21 replies to this topic

[Ronald]

For the second turn in a row my expenditures turned out to be lower than expected, with exactly the amount my RPD's would have costed (which all failed). Has anyone else who did the RPD order (in game 72 or other) noticed this? Has anyone done a succesful RPD at all?

[nfbeerse]

Hello Ronald,

Doing RPDs is costly, but it is worth the investment. I have had successes with this order, in different games.

Here is a quote from the rule book on the order:

Quote

The base chance for success in a Geological Exploration project is 10%. If the province is a "Mountain" province, the base chance will be 20% for Heavy Ores, Light Ores and Coal and 10% for Petroleum. If the province is a "Hill" province, the base chance will be 15% for Heavy Ores, Light Ores and Coal and 10% for Petroleum. If the province is a "Desert" province, the base chance for Petroleum is 15% and Heavy Ores, Light Ores and Coal will have a 10% base chance. If the project is successful, there is a 90% chance for a 1% increase in the current resource potential (for that type), an 8% chance for a 10% increase and a 2% chance for a 100% increase. A successful project will always give a minimum increase of 1. The cost for a Geological Exploration project is $100 per province, per project.
The base chance for success in an Alternate Energy Development project is 90%. If the project is successful, there is a 80% chance for a 5% increase in the current alternate energy potential and a 20% chance for a 10% increase. A successful project will always give a minimum increase of 1. The cost for an Alternate Energy Development project is $500 per province, per project.

The chances for the increase have changed some time ago:

Quote

If successful, however, the % increase in resource potential will be as follows:
80% of the time there will be a 5% increase
15% of the time there will be a 20% increase
5% of the time there will be a 50% increase

Hope this helps.

Norbert

[Ronald]

Thats not the problem.

It looks like a failed RPD costs -nothing-. Now i could be mistaken but i was under the impression that an rpd always costs $100 per attempt regardless if its succesful or not.

So either a failed attempt is free or the RPD order is simply ignored during processing of the turn and doesnt execute.

Thats why I asked if anyone has noticed this expenditure-difference as well or if anyone has done a succesful rpd recently.

[nfbeerse]

Ronald,

I do not keep records of the spendings during a turn, so I would not know if this is true.

The Victory code is very old. So it is very unlikely that it is changed recently. If this is an error, then it is an old one...
As far as I know, the 100 treasury is deducted when you give the order.

I have noticed that sometimes the last order I have given is not recorded as given... When I send my orders as an plain text files, this problem was noticed. After I knew this, I started zipping my orders. I have not had any problems since.

Norbert

[Ronald]

*nod* I know, I also zip my orders.
the rpd's werent the last orders, they were roughly in the middle, so that cant be it either.

[nfbeerse]

Ronald,

Perhaps I should recalculate some of my turns, to see what happened when I gave a RPD order.

Norbert

[nfbeerse]

Ronald,

I have recalculated some of my turns...

It seems you are right. When you do an RPD order, it costs you no money if the development is not succesful!
In past turns I have had some succesful RPDs, and these do cost money.

I think this is a feature in the Victory program, that is not right, but very interesting to know.

Norbert

[RTGRuss]

Although I haven't had the time to chase down the exact line of code, it does seem like failed RPD orders are zero cost. There have been no code changes recently so this has likely been the case for a long time.

I'm not 100% certain at this point whether I should correct it or simply change the rules so everyone is aware of it. The percentage chance for success is fairly small and, regardless, increasing resource potentials here and there is more of a long term factor than anything else - easing industrial planning a bit but not likely to win you many battles (NTS limitations is the control for the long term). Devoting one or more orders to RPDs would have other drawbacks as well when the wars begin and you start bumping up against order limitations.

Comments?

[Meatball]

Well, while I'm sure I'm not the only one that wouldn't mind not having to pay for failed RPD's, I don't really think it's very realistic.

You would still have people out there doing the geological "surveys" looking for new deposits, etc, that would expect to be paid. To make a comparison, just because my fighters on patrol don't find anything to attack doesn't mean that it shouldn't cost me any fuel.

Anyway, I vote for fixing it. Either that or up the percentage chance that you do find something so folks are paying for RPD's more often.

[Takeda]

Don't really see it as a big deal. I'd vote to leave it as is.


I'm sure Russ has better things to do than chase down a bug which may save me a few bucks in the ol'treasury.

Takeda

[Limburgia]

I think that most important is all players know how it works.
When I had to choose I would say (seems most fair) you pay for the mission regardless the results. I guess the money is for geological equipment and mining equipment and I would find it strange they come for free if there is nothing to find.

Russ, if we are talking about changes there are some changes that have been discussed many times. When are these changes being made?

Changes like:
1) More missions (could use more turn sheets or bigger turn sheets)
2) Attack more provinces from 1 starting location (the offensive MGFS)
3) The split embark army force mission

and all the other fixes and changes where we have talked about so many times.

The most urgent fix if any is the max number of missions.

[nfbeerse]

I agree with Limburgia. All players should know how it works.
If this bug is not fixed, then there should be a line in the rule stating that a failed RPD does not cost money.

I think we should keep it the way it is. As Russ writes, there is not that much to gain with RPDs, just some minor increases in some resource potentials.

Norbert

[ChicO]

I agree too. Make it public and maybe some more people will start using RPD orders. I know I will...

[cd_ernst]

Hello everyone,

Would it be considered cheating if you DIDN'T report a bug? I mean, a nice and juicy bug could be just the thing my war diet needs...

But to come back to the current problem:

If a change has to be made, and I think that it should, than that change should be made in the new games and not in the currently active games. But I assume that when you change the code, you change it for all the games, present and future games alike... Hmm..

If I had to choose from two unlucky choices I would chose the one that would be the cheapest to fix. In this case that would be to change the code so you wouldn't have to change the rule book.

And let's be honest; how many RPD's does one have to do to gain a strategical upperhand over the person(s) that didn't do those RPD's? Personally I don't think that it would affect the outcome of this war.

So change the code and fix this old problem.

Greetings,

Donald
(Ireland 70, Trans-jordan 72)

[Ronald]

I guess its easier to announce a rule change than search for a bit of code and change that.

I think you can leave it the way it is. If viewed realisticly it might cost something to do geological research, but those costs are nigh neglectible compared to set up the equipment to get a resource from the earth. You can do quite a few tests for the cost of the digging and taking in operation of 1 mine or 1 oil drill.