ah, ya, i know why that is happening
basically, you are not supposed to have turns interspersed, or they may be weird effects
essentially, the game keeps track of which territories are conquered for a turn, but it doesn’t do so on a per player basis,
in addition, the game validates where units can land at the end of noncombat phases, unless you have purchased a carrier and are validating fighter, etc etc, complex stuff
OK, I understand. So this is how TripleA is coded - and this is not an issue of the Game-XML itself.
anyway, i suggest you either have the Chinese and American turns COMPLETELY separate from each other
OR you leave the game xml as it currently is (since it works well already)
I honestly do not think this affects the game at all, because China gets completely destroyed in the first 2 turns anyway.
In 3 years of people playing this and testing it (AA50 is the most popular game on triplea, and there are at least 20-60 games of it played every day), noone has ever noticed this “bug” or reported it. So that means it does not affect any ‘real’ games.
Yes, I agree. Personally I would tend towards seperating China from America completely as is is much more comfortable and clearly arranged.
( see for example http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26522.msg927681#msg927681 ).
Either this or leaving the XML as it is - of course - is not rules-compliant. But as you pointed out this does not really matter in the games that are played.
And - players can use the Edit Mode to correct or change some issues. So all in all for PBF-Purposes I would vote for transparent information in the turn posts.
But - I think that in a game the players have to use the same XML, am I right? Or is it possible that for example the Axis player plays with the downloaded XML as it is and the Allies player uses a modified game-XML in which turns for China and America are separated?
games always use the hosts’ xml
and after the game starts, the xml you started is in the game data (memory), so you do not even need the xml after the game has started
i think in the future, i will move the chinese and american turns to be separate
what is better, China then America,
or America then China?
games always use the hosts’ xml
and after the game starts, the xml you started is in the game data (memory), so you do not even need the xml after the game has started
Ah ok. The player who moves first ist host then?
i think in the future, i will move the chinese and american turns to be separate
what is better, China then America,
or America then China?
I would prefer China then America.
Thanks :-)
the player who hosts the game on their computer is the host
the people who connect to his computer are the clients
the host doesn’t even need to play…. he could be hosting for other people as a service
Yes, true for hosted games.
But when playing by forum - for example here in the “Play Boardgames”-section, no one connects to a host.
Both people use their individual TripleA containing the game-xml and exchange only savegames after each turn via the forum.
So in this case they must be sure to use the same game-xml, right?.
Or is it - in forum games - possible that for example the Axis player plays with the “standard game xml as of Map Version 1.4” and the Allies player uses a “modified Version 1.4-game-xml” in which turns for China and America are separated?
the xml gets parsed into the game data object
the game data object is saved in the savegame
once the game has started, the xml is no longer used at all
ok, thanks :-)
These are the official rules.
“China and its units are controlled by the U.S. player, but for game purposes it is considered a separate power and its
resources cannot be mixed. The U.S. player takes China’s turn at the same time as the U.S. turn but Chinese unit combat and
movement are done separately from the U.S. forces. The U.S. player must complete the Combat Move and Conduct Combat
phases for Chinese forces before beginning the Combat Move phase for U.S. forces, or vice versa.”
Now TripleA works fine following the rules. Actually, it should be nicer if the player could choose which nation starts.
The problem with the forum is not vital. It is more important to follow the rules and turns cannot become separate. Don’t you agree?
I agree in principle, but in practice things are more difficult…
Feel free to download the source code and contribute your time rewriting the engine to cover this very minor point.
We are open source, and rely on the contributions of people who are working for free.
I prefer to spend my time (unpaid) trying to get major functions and features working, like for Global 1940.
A minor technicality that is only hypothetical, and never affected a single “real” game, is so far down on the TODO list, that I doubt it will ever get done. (unless of course, someone besides me decides to help)
These are the official rules.
…
Now TripleA works fine following the rules.
No it does not. Just follow this thread and you will read that in the map-XML the sequence of actions is not rules-compliant (Chinese Battle is after US NCM).
Veqryn explained the reasons behind that.
The approach of seperating China from USA is to be more accurate in sight of information in the posts when PBF.
