Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (Full Version)

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



Message


Zorachus99 -> Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/3/2016 8:55:43 PM)

Factories are not repaired during EOT. EOT attached.

German Eng is in Lodz, Poland, but the red factory is not repaired at the end of the turn.

Is there a way to manually repair the factory?

Thanks!





jean charles -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/4/2016 10:17:48 AM)

Do you use the Combat engineer option ?? if yes, you need an Engineer on the factorie for repair




michaelbaldur -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/4/2016 11:00:16 AM)

known bug.

you just need to pay for the repair doing production.




Zorachus99 -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/4/2016 1:58:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

known bug.

you just need to pay for the repair doing production.


So Red Factories, which should be only destroyed by Strategic Bombardment (the only way), are destroyed automatically now?

Blue factories are not? Well that is an interesting bug.

So Poland will cost 4 BP, Belgium 4BP, France 16BP, all to bring up red factories two turns late; and which should be free to repair?

Guess I still can't play this game eh? Is it easier to cheat build points into a game, or directly edit the save? Oh wait, you wouldn't answer that question if you could. It should be eaily fixable by editing the save game, but instead

Once again, paying customers get screwed, while those who didn't pay a dime for the game can use the editing tool to fix this type of problem.

Well done on greifing paying customers time and money, over and over again.




rkr1958 -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/5/2016 4:11:52 AM)

So, not ever owning or playing the paper and cardboard version of WiF my understanding of how construction engineers work is based solely on how they're implement in MWiF. So right now I'm playing with them and when the Germans, for example, capture a (red?) factory or major port those hexes are damaged. To repair the port all I need is an engineer in that hex at the end of the turn. That is, there's no cost and the damage port is repaired back to a major port on the spot. However, for the damaged factory, I need an engineer to end its turn in the hex and then I also need to pay 4 BPs for the (red?) factory hex to be repaired, which takes two turns. Based on reading through this thread it appears that I shouldn't have to pay or wait for the factory to be repaired. All I need is an engineer to end it's turn in the hex. Is that correct?

If all this is correct, then the economic impact of this feature (bug?) does seem to hit the axis much harder than the allies, especially in the early game which is so critical for the axis. So, is it correct to assume that it's better not to play with this optional rule? Or do you consider, 4 BPs and 2 turns not that big of deal? I'm just looking for opinions from the veteran WiF players whether or not it's best to use or not to use this rule as currently implement.




paulderynck -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/5/2016 4:26:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

So, not ever owning or playing the paper and cardboard version of WiF my understanding of how construction engineers work is based solely on how they're implement in MWiF. So right now I'm playing with them and when the Germans, for example, capture a (red?) factory or major port those hexes are damaged. To repair the port all I need is an engineer in that hex at the end of the turn. That is, there's no cost and the damage port is repaired back to a major port on the spot. However, for the damaged factory, I need an engineer to end its turn in the hex and then I also need to pay 4 BPs for the (red?) factory hex to be repaired, which takes two turns. Based on reading through this thread it appears that I shouldn't have to pay or wait for the factory to be repaired. All I need is an engineer to end it's turn in the hex. Is that correct?


Correct. The red factory should become available to produce in the following turn in this case, not the current turn.

If a red or blue factory is strategically bombed and destroyed that way, then you need an engineer there and it does cost 4 BPs to repair, and it takes two turns.

Until this bug gets fixed, it's best to play without the Construction Engineer option on.




rkr1958 -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/5/2016 12:33:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

So, not ever owning or playing the paper and cardboard version of WiF my understanding of how construction engineers work is based solely on how they're implement in MWiF. So right now I'm playing with them and when the Germans, for example, capture a (red?) factory or major port those hexes are damaged. To repair the port all I need is an engineer in that hex at the end of the turn. That is, there's no cost and the damage port is repaired back to a major port on the spot. However, for the damaged factory, I need an engineer to end its turn in the hex and then I also need to pay 4 BPs for the (red?) factory hex to be repaired, which takes two turns. Based on reading through this thread it appears that I shouldn't have to pay or wait for the factory to be repaired. All I need is an engineer to end it's turn in the hex. Is that correct?


