disbanded BGs

[dehm]

I cannot believe that. Are you telling us that disband bug was unknown? didnt you notice it? I think we must trust matrix and wait pathes which will solve that problem. The game es great, a new release which solves many bugs and let us to enjoy the game without worry about the next crash but disband bug is noticiable by everyone, posted in close combat forums many times, reproduceble in any machine (i've done),...

There are many ways to tell the things, perhaps Kaphelmet aren't he best, but this bug can be found by anyone who test the game only playing the GC some hours.

No problem, I believe matrix will solve it.

dehm

[Tejszd]

Based on testing the disband BG rules they do seem to be fixed/working, though maybe not as expected.

The current rules are for the ACTIVE UNITS ONLY (the 15 you started the battle with and that data is being tracked for) and the PERCENTAGES ARE PER ACTIVE UNIT not a percentage of all the remaining active units at the time of being disbanded. The other important factor is supply, supplied or unsupplied, is based on the BG's ammo supply (for non vehicle units) and fuel supply (for vehicles) on hand when it is disbanded not based on being able to trace a supply line.

The end result is that if a BG is forced to disband due to a morale failure the penalty is very limited as most of the BG's active units were probably already lost....

[Venator]

The current rules are for the ACTIVE UNITS ONLY

I see. So the benefit is entirely marginal. If it affected the entire BG there'd be some point to having the rule but as it stands, it's pretty futile.

[Andrew Williams]

It just increases the pain.

The greatest gain can be had for the winning side by taking all the VL's when the "Take all VL's" box is ticked.

This can cause huge losses from an otherwise undamaged battlegroup.

But.

As the "roll of the dice" calculates for each active unit seperately you may find losses are very low on occasion.

[Venator]

The current rules are for the ACTIVE UNITS ONLY

If this is true then there's no real pain though. If, as I assume, ACTIVE means 'units selected for that battle'.

[Andrew Williams]

ACTIVE means 'units selected for that battle'.

yes

[David The Great]

So this would mean that a BG out of supply wich had to disband, and probably had not much left in his active roster, would return at the mapedge for a cost of maybe 2 or 3 units ?
This is not worth a rule, seems verry odd to me that a BG out of fuel could regroup at the map edge with all its vehicles in his force pool at almost no cost.

[David The Great]

Peiper would have signed for this one.

[Andrew Williams]

This has always been the rule in CC5

No one has posted a question about this since the re-developement was announced, so it wasn't considered as a need to change item.


We are now looking at if the rule can increse the penalty. (even on the non-active units)

thanks for sticking with it.

[Moss Orleni]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

This has always been the rule in CC5

No one has posted a question about this since the re-developement was announced, so it wasn't considered as a need to change item.

I suppose because the rule stated in the manual only makes sense at force pool level and was taken as such by many players. Moreover, since the rule does not function anyway, it could never be tested...

We are now looking at if the rule can increse the penalty. (even on the non-active units)

thanks for sticking with it.

That's good news!

[mikwarleo]

When I heard there was a remake of CC on the way I was very happy. Finally a bug fix and perhaps some improvement and modernisation...

Sadly, I agree with KapHelmut and the other people who are disappointed with this game.

On point... development 'oversights' (call it what you will) don't get much bigger than this one regarding the disband rule - in the new game, like CC5, when disbanded entire BATTLE GROUPS can teleport over (or through) enemy lines, out of the clutches of the enemy, to safety and then be rushed off to the front to fight again. If this is how it was intended, I almost wonder why they bother having a strategic map at all? It's little more than a mindless war of attrition.

It seems Matrix would have us believe they simply didn't notice, or have a different interpretation of the game rules... 

The CC5 manual states (p32):

If a Battle Group voluntarily disbands while it is out of supply, it loses all of its vehicles, and 50% of its infantry units are captured before they return to the group's supply depot. If an unsupplied Battle Group is forced to disband involuntarily, because it is forced off a map, it loses all of its vehicles, then 75% of its infantry units are captured. This can be a crippling loss.

It could hardly be any clearer: 'This can be a crippling loss.' The only possible interpretation is that the disband rule is intended to apply to the force pool.

So what's the truth?  -
1. The manual is wrong.
2. Matrix didn't read the rules.
3. Matrix didn't pass english comprehension.
4. KapHelmut is right.

I think it's #4 particularly noting the other examples raised like pathing (while improved it's clearly is still an issue, why?).

Further, *why* does the 'new' game still require port forwarding?! This is 2008 ... [8|] With simple long standing issues like these not resolved I am thankful I've not purchased the game.

Personally I'll not I even consider paying for this 'game' (seemingly little more than a glorified and expensive mod) until I see a quality product on offer. I've seen nothing to suggest that this game is remotely close to being worth the AUD$60 (one time download) - AUD$90 (box delivered) price tag.

[Andrew Williams]

The rule is acting as it was originally designed.

We have checked it and it is working.

The manual may be badly worded and I can understand the confusion.

I'll just re-state , the rule is acting as it was originally designed.

But, as I say we are looking at changing how the rule works... if that is possible..... for the reasons stated.

ie. We also think the penalty for being disbanded while out of supply should be higher.

[nietsche]

Fixing this so that the penalty applies to all the BG is a good thing IMHO. That replicates more of the real strategic affect of disbanding/routing/surrendering.

[GS_Schimpf]

I also would like to see the rule being applied to all units of the BG, not just the active ones. The active ones are already killed most of the time the rule applies at all. So there is no point in keeping it that way imho.

It would be really cool and a more realistic approach if a new patch could change this to affect the whole BG forcepool.

THX in advance

[crushingleeek_slith]

I also would like to see the rule being applied to all units of the BG, not just the active ones.
 
As a long time CC fan, kaphelmet has a good reason to be disappointed and frustrated. I know what its like when your favorite game of years...just doesn't seem to get it in the next version. And he makes solid points.
 
At the same time, matrix developers so far seem very responsive to player concerns. so here it is: More disbanding penalty please! 75% of force pool! not active units!
 
As long as I'm asking, here's whats on my christmas wish list:
give players more flexibility in ordering off-map arty (don't limit to one per group per turn)
introduce jeeps and trucks for quicker transport
increase the 15 active unit limit!! (or release another game just like CC on a slightly larger scale!)