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  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/21/2008 8:53:16 PM   
ecn1

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/9/2007
Status: offline
Ah Jimmer,

No, thats not what the rule book says. You might want to bone up on your reading. To quote:

"It is possible for one major power to conquer a secondary district (by controlling its capital) while another major power controls the major district For example, one major power can conquer Norway, by controlling Christiana while another major power conquers Denmark (the district) by controlling Copenhagen. When this happens, Sweden is considered a separate minor country from Finland, Denmark is considered a separate minor country from Norway. Once separated, the program will not allow for multi-district countries to re-form."

This paragraph clearly states that the secondary district is ONLY seperated if conquered by DIFFERENT MAJOR POWERS.
It implies that minor countries with secondary districts that are conquered by the SAME MAJOR POWER can be reformed.

If this is not correct, either the rules are misstated, or there is a programming error. Which is my point.

Erik

< Message edited by ecn1 -- 2/21/2008 9:08:35 PM >

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 241
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/22/2008 12:34:35 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
Oh, right -- the Danish fleet must have evac'd there.

If they're actually blocking supply, though, shouldn't the intervening depot also be marked as out of supply? There's no city on that island; it's in the same sea zone; and Prussia doesn't have any fleets at all in that game, IIRC, so sea supply isn't a possibility.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 242
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/22/2008 1:37:47 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
This rule you quoted only means that a secondary district CAN (has the ability to be) be conquered by another power. Wars will also lapse if you do not watch this rule - I have seen several Finlands conquered and then Sweden going to whomever their controller was because the war lapses. Your problem is that once conquered each part becomes it's own minor so Denmark and Norway become conquered by whomever takes them, same country or not. Making a free state can only be done if a minor has corps and Finland, Norway, Sicily do not. Only by supporting the minor country with 2 provinces and WINNING that war (or it lapsing) will allow you to keep the 2 parts together.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ecn1

Ah Jimmer,

No, thats not what the rule book says. You might want to bone up on your reading. To quote:

"It is possible for one major power to conquer a secondary district (by controlling its capital) while another major power controls the major district For example, one major power can conquer Norway, by controlling Christiana while another major power conquers Denmark (the district) by controlling Copenhagen. When this happens, Sweden is considered a separate minor country from Finland, Denmark is considered a separate minor country from Norway. Once separated, the program will not allow for multi-district countries to re-form."

This paragraph clearly states that the secondary district is ONLY seperated if conquered by DIFFERENT MAJOR POWERS.
It implies that minor countries with secondary districts that are conquered by the SAME MAJOR POWER can be reformed.

If this is not correct, either the rules are misstated, or there is a programming error. Which is my point.

Erik



< Message edited by Murat -- 2/22/2008 1:41:47 AM >

(in reply to ecn1)
Post #: 243
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/22/2008 2:22:16 AM   
Monadman


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ecn1

Okay, I think this is a bug or programming oversight regarding minor countries with secondary districts

Here are two scenarios we have seen occuer in our pbem games.

Scenario 1:

Major Power A declares war on Denmark, Major Power B supports it and gains control of Denmark and conquered secondary district. In the econ phase, the secondary district contributes its manpower and income to the Danish Free State, NOT the controlling major power (major power B).

Scenario 2:

Major Power A declares war on Denmark, conquers it, and then later makes it a free state. The secondary district (Norway) contributes its money and manpower in the econ phase to Major Power A, NOT the Free State Denmark

Now, why the difference? Since Denmark and the secondary district were conquered by the same major power, shouldnt they be reconstituted together when made a free state? Why is Norway split off from the parent district in scenario 2?

Also, in our current pbem game, GB conquered Denmark as in scenario 2. GB made it a free state, had a garrison in it. GB went into the instability zone and Norway went neutral, but Denmark did not. I argue this is wrong. It should not have gone neutral unless the PARENT Major Districy WENT NEUTRAL. But, I think the reason was that the game things Norway is a conquered minor of GB - it should not, it should think its a conquered minor of Denmark, and should contribute its income and manpower to Denmark, not GB as outlined in scenario 2.

Is this a programming error or rules oversight? Because the rules imply that if both districts are conquered by the SAME major power, that the country can be reformed. However, obviously as noted in scenario 2, this was not the case when GB made Denmark a free state.