@P@nther:
i think in the future, i will move the chinese and american turns to be separate
what is better, China then America,
or America then China?I would prefer China then America.
Thanks :-)
Veqryn, I have to correct myself.
It has to be America before China, otherwise China would not be able to place its units in a territory that was liberated by USA before.
If it ever comes to an update.
I could do this, if it helps….
China gets +1 infantry for every 2 territories on the board at the beginning of the Chinese turn.
If I put China after the USA, then China could potentially get additional infantry if the USA liberates a territory for it.
So it either has to be:
1. the current way, with the turns intermixed.
2. China completely, then USA completely.
I haven’t tested yet, but if the current method lets China place units in a territory that USA liberated, then I guess we better stick with the current method.
China gets +1 infantry for every 2 territories on the board at the beginning of the Chinese turn.
If I put China after the USA, then China could potentially get additional infantry if the USA liberates a territory for it.
Right, I forgot that.
So to sum all of this up we have got three alternatives to consider:
1. Leaving the game-XML as it is with the following steps:
1. Tech/Tech activation US
2. Purchase US
3. “Purchase” China
4. CM US
5. Battle US
6. NCM US
7. CM China
8. Battle China
9. NCM China
10. Place US
11. Place China
12. End China
13. End US
2. Separating - with China before US
3. Separating - with US before China
Issues with solution 1 (leaving XML as it is)
Issues with solution 2 (China before US)
Issues with soultion 3 (US before China)
Within the next days I will test some scenarios and post my impressions here.
@P@nther:
Issues with solution 1 (leaving XML as it is)
- fact: turn posts are crippled
- fact: US cannot NCM into territoires China just liberated (“battling the same time”)
- fact: China cannot weaken territories for US (the same turn)
- to be tested: can Chinese place their Infantry to territories just liberated by US (“battling the same time”)?
- to be tested: can Chinese NCM into territories just liberated by US?
- anything else?…
Results:
Yes, China can NCM into territories just liberated by US.
Yes, China can place units to territories just liberated by US.
Gameplay is close to the rules, apart from the stated issues.
@P@nther:
Issues with solution 2 (China before US)
- fact: turn posts are correct
- fact: China will not be able to place units in territories “just liberated” by US
- fact: China will not be able to NCM into territories “just liberated” by US
- fact: US cannot weaken territories for China (the same turn)
- anything else?…
Gameplay is different from solution 1 and 3 because China’s actions are limited in NCM and Unit Placement.
@P@nther:
Issues with solution 3 (US before China)
- fact: turn posts are correct
- fact: when US liberate Chinese territories “just before” the resulting number of Chinese Infantry may be too high
- fact: US will not be able to NCM into territories “just liberated” by China
- fact: China cannot weaken territories for US (the same turn)
- anything else?…
Gameplay is exactly the same as with solution 1.
For the benefit of exact turn posts players additionally have to take care about the number of Chinese territories and use “Edit Mode” if the number of Chinese Infantry would be too high.
So as a consequence - when ignoring solution 2 - the choice is between
a) crippled turn posts - but no need to take care about China’s spawning Infantries
b) exact turn posts - but take care about Chinese territories/spawning Infantries
If turn posts do not matter the result should clearly be “a”. But why do people post their turns then? Why do they PBF then? Exchanging the savegames would be enough for gameplay.
If turn posts do matter the result could be “b”.
Personally, I sometimes like to read through the turn posts in the “play boardgames” section and just read what people are doing. And I would like to see what happens with US and China without having to download the savegame, use “Game History” and so on…
That is the advantage of a forum and forum games.
Just my thoughts so far…
i guess we should leave it with solution 1.
most players will not be aware of the need to use edit mode to delete units, even if I post a giant news item somewhere
ps: triplea 1.5.1 is out
i guess we should leave it with solution 1.
most players will not be aware of the need to use edit mode to delete units, even if I post a giant news item somewhere
Yes, I agree. It would be difficult to bring this to everyone’s attention.
@Veqryn:
ps: triplea 1.5.1 is out
Great, I will test it this evening.
Thank you :-)
