Global 2nd Edition BM3: Triggers Don't Work Right To Ally USSR With USA if Japan Declares on UK Japan2

[BirdofPrey1]

9687

My Operating System

Global bm3

Japan has already declared on Russia (in this case R2). They declare on UK J2. Then USA declares on all Axis powers. The bug is that after this,

USA is not allied with Russia.

Do you have the exact error text? Please copy/paste if so

Instead of this error, what should have happened?

Any additional information that may help

[ron-murhammer]

@simon33-2 @panther2 Can you take a look at this since I believe the 2 of you helped upload the BM3 version?

[panther2]

@ron-murhammer At first I recreated the scenario and can confirm that immediately after the US DOW on the Axis the political status between US and Russa is indicated as "neutral". Then I recreated the scenario in vanilla wwII_global1940.2 and confirm the same result.

But when it comes to the next political action (on UK's following turn) the tableau correctly indicates the US-SU-status as "Allied".

So the issue here is that the political relation between US and SU is not updated immediately after the US DOW (during Politics Phase when relations are usually updated), but the game history shows that it is done during the "Turn Complete" routines.

Not only a BM issue but a Global1940.2 issue, too.

Savegames to reproduce: savedGames.zip

[panther2]

I am just thinking about any practical relevance of this issue. In the given scenario the US won't be allowed to land air units in SU territories anyway, as those have not been friendly at the start of the (US) current turn.

As the US-SU-relation is updated during the same (US) turn's "Turn Complete" procedures, this appears to be just in time before any weird consequences might result.

So this appears to be not a bug at all, but the consequence of the trigger that has been outsourced from the Politics Phase to the Turn Complete procedures, maybe caused by the more complex poltical rules applying.

[simon33-2]

Land units should be able to land on Soviet territories so it seems to still be relevant.

I have never noticed that you couldn't land planes on territories that you are newly allied with. That's intentional? I guess it doesn't prevent UK landing planes on Yunnan straight after a UK DOW, for example. Both are at war.

[BirdofPrey1]

The practical relevance would be Americans want to land planes in Russia. Which they should be able to if both Russia and USA are at war with Japan. Simon is right that when UK declares war on Japan, they can land planes in China on the same turn.

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:29 PM, simon33-2 notifications@github.com wrote:

Land units should be able to land on Soviet territories so it seems to still be relevant.

I have never noticed that you couldn't land planes on territories that you are newly allied with. That's intentional? I guess it doesn't prevent UK landing planes on Yunnan straight after a UK DOW, for example. Both are at war.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/3590#issuecomment-406832348, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AnkMy2ihX2DLz1ctGL3d6ljL5CaMayMBks5uI8dogaJpZM4VY25z .

[panther2]

@simon33-2 Rulebook Pacific 1940.2, page 21, NCM - Where units can land:

Air Units: An air unit must end its move in an eligible landing space. Air units can land in any territory that was friendly (but not friendly neutral) at the start of the current turn.

@simon33-2 @BirdofPrey1 UK landing planes in China is a completely different scenario: Rulebook Pacific 1940.2, page 35:

Political situation, national objectives, and bonus income Germany, Japan, and Italy make up the Axis. For the moment, the United Kingdom (including Canada), ANZAC, France, and China make up the Allies. The United States and the Soviet Union are neutral.

So China and UK are allied from the beginning of the game. Thus Chinese territories are friendly to UK. That is why UK may land planes in China. A state of war between UK and Japan is irrelevant. (there is an additional requirement - see follow up discussion)

[panther2]

Land units should be able to land on Soviet territories so it seems to still be relevant.

Yes, you are correct here, indeed.

That is why I said

As the US-SU-relation is updated during the same (US) turn's "Turn Complete" procedures, this appears to be just in time before any weird consequences might result.

A bug report about US land units failing to land during NCM on a (at that time) friendly SU territory in that special situation never came to my ears - so I wondered about the relevance of this special situation.

There must be a reason why the Russian-US political status trigger has been moved from the Politics phase to the Turn Complete procedures, that maybe justifies this possible glitch.

[BirdofPrey1]

Panther, I think you're mistaken about UK and China starting out allied. China/UK politics are complex, but UK cannot land planes in China without declaring on Japan. They were just discussing this today in an A&A league thread so you're welcome to ask there too https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41281.135

Saying a power can't land on territories the power just allied would mean that if/when Japan declares war on USA2, and then USA2 declares war on Germany/Italy, then USA can't land their planes in London on that turn. If that's the case, we've all been playing the game wrong up until now. I think that in this case, the politics phase precedes the "start of the turn".

