RE: 4 player game

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: 4 player game

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 >> After Action Report >> RE: 4 player game

Page: << < prev 48 49 50 [51] 52 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 4 player game - 3/17/2019 1:06:50 PM

Centuur

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay
I am impressed that the Allied players are still playing this game. If I were playing it, I would likely resign. I don't mind making a desperate defense as the Axis -- the Axis has its fun at the start of the game, and the Allies are entitled to have theirs at the end -- but when my side is just getting pounded the whole game, there just isn't much fun. And one plays games to have fun.

Agree Courtenay. This game has been one huge Axis romp. As allies we shouldn't have attacked Japan with Russia - it came too late so that was a mistake. Axis has played extremely well - witness the superb operation in Egypt - combined with some bad luck spots for allies and various misplays - it's a terrible situation. When I joined the game I thought Allies had little chance and I mentioned that to my ally but he's an optimist. :)

Using 1D10 without divs makes it even easier for attacker. This will be my last game with 1D10 unless it's a game played without divisions.

Game is over and my ally and I have talked about just playing out as long as Axis want to pound on babies with hammers. :) It's not my cup of tea but maybe they have some operations they want to try out.

I don't know if the game is over. It looks bad, but I've seen the Allies coming back out of some positions you would really think that it was impossible to do so...

But 1D10 with divisions is something I don't like to play with too. Somehow things are not right if you do so...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 3/17/2019 1:07:19 PM >

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 1501

RE: 4 player game - 3/17/2019 1:53:57 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

The Germans have barely reached the Factory Line. A Sep/Oct turn can have highly variable results.

The defense of France was excellent in this game.

1d10 will more slowly supply an even distribution of results than 2d10, given the linear 1d10 vs bell curve 2d10. A number of good or bad rolls is more of a possibility, and can be significant in 1940, when there is less land combat than later in the game. That can really make for a tilted situation going in to the middle of a game. But I don�t think that has been a concern in this game, unlike another current game here.

Perhaps a more significant difference is that 1d10 does not have the �extra loss� result built in to the 2d10 table. In this game, that perhaps might have reduced the weight of the German land effort in Russia a little.

But ultimately every game of World in Flames reflects the strategic decisions made to a large degree, and this one is doing that.

As was noted (C99 ?), the US sledgehammer will break whatever it hits. The question is - what will it swing at?

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 1502

RE: 4 player game - 3/17/2019 9:09:08 PM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

Another partisan to NEI. I placed it to Telok Betong, it can be moved if needed.

Garrison was tested also in Greece, Netherlands, Belgium and maybe Poland but no partisans there. Can't remember for sure.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 1503

RE: 4 player game - 3/17/2019 9:11:40 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

If it is no trouble, can it be placed 2 hexes East of Batavia?

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 1504

RE: 4 player game - 3/17/2019 9:29:27 PM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

If it is no trouble, can it be placed 2 hexes East of Batavia?

Fixed by editing file. I'm getting better and better. It took about a minute

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 1505

RE: 4 player game - 3/18/2019 1:59:38 PM

jjdenver

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
Perhaps a more significant difference is that 1d10 does not have the �extra loss� result built in to the 2d10 table. In this game, that perhaps might have reduced the weight of the German land effort in Russia a little.

the US sledgehammer will break whatever it hits. The question is - what will it swing at?

Thanks for the comments Brian - I always enjoy your, Centuur, Courtenay, etc observations.

This result just happened in another game I'm playing - late SO 41. This is the kind of thing that happens with 2D10 and doesn't happen with 1D10. It's not only the possibility to lose 3 units. It's also the fact that when attacking any rough terrain (cities, foest, mountain, swamp, across river, in rain or snow, hex with mech, etc) with 1D10 the attacker doesn't have a lot of fear - just pile in enough factors and get 3:1 or better odds and things are pretty good. But with 2D10 there is always the fear of the "extra" loss like this. Even loss of 2 units when the table only calls for 1, or 1 unit when the table calls for 0 is significant.

As for the US hammer. Every game has the US hammer but in this game it's a weaker hammer than normal (late gearup) and a later hammer than normal. Unfortunately.

