Patch #4 Public Beta Feedback

[Arjuna]

Hi all,

Now that we have the public beta patch #4 out, if you discover anything that's not working as you would expect then please report it, either in an existing Patch #4 thread or in a new one you create. When creating a new thread use the prefix "Patch #4 - " in your title. Eg "Patch #4 - Not enough Halting" (Hey I couldn't resist[;)])

Now if this feedback is to be of use you need to be as specific as you can. Eg don't just say "not enough halting" but rather in this particular case I would have expected this particular unit to have halted. Upload a saved game. Without a save I cannot track it down. The save needs to be taken from before the event. Preferably immediately before, so I don't waste a lot of time to get to the event. So save early and save often, particularly before you issue new orders.

Aslo a picture tells a thousand words, so include a screen dump in your post and if possible annotate it, highlighting the unit(s) concerned. Yopu can create a screen dump at any point in the ngame by hitting the Print Screen button. This will copy the screen to the clipboard. Just open up you favorite picture editor, paste and save. I use PaintShop Pro for this but MS Paint will do the trick too.

Then make sure you explain what happened prior to the event. Note whether you interacted with the game at all - eg issued orders, selected unit etc.

Lat but not least, be patient. I may not get to your issue straight away, but I will endeavour to in due course.

Thanks.

[Phoenix100]

Well, here's a little starting query. This didn't happen before. I click on a unit and give it a Move order and the default end is given as only 1 hour later. Is that intentional? I actually would prefer it that way (instead of having to click down from the previous default - the scenario end). But just so you know.... Here's a screen shot. Nothing has happened before this. This is the very first thing I've done!

[Arjuna]

Yep I changed it. We previously used the scenario end but that was a hang up from earlier days, when we did not have scheduling code that extends move tasks. Now that we do, I am using the estimated route duration plus an estiomate of the orders delay.

[Phoenix100]

Brilliant. I like it. The patch makes a difference, I think, so far. In the above Hofen scenario - which I tried only 2 days ago, so I could compare - 2 units from the 753, tasked to attack Hfn nth, routed almost as soon as they were bombarded at daybreak. This time they retreated (with the same losses)! Plus, after they had been pinned by the arty I gave them different orders (to go round the objective) - 2 days ago they got stuck - halting repeatedly - none of that at all today! Looking good, Dave. Cheers.

[Topo]

great news, thank you!

[BigDuke66]

Well I guess what I'm seeing here is the effect of the not reworked formations:
751. is attacking Höfen South in Arrowhead formation but what it does looks really strange:

[BigDuke66]

Save games: Autosave from before the formation for the attack and CH02 showing screenshot situation. Rename extention to zip.

[wdkruger]

Am seeing odd behavior regarding slippage. Seems that when I get an order slippage message, the order of the offending headquarters is eliminated and the HQ now has no orders. Is this working as intended?

[Phoenix100]

deleted

[BigDuke66]

A follow up question to this problem:
I would like to know what formations the units that are covered by a formation order do take.

Taking this situation as example I would expect to see the co. at the tip in arrow or line formation and the units to the left and right in echelon left & right.
Should they do it so or would all units covered by a formation order take also that formation them self, in this case all 3 going in in arrowhead formation?
Also should they show the formation they take them self or the formation they are part of?
At the moment all 3 simply show arrowhead and except for the last in line they seem to be in line formation, also the "roles" look strange, the tip bat. shows "advance-guard" what seems OK but the second doesn't show anything and the last is a Line filler.

[wodin]

BigDuke we know only line, column and V formations where worked on so it isn't an issue due to the patch Dave obviously knows it isn't working and because we all demanded the patch constantly he released it without doing the others.

As for giving battalion formation so we have all different coy's at different formations I'm not sure this is possible..I mean how would you even begin to code it and give options to exactly what you want. The formation you asking for sounds like an arrow head on a large scale maybe..until Dave fixes all formations we will have wait and see. Until then we just have to get on with it until the next patch. Line formation is the most important I suppose and that been done. If I was you I'd go look at the screenies Dave posted of the two fixed formations then base what the others will look like...ie reverse the V formation and thats what the arrow head will look like.

Trying to work out arrowhead formation from the game at the moment when we know it doesn't work will not give you any inclination on what it is supposed to look like. I think were best mentioning things in this thread about the patch that we haven't already been told doesn't work properly, otherwise we just end up looking like complaining\moaning for the sake of it esp as in away it's our fault for constantly demanding the patch.

I hope I don't sound like I'm being off hand here, I just feel as we know Arrow head doesn't work properly and so does Dave and Dave has already told us then maybe mentioning it again because we tried it and low and behold it doesn't work looks like were being abit to picky.

