Now I've seen everything

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Now I've seen everything

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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> Now I've seen everything

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Now I've seen everything - 7/6/2019 3:28:09 PM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

Winding down a campaign. Russia is almost out, the UK was down to something like 400 morale at the end of the turn. Germany took Bombay with a little Japanese help from one unit. Germany had taken Dehli as well.

So end turn, UK surrenders! Cool. Japan plunders it and is now in charge of England! WTF! There were no Japanese units anywhere near England. The closest was India!

<edit> Save sent to support </edit>
I have a save right before the end turn if the devs would like to look at it.

< Message edited by Mercutio -- 7/6/2019 4:20:32 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/6/2019 4:54:35 PM

wevilc

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/26/2019
Status: offline

(in reply to Mercutio)

Post #: 2

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/6/2019 7:13:41 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

The way this typically works, when a Major nation surrenders due to low morale (and not a captured Capital), the game engine does a check to see who occupies most of the territory of the nation that is about to surrender. Normally this will work out as you'd expect, but it could entirely be possible that in the case of the world map, Japan would technically hold more UK territory than the Germans and so the end result is a bit counterintuitive.

If you have a saved game handy, please do send it to me at support@furysoftware.com, thanks!

Hubert

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fury-Software/233842800005900

Join our Steam Community:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/strategiccommand3

(in reply to wevilc)

Post #: 3

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/6/2019 9:19:16 PM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

I did send it to you. I also went back to a save beforehand and tried again. This time holding off taking India until UK surrendered. Same thing.

While I understand your idea, I think it needs a tweak. Especially since Japan takes so many things from the UK in SE Asia. Although Germany owning Egypt, Sudan, Palestine, TransJordan, Iraq, Persia and the west 1/4 of India seems like a lot of area to come in second on territory. Is it not hexes, certain hexes?

<edit> Perhaps give the player the option of which nation takes it over? I would give India to Japan rather than go to Germany and definitely UK to Germany rather than Japan</edit>

<edit2> perhaps the nation that caused the most losses of units and MPPs? Thanks for you support, on a Saturday no less</edit2>

< Message edited by Mercutio -- 7/6/2019 9:52:05 PM >

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 4

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/8/2019 2:34:19 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Thanks for the file and it is helpful.

As mentioned the way it works is it looks at specific hexes, and in this case the specific hexes would be all of those naturally owned by the UK in game, i.e. home territory.

This would include the main UK island, and other home locations such as Nauru and the Fiji Islands in the Pacific. There are a few more smaller islands off of the east coast of Africa, as well as the British Guiana territory in South America.

Minor territory that is associated with the UK, such as Egypt, Sudan, and Australia do not count towards these totals for the surrender and new occupier check. India is its own MAJOR country as well and so on.

Looking at your saved file, it looks like the Japanese held about 5 UK home hexes (the Pacific hexes of Nauru and Fiji), to about 3 hexes for the Germans, thus the surrender to the Japanese.

We could look into further options (we'd have to add more tracking and this could expand the size of the save and PBEM++ files) but as mentioned it typically works out as expected, and in your case had you had 1 to 2 more turns, the Germans would likely have taken a few more hexes within the UK home island and it would have worked out as it typically does.

Something to think about on our end for sure though,
Hubert

_____________________________

(in reply to Mercutio)

Post #: 5

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/8/2019 2:36:28 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

I should add that after your initial report I considered having minor territory added into the check, but after looking at your turn, I suspect this would have still added Japan as the main occupier as the Japanese in your game had taken nearly all of the Pacific and including Australia with the end result still being more than what the Germans had taken.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 6

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/8/2019 5:27:55 PM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

Well, they kind of gave me all those islands.

I still feel no matter if it is Germany, Italy or Japan that causes a surrender, I should be able to choose who gets what. Say Italy gets these colonies, Germany gets the UK, Egypt and South Africa, etc. Not even who takes a capital because it could have been an Italian unit, but Germany did most of the work, etc.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 7

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/9/2019 4:12:18 PM

jackharry

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/21/2016
Status: offline

I have had two games where Japan has surrendered due to low morale rather than capitals. In both cases they surrendered to China, who only held a small section of north west China, never mind any of Japan. Southern and parts of central and eastern China had been liberated by a combination of USA, Australia and India, however all of Korea, Japanese home islands and Manchuria were still held by Japan.