So imo the spirit of the rules is that USA can declare on Japan and land planes in Russia on the same turn (if Russia is at war with Japan).

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:46 AM, P@nther notifications@github.com wrote:

Land units should be able to land on Soviet territories so it seems to still be relevant.

Yes, you are correct here, indeed.

That is why I said

As the US-SU-relation is updated during the same (US) turn's "Turn Complete" procedures, this appears to be just in time before any weird consequences might result.

A bug report about US land units failing to land during NCM on a (at that time) friendly SU territory in that special situation never came to my ears

• so I wondered about the relevance of this special situation.

There must be a reason why the Russian-US political status trigger has been moved from the Politics phase to the Turn Complete procedures, that maybe justifies this possible glitch.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/3590#issuecomment-406842792, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AnkMyyfsqmgUkxM0zeL3nZdu1255__LXks5uJBGbgaJpZM4VY25z .

[simon33-2]

I suspect the reason it is in turn complete is because of the possibility of a USA DOW at the end of turn 3.

[panther2]

@BirdofPrey1

Panther, I think you're mistaken about UK and China starting out allied.

No, they start out being allied:

Rulebook Pacific 1940.2, page 35:

Political situation, national objectives, and bonus income Germany, Japan, and Italy make up the Axis. For the moment, the United Kingdom (including Canada), ANZAC, France, and China make up the Allies. The United States and the Soviet Union are neutral.

but you are correct on another aspect: I did not think about the additional requirement of a state of war between UK and Japan for landing in China. That is an exception (enhancement) only valid for special Allies/China relationships. So thank you for the reminder.

My intention was to point out that the UK/China scenario is different from the scenario you initially posted about. And it nevertheless still is. There is no such exception/enhancement for the USA regarding SU in the rules.

So imo the spirit of the rules is that USA can declare on Japan and land planes in Russia on the same turn (if Russia is at war with Japan).

There is nothing in the rules that binds the permission for landing US planes in the SU on a state of war between Russia and Japan.

US starts the turn being still neutral. I think we all agree that while being neutral the US is not allowed to move units into any foreign territory. It is by the following DOW on the Axis powers that USA joins the Allies (including SU). Now this DOW means that US may invade hostile territories as well as bring units into friendly (allied) territories.

But regarding air units the rulebook explicitly says: Rulebook Pacific 1940.2, page 21, NCM - Where units can land:

Air Units: An air unit must end its move in an eligible landing space. Air units can land in any territory that was friendly (but not friendly neutral) at the start of the current turn.

Now the question is:

Can a Soviet territory be considered friendly from the beginning of the US-turn which is started with the US being neutral and in which the US joins the Allies by DOW'ing on Axis powers?

or enhanced

Can allied powers' territories be considered friendly from the point of view of a power starting its turn neutral and joining those Allies during the same turn?

I would say "NO" but I must admit that I can't remember that this question has ever been explicitly discussed and officially clarified.

I will contact the author of the rulebooks.

Great discussion, guys. I love it when after all those years questions like these occur. :-)

[panther2]

@simon33-2

I suspect the reason it is in turn complete is because of the possibility of a USA DOW at the end of turn 3.

That must be it! Good point!

[panther2]

I will contact the author of the rulebooks.

I have just received his confirmation that in the given scenario US air units may not land on a Soviet territory, as this territory has not been friendly (=allied) at the start of the current turn.

[panther2]

@ron-murhammer So to sum this up again: Due to the fact that the Russian-US political status trigger has been moved from the Politics phase to the Turn Complete procedures, the political status between US and Russia is not updated during Politics phase, but a bit later.

Apart from the (maybe not very relevant) glitch that the landing of US land units on Russian territories during the same turn's NCM-phase would (incorrectly) not be allowed by TripleA, this handling seems to have no further negative consequence.

In case there is a more elegant way to handle this politics rule, it would be fine. In case changes would be too complex, leaving the code as it is would be no catastrophe, IMHO,

[ron-murhammer]

@panther2 Are you suggesting that the trigger should be moved earlier in the turn?

