RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_SqzMyLemon

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_SqzMyLemon_Canoerebel (A)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_SqzMyLemon_Canoerebel (A)

Page: << < prev 97 98 [99] 100 101 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 11:53:25 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

So the answer is to get a mulligan to freely redo movement now that you know the rail will be blocked?

Hardly seems fair to the player who risked his unit to block the rail.

My solution with Obvert was to take my lumps and play on. It has happened a lot, and at the most inopportune times, but always in China/Manchuko/Korea.

I would have asked you to redo if I knew this was going on. I don't want to play a game where the rules are not consistent if it's possible to go back and alter the outcome to work for both sides. I'm sorry if I didn't understand, but I think from what I remember you haven't told me all of the details to avoid OPSEC issues. Please do just tell me to redo if it happens again.

In this case he's not "risking" anything. That unit is probably small fragment of a para unit, as he lands just about everywhere he wants to block movement.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2941

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 11:56:09 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

This is akin to a train moving out 40 miles down the track, then stopping, dumping the troops and their gear with lightning speed next to the tracks, and speeding away back home! It's not just for one unit, and it's so far from the destination I never would have considered that could happen.

What really stinks is when they are dropped in bad terrain far from a base and have to walk back along the tracks. Out of the game for a long time.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 2942

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 12:04:12 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I would have asked you to redo if I knew this was going on. I don't want to play a game where the rules are not consistent if it's possible to go back and alter the outcome to work for both sides. I'm sorry if I didn't understand, but I think from what I remember you haven't told me all of the details to avoid OPSEC issues. Please do just tell me to redo if it happens again.

I knew you would, but I couldn't figure out any way to redo the turn.

I bet you dollars to donuts that even if you redo the turn, some units will still get dropped out of SR mode especially those on rail lines between bases -- those seem most vulnerable.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 2943

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 2:00:20 PM

adarbrauner

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Mines don't work in rivers. I tested it thoroughly on this very river in my current game.

Hankow has been under siege for 4 years in my game and the AI kept running shipping up the river to supply it.

I tried everything to stop it to no avail. Mines simply don't work in rivers because rivers run on hex sides.

Hans: I saw a game, with my own eyes on the replay, where they worked, and how they worked; I was part on that game , a cooperative, with RHS; they hit and sank, and right on this river, the Yangtze, even though much more upriver I think;

And, again, El Cid sustains that shore guns fire at ships in river, even though this is not shown in animation; one have to check for eventual damage

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 2944

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 2:17:49 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Hans: I saw a game, with my own eyes on the replay, where they worked, and how they worked; I was part on that game , a cooperative, with RHS; they hit and sank, and right on this river, the Yangtze, even though much more upriver I think;

And, again, El Cid sustains that shore guns fire at ships in river, even though this is not shown in animation; one have to check for eventual damage

It is nice that El Cid got it to work in one of the most heavily modded mods around. He did very substantial map changes, bless him.

Point to an example of where it worked in a stock game. I tried and failed running head to head games thru many tries, and also in a real pbem stock game.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/19/2019 2:18:17 PM >

(in reply to adarbrauner)

Post #: 2945

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 3:31:13 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

From a code perspective, I wouldn't call this a bug.

Putting it kindly, it would be a quirk.

If there were a part of it that would be a bug, it would be the change in mode from Strat to Move and the fact that they moved 1 hex to begin with (the cutting of the rail would have occurred before the unit moved 1 hex). The cancelling of the movement would be WAD without a rather long (well, from my perspective) check of where the unit could move to along the route instead. Rather than trying to deal with all possible weird situations, simply cancelling the movement is by far the best solution and not terribly implausible.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2946

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 3:51:02 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

Hardly a bug if this is how it always works. Will there be re-do's of future turns if rail lines get cut again? Tough call here but the game, and it is a game, is working as designed. My 2 cents

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2947

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 3:51:52 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

From a standpoint of realism, Obvert's suggestion that the units be allowed to make it to the first railhead backward from teh rail break point sounds like the best solution to me.

In reality the train would be stopped in the hex where the break occurs and the units detrained there. They should have to spend their normal down time switching from strategic to move mode or combat modes.

That the game only models rail movement between rail heads with no provision for stopping in between seems to be what causes the hiccup.

Either they shouldn't move at all or they should move to the break point and detrain they most certainly shouldn't move one hex and detrain overnight.