Correct. The red factory should become available to produce in the following turn in this case, not the current turn.

If a red or blue factory is strategically bombed and destroyed that way, then you need an engineer there and it does cost 4 BPs to repair, and it takes two turns.

Until this bug gets fixed, it's best to play without the Construction Engineer option on.

Thanks. Follow-up question. Can factories only be damaged by strategic bombing when playing with the factory construction/destruction optional rule? I assume this rule shouldn't be played when not playing with construction engineers?




brian brian -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/5/2016 2:21:46 PM)

It is worth noting that a definite majority of players of World in Flames never bother using the Construction Engineers optional rule. If it was one that hadn't made the list of what-got-completed-when, I think it would be pretty far down any list of requests for Steve to complete. (Much like Search & Seizure should be, imo).

I can't recall the specifics of damaging Factories and bombing. I have played so long with a House Rule that captured Blue factories are automatically damaged for so long that I don't even think about it. I learned just recently that you can only destroy a Blue factory while enemy units are in the country during the Victory Check step, which would make it a bit challenging to destroy several of them in Europe, though ultimately that would produce a trivial result on the end of the game.




jean charles -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/5/2016 2:32:33 PM)

Hello,

I've a similar problem.

No problem to repair free Paris, Strasbourg and Lods red factory with an Engineer but don't work for Lyon last turn




paulderynck -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/5/2016 3:18:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jean charles

Hello,

I've a similar problem.

No problem to repair free Paris, Strasbourg and Lods red factory with an Engineer but don't work for Lyon last turn

I suspect you upgraded the version of MWiF you are using part way through your game, so that earlier red factory repair was working in the prior version. I know it worked in version 1.3.0 and 1.4.5, except the factory started producing right away, instead of the next turn.




paulderynck -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/5/2016 3:23:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

So, not ever owning or playing the paper and cardboard version of WiF my understanding of how construction engineers work is based solely on how they're implement in MWiF. So right now I'm playing with them and when the Germans, for example, capture a (red?) factory or major port those hexes are damaged. To repair the port all I need is an engineer in that hex at the end of the turn. That is, there's no cost and the damage port is repaired back to a major port on the spot. However, for the damaged factory, I need an engineer to end its turn in the hex and then I also need to pay 4 BPs for the (red?) factory hex to be repaired, which takes two turns. Based on reading through this thread it appears that I shouldn't have to pay or wait for the factory to be repaired. All I need is an engineer to end it's turn in the hex. Is that correct?


Correct. The red factory should become available to produce in the following turn in this case, not the current turn.

If a red or blue factory is strategically bombed and destroyed that way, then you need an engineer there and it does cost 4 BPs to repair, and it takes two turns.

Until this bug gets fixed, it's best to play without the Construction Engineer option on.

Thanks. Follow-up question. Can factories only be damaged by strategic bombing when playing with the factory construction/destruction optional rule? I assume this rule shouldn't be played when not playing with construction engineers?

You can also destroy blue factories and oil resources under certain conditions when using the rule. The reason to destroy blue factories is to deny their immediate use to the enemy if they retake them, you would never destroy your own. As for oil resources, it's kind of a "scorched earth" policy. I have seen the USSR destroy their own when retreating so the Germans can't use them until they meet the repair conditions.

You can certainly play the Factory (and oil) Destruction option without playing the Construction Engineer option.




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/5/2016 6:21:37 PM)

quote:

It is worth noting that a definite majority of players of World in Flames never bother using the Construction Engineers optional rule.


Absolutely correct! I have never played with it, and have never seen any game at any con play with it either. I'm not sure why its in MWiF.




rkr1958 -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/5/2016 10:40:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

quote:

It is worth noting that a definite majority of players of World in Flames never bother using the Construction Engineers optional rule.


Absolutely correct! I have never played with it, and have never seen any game at any con play with it either. I'm not sure why its in MWiF.

Thanks! It's off my list then.




Courtenay -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/6/2016 2:04:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

quote:

It is worth noting that a definite majority of players of World in Flames never bother using the Construction Engineers optional rule.


Absolutely correct! I have never played with it, and have never seen any game at any con play with it either. I'm not sure why its in MWiF.

Thanks! It's off my list then.

