Countdown to D5

[Mark_Everson]

Shows my lack of knowlege of your kind 'o' English. I had though whinge and whine were synonymous based on limited understanding of how whinge was used in 'britcoms'.

[Gary Thomas]

I was a bit careless, "whinge" really does mean whine or complain peevishly (Concise Oxford Dictionary).

On the other hand "to go crook at" means to become angry at, to complain vehemently at (Oxford New Zealand Dictionary). In actual practice (hey, I live here) it is less vehement than that. Basically it implies a mild reproof or (horrors!) a criticism of any kind.

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

The present state of D5:

The only remaining improvement:

1. I am improving the random map (from complete randomness to something with some dim resemblance to real terrain).

The known bugs:

2. Occasionally the battles collapse with an error in the support function.

3. Having an enemy unit move through a square doesn't cancel production for that square.

4. A really subtle bug in the path finding algorithm, that very occasionally exits with a slightly less than optimal solution. I know what it is but haven't yet figured out a solution.

5. The information frame doesn't scroll when things are added to it.

6. The scroller in the unit details frame doesn't show up at all.

7. Sometimes an overwhelming force doesn't damage a vastly inferior force in combat.

8. All the other ones I don't know about.

Cheers

[Richard Bruns]

It occurs to me that #7 may not be a bug at all, it might be an intended result of the mil model. Even if it isn't it could be a useful feature. In many cases, especially guerilla war, a tiny force has the ability to evade detection and direct confrontation while harassing a larger force. Even if we do find this bug, it might be good to save it and isolate it and allow partisans, guerillas, and commandos to exploit it.

[LDiCesare]

Point 7 may be a consequence of the fact that outnumbered armies flee in the model. I probably didn't change the square they were in, at least for defending armies.

[Gary Thomas]

I have a feeling that the unit was a cavalry unit, so it probably got away.

Cheers

[Richard Bruns]

So normal units run away when outnumbered, presumably moving to some other square. I like that; it is much better than the "fight to the death" in so many other games.

It seems like it should be easy to set a flag for partisan or guerilla type units to let them stay in the same square when they "retreat" from a fight. That way they can stay around to harass the invading army, and cannot be dislodged easily.

[Mark_Everson]

That's a good idea on partisans Richard. You may want to stick it in the mil thread so it doesn't get lost here, though I think we'll probably remember it since it makes sense.

[LDiCesare]

I have a problem with my mail account this morning. Gary, Mark, I sent you an update of the military code correcting the 2 known bugs (blocking eception and disband of TF into armies). If you didn't receive them, please say so here: I'll try to resend them somehow.

[Mark_Everson]

Gary:

Do you think we should have a test deployment to one or two team members just to make sure there aren't any big problems on that end?

Laurent:

I got it! Thanks, I checked it out. Unfortunately, there's an error that's hard to get around.

-20 New error associated with disbanding TFs into armies. Best as I can figure it happened when two opposing phalanx (one from each side) met in a square.

java.lang.NullPointerException
at game.model.military.TaskForce.disbandIntoArmies(Ta skForce.java:163)
at game.model.military.BattleMatching.tidyTempTaskFor ces(BattleMatching.
java:432)
at game.controller.EncounterManager.assault(Encounter Manager.java:224)
at game.controller.EncounterManager.fight(EncounterMa nager.java:150)
at game.controller.EncounterManager.meet(EncounterMan ager.java:104)
at game.controller.EncounterManager.manageSquare(Enco unterManager.java:4
2)
at game.controller.EncounterManager.newTick(Encounter Manager.java:25)
at game.controller.TurnManager.movement(TurnManager.j ava:86)
at game.controller.TurnManager.run(TurnManager.java:7 0)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:484)

[Gary Thomas]

Laurent: I got it.

Progress:

Everything is done. Only pre-release testing remains.

I might do the scrollable map part, but that isn't needed for D5 (since the three scenarios all fit in a single screen map). I also might do my intended fix on the XML parser. The only effect that will have is to make the download about 1.5Mb smaller.

I wouldn't mind getting some feedback on this.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Gary:

My take on the parsing code reduction is to do it if its not going to take too long. (Maybe 4 hrs or less) If people have to download a JRE its going to be several MB anyway, so I don't see a huge advantage to the parsing code reduction.

Personally I'd skip the map scrolling for now since it might give us another set of bugs, and I would give accelerating deployment priority.

[Gary Thomas]

Parser: I agree. I will work on it from time to time. If it is ready, so be it.

Scrollable map: too late, too late, too late. It is done. Bugless too.

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

I have been working on the deployment for D5. This will be through InstallAnywhere.

We will definitely provide a version for Windows, with and without the Java Virtual Machine (which is around 3.5Mb extra).

The without Java version will also run on a Mac with OS X (I think).

Other possiblities will be dealt with on request. Options are (all with or without Java): SPARC Solaris, Intel Solaris, Intel Linux, Mac OS Classic, and HP. There are a few other rare possibilities.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

What remains for D5:

Some bug fixes (just sent list off to Gary and Laurent)
D5 Manual additions/revisions (Gary/Laurent please look it over soon)
Dom to get a web page going for the eventual download.

Test deployment of demo & manual to one or two team members
Correct deployment method and manual if needed

What else?