A break is deserved for that result alone in my book.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 2/19/2019 3:53:00 PM >

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2948

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 3:59:20 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
Hardly a bug if this is how it always works. Will there be re-do's of future turns if rail lines get cut again? Tough call here but the game, and it is a game, is working as designed. My 2 cents

Umm, bugs also always work. Until squashed that is.

Is hardly an intended behaviour too by all reasonable accounts. transportation should not be critically disrupted hundreds of miles away from the point of disruption. If anything, trains should continue on the route until they arrive at the point of disruption. Not to mention instant switch of modes that just should not be possible

I suppose cutting the live rail lines is so rare in PBEMS that this behaviour is not well known. When known, people will make adjustments. E.g. Eric would set strat RR destinations closer to the start and update them as movement happens

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
That the game only models rail movement between rail heads with no provision for stopping in between seems to be what causes the hiccup.

Trains can stop just fine in the middle of nowhere wif met by enemy units sitting in a contested hex with still open hex sides. So it is the closure of hex side (from within) that messes up train movement algorithm

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 2/19/2019 4:03:52 PM >

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2949

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 4:12:30 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

So going forward every time this happens the turn will be redone? Is this the way the game is supposed to work? We could argue "real life" for many points in the game. In this particular case it is entirely possible that the train starts, a phone call comes saying the rail line is cut, train returns to origin point, orders come for everyone to get off until we figure this out. It seems like if an exception is made here every time a rail line is cut and a unit falls out of strat mode the turn will need to be redone.

< Message edited by JohnDillworth -- 2/19/2019 4:13:20 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 2950

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 4:16:09 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Hardly a bug if this is how it always works. Will there be re-do's of future turns if rail lines get cut again? Tough call here but the game, and it is a game, is working as designed. My 2 cents

This quirk, bug, or whatever is definitely not WAD. The unit will make a partial move on the rail line, and then seemingly at random be dropped from the train usually but not always in an off base location and immediately transfer from SR mode to move mode no destination with 0 delay. I have had units in a base knocked back to move status.

It would be a lot more tolerable if the units weren't kicked out of SR mode and simply stopped.

Also, this effect rears its head in strange ways...I can't figure out what triggers it as I have had it happen many times. Setting closer base destinations is not a guarantee of it not triggering (uh, what bad English) as I have had it happen between two bases where one was origination and the other destination with 0 cuts in the line and 0 bases between origin and destination.

Given that the fighting will be here, I bet it happens again.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/19/2019 4:17:17 PM >

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2951

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 7:33:48 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

As I recall, this actually happened to a Russian unit shipping from Siberia to the eastern front. A junction or something was damaged, and forced a march. And a Panzer division was sidelined and forced to march when a Russian partisan unit dynamited a bridge in the Ukraine. It's your game, I'm just an idjit on the sidelines. I even hesitated to put this down. It's not exactly what you are describing, but it is within the realms of thought.

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 2952

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 7:40:43 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

The game abstracts rail lines by using the physics of wormholes. Sometimes things don't work as expected.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 2953

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 8:37:59 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

Dan has decided he will redo the turn. It feels like it's with some reluctance though. This is his email to me to "consider."

Consider this and discuss in your AAR:

I am assuming that you have all kinds of troops strategically positioned in Strat Mode to respond at a moment�s notice to emergencies in distant places. You triggered those emergency movements, planning to move those units to the point of invasion rapidly. You could have set transport to closer, less vulnerable bases but aimed instead for maximum speed and efficiency (or just got lazy and set them for Shanghai). You knew this feature of the game, having recently (on Hokkaido) experienced it on a smaller scale. Your plan got messed up by an (apparently) unexpected but nevertheless predictable Allied landing. So instead of you being able to rail divisions (maybe many) to the scene quickly, now you�re caught in a bind with units auto-switched to Move mode far away from the closest base. It�s gonna slow you down rather than speeding things up. Your plan was a good one but blew up on you.

If you set up an elaborate, crafty defense and had that spoiled by a known feature of the game because you didn�t anticipate an Allied move�.is it fair to re-do the move?

That�s a tough question but one worth discussion amongst you and your readers. Is this really a do-over situation or a tough lesson?

Dan likes to spin things like this. I don't need it spun. It's not a big thing, but my example is that it's like a knight on a chess board suddenly behaving like a bishop for one turn and going to the wrong spot. It's a break in the rules that will hopefully be easily fixed (Lowpe I hope you're wrong about the likelyhood of it happening again). It's also quite different to what happened to units on Hokkaido, which didn't jump out of strat mode, they just lost accumulated movement.