[panther2]

@ron-murhammer It must have been placed to Turn Complete for some reason, for example, as @simon33-2 assumed, maybe because of the possible US DOW at the end of turn 3,

So in case the trigger could be moved to somewhere before the Noncombat Move Phase, the described glitch could be avoided (= enabling the engine to accept landing US land units in then allied SU territories).

But I cannot estimate other resulting consequences in that case. If a move caused other weird consequences, for example blocked a possible US DOW at the end of turn three, I would vote for going on with the current solution.

[BirdofPrey1]

I have just received his confirmation that in the given scenario US air units may not land on a Soviet territory, as this territory has not been friendly (=allied) at the start of the current turn.

Confirmation from whom? Did you try posting for clarification on the A&A Global Faq?

Can allied powers' territories be considered friendly from the point of view of a power starting its turn neutral and joining the Allies during the same turn?

The answer is yes. Language suggesting "no" seems to be related to friendly neutrals (not major powers), which you activiate during the turn (so air units can't land there) rather than before the turn (during the politics phase).

There is nothing in the rules that binds the permission for landing US planes in the SU on a state of war between Russia and Japan.

Consider the scenario where UK wants to use a bomber to attack a lone transport in the Baltic and land in SU. That being legal depends on SU being at war with Germany. The same is the case for USA wanting to land planes in Siberia (on the Japan side of the board).

I don't understand the programming details but I hope we are agreed that in the scenario when Japan declares on USA and USA declares on Germany, USA should be able to land units on territories belonging to powers they just allied such as Anzac, the UK, and Russia (if they are at war with the relevant power).

[panther2]

@BirdofPrey1 My friend, on axisandallies.org I am not the person to ask questions but to answer questions. Please see my profile there: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=5926

I am one of three active moderators there, and one of a few "Rules Deputies" assigned by the author of the rulebooks (Krieghund) and authorized to give "official" answers to rules questions. To do you a favour I asked Krieghund himself by PM for a confirmation of the discussed issue, although I knew it was not necessary. Just to please you.

For landing planes in an allied territory it is in general only relevant that the territory has been friendly at the beginning of the turn (regarding China there is another aspect that we talked about). Your constructions are simply wrong and a misunderstanding of the rules. You even ignore the relevant quotes from the rulebook.

In case you still don't accept the answer I can't help you. If you still don't trust me, well, leave it.

[panther2]

I don't understand the programming details but I hope we are agreed that in the scenario when Japan declares on USA and USA declares on Germany, USA should be able to land units on territories belonging to powers they just allied such as Anzac, the UK, and Russia.

When Japan declares War on USA, USA joins the Allies (on that Japanese turn). Thus those Allied territories are friendly from the beginning of US turn then. This is a different scenario.

[BirdofPrey1]

If that were the case, then the program ought to change USA's status from neutral to war with Germany/Italy during the Japan turn (and change USSR/USA from neutral to allied, if USSR is at war with Japan). But it doesn't work that way--(in TripleA) USA declares on Germany/Japan on the following USA turn. So according to this logic, USA shouldn't be able to land planes in London during that turn.

Not trying to be a dick, just trying to show how the way the program currently interprets the rules is inconsistent with this logic. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am, we've misinterpreted the rules up until now.

I went ahead and posted on the Faq thread for additional input.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=69.0

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 1:22 PM, P@nther notifications@github.com wrote:

I don't understand the programming details but I hope we are agreed that in the scenario when Japan declares on USA and USA declares on Germany, USA should be able to land units on territories belonging to powers they just allied such as Anzac, the UK, and Russia.

When Japan declares War on USA, USA joins the Allies (on that Japanese turn). Thus those Allied territories are friendly from the beginning of US turn then. This is a different scenario.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/3590#issuecomment-406886593, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AnkMywklJj3VLg0LJX-o_pR1znno9EzWks5uJMMAgaJpZM4VY25z .

[BirdofPrey1]

Attached is an example of what I'm referring to. At the start of USA2, USA is neutral with all Allied powers. But by declaring on all Axis powers, USA is now allowed to land in French and UK territories but not on Soviet territory. The Soviets are however allied with China and UK Pacific.

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Scott Kern ludwig425@gmail.com wrote:

If that were the case, then the program ought to change USA's status from neutral to war with Germany/Italy during the Japan turn (and change USSR/USA from neutral to allied, if USSR is at war with Japan). But it doesn't work that way--(in TripleA) USA declares on Germany/Japan on the following USA turn. So according to this logic, USA shouldn't be able to land planes in London during that turn.

