Some bugs for fixing

[sagji]

Can you please remind me how to do that? I had not bothered for a long time, but it would be more useful than 100% right now.

Thanks

Scroll bars hiding under the row of buy and sell on the F4 screen.

Another minor request to amend:

• Shouldn't sugar and tropical fruits be converted to conserved foods as well?

I mean, sugar is used in the quintessential conserved foodstuff, marmelades! Shouldn't we have pineapple jams?!

I see them converting, maybe you don't have enough stock to see the effect.

There was mention of wool from tradeposts not adding to the cotton/wool numbers in the home country (apparently wool is it's own commodity).

Yes - tradeposts produce the goods based on what is on the map. However for cotton and wool the structure produces cotton/wool which is a different resource. All it needs is another conversion process that converts cotton, and wool, into cotton/wool - like the preserved food but without any UI to turn it off.

Many things (most?) discussed here are from the realm of improvements... not to say they are not needed improvements, but this can go only second compared to glaring bugs, say Chinese loyalty in the US because of the ACW (still tracking this one btw).

So, dutifully noted, and I think at least crisis tweaks are in order, but do you get bugs as in 'if I do that, I get a crash reliably' or something not working at all, etc. ? The plan is to deliver a patch by end of month hopefully.

I think the top game breakers in order of importance are:
1. Forts - being at least partially addressed.
2. Mobilisation card in crisis.
3. Loyalty.
4. Passwords.

[sagji]

Some more

A level 3 sugar structure produces 5 sugar, that is only 1 more than the level 1. (Bug)

That reminds me you can get te techs for level 3 sugar structures before level 2, and level 2 oil structures before level 1. These break the pool changes. (Feature)

Financial crisis look to be firing almost immediately the timer runs out. This is probably because the 2000 capital to trigger it is way to low - it takes 800 to run my structures, a similar amount for trading to work, and I have structures that cost 2400 to build, so I need to have more than 3000 on hand to consider it and ideally 3500 or more. (Feature)

[vaalen]

Another minor request to amend:

• Shouldn't sugar and tropical fruits be converted to conserved foods as well?

I mean, sugar is used in the quintessential conserved foodstuff, marmelades! Shouldn't we have pineapple jams?!

I do see them converting, at least when I have a lot of them, such as in my British game.

[Generalisimo]

Some more

A level 3 sugar structure produces 5 sugar, that is only 1 more than the level 1. (Bug)

That's actually WAD... yes, weird, but WAD
The level3 structure should not be profitable until you reach the other techs that make it very profitable.
That simulates all the effort that was put into the sugar beet production (highly unprofitable in the beggining) until it managed to dominate the market against the sugar cane (highly profitable)

That reminds me you can get te techs for level 3 sugar structures before level 2, and level 2 oil structures before level 1. These break the pool changes. (Feature)

This should be solved on the next patch. But thanks for reminding it...

[Generalisimo]

I do see them converting, at least when I have a lot of them, such as in my British game.

That's right... the merchandises that can be converted (according to the DB) are:
Cereals
Rice
Fish
Tropical Fruits
Cattle
Fruits
Sugar

The problem that you may notice is that sugar has a lower "transformation percentage" than the other goods... but all these are converted.

[Pocus]

Some more

A level 3 sugar structure produces 5 sugar, that is only 1 more than the level 1. (Bug)

That reminds me you can get te techs for level 3 sugar structures before level 2, and level 2 oil structures before level 1. These break the pool changes. (Feature)

Financial crisis look to be firing almost immediately the timer runs out. This is probably because the 2000 capital to trigger it is way to low - it takes 800 to run my structures, a similar amount for trading to work, and I have structures that cost 2400 to build, so I need to have more than 3000 on hand to consider it and ideally 3500 or more. (Feature)

Financial crisis can happen if the last crisis happened 48 turns ago or more, and if the average of the capital stockpile for majors nations is >= 2000 and if a percentile dice is <= to half the average of the inflation of all majors...

Would you confirm this describe the frequency of your financial crisis? If this is too frequent, this can probably toned down. If this don't describe what you get currently, then we have a bug.

