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

Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/19/2008 5:50:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascaris

Solo play as Austria. Game post error message during the Naval Phase with an "Invalid Floating Point Operation" error message. Pressing "OK" will leave you in the program but if you try to hit "End Current Phase" it will post a "Port must be evacuated" message.



Unfortunately, that’s because the file that the program is looking for, in order to auto evacuate, does not exist.

Thanks for those files.

Richard



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/19/2008 9:15:35 PM)

Found a new end-case bug. I don't have saved game files, but it should be trivial to reproduce:

As Russia, I have a depot in St. Petersburg. I have another depot in Viborg, one space west of St. Petersburg. Finally, I have a depot in Sveaborg. I am at war with Sweden/Finland, so Sveaborg is not a supply source. This is a valid supply chain, obviously. Supply can be traced to either St. Petersburg or to Viborg. Both are home-nation cities in controlled home-nation provinces.

I also have a fleet at sea, just outside Stockholm. It currently has no depot, but I want to build one (I'm dropping factors onto Stockholm this turn).

If I remove the depot in St. Petersburg, I should still have a valid supply chain: Viborg to Sveaborg and then via sea to the ships. However, the game won't let me place the depot.

If I leave the depot in St. Petersburg, then I can build the depot at sea.

I suspect that the game is only checking whether the port itself is a supply source, and not that it may be part of a valid supply chain that itself ends in a supply source.

If you need saved game files, I can try to reproduce it for you, but I suspect you don't need them.



Grognot -> Ice Line violation (3/19/2008 9:16:36 PM)

If you have a fleet in the sea zone NE of Stockholm (just north of the ice line), it can move into Stockholm even if it's winter, and then continue SE out of Stockholm into an iceberg-free zone.  OTOH, if you're in Stockholm during winter, you can't move NE into that iced-over zone.




Jimmer -> RE: Ice Line violation (3/19/2008 10:41:03 PM)

Excellent point: I should point out that in my previous post, I'm referring to spring (March, 1805, to be precise).



Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/19/2008 11:07:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I suspect that the game is only checking whether the port itself is a supply source, and not that it may be part of a valid supply chain that itself ends in a supply source.

If you need saved game files, I can try to reproduce it for you, but I suspect you don't need them.


Correct, I duplicated what you found. Confirmed bug. Thanks for the files.

Richard




Grognot -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/19/2008 11:09:59 PM)

Oh, my post wasn't even in reference to yours, Jimmer -- just posting what I noticed last night.  My bad for not noticing the coincidence and spreading confusion.  :p





Tater -> RE: Conq Ruski territory won't allow garrisons or corp in cities (3/19/2008 11:16:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

The first one (post #54) we have fixed in 1.02b (related issue was L26).

Edit: fixed in your game but just found another incident, of what you had described, in a test game here. Added it to bug list (L34).

The other one (not yet addressed) is listed as LC11. Thanks for the files Tater.



No problem...

One thing though...
quote:

LC11 LAND COMBAT PHASE
From: BruceSinger and Tater
Problem: Ottoman component corps does not participate in combat
File: LC11- Ottoman not fighting
Status: Confirmed bug – Pending


The Otto-corp not attacking wasn't the only thing. It also repatriated my Turkish regular corp back to Turkey (as though Naples were a MP that just surrendered).



Monadman -> RE: Ice Line violation (3/19/2008 11:57:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

If you have a fleet in the sea zone NE of Stockholm (just north of the ice line), it can move into Stockholm even if it's winter, and then continue SE out of Stockholm into an iceberg-free zone.  OTOH, if you're in Stockholm during winter, you can't move NE into that iced-over zone.





Got it - Thanks Grognot

Richard



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/20/2008 6:14:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I suspect that the game is only checking whether the port itself is a supply source, and not that it may be part of a valid supply chain that itself ends in a supply source.

If you need saved game files, I can try to reproduce it for you, but I suspect you don't need them.


Correct, I duplicated what you found. Confirmed bug. Thanks for the files.

Richard



I don't understand the "thanks for the files" comment. I didn't include them. Are you saying you need them? Or, was it supposed to say "Thanks for the bug report"?

Thanks.



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/20/2008 6:15:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

Oh, my post wasn't even in reference to yours, Jimmer -- just posting what I noticed last night.  My bad for not noticing the coincidence and spreading confusion.  :p




That's OK. It uncovered a flaw in my post anyhow.

When I get too proud to admit and correct mistakes, will somebody please remember to put some daisies near my tombstone? Thanks.



Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/20/2008 7:40:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I suspect that the game is only checking whether the port itself is a supply source, and not that it may be part of a valid supply chain that itself ends in a supply source.

If you need saved game files, I can try to reproduce it for you, but I suspect you don't need them.