Not trying to be a dick, just trying to show how the way the program currently interprets the rules is inconsistent with this logic. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am, we've misinterpreted the rules up until now.

I went ahead and posted on the Faq thread for additional input.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=69.0

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 1:22 PM, P@nther notifications@github.com wrote:

I don't understand the programming details but I hope we are agreed that in the scenario when Japan declares on USA and USA declares on Germany, USA should be able to land units on territories belonging to powers they just allied such as Anzac, the UK, and Russia.

When Japan declares War on USA, USA joins the Allies (on that Japanese turn). Thus those Allied territories are friendly from the beginning of US turn then. This is a different scenario.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/3590#issuecomment-406886593, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AnkMywklJj3VLg0LJX-o_pR1znno9EzWks5uJMMAgaJpZM4VY25z .

[panther2]

Indeed, TripleA/wwII_global_1940 does not cover every politics aspect of the rulebook 1:1 - but it is quite close, The politics sheet does not reflect everything from the politics rules correctly. But playability is high.

So the issue you described in your initial posting above is valid, as confirmed early. I would recommend to open separate issues for other observations.

[panther2]

@ron-murhammer

On axisandallies.org Krieghund today has reconsidered the relationship between powers starting neutral and territories belonging to powers of the same side. As a consequence neutral powers when declaring war may consider then-allies' territories as friendly and thus land air units on allied territories during NCM phase of the same turn.

Regarding the original issue I suggest a rework of the trigger placement, if possible. Regarding the consequences for gameplay I suggest to open seperate issues to everyone encountering them.

[panther2]

Also, thank you @BirdofPrey1 - assuming you are Zhukov44 - for not being satisfied with official answers from the highest authority and his deputy. You were right to insist.

Still in general the only relevant question for a plane to land during NCM-phase is whether the territory to land on has been friendly at the beginning of the turn. We now know, that USA may consider SU-territories as friendly when declaring war. There are of course some additional requirements in the rules for some special situations (eg. China).

And thanks to you, @simon33-2 , Krieghund reconsidered the topic and changed his mind - and I did, too, following his explanation.

[Cernelius]

Ok, so this last change is basically an errata.

The rule is not anymore that the territory must be friendly (allied) since the beginning of the turn; so what is the new wording, exactly, in substitution of what's written in the rulebook?

[Cernelius]

Ok, I found it at Axis&Allies.org now.

So it is not actually an errata, but an answer that would be rather better formalized as an addenda (and it hasn't yet, I assume).

The rule:

Air units can land in any territory that was friendly (but not friendly neutral) at the start of the current turn.

is correct, and it is not going to be changed. What is needed is to clarify that all players of a same side are always friendly with each other (thus satisfying the aforementioned requirement), no matter if they are neutral at any point.

In TripleA terms, this would mean that there are 2 kind of neutral relationships, that we could call "neutral friendly" (not to be confused with "friendly neutral", that is a neutral territory that can be converted by friendly players) and "neutral hostile", the first one being the relationship that neutral players have with other players of the same side and the second one being the relationship that neutral players have with players of the opposite side they are not yet at war with. I the first case, they are friendly, in the second case they are actually neutral, as per what krieghund referenced:

the definition of 'neutral territories" indicates that they're "not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war".

That practically says that the territories of neutral powers of your side are not really neutral, but friendly. The real neutrals are only those on the other side you are not yet at war with (plus, of course, all that is not owned by an actual power).

Can a developer clarify if the neutral archetype in TripleA is supposed to be friendly or not (talking about the relationship, not the null player, of course, that is called Neutral, but it is always hostile to everyone), on the matter of territory ownership? And I'm not talking about being able to go in that territory (since we just clarified that neutral powers of a same side are friendly no matter if they cannot go in owned territories till they are neutral), that I of course know you cannot.

p.s.: This reminds me that I wish TripleA would say "power", instead of "player", to refer to the in-game players, just like Axis&Allies (and krieghund) does.

[panther2]

@Cernelius Concerning the rules aspects of your statement, I think your thoughts are basically correct.

While the rulebooks elaborate a lot on neutral territories not belonging to a power it sort of lacks a definition of the status of territories of (later) allied powers from the viewpoint of a power starting neutral and going to war at any time. That is why Krieghund's clarification has been badly needed.

