back on 4/21
This was posted on the Opponents Wanted forum

quote:


We need a replacement Russian player for the CleverDevils2 game
(time constraints + computer problems on previous players end).

Russia is in a fairly good position - Owns Demark/Norway, Finland (w/out Sweden),
Holstein, Hamberg, Circassia & Cechnya

Russia is sitting in the ps25 zone with 6% of 343 VPs (bid was 8)

Russia is currently allied with Britain, Austria & Prussia vs France.

It is the Russian naval phase of Dec 1805.

For details on the current status of the game; please look at the
"CleverDevils2 AAR"

Game is in GMT -6 with a 24 hour turnaround.

Anyone interrested; please email me at
gwheelock@comcast.net

Thanks

Guy



I listed the current status of Russia & referenced THIS forum for available
info on the political situation.

Just what precisely were you mislead on?

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 430
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/7/2008 2:20:59 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
1. Russia was not in good position.
2. The entire Prussian fiasco was not accurately described. Any experienced player of EiA would know that the game is MUCH MORE difficult once France has separated the Germans, which you had already done.
3. It's my fault for not combing through the pages of this thread, you are correct. Like I said earlier, lesson learned.

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 431
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/12/2008 4:42:17 AM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
Well; we are at the start of the July 1807 land phase.  There seems to be another bug.
France tried to attack the 2 Russian corp that escaped (see post #394) & the program
will not list this as an attack.  This may be because Russia reported that he loaned the corps
to the Austrians (who are not currently at war with the French & cannot be for 7 months).

This problem is reported in mantis as bug #0000388 & also on the Tech-support forum.

If this IS due to the loan; I belive that the program needs to be fixed so that someone
who is at war with EITHER the OWNER or the CONTROLLER of a corp can attack it.


(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 432
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/12/2008 2:12:43 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Well; we are at the start of the July 1807 land phase. There seems to be another bug.
France tried to attack the 2 Russian corp that escaped (see post #394) & the program
will not list this as an attack. This may be because Russia reported that he loaned the corps
to the Austrians (who are not currently at war with the French & cannot be for 7 months).

This problem is reported in mantis as bug #0000388 & also on the Tech-support forum.

If this IS due to the loan; I belive that the program needs to be fixed so that someone
who is at war with EITHER the OWNER or the CONTROLLER of a corp can attack it.




AGAIN: IT'S NOT A BUG!!!

It's a bad rule, there is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 433
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/12/2008 3:25:37 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Well; we are at the start of the July 1807 land phase. There seems to be another bug.
France tried to attack the 2 Russian corp that escaped (see post #394) & the program
will not list this as an attack. This may be because Russia reported that he loaned the corps
to the Austrians (who are not currently at war with the French & cannot be for 7 months).

This problem is reported in mantis as bug #0000388 & also on the Tech-support forum.

If this IS due to the loan; I belive that the program needs to be fixed so that someone
who is at war with EITHER the OWNER or the CONTROLLER of a corp can attack it.




AGAIN: IT'S NOT A BUG!!!

It's a bad rule, there is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.


AGAIN : IT IS A BUG :)
The game acts not like its supposed to do.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 434
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/12/2008 3:38:27 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Well; we are at the start of the July 1807 land phase. There seems to be another bug.
France tried to attack the 2 Russian corp that escaped (see post #394) & the program
will not list this as an attack. This may be because Russia reported that he loaned the corps
to the Austrians (who are not currently at war with the French & cannot be for 7 months).

This problem is reported in mantis as bug #0000388 & also on the Tech-support forum.

If this IS due to the loan; I belive that the program needs to be fixed so that someone
who is at war with EITHER the OWNER or the CONTROLLER of a corp can attack it.




AGAIN: IT'S NOT A BUG!!!

It's a bad rule, there is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.


AGAIN : IT IS A BUG :)
The game acts not like its supposed to do.

Regards
Bresh



How is it a bug???

Marshall said THIS IS THE WAY HE IS HANDLING LOANED CORPS.

A bug is something that happens other than the way the developer intended. This is NOT the case here as Marshall has clearly stated. he IS changing this in 1.05 (which is a VERY GOOD thing!).