In this case how could it calculate that China held more of Japan than anyone else, or are there different rules in this scenario?

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 8

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/10/2019 12:19:23 PM

Toby42

Posts: 1626
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: Central Florida
Status: offline

All of this seems pretty silly!

_____________________________

Tony

(in reply to jackharry)

Post #: 9

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/10/2019 6:44:30 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jackharry

I have had two games where Japan has surrendered due to low morale rather than capitals. In both cases they surrendered to China, who only held a small section of north west China, never mind any of Japan. Southern and parts of central and eastern China had been liberated by a combination of USA, Australia and India, however all of Korea, Japanese home islands and Manchuria were still held by Japan.

In this case how could it calculate that China held more of Japan than anyone else, or are there different rules in this scenario?

Hi Jackharry,

Can you confirm that the Chinese did not have at least a single unit on Japanese home territory? For example, just a single Chinese unit in Korea (which is considered Japanese home territory in game) would cause Japan to surrender to China if no other home hex was occupied by any other Allied nation.

As mentioned above, only home territory counts, so southwest China, Manchuria etc., would not factor in to the calculation.

Additionally I just ran a test to confirm the functionality of the routine on my end and if let's say Japan were to reach 0% National Morale, and all of its home territory was still intact and not occupied, then Japan in this case would not surrender. Again it would only surrender until some home territory is occupied, and to the nation that occupies the most of those occupied hexes.

Hubert

_____________________________

(in reply to jackharry)

Post #: 10

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/10/2019 6:51:14 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

To confirm, the formula for determining the applicable major to assign a surrender to (as I've just double checked it) counts all the occupied hexes, also counts each enemy unit on those occupied hexes, as well as captured resources.

The counts are weighted as follows:

occupied hex +1
enemy captured resource on occupied hex (adds +2)
enemy unit on occupied hex (adds +3)

For example:

- China occupies a single empty hex with a Chinese unit, its count would be 4 in total, i.e. +1 for the hex and +3 for the unit
- USA occupies 3 hexes with 2 units and one captured resource, its count would be 11 in total, i.e. +3 for the hexes and +6 for the two units and +2 for the resource

If there is a tie, then it just arbitrarily goes to the first major in the list of majors in order.

For example the list is the following in order for the Allies:

UK
France
USA
USSR
Poland
China
India

For the Axis it is as follows:

Germany
Italy
Japan

< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 7/10/2019 6:53:43 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 11

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/10/2019 7:06:53 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

There have been a couple of alternative suggestions to this, and Bill and I have also started to discuss, however none are so far foolproof in the sense that I can still think of possible situations where the end result may still be perceived as less than ideal.

For example:

1) Offer a choice to the player - This could work well for single player and multiplayer, but for the AI side it would still have to make its own choice on some logical basis, and for arguments sake it would likely use this current formula (which may still offer the odd decision) or it could be based on another formula/options as listed below, which either negates the suggestion to offer a player a choice as we wouldn't need it anymore if there is a better alternative formulaic implementation, or the alternative formula is also not without potential pitfalls.

2) Based on MPP losses, unit losses etc. - The situation where Germany has fought the UK tooth and nail for years, then the UK moves its Government to Australia, the Japanese close in on the new Australian capital and then the UK surrenders to Germany despite being surrounded by Japan and only because Germany had previously inflicted heavier losses prior to the Capital transfer, is one that I can think of off hand.

3) Priority list, i.e. UK surrenders to Germany, Italy and then Japan based upon which of those countries are still at war etc. - Same potential issue as #2

These are a few examples, but as mentioned we will continue to still think about an improved mechanism/formula if possible.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 12

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/11/2019 4:10:50 AM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

Thanks for the insights Hubert.
This seems problematic mostly in the case of the UK and Japan as noted.

One question I had though was this. Does a conquered nation (or minor) have to be adjacent to /attached to land by the occupier to supply MPPs?
Lets say the UK is conquered.
If it goes to Germany, does Germany get more MPPs because it is across the channel than if Japan was in control of it? I don't recall seeing a convoy route from the UK to Japan.

I say a landlocked area was surrounded by enemy controlled territory, do those MPPs still go to the major faction controlling it or are they cutoff and provide zero?

