User avatar
Daxil
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Alleghenies

Potential major issue

Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:33 pm

Issue is VPs are not adding up properly for some people. Specifically Manstein vs pkpowers' game is not showing an accurate "Points accumulated each turn from cities" and pkpowers VPs were actually going backwards. We caught this on turn 16. What a hassle! This is why its impportant that people do live AARs. Ultimately you are responsible for speaking up if you feel slighted and there will be no do overs in this tournament. We can't suspend the whole thing because one person didn't keep track.

So, everyone should go back and verify your own points and hosts please at least do a rudimentary glance to see if they make sense. Hopefully this is just isolated to one game. It would be a shame if it ruined the tournament.
"We shall give them the bayonet." -Stonewall at Fredericksburg.

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Issue

Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:01 pm

When Habeas Corpus is suspended in a state, a player ceases to receive any VPs in that state.

When Martial Law is declared, a player loses VPs for strategic objectives in that state.

Might either of these be the case?

Image
Attachments
Loyalties.JPG

User avatar
Daxil
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Alleghenies

Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:23 pm

That could be it. There is definitely something else screwy going on though. Even when you start a new game it isnt counting depots or Indian villages as VPs. In my game it says I only have 9 VPs, but I'm counting 10. It says my opponent has 12, which I count, but that means making St Louis and Lexington only worth 1 point as oppossed to 10 and 2.

Unless we get some sort of definitive answer on what's going on here, I suggest we just we suspend or cancel the tournament. This isn't worth the hassle since the entire tournament is based on points. It could have something to do with the hosting method we're using, some people not having the correct version number, some people not doing a fresh install when they upgraded, or even the scenario itself. Frankly, I don't have time to figure this out.

EDIT Actually, pkpowers did have martial law applied. Maybe we still have life here, but that still doiesnt explain my issues. Investigating...
"We shall give them the bayonet." -Stonewall at Fredericksburg.

User avatar
Manstein
Brigadier General
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:57 pm
Location: Cádiz, Spain

Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:39 pm

Daxil wrote:Unless we get some sort of definitive answer on what's going on here, I suggest we just we suspend or cancel the tournament. This isn't worth the hassle since the entire tournament is based on points. It could have something to do with the hosting method we're using, some people not having the correct version number, some people not doing a fresh install when they upgraded, or even the scenario itself. Frankly, I don't have time to figure this out.


Really, I think that it isn´t neccessary. I have seen your backups and I have seen that pkpowers has the "Martial Law" applied at Missouri. So, really the VP result is 149/20.
Anyway, if you think that it is a very tremendous error from pkpowers, I´m inclined to forgive the pkpowers´s error and let the actual result at 149/141 and forget the USA "Martial Law"

User avatar
Daxil
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Alleghenies

Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:43 pm

Manstein wrote:Really, I think that it isn´t neccessary. I have seen your backups and I have seen that pkpowers has the "Martial Law" applied at Missouri. So, really the VP result is 149/20.
Anyway, if you think that it is a very tremendous error from pkpowers, I´m inclined to forgive the pkpowers´s error and let the actual result at 149/141 and forget the USA "Martial Law"


Thats fine if you want to do that for him, but we need to make sure the point system is exact. Im having my host see if he can make sense of it.
"We shall give them the bayonet." -Stonewall at Fredericksburg.

User avatar
Manstein
Brigadier General
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:57 pm
Location: Cádiz, Spain

Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:48 pm

Daxil wrote:Thats fine if you want to do that for him, but we need to make sure the point system is exact. Im having my host see if he can make sense of it.


I haven´t any problem with forgive the pkpowers´s error, because I want not win by a nonsense. I want win playing fair.

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Victory Points

Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:36 pm

Daxil wrote:Even when you start a new game it isnt counting depots or Indian villages as VPs. In my game it says I only have 9 VPs, but I'm counting 10. It says my opponent has 12, which I count, but that means making St Louis and Lexington only worth 1 point as oppossed to 10 and 2.


My understanding is that only strategic cities are counted, for points. Those strategic cities are:
St. Louis MO, Little Rock AR, Ft. Smith AR, Lawrence KS, Lexington MO, Jefferson City MO, Rolla MO, Springfield MO, Charleston MO, and Fayette AR.

