Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hey guys:

In between flights here.
What is going on?
Did you guys upgrade to 1.04 yet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
... I do feel that I was slightly mislead when deciding to join this game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Well, like I said, I attacked France because I am tired of playing EiANW and rather than drag the war out I was taking the "go big or go home" approach. It certainly wasn't a strategical mistake on my part, it was perfectly intentional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AGT4533

The lesson I learned right after I felt the sting was that it is unwise attack the large French stack. For one, it reallly just makes it less costly for France to prosecute a war if he doesn't have to go after you, and second, you open yourself up to getting to fighting three battles wihtout pause. Also, I found it to be unwise when I elected to fight a second day.

quote:

The "war" was over before it started. This game was killed the minute everyone left Prussia alone to fight France in the beginning and amazingly enough Prussia did it voluntarily without help. After that it was ALL just going through the motions.

quote:


GWheelock is one of the best EIA players you'll ever see in action

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
Object lesson number 1: Don't use the GAP directly and only once. It can be used to set up a game and show who plays what. But, then those players should negotiate whether they want to be allies, declare wars, etc. Once decided, use the GAP again, but this time include any DoWs that are desired.

quote:


But, Prussia also then performed some actions that really hurt his cause. He declared war on five minor nations in the first two months of the game. Naturally, France got control of all of them, and Prussia never had a chance to take them back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
... I do feel that I was slightly mislead when deciding to join this game.

No, I don't think so. I know I went out of my way to explain the lay of the land and to try to find some way of compensating for the bad position, but you were convinced that you would both make up the deficit and win. As I recall, I warned you that you could be wrong, but you weren't listening.

Also, France will be *A* winner. Not *the* winner. The rules have apparently been corrected, since the manual has been updated to match the original game's rules: There can be more than one winner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
... I do feel that I was slightly mislead when deciding to join this game.

No, I don't think so. I know I went out of my way to explain the lay of the land and to try to find some way of compensating for the bad position, but you were convinced that you would both make up the deficit and win. As I recall, I warned you that you could be wrong, but you weren't listening.

Also, France will be *A* winner. Not *the* winner. The rules have apparently been corrected, since the manual has been updated to match the original game's rules: There can be more than one winner.

Actually, no, you don't remember that since you apologized to me early on about forgetting to tell me the whole scenario. Only then did you catch me up to speed entirely. Please don't rewrite history.

Either way it didn't really matter. It's a lesson learned on my part and a good one at that so I didn't really lose.

quote:


We need a replacement Russian player for the CleverDevils2 game
(time constraints + computer problems on previous players end).

Russia is in a fairly good position - Owns Demark/Norway, Finland (w/out Sweden),
Holstein, Hamberg, Circassia & Cechnya

Russia is sitting in the ps25 zone with 6% of 343 VPs (bid was 8)

Russia is currently allied with Britain, Austria & Prussia vs France.

It is the Russian naval phase of Dec 1805.

For details on the current status of the game; please look at the
"CleverDevils2 AAR"

Game is in GMT -6 with a 24 hour turnaround.

Anyone interrested; please email me at
gwheelock@comcast.net

Thanks

Guy

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Well; we are at the start of the July 1807 land phase. There seems to be another bug.
France tried to attack the 2 Russian corp that escaped (see post #394) & the program
will not list this as an attack. This may be because Russia reported that he loaned the corps
to the Austrians (who are not currently at war with the French & cannot be for 7 months).

This problem is reported in mantis as bug #0000388 & also on the Tech-support forum.

If this IS due to the loan; I belive that the program needs to be fixed so that someone
who is at war with EITHER the OWNER or the CONTROLLER of a corp can attack it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Well; we are at the start of the July 1807 land phase. There seems to be another bug.
France tried to attack the 2 Russian corp that escaped (see post #394) & the program
will not list this as an attack. This may be because Russia reported that he loaned the corps
to the Austrians (who are not currently at war with the French & cannot be for 7 months).

This problem is reported in mantis as bug #0000388 & also on the Tech-support forum.

If this IS due to the loan; I belive that the program needs to be fixed so that someone
who is at war with EITHER the OWNER or the CONTROLLER of a corp can attack it.

AGAIN: IT'S NOT A BUG!!!

It's a bad rule, there is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Well; we are at the start of the July 1807 land phase. There seems to be another bug.
France tried to attack the 2 Russian corp that escaped (see post #394) & the program
will not list this as an attack. This may be because Russia reported that he loaned the corps
to the Austrians (who are not currently at war with the French & cannot be for 7 months).

This problem is reported in mantis as bug #0000388 & also on the Tech-support forum.

If this IS due to the loan; I belive that the program needs to be fixed so that someone
who is at war with EITHER the OWNER or the CONTROLLER of a corp can attack it.

AGAIN: IT'S NOT A BUG!!!

It's a bad rule, there is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

AGAIN : IT IS A BUG :)
The game acts not like its supposed to do.

Regards
Bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Well; we are at the start of the July 1807 land phase. There seems to be another bug.
France tried to attack the 2 Russian corp that escaped (see post #394) & the program
will not list this as an attack. This may be because Russia reported that he loaned the corps
to the Austrians (who are not currently at war with the French & cannot be for 7 months).

This problem is reported in mantis as bug #0000388 & also on the Tech-support forum.

