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 (as of v.1.01b)

 
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 (as of v.1.01b) Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 1/30/2008 6:27:36 AM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
There seems to be a glitch placing reinforcements from minors that go neutral and then become someone else's free state.

In this case, France lost Holland awhile ago by being in the fiasco zone. Austria then manipulated Holland (and several other states) into alliance.

Spain declares war on Austria; all the allies become free states, including Holland. All other new free states' forces are placeable as usual. But for Holland, although the game shows infantry, cavalry and ships available as reinforcements, none of the corps or fleet counters are available. The infantry can be placed as garrison, but the cavalry must be converted. Even worse, the ships do not go into a port for later placement after purchase of a fleet counter; they just disappear.

I'm assuming this is a bug and not a rule; otherwise why show the forces available at all?

File attached.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 151
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 1/30/2008 6:31:44 AM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
And another little one; security bug I guess you'd call it. No file; should have taken a screenshot, but I didn't think of it fast enough.

Playing as Austria against the AI, during a land combat phase (I think it may have been during France's phase, actually), as the game moved between battles, I could briefly see the corps ids on the counters (e.g. 1A for France's artillery corps--confirmed when I stepped on it next turn).

(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 152
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 1/30/2008 6:42:31 AM   
Jimmer

 

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

I moved a Serbian corps one space across the border (which is a river) to Odessa. There is one Russian cossack in the space, plus a 1-factor garrison in the city.

When I moved across the river, my remaining movement dropped from 3 to 1. It should have only cost 1 movement to cross, since there are no corps on the other side. But, it cost 2. I suspect the cossack is being counted as a "corps" for this purpose.

_____________________________

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 Jimmer)
Post #: 153
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 1/30/2008 8:39:19 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
While running some test games, I encountered fail to autosave couple times. Is this a known bug ?
I tried rerunning turns, but it didnt reappear, so seems random. Last 2 times i notiched it was during naval move phases.


Another big bug, i tried test some with austria & prussia & france.
Situation :
France & Prussia both have corps in a minor country, move there previous months. Before war errupts they can stack same area.
Next month War errupts France vs Prussia and Austria, France decides to move inbetween the allies.

So Austria moves "first of the 3".
Austria moves some corps lead by Mack to the minor containing both French+Prussian corps(lead by Hoenloe). No combat happens there, during combat phase, instead it land move France now...........
Savegame attached !!!
Btw unless im remember wrong, you actually need to move macks stack by hand, i saved at that point to try some variants.
Also notiche Depot in Vienna, and Light inf 2 areas away at Regensburg, unmoved, but Game says no Valid supply chain ???


This situation is quite hypotetical. But stuff like this could happen in games, maybe not for France, but if 2 nations are at war with one who moves between them this can happen.
So Mps can prob be exchanged some, but im to lazy to try other scenarios :)


Regards
Bresh

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bresh -- 2/4/2008 5:32:06 PM >

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 154
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 1/31/2008 2:10:02 AM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Ottoman Empire Component Nation Bug:

As Turkey, I was at war with Spain when I created the Ottoman Empire. After the creation of the Ottoman Empire, the component parts of the Ottman Empire (Syria, Morocco, etc) still read as nations that Spain is still at war with. This by itself is not a big deal. Further, after I achieve peace with Spain these nation's still appear on Spain's 'at war' list. Once again, not critical, just untidy.

However, it does become a significant issue when I attempt to sail a Turkish fleet carrying a Syrian Corps past the Spanish Fleet. Although Turkey and its Ottoman Empire minor country are at peace with Spain, the AI interprets the Syrian Corps as being from the nation of Syria (which no longer exists, having been absorbed into the OE) and declares war (-4pp) on Turkey despite there being an enforced Peace. That noted, the DoW does not register on the nation's status display. It appears that Spain just took a whack Turks carrying the Syrians and suffered the -4pp for this alone.

