Known Bugs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message


Zorachus99 -> Known Bugs (9/18/2015 8:40:24 PM)

Some people have been requesting to know if there are bugs in the current or beta versions of the game. The developer is too busy to deal with this publicly; but plenty of people have time to post the bugs that they find and are confirmed. Hopefully this will be helpful.

If you would like to post here, feel free, but please note the version you tested with to find the bug. Otherwise there is little public value.

Bugs outstanding in release 1.4.5.0 (Public release) that I know

1.4.5.0 Subs cannot intercept and initiate combat during the same impulse. They may only do either. Verified on bug list.
1.4.5.0 Advance after combat during offensive chits has issues. Reported previously, and it was claimed there was no such bug. However, if units cannot advance after combat, I'd call it a bug.
1.4.5.0 Taking additional Chinese cities generates a loop when the die roll is successful for U.S. entry.

I found these pretty quickly, I'm sure there are more that are important.




Numdydar -> RE: Known Bugs (9/18/2015 10:53:00 PM)

If you are not going to use the latest beta to describe bugs then this thread will not be of much use in my opinion. Simply because many bugs have been fixed since the last release in the betas. And to be fair new ones created :)

But describing outdated information is just going to be confusing to some people. So I would suggest to only publish bugs here as of the last beta release since that is the version that the development efforts will be continuing from.




David Clark -> RE: Known Bugs (9/19/2015 2:15:06 AM)

I'm agnostic about the value of a "known bugs list", but I definitely see the value of a "known, current bugs with work-arounds" list. For example, Steve improperly implemented a MDI, so people are constantly getting pop-up windows hidden behind other forms. The solution for this problem is straightforward, but the fact that we're still getting bug reports for it indicates that people don't know the workaround. So:

- Matrix should, at a minimum, contract a well-respected beta tester to produce and maintain a "Current known bugs and their workarounds" document, which would be stickied in the forums. This would be a paid contract position, the exact details of which would be left to people better-informed about the scale of the problem.

While I'm at it, I might as well suggest the obvious minimal steps that could be done to improve software quality:

- Matrix should contract a Delphi programmer to provide a unit test suite, covering at a functional-level 100% of all non-UI code in the codebase. Regression bugs have been a constant problem in this application. A robust testing suite could be implemented by a intern-level coder using DUnitX, and much of this process could be automated. A pre-build testing pass would ensure that previously-working functions were not changed by new updates, and would take a lot of pressure off of Steve, who could focus on new features. Again, this wouldn't require an experienced Delphi developer; function-level unit test creation is typically assigned to entry-level people as it doesn't require any domain knowledge or skill.

- A moratorium on toolchain upgrades is a no-brainer. No serious developer should change their compiler version in the midst of debugging a complex project. Deciding to take over maintenance of four upstream libraries is similarly problematic. A more professional approach to the problem would not just result in higher-quality releases to the public, but less workload and stress for the developer.

None of this really matters to me that much - I viewed the $120 I spent on the game as a sort of charitable donation to Steve, who's living that vanity-project dream that those of us stuck developing other peoples' software for a living fantasize about - if he's enjoyed the process, that's enough for me. It's tough to watch such evident frustration though, when the solutions are straightforward. This isn't the first time a software project has collapsed due to a solo developer getting in over his head, and there are ways out of the hole.







Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Known Bugs (9/20/2015 5:50:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: David Clark

I'm agnostic about the value of a "known bugs list", but I definitely see the value of a "known, current bugs with work-arounds" list. For example, Steve improperly implemented a MDI, so people are constantly getting pop-up windows hidden behind other forms. The solution for this problem is straightforward, but the fact that we're still getting bug reports for it indicates that people don't know the workaround. So:

- Matrix should, at a minimum, contract a well-respected beta tester to produce and maintain a "Current known bugs and their workarounds" document, which would be stickied in the forums. This would be a paid contract position, the exact details of which would be left to people better-informed about the scale of the problem.

While I'm at it, I might as well suggest the obvious minimal steps that could be done to improve software quality:

- Matrix should contract a Delphi programmer to provide a unit test suite, covering at a functional-level 100% of all non-UI code in the codebase. Regression bugs have been a constant problem in this application. A robust testing suite could be implemented by a intern-level coder using DUnitX, and much of this process could be automated. A pre-build testing pass would ensure that previously-working functions were not changed by new updates, and would take a lot of pressure off of Steve, who could focus on new features. Again, this wouldn't require an experienced Delphi developer; function-level unit test creation is typically assigned to entry-level people as it doesn't require any domain knowledge or skill.

