Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Tech Support >> Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/12/2013 8:29:04 PM

Beryl

Posts: 44
Joined: 6/1/2008
From: France
Status: offline

Polish HQ reorganising a polish plane needs 4 pts in combined impluse (instead of 2)

I think that one should only double pts for co-operating minors units if any point comes from a co-operating major HQ (even its controler), but not when the HQ is of the very same nationality as the unit.
Would be the same with Antonescu reoganising a rumanian corps in a land impulse

_____________________________

"Nicht kleckern, klotzen!" - Guderian

Post #: 1

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/12/2013 8:40:58 PM

gautebirkeli

Posts: 41
Joined: 11/20/2013
From: Richardson, Texas
Status: offline

Is it a fighter or a bomber? Remember the Reorg option doubles the cost of reorganizing bombers navs (3&4).

(in reply to Beryl)

Post #: 2

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/12/2013 8:59:55 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

Known bug (however not high on the list to fix at the moment...).

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to gautebirkeli)

Post #: 3

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/13/2013 10:21:50 PM

Dabrion

Posts: 733
Joined: 11/5/2013
From: Northpole
Status: offline

Where is that list, how long is it and what is the current speed of clearing that list (is it faster than the speed the list grows)? Is that list complete?

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 4

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/13/2013 11:49:16 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Where is that list, how long is it and what is the current speed of clearing that list (is it faster than the speed the list grows)? Is that list complete?

warspite1

Dabrion I know you are frustrated - and clearly angry with the situation - but you don't strike me as being without intelligence. That being the case, how can you ask if a bug list is complete? a) Until a bug is found how does anyone know its there? and b) even if you thought you had them all, there is a danger of new bugs being created when fixing old bugs.... Not to mention there is still new stuff to code - which may lead to ... well you get the picture.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Dabrion)

Post #: 5

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/14/2013 2:08:29 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Known bug (however not high on the list to fix at the moment...).

Not a known bug. I don't have anything on my radar with Reorganization points being incorrect.

EDIT: Here is the code for determining the 'effect' of an HQ on reorganizing a unit. It checks for a minor country HQ reorganizing one of its own units.

---
// ****************************************************************************
// If no reorganization point came from a cooperating major power or minor
// country, then each HQ reorganization point is doubled. The last check is for
// when a minor country HQ reorganizes one of its own units.
// ****************************************************************************
if (not UsedCooperatingReorgPts) and
((HQ = nil) or
((Countries[HQ.HomeCountryCommonwealth] is TMajorCountry) and
(ControllingCountryCommonwealth = HQ.ControllingCountryCommonwealth)) or
(Country = HQ.Country)) then
Result := Result * 2;
---

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 12/14/2013 3:32:14 AM >

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 6

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/14/2013 2:15:04 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Where is that list, how long is it and what is the current speed of clearing that list (is it faster than the speed the list grows)? Is that list complete?

The percentage of reported bugs that can be eliminated after a quick examination is 70%. Further examination cuts that by another 2/3rds. And even the remaining 10% are often not bugs - but I don't have a percentage for that.

The list of bugs is very dynamic, with an influx of 'suspects' that gets pared down to 'true' bugs that need fixing.

You would like a nice tidy list [wouldn't everyone?], but that isn't how programming works. As a trivial example from last week, a reported bug about overstacking had nothing at all to do with overstacking, it was how certain saved games were restored. There was nothing wrong with the overstacking routines. If it weren't for computer editors/word processors, any bug list would be a mass of scratch outs and penciled in edits.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Dabrion)

Post #: 7

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/14/2013 2:36:30 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beryl

Polish HQ reorganising a polish plane needs 4 pts in combined impluse (instead of 2)

I think that one should only double pts for co-operating minors units if any point comes from a co-operating major HQ (even its controler), but not when the HQ is of the very same nationality as the unit.
Would be the same with Antonescu reoganising a rumanian corps in a land impulse

