Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post bug reports and ask for game support here.

Moderators: Arjuna, Panther Paul

User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by dazkaz15 »

Potential Secure Objectives Bug


Image
Attachments
Objectivesbug.jpg
Objectivesbug.jpg (889.18 KiB) Viewed 182 times
navwarcol
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:30 pm
Contact:

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by navwarcol »

Correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that towed, undeployed weapons, or weapons which are inside of their minimum engagement ranges, either one count in the 10:1 (since they cannot fire anyway).... not saying any of these are, and it seems the 8 men should be ready to surrender at any rate, but a lot of your firepower does seem to be artillery?
User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by dazkaz15 »

There is a lot of artillery, because its the Fire support base.
The minimum range does not mean they can't fire within these ranges, it means they can't bombard, because of trajectory limitations.
They can still easily, and accurately engage, using their direct fire sights down to a range of just 20 meters.

Also each man in the support units is also equipped with small arms weapons, some including a number of MG 42's.

I have not seen it mentioned anywhere that artillery does not count towards this "Combat Power" as stated in the Game manual.

Combat Power ( F4 ) The number indicated (0 – 9) is an approximate measure of how powerful a unit is compared to other units. It factors in firepower, strength and effectiveness values. A combat power of 9 is twice as powerful as an 8, which in turn, is twice as powerful as a 7 and so on. The background colour in the Info Box reflect the rout status of the unit: green is OK or halted, brown is retreating or retreat-recovering, and red is routing or rout-recovering.
A unit with a combat power of zero had best not get involved in any shooting!

Maybe it is just line infantry and armour that count towards the "combat power" but it would be a strange omission I think, and very gamey.

For instance you could keep small platoon of infantry hidden in the rear areas of the enemy, where he only has depots, and artillery and HQ, then 1 hour before the game ends, move them just inside the objectives.

Image
Attachments
Arty-equip.jpg
Arty-equip.jpg (57.73 KiB) Viewed 182 times
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4458
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by BletchleyGeek »

Could you post a saved game Daz?
User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by dazkaz15 »

Sure.

To:

support@panthergames.com

or do you want me to Dropbox it or email it to you direct? (will need your email if you do)
navwarcol
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:30 pm
Contact:

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by navwarcol »

Hey Daz,
I may not have been stating correctly what I meant. What I meant was that some units, including most artillery, are required to "deploy" before they can fire.
Anyway though, I am glad that someone who knows more answered you here[;)]
User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by dazkaz15 »

No probs mate.
Was nice to have someone to talk to about it [;)]
davidx
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:34 pm

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by davidx »

The formula is summation of 2^(combat power) of friendlies divided by summation of 2^(combat power) of opposing forces must be greater than 10

Friendlies appear to be 2^1+2^2+2^7+2^1+2^4+2^1+2^1+2^2+2^1+2^3+2^4=186

Assuming the OPF tank has a combat power of 5, it appears:
2^5=2*2*2*2*2=32

186/32=5.8 which is slighter more than half-way. You would need approximately double the current friendly forces for a 10 to 1 ratio.
davidx
Phoenix100
Posts: 2922
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:26 pm

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by Phoenix100 »

Where did you get that formula from, david? Why isn't it just the sum of all combat powers that is used?

User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by dazkaz15 »

Well I was kind of hoping that it would be something simple like adding all the numbers that are displayed on the counters, which is supposed to represent its combat power.
So that would be 1 for the Allies, and 25 for the Axis, so 25:1

But I kind of doubted it would be that simple.
Nothing in life is ever that simple [:'(]
davidx
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:34 pm

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by davidx »

Formally,

The control condition, which is in essence the intuitive thought described above:

The sum of all friendly units Combat Power considered in the objective circle divided by the sum of all opposing force units Combat Power considered in the objective circle must be greater than ten for friendly for control.

What BftB displays, ie f4, is the combat power number indicator, which is related to combat power but not exactly combat power. The mathematical relation is:

Combat Power=2^(Combat Power Number Indicator in the Icon Counter), this may be deduced from Combat Power definition on page 131 in the BFTB manual.

Expanding the 0-9 possibilities as per manual, we have:

2^0=1 a formal math definition, any number to be power zero is one by definition.
2^1=2=2
2^2=2*2=4
2^3=2*2*2=8
2^4=2*2*2*2=16
2^5=2*2*2*2*2=32
2^6=2*2*2*2*2*2=64
2^7=2*2*2*2*2*2*2=128
2^8=2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2=256
2^9=2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2=512

Why the combat power is not directly displayed, I do not know, most likely due to spatial limitations on the icon counter but no reason it could not directly be presented in the display panels.

regards,
davidx
User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by dazkaz15 »

Thanks for the explanation.