- A moratorium on toolchain upgrades is a no-brainer. No serious developer should change their compiler version in the midst of debugging a complex project. Deciding to take over maintenance of four upstream libraries is similarly problematic. A more professional approach to the problem would not just result in higher-quality releases to the public, but less workload and stress for the developer.

None of this really matters to me that much - I viewed the $120 I spent on the game as a sort of charitable donation to Steve, who's living that vanity-project dream that those of us stuck developing other peoples' software for a living fantasize about - if he's enjoyed the process, that's enough for me. It's tough to watch such evident frustration though, when the solutions are straightforward. This isn't the first time a software project has collapsed due to a solo developer getting in over his head, and there are ways out of the hole.





I only upgraded the compiler (from 2010 to 2015) because I had no real choice. My old computer system was fried.

690,000+ lines of source code. 427 modules. 400+ Object Classes. 350+ forms. In my opinion, detailed unit testing of this much code is a fantasy. There are simply too many interactions: 152 phases/subphases/sub-subphases/digressions, 58 optional rules, 64 unit types, 252 'countries'. The number of special rules is seriously insane.

I spent today rewriting the description (code specifications) of the rules concerning factories. I hadn't understood the subtleties of the differences between repairing Captured and Damaged factories depending on the optional rules selected.[:(]

===

// ****************************************************************************
// Class TFactoryHex.
//
// GENERAL INFORMATION ON FACTORIES
// A FactoryHex can contain up to 3 factories. The factories in the hex are
// differentiated using an index (0-2). Red factories are always listed first
// followed by Blue and then Green. Printed factories are designated Permanent
// internally. Green factories are newly built (i.e., they are not Permanent).
// Note well that the following paragraphs about destroying, damaging, and
// repairing factories only apply if the optional rule FactoryConstruction is
// being used. The rules for repairing factories vary, depending on whether the
// optional rule ConstructionEnginneers is being used.
//
// A factory typically has no associated unit counter. Instead, the factory is
// displayed as an colored icon in the hex. This is true for all Permanent
// (Printed) and also for newly created and moved factories. At various times
// during a game, temporary unit counters are created to represent factories in
// off-map pools:
// 1 - A Production Pool (New, Repaired, or Moving factory 'reinforcements').
// 2 - The Reserve Pool (Blue or Green factories in an enemy controlled hex).
// 3 - The Repair Pool (captured/recaptured Red & damaged Red/Blue factories).
//
// There is only one meaningful difference between Blue and Green factories: a
// Blue factory that is 'destroyed' is merely Damaged, and a temporary unit
// representing the damaged factory is placed in the Repair Pool, while a
// 'destroyed' Green factory is removed from the game.
//
// BUILDING A NEW FACTORY
// Building a new factory causes a New Factory unit to be created and placed in
// a Production Pool. Once the factory arrives as a 'reinforcement', the New
// Factory unit is removed from the game and the factory icon in its arrival hex
// is modified to display a new Green factory.
//
// MOVING A FACTORY
// Moving a Blue or Green factory by rail causes a Moving Factory unit to be
// created and placed in a Production Pool. The factory icon in the departure
// hex is shown with a 'blank'. Once the factory arrives as a 'reinforcement',
// the Moving Factory unit is removed from the game and the factory icon in its
// arrival hex is modified to display an additional Blue or Green factory.
//
// Some scenarios start with the USSR having Moving Factory units in the Setup
// tray and/or a Production Pool. The USSR player can placed these factories in
// any valid city hex in the USSR. On the other hand, factories that are moved
// by a player during a game have their destinations specified by the player
// when they are first moved. Those destinations cannot be changed and the
// factory must arrive in the city hex originally chosen by the player.
//
// CAPTURING/RECAPTURING FACTORIES
// When control of a factory hex changes sides, there are 2 possibilities:
// (1) the factories are 'Captured' by the enemy, or
// (2) the factories are 'Recaptured' by the side that originally controlled it.
// For instance, Germany occupying Lille 'Captures' the factories in the hex;
// while if the Allies later occupy Lille, then they 'Recapture' the factories.
//
// Undamaged Blue and Green factories are never usable when Captured. A
// temporary factory unit is paced in the Reserve Pool for each factory. When
// the original owner retakes the hex, these factories are Recaptured and
// immediately usable.
//
// Undamaged Red Factories are immediately usable by the new owner when they are
// Captured or Recaptured, except when the optional rule ConstructionEngineers
// is being used. If that optional rule is being used, then for each undamaged
// Red factory in the hex, a TFactoryUnit is created and placed in the Repair
// Pool.
//
// Capturing or Recapturing a factory hex containing damaged factories does not
// affect the damaged factories unless they are in the process of being
// repaired. If they are being repaired, then that process is aborted and the
// damaged factory units are moved from a Production Pool to the Repair Pool.
//
// DESTROYING FACTORIES
// Factories can only be 'destroyed' if playing with the optional rule
// FactoryConstruction (which includes rules for factory destruction).
//
// There are 2 ways in which a factory can be 'destroyed':
// (1) By strategic bombing (applies to Red, Blue, and Green factories),
// (2) During the Factory Destruction phase when a major power chooses to
// destroy a Blue or Green factory using one of its land units that occupies
// the hex.
//
// If during the Factory Destruction phase a Blue or Green factory is destroyed,
// its Factory unit in the Reserve Pool is removed from the game. If a Red or
// Blue factory is 'destroyed', by either means, then it becomes 'Damaged' and a
// unit representing the damaged factory is placed in the Repair Pool.
//
// MAP DEPICTION OF CAPTURED AND DAMAGED FACTORIES
// While both Captured/Recaptured and Damaged factories are shown on the map
// with a diagonal red slash through the factory icon (indicating they are not
// usable), the text in the Main form's panel describing the factories in the
// hex is different: Captured/Recaptured factories are indicated by a 'C' and
// 'destroyed' factories are indicated with a 'D'.
//
// TEMPORARY FACTORY UNITS
// Temporary factory units are created under four circumstances, when:
// (1) a new factory is built [FactoryCreate -> RLID_UCrF -> PickFactory],
// (2) a factory is moved [FactoryCreate ...],
// (3) a factory is damaged [DamageAFactory -> RLID_FacD ->
// FactoryDamagedOnMap -> FactoryDamage ->
// PickFactory, and
// (4) an undamaged Blue or Green factory is controlled by the enemy
// [SetHexControl -> TFactoryHex.SetOwner -> PrepareMoveRemovedPool /
// PrepareMoveReservePool / PrepareMoveRepairPool / DamageAFactory ...].
//
// In all these cases the temporary factory units are placed in off-map pools so
// players can see the status of factories that are not currently usable but
// which may become usable in the future.
//
// REPAIRING FACTORIES
// When a factory hex is Recaptured, for each undamaged Blue and Green factory,
// there should be a Factory unit in the Reserve Pool. If not playing with the
// optional rule ConstructionEngineers, those units are removed from the game
// and the corresponding Blue/Green factories immediately become usable by the
// original owner.
//
// When playing with the optional rule Construction Engineers, Recaptured
// undamaged Blue and Green factories remain in the Reserve Pool until there is
// a friendly engineer in the factory's hex during the Production phase. Once
// that condition is fulfilled, the factory is repaired with zero build point
// cost and the repair is effected immediately.
//
// Repair of a Damaged (not Captured) factory in the Repair Pool is initiated
// during the Production phase by spending build points to repair the factory.
// When a factory is repaired, the Damaged Factory unit for the repaired factory
// is moved from the Repair Pool to a Production Pool to arrive as a
// reinforcement. Upon arrival, the Damaged Factory unit is removed from the
// game [ProcessReinforcement -> RLID_FcRp -> FactoryRepair] and the factory is
// shown as usable on the map (and in the Production Planning form).
//
// ****************************************************************************