It is my opinion that the Construction Engineer rule is the most annoying optional rule in MWiF. Some rules favor the Allies; some favor the Axis. In my opinion, the Construction Engineer rule favors no one; it just makes the game less fun.




rkr1958 -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/6/2016 2:23:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

quote:

It is worth noting that a definite majority of players of World in Flames never bother using the Construction Engineers optional rule.


Absolutely correct! I have never played with it, and have never seen any game at any con play with it either. I'm not sure why its in MWiF.

Thanks! It's off my list then.

It is my opinion that the Construction Engineer rule is the most annoying optional rule in MWiF. Some rules favor the Allies; some favor the Axis. In my opinion, the Construction Engineer rule favors no one; it just makes the game less fun.
Wow, I feel like an idiot ever including it ... as far as I'm concerned this rule "sleeps with the fishes". [8D]




michaelbaldur -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/6/2016 8:47:53 AM)

quote:

Once again, paying customers get screwed, while those who didn't pay a dime for the game can use the editing tool to fix this type of problem.


I been putting pressure on steve to fix the bugs in solitaire. we released a finished game, and by default it is assumed that a finished game is bug free.

customers deserve a bug free game '


and for the editer, like the rest of the game, it have major issues. it is not that wonderful tool you think




brian brian -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/6/2016 2:44:03 PM)

I would say that Construction Engineers obviously has a basis in reality in that no country would have unlimited resources of Engineer type professionals and engineering equipment. So the rule simulates a certain cost of using them extensively in combat rather than in infrastructure for the war effort, and the game is ultimately about the trade-offs of command. The bulldozers of the SeaBees famously made a decent enough AFV for an infantry advance, but is that really what you want a bulldozer to be doing for you?

So much like the way the action limits frustrate the cardboard commanders despite the way similar constraints frustrated the actual human war leaders at time, Construction Engineers (and really most every logistics-limiting rule) are just not popular. What game player wants to add more constraints to their actions? I personally would rather have that handled in the background and just pretend the highest and best use for the "Funnies" of the 6th Panzer is right at the front blowing up Russians, with zero opportunity cost elsewhere. It is a game after all, though I do play with HQ Movement whenever I can.




Centuur -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/6/2016 3:17:56 PM)

Specialized personel who repaired and cleared large important production facilities and ports usually were not used in combat, unless things were very dark indeed. And if they had to be used in combat, their value was the same as for a rooky soldier...

The way the rule is written, doesn't take that into account at all. IMHO combat engineers and construction engineers were two different things in the war. Germany had large numbers of construction engineers, who didn't see the frontlines until 1944...

The combat engineers are the units which are put in the counter mix of WiF. The construction engineers aren't in the counter mix at all...







Zorachus99 -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/7/2016 1:51:17 AM)

Why use this rule?

I will steal my reasoning from another place that explains why major ports in particular need to be damaged. Factories, I care less about due to the infrequent transitions of red factories.

So:

As early as September 8th, 1944, Winston Churchill had written to his chiefs-of-staff about the importance of the Walcheren area and the port of Antwerp. September was also the month that the British started to suffer from supply problems – what was referred to as a “supply famine”. Ironically, it was the sheer success of the Allies that had brought about this problem. The Germans had put up stiff resistance around Normandy – but it had also led to the loss of the German VII Army. Once the break out from Normandy occurred, the Allies sped forward far faster than they had planned for. Paris was freed 55 days ahead of schedule and by mid-September, the Americans were approaching Aachen, which they had expected to do by mid-May 1945. Such an advance put a huge strain on the supplies that were still primarily coming in via Cherbourg. Some supplies were flown in, but only if they could be carried by plane – and this greatly limited what was carried. The American ‘Red Ball Express’ (heavy lorries converted to carry stores) started in late August. But the Germans still held out at Calais, Boulogne, Dunkirk and Le Harve, ports that could have been used

The capture of Antwerp would have solved all supply problems. The port could handle 1,000 ships at a time weighing up to 19,000 tons each. Antwerp had 10 square miles of docks, 20 miles of water front, and 600 cranes. Senior Allied commanders counted on Antwerp handing 40,000 tons of supplies a day – when it was captured. Antwerp was about 80 miles from the open sea on the River Scheldt. Between the port and the sea were the islands of Walcheren and North Beveland and South Beveland that was attached to mainland Holland by a small isthmus – all held by the Germans who could do a great deal to disrupt the flow of shipping into the port.