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 435
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/12/2008 4:10:45 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Well; we are at the start of the July 1807 land phase. There seems to be another bug.
France tried to attack the 2 Russian corp that escaped (see post #394) & the program
will not list this as an attack. This may be because Russia reported that he loaned the corps
to the Austrians (who are not currently at war with the French & cannot be for 7 months).

This problem is reported in mantis as bug #0000388 & also on the Tech-support forum.

If this IS due to the loan; I belive that the program needs to be fixed so that someone
who is at war with EITHER the OWNER or the CONTROLLER of a corp can attack it.




AGAIN: IT'S NOT A BUG!!!

It's a bad rule, there is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.


AGAIN : IT IS A BUG :)
The game acts not like its supposed to do.

Regards
Bresh



How is it a bug???

Marshall said THIS IS THE WAY HE IS HANDLING LOANED CORPS.

A bug is something that happens other than the way the developer intended. This is NOT the case here as Marshall has clearly stated. he IS changing this in 1.05 (which is a VERY GOOD thing!).


He said it was an oversight, so not what he had intended. By this i would define as a bug.
It was not how the developer expected the game to work.
And a BUG can already appear in the design phase, not only in the software.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 436
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/12/2008 4:58:24 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Well; we are at the start of the July 1807 land phase. There seems to be another bug.
France tried to attack the 2 Russian corp that escaped (see post #394) & the program
will not list this as an attack. This may be because Russia reported that he loaned the corps
to the Austrians (who are not currently at war with the French & cannot be for 7 months).

This problem is reported in mantis as bug #0000388 & also on the Tech-support forum.

If this IS due to the loan; I belive that the program needs to be fixed so that someone
who is at war with EITHER the OWNER or the CONTROLLER of a corp can attack it.




AGAIN: IT'S NOT A BUG!!!

It's a bad rule, there is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.


AGAIN : IT IS A BUG :)
The game acts not like its supposed to do.

Regards
Bresh



How is it a bug???

Marshall said THIS IS THE WAY HE IS HANDLING LOANED CORPS.

A bug is something that happens other than the way the developer intended. This is NOT the case here as Marshall has clearly stated. he IS changing this in 1.05 (which is a VERY GOOD thing!).


He said it was an oversight, so not what he had intended. By this i would define as a bug.
It was not how the developer expected the game to work.
And a BUG can already appear in the design phase, not only in the software.

Regards
Bresh


I disagree. We don't have to keep going back and forth like this so we can agree to disagree.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 437
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/12/2008 9:43:49 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
A bug is anything that causes a program to not do what it is supposed to do or do what it is not supposed to do. "Supposed to do", in this case, means to follow the rules. Since the rules do not specify that the corps is no longer at war when loaned, but the state of an actual corps has changed, this makes this result "not what it is supposed to do". Hence: Bug.

q.e.d.

Whether currently fixed or not is irrelevant. Whether designed in to the code or not is irrelevant. And, whether the developer thought this was the right way to implement, is also irrelevant. A bug can be anything: Design flaw, hardware flaw, idiosynchracy, logic failure, typographical error, etc. The original "bugs" were literal insects getting squashed between the relay flappers in early computers.

The bottom line is that the game must be paused now until 1.05 is released (at least to beta) to correct this deficiency in the game.

_____________________________

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 NeverMan)
Post #: 438
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/13/2008 12:33:37 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

A bug is anything that causes a program to not do what it is supposed to do or do what it is not supposed to do. "Supposed to do", in this case, means to follow the rules. Since the rules do not specify that the corps is no longer at war when loaned, but the state of an actual corps has changed, this makes this result "not what it is supposed to do". Hence: Bug.

q.e.d.

Whether currently fixed or not is irrelevant. Whether designed in to the code or not is irrelevant. And, whether the developer thought this was the right way to implement, is also irrelevant. A bug can be anything: Design flaw, hardware flaw, idiosynchracy, logic failure, typographical error, etc. The original "bugs" were literal insects getting squashed between the relay flappers in early computers.

The bottom line is that the game must be paused now until 1.05 is released (at least to beta) to correct this deficiency in the game.


Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 439
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/13/2008 12:53:25 AM   
Jimmer

 

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

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.

_____________________________

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 NeverMan)
Post #: 440
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/13/2008 2:34:23 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.


There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.

I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.

Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 441
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/13/2008 7:47:24 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.


There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.

I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.

Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.