nilssone85 -> RE: Known Bugs (9/20/2015 10:05:20 AM)

quote:

If you are not going to use the latest beta to describe bugs then this thread will not be of much use in my opinion. Simply because many bugs have been fixed since the last release in the betas. And to be fair new ones created :)

But describing outdated information is just going to be confusing to some people. So I would suggest to only publish bugs here as of the last beta release since that is the version that the development efforts will be continuing from.

I strongly disagree. Most of us are playing with the latest official release and it is in this version we are suffering the bugs. If there is a list of known bugs for the latest release we know it is identified, fixed in the latest beta or not...




Numdydar -> RE: Known Bugs (9/20/2015 2:20:22 PM)

Let me try again [:)]

If bug A is in the official release but fixed in a beta patch, how does saying bug A exists help the development team when they know it has been fixed? Also it would give the impression that in the months since the last official release nothing has been done to fix any of these. Which is totally false.

So I still do not see any value to describing bugs where a lot of them have been addressed is going to help anything. It is certainly not going to help the beta testers or Steve. Nor do I see how it will help the community. However, I am willing to listen as to why this would be a good idea as I just do not see it. Especially since there are a lot of people that post games in the tech forum about issues they have so it is not like the bugs are hidden/being secret. No commercial software I know of posts open bug lists, including games, so why is there such a demand for it here? It is not like any of us can do anything about them [:)]

I could also say that most of us are using the latest beta too [:)] versus the last official release. Neither of us has any data to prove the other one incorrect [:)] You may not want to use the beta but I always do. I use the betas but I am willing to have the minor risk of new bugs showing up versus playing with a bunch of bugs I know about. Since the patch notes describe what was fixed. But that is just me [:)]

If you are involved in any kind of software development, there is not any difference between an 'official' release and a beta anyway. The only difference is a legal one, not a software one. But if you think there is a huge difference between an official release and a beta one, then feel free to continue to play a game where bugs exist instead of a version where many of them have been fixed.




pzgndr -> RE: Known Bugs (9/20/2015 2:37:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: David Clark
This isn't the first time a software project has collapsed due to a solo developer getting in over his head, and there are ways out of the hole.