In this case he now has the only advantage from this situation of knowing that units will definitely be railing in instead of just assuming that. My stuff will still be bak at square one.

I found Dan's message a bit too much and told him so. He didn't like that so sent a terse reply. He'll probably do some more spinning in his AAR.

< Message edited by obvert -- 2/19/2019 8:41:34 PM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 2954

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 11:15:53 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Dan has decided he will redo the turn. It feels like it's with some reluctance though. This is his email to me to "consider."

Consider this and discuss in your AAR:

I am assuming that you have all kinds of troops strategically positioned in Strat Mode to respond at a moment�s notice to emergencies in distant places. You triggered those emergency movements, planning to move those units to the point of invasion rapidly. You could have set transport to closer, less vulnerable bases but aimed instead for maximum speed and efficiency (or just got lazy and set them for Shanghai). You knew this feature of the game, having recently (on Hokkaido) experienced it on a smaller scale. Your plan got messed up by an (apparently) unexpected but nevertheless predictable Allied landing. So instead of you being able to rail divisions (maybe many) to the scene quickly, now you�re caught in a bind with units auto-switched to Move mode far away from the closest base. It�s gonna slow you down rather than speeding things up. Your plan was a good one but blew up on you.

If you set up an elaborate, crafty defense and had that spoiled by a known feature of the game because you didn�t anticipate an Allied move�.is it fair to re-do the move?

That�s a tough question but one worth discussion amongst you and your readers. Is this really a do-over situation or a tough lesson?

Dan likes to spin things like this. I don't need it spun. It's not a big thing, but my example is that it's like a knight on a chess board suddenly behaving like a bishop for one turn and going to the wrong spot. It's a break in the rules that will hopefully be easily fixed (Lowpe I hope you're wrong about the likelyhood of it happening again). It's also quite different to what happened to units on Hokkaido, which didn't jump out of strat mode, they just lost accumulated movement.

In this case he now has the only advantage from this situation of knowing that units will definitely be railing in instead of just assuming that. My stuff will still be bak at square one.

I found Dan's message a bit too much and told him so. He didn't like that so sent a terse reply. He'll probably do some more spinning in his AAR.

Sounds to me he doesn't really understand what has happened.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 2955

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/19/2019 11:46:14 PM

ChuckBerger

Posts: 278
Joined: 8/10/2006
Status: offline

Fundamentally it's for the two players to work out their tolerances for re-do requests under various circumstances. There's no right answer, and I think players can legitimately disagree, which unfortunately can sour a game.

No comment on the current situation, but for a long-haul game like this it might be useful to consider in advance of games the circumstanaces under which re-dos can be requested, eg

1) Bug (game not working as designed)
2) Game mechanic that is WAD, but counterintuitive and works to a player's serious disadvantage, and player didn't know about it. (Is that this situation?)
3) Game mechanic that is WAD, but counterintuitive and works to a player's serious disadvantage, even if player did know about it. (eg, random invasion of Russia due to cargo ship running the wrong way from a sub or whatever) (in these circumstances, how will players prevent a great many re-dos?)
4) Player serious stuff-up
5) breach of house rules
6) x number of re-do requests per game - either for cause, or not for cause? (Like jury selection!)

etc etc

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2956

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 1:15:38 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

It's unfortunate you haven't seen this before, Obvert. I've seen it in games vs. the computer and since I don't begrudge handicaps to myself in those games, I play on. Too late now, but one way around it is to break up those long strat journeys into shorter segments.

You might accept his offer and change the strat movement destinations of your affected units to bases close to where they are now. That way you'll lose a little bit of time getting them into action but not 4+ days.

Regardless, I hope you gentlemen come to an amicable agreement on this. You have a great game going.

Cheers,
CB

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to ChuckBerger)

Post #: 2957

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 1:39:38 AM

brian800000

Posts: 225
Joined: 9/15/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

Regardless, I hope you gentlemen come to an amicable agreement on this.

I'm not optimistic. Even before this they were fighting a virtual war against each other. I suspect in a few months it may even go nuclear.

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)

Post #: 2958

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 3:42:05 AM

ChuckBerger

Posts: 278
Joined: 8/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

Regardless, I hope you gentlemen come to an amicable agreement on this.

I'm not optimistic. Even before this they were fighting a virtual war against each other. I suspect in a few months it may even go nuclear.

Sly, that...

