Wisconsin

Brykovian · Post by **Brykovian** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:24 pm

Dameon wrote:Translation: I am too lazy to do a pop file, you are SOL Bjorn

LOL -- Good translation, Dameon. And yet, you just load that sucker into the wOK Map Assistant, and hit File>Generate Report ... and a nice HTML POP file is created for you.

-Bryk

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 6:19 pm

Bryk,
Just an FYI, I did use your wonderful WOK Map Assistant to help me create everything. So I guess I am lazy, or maybe I'm just efficient? Either way....

Ec

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 8:27 pm

TURN ONE IS OUT! UPDATED MAP, LENGTHY COMMENTARY, AND AN IMPROOVED LEADERBOARD (a custom design)!

There you go gentlemen!

GM Seth

Post by **korexus** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 8:54 pm

Seth, did you supe up the neutrals in this game? - Or make all the players' armies really pants? It's just when three players manage not to get all 3 neutrals on the first turn you've got to wonder just how much weetabix you Wisconsinites have been eating!

korexus.

Post by **gm_al** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 9:53 pm

Id suggest to update KaoBase accordingly....

Seth, is there any reason why you indicate that you use V3.25 of the WOK5 engine instead of V3.30 ?? I find that confusing and Players might not like it.

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:04 pm

Neutrals are at normal status, players armies are at normal status. Some people just have bad luck. Maybe its all the beer we drink, you know, I think someone once had their quote as "God gave us beer so the Irish wouldn't rule the world." There is a large Irish & German heritage in Wisconsins population, I guess that makes us a little more resistant to attack. And if I remember correctly, you split your armies, not a terribly wise move (i've committed the same error), then you attacked a neutral that was a forest, and after that a mountain. I'm not sure if you were trying to be brave or what but just a note for future reference Forests and Mountains have a defense bonus, I think swamps do too. Check the manual to be sure but I assure you, the neutrals aren't beefed up in any way and the players armies are in no way "weaker" than what they'd normally be.

GM Seth

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:13 pm

Dameon wrote:[has been to Wisconsin and knows that some parts of it could arguably be identified as tundras]

Nick,
I'm sorry but your opinion has been registered as invalid as you are from Illinois and therfore have been labelled as a FISH, Freagin Illinois Sheet Head. Flatlander.......

*Ecrivian slowly backs away from the post with pistols drawn.*

Post by **korexus** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:15 pm

Ec, that was just a joke, a chance to whine about the bad luck... As for splitting the armies, yes I did. But, what with not being a complete idiot and all, I ran some simulations before sending in orders. I make the chances less than 5% of what happened happening. Not unheard of by a long way, but mildly irritating nontheless...

On another note, this version change could explain some weird bits in my turn report. *Looks over WoK 5 history, looks over report* Yes, that would explain them. I don't suppose there's any chance someone could tell me what the old "syntax for turns 3 and 7" were. Or better yet we could use the version the AOF sender is made for? (Where's the hopful emoticon when you need it?)

korexus.

Post by **korexus** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:26 pm

*Looks closely at numbers in Al's post*

*Looks closely at numbers in WoK 5 history*

*Goes to Ec's site and checks version number there*

*Scratches head*

*Checks turn report*

*...*

Um, Ec. Are you even using V 3.25? My turn report seems to think you're using something before 3.1 and probably before 3.

This cannot be good...

korexus.

Post by **Egbert** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:26 pm

Seth, I think you have a problem on your hands. You are using a current AOF Sender for an outdated version of WOK. Korexus filled me in on bits and pieces. Are you sure you know what version of the WOK5 Manager you are using? I don't think it is fair for players to use a current AOF Sender which doesn't apply to the Manager. Korexus got a syntax error for phase 7, for example. The tribes also appear to be outdated.

Yeesh! Big problems.

Aussie Gaz · Post by **Aussie Gaz** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 11:06 pm

Seth.

You are using version 2.7 of the engine. I have no idea how old that is but it isn't recent.

Tribes are different. Order syntax is different in some cases.

Pity no one actually read their turn 1 orders properly or we would have picked that up.

The errors in phase 7 reported above should not really matter much as every player started with 0 wood.

But changes to tribes has caused me a few problems.

I strongly suggest that you download the latest version and do a rerun.

Post by **korexus** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 11:27 pm

Aussie Gaz wrote:Seth.

You are using version 2.7 of the engine. I have no idea how old that is but it isn't recent.

Tribes are different. Order syntax is different in some cases.

Pity no one actually read their turn 1 orders properly or we would have picked that up.

Gaz, I'm hurt! What about the bit where I said the version was pre 3.0?

Aussie Gaz wrote: The errors in phase 7 reported above should not really matter much as every player started with 0 wood.

But changes to tribes has caused me a few problems.

Tribes hurt me too. and the phase 7 changes will cause big headaches in a couple of turns when people do have wood. Phase 3 too. And spells aswell quite likely...

Aussie Gaz wrote:

I strongly suggest that you download the latest version and do a rerun.

Amen to that.

korexus.

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 2:57 am

Have any of you bothered to look at the very top of the TR and look at what version is being used? It will tell you what version is in use for this game.
GEEZ some people need to have the answered handed to them on a silver platter

Aussie Gaz · Post by **Aussie Gaz** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 4:27 am

UD - how do you think I could say Seth was using version 2.7?

Header from turn file : -= Game Engine V2.7,Manager V2.8 =-

Unfortunately the web site says 3.25 and everybody has assumed he was using 3.30.

Korexus - I did read your posts earlier. You said probably pre version 3.0. I just narrowed it down further.

It shouldn't be a major drama to do a rerun. The AOF data should be the same and the turn 0 data files shouldn't have been changed.

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 4:54 am

Gentlemen,
I will check my version. I apologize for any inconvenience. I am not looking at doing a re-run as if only phase 7 was affected and none of you had any wood to begin with then there shouldn't be a problem. I mean honestly, its only one turn. But, I'll double check version and make sure I've got everything downloaded and what not for you for the next turn. Orders are still due on Friday.

GM Seth

Post by **gm_al** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 7:42 am

Its not that easy.

Looking at the WOK5 history page, I read for V3.30:
"all game options are saved along in the .DAT files " - which simply means you cant use savefiles from older versions.

And its not "just Phase 7"..... considering the fact that the orders are still in your hands I strongly suggest a re-run.

Funny thing that none of the ten Players realised before me that Seth used an outdated version of the engine.... and Im not even in the game lol.

Post by **Duke** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 8:23 am

Take a new version of the manager. Insert all the players. Do a turn and then alter the data manually to fit the correct situation. The players will then send in their orders and you will be able to use them as if nothing had happend.

Gives you a headache (I know since I have done it) but you will get everything right.

/Duke

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 8:20 pm

Players in the game,
I will be emailling you all about this situation. Please don't post anymore on the board regarding such until further notice, however, feel free to post banter against one another.

GM Seth

Raw · Post by **Raw** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:12 pm

I thought I would post on this issue since GM Seth said not to.

I would also strongly suggest what Duke said.

Cheers,
Raw

Post by **trewqh** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 8:40 am

Ecrivian wrote:... however, feel free to post banter against one another.

Oh... OK, Seth.

Uuuuuh, let me see... uh.

Oh, I've got one:

I will get you, you no good korexus

trewqh