comfirmed fixed/not fixed in 103beta2

[gwgardner]

So far I see that the following have been fixed in 1.03beta2:

1) the air superiority display now works properly;
2) terrain effects on combat are calculated properly;
3) casualty figures are much, much more realistic

not fixed or newly broken:

1) terrain effects for armor and mech movement;
2) reinforcement of land and air units.

[gwgardner]

I just went back to a 1.01 install, and the armor and mech are using infantry movement in that too.

I've played several games on that level, and never noticed. Bummer. The two AAR games Chocolino and I played would have changed a lot if we had known that.

[elmerlee]

You sure are right about the movement error GW.

I sure like this game but this about does it for me. WITH THIS WHOLE **** OUTFIT.
Patch after patch and this is still not correct. And who knows what else is fubar.

It seems that these guys never really get their games right do they. Time of Wrath never worked as expected.

And the worst part is the time I wasted before you pointed this out.
That is my own fault for not watching more closely.

[gwgardner]

Well now, it's not as critical as all that. Frustrating. But the game is great overall.

Movement factors and number of APs per unit type are all arbitrary to a point - I mean, would it absolutely take a tank twice as long to maneuver through a forest area as walking soldier? Not if the tank could use a road, in which case the tank would go faster. How about a whole tank division or corps? Well, they pushed pretty fast through the Ardennes!

My point is, yes, the game is affected by this, but it's not a game breaker.

A workaround, for instance, is reducing the APs for tanks and mecs by one perhaps.

Don't cut off your foot because of a hangnail.

As a final point here, this is a 'beta' patch, meaning it is intended that players will find bugs at this point, they will be corrected, and then a new patch will be released. I certainly will give Wastelands the chance to correct this. I can go off and play Storm over the Pacific in the meantime, or Sword of the Stars, or Train Simulator.

[doomtrader]

We will fix this soon

[elmerlee]

Maybe a "hangnail" to you but this game is eleven months old.
Being a "beta patch" makes little difference.

That should be long enough to fix such a simple mistake. Yes simple.
i've had enough programing experience to know one type error from another.

I've had nothing but good feelings about this game and will continue to hope
for the best for it. Only a few days ago I mentioned how good I felt it was.

And Doontrader is very,very good in responding to problems.
Couldn't be better.
So I'll agree I was a little overboard but I still feel this type error should not be around after 11 months.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Well now, it's not as critical as all that. Frustrating. But the game is great overall.

Movement factors and number of APs per unit type are all arbitrary to a point - I mean, would it absolutely take a tank twice as long to maneuver through a forest area as walking soldier? Not if the tank could use a road, in which case the tank would go faster. How about a whole tank division or corps? Well, they pushed pretty fast through the Ardennes!

My point is, yes, the game is affected by this, but it's not a game breaker.

A workaround, for instance, is reducing the APs for tanks and mecs by one perhaps.

Don't cut off your foot because of a hangnail.

As a final point here, this is a 'beta' patch, meaning it is intended that players will find bugs at this point, they will be corrected, and then a new patch will be released. I certainly will give Wastelands the chance to correct this. I can go off and play Storm over the Pacific in the meantime, or Sword of the Stars, or Train Simulator.

Totally agree, but it's just frustrating, even though as you say, this is exactly what a beta patch is for, to work through any problems, before the patch goes official. It's not so much that it's taking a long time to fix the bugs, it's finding the bugs that's taking the time, they get fixed quite quickly when found.[:)]

[NativeTexan]

In the 1.03 bv2 patch I am no longer observing the FOG of War issue that I described in a previous thread.

Good Job!

That issue was:
Grand Campaign as Germany and Slovakia (Human). During the allied AI movement the screen was displaying the fog of war from the allied view.

Unfortunately I am seeing reinforcement issues in the grand campaign that I have describe in the tech support side.

[Omnius]

NativeTexan,
I too have found the reinforcement failure in the 1.03 beta2 patch. I too was playing the 1939 Grand Campaign, but I doubt that it's limited to that scenario, looked more like a game system problem.
Omnius

[NativeTexan]

Omnius,

Thanks for confirming. The bug was so obvious I felt that it must have been my setup.