You can't see it properly in the image I posted but the displayed combat power of the 3 Plt F Coy 38 Cav Rec Sqn on the counter is only 1.
So that definitely gives us more than a 10:1 ratio does it not?
davidx
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:34 pm

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by davidx »

If the OPF combat power number indicator is one, then definitely, it is approximately 90:1. For a single OPF unit a combat power number indicator less than 5 would not be sufficient to challenge for control in the current state. Multiple unit combat power would have to be sum up to a value greater than approximately 18 to challenge for control. So it does appear to be an issue.

The translation of the manual words to equation form is correct, whether the wording described in the BftB manual matches the implementation in the computer code, through error or change without manual update or something else, I have no purview into that.

I suspect this is not the issue but, if you surrender you do not have control at the end irrespective of combat power ratio, though i suspect this for presentation and the issue was notice prior to surrender?


regards,



davidx
User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by dazkaz15 »

Yes it had been contesting the objective for several hours, hiding out amongst the buildings in the village.

For most of that time it had 2 Stuart light tanks, but still only a combat power of 1.

I had to surrender to ensure that my suspicions were correct about the bug, but made sure I stayed zoomed in so as not to spoil the rest of my AAR by peeking at the other enemy positions.

There is now a unit with a single M8 AC that has disappeared in Hofen North objective somewhere, that is now contesting that objective as well, also with a combat power of 1.
Although I have lost contact with the 99 Rec (mech) that could also be in there somewhere I guess, and that has a combat power of 3.

See here for details.

tm.asp?m=3504949&mpage=3
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4458
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by BletchleyGeek »

Hi guys,

I've been looking thoroughly through the code, and I don't see the 10:1 ratio stated in the manual anywhere. Dave probably will be able to confirm that, but it appears to me that as long as there is an enemy unit within the objective radius, it won't be listed as achieved/occupied. Actually, you might want to actually clear the vicinity of the objective as well (i.e. invisible to you guys, there is a 'control map' that helps the AI to figure out what's friendly controlled, contested or enemy controlled).

The resolution of this control map is quite coarse - this is something we have changed and we're testing as I write this - for the upcoming patch (but for different reasons which I'll let you guess).
User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by dazkaz15 »

Thanks for looking into it Miquel.

Hope this helps.


Edit: I think I may have misunderstood what you meant above by not being able to find the 10:1 in the manual.
Do you mean that it is in the manual, but has not been implemented in the code?

Image
Attachments
Secure-objectives.jpg
Secure-objectives.jpg (36.17 KiB) Viewed 184 times
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4458
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Hi guys,

I've been looking thoroughly through the code, and I don't see the 10:1 ratio stated in the manual anywhere.

I meant anywhere as in anywhere in the code.[:)]
User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by Arjuna »

No the 10:1 force ratio requirement is still there. Miquel see TaskSecure::ObjectiveAchieved().
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
jimcarravall
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by jimcarravall »

ORIGINAL: davidx

Formally,

The control condition, which is in essence the intuitive thought described above:

The sum of all friendly units Combat Power considered in the objective circle divided by the sum of all opposing force units Combat Power considered in the objective circle must be greater than ten for friendly for control.

What BftB displays, ie f4, is the combat power number indicator, which is related to combat power but not exactly combat power. The mathematical relation is:

Combat Power=2^(Combat Power Number Indicator in the Icon Counter), this may be deduced from Combat Power definition on page 131 in the BFTB manual.

Expanding the 0-9 possibilities as per manual, we have:

2^0=1 a formal math definition, any number to be power zero is one by definition.
2^1=2=2
2^2=2*2=4
2^3=2*2*2=8
2^4=2*2*2*2=16
2^5=2*2*2*2*2=32
2^6=2*2*2*2*2*2=64
2^7=2*2*2*2*2*2*2=128
2^8=2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2=256
2^9=2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2=512

Why the combat power is not directly displayed, I do not know, most likely due to spatial limitations on the icon counter but no reason it could not directly be presented in the display panels.

regards,

In other words, combat power is like the Richter Scale for defining earthquake magnitudes, which few people understand either [:D]
Take care,

jim
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4458
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Potential Secure Objectives Bug

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

No the 10:1 force ratio requirement is still there. Miquel see TaskSecure::ObjectiveAchieved().

Hmmm, looks like I confused the bit that awards the VP's with the bit that drives the AI to react. Sorry about the noise Daz, will be following Dave's pointer.
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”