Thanks

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 13

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/11/2019 11:34:01 AM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

The way the game engine is setup, if there is a convoy relationship scripted, then the only way to receive those MPPs is via a convoy, otherwise they gain those MPPs just by owning them through occupation, i.e. connected or not. So in the case of Japan gaining UK territory through UK surrender, they would collect those MPPs the same way they would other occupied territory as there is no convoy relationship.

Landlocked and surrounded occupied territory wouldn't alter this either, however the rate of collection would be lower as there would be no direct supply to this territory so the occupational efficiency would be much lower etc.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mercutio)

Post #: 14

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/11/2019 12:57:18 PM

jackharry

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/21/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

quote:

ORIGINAL: jackharry

I have had two games where Japan has surrendered due to low morale rather than capitals. In both cases they surrendered to China, who only held a small section of north west China, never mind any of Japan. Southern and parts of central and eastern China had been liberated by a combination of USA, Australia and India, however all of Korea, Japanese home islands and Manchuria were still held by Japan.

In this case how could it calculate that China held more of Japan than anyone else, or are there different rules in this scenario?

Hi Jackharry,

Can you confirm that the Chinese did not have at least a single unit on Japanese home territory? For example, just a single Chinese unit in Korea (which is considered Japanese home territory in game) would cause Japan to surrender to China if no other home hex was occupied by any other Allied nation.

As mentioned above, only home territory counts, so southwest China, Manchuria etc., would not factor in to the calculation.

Additionally I just ran a test to confirm the functionality of the routine on my end and if let's say Japan were to reach 0% National Morale, and all of its home territory was still intact and not occupied, then Japan in this case would not surrender. Again it would only surrender until some home territory is occupied, and to the nation that occupies the most of those occupied hexes.

Hubert

On both occasions the Chinese only had a small number of units in the north west corner and they were hanging on by their fingernails. There were no allied units in Korea or the Japanese home island, unless Iwo Jima, Okinawa or Mariana Islands count in which case they were occupied by the USA.

In both games Japan surrendered to the Chinese when their moral got down to 0%. I do have a save for one of the games but unfortunately it is many turns after the surrender.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 15

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/11/2019 1:01:45 PM

jackharry

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/21/2016
Status: offline

The current game where this has happened is version 1.02, and I think the first time was 1.01

(in reply to jackharry)

Post #: 16

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/11/2019 7:28:59 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Thanks Jackharry, and I can say that this part of the code hasn't changed since v1.00, so if you come across something like this again, please do alert me so I could take a look at a saved game and investigate further.

_____________________________

(in reply to jackharry)

Post #: 17

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/15/2019 10:49:47 AM

jackharry

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/21/2016
Status: offline

I have just finished the game where Japan surrendered to China. In the very last move in 1947 Germany surrendered due to low morale to....China! USA had invaded southern Germany and held Munich, but where still at the Belgium border, while the UK held Hamburg in the north but no other parts of Germany where in Allied hands.....except the area of the old Soviet Union around Tashkent and down to the Iranian border. I guess they held more "German" territory there than the Allies in the west but it definitely seems an anomaly. Perhaps the old Soviet Union territory shouldn't count as German home territory

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 18

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/16/2019 6:46:50 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Hi Jackharry,

You don't happen to have a saved game from right before Germany surrendered? If you do I would love to take a look, thanks.

Hubert

_____________________________

(in reply to jackharry)

Post #: 19

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/16/2019 7:20:09 PM

jackharry

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/21/2016
Status: offline

Hi Hubert

Yes, I'm pretty sure that i do have that save game, although I am a bit of a technophobe, you will have to tell me how I send it to you!

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 20

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/16/2019 11:55:46 PM

Mercutio

Posts: 256
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline

Hi jackberry,

The save is in
C:\Users\(your name)\Documents\My Games\Strategic Command WWII - World at War\Save
Actually browsing it will probably say this pc\Documents\My Games\Strategic Command WWII - World at War\Save
There you will see the saves listed (year, month, day in the game) with a .dat and .sav file. Attach those to your email and away you go.

Hope this helped.

(in reply to jackharry)

Post #: 21

RE: Now I've seen everything - 7/18/2019 5:08:56 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Thanks for the file and yes because that territory near the Caspian had all become German, and because there were significant numbers of Chinese units there, it resulted in the Germans surrendering to China. We will be looking into an alternate handling of this to ideally have this work out more intuitively.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mercutio)

Post #: 22