The Allies captured the port of Antwerp intact in the first days of September, but it was not operational until 28 November. The best efforts of the Allies could not open the major port for 2 months, while they enjoyed complete air, naval, and ground superiority.

Allowing an early turn capture of a major port without damage is a-historical IMO.




Mike Dubost -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/7/2016 3:53:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Specialized personel who repaired and cleared large important production facilities and ports usually were not used in combat, unless things were very dark indeed. And if they had to be used in combat, their value was the same as for a rooky soldier...

The way the rule is written, doesn't take that into account at all. IMHO combat engineers and construction engineers were two different things in the war. Germany had large numbers of construction engineers, who didn't see the frontlines until 1944...

The combat engineers are the units which are put in the counter mix of WiF. The construction engineers aren't in the counter mix at all...






Well, that would depend upon the army in question. Before, during, and after WWII, US practice was to use the same units for all engineering tasks.

Before the US Civil War (or the War Between the States, depending upon which side of the Mason-Dixon line is home), a young officer named W.T. Sherman was
in charge of doing riverine port upgrades and infrastructure work in St Louis.

If you read Ernie Pyle's columns he lists the tasks that engineers did in Sicily. They worked on road/port repairs, setting up clean water sources, clearing
mines, and building bridges under fire. In the PTO, the CBs were not intended to be front line combatants, but they were explicitly raised, trained, and
tasked to build ports and airfields on islands not fully secured, and did sometimes engage in limited combat.

Even today, the US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for most levees and many dams along major US rivers.

This is a case in which the rules may accurately represent practice in one or some combatants but not in others. I personally like the construction rule
because I feel it does a decent job of presenting you with trade offs.




Centuur -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/7/2016 6:21:02 PM)

Glad you enjoy it. I don't, because if you would really want to represent the way things were done in armies around the world, you should also put the right type of units in the counter mix for each army. That wasn't done at all when you look at construction engineers....

Germany alone at start should have at least 3 engineer units on the map of which two should not have any combat abilities. Germany had companies of trained construction workers (the Bautruppen) who were send in to repair infrastructure, key factories and facilities in the area's they overran during the Blitzkrieg. After the German mobilization, the Bautruppen had about 350.000 men available to them, organized in over 1.000 battallions... To have only 1 engineer division in the force pool doesn't reflect this at all, IMHO. That division is correct, when one only looks at the combat engineers which the Germans used in the front lines in 1939...

It's not the rule itself that I don't like, but the constrains of the forcepools. If you put in construction engineers, you need to have the right units for the right countries in the force pool and not only the mixed type units which were used by the US and the British (in late war, because in early war, they also had a separation between combat and construction engineers).




brian brian -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/7/2016 7:17:48 PM)

The status of the Channel ports and then Antwerp was absolutely key to the Western Front in 1944, even to the strategy behind the Battle of the Bulge attack. Such questions also figured into the campaign in Italy, including how many Engineers should be used to clear harbors vs other tasks.

But the Construction Engineers rule doesn't gain enough in that regard in World in Flames, because logistics are so simplified, and the players prefer it that way. All the western Allies have to do is park the Clark or Gort HQ on a coastal hex along the Channel, port symbol or not, and multiple Army Groups can draw supply through the hex, no questions asked. An ARMor corps per impulse could even land on the HQ, no Mulberry construction required - it's just all in the magical background. Though I hesitate to think how many Build Points the USA would have if it had to actually build all the Liberty ships needed to supply the Army in Europe, and things like Mulberries.

Any and all new restrictions or detail in the supply rules would be roundly hated by most. Gamers want to be combat commanders, not Quartermasters.

Personally I would like to see more detail in the logistics so overseas supply of large amounts of units can't be quite as ignored in the strategy. But not with the fixing-up of captured factories, I'm fine with that being "background" stuff. I wouldn't mind a simple time delay in putting a captured port to use though, perhaps a variable one. I do like detail in the game, many do not. Some computerized version of RaW 9 would be the perfect place to improve realism via finer details, using computer technology to eliminate the book-keeping headaches.




