RE: 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

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/20/2008 3:03:17 PM)

Got it.
I think it's a little deeper than a typo.
I'm concerned about the PS slipping into instability then coming out. I'll do some digging...




bresh -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/23/2008 12:03:15 AM)

Apparently "new" bug, not sure, never notiched it before, since i tried new opening move for Turkey.

1.02K was in pbm. Should be recreatable.

Game wants to use sea supply, while legal depot is in same area as corps. And when i tried, the depot spot was even a supply source,(Turkish controlled Jerusalem).

Regards
Bresh



testcase4321 -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/23/2008 4:38:34 AM)

Im having a problem in v. 1.02K with the game seeming to enter an infinite loop. Im playing russia, its July of 1805. I just conquered chechnya and the game says "Invalid floating point operation". At that point the system switches me over to France for the land segment. I then have to process two land segments for France, and it brings me back to the Russian land phase. I cant seem to move beyond this loop . . .

Id also like to add that every time it brings me back to the Russian land phase, I still have to pay for supply costs. So, Im slowly running out of cash. . .



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/23/2008 2:29:47 PM)

Testcase4321:

Can you email me the saved game files (game.dat.sav and game.dat) right before you end your pahse and go into the loop?

marshalle@matrixgames.com






WJPalmer1 -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/23/2008 5:16:19 PM)

We're also having a "show-stopper" problem in our PBEM game which popped up just as our group updated to 1.02k.

-Turkey is attempting to conduct its May 1806 Diplomacy Phase;
-Upon clicking "End Current Phase" the game message appears, "Awaiting results from Great Britain for battle of Tunis" (Note: Turkey and Britain successfully resolved a battle in Tunis several months earlier and we've confirmed that there are no old battle files lurking in anyone's Battles folder);
-After clicking "OK", the program opens up Turkey's Battles folder apparently looking for a non-existent Tunis battle file
-With no resolution possible to this phantom battle, the game fails to produce a new Diplomacy Phase file for Turkey which has completely halted game progress.

We would much appreciate any advice as to how to move our game ahead. Do we need to revert to 1.02j or some earlier version? As it is, we're completely stuck, even after attempting to "dummy up" a blank battle file.

Current game files are attached...

Thanks,
Ron



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/23/2008 5:19:04 PM)

There's a problem trying to add a free state's corps counter to a valid location outside of that free state's borders. In this case, GB owns Sweden as a free state. There are several British corps in Portsmouth, plus one Swedish corps and four Swedish infantry. There's even a depot, although that shouldn't matter (all that's required is a friendly corps and at least one factor to put into the new corps.

Attempting to select and place another Swedish corps there returns "You cannot place that type of counter there."

I can add a saved game, if needed, but I suspect this one is trivial to reproduce.



Spartan07 -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/29/2008 2:35:55 PM)

bump...Any news on this display bug?

Mike



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/29/2008 3:44:45 PM)

Mike:

I have not been able to dup this. I did take the engine to a smaller system with less memory to see if this was the issue but was unable to get the lower right quad (Or any other quad) to corrupt itself???  Can you make this happen regularly (somewhat)?



Spartan07 -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/29/2008 4:00:38 PM)

Marshall,

It happens after loading a few Pbem files. Normally will occur after loading 6 or 7 files.

Mike



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/29/2008 6:01:54 PM)

There's still an old problem that seems to have gotten lost (or, at least was still happening at 1.02g):

These steps are in order, and the order matters:

1)  One corps is besieging a garrison (use free factors for this example)
2)  Corps from the besieged nation tries to break the siege by sending in some corps to relieve the siege.
3)  Siege is lifted temporarily
4)  Factors inside the city forage. Note that the siege is currently "off", so the factors forage for free.
5)  Battle is fought
6)  Besieger wins
7)  Besieger is NOT besieging the city any more, but is in the field after combat

Steps 4 and 7 both violate the rules. Step 7 is obvious: The besieger should always be consider besieging until either defeated or its next turn.

Step 4 is not so obvious, but is clear: The factors in the city should forage using the city's spire values, minus 1 per five full factors. This never actually happens if the siege is temporarily broken (regardless of whether the battle is won or lost).