Correct, I duplicated what you found. Confirmed bug. Thanks for the files.

Richard



I don't understand the "thanks for the files" comment. I didn't include them. Are you saying you need them? Or, was it supposed to say "Thanks for the bug report"?

Thanks.



Hmmmm . . . whoops, I don’t understand the comment either. Working on auto-pilot yesterday.

Richard




Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/20/2008 7:50:50 PM)

Richard,

Can you please tell me the next time you make any change to the very first post in this thread? I wrote a tool that analyzes that first post against the last iteration, and informs me of any changes. I want to test it the next time it changes.

NOTE: The tool only tracks changes in the actual bug list, not the opening paragraphs or the manual changes at the end. It stops and starts at the two rows of equal signs.

Thanks.

(P.S. Entry LC3 is missing the colon after the word "File" at the beginning of the "File" line. I found this while writing the tool. However, this change will not trigger my routine to flag me; it has to be a "real" change, not just formatting.)



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/20/2008 7:52:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

Hmmmm . . . whoops, I don’t understand the comment either. Working on auto-pilot yesterday.

Richard



< And the audience BURSTS into gales of uproarious laughter .... >



Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/20/2008 11:29:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Richard,

Can you please tell me the next time you make any change to the very first post in this thread? I wrote a tool that analyzes that first post against the last iteration, and informs me of any changes. I want to test it the next time it changes.

NOTE: The tool only tracks changes in the actual bug list, not the opening paragraphs or the manual changes at the end. It stops and starts at the two rows of equal signs.

Thanks.

(P.S. Entry LC3 is missing the colon after the word "File" at the beginning of the "File" line. I found this while writing the tool. However, this change will not trigger my routine to flag me; it has to be a "real" change, not just formatting.)


Sure, I’ll let you know the next time I make an addition.

Richard




Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 12:11:12 AM)

Thanks.

NOTE: Or, a subtraction or change to the text. Just the real text, not the labels (From:, Problem:, File:, etc, do not count).



ndrose -> RE: Commander Schmidt (3/21/2008 7:48:00 AM)

French naval phase, but what you want to watch is the Russian fleet at St Petersburg. Russia has already had its naval phase, and everything looks normal, but either the French naval phase or the beginning of the land phase triggers some weird behavior.

France is at war with Russia. The St Petersburg garrison has fallen, and a French corps is in the area, but no French troops have entered the city. Even though it is not driven out, one of the Russian heavy fleets shifts from in port to the blockade box. The other Russian heavy fleet and the transports remain in port.

This is not just some graphical weirdness. If you now move a French factor into garrison, forcing a port exit, the heavy fleets fight a battle. The surviving fleet flees to another port, while the losing fleet is scuttled.

It's a little early for the Revolution....



Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 4:48:32 PM)

Okay Jimmer, new issues (LC14 and LC15) and text (Fixed N16, N17 and LC7) were added to bug list.

Richard



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 5:13:59 PM)

Well, I officially like my tool:

I show

R13, N15, and L35 changed from "pending" to "fixed in 1.02f"

N16, N17, and LC7 changed from "pending" to "fixed in 1.02g"

Text changed in LC8

and new entries LC14 and LC15.

This REALLY helps. Now, I can see at a glance whether a newer patch note (since the last time I looked) exists, and go directly to those entries, rather than having to read the whole thing in order to figure it out.

Thanks!

Jim



Mardonius -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 5:35:54 PM)

Combat Table Losses Calculation Bug

Hello Richard: My apologies if this has been covered, but if not please include.
I was running a battle between AI Spain and solo Turkey Assault versus Counter Attack

Round 1
Turkey: Table 3-1 rolls a 4 (should be net 5) with a plus 1 modifier for a 10% casualty and 0.8 morale
Spain: Table 3-1 rolls a 4 with a minus 1 (should be a net 3) modifier for a 10% casualty and 0.8 morale
It does not look as thought he plus and minus one was being calculated.

Round 2 (if you need it)
Table 4-2 Turkey rolls a 4 with a plus 1 modifier (should be net 5) for a 15% casualty and 1.6 morale loss. (Spain Breaks)
Table 4-2 Spain rolls a 1 with a minus 1 (should be net 0) modifier for a 0% casualty and 0.4 morale loss.

The crux of the issue is apparent in Round 1 where the casualty/morale loss result was identical despite differing modifiers.

Best,
Mardonius



ndrose -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 5:55:25 PM)

In the bug list, the disappearing garrison issue is listed as "besieged garrison vanishes". I just wanted to clarify that it's not just in the case of siege; it seems to apply to any garrison in a ceded province after the original owner surrenders. Here's a savefile: French diplomacy phase, France at war with Austria; Bohemia is ceded from a previous war, and Prague is garrisoned. Austria should surrender; if it does, watch the (unbesieged) garrison at Prague: it goes away.