Ottoman Port Bug

The Port of Varna in Bulgaria on the Black Sea does not allow ships to move into it

Russian Holding Prisoners After Surrender

Russia Unconditionally Surrenders to Turkey after having taken Pechilvan Khan prisoner about 18 months earlier.
After surrender PK is still held but no country is ID'd. Simply reads "PK held prisoner by (blank)"

Thanks




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mardonius -- 2/6/2008 7:23:32 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 bresh)
Post #: 155
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 1/31/2008 2:47:32 AM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
This is to confirm the illegal channel crossing bug reported above by Termite2. I'm attaching a file in case you haven't recreated this one yet.

Britain's land phase; just forage and end phase, and the next thing you see will be a French corps in London.



Attachment (1)

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 156
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 1/31/2008 3:02:49 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
This thread is WAY too hard to keep track of. But, in the hopes that these bugs have not yet been reported:

Bug number 1: When Egypt is a free state (happens to be under British control, which is why I know this), it is not receiving trade money for its one unbesieged port (Alexandria). It reports its money/manpower as $10/12 MP. This is correct if not including the trade, as Egypt has two corps counters on map. Damietta is besieged, but Alexandria (the $1/$2 port) is unbesieged. The capital is besieged, but not enemy-occupied (yet).

GB DID receive the trade value for Alexandria ($29 total, would be $28 without Alexandria). But, Egypt did not receive the money.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 #: 157
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 1/31/2008 3:20:43 AM   
Jimmer

 

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

Piracy is stated to apply to "trade" in the rules (12.2.1, pg 85). This implies both American and Domestric trade. However, piracy seems to have no effect on American trade.

I am playing GB. I sent one 10-factor fleet on a piracy mission against France. I figured "What the heck? He MIGHT lose some money." However, the game did not even make a piracy attempt against France.

The other piracy entries (France vs. Prussia and Austria) were carried out correctly. Prussia lost nothing, because her capital was occupied and she thus had no trade income.

If there is a disagreement as to whether the manual is right or the game is right, I want to lobby HARD for the manual being correct, even though it would be easier to fix. Piracy MUST apply to American trade to be at all historical. Historically, GB was the big privateering nation. The game makes it totally useless to allocate privateers, except against friendly nations, even though the historical GB actually had formal laws and rules that applied to them!

As you may recall, in 1807, Wilburforce got his first anti-slavery measure passed because of French slaving ships which flew the American (neutral) flag. The law made those ships able to be boarded by her PRIVATEERS, legally, if they were flying a neutral (American) flag. They knew the ship owners would never allow their ships boarded by (legally-sanctioned) pirates, and so the slave trade would dry up almost overnight. Which is just about how it worked out.

But, in the game, GB can have no effect on French-American trade except by the other method (historically called Napoleon's "Continental System"!) Kind of backwards.

Oh, the saved game files are the same ones from the previous post.

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 1/31/2008 3:22:19 AM >


_____________________________

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 Jimmer)
Post #: 158
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 1/31/2008 3:27:15 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
This isn't so much a bug as it is a way to speed things up (probably VERY easily):

The economic phase is played sequentially in the game currently. However, there is no reason this has to be this way. There seems to be a "pre-economic" phase that happens anyhow (including the collection of money and manpower, victory point collection and that sort of thing -- all the automatic stuff). The only things the players really need to do is buy troops and counters, set manipulation, etc.

All of the things the players need to actually put their fingers onto can be done independently from each other. There's no tie-in (except for giving money, but that happens in the diplomacy phases). So, all seven economic phases could be done asynchronously, without any impact to game play other than not knowing which countries built how many ships, and if any other nation made a kingdom.

If you decide to use this idea, and thus give credit for this one, please include gwheelock, as it was a conversation we had together that got us thinking about this.

_____________________________

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 Jimmer)
Post #: 159
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 1/31/2008 3:54:50 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

This isn't so much a bug as it is a way to speed things up (probably VERY easily):

The economic phase is played sequentially in the game currently. However, there is no reason this has to be this way. There seems to be a "pre-economic" phase that happens anyhow (including the collection of money and manpower, victory point collection and that sort of thing -- all the automatic stuff). The only things the players really need to do is buy troops and counters, set manipulation, etc.