Japan is slightly weaker than normal I think even though it has feasted on China since the naval build program has been I think a bit slow (I haven't carefully investigated this is just my general observation without detailed analysis). Euro-axis I feel are stronger than normal due to very few losses taken. The biggest threat in the game is fall of SU so I think there's really no choice about where to send the bulk of US resources but it seems certain that it not will be enough to save the situation.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jjdenver -- 3/18/2019 2:02:19 PM >

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 1506

RE: 4 player game - 3/19/2019 2:34:16 AM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

Ahh the "Magic 14" - that gets all the press. It is often more memorable in a game than that one time, when a "2" was rolled in 2d10 land combat, or a "20" (those almost always forgotten, just as a 10 usually is in 1d10).

But I don't think the extra loss on the 2d10 table makes many play all that differently, aside from being more careful about attacking with an HQ + only 2 other units. I think most WiF players make attack decisions more around the chances of becoming disorganized vs. how late in a turn it is. As the "end-of-turn" chance climbs, players are more willing to take attack risk (lower odds), as there is less chance their units will be able to move again. And in many situations, there isn't a lot of choice on attacking bad terrain - the clock is ticking, and strategy demands progress.

The extra loss does lower the amount of units on the board a little, but overall my feel of reading WiF comments over many years is that many people feel 2d10 is somewhat pro-attacker, for two reasons. Results are concentrated in the middle of the curve @ 11 on the dice - this means a bit less of the really catastrophic attacks. (Didn't stop my current 1940 Panzers from rolling a "2" and then a "4" on the short road to Paris; while the INF armies slugging into the Maginot area rolled brilliantly.). Also the 2d10 hands out more partial bonuses, with a lower bar than the 2 corps requirement of 1d10 die modifiers.

Sometimes, anything "pro-attacker" is regarded as "pro-Axis", as they are on the attack at the beginning of the game.

Nevertheless, many prefer 2d10 as it helps avoid a stalled Axis in 1940 - if too many land combats go bad for the Axis that year, the game has a higher chance of devolving into a sitzkrieg slugfest, and not every Allied player wants to live through that kind of game. It also adds more nuance to play; for example giving an extra -1 for an anti-tank gun attacked by armor, giving more of a feel for Army Group type command in the war.

Also, some groups House Rule that "First Loss Must be a Corps" and they do so not out of a Pro-Axis, or Pro-Allied bent, but out of a Pro-Playability concern. 1944 WiF can have _a lot_ of counters on the board, and some players would rather have a lower density all around. Some folks would vote for that House Rule even before they pick sides. I have never tried it.

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 1507

RE: 4 player game - 3/19/2019 2:54:41 PM

peskpesk

Posts: 2347
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

USE from JJ: oil embargo was chosen along with lending to SU. Both gave 1 tension chit to their respective pool.

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 1508

RE: 4 player game - 3/19/2019 6:52:20 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Is that lending resources, or lend-lease (build points) to USSR?

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to peskpesk)

Post #: 1509

RE: 4 player game - 3/19/2019 7:18:22 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Must be lend-lease because resources was picked before Germany invaded USSR.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 1510

RE: 4 player game - 3/19/2019 9:12:46 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Okay. Looks like US entry is doing all right, then - or at least, about average.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 1511

RE: 4 player game - 3/20/2019 5:04:58 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Axis end of turn, part one:

Preliminary planning:
Germany - No changes needed - 28 BPs
Italy - No changes needed - 13 BPs
Japan - No changes needed - 16 BPs
Vichy France - No changes needed - 10 BPs

Stay at sea:
The following units stay at sea.

Germany:
Baltic Sea: 4 x CPs, 4-box 2 x SCS (Bismarck, Graf Spee)
West Med: 1-box FTR2

Vichy France:
CPs stay at sea.