The way it SHOULD work (per the rules) is:

1)  One corps is besieging a garrison (use free factors for this example)
2)  Corps from the besieged nation tries to break the siege by sending in some corps to relieve the siege.
3)  Siege is lifted temporarily
4)  Factors inside the city forage. These factors must forage using the city's spire value and negative modifiers due to high factor count (-1 per 5 factors present), despite the possibility that the siege will be lifted.
5)  Battle is fought
6)  Besieger wins
7)  Besieger is replaced into "besieging the city" position

Obviously, if the attempt to break the siege is successful (step 6 has the opposite result), then step 7 would change to "Besieger retreats ...". However, step 4 should NOT change, because it occurred prior to the siege actually having been lifted.

This is a major problem tactically. By the rules, if someone puts a 1-factor garrison in place, I have two chances to conquer the city: When I attempt the break-in roll, and again the next time that garrison forages. But, if a simple one-factor corps is sent against my besieging force, the factors do not forage at all (unless they are in a corps -- and THAT gets REALLY ugly; try it some time).



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/29/2008 6:57:54 PM)

Jimmer:

I do remember this now BUT did not have this on my list.
Basically, a siege should only be relieved IF the relieving force wins, correct?







Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/29/2008 8:14:42 PM)

Correct. Also, the foraging of a besieged corps, even if temporarily the siege is lifted, should still occur at whatever the city-supply value would have been had there been no battle (# of spires -1 per 5 factors present).

EDIT: I realize the programming ramifications that caused you to do it this way in the beginning. It makes sense from a programming perspective. So, I wouldn't remove the "siege is temporarily lifted" code or change it substantially. What is needed are two changes:

1) Have the garrison "remember" that it was besieged at the beginning of land movement, and forage based on that value, regardless of attempts to lift the siege.

and

2) Change the code so that the besieging corps is placed back into "besieging" status after a failed attempt to lift the siege.

These two should be easy to write into the code, without modifying the underlying structure a great deal (in fact, I think only number one would require any structural change, and that would be relatively small).



NeverMan -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/29/2008 8:27:53 PM)

Not sure if this is a bug or not.

I am playing Russia. I was attacked by the French in Hamberg, I lost and was retreated. On my land movement phase I moved into Hamberg to attack. Then on my land combat phase, it wouldn't let me create a battle file as it kept saying "Awaiting Battle File from Opponent" after the battle was done and I was retreated by the computer AND it was my turn. SO, I couldn't attack the French corps that were sitting in Hamberg (no, they were not in the city, I tried to move into the city and got the "move blocked" message).

On top of that, I then tried to hit "End Current Phase" button and it worked. It's now not my turn anymore, it's Turkey's land phase. ALSO, I have 4 Russia Corps happily sitting with French Corps in Hamberg apparently just chillin' out.

Does that sound like a bug?

EDIT: The host had to create a backup from the last players move. THEN I had to make sure all previous battle files were deleted before loading the backup saved game, then and only then was I able to go ahead.

This is a bug. You shouldn't have to manually delete files in order for the game to work properly.



Howard7x -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/29/2008 8:37:51 PM)

So, its still not ready to play even with the 1.02 patch? Im looking forward to this game but prehaps i should wait till all this beta stuff is over with??

Ive read through some threads but all this talk of 1.02k beta this and that is confusing the hell outta me.

What do i get if i buy the game today? Is it still bug ridden. I dont want to be patching a game every month. Id rather wait till its all ironed out.

Cheers



gwheelock -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/30/2008 2:20:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Not sure if this is a bug or not.

I am playing Russia. I was attacked by the French in Hamberg, I lost and was retreated. On my land movement phase I moved into Hamberg to attack. Then on my land combat phase, it wouldn't let me create a battle file as it kept saying "Awaiting Battle File from Opponent" after the battle was done and I was retreated by the computer AND it was my turn. SO, I couldn't attack the French corps that were sitting in Hamberg (no, they were not in the city, I tried to move into the city and got the "move blocked" message).

On top of that, I then tried to hit "End Current Phase" button and it worked. It's now not my turn anymore, it's Turkey's land phase. ALSO, I have 4 Russia Corps happily sitting with French Corps in Hamberg apparently just chillin' out.

Does that sound like a bug?

EDIT: The host had to create a backup from the last players move. THEN I had to make sure all previous battle files were deleted before loading the backup saved game, then and only then was I able to go ahead.

This is a bug. You shouldn't have to manually delete files in order for the game to work properly.


