Re: Results in BLIND games

I am thinking perhaps one reason I did this might have been, to add to the
example I gave earlier, if Austria had an army in Tyrolia, he surely should
not be told whether or not the order he saw Germany issue from Burgundy
(concerning actions in Paris) was or was not void.  It does seem that Brad
is thinking along the same lines I am, that if it's your OWN support, you
aren't learning too much by knowing it was void, since the target location
of your support is always within your own field of vision.  I think maybe I
just took the easy way out when coding it and as a result the owner of the
unit isn't seeing (*void*)s that there sems to be no reason for him/her not
to see.

Manus

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Brad Seiler <[email protected]> wrote:

> You wrote this in the BLIND rules description:
> It is never disclosed in the results if a unit's order was void -- the
> (*void*) annotation is completely suppressed from appearing in the
> results. However, convoyed armies that were issued orders that would
> have been (*void*) are re-annotated in the results with the (*no
> convoy*) annotation.
>
> I suppose that one could use void orders to determine the location or
> the action of units that you cannot see.  For example, if Germany has
> an army in Burgundy and France orders A PAR S F BRE, then Germany
> would learn something about the fleet in Brest if the support were
> marked (*void*).  I don't think you can learn anything from seeing
> that your own support is void, but I'm not sure.
> -- Brad
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Manus Hand <[email protected]> wrote:
> > DPjudgesters --
> >
> > I am mastering, for some reason, quite a few BLIND games right now, and I
> > noticed the following idiosyncracy in the way results are given.  Here's
> an
> > example:
> >
> > Germany: Army Burgundy SUPPORT Army Paris.
> > France: Army Paris -> Brest.
> >
> > Neither Germany, France, nor I, as the Master, was told that the German
> > support was (*void*).
> >
> > Naturally, I figured this was a bug, and I dove into the code to fix it.
> To
> > my surprise, I find that this seems to be a documented feature, not a
> bug.
> > (In other words, I can't remember what I did a decade or more ago.)
> Here's
> > the relevant comment from the code:
> >
> > # In a BLIND game, no one is told when orders are "void".
> >
> > It sure seems to me like I must have had a reason when I wrote that.  I'm
> > writing to ask you guys if you know why that might have been....  For
> now,
> > I'm leaving this "feature" in place, thinking there must be a logical
> reason
> > for it, but well, I'd feel better if someone could explain to me what I
> was
> > thinking way back then....
> >
> > Manus
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>