Can we fix TWW?
-
-
I went over the last few pages of the
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1181/total-world-war-december-1941-3-0-0-6
thread, and I found out that this exact problem had already been reported on 17 August 2020 (so almost 2 years ago)!
@nothingtoseehere said in Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6:Is there a known bug that gives carriers a second live as a damaged carrier even though no improved carriers has been researched. There is no option to assign two hits to it but in the round after the one it is lost a damaged carrier appears.
I actually commented on it (and completely forgot I ever did)!
This is what I said on 30 August 2020:
@cernel said in Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6:@Nothingtoseehere In my opinion, this has been a case of bad coding. I think attachments should not have useless options in them.
In the specific case, the unit attachments ending in "Carrier" have the "whenHitPointsDamagedChangesInto" set at value "1:true:*Carrier-damaged".
Since the unit has 1 hit point, this option was useless for the latest 1.9.0.0 release, until before a trigger would change the hit points of the unit to 2, since receiving 1 damage would destroy the unit before changing it (in the 2 release, instead, it changes the unit instead of destroying it).
As I said, I see this as a case of bad coding (but I'm not sure about it, so I would be interested in opinions from the developers), as I would rather add the option only in the moment it is useful. Meaning not having the "whenHitPointsDamagedChangesInto" option in the unit attachments, and, instead, adding it, with the same values, at the same moment the unit is given 2 hit points (this would also fix the current problem).
However, I really wonder if my point of view is right, in general, as one could argue that having useless options already in the unit attachments minimizes the amount of coding (the option is already there, so you don't need to give it, in the moment you give what makes it useful).
I guess the only reason why this problem hasn't been fixed, yet, is time. I could fix the problem, for example, but I would need someone to assure me the changes would be readily reviewed and merged (or the map being declared owned by no-one but TripleA, so that it can be done by any active repository member), plus someone to volunteer testing the new game shortly after it has been merged and reporting whether or not the game is working correctly (since I don't play this map and I would want someone else taking care of testing), plus someone telling me which digit should I upgrade (currently it is "3.0.0.6" and I don't know if it would become "4.0.0.0" or "3.1.0.0" or "3.0.1.0" or "3.0.0.7") plus someone assuring me no extra game file changes are demanded (I'm mostly looking at the notes that still have "version 2.7" in them, and I don't intend to make or modify artwork images to have everything consistent).
Side note, can the "2.8' game be deleted in favour of keeping the "3.0" one, as the only game of the map?
I see that the games of this map still have the long deprecated "trigger" option in the trigger attachments. However, since TripleA is very inconsistent at documenting deprecation, I'm not even sure this is actually a deprecated option (if a developer can confirm that it is, then I would advise changing all occurrences with its non-deprecated equivalent, of course).
If nowhere is documented what makes a change a first, second, third or fourth digit worthy one, I strongly suggest fully documenting it, as a comment within the game file (every game should do this, especially since I believe TripleA is not giving any guidelines, on this matter).
@wirkey said in Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6:
@ubernaut no CEs of any Neutral can make an amphibious assault. Only regular inf can.
Is this an actual problem?
Should combat engineers of "Neutral" players (like Sweden) be made able to make amphibious assaults too?(This question is not only for @wirkey: I'm asking anyone whether there is a problem to fix or all is working as intended here. Thank you.)
@redrum Should a version with any of the mentioned problems fixed be versioned as "3.1.0.0", "3.0.1.0" or "3.0.0.7" or what? Is there information on what should trigger a first digit change as opposed to a second digit as opposed to a third digit as opposed to a fourth digit? How can anyone know what is the right digit to change (I assume zeroing all subsequent ones) in every case?
The current version appears to be "3.0.0.6". However, the manual is still 2.7 with a 2.8.0.4 appendix, but I understand this is merely waiting for a documentation update.
Is there a player (maybe @ubernaut) that can provide a full list of changes from 2.8.0.4 to present (3.0.0.6) and write them all down here in a way to be fully understandable for any person who has never played the game but has just read its manual only?
Myself, I know absolutely nothing and have no idea of what is different between 2.8 and 3.0.
If someone does this, I can then paste such documentation inside the notes of the game so to show it below the manual (integrating it).
Thanks! -
I think there is agreement on having a single game called "Total World War: December 1941".
I've fixed the problem reported at this topic and tested it successfully albeit partially. I've also changed all occurrences ofoption name="trigger"tooption name="conditions"(because I remember that was deprecated long ago). Hence, I wish to be answered mostly on the following points:- Should the new version be "3.1.0.0", "3.0.1.0" or "3.0.0.7"? I'm going to go with "3.0.1.0" without better judgment.
- Will anyone provide a full list of game-play changes from 2.8.0.4 to 3.0.0.6?
- Should combat engineers of "Neutral" players (like Sweden) be made able to make amphibious assaults? If so, under what requirements if any?
- Are there any other functional yet deprecated items which should better be upgraded in the map?
- Is @redrum available to review and eventually merge the new version? If not, which admins are actually currently and in the time being available for doing it once I push the changes to the repository?
-
As to the Q's, based on my recollections of the long long ago:
-
I think technically it should be 3.0.0.7 not that it matters a great deal. Changes that are bug fixes and minor tweaks modify the last digit. The third digit isn't used most of the time iirc; maybe it's a spillover digit in case there's a lot of tweaks/fixes needed. The second digit is for significant changes, and the first for more major reworks. Or thereabouts.
-
There is one somewhere on this forum. The start of the main tww thread had a changelog iirc, and the 3 line directly follows from 2.8; I'll dig around and find it.