[Pocus]

I think the top game breakers in order of importance are:
1. Forts - being at least partially addressed.
2. Mobilisation card in crisis.
3. Loyalty.
4. Passwords.

1. Here is what is done so far, for the next RC:

* Besieged forces will now take attrition hits every turn, in proportion of their number and how the siege roll went (anti over-crowding rule).
* In siege, the besieger will spend a quarter of his battle usage of ammos per turn of siege (plan to have supply trains on the long run), and will suffer -50% to his siege value if he can’t afford that. For the besieged, the spending will be 15% per turn, with a -35% siege value if there is a lack of ammos.

2. mobilisation:* You can’t use Mobilize agenda in crisis if you are at war with anybody
* You can’t use Mobilize or Ultimatum agenda if under a peace treaty with other nation (as this would lead you to a war while under peace treaty)
* Ultimatum dominancy value reduced from 175 to 150. Partial mobilization dominancy value reduced from 350 to 300. Crisis control changed from -10 to -15.

3. loyalty
still at loss to get the problem with current build

4. passwords
I remember a post of your explaining the problem. Can you find it again?

[Pocus]

REQUEST to save a great deal of time:

The estimated results this coming turn are nice but often wishful thinking. It can be important to know how many actual purchases and sales occurred in the last trading round. Can we have a Bought and Sold number on the tooltip for each item on the Industry and Commerce line 3? This is valuable for deciding how much to buy and sell and setting those percentages.

This would be the one addition request that would save the biggest busywork of the game for me - scrolling through the tiny print of the log over and over. I understand there are external scripts that could generate detailed reports, but really I just want to know how many of several commodities sold or were bought to help evaluate what to do along with the Asset Summary.

Please consider this small tooltip change.

FPW DLC problem- zero income, zero goods of course since no economy, but funds and goods are required for upkeep so troops suffer for the lack. This does not seem right.

Thanks,

Sir Garnet

By your command!
* You now get the history (past 12 turns) of the transactions of each merchandise, in the F4 window, when moving the mouse over thecommerce & transactionsband of icons.

[Le Ricain]

Will fixing the lack of rebuild for GIN forces for GBR be part of the patch?

[Sir Garnet]

By your command!
* You now get the history (past 12 turns) of the transactions of each merchandise, in the F4 window, when moving the mouse over thecommerce & transactionsband of icons.

Joy! Thank you. Buys and sales separately, right? Since I routinely make a more accessible market by both buying and selling at the same it will help greatly to sort out what is going on.

[glennbob]

Will fixing the lack of rebuild for GIN forces for GBR be part of the patch?

Yes, I'm wondering this too, will you just add GIN to the reinforcements pool, or will you change their tag to IND so they can always be upgraded from the same pool? I feel this change has to come in the next patch you release as it pretty much puts 30-40% of British forces into limbo and ever weakening without repleacements.

[Ech Heftag]

Please have a look into the peace offer mechanics as well, too. In an earlier version, it was possible to claim your objectives in a peace, but in the latest version it seems to be impossible. Same for the transfer of colonies. I'd really like to see this working

[Kensai]

Pocus, this is great! PON is your premium game, thanks for treating it with respect!
(I know AACW was the most profitable, but still, considering PON's potential...)

Also, please consider who loses the crisis if it spirals out of control (war). Should it be the initiator, the defender, both equally? I believe they should both have their VPs initially invested cut to half and reattributed 65% to the Defender and 35% to the Initiator. An initiator's goal (stake) should be to force a resolution in the global arena through diplomacy (aggressive or friendly, but always by words, not weapons!). If both parts play their most aggressive cards and go to war, it should signal a failure of the negotiations, which should penalize both, especially the one who started all this. If war was his goal all along, he could have achieved it through a forged CB.


vaalen, thanks for the heads up. Actually I might not be converting because I have exactly sugar and tropical fruits low.