I think that this happened because we had >2< battles of Hamberg (one on the
French combat phase & one on the Russian) & the program got confused with
leftover files. What I would suggest is that at the end of the land MOVEMENT phase
(when the .pbm file is created); that ALL battle files (only for the named game in question
of course) be deleted. This would prevent a "slop-over" from one player's combats
into anothers.



eske -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/30/2008 1:02:39 PM)

Persuit loss problem:

Lost a battle and got persued taking 2cav/6inf/12mil in casualty.

Only got a corps with 5inf + 2mil. Clicking that once, and 2inf + 2mil remained.
Now still needed to take 1cav/3inf/6mil, but clicking the corps didn't do nothing.

I couldn't do nothing at all and I was stuck on the battle screen. Had to terminate the program from windows.

I suppose the corps should have been emptied of remaining factors.
Come to think of it. A rule interpretation might be, that inf is downgraded to mil for persuit casualty purposes, when only 2 or 1 inf remains. That way 2inf + 5mil taking 1cav persuit would result in 1inf left.

Or maybe just that if you can't take persuit loss simply eliminate whats left. Won't make much difference.

/eske



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (5/30/2008 3:04:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Correct. Also, the foraging of a besieged corps, even if temporarily the siege is lifted, should still occur at whatever the city-supply value would have been had there been no battle (# of spires -1 per 5 factors present).

EDIT: I realize the programming ramifications that caused you to do it this way in the beginning. It makes sense from a programming perspective. So, I wouldn't remove the "siege is temporarily lifted" code or change it substantially. What is needed are two changes:

1) Have the garrison "remember" that it was besieged at the beginning of land movement, and forage based on that value, regardless of attempts to lift the siege.

and

2) Change the code so that the besieging corps is placed back into "besieging" status after a failed attempt to lift the siege.

These two should be easy to write into the code, without modifying the underlying structure a great deal (in fact, I think only number one would require any structural change, and that would be relatively small).


Jimmer:

I think I've got a pretty reasonable way to do this. I will log this as an issue and hopefully code this for 1.03! Appreciate the ping!





testcase4321 -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/2/2008 2:39:09 PM)

Ive posted a problem Im having here with EIA getting through the Spain build phase. Essentially, the game locks up when it cycles through the Spanish build part. This has now happened when Ive played England and Russia in two separate games.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/2/2008 2:42:51 PM)

testcase4321:

There is only one game file in your zip file? You sent me the "game.sav.dat". Can you send me "game.sav" file as well?




testcase4321 -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/2/2008 2:47:55 PM)

This should do it



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/2/2008 2:58:53 PM)

Testcase4321:

Runs fine with 1.02k here???
What version are you running?




testcase4321 -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/4/2008 2:44:05 AM)

Im running 1.02K, and the problem seems to be happening intermittently with the Spanish build phase for some reason. I have attached another file, part of the same game. The problem occurs within 1-3 months of this phase pretty consistently. So, hopefully you can get the problem to reoccur



bresh -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/6/2008 8:57:03 AM)

Marshall, not sure if you know.

But the siege combats during naval combat phase still happen in 1.02k

Regards
Bresh



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/6/2008 4:16:26 PM)

Bresh:

Don't happen to have a game, do you?




bresh -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/6/2008 4:44:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Bresh:

Don't happen to have a game, do you?




What files do you need ? pbm files or savefiles ?
Spain naval + Spain naval combat ?`

I might be able to recreate a savefile if you need, from a old backup.

Btw was same game you fixed a blockaded Bristol navy for Kwik E Mart.

Regards
Bresh



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/6/2008 5:35:32 PM)

OK. If you see specific case where the game will not let you pass without addressing the siege in the naval phase then save her and let me know (if you want).




bresh -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/6/2008 5:55:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

OK. If you see specific case where the game will not let you pass without addressing the siege in the naval phase then save her and let me know (if you want).





Email send.

Regards
Bresh



NeverMan -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/6/2008 6:07:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Marshall, not sure if you know.

But the siege combats during naval combat phase still happen in 1.02k

Regards
Bresh


This happens all the time, it is actually quite frequent. It has happened in both of the games I am currently in, to me and to other players as well.



bresh -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/6/2008 6:12:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Marshall, not sure if you know.

But the siege combats during naval combat phase still happen in 1.02k

Regards
Bresh


This happens all the time, it is actually quite frequent. It has happened in both of the games I am currently in, to me and to other players as well.


Thought it was fixed.
Only saw it in 1.02g games till now.

Regards
Bresh



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (6/7/2008 1:34:28 PM)

I'm on it.
Will advise...





Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.625