Italy:
East Med: CP, 4-box 2 x BB + CA (CA with div return to base).
Italian Coast: CP, 3-box 2 x CA

Japan:
Sea of Japan: CP, 3-box CA Nachi.
Japanese Coast: 3-box CA. (CPs return to base)
China Sea: CPs, 3-box 2 x CA
South China Sea: CPs, 3-box CA-

Return to Base:

Germany:
Baltic Sea - 2 x CA -> Kiel

Italy:
Arctic Ocean: NAV2 -> Hex 27,49
East Med: All ships -> Malta
Red Sea: FTR2 -> 83,61; NAV3 -> 80,63

Japan:
China Sea: CV -> Tokyo, 1 x TRS -> Pusan, all other ships -> Fukuoka
Japanese Coast: All ships (including CPs) -> Canton
South China Sea: BB -> Canton
Sea of Japan: AMPH + 2 x BB (Yamashiro, Ise) -> Fukuoka, All other ships -> Tokyo

Use Oil:

Germany:
All units are reorganized for 4 oil (4.2). Use the saved oil in Prague, and in Moscow. Then use two of the oil resources being saved in Berlin. (One oil resource should now be saved in Berlin)

Italy:
All units, except the 3 SCS in the East Med (Littorio, Conte Di Cavour, and Bolzano), are reorganized for 2 oil (2.4). Use 2 oil in Rome.

Japan:
Only 1 oil (1.45) is used for reorganization. Use 1 oil in Canton. The following 14 units are reorganized: FTR2, LND2, LND2, NAV2, 2 x TRS, AMPH, CV Ryujo, CV Akagi, CV Hiryu, BB Haruna, 3 x CVP.

Vichy France:
2 x CA in Dakar, CP in Dakar, TRS, and CP in Togo, are reorganized for 0 oil (0.4). The BB Lorraine, and the CP in the West Med should have been reorganized last turn. Could this be fixed? Only the two BBs in Marseilles should remain disorganized.

Breakdown: No.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 1512

RE: 4 player game - 3/20/2019 5:06:58 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Axis end of turn, part two:

Prod plan Final:
Germany - No changes needed - 28 BPs
Italy - No changes needed - 13 BPs
Japan - No changes needed - 16 BPs
Vichy France - No changes needed - 10 BPs

Scrap: FTR2 for Italy

Production:
Germany (28):
HQA
3 x MIL
2 x GARR
TERR
FTR2
LND2
Pilot
2 x SUB repair

Italy (13):
INF
2 x TERR
FTR2
Pilot
SUB (1st)
CP

Japan (16):
PARA Div
2 x Pilot
4 x CVP1
BB (Yamato) 2nd

Vichy France (10):
Save 8 BPs - 2 in Vichy, 2 in Lyons, 2 in Toulouse, 2 in Toulon, 1 in Nice, and 1 in Marseilles.

Factory destruction:
Germany destroy three factories (2 in Moscow, and 1 in Vitebsk).

Reinforcements:

Germany:
FTR2 (Bf 109F-2) -> Breslau
LND3 (Ju 88A4) -> K�nigsberg
MECH -> K�nigsberg
INF (9-4) -> K�nigsberg
INF (6-4) -> Kiel
INF Div (SS) -> K�nigsberg
SUB -> Kiel
MTN -> Chisinau
TERR -> Beirut

Remove LND2 in Bucharest

Italy:
NAV3 -> Palermo
FTR2 -> Genoa
HQI -> Genoa
GARR -> Gennoa
2 x BB -> La Spezia

Japan
CVP1 (A6M2) -> CV Kaga (Fukuoka)

Voluntary Resource Lending: No changes.

Axis goes first if we win the initiative. No re-roll.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 1513

RE: 4 player game - 3/22/2019 3:18:33 PM

jjdenver

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

41 JA EOT (allies):
prelim plan:
CH: 2
FF: 0
US: 20+2(saved) = 22
SU: 17 incl using 1 saved oil at Leningrad for production
CW prod seems messed up. Here are resource flows:
6: India(2),S.A/Rhodesia(3),BelgianCongo(1) flow around Africa through CVB/CSV then 1 thru BoB & 5 thru N Atl/FG.
2: Dutch/British Guyana flow thru C Atl/NAtl/FG.
2: Venezuela flow thru Carib/USEC/NAtl/FG.
6: Canada flow thru USEC/NAtl/FG

That should be 16 res going into UK + 2 native there +1 synth. This should allow full prod for CW (provided 1 oil from venezuela is used along with 1 US lent oil to fuel Canadian fact). It should also allow saving 2 oil in UK each turn.