I don't see this project as collapsed. As Steve described, it is an insanely complicated game to program. As it has been for years and no doubt will continue for a while, it is a project in progress. So be it. Slowly but surely it is progressing.

I will continue to be patient while these latest bugs are worked through and NetPlay gets going for others. Sooner or later I will be able to play the Fascist Tide ETO scenario against a challenging computer opponent. I'll wait.




CrusssDaddy -> RE: Known Bugs (9/20/2015 11:29:29 PM)

Hey guys, Steve just learned about damaged factories, which is such a tiny part of the game. Give him a break it's only been 10 years.




Numdydar -> RE: Known Bugs (9/20/2015 11:38:45 PM)

I suppose you know every rule perfectly and could program it correctly the first time [:)]

I still wish you would provide constructive feedback than continuing to take potshots all the time. I know you can be a big help (as you have help me in the past with the game mechanics). I guess its easier making these comments versus helpful ones?




michaelbaldur -> RE: Known Bugs (9/21/2015 1:56:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Hey guys, Steve just learned about damaged factories, which is such a tiny part of the game. Give him a break it's only been 10 years.



it have been known by me and by association the team, for years. we just looked at it now, because steve just activated paying for repair of factories. before this time it was just free.

paying BP to repair factories was really low on the priority list. (as it have almost zero effect on the games playability)

it just shows that the team works, when steve got to it, we all helped to make sure it was coded right.

and when he get to the next options not yet coded, it will be coded right the first time.




nilssone85 -> RE: Known Bugs (9/21/2015 6:17:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Let me try again [:)]

If bug A is in the official release but fixed in a beta patch, how does saying bug A exists help the development team when they know it has been fixed? Also it would give the impression that in the months since the last official release nothing has been done to fix any of these. Which is totally false.

It helps ME. It stops me having to brows through pages of reports to find out if the specific bug has already been reported or not (saves me time dont having to report a bug that is already understood). Also it helps me during gameplay to make sure I dont end up in situations where there is a game-ending bug.

quote:


So I still do not see any value to describing bugs where a lot of them have been addressed is going to help anything. It is certainly not going to help the beta testers or Steve. Nor do I see how it will help the community. However, I am willing to listen as to why this would be a good idea as I just do not see it. Especially since there are a lot of people that post games in the tech forum about issues they have so it is not like the bugs are hidden/being secret. No commercial software I know of posts open bug lists, including games, so why is there such a demand for it here? It is not like any of us can do anything about them [:)]

Well no commercial software is released with this amount of bugs either...

quote:


I could also say that most of us are using the latest beta too [:)] versus the last official release. Neither of us has any data to prove the other one incorrect [:)] You may not want to use the beta but I always do. I use the betas but I am willing to have the minor risk of new bugs showing up versus playing with a bunch of bugs I know about. Since the patch notes describe what was fixed. But that is just me [:)]

This is true. I went on previous experience claiming this. The "sane" thing would be to stay on a "stable" release until a beta has been evaluated, but in this case jumping from beta to beta might be the way to go. Not sure how and where to find this magic members area though. If the plan is to do it like this an "update to latest beta"-button should be implemented in the game start up menu.

quote:


If you are involved in any kind of software development, there is not any difference between an 'official' release and a beta anyway. The only difference is a legal one, not a software one. But if you think there is a huge difference between an official release and a beta one, then feel free to continue to play a game where bugs exist instead of a version where many of them have been fixed.

I'm not part of any software development. I bought a game... a game I thought was released and "done"...




michaelbaldur -> RE: Known Bugs (9/21/2015 4:53:09 PM)

quote:

I'm not part of any software development. I bought a game... a game I thought was released and "done"...



or at least I hoped it was more bug free by now.




Numdydar -> RE: Known Bugs (9/21/2015 7:34:59 PM)

Here is the direct link to the last beta. You have to login to download it though

http://www.matrixgames.com/members/privateDL.asp?gid=296

You need to go under Community, login, and then go to 'Downloads for Registered Games'. Look for WiF and click, then you see the download.

