End Game

[DRG]

The Problem is the game goes on after the M2 unit is eliminated. The game is referencing back to the M0 unit that is in limbo and that's why the game won't end...............no matter if it's a bug the result of some kind of file corruption the only way to resolve this is to play out all the turns and I agree that's a bit of a PITA BUT the German player would KNOW he had an "active" unit near a V hex so it may be from the Polish players POV that "as far as I can tell all German forces have been eliminated" but the German player would know that wasn't the case and revealing that info to you would have answered your question about why the game doesn't end 4 days ago.

[Warnevada]

I backed the game up to the turn all objective hexes were taken. At that time there were two German units on the map. M0 was in a hex at the edge of the map in a Routed state. M2 was pinned and at less than half strength.

The following turn M0 disappeared off the map (presumably retreated.) M2 wouldn't rally.

Two turns later M2 was killed by the Poles. On the German turn, the game didn't end. And it didn't end until turn 29.

Each German turn after M2 was killed started as per the attached screen print, as if M0 existed in a Routed state.

[Mobhack]

This end turn checking is original SSI code, so it's a bit impenetrable to understand for someone who is not the original programmer.

But it is written to allow for a few extra turns before it quits - i.e. random ending. Since this game is quite near the end, then that bit may have kicked in on you.

Also, since its a teensy-weensy little map with a shotgun pattern of V-hexes then the SSI code just may well be measuring one of the off map (-1,-1) units as being within 10 (or whatever the magic number is) hexes away from one of these splattered V-hexes. I'll know more, once I test it a bit later this year.

Thanks for the game - I'll be using it as an edge test example to try to figure out what the original code is trying to do. It may be a simple fix, or I may simply recode it with something that makes sense to me...

[Warnevada]

If SPWW2 does game extensions, I haven't encountered them yet.

If the end game logic is recoded, I have a few suggestions:

1. Add another victory level, Substantive Victory, at 5:1 point ratio. The gap between Minor victory (2:1) and Decisive (8:1) is very wide, so almost all results tend to be draws or minor victories against another player.

2. Base game extensions and truncations on a probabilistic outcome estimation and only if the outcome will change a victory level. If a unit could move and take a victory hex, but the owning player has a sufficient number of units within one or two turns movement to retake the hex, then make no adjustment. This eliminates last turn gamesmanship of sneaking units close to victory hexes set to pounce on the hexes on the final turn. It also shortens hopeless games where one side has such a preponderance of force that the other side has no hope of changing the outcome even though it has a number of active units on the map.

[PantherCub]

Originally Posted by Warnevada

If SPWW2 does game extensions, I haven't encountered them yet.

If the end game logic is recoded, I have a few suggestions:

1. Add another victory level, Substantive Victory, at 5:1 point ratio. The gap between Minor victory (2:1) and Decisive (8:1) is very wide, so almost all results tend to be draws or minor victories against another player.

2. Base game extensions and truncations on a probabilistic outcome estimation and only if the outcome will change a victory level. If a unit could move and take a victory hex, but the owning player has a sufficient number of units within one or two turns movement to retake the hex, then make no adjustment. This eliminates last turn gamesmanship of sneaking units close to victory hexes set to pounce on the hexes on the final turn. It also shortens hopeless games where one side has such a preponderance of force that the other side has no hope of changing the outcome even though it has a number of active units on the map.

+1 to Number one.

Number two is more difficult I would guess.

[Imp]

Actually I have just remembered due to the game "hanging" because a unit was near a victory hex or whatever we had a very simple house rule to finish that battle quickly.

The losing side could declare battles over no hope of making a comeback & ask for game end.
Other player agrees.
Losing side now withdraws his remaining units off his map edge, informs other player of units likely to target them.
Other player moves those units or just sets range to 1 with the Y key to prevent fire.
If the withdrawing player has a unit that wont/cant move due to say morale failure set range to 1 or switch off weapons & inform the other player of its location so it can be destroyed.

Player vs player campaigns do suffer from the issue of there can often be 2-4 turns at the end of a battle where nothing really happens.
However changing this might impact on the true strength of these campaigns by ending the battle to early.
I am talking tactical withdrawals a battle type you don't play in single PBEM battles, they are surprisingly difficult to pull off.

A surrender option would be nice once all victory hexes are controlled by the other player.
Just email the other player saying will you accept my surrender next turn & press it.

[DRG]

We had a surrender option but had to remove it from PBEM as it was being used by players to cheat

See What was New for Version 6.0 in the game guide


EDIT.......that would be DOS version 6

[DRG]

[quote=PantherCub;832512]

Originally Posted by Warnevada

If SPWW2 does game extensions, I haven't encountered them yet.

If the end game logic is recoded, I have a few suggestions:

1. Add another victory level, Substantive Victory, at 5:1 point ratio. The gap between Minor victory (2:1) and Decisive (8:1) is very wide, so almost all results tend to be draws or minor victories against another player.


+1 to Number one.

Adding a victory level between marginal and decisive is pointless . If you have more points than your opponent........YOU WIN

Yes, I suppose two players could have ( for example......... ) a 10 battle campaign where the results are all draws but I'm betting if a player thought adding "Substantive Victory" is a worthwhile Idea I am dead certain they would know who had more points per game in each of those draws

Don

[Warnevada]

As I understand it, the victory level in campaign battles determines campaign points, which in turn determines the number of fix points for the next battle.

On a single battle basis you don't need victory levels. As you said, the largest number of points wins. But victory levels in a campaign do affect the course of the campaign.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by DRG

We had a surrender option but had to remove it from PBEM as it was being used by players to cheat

See What was New for Version 6.0 in the game guide


EDIT.......that would be DOS version 6

Why does that not surprise me.
As I said the only time I could see surrender being a useful option is in multiplayer campaigns.
The players can allow or restrict its use with a simple house rule but people will be people I suppose.