Port Control Confusion

[Ludi1867]

I am not sure whether the confusion is on my part, or if there is something wrong in the game. I do know that I seem to be getting inconsistent results when control of ports changes from one side to the other, or sometimes does NOT change sides. The damage to the port on change of control is also sometimes apparently a little inconsistent. I am not sure if this issue has been discussed before (I don’t think I have seen it), but hopefully not.

Port control is vital in many situations because of the access to supply they provide. A common situation that is encountered is that the opposing unit occupying a port is destroyed, but for one reason or another the moving unit is unable to occupy the port. If that unit is adjacent to the port, the port often switches control to the phasing player at the end of the turn – but not always.

Example 1 – Axis player in “Axis of Evil” scenario attacks Japanese player in Tsingtao, destroying the Japanese unit occupying Tsingtao but unable to move in at the end of the turn. The Axis unit is adjacent to the port, which remains allied until the end of the turn, but once the end turn button is pushed, the port is occupied (and goes from strength 5 to strength 0).

Example 2 – Allied player in the Mediterranean conducts an amphibious landing on Crete to destroy the Axis unit occupying the city on the island. The attack fails to destroy the unit, but a subsequent air attack manages to finish off the Axis unit. At the end of the turn there is only one unit alive on Crete – an Allied unit – but it is not in the city although it is adjacent to the port (it is a pretty small island). When the end turn button is pushed, the city AND the port remains in Axis control, and the Axis player is then able to use the port to transport another Axis unit into the city…

OK, I thought, maybe it is control of the city that matters, so:

Example 3 – Axis player is attacking Allied occupied Tunis. The attack is successful, and the city is occupied by an Axis unit, but an Allied unit remains immediately south of the port (i.e. the port is in the ZOC of the Allied unit) and so the port remains Allied controlled. During the next Axis turn, the Axis is ultimately successful in destroying all Allied units adjacent to the port, but is unable to move out of Tunis (the Axis ZOC from the unit in the city of Tunis remains stationary). However, since the Allied ZOC on the port has been removed, and because the Axis unit controls the city adjacent to the port, the port should switch to Axis control at the end of the turn this time. Nope. At the end of the turn, the port remains obstinately under Allied control at strength 5, and the Allied player (a computer AI in this case) moves two Allied units by transport in through the port to contest control of Tunis.

I could go on. A recent invasion of the European mainland led to an interesting situation around Brussels and the adjacent port of Antwerp. In the initial invasion the Allied player cleared Brussels, moved in to the city and then had to deal with a U-boat in the port. The U-boat was destroyed by the end of the turn, and the port became Allied. Allied units entered through the port on the next turn and occupied squares adjacent to the port north and south of Brussels. At the end of that turn, however, a desperate Axis counterattack was able to clear Brussels, but not the squares adjacent to Brussels (and the port) to north and south. However, in this case, even though adjacent squares to the port remained under Allied control, the port became Axis – cutting off supply to the Allied units and leading to some serious losses.

Finally, the dual ports at Alexandria provide an interesting example of the non-destruction of port facilities when control changes hands. In a recent turn an Axis panzer group occupied Alexandria. There was no Allied unit adjacent to the port square NE of the city, so that port switched to Axis control – and dropped to zero strength. However, an Allied unit immediately south of the port NW of the city resulted in that port square remaining Allied – and strength five. During the Allied players turn (human in PBEM in this case), the Allied unit was retreated. At the end of the Allied player’s turn, as could be seen in the replay, control of the port switched to Axis – but the port remained at strength 5. This certainly worked out well for the Axis player, but it seems much more likely that the port facilities would have been destroyed by a unit that consciously chose to retreat, as opposed to being destroyed as had happened in the previous turn (in other words, consciously retreating as opposed to staying and being destroyed resulted in a much worse situation for the Allied player, as getting a full strength port makes the Axis supply situation MUCH better)

Is there a simple explanation to all this, or is port control somewhat more arbitrary and unpredictable than it should be?

[Bluestew]

Ludi,

I'm right there with you being confused about port control results sometimes. In a recent SeaLion assault, I owned London and all adjacent land tiles but the port remained allied. Two turns later the port just switched to axis control for no apparent reason. Also as you explained, I've noticed other occassional port control issues but don't remember them in detail enough to post.

[Chargin Smith]

I think Hubert is aware of this one and will fix it in the patch.

[Hubert Cater]

The basic rules for port control are as follows:

- If a land unit is adjacent to a friendly port, or a naval within it, it will retain control of that port even if enemy land units are adjacent to that port as well

- If there are no friendly land units adjacent or no naval units within a port and the adjacent city is now enemy controlled then the adjacent city will cause the port to switch sides. For example Axis land in Crete and capture Heraklion but the adjacent port is still held by a UK naval unit. Once the UK naval unit leaves the port the port will switch to Axis control due to the Axis holding Heraklion.

If you find a situation that does not fall into one of these two rules then please send me a set of turns and a description of the unusual behaviour and/or the expected behaviour and I will be glad to take a look.

Send to support@furysoftware.com

Thanks,

Hubert

[Bluestew]

The basic rules for port control are as follows:

If you find a situation that does not fall into one of these two rules then please send me a set of turns and a description of the unusual behaviour and/or the expected behaviour and I will be glad to take a look.

Send to support@furysoftware.com

Thanks,

Hubert

I can assure you that my London port issue did not meet those specs. I had all adjaent tiles for at least a couple turns before the port switched. I remember it so well because my supply situation was troubling until it switched for no reason. I wasn't advancing, just holding in place. I'll see I still have a save, however if not, I'll attempt to duplicate the situation for you wth a fresh game. BTW, this was in AOE not the standard scenario.

[Ludi1867]

I sent a file to Hubert where the port of Brussels shifted control to the Axis when Brussels was captured and Benelux surrendered, even though Allied units were still clearly adjacent to the port and should have retained control. Hubert indicated in his e-mail response that: “This does indeed look like a SURRENDER issue and I will correct this so that if a country like Benelux surrenders to Axis units it will not steal control of ports from adjacent Allied units that already control the port.”

Hubert also had a look at the failure of ports to shift control when they should, and indicated: “I found an issue in the code and I can confirm it is now working as expected on my end.”

Hubert did not indicate that the fixes would be in the first patch, but that is my estimate. This means that I now have to wait until the patch and see if any new problems in this area develop or if any problems continue to exist! However, I should state for the thread that Hubert has proven responsive yet again to issues that have arisen in the game, and I consider his quick action and the ongoing support he provides to his games a very positive quality indeed.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the kind words Ludi, and I can confirm that these fixes will be in the first patch