Mike Dubost -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/8/2016 3:08:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Glad you enjoy it. I don't, because if you would really want to represent the way things were done in armies around the world, you should also put the right type of units in the counter mix for each army. That wasn't done at all when you look at construction engineers....

Germany alone at start should have at least 3 engineer units on the map of which two should not have any combat abilities. Germany had companies of trained construction workers (the Bautruppen) who were send in to repair infrastructure, key factories and facilities in the area's they overran during the Blitzkrieg. After the German mobilization, the Bautruppen had about 350.000 men available to them, organized in over 1.000 battallions... To have only 1 engineer division in the force pool doesn't reflect this at all, IMHO. That division is correct, when one only looks at the combat engineers which the Germans used in the front lines in 1939...

It's not the rule itself that I don't like, but the constrains of the forcepools. If you put in construction engineers, you need to have the right units for the right countries in the force pool and not only the mixed type units which were used by the US and the British (in late war, because in early war, they also had a separation between combat and construction engineers).


We're starting to wander a bit from the subject, so I'll just leave it at saying that this is the beauty of an optional rule. Those who like a particular
option and those who don't can both be happy as long as we either find compatible groups are play solitaire.




Centuur -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/8/2016 5:57:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Glad you enjoy it. I don't, because if you would really want to represent the way things were done in armies around the world, you should also put the right type of units in the counter mix for each army. That wasn't done at all when you look at construction engineers....

Germany alone at start should have at least 3 engineer units on the map of which two should not have any combat abilities. Germany had companies of trained construction workers (the Bautruppen) who were send in to repair infrastructure, key factories and facilities in the area's they overran during the Blitzkrieg. After the German mobilization, the Bautruppen had about 350.000 men available to them, organized in over 1.000 battallions... To have only 1 engineer division in the force pool doesn't reflect this at all, IMHO. That division is correct, when one only looks at the combat engineers which the Germans used in the front lines in 1939...

It's not the rule itself that I don't like, but the constrains of the forcepools. If you put in construction engineers, you need to have the right units for the right countries in the force pool and not only the mixed type units which were used by the US and the British (in late war, because in early war, they also had a separation between combat and construction engineers).


We're starting to wander a bit from the subject, so I'll just leave it at saying that this is the beauty of an optional rule. Those who like a particular
option and those who don't can both be happy as long as we either find compatible groups are play solitaire.


And that's very true indeed...




Centuur -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/8/2016 6:05:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

The status of the Channel ports and then Antwerp was absolutely key to the Western Front in 1944, even to the strategy behind the Battle of the Bulge attack. Such questions also figured into the campaign in Italy, including how many Engineers should be used to clear harbors vs other tasks.

But the Construction Engineers rule doesn't gain enough in that regard in World in Flames, because logistics are so simplified, and the players prefer it that way. All the western Allies have to do is park the Clark or Gort HQ on a coastal hex along the Channel, port symbol or not, and multiple Army Groups can draw supply through the hex, no questions asked. An ARMor corps per impulse could even land on the HQ, no Mulberry construction required - it's just all in the magical background. Though I hesitate to think how many Build Points the USA would have if it had to actually build all the Liberty ships needed to supply the Army in Europe, and things like Mulberries.

Any and all new restrictions or detail in the supply rules would be roundly hated by most. Gamers want to be combat commanders, not Quartermasters.

Personally I would like to see more detail in the logistics so overseas supply of large amounts of units can't be quite as ignored in the strategy. But not with the fixing-up of captured factories, I'm fine with that being "background" stuff. I wouldn't mind a simple time delay in putting a captured port to use though, perhaps a variable one. I do like detail in the game, many do not. Some computerized version of RaW 9 would be the perfect place to improve realism via finer details, using computer technology to eliminate the book-keeping headaches.


Very true indeed. The limited overseas supply rule, where one has to use convoy points of TRS/AMPH to maintain supply is also something which IMHO is too arbitrary. One convoy point is absolute overkill to keep a single division in supply if you look at the tonnage that convoy point represents. The same can be said for the use of one single convoy point to keep millions of soldiers in supply too, which is also very, very strange...