So if there is a way like there was in version 1.00 to "get free factors" just by doing some tricky factor transfers it would be ok, since its not in the manual it can not be a bug.. ?

Regards
Bresh



< Message edited by bresh -- 11/13/2008 7:48:43 PM >

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 442
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/13/2008 8:27:47 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.


There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.

I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.

Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.


Actually; there is something ON THE CORP ITSELF. It still has a RUSSIAN
FLAG on it.

As soon as you can REMOVE the Russian FLAG from the corp; THEN I'll agree
that it is no longer yours.

< Message edited by gwheelock -- 11/13/2008 8:28:01 PM >

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 443
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/13/2008 8:34:57 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.


There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.

I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.

Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.


So if there is a way like there was in version 1.00 to "get free factors" just by doing some tricky factor transfers it would be ok, since its not in the manual it can not be a bug.. ?

Regards
Bresh




I believe that the manual covers how to get factors, so no, that would be a bug.

I'm done arguing about this it's just a waste of time. Think what you want I don't care.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 444
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/13/2008 8:37:42 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.


There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.

I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.

Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.


Actually; there is something ON THE CORP ITSELF. It still has a RUSSIAN
FLAG on it.

As soon as you can REMOVE the Russian FLAG from the corp; THEN I'll agree
that it is no longer yours.


Maybe the corps flags should change when the corps is loaned. This would be much like the "border" color others have suggested Matrix use. I don't know.

If the rule doesn't suit you and you want to change it fine.

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 445
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/13/2008 9:22:12 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.


There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.

I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.

Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.


Actually; there is something ON THE CORP ITSELF. It still has a RUSSIAN
FLAG on it.

As soon as you can REMOVE the Russian FLAG from the corp; THEN I'll agree
that it is no longer yours.


Maybe the corps flags should change when the corps is loaned. This would be much like the "border" color others have suggested Matrix use. I don't know.

If the rule doesn't suit you and you want to change it fine.


RULE?? WHAT "RULE"? Show ME the RULE that says they are NOT YOUR corp. The Flag says they are.


I am at war with anything flying a Russian flag.



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 446
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/13/2008 9:38:24 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh


So if there is a way like there was in version 1.00 to "get free factors" just by doing some tricky factor transfers it would be ok, since its not in the manual it can not be a bug.. ?

Regards
Bresh




I believe that the manual covers how to get factors, so no, that would be a bug.

I'm done arguing about this it's just a waste of time. Think what you want I don't care.


Using your own argument about its not a bug just because its not described in the manual.

The manual shows one way to get new factors, but it doesnt say you can not get factors other ways...

So basicly the same argument you use about corps-lend.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 447
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/13/2008 10:16:20 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
I presented what I believe is a perfect argument proving that you are wrong. The logic is valid and the premise creates a contradiction. Once something is disproven, it cannot be ressurrected. You must damage my argument (either the logic or the foundational assumptions) in order to revive yours. It is insufficient to bring up another argument that could be true. The premise has been proven false.

As I said earlier, q.e.d. And, with that, I'm done with this debate.

_____________________________

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 bresh)
Post #: 448
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/14/2008 7:47:46 PM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
The short version of the fight comes down to this: loaning Russian corps to Austria is now a known exploit, so is Russia going to take back their corps and finish the game or is Russia going to continue to use the exploit? If you do not understand what I mean by exploit it is something that the game allows but which runs contrary to the way it should run and gives an unfair advantage to the exploiting player, for example this loaned corp situation or the very early problem of being able to 'make copies' of factors by transfering them between corps and garrisons.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 449
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 11/14/2008 8:02:39 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

The short version of the fight comes down to this: loaning Russian corps to Austria is now a known exploit, so is Russia going to take back their corps and finish the game or is Russia going to continue to use the exploit? If you do not understand what I mean by exploit it is something that the game allows but which runs contrary to the way it should run and gives an unfair advantage to the exploiting player, for example this loaned corp situation or the very early problem of being able to 'make copies' of factors by transfering them between corps and garrisons.


Marshall, hopefully, will make the corps "unloaned" and we can move on with the game. I didn't agree with the way it was written and I'm not a rules rapist (aka someone who uses exploits), I just wanted the point driven home.

Secondly, your latter example allowed something that Marshall purposefully didn't want while the former was only a mistake AFTER Marshall realized this exploit. They are not the same.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> After Action Reports >> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   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

0.229