I believe that the cities in bold font have a higher value than 1, although their exact value I haven't been able to tell, to this point. If each has a value of "4", for example, and the rest have a value of "1", then the total comes out to 19. (More likely, St. Louis has a value of as much as 8, with Little Rock and Ft. Smith having, at minimum, values of "2" each. Of course, I'm just guessing. :) )

Note that the destruction of a depot apparently does not remove the underlying town's strategic value:

[INDENT]Image[/INDENT]

Respectfully,
Dixicrat

EDIT: After reviewing two of Havely's saved turns, I've come to the conclusion that Fayetteville has a strategic value of "2" with the depot, but it drops to "1" if the depot is destroyed. This might explain why early turns had a combined total of 20 VP, but all turns after the destruction of the depot have 19 VP.

If this is the case, then it might be that both Rolla and Springfield are similar, since I see no reason why they would have any greater (or lesser) strategic value than Fayetteville.
Attachments
Strategic.JPG

User avatar
Daxil
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Alleghenies

Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:57 pm

Dixicrat wrote:My understanding is that only strategic cities are counted, for points. Those strategic cities are:
St. Louis MO, Little Rock AR, Ft. Smith AR, Lawrence KS, Lexington MO, Jefferson City MO, Rolla MO, Springfield MO, Charleston MO, and Fayette AR.

I believe that the cities in bold font have a higher value than 1, although their exact value I haven't been able to tell, to this point. If each has a value of "4", for example, and the rest have a value of "1", then the total comes out to 19. (More likely, St. Louis has a value of as much as 8, with Little Rock and Ft. Smith having, at minimum, values of "2" each. Of course, I'm just guessing. :) )

Note that the destruction of a depot apparently does not remove the underlying town's strategic value:

[INDENT]Image[/INDENT]

Respectfully,
Dixicrat


Well that explains it. Thanks. It would be nice to know exactly what's going on, but as long as things are consistent I guess we'll have to be in the dark somewhat. As was stated from the get-go, this is a "friendly" tournament so no one should be taking defeats too hard hopefully.
"We shall give them the bayonet." -Stonewall at Fredericksburg.

User avatar
Manstein
Brigadier General
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:57 pm
Location: Cádiz, Spain

Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:08 pm

There is more games where the players are using Loyalties options. I´m hosting the Jabberwock(CSA)-Torca(USA) game, and Torca is using Martial Law at Missouri.

If you see the Yellowhammer-Josh4bs game, you will see that the CSA has very few VP. I don´t know if Yellowhammer has used any Loyalty Option or he has lost very much battles, but the VP difference is very high.

Perhaps you should awake to all players about the danger of using Loyalties Options. I never used, because I think that they are counterproductive, but I see that some players use theese options regularly.

pkpowers
Corporal
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:59 am

Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:44 pm

No problem ; 'tis just a game, I'm a fair sport and it was a lesson learned. Now I know how rough those loyalty options can be. I was just trying to stablize the population in the state :bonk:

The score can stand, as in chess it was a blunder on my part and checkmate is the result

User avatar
Manstein
Brigadier General
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:57 pm
Location: Cádiz, Spain

Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:23 pm

pkpowers wrote:No problem ; 'tis just a game, I'm a fair sport and it was a lesson learned. Now I know how rough those loyalty options can be. I was just trying to stablize the population in the state :bonk:

The score can stand, as in chess it was a blunder on my part and checkmate is the result


No, I haven´t any problem at forgive your understandable error, but I´m warning to Daxil about there is more players using the Loyalty options and I think that he should to awake to all players about theese options.

User avatar
Daxil
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Alleghenies

Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:00 pm

pkpowers wrote:No problem ; 'tis just a game, I'm a fair sport and it was a lesson learned. Now I know how rough those loyalty options can be. I was just trying to stablize the population in the state :bonk:

The score can stand, as in chess it was a blunder on my part and checkmate is the result


Yes I dont think you should be penalized.It really isn't clear that you'd lose VPs.
"We shall give them the bayonet." -Stonewall at Fredericksburg.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:14 pm

deleted

User avatar
kjstrand
Private
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:46 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:04 am

I was playing under the impression that all actual cities (not depots) counted for points. I took and held Panther for exactly that reason. It seemed like it counted, but I can't be sure.

User avatar
bigus
General
Posts: 599
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:43 pm

Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:50 pm

Daxil wrote:That could be it. There is definitely something else screwy going on though. Even when you start a new game it isnt counting depots or Indian villages as VPs. In my game it says I only have 9 VPs, but I'm counting 10. It says my opponent has 12, which I count, but that means making St Louis and Lexington only worth 1 point as oppossed to 10 and 2.

