Build 4.6.271 Hot Fix

[Arjuna]

HI all,

I have uploaded a new hot fix for Matrix to release as a public beta. Give them some time to do what they have to do to get it up on the Members page.

Fixes for Build 4.6.271:

• Overhaul Disbandment and Surrender
  • POW and MIA/AWOL are given a separated treatment now. The latter are now counted as casualties under the 'Other' category.
  • Units that are selected for disbanding, but can't transfer their personnel to other friendly units, are reported as Disbanded rather than Surrendered. The personnel of these units is assumed to become MIA/AWOL (see above for their accounting) and the unit is reported to the player as 'disintegrated'.
  • When units are retreating, routing, or recovering from either of the former, a small percentage of their troops may be surrendering (i.e. taken as prisoners) or becoming stragglers. The rate at which personnel is lost in this manner depends on whether the enemy has fire superiority over the vicinity of the unit has been changed so that routing units will losing the most personnel, and units recovering from a retreat will be losing the least personnel.
  • Fixed problem when assessing units integrity: suppressed units were less likely to lose personnel due to surrender or straggling than unsuppressed units.
  • Now units with higher levels of stubbornness will be less likely to lose personnel due to surrendering or straggling.
  • Now units with strength levels below 10% of their establishment will lose personnel due to surrendering or straggling at a much faster rate.
  • Fixed problem with double counting of surrendered units
  • Fixed problem with counting disbanded units as surrendered
  • Fixed problem when assessing local fire superiority
• Extensive Tweaks to Fire code including:
  • FireForgoneMod
  • GlobalAccuracyMod
• Adjustment to code to accommodate new size of Concentration Maps. Helps prevent cases of excessive halting.
• Tweak Retreat code. Specifically decrease the degradation of recentCasualties so that instead of being wiped after about 1.5 hours they take a whole day to degrade to zero. This means that casualties have a longer lasting effect and units are more likely to retreat or bunker down once they suffer significant casualties. Related Tweaks/New Features:
  • Prevent attacks from being launched where the average recentCasRate >= 20%.
  • Prevent units from being assigned to assault tasks if their recentCasRate >= 20%. This and the one above help prevent the repetition of attacks doomed to failure. Assault units will almost certainly retreat once they make contact with the enemy if their recentCasRate >= 20%.
  • Increase safety margin from 150 to 200m to make it more likely that a retreating force will stop before running into an enemy during its retreat.
  • Ensure existing task routes killed off if the new retreatLoc is different to the old retreatLoc. This and one above help reduce instances of a unit retreating towards the enemy.
  • Prevent infinite recursion caused when a unit has no where safe to retreat to.
• Intel Fixes
  • Fixed bug in intel system that was substituting a default inf type company for all units
  • Ensure only one call to IsVisible() is made per unit per minute within SpotEnemyForces() to prevent intel status from flipping. This helps prevent excessive halting and inability to push on to the objective.
  • Fixed Halting Issue
• Ensure OB Display handles cases where there are no units left on a side.

[Arjuna]

Please note that the game play is noticeably different. There are fewer repetitive hopeless attacks, less casualties overall, less surrendering, less halting, more retreats and more sensible ones and more bunkering down ( due to the prolonged effects of recent casualties ). Units tend to survive longer except when surrounded. I have been endeavouring to reduce casualties but increase momentum. A seemingly contradictory undertaking. At the moment from what I have seen of AI v AI play it's working pretty good. What we need is as many people as we can playing it under human control and providing feedback. Does it feel right? Are there any obvious anomalies? Do you feel your forces are able to make enough progress.
 
Now before you ask I have not addressed the one reported case of an AT platoon leading the assault. Sorry Daz. The game has changed so much I can't get things to repeat. So we'll have to keep a close eye out for that one if it recurs.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Please note that the game play is noticeably different. There are fewer repetitive hopeless attacks, less casualties overall, less surrendering, less halting, more retreats and more sensible ones and more bunkering down ...

If you keep this up, Command Ops will never be able to make a World War I sim [;)]

[dazkaz15]

This sounds good.

