Well it is supposed to be according to the rules (farthest out then sea zones the alphabetical) but it seems there may be a bug in the database. Send it to [email protected] and let them know. The game won't gey fixed, but Kestas can fix the order of disbanded forbfuture games.

Thanks, will do.

I believe the webdip auto-disband algorithm works from the order of unit creation instead of distance from home centers.

That is what it looks like (given a brief look at a few past games) ... explains the odd behavior I have seen anyway. Actually, I like that a lot better than "distance" (which can sometimes be ambiguous) and especially "alphabetical".

:-O The order of unit creation?! That is incredibly random. I tried to find it in the code, but was buried to deep for me.

I think distance is quite clear actually, although I would love a distinction between non-SCs and SCs.

But anyway, it's not about what we like it to be. The Diplomacy 4th ed rules actually specify it quite clearly:
"the units farthest from the country are removed first. If units are equally distant, then remove Fleets before armies and then in alphabetical order by the province in which they are located."

In my case, the fleet BLA should have been disbanded. All units are equally distant, so remove the fleet first.

This hasn't been fixed yet? The system used to order the correct disbands, but in one of the updates the feature got messed up.

I was told that the issue had been resolved. It must be Draugnar's fault.

No, I NMR'd about a month ago and the Adjudicator totally disbanded the wrong unit.

The mods can fix the disband if you get the game paused in time, which it looks like you have managed to do. They've done that in one of my games before.

Wait, really? Damn.

Not fixed yet. We've been waiting in pause about a week.
How did the system fix it before?

@JECE, I looked through the mod email and only found one report of this from your games, the game wasn't reverted because the next phase had gone through.

@TheMinisterOfWar, Yebellz did pass this onto Kestas, we'll try and get something worked out soon, but I know Kestas is working on a lot of different problems and updates right now so I won't promise a date. Thanks for your patience in the meantime.

If it is order of units created, then which get disbanded first? Do the oldest ones get disbanded first, or the newest?

jmo1121109: Yes, I remember that case too. Both happened at about the same time. One was fixed (I'll try to look for it) and the other (I have it noted as gameID=13377, Fall 1908, in my profile, but that's obviously wrong) wasn't.

jmo1121109: The game you are referring to was gameID=13377 and the error was in Fall 1905.

I don't know how I'm going to find the other game that was fixed without going through press in each game individually.

Thanks for checking . I'll go through and find it. If you do happen to have the email would you mind forwarding it too [email protected], if not don't worry about it.

jmo1121109: I think I know what I was thinking of. I encountered a very serious error a few years back in which I paused three of my games (I left it so that I was the last one to vote) and each game instead progressed to the next phase. In one of those three games (gameID=13932), the damage was minimal since it happened during a builds phase and a mod turned the clock back.

jmo1121109: Isn't the policy to fix errors when no moves are revealed?

It's not an error that I can fix so it is completely up to Kestas.

Any news on this?

I'm guessing not then.

Hi guys,

As I said in the game messages sorry for the delay, thanks for your patience.


The webDip adjudicator uses a lookup table which tells it for each country, for each unit type, in each territory, what is the precedence of destruction. It isn't based on when the unit was built, but a generated table, so it isn't that bad.

On checking out this case though it does look like the generated table doesn't take fleet precedence into account; a mistake on my part from taking the DATC too literally:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#4.D.8

I took that as the full definition of the rule, but it only clarified the vague parts, and since army / fleet wasn't vague I didn't pick up on that.


I've changed the outcome so that it was effectively adjudicated correctly:
http://webdiplomacy.net/map.php?gameID=109452&turn=7&mapType=large

And I'll make a change to the code that generates the unit destroy table so that it takes fleet precedence into account, thanks for letting me know about that. (Apologies again for the delay)

Regards,
Kestas

Kestas, thanks! I look forward to resuming the game!

On the rule as a whole though, I think it is more than fleets only. In this example, A Ukr was disbanded erronously. However, all the interpretations of the rules would result in the order of disbandment to be F Bla, A Sil, A Ukr. So A Sil would still be expected over A Ukr.

I couldnt find this in the code (still finding my way round it), but this seems to be more than only the fleet issue.

The code that applies the destroys to invalid / missing orders is in gamemaster/orders/builds.php , in the apply() function, but that just references the lookup table wD_UnitDestroyIndex
That table is generated in variants/install.php , in the unitDestroyIndexSQL($mapID) function, and that's where the problem will be. Looking at it now I'm actually not sure what's wrong with it, it looks okay (it should implement the fleet precedence code), but anyway I'll figure out what went wrong later.

Kestas, at one point awhile back I thought I heard that this table had bad data in it here at webdip. If that is the case, then a quick look at the contents should fairly quickly show priority numbers that don't make sense. Hope that helps.

Okay thanks. I'll take a deeper look too, though my proficiency in php has declined considerably.

For your debug purposes, it just did it again: http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=109452

Note that the correct disband is A Sil. The adjudicator gives us A Ukr.