WAW 1940 issue

[Vusac]

While in the reinforcement phase during the Chinese turn. The game does not allow reinforcing to Szechuan territory. It's been a while since I've played and this is one of the maps that updated. I uninstalled/reinstalled & even downloaded a new copy of Triple A. Nada seems to fix it. Any pointers? Thanks.

[Cernelius]

There is no "reinforcement phase". Here it is the list of non-bid phases during which you can perform actions:

• "Combat Move"
• "Purchase Units"
• "Combat"
• "Non Combat Move"
• "Place Units"

Obviously, I realize that "reinforcement" can only meaningfully refer to the "Non Combat Move" and "Place Units" phases, and I assume you are indicating the "Non Combat Move" phase.

I also did some testing, and it looks like that phase is very problematic, for many territories. I don't know if this problem existed already in the first released TripleA 2.0 version, and I've never met it before.

[Vusac]

My apologies. I do mean non combat move phase. Thank you for checking it out.

[WCSumpton]

The problem seems to be in the centers.txt and the polygons.txt files. There were a number of territories that were renamed, and these files contain the information for both old and new name. The problem can be seen in both WAW and WAW40, when holding the mouse over the territory, the status bar contains the name 'none'.

[Cernelius]

The problem seems to be in the centers.txt and the polygons.txt files. There were a number of territories that were renamed, and these files contain the information for both old and new name. The problem can be seen in both WAW and WAW40, when holding the mouse over the territory, the status bar contains the name 'none'.

This might be the root of the issue, but I believe it shouldn't be a problem. The matter would be finding out why it has become a problem if it has. Meaning that I assume this is a problem with the TripleA program, not with the map.

An important question is if only "WAW 1940" has this problem but not "World At War" (they are different games of the same map).

[Cernelius]

An important question is if only "WAW 1940" has this problem but not "World At War" (they are different games of the same map).

#7417

[DanVanAtta]

I think the problem is territory renaming is not handled as well in 2.2 vs 2.1; This is not a problem in 2.1

[DanVanAtta]

Considering we're looking at this problem with new games, the hover territory showing 'none' is the problem. I'm not sure how that is properly fixed, likely it is actually to be fixed in the map configuration. 2.2 seems to have simply become more strict about this. That leniency is quite important though.

[Cernelius]

I think the problem is territory renaming is not handled as well in 2.2 vs 2.1; This is not a problem in 2.1

I confirm.

I've tested this issue (taking Chinese, giving the rest to Does Nothing and starting a new game) on "World At War", first with 2.2.20790, then with 2.1.20365.

This is an issue for 2.2.20790 but not for 2.1.20365.

Therefore, for as long as 2.1.20365 is the current release, I believe this should be labelled as "regression".

These are the problematic zones I found that are not drawn: "Sikang", "Burma", "Lanchow", "Shensi", "Suyuan".

Also probably better to reword the title as to clarify that this is an issue for both "World At War" and "WAW 1940" (same map's games).

[DanVanAtta]

2.2 was the current release. I think either we'll put a patch up for it or it'll be skipped and players would pick up the 2.2 fixes when we go to 2.3.

'regression' is really meant for problems found in a prerelease. It's the reason we ask "if this is a prerelease, is this a problem in the latest release?" If the answer is no to that, then it's regression and that is important for us to know when we look to push a release.

[Cernelius]

Considering we're looking at this problem with new games, the hover territory showing 'none' is the problem. I'm not sure how that is properly fixed, likely it is actually to be fixed in the map configuration. 2.2 seems to have simply become more strict about this. That leniency is quite important though.

I don't think the problem is at the map level. The game should take from the skin (original or not) what it needs and ignore the rest. Zones are not the only skin elements that are not fully used by both games. For example, "WAW 1940" doesn't use a lot of unit images used by "World At War".

[DanVanAtta]

It's kinda of a double ignore going on. Because some data was not ignored, we see this problem. It's a matter of leniency towards the data. The argument is pedantic though, the important thing is the game is expected to be very lenient about this.

[Cernelius]

2.2 was the current release. I think either we'll put a patch up for it or it'll be skipped and players would pick up the 2.2 fixes when we go to 2.3.

'regression' is really meant for problems found in a prerelease. It's the reason we ask "if this is a prerelease, is this a problem in the latest release?" If the answer is no to that, then it's regression and that is important for us to know when we look to push a release.

Ok but I understand now 2.2.20790 is a prerelease, so now this issue is a regression, as being an issue present in the latest prerelease but not (any longer) in the latest release.

[DanVanAtta]

2.2.20790 was a release. Full stop. I marked it as a pre so it won't be downloaded.
We use regression when referring to items that have never been released to the public, it's a label useful for developers. If you are beta testing, you should consider using it.

[Cernelius]

I can say it is really common to have multiple games for a same map not using exactly the same skin elements. You can have all the skin elements needed for one or more of the map's games, then each of the games uses what it needs. I can tell you this has never been considered a case of bad mapmaking, I believe. If this is bad mapmaking (which I believe it isn't), I would be interested to see any documentation that affirms it is, as I've never seen any, while I've seen several cases of such use, and never anyone considering it an abuse.

[DanVanAtta]

@Cernelius I'm not making a value judgment on the practice. It is the case from a code/configuration perspective that such name mismatches is much more "loose", it is lenient. I noted that this leniency is important.

[DanVanAtta]

I'm thinking a patch release of 2.2 is probably going to be the easiest. Those that downloaded 2.2 should be prompted pretty soon to download an even more recent version. I'm waiting for builds to finish and then will adjust the right toggles to do so.

@Cernelius at that time you'll see 2.2.20790 marked again as a 'release'