The only use case I can think of at the moment is the determination whether an ally's territory to land on during NCM has been friendly or not at the beginning of the turn, when a neutral power joins the Allies. We now know that those can be treated as friendly, as prior to finally joing the Allies there already is a sort of "background friendship" between the neutral powers and their (later) allies.

Krieghund says:

The upshot is that the territories of a friendly are technically friendly while your power is neutral, but they're pretty much treated as neutral for all practical purposes. However, they do meet the requirement of being friendly since the start your turn once you're at war.

[panther2]

For easier reference here is the link to Krieghund's complete explanation: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.msg1796352#msg1796352

[Cernelius]

@simon33-2 @panther2 Can you take a look at this since I believe the 2 of you helped upload the BM3 version?

@ron-murhammer As pointed out by @panther2, this issue has nothing to do with any mods of WWII Global specifically, but it is an issue for the main game itself, that extends to any mods of the same map having the same relevant elements. So maybe you want to change the issue title and rethink the assignees based on the fact that any changes to the map is to be primarily applied on the original games (so, it doesn't really matter who is the reference for the mods).

From the engine standpoint, I think the two main questions are if an archetype neutral relationship should allow air landing as default and if the engine should look at the start turn relationship too (meaning you need having a relationship allow landing both at start turn and currently). The next question, to expand on the matter beside WWII Global only, since TripleA allows changing relationships more than once per turn, is if the engine should keep in memory all relationships you changed during your turn, all of them needing allowing landing or only the initial and the current ones. In any cases, I advice having an option for setting the behaviour for the specific relationship, beside the archetype chosen for it.

[Cernelius]

Of course, we all know that neutral doesn't allow you going in an owned territory in the first place. So it doesn't directly matter if you can or cannot land in a territory you cannot go anyways, obviously.

Just to be clear to everyone, this is supposed to be the current behaviour and relevant option (from pos2):

canLandAirUnitsOnOwnedLand values: "true", "false", or "default". default setting is "default", and "default" means that archeType of allied only lets you land units in the player's territories

Probably we don't want to change this, so, if the correct rules would be implemented, as a matter of that needing to be true also for the start turn relationship, then the coding of all the games of this map would need to be checked and eventually updated some ways, maybe splitting the current "Neutrality" relationship into two different ones, one for the same alliance players ("powers", in the referenced parlance) and another one for the opposite alliance ones.

Anyway, while I've never played these games myself (assuming all the currently 7 games of this map have this issue all the same), nor I'm testing them, what I understand is that, currently, they are all bugged, as they don't allow landing land and air units in the newly allied owner's territories, while both should be allowed, if I understood @panther2 correctly.

I'm under the impression that the current way the triggers are described working is merely a workaround for partially implementing what was believed to be the intended game behaviour (that is now changed or clarified otherwise), rather than having it directly supported via the engine.

[panther2]

@Cernelius

as they don't allow landing land and air units in the newly allied owner's territories, while both should be allowed,

This is correct for now.

I see a two-step process now:

The original issue is identified and confirmed here: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/3590#issuecomment-406819610

The trigger of the relationship between US and SU is updated only after the movement phases (during turn complete routines), and not - as usual during politics. This is one reason why neither US land nor air units may land in SU territories during NCM.

So in case the trigger could be moved earlier (at some place before NCM) at least landing land units should be possible. That leaves the "landing air units in a friendly territory"-question as a second step.

Now when the relation is updated "in time" before NCM, I am not sure how TripleA will deal with the status of US territories in that situation, as those have to be considered friendly from the beginning of the turn for the purpose of landing planes.

Maybe the territories are already defined as friendly to their (later) allies? I don't know.

So it is either a trigger issue only - or a triger issue as well as a territory definition issue, IMHO.

[simon33-2]

I suspect the answer is doing the trigger at both points.

[simon33-2]

Fix pushed up to production. It's already happening at 5 points. I added a sixth.

[panther2]

The trigger-issue has been fixed by simon33-2 here: https://github.com/triplea-maps/world_war_ii_global/commit/042d109904071d281c17d8c1827d6ea827eb7b7f

I have rerun my initial testing scenario ( https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/3590#issuecomment-406819610 ). It is now possible to land US air units on SU territories during NCM.

Looks like we can close this issue.

In case other political observations/issues occur I suggest to open separate issues, then.