Erik



Erik,

It’s an EiANW deviation due to programming restraints. When a player declares the major district a free state, the program annexes the secondary district. Once separated, they cannot reform.

Richard



_____________________________


(in reply to ecn1)
Post #: 244
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/22/2008 2:30:24 AM   
Monadman


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grimrod42

Bug
In Sweden the Stockholm area are should be forage value of 3 not 2 as it is now.



Actually, we purposely left that as [2], relocated Stockholm and removed the forest per EiH 4 map. Then we moved the ice line up so that Stockholm would not be iced in during the winter months (per EiA).

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to Grimrod42)
Post #: 245
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/22/2008 3:17:03 AM   
bresh

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

Oh, right -- the Danish fleet must have evac'd there.

If they're actually blocking supply, though, shouldn't the intervening depot also be marked as out of supply? There's no city on that island; it's in the same sea zone; and Prussia doesn't have any fleets at all in that game, IIRC, so sea supply isn't a possibility.


Well cant see in pic if its valid as part of supply chain, could had been when placed, but doesnt have to be now.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 246
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/22/2008 12:33:22 PM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

Actually, we purposely left that as [2], relocated Stockholm and removed the forest per EiH 4 map. Then we moved the ice line up so that Stockholm would not be iced in during the winter months (per EiA).

Richard



Have you ever visited the Baltic in the winter months?

"Iced in" doesn't even begin to cover it, especially in a particularly bad winter.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 247
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/22/2008 12:55:18 PM   
mariom1au

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 9/6/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

you ARE at PSA 24. EST PSA is estimated PSA based on upcoming predicted changes due to minors being conquered, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariom1au

I think I have found one with the PSA Chart.
I have started a PBM game as Turkey. I have DOW'ed Egypt (-1pp) and received control of Algeria and Tunisia (+2pp) then got an alliance with Britain.
So my net change is +2..
I should be at PSA24. However in the attached screen shot you can see it stated I am at 23.
It is interesting to note that the Vp, PSA adjustment and ELN are all correct if I had a PSA of 24.
Let me know if I need to send anything.
Mario








Umm.. how do you know?
From the information displayed on the screen I could be 24 or 25?
Why do we have an estimated PSA?
I want to know my current status not a computer generated estimate, however that might be for a different place in the forum

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 248
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/22/2008 1:07:49 PM   
bresh

 

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

ORIGINAL: mariom1au


quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

you ARE at PSA 24. EST PSA is estimated PSA based on upcoming predicted changes due to minors being conquered, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariom1au

I think I have found one with the PSA Chart.
I have started a PBM game as Turkey. I have DOW'ed Egypt (-1pp) and received control of Algeria and Tunisia (+2pp) then got an alliance with Britain.
So my net change is +2..
I should be at PSA24. However in the attached screen shot you can see it stated I am at 23.
It is interesting to note that the Vp, PSA adjustment and ELN are all correct if I had a PSA of 24.
Let me know if I need to send anything.
Mario








Umm.. how do you know?
From the information displayed on the screen I could be 24 or 25?
Why do we have an estimated PSA?
I want to know my current status not a computer generated estimate, however that might be for a different place in the forum


Think if you look at the French bar you get the better picture.
The French bar shows 30.
But French estimate PS is 27.
Or the Austrian bar shows 21.
Austrian Est PS 14.

Actually didnt notiche that feature before now.

Regards
Bresh


< Message edited by bresh -- 2/22/2008 1:11:43 PM >

(in reply to mariom1au)
Post #: 249
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/22/2008 6:17:59 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariom1au


Umm.. how do you know?
From the information displayed on the screen I could be 24 or 25?
Why do we have an estimated PSA?
I want to know my current status not a computer generated estimate, however that might be for a different place in the forum

Look at the very end of the blue bar for each power. Mentally trace a straight line down from the end of the blue bar to the numbers below.

The easiest one to see this with is Austria's, as Bresh pointed out. The bar for Austria happens to be just a few pixels above the numbers. In this case, 21. Russia is at 30, Turkey 24, etc.

I believe there is an explanation of what goes into the estimated value in the manual (not the in-game one, but the full PDF version or the paper one).