If this IS due to the loan; I belive that the program needs to be fixed so that someone
who is at war with EITHER the OWNER or the CONTROLLER of a corp can attack it.

AGAIN: IT'S NOT A BUG!!!

It's a bad rule, there is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

AGAIN : IT IS A BUG :)
The game acts not like its supposed to do.

Regards
Bresh

How is it a bug???

Marshall said THIS IS THE WAY HE IS HANDLING LOANED CORPS.

A bug is something that happens other than the way the developer intended. This is NOT the case here as Marshall has clearly stated. he IS changing this in 1.05 (which is a VERY GOOD thing!).

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Well; we are at the start of the July 1807 land phase. There seems to be another bug.
France tried to attack the 2 Russian corp that escaped (see post #394) & the program
will not list this as an attack. This may be because Russia reported that he loaned the corps
to the Austrians (who are not currently at war with the French & cannot be for 7 months).

This problem is reported in mantis as bug #0000388 & also on the Tech-support forum.

If this IS due to the loan; I belive that the program needs to be fixed so that someone
who is at war with EITHER the OWNER or the CONTROLLER of a corp can attack it.

AGAIN: IT'S NOT A BUG!!!

It's a bad rule, there is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

AGAIN : IT IS A BUG :)
The game acts not like its supposed to do.

Regards
Bresh

How is it a bug???

Marshall said THIS IS THE WAY HE IS HANDLING LOANED CORPS.

A bug is something that happens other than the way the developer intended. This is NOT the case here as Marshall has clearly stated. he IS changing this in 1.05 (which is a VERY GOOD thing!).

He said it was an oversight, so not what he had intended. By this i would define as a bug.
It was not how the developer expected the game to work.
And a BUG can already appear in the design phase, not only in the software.

Regards
Bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

A bug is anything that causes a program to not do what it is supposed to do or do what it is not supposed to do. "Supposed to do", in this case, means to follow the rules. Since the rules do not specify that the corps is no longer at war when loaned, but the state of an actual corps has changed, this makes this result "not what it is supposed to do". Hence: Bug.

q.e.d.

Whether currently fixed or not is irrelevant. Whether designed in to the code or not is irrelevant. And, whether the developer thought this was the right way to implement, is also irrelevant. A bug can be anything: Design flaw, hardware flaw, idiosynchracy, logic failure, typographical error, etc. The original "bugs" were literal insects getting squashed between the relay flappers in early computers.

The bottom line is that the game must be paused now until 1.05 is released (at least to beta) to correct this deficiency in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.

There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.

I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.

Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.

There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.

I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.

Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.

There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.

I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.

Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.

So if there is a way like there was in version 1.00 to "get free factors" just by doing some tricky factor transfers it would be ok, since its not in the manual it can not be a bug.. ?

Regards
Bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.

There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.

I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.

Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.

Actually; there is something ON THE CORP ITSELF. It still has a RUSSIAN
FLAG on it.

As soon as you can REMOVE the Russian FLAG from the corp; THEN I'll agree
that it is no longer yours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Since the "rule" was never clearly specified I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is indeed a "bug". Can you point me to the rule please?

With your logic this whole game is a "bug". LOL.

In order for the whole game to be a bug, it would have to not follow its rulebook completely. While there have been and are discrepencies, the vast bulk of the rules are implemented correctly.

Anyhow, it's a negative inference: There is nothing in the rules that state or imply that having your corps loaned to another power will cause your corps to no longer be at war with your current enemy. Since it IS still YOUR corps, and your power IS still at war, the battle should be allowed.

In order for corps loaning to be considered to remove the corps from the war, it would have to overtly state that, as it does for supply purposes and other considerations.

There is nothing in the rulebook that states or implies that the loaned corps is still under your command, which by action (observation) it is not, therefore it's entirely possible to derive a reasonable conclusion that the corps no longer, temporarily, belongs to you and is therefore not subject to the same situation.

I agree that this makes no sense but it doesn't change the rules.

Also, since there is nothing in the rulebook stating otherwise then it's reasonable to consider this not a bug and, in fact, the implementation of the rules since there is NOTHING in the rulebook that contradicts this in anyway, shape or form.

Actually; there is something ON THE CORP ITSELF. It still has a RUSSIAN
FLAG on it.

As soon as you can REMOVE the Russian FLAG from the corp; THEN I'll agree
that it is no longer yours.

Maybe the corps flags should change when the corps is loaned. This would be much like the "border" color others have suggested Matrix use. I don't know.

If the rule doesn't suit you and you want to change it fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh


So if there is a way like there was in version 1.00 to "get free factors" just by doing some tricky factor transfers it would be ok, since its not in the manual it can not be a bug.. ?

Regards
Bresh

I believe that the manual covers how to get factors, so no, that would be a bug.

I'm done arguing about this it's just a waste of time. Think what you want I don't care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

The short version of the fight comes down to this: loaning Russian corps to Austria is now a known exploit, so is Russia going to take back their corps and finish the game or is Russia going to continue to use the exploit? If you do not understand what I mean by exploit it is something that the game allows but which runs contrary to the way it should run and gives an unfair advantage to the exploiting player, for example this loaned corp situation or the very early problem of being able to 'make copies' of factors by transfering them between corps and garrisons.