Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support



Message

Monadman -> Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 5:16:54 AM)

. . . .



bresh -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 12:02:12 PM)

LC8, im guessing thats when both MPs are not allied ?
Else im not sure why this should be a bug, that they join forces ?

Regards
Bresh



Mardonius -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 2:48:16 PM)

Monadman:

You may want to add this one as well: The owner of a non-besieged Constantinople can elect to allow trade or not allow trade from the Black Sea. See Avalon Hill rule book page 24 8.2.1.2.1.3 "ports on the Black Sea can only trade if given permission by the major power controlling Constantinopole (sic)."

Perhaps a check box in the Turkish trade options that could be defaulted "yes" if Constantinople is enemy occupied/besieged.

best
Mardonius



bresh -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 3:26:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Monadman:

You may want to add this one as well: The owner of a non-besieged Constantinople can elect to allow trade or not allow trade from the Black Sea. See Avalon Hill rule book page 24 8.2.1.2.1.3 "ports on the Black Sea can only trade if given permission by the major power controlling Constantinopole (sic)."

Perhaps a check box in the Turkish trade options that could be defaulted "yes" if Constantinople is enemy occupied/besieged.

best
Mardonius



As you mention yourself, its not just Turkey but The OWNER of non-Besigged Constantinople, who controls the trade.

So every nation beside Russia would need that box. Case they had gained the control somehow.
Even GB since GB could be blockading the other ports, so that the Russian US-trade went through the black sea.

Regards
Bresh



Mardonius -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 3:48:10 PM)

True, Bresh. I was settling for the 99% solution.

best
Mardonius



bresh -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 3:57:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

True, Bresh. I was settling for the 99% solution.

best
Mardonius


Still its not really a bug :)
So better put under its own thread.

Regards
Bresh



eske -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 4:37:09 PM)

LAND PHASE:
Moving the same factors two (or more) times.
Move a corps to an area with second corps and a depot (build depot there). Transfer factors to depot. Now transfer factors from depot to second corps, which have not moved yet. Move second corps.

Don't know if this has been reported before...



bresh -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 5:09:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eske

LAND PHASE:
Moving the same factors two (or more) times.
Move a corps to an area with second corps and a depot (build depot there). Transfer factors to depot. Now transfer factors from depot to second corps, which have not moved yet. Move second corps.

Don't know if this has been reported before...



Works same for garrisons. Which both where allowed in EIA rules, since you moved 1 corps at a time. And you where allowed to detach/absorb factors from depots+cities. Though, so no bug really.

You might have had some House rule that didnt allow this, but its leagal if just follow EIA rules, section 7.3.3.

Regards
Bresh



ecn1 -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 7:16:29 PM)

I checked, and havent seen this bug posted.

This is a pbem game.

1. Russia is attacking Denmark. Russia has taken Copenhagen. Russian Fleet (19ships) is blockading Danish Fleet (19 ships) in copenhagen

2. Danish auto evacs after Spanish land phase and before french diplomacy (note, I think this is incorrect also, should it not have been at the beginning of next naval phase)

3. Log says battle is fought, Denmark wins auto evac, but the blockading Russian fleet has disappeared. All 19 ships are gone. Obviously, it is impossible for them to have been all killed, at max the danes could have only kills 4-5 ships.

I have attached the sav file of what happend after spanish land phase (its french diplomacy phase after evac)....I am the host, so its the UK sav file...

erik



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 7:26:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman
D16 DIPLOMACY PHASE
Problem: Mack and Charles show up in France’s victory conditions screen when France is holding them as prisoners.
File: Prisoner leaders as conditions.sav
Status: Confirmed bug – Pending

This is not a bug. Leaders certainly SHOULD show up in the victory conditions screen if captured. For example, let's say that GB captures Napoleon somehow. A rule change here would prevent GB from taking "remove Nappy" as a condition, and thus take away the possibility of the "optional rule" or "house rule" that GB has to take Nappy as a peace condition.

Furthermore, it would be trivial for a power to prevent losing a leader: Place each leader they want protected onto a 1-factor corps. Then, make a suicide run into an opposing stack with each of these corps. Presto! No (good) leaders taken as victory conditions.

