Load save behavior?

[player1]

Maybe we should add "Discission of Load save behavior" in Ludus Magna?

Of course, not rants just hard evidence.

[Kraxis]

Not a bad idea. I know therother would strike hard at any 'warmongers'.
Since CA supposedly has great respect for the .org perhaps a dedicated thread to evidence could help, though I fear it won't.
But it would go a long way towards presenting our views in a solid and orderly fashion with no bashing and attacks, and that is how I woul like it.

Here is nothing more scary than a coolheaded person in an argument if he present unrefuteable evidence. Hotheadedness will not go a single step towards our goal here.

[Productivity]

I was thinking of running my next campaign as a test, play for 50 turns to let the AI get a decent empire, then every turn take off FoW, count the number of sieges, save, count how many sieges were lifted, and then reload and repeat and compare the numbers.

Then repeat it over the next 200 or so turns. It may take a bit longer, but I don't play that often that it would bother me.

[therother]

This is an important and unfortunately heated game mechanics question. The LM staff are discussing this request at the moment. But if opened, it will be for posting hard game mechanics research, not a discussion or commentary on the nature of the issue.

[*Ringo*]

Get 'em told therother

Evidence only or you'll be

[player1]

Yes, it needs ruthless moderating, more ruthless then com forums.

[hrvojej]

A suggestion for a test:

Start a number of campaigns always with a same nation (one that is regularly unlockable) in vanilla unmodded RTW 1.2. Play a number of turns without reloading and without doing anything. Toggle FoW off, and count the number of provinces that have changed hands. Now do this with saving and reloading every time, and after the same number of turns count provinces that have changed hands. If a few of us do the same thing, take the same nation, play the same number of turns, use the same counting method etc. everything should be controlled for, and we would get a bigger sample size in a less time-consuming fashion. So, we would have to agree on the faction, No. of turns, No. of tests each of us would do, etc., but we would have respectable dataset in a short time, and without any of us spending several nights just clicking end of turn button.

After we gather all the data I volunteer to do the statistical anaysis on it and then we'll have cold hard evidence that something is going on. And no more "probability theory" smokescreen arguments either - as we would have solid basis to counter them (another reason why we need a large sample size). Whether something in terms of an official fix would come out of it is suspect, but at least we could show the CA that the bug is indeed the game, and not us.

[therother]

Okay, thread open. I would appreciate it if someone could give us a good overview of the perceived problem and the methods that have been used in testing for it.