I totally agree this should be a LOT simpler but until they do this is the way to get any patch/beta when the launcher does not support it [:(]




Courtenay -> RE: Known Bugs (9/22/2015 1:01:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Here is the direct link to the last beta. You have to login to download it though

http://www.matrixgames.com/members/privateDL.asp?gid=296

You need to go under Community, login, and then go to 'Downloads for Registered Games'. Look for WiF and click, then you see the download.

I totally agree this should be a LOT simpler but until they do this is the way to get any patch/beta when the launcher does not support it [:(]

The latest public beta has several new, fatal errors in it, introduced by the new compiler. Use it for testing purposes only, not for playing!




David Clark -> RE: Known Bugs (9/22/2015 3:48:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I only upgraded the compiler (from 2010 to 2015) because I had no real choice. My old computer system was fried.



I don't really understand this, to be honest. Delphi 5 still runs fine on 64-bit Windows 10, and it's more than fifteen years old. Could you be more specific? What exactly was the issue that made upgrading the compiler necessary?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

690,000+ lines of source code. 427 modules. 400+ Object Classes. 350+ forms. In my opinion, detailed unit testing of this much code is a fantasy. There are simply too many interactions: 152 phases/subphases/sub-subphases/digressions, 58 optional rules, 64 unit types, 252 'countries'. The number of special rules is seriously insane.



I'm not sure why you're telling me this either. I specifically said function-level unit testing. You're telling me that feature-level unit testing or integration testing are impractical - I completely agree! The advantage of testing at the method level is it can catch digressions that would invalidate the contract between function-level inputs and outputs. This (again) can be done with no domain-knowledge, and is usually assigned to junior coders. Nothing to do with what we call the 'business logic' of the application at all.

I'm sure you know all this; you must have meant something different by your reply.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Known Bugs (9/22/2015 9:32:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Clark


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I only upgraded the compiler (from 2010 to 2015) because I had no real choice. My old computer system was fried.



I don't really understand this, to be honest. Delphi 5 still runs fine on 64-bit Windows 10, and it's more than fifteen years old. Could you be more specific? What exactly was the issue that made upgrading the compiler necessary?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

690,000+ lines of source code. 427 modules. 400+ Object Classes. 350+ forms. In my opinion, detailed unit testing of this much code is a fantasy. There are simply too many interactions: 152 phases/subphases/sub-subphases/digressions, 58 optional rules, 64 unit types, 252 'countries'. The number of special rules is seriously insane.



I'm not sure why you're telling me this either. I specifically said function-level unit testing. You're telling me that feature-level unit testing or integration testing are impractical - I completely agree! The advantage of testing at the method level is it can catch digressions that would invalidate the contract between function-level inputs and outputs. This (again) can be done with no domain-knowledge, and is usually assigned to junior coders. Nothing to do with what we call the 'business logic' of the application at all.

I'm sure you know all this; you must have meant something different by your reply.


Delphi 2010 never worked correctly for the MWIF code. I spent 3 months back in 2011 trying to get the debugger to run and eventually gave up. There were other fatal errors that I devised work-arounds for but using Delphi 2010 was a real pain.

Since I had to install a fresh copy of Delphi on a virgin computer system, installing Delphi 2010 again seemed pointless. Delphi XE8 has a working debugger which is a real plus. I still have one other minor annoyance with XE8 that I had with Delphi 2010 (each global search has an individual tab in the message panel but none of them can be closed, so I typically have dozens of old tabs displayed), but that doesn't really interfere with my productivity.

The definition of function varies depending upon decade and language. If you are referring to 'function' and 'procedure' in Pascal, then MWIF has 9000+ of those.

Grabbing one at random (which has a second embedded), you can see that devising a testing routine to check this would be non-trivial.

The purpose of this procedure is part of the logic for Units Affected by the movement of other units.
.
.
.
// Case (6) A unit's movement changes the FTC restrictions on another unit.
// Code = TUnit.FTCChange CheckHQFTC
//
// If movement of U changes FTC restrictions for V, then if V moves in the
// future, U cannot undo its move unless V's move is undone first.
.
.
.


// ****************************************************************************
procedure TUnit.FTCChange(const UL: TUnitLocation; const Amt: Integer);
var
UnitC: TMinorCountry;
MapC: TGovernedArea;
ULF: TUnitLocationFull;
Co, Ro: Integer;
MULF: TUnitLocationFull;
HStack: TMapStack;
StckIndx: Integer;
StckUni: TUnit;