However when I assign resources as described above CW only gets 19 PP. I suspect CW has been shorted on other turns with regard to saved oil. I feel this game is basically done anyway so it's probably not worth correcting but if we get into late war years and game is still going then we probably would need to correct this by giving CW some saved oil in Britain.

Also game is not allowing me to save the 2 NEI oil available now since embargo is in place to their same hex (tarakan, balipapan) - not sure why since NEI is CW aligned nation. I can work around this by burning this oil though.

Anyway CW is at 19 and can be corrected to 22 during build phase if all players agree.

SaS:
CW left out a few escorts in 1 and 4 boxes various sz's.

RTB: CW sent TRS with FTR to St Helena, TRS empty to Liverpool, TRS empty to Aden. Most ships went to Liverpool, Gib, Aden. Small TF's led by CVL each went to Plymouth, Scapa.

Oil use
USSR reorg all (1,5) using 2 oils in Persia that cannot be saved
CW reorg all (5.3) using Balikpapan, Yenangyaung, and 3 saved from: Port of Spain, Quebec, Quebec
FF reorg all (.1) using Quebec
US reorg all (.65) using idle oil in 60,305

====================
re: Axis oil reorg:
Vichy France:
2 x CA in Dakar, CP in Dakar, TRS, and CP in Togo, are reorganized for 0 oil (0.4). The BB Lorraine, and the CP in the West Med should have been reorganized last turn. Could this be fixed? Only the two BBs in Marseilles should remain disorganized.

I think I can possibly fix this. But maybe let's wait a turn or two - will it matter? Maybe Vichy France will have enough time to let all their units reorg without spending oil anyway? But if it will really matter let me know and I can try to fix.
====================

Breakdown:
US 6-3 to 1-4 and 2-5

scrap:
SU: 3-3 INF. SU will also scrap 3x4-3 from force pool during builds.
CW: 2-4 ART DIV

Builds:
CH 2: save 2
CW 22: BBfu(3),TRSfd(2),rprQueens(2),2xFTR3(6),cvp1,2xPIL(4),MOT(4)
US 22: TRSfd(2),AMPHfd(3),2xBBfu(8),2xPIL(4),2xcvp1(2),INF(3)
SU 17: 6x MIL,GAR,INF

Reinf:
CW:
Spit VB->London
Hurricane IIB->Coventry
Harrow->Coventry
INF->Bombay

US:
Hornet->San Diego
6-3->Philadelphia

SU:
D-town MIL to SE of D-town
Pe-8 to Stalingrad
FTR to Voronezh
IL-4 and TB-3 to Leningrad
4-3 INF to Archangel
2x 7-4 INF and 3-2 AT gun to Voronezh
3-2 AA gun to Rostov
2-3 AA gun to Stalino

Lending:
CW modifies agreement with SU to 2 BP instead of 2 res.

=======================
I modified file to send the 1 oil from NEI to Canberra and had gone far enough that it would have taken awhile to go back. So I left the 1 oil in Canberra. We can pretend it's not there. Or if CW is able to send another before war with JP then we'll just set the oil to idle instead of actually sending it to compensate.

=======================

There appears to be a Gladiator cvp stuck in Liverpool. It can't be selected and shows up as an empty box on the unit window (see attached pic). Anyone know how to "unstick" it so it can be used?

=======================

SO 41 init both roll 10. Since it's +1 allies allies win init and choose to go 1st.
Weather roll is 3 fine everywhere.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jjdenver -- 3/24/2019 8:39:28 PM >

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 1514

RE: 4 player game - 3/23/2019 8:16:26 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

I do not think that CW has been shorted on oil before. And it can be fixed now as well.

It is (mostly) the Allied resources going to USSR that is the cause for concern. The program is sending one resource from UK to USSR, using the route around Africa since the Artic route is currently unavailable.

