AA50 Bugs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
62 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AA50 Bugs

ComradeKev
Administrator
This post was updated on .
Go ahead and post bug reports here so I don't have to sort through several different posts to find them all.  I'll update this master list and keep updating the status on them.

As I add your bugs to the list, I'll remove your post to keep this a 1 page topic.

Current Bugs:

*****

Extra units purchased/not placed should be saved for future turns BUT lost if capital falls
Combined amphibious assault retreat rules fixed for 1.0.3.1
Fighter from UK shouldn't be able to fly to baltic then land in SZ2 Can't recreate
Russia can't retreat to Caucausus after attacking Ukraine Retreat terr is text select on left
Italian/American Inf stack quantity on top of Italian symbol
fighters from poland attacking france- couldn't land- may have gone to SZ7 instead Can't recreate
Manchuria should be original Chinese terr  fixed for 1.0.3.1
Defending sub combat order fixed for 1.0.3.1
Indicate amount of damage on a factory so attackers don't over-do
Pathfinding uses neutrals fixed for 1.0.3.1
Savegames with / or \ in the name won't be saved fixed for 1.0.3.1 for PCs
Dialogs appear on host computer but not client computers fixed for 1.0.3.1, I think
Game forces placement of all purchased units (up to max placement)
Shouldn't be able to take EMPTY terr, THEN bomb it fixed for 1.0.3.1
Paratroops can't overfly blitzed terrs fixed for 1.0.3.1
Factory repair charges wrong for IT fixed for 1.0.3.1
Victory conditions checked after each player, not just Americans Can't recreate
Purchased tanks turning into Inf
AI and new rules/tech
All 3 victory conditions selectable true, but they're checked in order
Possible max unit bug at factories
Allied AA don't fire with RADAR enhancement if have it fixed for 1.0.3.1
Rockets don't limit max damage fixed for 1.0.3.1
SBR throws null pointer in edit mode fixed for 1.0.3.1
UK nat'l objective not right fixed for 1.0.3.1
Exception thrown for tech on non AA50 games fixed for 1.0.3.1
Need useTech option for all games fixed for 1.0.3.1
Unable to produce AA if one already exists in territory fixed for 1.0.3.1
Transporting units causes null pointer fixed for 1.0.3.1
China shouldn't have a capital fixed for 1.0.3.1
Can't load trn in SZ with enemy sub/trn fixed for 1.0.3.1
Consider carrier route when attempting to land fighters fixed for 1.0.3.1
After capturing Karelia, unit placement cap not imposed Can't recreate
The TECH is gone in REVISED fixed for 1.0.3.1
Unable to pre-initialize technologies fixed for 1.0.3.1
Add NWO to download
Amphib capture of empty territory not undoable Can't recreate
Able to load/unload multiple times w/ single Trn Can't recreate
Hosted game shows more hits than targets fixed for 1.0.3.1
Hosted game throws exceptions when undoing Trn movement fixed for 1.0.3.1
Hosted game can't remove transported units via edit existing limitation
Hosted game can't remove multi-natl forces via edit existing limitation
Fighters with amphib only asked to retreat once fixed for 1.0.3.1
DD in Low-Luck doesn't cancel sub sneak attack fixed for 1.0.3.1
Amphib -vs subs only forces combat fixed for 1.0.3.1
Bomber -vs bomber ends in stalemate after 1 round fixed for 1.0.3.1
Client factories are not repaired fixed for 1.0.3.1
Defending subs still fire after submerging fixed for 1.0.3.1
Shouldn't be able to blitz through AA or factories fixed for 1.0.3.1
Low Luck AA doesn't inflict casualties on client fixed for 1.0.3.1
Att Subs dialog on host only  fixed for 1.0.3.1
Surface ships allowed to move into enemy SZ in Non-Combat fixed for 1.0.3.1

*****

On those bugs above that I couldn't recreate, if the original reporter could give more info to narrow it down.  I'm guessing a majority of them will be host/client issues.

Kev
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

Dagon81
Cant load custom games....they dont show up in the list.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

Seidelin
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
Kevin Comcowich wrote
Fighter from UK shouldn't be able to fly to baltic then land in SZ2 Can't recreate
I think this one is about UK fighter using 2 moves to attack fleet in baltic, using two moves to land on UK and then finally being transferred to a newly built carrier (in SZ2 in this example) when units are placed.

This "bug" is because TripleA handles fighter movement wrong. Fighters should move to the SZ where the carrier will be produced in the non-combat round. They shouldn't move during unit placement. This is not specific to AA50, I think. The bug comes in play since fighters now can effectively move 5, as in above example. This change I believe would require a major rework.

Another example where these rules aren't properly handled: UK builds one carrier during production phase. In combat move a fighter in Karelia wants to attack France and land in SZ7 on the carrier which is being built. Currently it is not allowed since the fighter must use 3 moves to reach France, and there is no way under current implementation that the fighter can be placed on the carrier while participating in combat.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

Rommel
I disagree that AA50's approach is wrong.  The unit placement phase is distinct and subsequent to the non-combat movement phase.  I would think that allowing a fighter to land on a carrier that doesn't exist until a later phase would pose just as many coding problems.  The fighter would be in a disallowed suicide mode.  You would have to create conditional terms for fighers when a carrier is in production. What if the player has multiple IC choices to place the carrier or can't or chooses not to build the carrier due to production limitations at the IC?  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

Seidelin
The current implementation is wrong in the sense that it doesn't follow the rules of the board game. I am definitely not saying it is easy to code, nor am I saying that it "must be implemented correctly". The developers can of course choose to not implement the required changes (or postpone), if it is too difficult/nerve wrecking/boring/whatever.

Your what if's are no different to TripleA than to the board game. The point is that there should just be a possible chance for the fighter to land for the move to be allowed. Fighters which cannot land after all should be removed from play (e.g. carrier withdrew from naval battle, so fighters can't reach or carrier was placed elsewhere), just like in the board game.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

Hobbes__
In reply to this post by Rommel
The issue here is not if one solution can be coded easier than the other but if the AA50 implementation is following the board game rules.

LHTR (and AA50) effectively allow for fighters to be sent on suicide runs, as long as they would still have 1 movement left after their attack (and somehow survived) and there's a carrier that could pick them up on an adjacent SZ during non-combat move. Imagine this situation:
- 1 UK transport on SZ12 (Atlantic, off Algeria), 100 UK Battleships on SZ 14 (off Italy)
- 1 AC, 1 FTR, 1 CA on SZ15 (Egypt).

Assuming Algeria-Morocco and Gibraltar belong to the allies, Italy could still legally attack the transport on SZ12 with the FTR. How? During the Combat Move by saying: "my FTR will attack the TRN on SZ12 and the single DD will attack the 100 UK BBs on SZ14. During non-combat move and after the 100 UK BBs are destroyed by the single DD the AC will move then to pick the FTR on SZ13".

Sounds impossible for a single DD to destroy 100 BBs? Yeah I agree with you, but this move is completely legal, according to LHTR and AA50. For as long as there is a valid possibility for the FTR to land (no matter the odds) then you can perform the attack, even if afterwards the DD didn't kill the 100 BBs and the AC can't move to pick the FTR, which will be destroyed.

But the most important point to retain here is that the attacking player is obliged to do the non combat moves he declared while he was announcing his attacks. If the DD kills the 100 BBs, then the AC has to move to pick the FTR. Or, if the player declared that he will build an AC on a specific SZ for the FTR to land then the player has to build it there (if the FTR survives the attack).

This sort of situations might be the hardest/impossible to code, but if you are playing with someone who knows the rules then a little edit will solve the problem. And if someone ever decides to not move the AC or build it on a different SZ then stick the rules to them.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

frankh
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
This has happend 2 times in 1.0.3:

Play germany. I buy a large number of tanks (last time: 9). Then, when it's time for placing them out, they have become infantry.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

RogerCooper
When playing a game as Japan, I had some instances where it gave the wrong number of buildable units at a factory. I will try to replicate.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

ComradeKev
Administrator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
Ghost Rider wrote
all the submarines get to fire a surprise strike before taking casualties."
This will be fixed in the next release (1.0.3.1) Defending subs will now be able to return 'sneak attack' fire.
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

ComradeKev
Administrator
theting wrote
one question : the capitol of a country must be one of its territory ? Otherwise, you can define a neutral territory as the chinese capital, and there will not have the problem anymore...
Good idea.  With a little tweak of the code, I was able to do just that, and I think that might be useful for other map mods.

K
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: AA50 Bugs

Rommel
In reply to this post by Hobbes__

Thanks for bringing to my attention that LHTR specifically allows as an exception to the landing space rules, the landing of a fighter next to an IC with a purchased carrier.  My only concern was playing by the rules, not the coding issue. 

 

 


From: Ghost Rider (via Nabble) [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:44 PM
To: Rommel
Subject: Re: AA50 Bugs

 

The issue here is not if one solution can be coded easier than the other but if the AA50 implementation is following the board game rules.

LHTR (and AA50) effectively allow for fighters to be sent on suicide runs, as long as they would still have 1 movement left after their attack (and somehow survived) and there's a carrier that could pick them up on an adjacent SZ during non-combat move. Imagine this situation:
- 1 UK transport on SZ12 (Atlantic, off Algeria), 100 UK Battleships on SZ 14 (off Italy)
- 1 AC, 1 FTR, 1 CA on SZ15 (Egypt).

Assuming Algeria-Morocco and Gibraltar belong to the allies, Italy could still legally attack the transport on SZ12 with the FTR. How? During the Combat Move by saying: "my FTR will attack the TRN on SZ12 and the single DD will attack the 100 UK BBs on SZ14. During non-combat move and after the 100 UK BBs are destroyed by the single DD the AC will move then to pick the FTR on SZ13".

Sounds impossible for a single DD to destroy 100 BBs? Yeah I agree with you, but this move is completely legal, according to LHTR and AA50. For as long as there is a valid possibility for the FTR to land (no matter the odds) then you can perform the attack, even if afterwards the DD didn't kill the 100 BBs and the AC can't move to pick the FTR, which will be destroyed.

But the most important point to retain here is that the attacking player is obliged to do the non combat moves he declared while he was announcing his attacks. If the DD kills the 100 BBs, then the AC has to move to pick the FTR. Or, if the player declared that he will build an AC on a specific SZ for the FTR to land then the player has to build it there (if the FTR survives the attack).

This sort of situations might be the hardest/impossible to code, but if you are playing with someone who knows the rules then a little edit will solve the problem. And if someone ever decides to not move the AC or build it on a different SZ then stick the rules to them.


This email is a reply to your post @ http://n2.nabble.com/AA50-Bugs-tp2261731p2287579.html
You can reply by email or by visting the link above.

 

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 01/28/09 06:37:00

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: AA50 Bugs

Rommel
In reply to this post by Seidelin

Thanks, it’s been brought to my attention that LHTR specifically allows an exception to the landing spaces rule for a fighter in a SZ next to an IC if a carrier was purchased.  My only concern was playing by the rules, not how easy or hard the coding would be.

 

 


From: Seidelin (via Nabble) [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 7:10 AM
To: Rommel
Subject: Re: AA50 Bugs

 

The current implementation is wrong in the sense that it doesn't follow the rules of the board game. I am definitely not saying it is easy to code, nor am I saying that it "must be implemented correctly". The developers can of course choose to not implement the required changes (or postpone), if it is too difficult/nerve wrecking/boring/whatever.

Your what if's are no different to TripleA than to the board game. The point is that there should just be a possible chance for the fighter to land for the move to be allowed. Fighters which cannot land after all should be removed from play (e.g. carrier withdrew from naval battle, so fighters can't reach or carrier was placed elsewhere), just like in the board game.


This email is a reply to your post @ http://n2.nabble.com/AA50-Bugs-tp2261731p2283777.html
You can reply by email or by visting the link above.

 

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 01/28/09 06:37:00

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

ComradeKev
Administrator
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
TaoQiBao wrote
china does build units out of nothing (no factory, no buy menu, I can still place 3 INFs in my territory while ignoring build limit; maybe map settings, see below)
<quote author="TaoQiBao">Correct, this is per the AA50 rules.  China can place 1 unit for every 2 territories owned.  They can place them in any Chinese territory that has less than 3 Chinese units in it already.  I'll be documenting many of the new map features and rules after I get the game to a  'regular' unstable release state.

TaoQiBao wrote
Without having done anything, I can attack French Indo-China Thailand with the fighter from Australia.
Fixed for next release 1.0.3.1

TaoQiBao wrote
The TECH is gone in REVISED  
Fixed for next release 1.0.3.1... and you'll be able to turn it on/off.
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

ComradeKev
Administrator
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
Constrainer wrote
There is still no retreat option when using land a land attack with an amphibious assault.
Fixed for release 1.0.3.1
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

ComradeKev
Administrator
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
Ghost Rider wrote
China should play after the US, not before.
I think I'll be able to handle this by 'mixing' the turn steps of China/US (similar to what happens w/ the UK and Australia in TripleA Pacific).  I think that will take care of both issues... China will build their units before the US attacks, and place AFTER the US attacks so that they'll be able to put units in newly captured territories.

Even though the change will occur in the XML only, I'll probably wait to make the change so that I don't screw up anything else.

Kev
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

ComradeKev
Administrator
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
GhostRider wrote
Just to clarify 1 rule listed above:
Extra units purchased/not placed should be saved for future turns and lost if capital falls....
So we're ok with the way it's worded now, right?  Basically, units should carry over from turn to turn.... but if your capital falls, you lose any units you bought on previous turns.

I'm getting an idea about the code and I think it's not going to be quite as hard as I originally thought.  I'm hoping to have it ready for the next release (which will probably be around the end of February).

Kev
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

theting
one more remark on this point : you have to place the maximum of units on the board.

The units you can keep for extra turn are only the units that you can not place.

for instance, you can not say "i did not take ukraine this turn, so germany will be able to blitz to caucasus and i prefer keep some units for next turns" you have to put your units on the board
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

ComradeKev
Administrator
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
Constrainer wrote
When you click on the history you get exceptions
I believe it's fixed in release 1.0.3.1
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

kendric2
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
There is a bug with destroyers if I interpret the rules correctly. If you put on low luck mode to make things simple, attack a group of 6 subs with 1 destroyer and 1 bomber. You should get 1 hit and they should get 1 hit(since subs defend at 1 and you have an attack of 2+6). The subs sink the destroyer and it looks like they knock it out immediately making the planes unable to hit. Does not destroyer cancel subs first strike ability? Or is it just that they make subs visible.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AA50 Bugs

kendric2
In reply to this post by ComradeKev
I am also seeing the following. On uk 1 build a carrier. Attack some german subs who sunk the british BB in sea zone 2(nw of UK) with the destroyer and bomber and 2 fighters. After victory fly back to UK. Place carrier. It does not ask you to place planes on it. This is strange since I usually do see the dialog asking to place planes.

A separate issue. On an amphibious assault, I only get a chance to retreat planes on round 1. Shouldn't it be every round? Update. The next time I tried this, it did ask. Not sure what was going on first time. It was an attack with bomber and air from algeria, ground from libya, and naval invasion with no bombard. Maybe because the air came from a different square then the ground or the naval. The 2nd time everything invaded from the same zone.
1234