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/14/2016 9:45:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Factories are not repaired during EOT. EOT attached.

German Eng is in Lodz, Poland, but the red factory is not repaired at the end of the turn.

Is there a way to manually repair the factory?

Thanks!



No, there is no way, even using debugging tools to fix the saved games with this problem.

===

The code is currently correct in how it processes captured factories. The changes to the code were made for version 2.1.2.0.

However, the changes affect what happens when the factory is captured. To whit, if the factory is undamaged, then a Factory marker is placed in the Repair Pool. If the factory was damaged prior to it being captured, then a Damaged Factory marker is placed in the Repair Pool. Visually, there is a difference in the two markers: one shows an undamaged factory and the other shows a damaged factory.

Restoring saved games where a factory was captured prior to the code changes made for version 2.1.2.0, have all captured factories in the Repair Pool as Damaged Factories. That means the major power will have to spend 2 build points and wait 4 turns to get each damaged factory back. I have no easy way to 'fix' those saved games.

I ran through the capture of Lodz twice: once with just the Factory Destruction optional rule ON and a second time with both the Factory Destruction and the Construction Engineer optional rules ON. In both cases the program did not show the Factory Repair line item in the Production/Build Units form. Instead, Lodz was made available in the following turn at the very beginning of the Production phase - with Build Points calculated based on the Lodz factory usable for Germany. Note that I placed an engineer in Lodz both times. That was unnecessary for the case where the optional rule for Construction Engineers was OFF.

EDIT: Reading the rules for Construction Engineers, I see that the program is being too generous for when a captured factory can produce.[:(] I'll make the change so the factory doesn't produce until the turn following when an engineer was in the factory's hex.




paulderynck -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/14/2016 11:50:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

That means the major power will have to spend 2 build points and wait 4 turns to get each damaged factory back. I have no easy way to 'fix' those saved games.


Hopefully that's a typo. It should be spend 4 BPs and wait 2 turns.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/15/2016 2:51:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

That means the major power will have to spend 2 build points and wait 4 turns to get each damaged factory back. I have no easy way to 'fix' those saved games.


Hopefully that's a typo. It should be spend 4 BPs and wait 2 turns.

Yeah, I had the numbers reversed.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/15/2016 2:57:49 AM)

I spent some more time investigating this problem and found that restoring a saved game was creating the problem.[:@]

Captured factories in the Repair Pool were being marked as Damaged when a saved game was restored. So, if you played a game through from the land movement phase (where the factory was captured) to the Production phase, then factory repairs were correct. But if you saved and restored the game between those two events, then all the captured factories were being incorrectly transformed into damaged factories. A subtle problem. My original testing - playing through from the Land Movement phase to the Production phase - didn't reveal the problem.

I still can't correct saved games that were damaged this way.[:(]

Version 2.1.4.0 should be out as an official update next week, with this bug corrected.




Zorachus99 -> RE: Factory Repair fails on 2.1.3.00 (1/16/2016 2:15:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I spent some more time investigating this problem and found that restoring a saved game was creating the problem.[:@]

Captured factories in the Repair Pool were being marked as Damaged when a saved game was restored. So, if you played a game through from the land movement phase (where the factory was captured) to the Production phase, then factory repairs were correct. But if you saved and restored the game between those two events, then all the captured factories were being incorrectly transformed into damaged factories. A subtle problem. My original testing - playing through from the Land Movement phase to the Production phase - didn't reveal the problem.

I still can't correct saved games that were damaged this way.[:(]

Version 2.1.4.0 should be out as an official update next week, with this bug corrected.


I admire your patience. Not exactly a workaround, but I can try to be patient for the patch, and pay a small toll of 4-6 bp repair/lost to continue the game with Lodz being damaged. Not substantially game altering, at least no more than rolling a '3' in combat.

I'm already stacked up against Belgium, so going back to the first impulse, when I took Lodz, isn't an option (and really isn't fun). I'll wait for the patch before doing the next impulse with my opponent, which has a high chance of me DOW'ing Belguim, and taking another red factory.

Thanks!




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1