procedure CheckHQFTC(const U: TUnit);
var
HC: TMinorCountry;
begin
HC := UnitHomeCountryCommonwealth(U);
// ****************************************************************************
// Check if movement of Self changes FTC restrictions on U.
// ****************************************************************************
if (U.UnitType in HeadquartersSet) and
(HC = PassedMinorCountry) and
(Map.HexHomeCountry[U.Column, U.Row] = PassedCountry) and
(U.UndoData <> nil) then
begin
if (U.UndoData.UUL.UnitPlace <> upOnMap) or
(Map.Terrain[U.UndoData.UUL.Column, U.UndoData.UUL.Row] = teSea) or
(Map.HexHomeCountry[U.UndoData.UUL.Column, U.UndoData.UUL.Row] <>
PassedCountry) then
// ****************************************************************************
// Record how many movement points used by U at this time.
// ****************************************************************************
UnitAffected(PassedUnit.ID, U.ID, U.UndoData.UMPUsed); // FTC Change.
end;
end;

begin
// ****************************************************************************
// TUnit.FTCChange. FTC: Foreign Troop Commitment.
// ****************************************************************************
if UnitType in NotStackingSet then Exit;

ULF := FullLocation(UL);
// ****************************************************************************
// If the target destination is the MovingStack, then use the MovingStack's old
// location. Change the ULF to from where it was picked up.
// ****************************************************************************
if ULF.UnitPlace = upMoving then ULF := MovingStack.PickUpPoint;
// ****************************************************************************
// If target destination isn't on land then there's no foreign troop commitment
// check. Carrier air units aboard carriers do not count towards FTC.
// ****************************************************************************
if (not ULF.OnLand) or OnCarrier then Exit;

if Name = rsStilwell then UnitC := UnitedStates
else UnitC := Countries[Country].HomeCountryCommonwealth;

MapC := Map.HexHomeCountry[ULF.Column, ULF.Row];
// ****************************************************************************
// FTCNeeded returns True when Self counts towards MapC's foreign troop
// commitment.
// ****************************************************************************
if (MapC <> nil) and (MapC is TSubCountry) and FTCNeeded(MapC.ID) then
begin
if UnitType in HeadquartersSet then
UnitC.CommitmentMax[MapC.ID] := UnitC.CommitmentMax[MapC.ID] +
(TLandUnit(Self).Reorg * Amt)
else
begin // Self is not an HQ unit.
UnitC.CommitmentTotal[MapC.ID] := UnitC.CommitmentTotal[MapC.ID] + Amt;

if Amt = 1 then
begin
PassedUnit := Self;
PassedCountry := MapC;
PassedMinorCountry := UnitC;

for Ro := 0 to MapRows - 1 do
begin
for Co := 0 to MapColumns - 1 do
begin
MULF := FullLocation(Co, Ro);

if MULF.AtSea then Continue;

HStack := MapStacks[Co, Ro];

if (HStack <> EmptyStack) and (not HStack.Empty) then
begin
StckIndx := 0;

while StckIndx < HStack.Count do
begin
StckUni := TUnit(HStack[StckIndx]);

if not StckUni.Flying then CheckHQFTC(StckUni);

Inc(StckIndx);
end;
end;
end;
end;
end;
end;
end;
end;





Zorachus99 -> RE: Known Bugs (10/17/2015 3:04:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Some people have been requesting to know if there are bugs in the current or beta versions of the game. The developer is too busy to deal with this publicly; but plenty of people have time to post the bugs that they find and are confirmed. Hopefully this will be helpful.

If you would like to post here, feel free, but please note the version you tested with to find the bug. Otherwise there is little public value.

Bugs outstanding in release 1.4.5.0 (Public release) that I know

1.4.5.0 Subs cannot intercept and initiate combat during the same impulse. They may only do either. Verified on bug list.
1.4.5.0 Advance after combat during offensive chits has issues. Reported previously, and it was claimed there was no such bug. However, if units cannot advance after combat, I'd call it a bug.
1.4.5.0 Taking additional Chinese cities generates a loop when the die roll is successful for U.S. entry.

I found these pretty quickly, I'm sure there are more that are important.



2.0.2.3 Subs cannot intercept and initiate combat during the same impulse.

This bug prevents the player from learning the game correctly, and pretty much makes subs less than half as good. Sub marginal value is less.

You can play with the game as it is, but it's wrong.

No point in verifying the other bugs. They probably aren't on the list. Back to waiting for a playable version of the game.




paulderynck -> RE: Known Bugs (10/17/2015 5:10:50 AM)

In what circumstances would subs need to intercept and initiate combat in the same impulse?




Orm -> RE: Known Bugs (10/17/2015 5:52:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

In what circumstances would subs need to intercept and initiate combat in the same impulse?

When the juicy target stay in the sea area to avoid interception combat?




AlbertN -> RE: Known Bugs (10/17/2015 9:36:57 AM)

If I spend a ship into intercepting, and the enemy stops in the sea area I always need a new ship (don't remember for subs though) to be disrupted to initiate combat (assuming the phasing player does not want to initiative it himself).