(in reply to brian800000)

Post #: 2959

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 9:33:41 AM

tarkalak

Posts: 289
Joined: 6/26/2017
From: Bulgaria
Status: offline

This isn't the behavior you see but here is another quirk of train movement:

quote:

1. Sometimes Units sent to a contested hex in Strategic Mode via railroad will stop one hex short of the target and start unpacking. It seems that this happens when their last leg of movement ends one hex short of the target. Other then that Strategic move can and will end in a contested hex.
Link to begining of discussion.

< Message edited by tarkalak -- 2/20/2019 9:34:00 AM >

_____________________________

I do not know what is scarier: that I do understand nothing of this demonic script or that I am starting to see the demons that it evokes.

Me, studying for a PHD entry exam in Applied Mathematics.

(in reply to ChuckBerger)

Post #: 2960

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 1:41:11 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

Too late now, but one way around it is to break up those long strat journeys into shorter segments.

You might accept his offer and change the strat movement destinations of your affected units to bases close to where they are now. That way you'll lose a little bit of time getting them into action but not 4+ days.

Unfortunately that doesn't always work.

I don't think most players understand the total devastation this bug causes when it hits, especially here. Japan generally has the advantage of interior lines in defense and the ability of a rapid response. This in effect has been taken away, many units sidelined (delayed) from 2 days (fastest to weeks) and most likely means that Japan has to evacuate what he can to Korea...which might be Japan's plan anyhow, but now numerous units won't be able to make it which should have.

Now, I don't really know what happened in the turn. I don't know if there was CD guns & mines on the river that sat idly by while the invasion fleets steamed upriver, like I have said for a long time this is a cheesy move (against a river properly defended with mines and cd guns), but a move I doubt CR knew was cheesy as he is a classy guy. My guess here is that Obvert didn't have any mines and cd guns on the river which kind of makes my point of the upriver invasion being cheesy moot....

It is not a well known bug, or well known game design. When I first reported on it, nobody offered any explanations, causes, solutions and no other experiences cited. After continued, better documented examples, it is a bug but, folks there is nobody left to squash bugs anymore. Anyhow, I only shared with Obvert that there was a problem, keeping almost all details to myself because, quite frankly at that point in the game I thought I could be competitive. After the first time, I don't think I ever mentioned it happening again to Obvert. I had hoped that it was unique to our strange game.

Without knowing the details of the problem, Obvert immediately offered a turn redo. Upon reflection, I decided to continue the game as is for a variety of reasons and I continued to document the problem as it occurred.

I should mention that there is an additional feature, that Obvert hasn't run into yet since he most likely hasn't issued any orders...and that is the inability to set a destination with SR travel to some bases that have a clear path.

I don't know what the solution is here,other than that the two players need to figure it out to their satisfaction. That CR thinks this might be a tough lesson or that Obvert was using an elaborate tactic...simply informs me he doesn't fully understand what has happened.

Communication is a tricky thing, and given that there are readers here that don't really understand what has happened, and that Obvert probably gave CR even less detail of the problem, it is no surprise that misunderstandings occur.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/20/2019 1:47:27 PM >

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)

Post #: 2961

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 2:18:28 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

This is not really a bug as it flows from a central game design concept.

It is not an easy task to try to code a different implementation for this central design concept for several reasons. Firstly, it is difficult to tinker with the strategic movement code without crippling the AI's use of strategic movement. Secondly, and this also links up with the first difficulty, any code changes in this area have to be thoroughly tested to ensure that the dormant computer control zone is not reactivated to interfere with other human control mechanics.

The China Theatre is the most likely area to witness this issue due to the paucity of railways, in particular the lack of multiple lines servicing most bases, and the relatively (compared to other theatres) widely spread in built trails in the countryside.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2962

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 7:22:16 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This is not really a bug as it flows from a central game design concept.

It is not an easy task to try to code a different implementation for�this central design concept for several reasons.� Firstly, it is difficult to tinker with the strategic movement code without crippling the AI's use of strategic movement.� Secondly, and this also links up with the first difficulty, any code changes in this area have to be thoroughly tested to ensure that the dormant computer control zone is not reactivated to interfere with other human control mechanics.

The China Theatre is the most likely area to witness this issue due to the paucity of railways, in particular the lack of multiple lines servicing most bases, and the relatively (compared to other theatres) widely spread in built trails in the countryside.

Alfred

The action of the landing a unit on the rails caused multiple units (later in the turn) to move one hex and then come out of strat mode with no delays.

While I understand the principal of having a unit stop motion when it's destination is no longer reachable this "broke the rules" (and any form of plausibility) by disembarking from strat mode without delay after actually moving.