And one offending US oil going through the wrong sea area. See picture.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 1515

RE: 4 player game - 3/23/2019 8:19:56 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Five changes and I think the CW production looks fairly good. Step 1, and 5, is all that is needed to get the preliminary production to full for CW. Including saving two oil in UK.

1) Set Indian resource going to UK to be traded to USSR instead. So that 2 CW resources go from India to USSR.
2) Save Burma oil in Burma.
3) Save 1 NEI oil in Australia
4) For some reason the NEI oil can not be saved in place (bug). Use it for reorg?
5) Change the route for the resource (US oil?) going from America to UK that pass through Bay of Biscay. Once this resource is set to pass through Faroes Gap instead the CW has full production and saves 1 US oil in UK.

Edit: I did these changes during the preliminary production step. There is a CW CP that isn't on sentry that I think is needed for full production.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Orm -- 3/23/2019 8:28:40 PM >

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 1516

RE: 4 player game - 3/24/2019 12:24:01 PM

Centuur

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Five changes and I think the CW production looks fairly good. Step 1, and 5, is all that is needed to get the preliminary production to full for CW. Including saving two oil in UK.

1) Set Indian resource going to UK to be traded to USSR instead. So that 2 CW resources go from India to USSR.
2) Save Burma oil in Burma.
3) Save 1 NEI oil in Australia
4) For some reason the NEI oil can not be saved in place (bug). Use it for reorg?
5) Change the route for the resource (US oil?) going from America to UK that pass through Bay of Biscay. Once this resource is set to pass through Faroes Gap instead the CW has full production and saves 1 US oil in UK.

Edit: I did these changes during the preliminary production step. There is a CW CP that isn't on sentry that I think is needed for full production.

There's indeed a bug in place if one uses "save in place" to save oil resources. But if you press the buttons "Save" and "where to" in the Rail/ship form when you are in default mode, you can save the NEI oil in the port it is in.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 1517

RE: 4 player game - 3/24/2019 6:24:33 PM

jjdenver

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

Thanks for the steps. I have tried them but haven't had complete success. In the save game I'm working on (during CW SaS phase) there are no US resources going to UK. Instead I have tried to modify a Canadian res going to UK to pass through FG instead of BoB but still am left with 21. I also followed all other steps.

I have a little time to work on game now so will just proceed to try to get through EOT and add 1 to CW prod during production.

EDIT: I think I see another problem created by following these 5 steps. FF was lending FIC res to SU. But if an NEI oil is sent to Canberra then it's not possible to ship the res to production for SU, and SU is not in a good position to lose a BP right now. :P

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jjdenver -- 3/24/2019 7:22:15 PM >

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 1518

RE: 4 player game - 3/24/2019 6:33:00 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Thanks for the steps. I have tried them but haven't had complete success. In the save game I'm working on (during CW SaS phase) there are no US resources going to UK. Instead I have tried to modify a Canadian res going to UK to pass through FG instead of BoB but still am left with 21. I also followed all other steps.

I have a little time to work on game now so will just proceed to try to get through EOT and add 1 to CW prod during production.

That works perfectly.

Could you mail a save from the production step so I can take a look at what the hang-up is for future reference?

Edit: My main suspect is that another resource go through Bay of Biscay instead of Faeroes Gap. Maybe one of the oil from Venezuela? No matter. The edit part seems faster.

< Message edited by Orm -- 3/24/2019 6:35:15 PM >

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 1519

RE: 4 player game - 3/25/2019 3:03:32 PM

peskpesk

Posts: 2347
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

There appears to be a Gladiator cvp stuck in Liverpool. It can't be selected and shows up as an empty box on the unit window (see attached pic). Anyone know how to "unstick" it so it can be used?

Obe possibility Check IF they have got Sentry attribute set, IF so try to remove it.

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 1520

RE: 4 player game - 3/25/2019 4:44:53 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

MWiF is by far the best wargame that I've ever owned or played. The only burr in the saddle, and it's a very irritating one, is production. I think I've mastered it as well as anyone has, like a few other die-hards here. But, I think this burr and the time taken to master it has turned away a LOT of potential MWiF players and future buyers. This has to be obvious to the "powers that be" and if is, I find it baffling that this important issue hasn't been addressed with gusto and reworked. To me it's simple, give the player the FULL option to route resources to factories. By all means keep, or even improve, the current AI routing algorithm, just give us the option to turn it off and do production ourselves.