[gwgardner]

same problem with reinforcement in the Barbarossa scenario.

not looking good for 1.03beta2. Looks like the programmer made a change in one area, with side effects elsewhere - going to take more thorough testing by the programmer, after making changes. the programmer needs to be a 'player,' not just testing isolated bug fixes.

[elmerlee]

My comment that there is little excuse for simple mistakes that are
supported in the following......

As to no reinforce of units.
..
[UnitsPerformanceInRelationsToSupplyAt25]
EffectivityPenalty = 0
MaximumReplacementsForAirUnits = 0
MaximumReplacementsForLandUnits = 0

The above is listed in the constants file of all countries for various supply levels.(saved game)
Notice zero replacements for air and land units.
To test I changed the value to 10 and restarted the game.
Bingo REPLACEMENTS...

SLOPPY PROGRAMMING AND PLAY TESTING. A five minute fix at most.

[Omnius]

I keep wondering if the program is properly calculating the ZOC cost for movement. It does not look like the program is properly calculating movement point costs for entering ZOC's, especially with Fog of War on. The only time where I see ZOC costs being calculated is when a unit moves from ZOC to ZOC, never when a unit first enters. Could FoW be causing the calculation to not be run?
Omnius

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: elmerlee

My comment that there is little excuse for simple mistakes that are
supported in the following......

As to no reinforce of units.
..
[UnitsPerformanceInRelationsToSupplyAt25]
EffectivityPenalty = 0
MaximumReplacementsForAirUnits = 0
MaximumReplacementsForLandUnits = 0

The above is listed in the constants file of all countries for various supply levels.(saved game)
Notice zero replacements for air and land units.
To test I changed the value to 10 and restarted the game.
Bingo REPLACEMENTS...

SLOPPY PROGRAMMING AND PLAY TESTING. A five minute fix at most.

I looked through saved game files for Ver 1.0, 1.2 and 1.3 Beta 2 and it looks like the saved file format was altered in 1.3 Beta 2 to add more supply levels (specifically UnitsPerformanceInRelationsToSupplyAt5: 05, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 were added in 1.3 Beta 2 - Only 10, 15, 20 and 25 are in 1.0 and 1.2).

For all supple levels greater than 25 (i.e. 30 and up) I modified all the values for MaximumReplacementsForAirUnits to 10 and MaximumReplacementsForLandUnits to 100 (as well as modifying the value for EffectivityPenalty for UnitsPerformanceInRelationsToSupplyAt5 from 0 to 5, which is what it is for UnitsPerformanceInRelationsToSupplyAt10).

This allowed replacements, but weirdly when the file was saved it changed the format back to another type of format with values of UnitsPerformanceInRelationsToSupplyAt for 05, 10, 15, 20 and 25 (and the entry for EffectivityPenalty for UnitsPerformanceInRelationsToSupplyAt5 is gone).

Finally, reloading that saved game disabled replacements again, so this isn't a permanent fix and would have to be done to every saved game prior to loading it.

I am going to go back to 1.2 until this problem is fixed.

[Hairog]

I'm chomping at the bit to get back into playing again but if it still has so many basic flaws what's the point? This game has so much potential. I want to see it succeed.

[Rasputitsa]

Waiting for a good 1.03, hopefully if these are only basic flaws they should be easier to fix.[&:]

[Hairog]

This game is ripe for a huge modding effort ala IL2 1946. The developer sanctioned a group of modders that have taken the original game to new heights. The game is still going strong after 6 plus years. This game deserves the same.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Hairog
This game is ripe for a huge modding effort ala IL2 1946. The developer sanctioned a group of modders that have taken the original game to new heights. The game is still going strong after 6 plus years. This game deserves the same.

Agree, but from the little experience I have, the editor is going to have to improve for that modding effort to happen. With a wider choice of scenarios the game could become one of the greats.[:)]

[Hairog]

I'm iching to get going myself with a WWIII 1946 scenario and another one that starts after the fall of France that will allow the Germans the option of rejecting Vichy and invading Spain and a few other wrinkles. I just hate slogging my way starting at the Battle for France to get to that point. I want to play with with the real choices that were available to both sides and not be constrained by historically correct non-choices.

Give us a good editor please and we will increase sales of this game. [&o]

[Razz1]

The Third Reich scenario is bug free and enhanced.

This is what you are looking for.