[sagji]

That's actually WAD... yes, weird, but WAD
The level3 structure should not be profitable until you reach the other techs that make it very profitable.
That simulates all the effort that was put into the sugar beet production (highly unprofitable in the beggining) until it managed to dominate the market against the sugar cane (highly profitable)

But it is just level 3 sugar, and it didn't used to be like that. All the other structures go 4/8/12 or similar but sugar goes 4/8/5. Plus most techs don't actually increase the profitability so much as increase the throughput - i.e. the increase both inputs and outputs.

Financial crisis can happen if the last crisis happened 48 turns ago or more, and if the average of the capital stockpile for majors nations is >= 2000 and if a percentile dice is <= to half the average of the inflation of all majors...

Would you confirm this describe the frequency of your financial crisis? If this is too frequent, this can probably toned down. If this don't describe what you get currently, then we have a bug.

I would estimate it as about 48 turns. As I say I think most majors will be over 2000 most turns, and buildings are only getting more expensive. If the average inflation is as high as 4% then it should take about 2 years to fire - however I think it is a lot faster than that.

1. Here is what is done so far, for the next RC:

2. mobilisation:
[/font]* You can’t use Mobilize agenda in crisis if you are at war with anybody
* You can’t use Mobilize or Ultimatum agenda if under a peace treaty with other nation (as this would lead you to a war while under peace treaty)
* Ultimatum dominancy value reduced from 175 to 150. Partial mobilization dominancy value reduced from 350 to 300. Crisis control changed from -10 to -15.

That reduces the total domination available, would need to test if it isn't reducing the capacity too much. Why is ultimatum so much weaker than mobilisation? I would be inclined to swap the names, and then make ultimatum unavailable to a much weaker side - so Belgium can't threaten France. With the name swap rather than reduce the control for ultimatum I would have it add a response CB if you loose - so you have to carry out your ultimatum or loose prestige.

4. passwords
I remember a post of your explaining the problem. Can you find it again?

I can't, it might have been a PM rather than a post.
The points were
If you set / change your password it is only applied if you host.
If you change your password you can't reload the turn unless you delete the .ord file - so can't add more orders.
If a player drops out the host can't delete the password from their turn.
If a player has a password you can still switch to them via the console - though this is also a way to remove their password if you know how.

[sagji]

* You can’t use Mobilize or Ultimatum agenda if under a peace treaty with other nation (as this would lead you to a war while under peace treaty)

Or a defensive treaty which would also prevent the war.

Also these cards should have a significant effect on relations with the other nation.

[Pocus]

Joy! Thank you. Buys and sales separately, right? Since I routinely make a more accessible market by both buying and selling at the same it will help greatly to sort out what is going on.

Not for now... I'm reluctant to do that, not for the extra code it would involves, but because it would use up some precious 'slots' in faction historisation (spelling?) for something that, you can admit that, very very few people would use. I mean, how many people are at the same time selling something in some world regions, and buying it in others, in game I mean I know that in the real world, that's the essence of commerce for many... buy low, sell high...

But in game?

[Pocus]

Please have a look into the peace offer mechanics as well, too. In an earlier version, it was possible to claim your objectives in a peace, but in the latest version it seems to be impossible. Same for the transfer of colonies. I'd really like to see this working

Present me a save, it can cut by a factor of 4 the time I need to check for an issue, meaning I could fix 3 others with time saved!

[Pocus]

Pocus, this is great! PON is your premium game, thanks for treating it with respect!
(I know AACW was the most profitable, but still, considering PON's potential...)

Also, please consider who loses the crisis if it spirals out of control (war). Should it be the initiator, the defender, both equally? I believe they should both have their VPs initially invested cut to half and reattributed 65% to the Defender and 35% to the Initiator. An initiator's goal (stake) should be to force a resolution in the global arena through diplomacy (aggressive or friendly, but always by words, not weapons!). If both parts play their most aggressive cards and go to war, it should signal a failure of the negotiations, which should penalize both, especially the one who started all this. If war was his goal all along, he could have achieved it through a forged CB.


vaalen, thanks for the heads up. Actually I might not be converting because I have exactly sugar and tropical fruits low.

