Slitherine

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grimrod42

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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 :-)

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 ?

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.