Not sure if that is abug though as I read about subs.




Orm -> RE: Known Bugs (10/17/2015 12:27:52 PM)

Cut from RAC 11.6 Opponent’s naval combat

....
Your opponent simply points to sea areas, one by one, and, in each of them, designates an organized unit
(which then becomes disorganized) to initiate combat, and follows the sequence in 11.5.1. If your opponent
designated an interception unit during the naval movement step in an interception attempt (see 11.4.6), and it is still
in the sea area, he or she can use that unit to start a naval combat. Obviously the interception unit will have become
disorganized during the interception attempt, but that does not prevent it from also serving as the combat initiation
unit
.




rkr1958 -> RE: Known Bugs (10/17/2015 3:35:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Some people have been requesting to know if there are bugs in the current or beta versions of the game. The developer is too busy to deal with this publicly; but plenty of people have time to post the bugs that they find and are confirmed. Hopefully this will be helpful.

If you would like to post here, feel free, but please note the version you tested with to find the bug. Otherwise there is little public value.

Bugs outstanding in release 1.4.5.0 (Public release) that I know

1.4.5.0 Subs cannot intercept and initiate combat during the same impulse. They may only do either. Verified on bug list.
1.4.5.0 Advance after combat during offensive chits has issues. Reported previously, and it was claimed there was no such bug. However, if units cannot advance after combat, I'd call it a bug.
1.4.5.0 Taking additional Chinese cities generates a loop when the die roll is successful for U.S. entry.

I found these pretty quickly, I'm sure there are more that are important.



2.0.2.3 Subs cannot intercept and initiate combat during the same impulse.

This bug prevents the player from learning the game correctly, and pretty much makes subs less than half as good. Sub marginal value is less.

You can play with the game as it is, but it's wrong.

No point in verifying the other bugs. They probably aren't on the list. Back to waiting for a playable version of the game.


So, in this case would a workaround to this be that the intercepted unit initiates combat?

Honestly, not ever owning or playing the cardboard and paper version of WiF, and learning the rules through MWiF in the way they're coded, I thought that was the way it was suppose to be. That is, not the intercepted unit initiates combat but that a unit trying to intercept, couldn't initiate.

By the way, if a unit unsuccessfully tries to intercept, can it initiate combat?

So if the workaround works, this would be a clunky way of applying the rule in the computer version until the bug is fixed?




Zorachus99 -> RE: Known Bugs (10/17/2015 5:54:10 PM)

IMHO there are not many people who play this computerized version have experience playing the game face-to-face.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
In what circumstances would subs need to intercept and initiate combat in the same impulse?


Many.

Option 1: A single transport tries to move through the bay of Biscay where a sub lies in wait. If the sub finds the moving transport, the transport is allowed to stop in the zone, choose a box, and wait for the naval combat phase, so that searches are performed again, and the sub again has a chance to find the transport. Bug prevents the search. Phasing player has no ship to search with either.

Option 2: Many ships need to move from the Mediterranean, to the Atlantic. CV’s, BB’s, CA’s, and TRS’s are in the whole mix. Many but not all the ships have left from the same port. The phasing player moves each group through the bay of Biscay, and several rolls result in nothing, and several ships stop along the way because interception rolls were successful.

Now, why would a player stop in the sea zone, and prefer not to fight interception combat? Simply put, subs tend to search from low sea boxes, and interception confers no additional bonus. A typical success means that your search roll is good, and you found the enemy. Often when ‘fighting through’ the combat will ‘fight through’ in the ‘0’ box. This is also good for the sub, because a poor roll when fighting through can be devastating. If you get a differential of just a few surprise points, and you may well be able to choose a good effect on a single ship, or alternately target a good ship in a convoy and apply a ‘D’ or ‘X’ to it. I have seen the queens sunk, escorted heavily by other ships, just ‘trying to get lucky’, and fight through the box, assuming that it was safe vs a single sub. The 1-10 naval surprise split is devastating.

Option 3: The intercepting sub is merely intercepting to mess with movement of naval units between theaters, but plans to conduct a normal convoy raid during naval combat.
These are just a few strategic examples why…




paulderynck -> RE: Known Bugs (10/17/2015 9:35:57 PM)

If the problem had been stated originally as "2.0.2.3 Enemy Subs cannot intercept and initiate combat during the same impulse" then it would have been easy to see why it's a problem.