I'm reluctant to change a code that works and is already rather long and convoluted Seriously we are not in bug fixing really here, and we should stay focused on that.

Current formula is
// 4 - Split the stash
Coeff := 1; // loser's share
Inc(Coeff, sqr(Dominance) +1); // winner share, Dom0: 1 Dom1: 2 Dom2: 5 Dom3: 10

So if you are the winner, you get a minimum of 50% prestige spent, but you can get much more if you played some agendas to obtain more dominancy. Or if you syphoned away some prestige from the common stash with the 'mischief' agenda. Perhaps in practice people just use 'brute forces' agendas, but the design allowed for several strategies anyway.

[nemethand]

Not for now... I'm reluctant to do that, not for the extra code it would involves, but because it would use up some precious 'slots' in faction historisation (spelling?) for something that, you can admit that, very very few people would use. I mean, how many people are at the same time selling something in some world regions, and buying it in others, in game I mean I know that in the real world, that's the essence of commerce for many... buy low, sell high...

But in game?

I must tell you: a LOT! In our MP game, I (as Russia) definitely do that, and completely sure other nations (in the log, I see that countries from which I bought merchandise A also bought merchandise A from me).

[Boernes]

I do this on a regular basis to generate additional state funds, or to resell stuff that otherwise is only accessable in remote trade areas: Buy all the silk from asia, sell it in europe. Since I have no own production it would be nice to see how my trade-success is developing, and adjust my buys/sales accordingly. You can also use this to support the economies of allied nations

[Kensai]

So if you are the winner, you get a minimum of 50% prestige spent, but you can get much more if you played some agendas to obtain more dominancy. Or if you syphoned away some prestige from the common stash with the 'mischief' agenda. Perhaps in practice people just use 'brute forces' agendas, but the design allowed for several strategies anyway.

I hope you are right. The problem is, the brute force tactics may win in dominance before even the adversary has a chance to play the stash decreasing cards. Hopefully, since you will tone down the effects in the future patch this will happen much less often.

And the question remains... who is the winner if he hasn't won by dominance? To set the crisis intensity out of proportions (100) you need idiocy (playing hard) by both parts. Who is to blame if a war erupts? If it is the defender who pays for this, it has to change. It's the initiator who should risk and have his agenda failed if a war erupts!

[sagji]

Not for now... I'm reluctant to do that, not for the extra code it would involves, but because it would use up some precious 'slots' in faction historisation (spelling?) for something that, you can admit that, very very few people would use. I mean, how many people are at the same time selling something in some world regions, and buying it in others, in game I mean I know that in the real world, that's the essence of commerce for many... buy low, sell high...

But in game?

Mostly I avoid it because it makes it hard to see what is going on.
Sometimes I do it to avoid upsetting selling that is fully or over supplied.
Sometimes I do it because it lets the minors buy/sell stuff so their economy doesn't collapse.

That reminds me most minors tend to go into a death spiral where they don't buy so their content goes down and then can't produce so it stays down. They also appear to over tax - most players taking over a minor have doe so when they have huge amounts of money but are still converting much of their incoming capital into money. They like to have tariffs at maximum but then fail to sell enough to fully supply the market at minimum, set high excise and corporate but low census. Plus as they gain no benefit from ammo and supply conversion but can't turn if off they end up with an economy that leaks capital.

[Sir Garnet]

I must tell you: a LOT! In our MP game, I (as Russia) definitely do that, and completely sure other nations (in the log, I see that countries from which I bought merchandise A also bought merchandise A from me).

That would be me. An unusual side effect of SP good practice. As the revised manual says, active markets give small countries trade opportunities that let them turn their stacks of stuff into usable funds they can use to buy imports, satisfy the people, and grow the economy. Making a market by offering and selling as wide a variety of products as possible is a key technique in the Single Player game. It is relevant in multi-player as well, especially if key economies are essentially closed.

So for me most products I trade will be both offered and sold, though it might be only 1 or 2 loads only on one or both directions. I suppose a player could use a spreadsheet and try to play the price changes above or below normal levels, but I only have time for "seat-of-the-pants" trading. Since you can control where you buy only if through your own ships, and not control who buys what you offer in the markets it is offered, it's possible to both buy and sell from the same country.

