• RE: Cold War 1965 - Official Thread

    I see, I don't know if I would call it a bad habit. It is a mode of play where players basically agree:

    • we are not going to argue the 'official' rules, we both know what the game engine does and does not do, what it allows is allowed, those are the rules.
    • very narrow, specific and obvious bugs are allowed for edit, typically carrier unload/load and transport unload.
    • strictly no edits are otherwise allowed.

    I would call this "strict" play. I'm not always a fan of this, but for some players it's how they play. It's important to establish these rules before starting play.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Cold War 1965 - Official Thread

    @LaFayette My opinion that is just a common bad abit of TripleA players, that they just go with what the engine does. That is merely a very old bug of v3 paratroopers, that so far no developer ever fixed.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Cold War 1965 - Official Thread

    The paratroops immediately capturing territories is not unique to this map though. That behavior I would not call a bug as the behavior is fully intended. A bug is something unintended.

    @Panther could you weigh in if you agree that paratroop captures of undefended territory should happen immediately during combat-move or during combat?

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Cold War 1965 - Official Thread

    @Cernel If you play this map, I'd advise you make it clear, before starting, to any players that move is not allowed. Such a tactic is a 'flavor' of this map and is important strategically.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Cold War 1965 - Official Thread

    @LaFayette said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:

    Such an undefended territory can be captured by paratroop, and then another air-cargo can move past it. For a path 3 territories deep, you'd need at least 6 units, 3 inf and 3 cargo.

    I assure you that this is a bug. I would not allow you to perform such a move, if you were playing against me, unless the notes of the game state it is allowed.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Cold War 1965 - Official Thread

    @Cernel said in Cold War 1965 - Official Thread:

    You mean taking an undefended territory with a land unit and having the paratrooping aircraft moving past it?

    I don't think I implied that, AFAIK that one air transport cannot move until non-combat.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Cold War 1965 - Official Thread

    @Cernel Rules depend on the map, strict tournament like players will consider any allowable moves, unless obvious bugs, to be the rules regardless of what they should be external to the map.

    Such an undefended territory can be captured by paratroop, and then another air-cargo can move past it. For a path 3 territories deep, you'd need at least 6 units, 3 inf and 3 cargo.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Cold War 1965 - Official Thread

    @LaFayette You mean taking an undefended territory with a land unit and having the paratrooping aircraft moving past it? If so, that is a bug, actually (illegal move).

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Cold War 1965 - Official Thread

    @Lord-Bevan An exception to the 'jump' is undefended territories as they are captured immediately. This forces players to leave a token garrison, with multi-country attacks, strafing can be useful to clear a path. There is an element of strategy.

    Being able to jump territories could be imbalanced. If there are two forces in stalement, massing air transport would force a potential retreat to avoid being jumped over.

    Air transports also serve as one hitpoint too, I remember that right? that is another aspect where mass air transports is pretty powerful, you get a lot of fodder, back up with a few nuclear bombers and helo's, and it's a powerful attack.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: TripleA 2.0.16244 issues with an unreleased game

    While testing on WWII revised I saw a similar problem rarely and it seemed to maybe have gone away after a 'blind fix'. Basically a fix where you can't confirm you are fixing something but you think you see where the problem could be. Usually those are non-fixes and the problem still remains.

    Having a way to reproduce this problem is critical. The location of this bug is in a bad place of the code where it could be many things, there are some very subtle timing issues. I could imagine someone spending a couple weeks tracking just this down. I don't think anyone will have the 80 hours to dedicate to that, as an open source project that time investment could span several months. This is probably going to be the biggest bug in the 2.0 release, if we need a few months to track this down, 2.0 will be majorly delayed or we'll have to tell every user all about this and how they can bypass it until fixed (not ideal).

    posted in Bug Reports