H3.7.3 strike mission bug (critical)

[ComDev]

Okay this bug has been discussed in detail on several other threads, where scenario designers complain about the broken H3.7.3 strike missions, and where the AGSI "experts" claim the disfunctional missions is a new feature. I'll try to explain it to the so-called "experts" once more (I've already reported this 5-6 times...), hoping that this critical issue can be properly addressed. And maybe we'll get a little closer to a playable game eventually.

There are TWO types of strike missions in 3.6.2 (which is the last functional version of H3).

Generic: The scenario designer does not select a target. The AI will be responsible for all the decision making, and selects targets based on mission type (e.g. anti.ship strike). A new smarter AI that allocates weapons more cleverly would have been great for this type of mission. Once a target has been dealt with, the planes will RTB, and be assigned to a new legal target. The mission is not deleted, and the planes will continue to produce sorties until no more targets can be found.

Specified Target: The scenario designer decides what target to hit. The AI will only hit this target, and once it is destroyed, the planes head home to base. The mission is deleted from the editor, and the aircraft stand down. Mission accomplished. This functionality is broken in 3.7.


These two types of strike missions is something all scenario designers know about, and both types offer their own set of advantages that we can exploit. The broken functionality in 3.7 reduces the game's flexibility, and is one of many bugs that makes 3.6.2 far superior to 3.7.

Below are a couple of screenshots that show how the AI in 3.7 will not go after the specified target. AGSI has in reality ruined the Specified Target functionality and 3.7.3 only has Generic strike missions.

[FreekS]

While Ragnar and I don't always agree; this is one of the 0.00001% of the cases where we do. Yes, as the Executive Officer of the 'Banned by HHQ Club' this scares me too![;)].

Joking aside, in 3.6 AND 3.7 there are two nice variations on the two strike missions described by Ragnar;

1. Delayed 'generic' of 'specific' shipstrike mission. The designer delays the shipstrike mission say by 1 hour and can then plot a plotted path for the ship-group on the strike-mission. In 3.6 the path can be as long as you like (i.e. the designer can make it say 100nm with various waypoints which is followed by speeds set between 5 and 30 knots); and the ship-group will follow the plotted path untill either it reaches the end of the plotted path (it then stops) or untill the enemy target is detected (It then plots an intercept course to fire its weapons). IMPORTANTLY the ship-group will follow the plotted path the whole way, even if the (1 hour) delayed shipstrike mission time has expired, as long as it does not detect the enemy. In 3.6 great designer aid to give a group a plotted path which will be replaced by the shipstrike mission. In 3.7 ANW the sip-group will stop whenever the delay time of the strike mission expires. Not fully broken but functionality decreased I would say.

2. The Dual-mission strike mission
Ragnar wrote

Specified Target: The scenario designer decides what target to hit. The AI will only hit this target, and once it is destroyed, the planes head home to base. The mission is deleted from the editor, and the aircraft stand down. Mission accomplished. This functionality is broken in 3.7.

 
Now with this mission in 3.6 (and 3.7) there is a way to succeed the Missions Accomplished shipstrike mission by a Patrol mission. I've made missions where ships follow a plotted path untill a Specific Shipstrike mission triggers, then move and kill the enemy (specified ship), THEN proceed to execute a ASW, ASuW or AAW patrol mission! In this way you can make a ship move to the enemy, kill a target and then go back to base or proceed to a new target zone. This functionality actually STILL works in 3.6 and 3.7.3. My INDIAN scenario (USA side) currently is one of the few scens in which I've implemented this (I vividly remember the many nights of testing!).

An AI-controlled Russian BattleCruiser in INDIAN is on a Specific Groundstrike mission, followed by a ASuW patrol mission. The beauty (well, in my eyes) of it is that in 3.6 while on the groundstrike mission the AI holds fire on enemy ships - first moving in to kill the ground targets with guns, then it unleases a SSM barrage on enemy ships once it switches from the Groundstrike to the ASuW patrol mission.

Sorry for the rant!

Freek

BTW I love the (I think new) detection modes in 3.7 of spotting a ships WAKE or a planes CONTRAIL!

BTWBTW In spite of everything Harpoon3 remains ONE HELL OF A GAME

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: FreekS

1. Delayed 'generic' of 'specific' shipstrike mission. The designer delays the shipstrike mission say by 1 hour and can then plot a plotted path for the ship-group on the strike-mission. In 3.6 the path can be as long as you like (i.e. the designer can make it say 100nm with various waypoints which is followed by speeds set between 5 and 30 knots); and the ship-group will follow the plotted path untill either it reaches the end of the plotted path (it then stops) or untill the enemy target is detected (It then plots an intercept course to fire its weapons). IMPORTANTLY the ship-group will follow the plotted path the whole way, even if the (1 hour) delayed shipstrike mission time has expired, as long as it does not detect the enemy. In 3.6 great designer aid to give a group a plotted path which will be replaced by the shipstrike mission. In 3.7 ANW the sip-group will stop whenever the delay time of the strike mission expires. Not fully broken but functionality decreased I would say.