All of the things the players need to actually put their fingers onto can be done independently from each other. There's no tie-in (except for giving money, but that happens in the diplomacy phases). So, all seven economic phases could be done asynchronously, without any impact to game play other than not knowing which countries built how many ships, and if any other nation made a kingdom.

If you decide to use this idea, and thus give credit for this one, please include gwheelock, as it was a conversation we had together that got us thinking about this.


It is not a bad suggestion, especially if some reactions/answers that are normally part of the diplomacy phase could be lifted out to the reinforcement phase, mainly change of movement order and responses to offers of alliance.

The alliance request is a bit more dodgy than movement as new alliances could shift where you want to place reinforcements, I personally dont think it will have any major impact on game play.

It could also open up for a possibility to resolve things like peace treaties and access requests interactivly in the reinforcement phase. Something that could be interesting, and make the flow of the game more like the boardgame, without slowing it down. This needs careful thinking though as it may have substantial impact on gameplay.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 160
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 1/31/2008 10:24:56 AM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
Two more small bugs--no files at the moment, but I'll try to post one next time I see one of these.

1) If I try to diplomatically manipulate a minor that is already influenced by or allied to a major ally, the game says I can't do that. But the AI will poach my minors despite our alliance.

2) A couple of times lately I've seen invasion supply depots disappear. The supply works as normal the first month, but in the second, although the fleet stays in place, the depot vanishes. It can be rebuilt and will work again, but I have to pay for the new depot.

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 161
1.01B...Still Major Surrender Issues - 1/31/2008 6:46:30 PM   
Tater

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/25/2007
Status: offline
Playing 1.01b...

Don't know if anyone else mentioned it...but there are still major surrender issues with this patch and it always revolves around France.

As an example, I was playing GB and conducting a campaign against Spain. Over the course of 8 months Spain surrendered conditionally to France...and then twice unconditionally to France. All while I had corp in Spain and France had none.

In fact, whenever one is at war with an MP that MP starts periodically surrendering to France. France can be at war with other MP's who don't surrender but as soon as the human player DOW's on the MP they start randomly surrendering to France.

_____________________________

Later-

Tater

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 162
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 1/31/2008 7:55:03 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

This isn't so much a bug as it is a way to speed things up (probably VERY easily):

The economic phase is played sequentially in the game currently. However, there is no reason this has to be this way. There seems to be a "pre-economic" phase that happens anyhow (including the collection of money and manpower, victory point collection and that sort of thing -- all the automatic stuff). The only things the players really need to do is buy troops and counters, set manipulation, etc.

All of the things the players need to actually put their fingers onto can be done independently from each other. There's no tie-in (except for giving money, but that happens in the diplomacy phases). So, all seven economic phases could be done asynchronously, without any impact to game play other than not knowing which countries built how many ships, and if any other nation made a kingdom.

If you decide to use this idea, and thus give credit for this one, please include gwheelock, as it was a conversation we had together that got us thinking about this.


It is not a bad suggestion, especially if some reactions/answers that are normally part of the diplomacy phase could be lifted out to the reinforcement phase, mainly change of movement order and responses to offers of alliance.

The alliance request is a bit more dodgy than movement as new alliances could shift where you want to place reinforcements, I personally dont think it will have any major impact on game play.

It could also open up for a possibility to resolve things like peace treaties and access requests interactivly in the reinforcement phase. Something that could be interesting, and make the flow of the game more like the boardgame, without slowing it down. This needs careful thinking though as it may have substantial impact on gameplay.

My post refers to the economic phase, not the diplomacy phase. This would be in addition to the changes you suggest for the diplo phase.