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1181/total-world-war-december-1941-3-0-0-6?page=1
I don't know what the status of the stuff on the todo list or partly done 3.0.0.7 was (ie the stuff listed in the above thread)
- They probably should be able to iirc; I'm not that sure as I never used the options that brought neutrals into the war. Generally speaking though, CE should gain amphib assault at the same time regular infantry do. I just don't know when that is for neutral.
-
-
@zlefin @Cernel:
@zlefin said in Can we fix TWW?:I don't know what the status of the stuff on the todo list or partly done 3.0.0.7 was (ie the stuff listed in the above thread)
- They probably should be able to iirc; I'm not that sure as I never used the options that brought neutrals into the war. Generally speaking though, CE should gain amphib assault at the same time regular infantry do. I just don't know when that is for neutral.
I just looked at the map in GitHub. There is a 2-year-old fix in the Pull Requests of the map it's called 3.0.0.7.
Could we maybe combine your fixes and the old ones and then commit it as 3.0.0.8? -
@nothingtoseehere said in Can we fix TWW?:
@zlefin @Cernel:
@zlefin said in Can we fix TWW?:I don't know what the status of the stuff on the todo list or partly done 3.0.0.7 was (ie the stuff listed in the above thread)
- They probably should be able to iirc; I'm not that sure as I never used the options that brought neutrals into the war. Generally speaking though, CE should gain amphib assault at the same time regular infantry do. I just don't know when that is for neutral.
I just looked at the map in GitHub. There is a 2-year-old fix in the Pull Requests of the map it's called 3.0.0.7.
Could we maybe combine your fixes and the old ones and then commit it as 3.0.0.8?Wow! That's exactly what I was talking about.
@redrum Why do you have that PR open since almost 3 years? By the way, I believe you forgot to update the version number within the file there: I think you should do that before merging.
-
@nothingtoseehere said in Can we fix TWW?:
@zlefin @Cernel:
@zlefin said in Can we fix TWW?:I don't know what the status of the stuff on the todo list or partly done 3.0.0.7 was (ie the stuff listed in the above thread)
- They probably should be able to iirc; I'm not that sure as I never used the options that brought neutrals into the war. Generally speaking though, CE should gain amphib assault at the same time regular infantry do. I just don't know when that is for neutral.
I just looked at the map in GitHub. There is a 2-year-old fix in the Pull Requests of the map it's called 3.0.0.7.
Could we maybe combine your fixes and the old ones and then commit it as 3.0.0.8?To answer your question, I didn't make that pending PR, so I don't care about it and it means nothing to me. If increasing the latest digit, I would push it as 3.0.0.7 just like that PR doesn't even exist unless said PR is merged before I make mine.
If that PR conflicts in any way with mine, I assume it is someone else's responsibility not to merge it too before or after merging mine.
By the way, unless I'm overlooking something, that PR doesn't even change the version number, so I guess merging it would leave the game at 3.0.0.6 (which I suppose is a mistake).
Generally speaking, I would suggest that PR do not remain pending for about 3 years: I think any PR on any map should be merged or closed within 7 days, actually. Issues, instead, can remain open for 3 years or more, of course.
-
@ubernaut said in Can we fix TWW?:
@cernel that's awesome i'm not really sure how that all works who all can approve merge? i am a map admin over on github so maybe i can? willing to take any flak if either of them protest the patch but i can't imagine why they would
@ubernaut Can you please close (without merging it) this PR?
https://github.com/triplea-maps/total_world_war/pull/21This PR is almost 3 years old and it fails to update the version number (thus creating a different 3.0.0.6 game). I believe it should better be closed so that anyone may interface the map (for changing it) without any pending PR in the way.
closed v3007 #21
-
@cernel said in Can we fix TWW?:
By the way, unless I'm overlooking something, that PR doesn't even change the version number, so I guess merging it would leave the game at 3.0.0.6 (which I suppose is a mistake).
yes, my understanding is that the current version was meant to be 3.0.0.8 but @redrum forgot to update the version number when he did it
@ubernaut Can you please close (without merging it) this PR?
https://github.com/triplea-maps/total_world_war/pull/21done, i think
-
How's it coming along?
-
@sveaguldfisk As far as I'm corncerned, I'll get back to this once I'm done testing and discussing some things about the program itself (related to units starting in hostile zones).
-
@cernel not trying to rush you
@Nothingtoseehere and i were planning to have a game of TWW we were waiting on the fix so we could help test. should we wait you figure or might it be a while? -
@ubernaut Maybe wait a few days and see if I get it done. Not promising anything though.
I've already fixed the bug at this topic (and the one at the recently closed PR), but I was thinking to fix all reported ones so to get a stable version which would be just waiting for someone to rewrite the rule-book.
-
@cernel: Is there a PR of your current version on GitHub or do you only keep it locally?
-
@nothingtoseehere As you can see, there is nothing of this from me on GitHub. I was just talking about what I have in my computer.
-
-
@ubernaut I'm not waiting for that: it's just that things came up and I really cannot say when I will go back to this. My plan was to add the rules-relevant parts of what explained at the first post of the map's official thread.
-
@ubernaut said in Can we fix TWW?:
@cernel not trying to rush you
@Nothingtoseehere and i were planning to have a game of TWW we were waiting on the fix so we could help test. should we wait you figure or might it be a while?I'm having a situation it's probably better you start your game as it is very unlikely it will be a matter of days at this point. Sorry.
-
@cernel been pretty busy lately anyway even if we are talking weeks i'd prolly wait myself
-
@cernel yeah that makes sense happy to help with that part
