BM4 Amon-Sul (Allies +15) vs. Pejon_88 (Axis)

VictoryFirst

Sorry, I just realized I missed some very important key details. Ignore everything I said, I will investigate this further.

VictoryFirst

Alright, something is going wrong with TripleA. The engine should not have allowed you to attack Malaya with a fighter and a tactical. This forces a carrier to be present in SZ 37, and there already needs to be one to rescue the planes in SZ 38. This leaves you with only one carrier to pick up three air units that are attacking Australian ships, which is not enough.

I’ll create a bug report for this. Thanks for bringing this to light.

Pejon_88

@VictoryFirst Thank you very much for investigating this. I came to the same conclusion that after moving everything else best I could, I had three planes down in Australia that only had one carrier to utilize.

VictoryFirst

@Pejon_88 The issue is definitely interesting to say the least. I tried to move the air units in a different order to see if that mattered, but the engine allowed every move at any point. So it thinks the movement of all air units as a whole is legal.

I will investigate it and hopefully it can be fixed before TripleA 2.7 comes out 👍

Also, regarding the error of the “Test Post”, was it clear from the error message what was exactly wrong? If not, what would you change to the error message to make it more clear?

Pejon_88

@VictoryFirst Yes it seems like the engine thought there were landing spots for every plane for some reason.

Yes, thank you. It did mention I had entered the incorrect password, but it didn’t work for me at first. I probably mistyped. All solved now thanks.

Amon-Sul

Victory first

Thanks a lot for the effort U did !

It seems that triple a was wrong because AC from Sz 6 couldnt reach any of the planes

And without it, one plane is doomed

Amon-Sul

@VictoryFirst said in BM4 Amon-Sul (Allies +15) vs. Pejon_88 (Axis):

@Pejon_88 The issue is definitely interesting to say the least. I tried to move the air units in a different order to see if that mattered, but the engine allowed every move at any point. So it thinks the movement of all air units as a whole is legal.

I will investigate it and hopefully it can be fixed before TripleA 2.7 comes out 👍

Also, regarding the error of the “Test Post”, was it clear from the error message what was exactly wrong? If not, what would you change to the error message to make it more clear?

I think that Triple a count Shan State (conquered that some round - walk over) as a landing spot.

If Shan State wasnt taken , i think the program probably wouldnt allow the sz 62 attack

Pejon_88

@VictoryFirst Would be very interesting if you could reply in this thread if you find out what went wrong. Thanks!

Panther

@VictoryFirst

I think TripleA’s “oversight” is not and cannot be bound to a single combat move. By the rules all combat movement happens at the same time. As this - for reasons of usability - must be performed step by step the sequence of combat moves is arbitrary. So it can only be after all combat moves have been executed that TripleA might be enabled to check for valid landing spaces.

In this game the attack on Malaya (isolated) will be valid if you bring the carrier from SZ 36 to SZ 37, what gives a valid landing space, and when you move the one from SZ37 to SZ38 you have a valid landing space for the planes there, too (or bring the carrier from SZ 36 to 38 directly and leave the one in 37 there). But in that case only one carrier is present for the three planes in SZ 54 and 62. So here you could blame the movement of three fighters to the seazones south-east of Australia (instead of the attack on Malaya).

So - in case you don’t want the players to be resonsible for their movement - the engine should be enabled to check for landing spaces at the end of Combat Move Phase. During Combat Move Phase TripelA - at the time of executing each move - simply cannot “know” the follow up moves.

But let us further discuss that on https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/14508 .

Pejon_88

@Panther Thanks for your input!

VictoryFirst

@Amon-Sul said in BM4 Amon-Sul (Allies +15) vs. Pejon_88 (Axis):

If Shan State wasnt taken , i think the program probably wouldnt allow the sz 62 attack

Just stating already that that has not caused the issue. I started a save file from the start of the Japanese turn, didn’t purchase anything and only did the movements of the 7 air units in question. Still, TripleA allowed the movement of all 7 air units at any point, even though it is obvious one air unit will not have a landing spot. EVen when the fighter moving to SZ 62 is the very last move, the engine still allows it.

That being said, there are complex cases where the engine does correctly disallow some air attacks, when there are multiple carriers involved. One actually occurred in a game I am currently playing against Simon33 on G13, where the engine correctly prevents the movement of one fighter to SZ 91.

Amon-Sul

@VictoryFirst said in BM4 Amon-Sul (Allies +15) vs. Pejon_88 (Axis):

@Amon-Sul said in BM4 Amon-Sul (Allies +15) vs. Pejon_88 (Axis):

If Shan State wasnt taken , i think the program probably wouldnt allow the sz 62 attack

Just stating already that that has not caused the issue. I started a save file from the start of the Japanese turn, didn’t purchase anything and only did the movements of the 7 air units in question. Still, TripleA allowed the movement of all 7 air units at any point, even though it is obvious one air unit will not have a landing spot. EVen when the fighter moving to SZ 62 is the very last move, the engine still allows it.

That being said, there are complex cases where the engine does correctly disallow some air attacks, when there are multiple carriers involved. One actually occurred in a game I am currently playing against Simon33 on G13, where the engine correctly prevents the movement of one fighter to SZ 91.

Thanks a lot dude

It seems triple a has a bug sometimes (not Always, which makes it hard to detect) on this Isuse

Good to know

Hope it resolves somehow

Until then we ll be more careful

BM4 Amon-Sul (Allies +15) vs. Pejon_88 (Axis)

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

L26 BM4 Ghostglider vs Pejon_88(+21 allied)

L26 BM zarhunter (X) vs discalced (L+18) 2

BM4 Simon33 (Allies +16) vs. Pejon_88 (Axis)

2025 Playoff-final - Ghostglider vs Adam514 (allied +22)

L26 BM4 fasthard(X) vs Amon-Sul(L+24)

L26 BM simon33 (L+22) vs discalced (X)

PTV 25 playoff rd2 Stucifer v 666 (axis+10)

Simon33 (Axis) vs VictoryFirst (Allies+50) G40

15

18.1k

40.9k

1.8m