_____________________________

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 zaquex)
Post #: 163
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 1/31/2008 9:23:40 PM   
Blacksheep

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 9/4/2003
From: Maryland USA
Status: offline
I herd from a friend that he had had a game go weird when while playing as Russian. He had defeated Turkey and occupied its capital. In the subseqqent Diplomatic turn Turkey surrendered to --France. I attempted to duplicate this and wound up having Turkey surrender to France, it ally at the time. T urkey was at war with virtually every other country. This surrender apparently does not occur all thi time as I reloaded the game at the December diplomatic phase and it proceeded without the Turkish surrender. But i have attached a folder that contains the November land phase showing Turkey as an ally of France and the December Diplomacy phase showing Turkey's surrender to France with the subsequent addition and subtraction of political points to the principles.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 164
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 1/31/2008 10:30:40 PM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

My post refers to the economic phase, not the diplomacy phase. This would be in addition to the changes you suggest for the diplo phase.


Sorry, got a bit ahead of myself, it should be possible to also do the diplomacy phase asynchronously. This would save 3x as much time as the eco phase and with a 12h email response time 288h could be saved each quarter if these two phases could be played asynchronously or over 10000h over a full game. Thats in theory a 14 months shorter game.

Thats a scary though that gives a picture of how long time a full game over pbem actually would take.

(in reply to Blacksheep)
Post #: 165
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 1/31/2008 10:34:51 PM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
nothing to see here

< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/31/2008 10:36:34 PM >

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 166
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/1/2008 3:24:23 AM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
Followup to my report of disappearing invasion supply depots. Here are files. First the land combat phase (immediately following the land phase in which the depot was placed). You can see the depot on the fleet in the sea area east of Crete.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 167
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/1/2008 3:25:09 AM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
And here is the diplomacy phase immediately afterwards. No more depot.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 168
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/3/2008 1:30:02 AM   
Monadman


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

This thread is WAY too hard to keep track of. But, in the hopes that these bugs have not yet been reported:



Use the list (continually updated), not the individual posts in the thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1679584#

Richard




_____________________________


(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 169
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/3/2008 1:53:51 AM   
Monadman


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

If you decide to use this idea, and thus give credit for this one, please include gwheelock, as it was a conversation we had together that got us thinking about this.


I realize that many of you could not have known what suggestions were made pre-release as you were all born into EiANW the day of its release. Eventually some of these ideas will be worked in, but if it comes at a time, say several months from now, when a new poster suggests the very same thing that one of you have already made, perhaps you will understand the current situation regarding “credit”.

Thanks

Richard



_____________________________


(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 170
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/3/2008 6:11:50 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
OK, here's one that hurts:

Russia DOWed on Sweden. It was a British influenced minor, so control goes to GB. However (see the JPG), GB only received ONE PP for it, not two as she should have. Note that Russia DID lose 2PP.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 #: 171
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/3/2008 6:55:54 AM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
Here is a copy of the backup files to use with Jimmer's Swedish pp bug (post 171) just prior to Spain's April 1805 Diplomacy phase + Spain's dp phase. The pw for France is
"heaven"


Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 172
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/3/2008 6:58:09 AM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

If you decide to use this idea, and thus give credit for this one, please include gwheelock, as it was a conversation we had together that got us thinking about this.


I realize that many of you could not have known what suggestions were made pre-release as you were all born into EiANW the day of its release. Eventually some of these ideas will be worked in, but if it comes at a time, say several months from now, when a new poster suggests the very same thing that one of you have already made, perhaps you will understand the current situation regarding “credit”.

Thanks

Richard



Oh, that's fine. I just didn't want to get sole credit for it when it was BOTH of our ideas.

Besides, all I was really thinking is in that BIG post at the beginning of this thread. I have no delusions of grandeur. :)

_____________________________

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 #: 173
RE: 1.01B...Still Major Surrender Issues - 2/3/2008 9:17:42 PM   
Monadman


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tater

Playing 1.01b...

Don't know if anyone else mentioned it...but there are still major surrender issues with this patch and it always revolves around France.

As an example, I was playing GB and conducting a campaign against Spain. Over the course of 8 months Spain surrendered conditionally to France...and then twice unconditionally to France. All while I had corp in Spain and France had none.