Unless we get some sort of definitive answer on what's going on here, I suggest we just we suspend or cancel the tournament. This isn't worth the hassle since the entire tournament is based on points. It could have something to do with the hosting method we're using, some people not having the correct version number, some people not doing a fresh install when they upgraded, or even the scenario itself. Frankly, I don't have time to figure this out.

EDIT Actually, pkpowers did have martial law applied. Maybe we still have life here, but that still doiesnt explain my issues. Investigating...


I don't want to ruin this tournament by divulging Cities and their worth.
I won't state their worth unless asked by the tournement organizer. I will say this though......In Missouri you must garrison a VP city with Line infantry or Cavalry (not Militia) Or you will not get VP's for the City.
I'll also state that Depots and Indian villages are not worth any VP. You can check out the VP cities by clicking on the appropriate tab.

User avatar
Daxil
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Alleghenies

Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:44 pm

bigus wrote:I don't want to ruin this tournament by divulging Cities and their worth.
I won't state their worth unless asked by the tournement organizer. I will say this though......In Missouri you must garrison a VP city with Line infantry or Cavalry (not Militia) Or you will not get VP's for the City.
I'll also state that Depots and Indian villages are not worth any VP. You can check out the VP cities by clicking on the appropriate tab.


Well this just leaves me even more confused. So, even though a region might be a "strategic" region, it won't necessarily generate VPs. What do you mean by appropriate tab?

I guess to be fair, we shoudn't divolge actual worth at this point, but I'd very much like to know all these details about the West and East scenarios when you get a chance, as they will be rounds 2, 3.
"We shall give them the bayonet." -Stonewall at Fredericksburg.

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

Mysterious Values of Objectives

Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:43 am

bigus wrote:I don't want to ruin this tournament by divulging Cities and their worth. I won't state their worth unless asked by the tournement organizer.


I'm with Daxil! This bewilders me. :confused: Why should the value of a military objective be secret? It seems a simple matter to examine the difference in VP/turn after an objective is taken or lost. ...Or do the values vary, dependent upon weather or troop concentrations or something equally obscure...?

I regard this particular scenario as among the best of all scenarios: good balance, good duration, an element of sudden death, and all the tricks, traps, and nuances that the scenario provides. I'm just confused as to why the "hidden" VP values are necessary. I'm fairly sure there's a good reason, so I'm not griping... just wondering.

This brings up an ethical question: is it considered "cheating" to run a self vs self game (i.e., AI turned off) for tournament preparation? I've been doing this to explore detection and the effect of different tactics and so on; and it would be fairly easy to deduce VP values while doing so. Is this wrong? :blink:

bigus wrote:...I will say this though... ...In Missouri you must garrison a VP city with Line infantry or Cavalry (not Militia) Or you will not get VP's for the City...


I predict a mad scramble... :neener:

bigus wrote:...I'll also state that Depots and Indian villages are not worth any VP...


Then why are some cities labeled as "strategic", if they hold no value to the player who controls them? Is this just a "flavor" thing?

bigus wrote:...You can check out the VP cities by clicking on the appropriate tab.


I'm assuming that you mean the "Objectives" tab in the ledger, where the three objective cities are listed on the right. If that's the case, does this mean that all scenarios only award VPs to cities whose capture also affects NM? IMHO, this is a profoundly significant thing, with sweeping implications for all scenarios; and I believe that if this is the case, not only should it be mentioned in the manual, but emphasized.
[SIZE="3"]Regards,[/size]
Dixicrat

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Basic Training for AACW newcomers

User avatar
bigus
General
Posts: 599
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:43 pm

Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:37 am

The VP's are

St Louis= 6 VP (3 for being an NM city and 3 VP's)
Little Rock= 4 VP (3 for NM and 1 VP)
Ft Smith= 4 VP (3 for NM and 1 VP)
Lexington=1 vp
Lawrence=1 vp
Jefferson city=1 vp
Rolla=1 vp
Charleston=1 vp
Springfield depot=1 vp
Fayeteville depot=1 vp

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:10 pm

If you'd had read my Far West AAR, you'd notice I took measures to take the strategic locations in that game for the VP's. I thought it was pretty obvious how to win (even I figured it out when I didn't even figure out how to form a division :bonk: ), but I guess it's not. Being interested in how to win, I of course first took a look at how to do that :wacko:
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:54 pm

Manstein wrote:I haven´t any problem with forgive the pkpowers´s error, because I want not win by a nonsense. I want win playing fair.


+1 for Torca
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]

Image

Return to “1st AACW PBEM Tournament (2008/2009)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests