A number of "bugs", problems
-
- Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
- Posts: 3609
- Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:43 pm
- Location: Wales
A number of "bugs", problems
Hi All
1. I have had 2 games where an average elephant with general and an average cav with gen is on 50% strength and has not routed. Does having the gen with these units make them above average?
2. A CIC and a sub are in command of all units in both commands
3 Playing a game where my opponent could deploy all troops up to 14 squares in. I had a game where I could deploy all troops upto 12 squares in
4 Units have stopped when seeing a unit in ambush and cannot move at all. I had a unit that stopped (LH) as it had seen a unit that allegedly was not visible, it could not move at all after. I could see it before I moved.
5 Not sure if it is a bug but if I have made a unit test and it held firm, another test it held firm, another test it held firm. It is very rare a unit fails it's test after holding firm twice.
1. I have had 2 games where an average elephant with general and an average cav with gen is on 50% strength and has not routed. Does having the gen with these units make them above average?
2. A CIC and a sub are in command of all units in both commands
3 Playing a game where my opponent could deploy all troops up to 14 squares in. I had a game where I could deploy all troops upto 12 squares in
4 Units have stopped when seeing a unit in ambush and cannot move at all. I had a unit that stopped (LH) as it had seen a unit that allegedly was not visible, it could not move at all after. I could see it before I moved.
5 Not sure if it is a bug but if I have made a unit test and it held firm, another test it held firm, another test it held firm. It is very rare a unit fails it's test after holding firm twice.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28015
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
No, but it is "below 50%" not "at 50%". (Different from tabletop, I know)ericdoman1 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:35 am Hi All
1. I have had 2 games where an average elephant with general and an average cav with gen is on 50% strength and has not routed. Does having the gen with these units make them above average?
I would need proof that that is what is actually happening. They can both be in command of the same command.2. A CIC and a sub are in command of all units in both commands
See Cunningcairn's thread.3 Playing a game where my opponent could deploy all troops up to 14 squares in. I had a game where I could deploy all troops upto 12 squares in
viewtopic.php?f=477&t=105634
That works on a checksum (total number of visible units before and after the move), not on the visibility of individual units. So the visibility of other units before and after the move can affect the calculation.4 Units have stopped when seeing a unit in ambush and cannot move at all. I had a unit that stopped (LH) as it had seen a unit that allegedly was not visible, it could not move at all after. I could see it before I moved.
That isn't a bug, it is because both tests for the same cause in the same turn are using the same dice roll, to simulate a single test being taken at the end of the phase like it is in the tabletop game. So the tests are not independent tests, and if it passes the first one, it cannot fail the subsequent ones (for the same reason) unless there are additional negative modifiers.5 Not sure if it is a bug but if I have made a unit test and it held firm, another test it held firm, another test it held firm. It is very rare a unit fails it's test after holding firm twice.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
- Posts: 3609
- Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:43 pm
- Location: Wales
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
Thanks Richard. In one of our games I had the issue of 2 generals commanding 2 commands. For example Gen 1 has 8 nits in his command, gen 2 has 8 units in his command but they each commanded all 16 units.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28015
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
What exactly do you mean by "commanded" in "they each commanded all 16 units" ?ericdoman1 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:58 am Thanks Richard. In one of our games I had the issue of 2 generals commanding 2 commands. For example Gen 1 has 8 nits in his command, gen 2 has 8 units in his command but they each commanded all 16 units.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
- Posts: 3609
- Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:43 pm
- Location: Wales
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
They were all in the ZOC of both commanders. So when you clicked on one general all 16 units were highlighted and click on the other general and all 16 units were highlighted.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28015
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
So they were all in one command, which is fine if one of them was the C-in-C. What makes you think one general had 8 units and the other had 8 units?ericdoman1 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 2:25 pm They were all in the ZOC of both commanders. So when you clicked on one general all 16 units were highlighted and click on the other general and all 16 units were highlighted.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
Richard my understanding is that if a unit is visible to one unit in an army it is assumed through communication channels it is "visible" to all units. Assuming that to be correct is the checksum calculation done on all units in an army or just the one moving?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:46 amNo, but it is "below 50%" not "at 50%". (Different from tabletop, I know)ericdoman1 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:35 am Hi All
1. I have had 2 games where an average elephant with general and an average cav with gen is on 50% strength and has not routed. Does having the gen with these units make them above average?
I would need proof that that is what is actually happening. They can both be in command of the same command.2. A CIC and a sub are in command of all units in both commands
See Cunningcairn's thread.3 Playing a game where my opponent could deploy all troops up to 14 squares in. I had a game where I could deploy all troops upto 12 squares in
viewtopic.php?f=477&t=105634
That works on a checksum (total number of visible units before and after the move), not on the visibility of individual units. So the visibility of other units before and after the move can affect the calculation.4 Units have stopped when seeing a unit in ambush and cannot move at all. I had a unit that stopped (LH) as it had seen a unit that allegedly was not visible, it could not move at all after. I could see it before I moved.
That isn't a bug, it is because both tests for the same cause in the same turn are using the same dice roll, to simulate a single test being taken at the end of the phase like it is in the tabletop game. So the tests are not independent tests, and if it passes the first one, it cannot fail the subsequent ones (for the same reason) unless there are additional negative modifiers.5 Not sure if it is a bug but if I have made a unit test and it held firm, another test it held firm, another test it held firm. It is very rare a unit fails it's test after holding firm twice.
-
- Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
- Posts: 3609
- Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:43 pm
- Location: Wales
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
I just used that as an example. When you begin a game you click on a gen and the units you want him to command. YAll units were commanded by the CIC and another general.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 2:27 pmSo they were all in one command, which is fine if one of them was the C-in-C. What makes you think one general had 8 units and the other had 8 units?ericdoman1 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 2:25 pm They were all in the ZOC of both commanders. So when you clicked on one general all 16 units were highlighted and click on the other general and all 16 units were highlighted.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28015
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
If (before you move any units from command to command) you have an infantry subgeneral and move the Cin-C to a unit of infantry, then they will both be in command of all of them.ericdoman1 wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 8:02 pmI just used that as an example. When you begin a game you click on a gen and the units you want him to command. YAll units were commanded by the CIC and another general.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 2:27 pmSo they were all in one command, which is fine if one of them was the C-in-C. What makes you think one general had 8 units and the other had 8 units?ericdoman1 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 2:25 pm They were all in the ZOC of both commanders. So when you clicked on one general all 16 units were highlighted and click on the other general and all 16 units were highlighted.
But we have had this discussion before, and so far I remain unconvinced that you have found something that isn't WAD.
You would need to provide screen shots demonstrating that there is a real issue that needs to be investigated.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28015
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
The checksum is done on the unit, using the all-units LOS function. So yes, it does take into account units visible to any unit in the army.Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 7:19 pmRichard my understanding is that if a unit is visible to one unit in an army it is assumed through communication channels it is "visible" to all units. Assuming that to be correct is the checksum calculation done on all units in an army or just the one moving?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:46 amNo, but it is "below 50%" not "at 50%". (Different from tabletop, I know)ericdoman1 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:35 am Hi All
1. I have had 2 games where an average elephant with general and an average cav with gen is on 50% strength and has not routed. Does having the gen with these units make them above average?
I would need proof that that is what is actually happening. They can both be in command of the same command.2. A CIC and a sub are in command of all units in both commands
See Cunningcairn's thread.3 Playing a game where my opponent could deploy all troops up to 14 squares in. I had a game where I could deploy all troops upto 12 squares in
viewtopic.php?f=477&t=105634
That works on a checksum (total number of visible units before and after the move), not on the visibility of individual units. So the visibility of other units before and after the move can affect the calculation.4 Units have stopped when seeing a unit in ambush and cannot move at all. I had a unit that stopped (LH) as it had seen a unit that allegedly was not visible, it could not move at all after. I could see it before I moved.
That isn't a bug, it is because both tests for the same cause in the same turn are using the same dice roll, to simulate a single test being taken at the end of the phase like it is in the tabletop game. So the tests are not independent tests, and if it passes the first one, it cannot fail the subsequent ones (for the same reason) unless there are additional negative modifiers.5 Not sure if it is a bug but if I have made a unit test and it held firm, another test it held firm, another test it held firm. It is very rare a unit fails it's test after holding firm twice.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
If the moving unit loses sight of an enemy unit when moving and simultaneously sees another enemy unit not previously visible to itself but visible to the rest of the army could that effect the checksum?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:22 amThe checksum is done on the unit, using the all-units LOS function. So yes, it does take into account units visible to any unit in the army.Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 7:19 pmRichard my understanding is that if a unit is visible to one unit in an army it is assumed through communication channels it is "visible" to all units. Assuming that to be correct is the checksum calculation done on all units in an army or just the one moving?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 9:46 am
No, but it is "below 50%" not "at 50%". (Different from tabletop, I know)
I would need proof that that is what is actually happening. They can both be in command of the same command.
See Cunningcairn's thread.
viewtopic.php?f=477&t=105634
That works on a checksum (total number of visible units before and after the move), not on the visibility of individual units. So the visibility of other units before and after the move can affect the calculation.
That isn't a bug, it is because both tests for the same cause in the same turn are using the same dice roll, to simulate a single test being taken at the end of the phase like it is in the tabletop game. So the tests are not independent tests, and if it passes the first one, it cannot fail the subsequent ones (for the same reason) unless there are additional negative modifiers.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28015
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
No, because it is testing what the army can see, not what the individual unit can see.Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 7:15 pmIf the moving unit loses sight of an enemy unit when moving and simultaneously sees another enemy unit not previously visible to itself but visible to the rest of the army could that effect the checksum?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:22 amThe checksum is done on the unit, using the all-units LOS function. So yes, it does take into account units visible to any unit in the army.Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 7:19 pm
Richard my understanding is that if a unit is visible to one unit in an army it is assumed through communication channels it is "visible" to all units. Assuming that to be correct is the checksum calculation done on all units in an army or just the one moving?
However, it can happen that a new unit becomes visible to the army when a unit moves, and a previously visible unit (that was only visible to the moving unit) becomes hidden, in which case the checksum method will fail and the unit will not be prevented from undoing its move.
As the purpose of the rule is primarily to deter, or render less effective, deliberate "Undo scouting", this occasional anomaly was deemed acceptable to avoid having to keep exhausted lists of visible and hidden units in scripts, and compare them unit be unit.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
OK thanks I was not aware that it was known to be a problem. It hasn't stopped scouting though and is really annoying when a legitimate move is stopped mid track especially when that move effects the entire maneuver you have just implemented after careful consideration.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 6:09 amNo, because it is testing what the army can see, not what the individual unit can see.Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 7:15 pmIf the moving unit loses sight of an enemy unit when moving and simultaneously sees another enemy unit not previously visible to itself but visible to the rest of the army could that effect the checksum?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:22 am
The checksum is done on the unit, using the all-units LOS function. So yes, it does take into account units visible to any unit in the army.
However, it can happen that a new unit becomes visible to the army when a unit moves, and a previously visible unit (that was only visible to the moving unit) becomes hidden, in which case the checksum method will fail and the unit will not be prevented from undoing its move.
As the purpose of the rule is primarily to deter, or render less effective, deliberate "Undo scouting", this occasional anomaly was deemed acceptable to avoid having to keep exhausted lists of visible and hidden units in scripts, and compare them unit be unit.
-
- Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
- Posts: 3609
- Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:43 pm
- Location: Wales
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
Another problem. Wanted to have it confirmed again by my opponent. I have done the 10% + casualties on a unit from shooting and it did not test?
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28015
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: A number of "bugs", problems
As recently discussed elsewhere, the 10% thing is approximate.ericdoman1 wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 9:59 am Another problem. Wanted to have it confirmed again by my opponent. I have done the 10% + casualties on a unit from shooting and it did not test?
Richard Bodley Scott