In fact, whenever one is at war with an MP that MP starts periodically surrendering to France. France can be at war with other MP's who don't surrender but as soon as the human player DOW's on the MP they start randomly surrendering to France.


Did you start that game using the 1.01b patch? Also, can you post a saved game for these erroneous surrenders (before they occur if possible)?

Thanks

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to Tater)
Post #: 174
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/3/2008 9:22:10 PM   
Monadman


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blacksheep

I herd from a friend that he had had a game go weird when while playing as Russian. He had defeated Turkey and occupied its capital. In the subseqqent Diplomatic turn Turkey surrendered to --France. I attempted to duplicate this and wound up having Turkey surrender to France, it ally at the time. T urkey was at war with virtually every other country. This surrender apparently does not occur all thi time as I reloaded the game at the December diplomatic phase and it proceeded without the Turkish surrender. But i have attached a folder that contains the November land phase showing Turkey as an ally of France and the December Diplomacy phase showing Turkey's surrender to France with the subsequent addition and subtraction of political points to the principles.


Can see that it happened, but unfortunately your game is still running on an older version (not 1.01b) and I am unable to duplicate this bug using your file with 1.01b or DEV 1.02.

Good saved game files though – thanks.

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to Blacksheep)
Post #: 175
RE: 1.01B...Still Major Surrender Issues - 2/3/2008 10:14:20 PM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
I can confirm the bug Tater's reporting (MP surrendering to France even if not at war), in games started with 1.01b.

I don't have a file off-hand, but will save one next time it happens. I don't know whether a before-it-happens file will help you. When it happens, since I'm just playing the AI, I go back to the previous phase and replay it; it usually doesn't happen the second time through. I imagine there's a roll the AI is making.

Nathan

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 176
RE: 1.01B...Still Major Surrender Issues - 2/4/2008 4:06:28 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
This game confirms the "Sweden granting only 1 PP to the newly controlling power" bug I reported earlier. That game was in a PBEM game, but this one is just human-AI.

However, this isn't the reason for THIS post. This post is to show a problem that I thought I saw earlier, but couldn't really tell: GB does not pay reparations consistently.

If you need screenshots, I have them. Basically, GB sued for peace in March and was given an unconditional. That peace included both Reparations:ALL and "half trade". France received nothing, however.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 ndrose)
Post #: 177
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/4/2008 5:41:20 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Check out the picture first. This is just after Davout lost a battle to Bagration NW of Abo (Finnish Capital). There are no other depots anywhere in Scandanavia, so Davout SHOULD have been retreated East. Instead, he retreated West, out of range of his own depot.

Because the game won't allow free state factors to garrison a depot, that depot in Abo can be safely eaten by the other Russian corps, thus forcing Davout to starve (there happen to be no other French depost in port, either. If this were against real people, this would be devastating. It really needs to be fixed.

NOTE: The name of the zip file is incorrect. I used the same ZIP file without thinking about it. Sorry.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 ndrose)
Post #: 178
RE: 1.01B...Still Major Surrender Issues - 2/5/2008 3:37:48 AM   
Tater

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/25/2007
Status: offline
Sorry, I have already upgraded to the official patch (1.01B). However, I notice that the French surrender issue doesn't seem to be happening any more. This seems to be the case in old games and new games.

If it crops up again I will try to pull a saved game.

_____________________________

Later-

Tater

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 179
Setup... in 1806? - 2/5/2008 8:31:14 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
Attached --

Backup saved game file for Russia in a Prussia/Russia -vs- 5 AI PBEM game, where the game has decided that it's time for everybody to go through a setup phase. Problem -- it's February 1806, not January 1805. Prussia was host.

This particular game was started in 1.01 beta 1, if memory serves, and has behaved very oddly at times (naval combat phases where there aren't naval combats, humans-turning-AI, and so forth). This is actually the third round of setup in this particular game.

Edit -- Attachment supposedly uploaded but not actually showing. Retrying.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Grognot -- 2/5/2008 8:37:10 AM >

(in reply to Tater)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.188