Hear, hear [;)]

This feature is very important too. I use it in most, if not all, of my scenarios. H3.7 is pretty useless to us if AGSI can't get this to work properly again.

[ComDev]

Has there been any progress on this one?

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[ComDev]

It's still broken...

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[cuthbo2001]

okay you know I love this game but all this BS is really depressing me. can I ask a simple question.How can you direct a strike package against a specific target without it getting side tracked? or is there a reference source that shows you how

[HercMighty]

Just seems like the game is going downhill, and this is because of threads like this. We take the biggest community of players, which AGSI states they need and then put stuff like this into a post and show us their true colors.

In other words the community we say we need can kiss our backside because what you want we can't seem how to figure out how to do right so we'll just blame it on you not wanting to change and come up with the lame fix that takes away from the gameplay and call it an enhancement. Oh just play from a very broad view and just watch the screen for hours while the AI has fun.

Whatever happened to posting on here what AGSI was seeing, how they wanted to handle it, and letting the much needed community discuss it before you tried shoving it down our throats?

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[ComDev]

Dale, what a pile of horsecrap.

When you don't even have the faintest idea how the strike missions in 3.6 works, how can you state that the buggy behaviour in 3.7 is an improvement?

Oh and several posts I've made on this forum has suddenly 'disappeared'... pretty strange...

[Dimitris]

Lets' get back on track:

Dale, how can the AI in 3.7/3.8 be forced to attack only its assigned strike mission target so that it emulates the 3.6 behavior?

[cuthbo2001]

Yes please, It is fairly important.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Flankerk]

Adding a check box at a later date sounds a welcome solution.
Having both options available should allow the tailoring of varied strike type missions.

[ComDev]

Okay so 3.7 will render all current scenarios useless?

I guess we'll have advice people to stick to 3.6 because it has a far superior AI.

[FreekS]

All,
 
Having a checkbox sounds like a welcome option to this one highly discussed issue.
 
I'd like to point out that currently; in 3.7.0 to 3.8; the ANW family of games is basically not forward compatible with scenario's written in 3.6. Technically the 3.6. scens will run; very simple scens with simple missions will even run as intended, but so many 'features' have changed that many of MY more complex scenario's will not run with the same level of challenge for the player as I intended. The strike mission discussion (note how I avoid the word b.g) above is one factor in that; as is the fact that units will not follow their plotted path to the end when their delayed strike mission triggers without detecting the enemy; as is the fact that the altitude behaviour change mean that satelites and commercial aircraft on ferry missions use vLow altitudes, and a bunch of other changes.
 
Of the ten 3.6. scens that I thoroughly tested (days each) and rebuilt (mostly missions) or even wrote from scratch to make them work in 3.7.0, now five are broken again in 3.7.3.
 
So instead of talking about bugs -- lets discuss if forward compatibility of scens is a game requirement. In my book, with third party designers who maintain tens to hundreds of scens (and there are a number of those) it is.
 
If I (from my colored perspective) compare the working new features included in ANW than I would rank in order of importance:
 
1. Forward compatibility of scens (not working)
2. Multiplayer (working)
3. Fix of aircraft logistics (working)
4. Fix of visual sighting bug (working)
 
AND NOTHING ELSE !!
 
My PERSONAL opinion is that none of the other features included in ANW have even 1% of the value of the four above. I suspect they are responsible for 99% of the non-forward-compatibility issues.
If it were my game (which it is only in the heart), I would copy the code of these 4 ANW features above into 3.6.3 (or 3.6.2 I don't care), ask the community to run all their scripted test scens for unexpected issues coming up; invite another month of Beta testing, and release it as 3.9.
 
My two cents,
 
Freek
 
 
 
 

[cuthbo2001]

I could not agree more with FreekS. Whilst I appreciate the help I have been given by VCDH, it seems to me that ANW has been made to optimise multiplayer. Now to be fair it did declare this as a selling point.However I did not appreciate the changes this would make to single player usage, especially the limitations placed on scenario design. I personally am far more interested in single play. I think ANW has a lot of cool features,however I think especially given the comments by FreekS and the lack of priority that "single play" features such that have been mentioned, I must stick with harpoon 3.6 until more progress is made ( unless of course I fancy a multiplayer game!)[:(]