It doesn't matter what it's called or how hard it is to code, it's not working as it should according to set rules of the game, which is the only reason I would bring it up at all. It's a disadvantage to me to have to talk to my opponent about this, and to replay the turn. I wish I didn't have to do it.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 2963

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 7:39:59 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This is not really a bug as it flows from a central game design concept.

It is not an easy task to try to code a different implementation for�this central design concept for several reasons.� Firstly, it is difficult to tinker with the strategic movement code without crippling the AI's use of strategic movement.� Secondly, and this also links up with the first difficulty, any code changes in this area have to be thoroughly tested to ensure that the dormant computer control zone is not reactivated to interfere with other human control mechanics.

The China Theatre is the most likely area to witness this issue due to the paucity of railways, in particular the lack of multiple lines servicing most bases, and the relatively (compared to other theatres) widely spread in built trails in the countryside.

Alfred

The action of the landing a unit on the rails caused multiple units (later in the turn) to move one hex and then come out of strat mode with no delays.

While I understand the principal of having a unit stop motion when it's destination is no longer reachable this "broke the rules" (and any form of plausibility) by disembarking from strat mode without delay after actually moving.

It doesn't matter what it's called or how hard it is to code, it's not working as it should according to set rules of the game, which is the only reason I would bring it up at all. It's a disadvantage to me to have to talk to my opponent about this, and to replay the turn. I wish I didn't have to do it.

I guess Alfred is pointing out that it wasn't practical for them to improve on it. If that makes more sense?

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 2964

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 8:44:44 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This is not really a bug as it flows from a central game design concept.

This is basically what I was trying to say.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 2965

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 11:03:01 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

So it is a quirk, but I think parts of the quirk are bugged, too. And I also think there is more than one quirk.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2966

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 11:17:16 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

So it is a quirk, but I think parts of the quirk are bugged, too. And I also think there is more than one quirk.

Since I just posted this thought in the other AAR, I'll post it here too.

The only issue here, to me, is that they dropped to Move immediately and did so after already moving 1 hex via strategic. That's very minor in the realm of "bugs". Were I in one of their positions, I would've hashed out whether re-doing the turn because of the movement mode switch or the 1-hex movement was the best recourse. The movement being cancelled itself is not a bug.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2967

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/20/2019 11:32:07 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The movement being cancelled itself is not a bug.

I have said previously that movement being cancelled is okay by me...it is all the other aspects of this quirk/bug.

Would you consider it a bug if it effected units travelling by SR that don't use the portion of the rail road that was cut? Would you consider it a bug if it happened to units that didn't move...i.e. were still packing for movement? Would you consider it a bug if it happened to units that moved more than 1 hex? Would you consider it a bug if units still in SR mode could not be reassigned to a new destination without unpacking and repacking first? All these things have happened to me, and I suspect will probably happen to Obvert.

Anyhow, call it what you want, but I wouldn't call it minor when you have units stranded in move mode a week or more from the closest base staring down a major invasion.

I doubt Obvert knows the full extent of the problem until he actually looks everywhere. I certainly didn't at first.

Finally, I have my doubts that the redo will solve everything.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2968

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/21/2019 1:36:35 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I guess Alfred is pointing out that it wasn't practical for them to improve on it. If that makes more sense?

Exactly.

At one point the devs did a relatively small change to the strategic movement code to fix an actual bug. In doing so they completely broke the AI.

The AE team project leader was fond of classical WITP's Mr Fragg's saying that "ahistorical play leads to ahistorical outcomes". There was very little willingness to change fundamental game design concepts which worked just to accommodate ahistorical play. Squash a bug which came to light from ahistorical play, yes that would be addressed by the AE dev team. However if the ahistorical play resulted in a less than ideal outcome albeit one still consistent with the game design and when simple player workarounds exist which take the sting out of the ahistorical play, that did not rate high on the priority list for code revisions.

I'm not saying that the full extent of the outcomes from how they implemented the game design concept would be viewed by the devs as being ideal/perfect outcomes. Nor the ramifications on gameplay of some of these outcomes was foremost in their thoughts. But to say this is not consistent with the game design is simply incorrect. Abstractions always include the good with the ugly.

Alfred

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 2969

RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 2/21/2019 2:12:27 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Abstractions always include the good with the ugly.

Alfred

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 2970

Page: << < prev 97 98 [99] 100 101 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_SqzMyLemon_Canoerebel (A)