I think it might be better to make a note that the leader is currently captured. Perhaps change the color of the entry or something like that.



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 7:40:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman
L24 LAND PHASE
Problem: Unable to disembark from sea area 18 into La Rochelle
File: L24-Sea area 18 into La Rochelle
Status: Confirmed bug – Pending

I believe that the problem in this one is that the sea zone is not "connected" to La Rochelle. Even when unblockaded, if a fleet tries to go NW out of the port, it always goes SW for the first movement point, and then to the sea zone targetted.



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 7:43:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eske

LAND PHASE:
Moving the same factors two (or more) times.
Move a corps to an area with second corps and a depot (build depot there). Transfer factors to depot. Now transfer factors from depot to second corps, which have not moved yet. Move second corps.

Don't know if this has been reported before...


I don't believe this is a bug. This is the way it is supposed to work, I think.



Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 10:47:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman
D16 DIPLOMACY PHASE
Problem: Mack and Charles show up in France’s victory conditions screen when France is holding them as prisoners.
File: Prisoner leaders as conditions.sav
Status: Confirmed bug – Pending

This is not a bug. Leaders certainly SHOULD show up in the victory conditions screen if captured. For example, let's say that GB captures Napoleon somehow. A rule change here would prevent GB from taking "remove Nappy" as a condition, and thus take away the possibility of the "optional rule" or "house rule" that GB has to take Nappy as a peace condition.

Furthermore, it would be trivial for a power to prevent losing a leader: Place each leader they want protected onto a 1-factor corps. Then, make a suicide run into an opposing stack with each of these corps. Presto! No (good) leaders taken as victory conditions.

I think it might be better to make a note that the leader is currently captured. Perhaps change the color of the entry or something like that.


Okay Jimmer, fair enough, but I reworded the issue (D16) because we still have a bug buried in there.

Thanks

Richard




Grognot -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 10:49:20 PM)

ecn1 --

Must be the same bug I reported where my Prussian-controlled Danish fleet broke through a Turkish blockade (voluntarily -- it wasn't an evacuation) and the Turkish fleets scuttled themselves instead of retreating.  I would not be entirely surprised that it's relevant that in both our cases, it was a minor fleet that won).




Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/11/2008 11:02:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

Okay Jimmer, fair enough, but I reworded the issue (D16) because we still have a bug buried in there.

Thanks

Richard


No problem.



Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/13/2008 5:58:24 PM)

FYI . . .

Manual changes, that will be added to the next addendum file (1.02b), will now be posted at the end of the latest bug list.

All three currently listed involve deviations due to programming issues.

Richard



pzgndr -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/14/2008 3:32:41 AM)

quote:

FIXED: Text in current reinforcements window is overlapping


I noticed one example where there is still a little overlap. Not much, but if '(Winter)' could be moved to the right by a few pixels then that would be good.



[image]local://upfiles/11380/762D68D17F604888837A28AE7361937C.jpg[/image]



Grognot -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/14/2008 4:58:23 AM)

Seeking clarification re:

L19 LAND PHASE
From: pzgndr
Problem: When a major power garrisons a minor country first and then a common enemy of that minor country was to garrison that minor AFTER the first, the program gives immediate control to the second major power and will eventually allow the newcomer to steal the conquest.
File: Stealing conquests.sav
Status: Confirmed bug – Pending
----------------------

Does this mean that if two powers meet the conquest criteria -in the same month-, that the order of the land phase is used to break ties?  Or is this referring to a case where a second player enters, in the same month that control -would- have been transferred to the former (e.g. player A beats garrison in month I, player B enters in month I+1)?






Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/14/2008 6:34:43 AM)

Found a big movement bug in 1.02. Check out the picture. The third Swedish corps is trying to move to the space immediately east of where it is now. The message (see the log entry) says "Complicated path! Try smaller number of areas!"

Last I checked the minimum movement one can make and still move is one space, which is exactly how far this space is away.

You can kind of see the issue by the white borders, which stop at the depot.

I suspect that the fix for the retreating problem up there broke the movement process.



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/14/2008 6:40:08 AM)

OK, it's even worse than that. Use the same saved game as my last post, but go a little further: Actually try to hit the end phase button, and up comes a notice that the Swedish corps is out of supply. One space from a depot, and out of supply.