I personally feel we rushed Dave for this patch and it was released to early..as patches can take awhile anyway I'd honestly rather have waited until all the formation code was done and the patch was properly tested. I downloaded it but haven't played the game. I'm just going to wait until all the formation code has been reworked and anything that may have been picked up with more testing by Panther if caught and fixed. When that will be I don't know but really I can wait.

[BigDuke66]

Well as I heard he would only do some formations I asked if this couldn't be finished and something else(XP problem) left out but that wouldn't have freed assets that could have worked on the formation code, also at that time they wanted to make the futile deadline, plain bad luck.
Besides that he said he didn't work on the other formations, not that they won't work anymore, for my taste in this broken state the real patch should get all formations overworked, maybe they didn't work perfectly with the last patch but at least they weren't broken.

In case units really can't take the appropriate formations to form a bigger formation that is not a strait line in any form I wonder why we have Vee or Arrowhead at all. It wouldn't make sense to let the co. of a bat. form arrowheads them self so that the left and right co. delegate some of their firepower inwards, that would totally works against the purpose of an Arrowhead formations. Not to think of all around defense, the settlers didn't point their guns into the middle of the wagon fort as it simple didn't make sense.

That's why I really would like to know if sub-units on any level can take a formation that is there to form a bigger formation.

[Arjuna]

In general, if you order a HQ to move in arrowhead then it will deploy three guard subGroups. One will be up front in the centre, with the other two on either side of the hub. Each of these subGroups will have an arrowhead force formation. So if the subGroups comprise say a Bn then it too will breakdown into three guard subGroup, each of which will be in arrowhead.

Now there is a difference between force formation and unit formation. Under most circumstances if you specify a force formation then the unit will attempt to adopt it as its unit formation. However, there are circumstances where this will be ignored. Eg if it is retreating or routing.

[Arjuna]

BigDuke66,

Thanks for the save. I have checked out that situation with the attack by the 751st Bn. Interesting. According to the data the task, formation and formation subGroups all have their formation type as arrowhead. However, for some reason it has made one of the companies a line filler. I cannot step through the code that caused this because the save starts after the formation was generated. I suspect that in part it is caused by the fact that we no longer have HQs acting as the hub in an assault. I will have to take a look at this after the break. Thanks fro bringing it to my attention.

[BigDuke66]

My pleasure.

Now is it OK that using the line formation moves the formation box so far ahead that the attack point is now at the base(the open side of the U) instead of the middle of the formation box where it was used to be?

[Arjuna]

Yep it is. The bounding box is no longer centred on the hub but rather adjusted so that the proper huib to front distance is maintained and the units distributed accordingly. Before the centring was causing units to bunch up.

[Phoenix100]

I'm on day 2 of From the Meuse to the Rhine (playing sloooowly...) and so far I have no CTDs. Units still halt, and halt serially (3 to 4 times in a row) but seem to get out of it quicker, unaided, with the result that I have achieved nearly all my starting objectives, for the first time ever. Previously, I could achieve nothing because the battallions just got stuck.

I'm so unsophisticated that I never use the formations buttons, so can't help there. To be honest I haven't used the Attack button yet either because I'm trying to do everything quick (Move with relevant options ticked). I should probs experiment with proper attacks, since I believe they're meant to be quicker to plan now.

It seems better to me, so far, much better.

[BigDuke66]

Ok thanks.
Regarding routed units, is there anything that they "aim" for?
At the moment I see some units routing but the direction they take and where the end up doesn't seem to make much sense.

I would expect to break the line of fire and the line of sight, instead in one case a company attacking Hofen South retreated North-East along the ridge to Rohren what didn't seem to break the line of sight and so even in Rohren the got hit by artillery, instead the simply should have withdrawn behind the ridge.
Another company retreated out of Monschau to the North-East right into the open instead of more East into the woods and also got hit by artillery.
Would be nice if the routing would make more sense, maybe retreating to the FUP or the HQ or something like that.

[wodin]

I think really they should retreat\rout to the nearest full cover behind the lines..rout is again a issue for me..can't rout start to mean when a units moral has totally broken and they run away, rather than now where they seem to run away anywhere and really it should be a fighting retreat to cover most of the time. I'd only expect a unit to rout with no moral left and out of command.

[pacwar]

I don't know if this is related to the patch or not...I just got the game in early December and played a couple of scenario's. I installed the Beta patch and am in day 2 of Losheim Gap as the Americans...twice now I have tried to group two or three American units together and give them orders...each time I've done it the game suffers an error and crashes. Going back to the saved versions of the game I have been able to give the units individual orders but if I group them I get the crash. It doesn't happen every time I group several units but even when the game doesn't crash I'm not sure the grouping really takes effect...as an aside, if you group two platoons or two companies together, where there is no clear hierarchy of command, does the system assign command to one or the other and on what basis?[&:]