In a combined action the cost is doubled. See RAC 11.18.4.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Beryl)

Post #: 8

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/14/2013 2:40:12 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

This is the second time reported where the minor country is paying double on top of double, though. The other one was a Dutch TRS re-orging a Dutch CA during a Naval action. In both cases a CW HQ would have paid double whatever the base action cost was (either one or two), but with the same minor country unit as the unit in question performing the re-org - then only single cost should be paid.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 12/14/2013 3:44:01 AM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 9

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/14/2013 11:14:17 AM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

This is a bug, Steve. Has been reported some time ago already...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 10

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/14/2013 7:18:17 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

This is the second time reported where the minor country is paying double on top of double, though. The other one was a Dutch TRS re-orging a Dutch CA during a Naval action. In both cases a CW HQ would have paid double whatever the base action cost was (either one or two), but with the same minor country unit as the unit in question performing the re-org - then only single cost should be paid.

Okay, the Dutch have a TRS they can use to reorganize units. I missed that.

There are no minor country ATR units so the code doesn't worry about that condition. And it does handle the case where a minor country HQ reorganizes its own units. So it is the third reorganization possibility (by TRS/AMPH) that hasn't been coded.

I just checked. There are 4 minor countries with TRS units: Spain, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 11

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/14/2013 7:42:09 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

This is a bug, Steve. Has been reported some time ago already...

I need to see a saved game for this then. There are way too many rules that affect reorganization costs for disorganized units and available reorganization points for reorganizing units.

The code looks okay to me, both for HQ and TRS units. If there is a bug, then I need to track through the code to see where it is doing something wrong.

I have been on this quest many times before and ended up with the program being coded correctly and the game situation having something that the code sees but the player doesn't.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 12

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/14/2013 8:11:16 PM

Dabrion

Posts: 733
Joined: 11/5/2013
From: Northpole
Status: offline

Problem seems to be that the minor country units treat units from their controlling major power at double cost (and vv), but reorging units from their home country is always at normal cost. While here, minor country units treat any unit (they could reorg) at double cost.
Ex.: British unit reorging Polish unit (double cost), Polish unit reorging Polish unit (normal cost), Polish unit reorging British unit (double cost).

Instead of micro-optimising all the code occurrences you might want to get the kernel right.

Reproduce:
1) global war fast start; GE ground strike Pol unit; pass turn; CW reorg phase: try to reorg the Pol unit with the Pol HQ;
2) barb fast start: analog with Antonescu/Romanian units;
3) Belgium/Netherlands have a TRS that can be used if you want to look into the TRS part of the problem.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 13

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/15/2013 4:36:27 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I have been on this quest many times before and ended up with the program being coded correctly and the game situation having something that the code sees but the player doesn't.

I know but the description is: "Polish HQ reorganising a polish plane needs 4 pts in combined impluse (instead of 2)"

Only possibility would be Variable Re-org thrown into the mix, and there are no Polish LND4s.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 14

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/15/2013 1:56:18 PM

larssto

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/21/2009
From: Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Problem seems to be that the minor country units treat units from their controlling major power at double cost (and vv), but reorging units from their home country is always at normal cost. While here, minor country units treat any unit (they could reorg) at double cost.
Ex.: British unit reorging Polish unit (double cost), Polish unit reorging Polish unit (normal cost), Polish unit reorging British unit (double cost).

This.
I just had Mannerheim being forced to spend two reorg points to reorg a Finnish land unit in a GER land impulse in Barbarossa. Can easily be reproduced by having a Finnish unit enter a swamp hex (like 35,50) in Finland and the have Mannerheim try to reorg it.

(in reply to Dabrion)

Post #: 15

RE: Co-operating Minor HQ reorganisation - 12/15/2013 5:24:02 PM

Beryl

Posts: 44
Joined: 6/1/2008
From: France
Status: offline

I don't play with optional variable reorg
Here is the save game