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/14/2008 7:13:15 AM)

The "vanishing corps counter" problem is still in force, I believe. I uploaded the saved game from the beginning of the land combat phase, AND after the battle. Davout and a Swedish corps battled Bagration up in Finland. I pulled assault against Russia's defend, so naturally I lost (losing 2 inf and 1 cav in the process). Bagration had no cav, so there shouldn't have been any pursuit. So, I should have had the corps with 5i and 1c left, along with Davout.

Instead, they're all captured.



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/14/2008 7:16:42 AM)

You can use the saved game from the last post(s) for this one.

France controls the English Channel. But, GB moves a light fleet there. France, with four minor fleets (2 Holland and 2 Sweden) attacks. However, because I want to continue holding the channel, I set the standing orders to "intercept weaker" and in all areas.

But, twice now, GB has moved a small light fleet into the Channel, and no roll was made for me to intercept. I suspect the orders are getting wiped out by the battle (even though I won), but this seems wrong.



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/14/2008 8:01:44 AM)

Nasty bug:

I couldn't take a picture of this, because the game got into an infinite loop.

During my movement phase, I had the Portuguese corps attack the British cav corps that was (unwisely) trying to be tougher than it is. I actually did this, though, by moving it out of the city during the reinforcement phase, thinking to prevent the Brits from running away. Previously, it had been inside the city, but the Brits were not besieging me, just sitting there.

Anyhow, I do all my land movement, and then all my combats. After this, the Spanish move and force the Portuguese to retreat. The Portuguese fleets are forced to evacuate. In the battle that ensues, I noted that both fleets caused three casualties to the opposing fleets. I did NOT notice which fleet (Spanish or British) was chosen to intercept.

Anyhow, at this point, I got an access violation. I saved it to the clipboard, and then I had to kill the game. This was because I could not exit the window. Every time I hit "done", it gave the access violation message. Sorry, no, I did not write it down; I was expecting to use the picture.

Anyhow, the saved game is just prior to France's land phase, which should have been just prior to GB's.



Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/14/2008 8:07:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

Seeking clarification re:

L19 LAND PHASE
From: pzgndr
Problem: When a major power garrisons a minor country first and then a common enemy of that minor country was to garrison that minor AFTER the first, the program gives immediate control to the second major power and will eventually allow the newcomer to steal the conquest.
File: Stealing conquests.sav
Status: Confirmed bug – Pending
----------------------

Does this mean that if two powers meet the conquest criteria -in the same month-, that the order of the land phase is used to break ties?  Or is this referring to a case where a second player enters, in the same month that control -would- have been transferred to the former (e.g. player A beats garrison in month I, player B enters in month I+1)?




Grognot,

First to occupy (gain control of) the minor’s capital city should get the conquest.

Richard




Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/14/2008 8:45:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

Grognot,

First to occupy (gain control of) the minor’s capital city should get the conquest.

Richard



Is this a change? In the original rulebook (for EiANW), it says that it's based upon the size of the garrisons there.

If it IS a change, I would like to see it go to the power that declared war directly on the minor, as opposed to the one who happens to go first in land movement (or, the one who got lucky and broke in).



ndrose -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/15/2008 1:23:51 AM)

Jimmer, I've been looking at your Swedish movement problem, and don't get exactly the same results you do, though there are a couple of glitches.

First of all, the file you attached doesn't exactly match the jpg, inasmuch as in the file there's no depot under the Swedish corps, and all your depots are in use. However, if I destroy a depot elsewhere and build it in Sveaborg, the corps is in supply--up to a point.

When you first click on the corps, its potential movement ends at the Russian depot to the east, but it can actually move farther; you just have to decide whether to eat the depot or not. If you say yes, you have to stop there (as per the rules). If you say no, you can continue.

However, clicking movement is a little awkward on the map there--at least with my display. If you're in the space between Sveaborg and Viborg, and click on Viborg, it looks as if you haven't moved (though actually the counter shifts microscopically to the right). Nevertheless, it registers as being in the Viborg area. You can continue as far as St Petersburg, which is as far as you should be able to go.