Mardonius -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 6:06:48 PM)

Unable to Move Garrison Off of a Depot into Capital City Garrison of Ceded Province

Situation: Turkish Depot in ceded Austrian Province can not move garrison from depot into city. Note city is capital of ceded province. Same methodology used in non-ceded Austrian province (Turkey has forced access) worked to move into non-capital Austrian city. No other forces are in the city.

I can post file if desired.

best
Mardonius.



Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 6:19:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Combat Table Losses Calculation Bug

Hello Richard: My apologies if this has been covered, but if not please include.
I was running a battle between AI Spain and solo Turkey Assault versus Counter Attack

Round 1
Turkey: Table 3-1 rolls a 4 (should be net 5) with a plus 1 modifier for a 10% casualty and 0.8 morale
Spain: Table 3-1 rolls a 4 with a minus 1 (should be a net 3) modifier for a 10% casualty and 0.8 morale
It does not look as thought he plus and minus one was being calculated.

Round 2 (if you need it)
Table 4-2 Turkey rolls a 4 with a plus 1 modifier (should be net 5) for a 15% casualty and 1.6 morale loss. (Spain Breaks)
Table 4-2 Spain rolls a 1 with a minus 1 (should be net 0) modifier for a 0% casualty and 0.4 morale loss.

The crux of the issue is apparent in Round 1 where the casualty/morale loss result was identical despite differing modifiers.

Best,
Mardonius



The “Die Roll” is really the modified roll and should probably be changed to read “Net Roll” or “Mod Roll” to clarify this.

Thanks

Richard




Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 6:42:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ndrose

In the bug list, the disappearing garrison issue is listed as "besieged garrison vanishes". I just wanted to clarify that it's not just in the case of siege; it seems to apply to any garrison in a ceded province after the original owner surrenders. Here's a savefile: French diplomacy phase, France at war with Austria; Bohemia is ceded from a previous war, and Prague is garrisoned. Austria should surrender; if it does, watch the (unbesieged) garrison at Prague: it goes away.



Got it and changed D30 to read:

Problem: Program repatriates victor’s garrisons from ceded provinces after original owner of those provinces surrenders for a second time to that victor.

Thanks again

Richard



Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 6:46:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Unable to Move Garrison Off of a Depot into Capital City Garrison of Ceded Province

Situation: Turkish Depot in ceded Austrian Province can not move garrison from depot into city. Note city is capital of ceded province. Same methodology used in non-ceded Austrian province (Turkey has forced access) worked to move into non-capital Austrian city. No other forces are in the city.

I can post file if desired.

best
Mardonius.



We have this one fixed in 1.02d (under L34 on list)

Richard



ndrose -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 7:10:58 PM)

Richard, all this 1.02 d,e,f,g stuff--is that just for you and Marshall to track changes, or are these available as patches?

Nathan



sw30 -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 7:53:12 PM)

the militia not taking losses is back.

If the round starts with morale high enough, and there are other factors, and the casualties require more than the sum of the other factors, the militia should be taken even if the morale loss passes the cutoff, it is not.

If the casualties taken is greater than the sum of ALL factors, then the battle correctly ends with a complete elimination regardless of whether or not the morale cutoff is reached or not.

If the round starts with only militia, everything is fine, whether or not the morale cutoff is reached or not.




sw30 -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 7:55:15 PM)

It looks like pursuit loss groupings are done by corps, which I don't think should be the case. If you are required to take 2 groups of pursuit losses, and you have 3 corps each with 2 inf, it looks like you only lose 4 inf, as opposed to 6.



Monadman -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 10:35:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ndrose

Richard, all this 1.02 d,e,f,g stuff--is that just for you and Marshall to track changes, or are these available as patches?

Nathan


I just changed it so that all but [d] show up as [g].

We had hoped that 1.02d would have been uploaded for everyone earlier in the week (Matrix has it) as it contained some important fixes (Complicated Path problems and problems recognizing valid depots), which were broke in 1.02.

Richard



Jimmer -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/21/2008 11:28:17 PM)

Would that be in the entries for d27 & 28, r12 & 13, n15, and l35, by any chance?

Just testing my tool. :)



Mardonius -> RE: Reporting bugs (post v.1.02) (3/22/2008 12:15:32 AM)

Ottoman Component Countries not treated as "At War" with Enemy

Situation: War between Prussia and Turkey. Multiple Constituent North African Nation's corps are in battle area(s) with Prussia. Note, that some of these North African nations are part of OE and some are not. None of them are recognized as hostile by Prussia. I believe but am not 100% certain that Austria did treat the Syrian Corps as hostile in a previous war.

best

Mardonius



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.828125