It takes the F4 window, B assets window, and T trade window all open at the same time and slowly dragged to corners for me to get the info to manage trade. (A dashboard with a grid covering all markets would be more intuitive, but I am not complaining.)

For the current turn, B's tooltips show for each product the recent conditions and our purchase orders. T window shows sales offers, though the scrolling takes time. The F4 window provides various info, but the buy/sell number is just based on our orders - not reality. So having something even for just the current turn and preceding couple of turns like S4/8 B1/1 meaning I sold 4 of 8 I offered and bought 1 of 1 ordered is pretty useful information on my markets' conditions (supply is tight) and how I should set current orders.

Now if I saw S4/8 and B1/3 that would indicate surplus where I am selling and shortage where I am buying, an imbalance suggesting a change of strategy if it persists.

Seeing a dozen turns is nice, but I'd rather have more complete info for the current orders and a couple of turns back. Having something like this available might encourage more people to make a market, at least in their leading trade items.

Thanks for looking at this issue.

[Sir Garnet]

That reminds me most minors tend to go into a death spiral where they don't buy so their content goes down and then can't produce so it stays down. They also appear to over tax - most players taking over a minor have doe so when they have huge amounts of money but are still converting much of their incoming capital into money. They like to have tariffs at maximum but then fail to sell enough to fully supply the market at minimum, set high excise and corporate but low census. Plus as they gain no benefit from ammo and supply conversion but can't turn if off they end up with an economy that leaks capital.

Yes, this strongly suggests a patch bug fix that adjusts taxes to target a ratio range between PC and SF. Something like SF should range between one third of PC and double PC. 0.5 < PC/SF <3.0

It would also be useful if you can tell us whether maintaining a steady sales offer amount in a product helps the AI countries in arranging their buying more effectively than adjustments from turn to turn.

[Kensai]

This must be very easy to fix in the future patch cause probably the ships are already in but unlinked with these nations. Please see into it cause it's kind of important in our MP game as all these 3 nations are played by humans.

• Some nations: Mexico, Persia, Egypt cannot build ships at all.

Also, please have a look if China has the correct ships (trade ships) to prosper.

[PhilThib]

• Some nations: Mexico, Persia, Egypt cannot build ships at all.

Also, please have a look if China has the correct ships (trade ships) to prosper.

Those nations don't have ships on purpose, besides a few warships they can receive by events late in the game, or, for egypt, a few sail and river ship early on. There was never any sort of Persian navy...so this WAD

China has junks for trade, like Japan initially

[sagji]

Those nations don't have ships on purpose, besides a few warships they can receive by events late in the game, or, for egypt, a few sail and river ship early on. There was never any sort of Persian navy...so this WAD

China has junks for trade, like Japan initially

Except that early on China gets sail ships tech that upgrades all its junks into ships of the line - but it doesn't have an alias for these of these so it just looses the ability to build junks. I think it has some early battleships - but as it doesn't have any of the previous class it can't have any of the later as the number of the new ship is the same as the old.

[PhilThib]

Except that early on China gets sail ships tech that upgrades all its junks into ships of the line - but it doesn't have an alias for these of these so it just looses the ability to build junks. I think it has some early battleships - but as it doesn't have any of the previous class it can't have any of the later as the number of the new ship is the same as the old.

Well, the issue is the tech upgrade then, not the force pool. China should NOT get those ships, it should keep the Junks all the time until they get to age of steel and steam.

[Boernes]

Well, Mexico should at least be able to build corvettes or frigates, transports or at least merchants

BTW it doesnt get the option to buy any ships

[Kensai]

No big dealy, Boernes, we can clone the button for ship ordering and change it accordingly so you can order yourself from one of the big nations. I was thinking, since we have human players, it might be more appropriate this button to appear to the nation that orders the ship, not the seller.

it shouldn't be hard. With some thinking, we can get the trigger for the button of the seller nation to appear when the ordering one has pressed its own, instead of just waiting for a tracker.