_____________________________

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 mariom1au)
Post #: 250
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/22/2008 8:06:30 PM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
You can also hold your cursor at the end of a bar and it will give you a popup with the current position number.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 251
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/22/2008 8:52:21 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Hey, Matrix guys: This discussion of the PSD brings up a point: The PSD could certainly stand to have a little more heft to it. I would say making it twice as big as it is wouldn't fill the screen, but would help people read it better.

_____________________________

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 Murat)
Post #: 252
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/23/2008 1:52:01 AM   
WJPalmer1

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 9/20/2004
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
"No, port supply source...depot on fleet lost" bug

This has happened twice in the same PBEM game. A GB one-factor HF had a depot onboard for invasion supply. The depot was suddenly removed and the event recorded (see language above) even though there are at least 2 unblockaded British supply-source ports with fleet counters and depots. The fleet with the depot was not moved in any way. In the files attached, this occurred immediately following the June British naval phase. Earlier it happened in the April Land/Land combat between the Prussian and French phases.

Annoying in that it requires GB to spend an additional $$ to place a new invasion supply depot.

Thanks,
Ron

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 253
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/23/2008 10:00:57 AM   
gazfun


Posts: 1047
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline
Richard and Marshall
I was having a email conversation, with someone that made a claim about EiANW
quote:

  
Garry,
 
I don’t wish to get into a pointless argument but here is a good and constructive criticism of the game. The game should store the game name and phase information in the header of the .pbm file, not in the physical name of the file. This would have prevented several problems during our game that were due to people processing renamed files. Any system that relies on physical file names is inherently insecure because it is so easy for people to manipulate them. If the  game instead checked a header within the file, it would know whether the file was the right one and it would be harder for people to “spoof” the game.
 
Jon


I was just wondering if this is possible? by doing just that, and also about file name issue?

< Message edited by gazfun -- 2/24/2008 2:51:09 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Naxias)
Post #: 254
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/23/2008 10:39:23 AM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: exp101

"No, port supply source...depot on fleet lost" bug

This has happened twice in the same PBEM game. A GB one-factor HF had a depot onboard for invasion supply. The depot was suddenly removed and the event recorded (see language above) even though there are at least 2 unblockaded British supply-source ports with fleet counters and depots. The fleet with the depot was not moved in any way. In the files attached, this occurred immediately following the June British naval phase. Earlier it happened in the April Land/Land combat between the Prussian and French phases.

Annoying in that it requires GB to spend an additional $$ to place a new invasion supply depot.

Thanks,
Ron

I've seen this bug many times, too. As GB, it's not so bad, because it just costs $1 to rebuild it. But, it's money that shouldn't need to be spent.

_____________________________

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 WJPalmer1)
Post #: 255
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01) - 2/23/2008 10:47:51 AM   
Jimmer

 

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

ORIGINAL: gazfun

Hi Richard
I was having a email conversation, with someone that made a claim about EiANW

I was just wondering if this is possible? by doing just that, and also about file name issue?

Yes, it's technically possible. However, the code designer could just as easily make it not possible, too (by including the name of the file in the checksum hash). And, the only way to find out is to try to cheat. If the designers did it right, this should trash the game and force a restart from saved backup just prior to the attempt.

If that were to happen more than about twice, I don't know about you, but that person would be out of any campaign I was running.

_____________________________

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 gazfun)
Post #: 256
CTD bug. - 2/25/2008 2:29:17 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
This naval phase is giving me a CTD. Tried issuing no orders, tried issuing some orders -- a dialog box appears very briefly, but there's no time to read it before it crashes.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 257
RE: CTD bug. - 2/25/2008 3:08:39 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
CTD still occurs even if host skips that.  It is likely that the dialog box says 'Stack overflow'.  A possibly reasonable hypothesis is that it may have something to do with DOW while co-located with an enemy (enemy in French territory, due to previous grant of access).

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 258
Minors and depot destruction... - 2/25/2008 7:45:25 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
A corps belonging to a major power, moving into a region with a depot belonging to an ally of that major, still destroys the depot and results in the 'do you want to use the depot for an automatic forage success at the cost of remaining movement?' dialog box.

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 259
RE: Minors and depot destruction... - 2/25/2008 2:07:05 PM   
bresh

 

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

ORIGINAL: Grognot

A corps belonging to a major power, moving into a region with a depot belonging to an ally of that major, still destroys the depot and results in the 'do you want to use the depot for an automatic forage success at the cost of remaining movement?' dialog box.



Is this a question or statement ?
You dont need to eat depots, not even the one of your enemies.
Ahh tested it, you dont even get the chance to eat your allies depots.
Think I remember in EIA you could also convert a "lonely" depot into your own, atleast one from your ally.
I do miss that.


Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 2/25/2008 6:21:49 PM >

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 260
RE: Minors and depot destruction... - 2/25/2008 3:38:02 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2872
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Just a comment. I don't see "placing depot in enemy city area" on the confirmed bug list for land phase. I assume this is fixed for v1.02, based on Marshall's response:

quote:

I think we're going to let common sense prevail and make it necessary to have a friendly unmoved corps if a home nation city is enemy controlled.

After looking at the actual operation (Placing a depot in an area with an enemy controlled city and not friendly unmoved corps present) it seems that this is ludicrous and should be illegal. Maybe this wasn't addressed because there is no strategic reason to do this :-)

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 261
RE: Minors and depot destruction... - 2/25/2008 8:47:38 PM   
Grognot

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

A corps belonging to a major power, moving into a region with a depot belonging to an ally of that major, still destroys the depot and results in the 'do you want to use the depot for an automatic forage success at the cost of remaining movement?' dialog box.



Is this a question or statement ?


A statement, as in I had just seen it when my Prussian-controlled Hessian corps moved into a formerly French province (ceded to Austria; Austria and Prussia were allies who had never been at war, and had each granted access to the other), and automatically destroyed the Austrian depot. This is a bug, since allies shouldn't automatically obliterate each others' depots, and the Hessians should have recognized the alliance between the relevant majors.

There's no Rhine-ish reason either, as the COTR had not been formed. The only time the Hessians -might- have been at war with Austria is if they were given to France upon my DOW on Hesse -- possible, but I don't remember clearly, and that would indicate a problem with DOW tracking on changes of ownership.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 262
Retreating incorrectly - 2/26/2008 12:03:18 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
I reported this earlier, but I can't find where I did it. Also, this is a different position:

Notice that there is a Russian depot in St. Petersburg. There are no other Russia depots in the area, and most importantly, none in Scandinavia. So, by the rules, the Russians only have one retreat location: East, towards Russia. I'm not sure whether they should stop in Viborg or go all the way to St. Petersburg.

As you can see, however, the game retreated them west.

I've included screen shots before and after the battle (GB attacking Russia with a Swedish corps), plus the saved game (from before land combat). Keep replaying it until Sweden wins the battle to see the issue.

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 ecn1)
Post #: 263
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/26/2008 6:31:23 AM   
ecn1

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/9/2007
Status: offline
Okay, I think this is a new bug as I did not see it on the bug list.

Situation

1. GB has surrendered to France and france took forced access as a victory condition.
2. Russia and France are at war
3. Russia declares war on sweden, GB get control
4. Russia lands in stockholm, takes capital. Garrisons stockholm with 1 inf and leaves a corp outside
5. Next turn France amphibiously lands a corp in stockholm to attack russia corp
5b - Note - France is NOT at war with Sweden
6. Russia loses battles, retreats to ajoining space. France does NOT besiege stockholm, just sits outside
7. Russia counter-attacks french corp...wins battle and french corp breaks

Now here is what I think is the bug. France does not retreat to an ajoining space, instead the corp and the attached leader become prisoners? why is that, since they have access...why cant they retreat from stockholm?

erik


< Message edited by ecn1 -- 2/26/2008 7:05:56 PM >

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 264
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/27/2008 6:06:40 AM   
WJPalmer1

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 9/20/2004
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
Counter-attacking Besieged Corps Moved to Rural

This has happened twice in our PBEM game to date. A besieged corps unsuccessfully counter-attacked the besieging corps. As a result of the counter-attack, the program moved the besieged corps to the "rural" zone of the same area where it was then later attacked and forced to retreat to an adjacent area. I understand from EiA veterans in our game that an unsuccessful counter-attack by a besieged corps should leave that corps within the city.

Sorry that I don't have appropriate save games files to attach, but it seems to be the consistent result.

Regards,
Ron

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 265
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/27/2008 7:48:01 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
Bug with minor Free states with secondary district(conquered subdistrict). 

It is possible to ceede the secondary district of a minor Sweden(Finland)/Denmark(Norway)/Naples(Sicily), even when enemy forces are present in the province. Hope noone abuses this :)

Rule 12.7
A territory may not be ceded while it contains any forces of a major power at war with the controlling major power or, in the case of a minor country, separately at war with that minor country, unless it is ceded to that major power with forces inside that territory.
 

For minors. Im not sure if it should be possible to ceede a secondary district, while the Major District has enemy forces inside.

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 2/27/2008 7:53:24 PM >

(in reply to WJPalmer1)
Post #: 266
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/27/2008 9:09:56 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: exp101

"No, port supply source...depot on fleet lost" bug

This has happened twice in the same PBEM game. A GB one-factor HF had a depot onboard for invasion supply. The depot was suddenly removed and the event recorded (see language above) even though there are at least 2 unblockaded British supply-source ports with fleet counters and depots. The fleet with the depot was not moved in any way. In the files attached, this occurred immediately following the June British naval phase. Earlier it happened in the April Land/Land combat between the Prussian and French phases.

Annoying in that it requires GB to spend an additional $$ to place a new invasion supply depot.

Thanks,
Ron

I've seen this bug many times, too. As GB, it's not so bad, because it just costs $1 to rebuild it. But, it's money that shouldn't need to be spent.

I tried some playtesting with this, and I found that it ALWAYS deletes the depot on a fleet at sea. Furthermore, it does not do so until after naval movement is complete. I did not have any naval battles, so I couldn't tell if it was between naval move and naval combat. But, they were gone at the beginning of the land movement phase, yet present at the beginning of the naval move phase.

NOTE: The depot which was the supply source for these depots was never removed, no was at least one fleet that was in that port (which isn't even required, but I just wanted to rule that out).

_____________________________

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 #: 267
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/28/2008 4:58:12 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
New bug. Well, probably not new, but first time I have seen it.

The picture says it all: It's the British naval phase, and there is a corps counter in Amsterdam, yet the Holland fleet counters are both still there. They should have attempted to evacuate before my naval phase.

I've included the current save files, plus the saved reinforcement phase files, so you can see I really did own it prior to my naval phase.

By the way, I think you should re-think how evacuations are handled. In the original game, they occurred instantly. There really isn't a good reason not to maintain that tradition. Yes, I know, they get conquered in the land phase. But, you can still add a naval combat item. It would just be another file to upload (along with the land movement and land combat files).

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 Jimmer)
Post #: 268
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/28/2008 5:36:05 AM   
BruceSinger

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/12/2008
Status: offline
Using V1.01b.
Playing GB
Besieging Constanople.  Turks have their fleet in port.  Britsh are in the blockade box.  Constanople never rolls for supply.  At least it does not show in the log.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 269
RE: Reporting Bugs (as of v.1.01b) - 2/28/2008 8:09:04 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Take a look at the picture. I've separated the two corps to make sure the Sweden corps was not covered up, and that it wasn't a rural vs. city issue.

The game will not allow me to place a Swedish corps in Cherbourg.

Now, in a very odd twist, the game WILL allow me to place a corp in the BESIEGED port of Le Havre. I just can't transfer factors to it. There are three problems there:

I shouldn't be able, according to the rules, to place a corps counter in a besieged city (even if all I am allowed to do with it is delete it).

Second, I am allowed to place a British corps IN THE FIELD of Le Havre, even though there are French boys already there, besieging me. Yes, it would be orphaned, but I shouldn't be able to build it in either spot, according to the rules.

The third thing is the rules: What can the justification be for not allowing a corps to attach and/or detach factors in a besieged city? This just doesn't make any sense. I can see an argument for not allowing new corps counters (although, even THAT is weak), but I can't come up with any decent reason for not allowing transfers just because they are besieged.

How's THAT? Four issues in one post. I'm proud of myself. :)

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 BruceSinger)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   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  7 8 [9] 10 11   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

0.162