And option 3 is no good unless at least one naval unit stops in the sea zone. If they all move through, the sub flips itself for nothing.





rkr1958 -> RE: Known Bugs (10/17/2015 9:42:27 PM)

I'm confused. What's wrong in MWiF and how should it be?




paulderynck -> RE: Known Bugs (10/17/2015 9:54:18 PM)

If you try to intercept during enemy naval movement, you must disorganize a naval unit to initiate the interception. After naval movement, if any enemy units (that moved that same impulse) remain in the sea zone and the moving player did not choose to initiate a search, the same naval unit you used to try and intercept should suffice for you to initiate a search during the "Opponent's Naval Combat" step. (See rules quote from Orm above.)

Apparently in MWiF, that unit is not allowed to initiate a search in the "Opponent's Naval Combat" step, because it is disorganized.





Centuur -> RE: Known Bugs (10/18/2015 1:31:56 PM)

I agree with Zorachus that this bug needs to be fixed. You should be able to initiate combat...

Leaves only: when should this bug be fixed. Answer: when Steve is ready to do so.




Numdydar -> RE: Known Bugs (10/18/2015 2:20:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

IMHO there are not many people who play this computerized version have experience playing the game face-to-face.



Maybe we should take a poll [:)]. Because I have never played the board version but am playing (and learning) the computer version. As are several other people I know.

So I say that there are is a good mix of people playing the game. And would even say that most of the people playing the game (regardless of their backgrounds) are NOT experts in the way the game is played. So what is a bug to you, is not an issue for us simply because we do not know any better [:D]

That does NOT invalidate the issue nor does it mean it should not be addressed. It just means, as stated above, the game seemed to work fine the way it did versus the way it was supposed to work [:)]. Ignorance can be bliss [:D]




Centuur -> RE: Known Bugs (10/18/2015 6:04:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

IMHO there are not many people who play this computerized version have experience playing the game face-to-face.



Maybe we should take a poll [:)]. Because I have never played the board version but am playing (and learning) the computer version. As are several other people I know.

So I say that there are is a good mix of people playing the game. And would even say that most of the people playing the game (regardless of their backgrounds) are NOT experts in the way the game is played. So what is a bug to you, is not an issue for us simply because we do not know any better [:D]

That does NOT invalidate the issue nor does it mean it should not be addressed. It just means, as stated above, the game seemed to work fine the way it did versus the way it was supposed to work [:)]. Ignorance can be bliss [:D]


[:D]

However, the astonishment of seeing the loaded TRS, Queens or an expensive loaded CV being torpedoed by a lone SUB while having a lot of escorts is something which is priceless. This doesn't happen often, but when it happens it is usually in the phase where this bug is...

There are a couple of other things too, which aren't up to "WiF boardgame" standards which can have quite an effect on the game too.
Imagine that the CW has Gort in Calais, surrounded by German forces (and probably doomed). Now, the CW has the Queens available in Plymouth. They set sail, move into Calais during a naval impulse, load Gort, sail out again and drop Gort in Bordeaux in one naval move. Quite interesting, don't you think...








Zorachus99 -> RE: Known Bugs (10/24/2015 1:35:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If the problem had been stated originally as "2.0.2.3 Enemy Subs cannot intercept and initiate combat during the same impulse" then it would have been easy to see why it's a problem.

And option 3 is no good unless at least one naval unit stops in the sea zone. If they all move through, the sub flips itself for nothing.





quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Some people have been requesting to know if there are bugs in the current or beta versions of the game. The developer is too busy to deal with this publicly; but plenty of people have time to post the bugs that they find and are confirmed. Hopefully this will be helpful.

If you would like to post here, feel free, but please note the version you tested with to find the bug. Otherwise there is little public value.

Bugs outstanding in release 1.4.5.0 (Public release) that I know

1.4.5.0 Subs cannot intercept and initiate combat during the same impulse. They may only do either. Verified on bug list.
1.4.5.0 Advance after combat during offensive chits has issues. Reported previously, and it was claimed there was no such bug. However, if units cannot advance after combat, I'd call it a bug.
1.4.5.0 Taking additional Chinese cities generates a loop when the die roll is successful for U.S. entry.

I found these pretty quickly, I'm sure there are more that are important.



There is such a difference in terminology; I can see how that confuses you Paul. You see, the intercepting side, is always the non-phasing side in sub combat. I can offer more descriptions on how the sequence of combat works for naval combat, to make sure you are really squeaky clean on how the sequence is supposed to work, but really, your response here was nothing more than covering your ego at completely not understanding this bug, and why it is important. Thanks for the shade.
This was reported in 8-14-15, and ignored like all the bugs I report. No surprise there either. Trying to report bugs is like pulling teeth. It isn’t until I start knocking people sand castles down that they finally un-cross their eyes and see a problem, such as “an intercepting sub can’t ever do a thing if the unit chooses to stay in the sea zone.” How about “you have to use 2 subs to search and intercept?” Or is there a secret handshake I’m missing?
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3913761




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125