By the way, I understand the argument that their may be edge cases that the rules might be violated if the players have that option, but in my opinion having a rule in production violated occasionally is preferable to what we have now which requires a LOT of time optimizing production and then having to redo that optimizing again because the program decided to change a route, or worse change what resource it's send in trade, that it didn't need to change.

Sorry for the rant and hijacking your AAR ...

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to peskpesk)

Post #: 1521

RE: 4 player game - 3/25/2019 7:07:19 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

EDIT: I think I see another problem created by following these 5 steps. FF was lending FIC res to SU. But if an NEI oil is sent to Canberra then it's not possible to ship the res to production for SU, and SU is not in a good position to lose a BP right now. :P

No, this was not an issue. The resource couldn't be sent to USSR because there were only 2 Allied CPs in the Persian Gulf and both of them were used to transport the 2 CW resources to USSR. No other route to USSR was open.

MWIF enforce that traded resources are delivered, if possible. If there was a route for any French resource to reach USSR, then the program would have enforced the delivery of it. Hence, making the use of CPs needed for other purposes impossible.

Besides that, it wouldn't have affected BPs anyway. Only saved oil.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 1522

RE: 4 player game - 3/25/2019 7:28:57 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

quote:

There appears to be a Gladiator cvp stuck in Liverpool. It can't be selected and shows up as an empty box on the unit window (see attached pic). Anyone know how to "unstick" it so it can be used?

Obe possibility Check IF they have got Sentry attribute set, IF so try to remove it.

This is worrisome.

It does not appear to be on sentry.

It appears like that when the turn ended so it didn't happen during the end of turn. Maybe it can be fixed by editing?

< Message edited by Orm -- 3/25/2019 7:29:31 PM >

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to peskpesk)

Post #: 1523

RE: 4 player game - 3/25/2019 8:47:05 PM

peskpesk

Posts: 2347
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

Yes we have a problem, the CVP Gladiator appears to be both in Liverpool and in loaded on the CV Illustrious.
I think we need a Edit to fix the problem.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 1524

RE: 4 player game - 3/26/2019 1:53:22 PM

jjdenver

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

Any idea how to fix it with an edit? It seems it cannot be fixed?

(in reply to peskpesk)

Post #: 1525

RE: 4 player game - 3/26/2019 2:07:03 PM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

Has anyone fixed anything related to those units?

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 1526

RE: 4 player game - 3/26/2019 2:09:02 PM

peskpesk

Posts: 2347
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

Hmm, maybe somthing like Edit to move the CVP to the force\destroyed pool and give CW a build point and a pilot.
But it's not so fun for CW.

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 1527

RE: 4 player game - 3/26/2019 3:05:19 PM

Courtenay

Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline

A duplicated unit is bad news; it indicates that some data structure got more or less corrupted. If it is more, a simple edit might not fix the problem. There could be a cascade of bugs resulting from this. I hope not, but I am worried about the state of the game.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to peskpesk)

Post #: 1528

RE: 4 player game - 3/26/2019 3:59:34 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Has anyone fixed anything related to those units?

Not that I am aware.

I checked old saves. And the first save I found with this buggy CVP was the one that had the Archangelsk oil edited. Save number 142.

141 didn't have the bug, but 142 has. As far as I can tell. So my current suspect is that it happened when the oil was added to Archangelsk. But what do I know? Nothing.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Mayhemizer_slith)

Post #: 1529

RE: 4 player game - 3/26/2019 4:39:17 PM

Mayhemizer_slith

Posts: 7654
Joined: 9/7/2011
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Has anyone fixed anything related to those units?

Not that I am aware.

I checked old saves. And the first save I found with this buggy CVP was the one that had the Archangelsk oil edited. Save number 142.

141 didn't have the bug, but 142 has. As far as I can tell. So my current suspect is that it happened when the oil was added to Archangelsk. But what do I know? Nothing.