Now, the supply is a problem, but I'm not sure whether this is a bug or not; I think it is, but it may be a gray area. If you remain in Sveaborg on your depot, you're in supply. If you go one space east, you're in supply. But if you cross the frontier to Viborg or beyond, you're out of supply, even though you're not out of range of the depot.

I suspect this is because France and Russia are not at war, and so--although you can use French depots to supply the Swedish corps--the game doesn't want you to trace "French" supply through Russian territory. I think you probably should be able to, since Sweden is at war with Russia, and it's a Swedish corps and the supply originates in Swedish territory; but I guess it's debatable.

Nathan Rose



Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/15/2008 2:02:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

Grognot,

First to occupy (gain control of) the minor’s capital city should get the conquest.

Richard



Is this a change? In the original rulebook (for EiANW), it says that it's based upon the size of the garrisons there.



Jimmer,

You may be confusing this with section 13.5.4. Anyway, I’ll clarify this matter by adding the following text to the in-game manual and addendum.

ADDITION
Section: 13.5 City Occupation
Subsections: 13.5.1 and 13.5.2
Add the following note to the end of both subsections

Note: when there is more then one major power at war with a common enemy, the program will give priority for control to the major power that garrisons the capital city first.

Richard



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/15/2008 2:26:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ndrose

Jimmer, I've been looking at your Swedish movement problem, and don't get exactly the same results you do, though there are a couple of glitches.

First of all, the file you attached doesn't exactly match the jpg, inasmuch as in the file there's no depot under the Swedish corps, and all your depots are in use. However, if I destroy a depot elsewhere and build it in Sveaborg, the corps is in supply--up to a point.

When you first click on the corps, its potential movement ends at the Russian depot to the east, but it can actually move farther; you just have to decide whether to eat the depot or not. If you say yes, you have to stop there (as per the rules). If you say no, you can continue.

However, clicking movement is a little awkward on the map there--at least with my display. If you're in the space between Sveaborg and Viborg, and click on Viborg, it looks as if you haven't moved (though actually the counter shifts microscopically to the right). Nevertheless, it registers as being in the Viborg area. You can continue as far as St Petersburg, which is as far as you should be able to go.

Now, the supply is a problem, but I'm not sure whether this is a bug or not; I think it is, but it may be a gray area. If you remain in Sveaborg on your depot, you're in supply. If you go one space east, you're in supply. But if you cross the frontier to Viborg or beyond, you're out of supply, even though you're not out of range of the depot.

I suspect this is because France and Russia are not at war, and so--although you can use French depots to supply the Swedish corps--the game doesn't want you to trace "French" supply through Russian territory. I think you probably should be able to, since Sweden is at war with Russia, and it's a Swedish corps and the supply originates in Swedish territory; but I guess it's debatable.

Nathan Rose

Yes, I built the depot during the turn. But, the saved game files are from the beginning of the phase.

Actually, I didn't want to go to Viborg. I just wanted to go one space east, and it wouldn't let me. Quite possibly for the "messed up" stuff you point out.

Try attacking the corps one space north of Sveaborg. In that space, I'm supposedly out of supply.



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/15/2008 2:27:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman
Jimmer,

You may be confusing this with section 13.5.4. Anyway, I’ll clarify this matter by adding the following text to the in-game manual and addendum.

ADDITION
Section: 13.5 City Occupation
Subsections: 13.5.1 and 13.5.2
Add the following note to the end of both subsections

Note: when there is more then one major power at war with a common enemy, the program will give priority for control to the major power that garrisons the capital city first.

Richard


Got it. That will make it match the way the game works.

Now, about that "first come, first served" issue ...



ndrose -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/15/2008 4:15:23 AM)

Huh, that's strange. I installed the patch today, and thought I had looked at Jimmer's files with 1.02, but either I was using 1.01 or there's some random variation in behavior, because now I'm seeing the same problem he reports.

Actually, even when you first build the depot and are sitting right on it, you're out of supply.

I was able to move to the space to the east of Sveaborg, but only by moving west first, then two spaces east. Not only that, but if you move back east one space at a time, so that you click back in Sveaborg then try to go east, the game won't let you. But you can hop over it from the space to the west. Which is...odd.

Nathan



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.033203