Thanks for you hard work on this Dave, Miguel, and whoever else has put in time on it.
Looking forward to playing this "new" game now [;)]

[GBS]

Thank you Dave. I am looking forward to playing these games all over again.

[RangerX3X]

When do you think this will be posted in the Members Club area? The only patch I am seeing in there today is "Command Ops: BFTB 4.6.270 Pulbic Beta Update".

[mst007]

Thanks Dave! Looking forward to downloading and installing it. I`m in the middle of the 14 day Spearhead vs Reich scenario. Its day 4 and the Americans are wiped out at the minute. All seemed too easy, although I`m sure there are shocks in store for me as the battle progresses. This new update I`m sure will have a massively positive effect from reading your summary of changes.

[wodin]

The current changes make me concerned about units not attacking and also surrendering to quickly when they are units that start off with a small amount of elements...like Tank platoons and Mortar units etc. the 10% and then 20% figures mentioned are fine for Inf coys where 10% of the unit left or 20% casualties are alot of men..but when it's a tank platoon it doesn't have to loose that many for these new rules to kick in. I.E as soon as you go to 2 tanks left this could kick in and make Tank units once loosing a few tanks useless.


Rules I'm concerned about. Maybe these should only be for Inf coys? Or only kick in if units have no other friendly units in support or fighting along side them.

"Now units with strength levels below 10% of their establishment will lose personnel due to surrendering or straggling at a much faster rate."

"Prevent attacks from being launched where the average recentCasRate >= 20%."

"Prevent units from being assigned to assault tasks if their recentCasRate >= 20%. This and the one above help prevent the repetition of attacks doomed to failure. Assault units will almost certainly retreat once they make contact with the enemy if their recentCasRate >= 20%."

[parmenio]

<hint>All I need now is for it to appear in the members area</hint>

[Werewolf13]

Prevent units from being assigned to assault tasks if their recentCasRate >= 20%. This and the one above help prevent the repetition of attacks doomed to failure. Assault units will almost certainly retreat once they make contact with the enemy if their recentCasRate >= 20%.

Is the above a hard and fast rule or is it modified by morale/training level? In other words an elite unit could absorb 20% casualties with little impact on effectiveness and march off to perform an assault without question while a green or trained unit could theoretically refuse the order.

[Werewolf13]

ORIGINAL: parmenio

<hint>All I need now is for it to appear in the members area</hint>

^
^^^
^^^^^
This

[Arjuna]

I've just made some amendments to the MoraleCheck() and CanAssault(). These will now differentiate between inf and armour when taking into account recentCasualties. The threshold for inf is set at 20% and for armour its set to 50%. Please remember that when an AFV is hit somewhere between 1 and the crewTotal die. So after a while you end up with more personnel than AFV x crew. In practice then 50% for armour means really about 60 to 70% in terms of AFVs.
&nbsp;
Also I have modified the smallUnitMod that I had in there to differentiate between inf and arm. The smallUnitThreshold for inf is set to 100 and for armour to 50. If a units estabPersQty is less than the threshold it qualifies as a small unit and a modifier of up to 30% is applied to the casThreshold based on its smallUnitMod (ie estabPersQty/ threshold). So a really small unitcould require up to 50% losses before it would lose its capability to attack. It's even more for armour. Eg&nbsp;a unit of&nbsp;4 AFVs and 20 crew will be classed as a small unit and have its casThreshold modified by 1.125 or increased by 12.5% to a total of 62.5%. It would have to lose 3 AFVS before it couldn't attack.

[navwarcol]

Dave, is that modification part of the hot-fix, or something for later?
Thanks for all of the hard work!

Ron

[Bobbybat]

Hi Dave,

When you say "remember that when an AFV is hit somewhere between 1 and crewTotal die, do you mean you have coded for "penetrated" or simply "hit"?

Great stuff on where this patch is heading - can't wait for it to be out but good to see you still catching stuff in your internal testing, or as part of what you're doing for CO2, too.

[Arjuna]

I plan to release another hot fix tomorrow if I progress well.

BTW here's a screen dump from the tutorial showing the German StuG Coy with only three AFVs left and note its unit info box is green which means it can assault. Miquel finished off the changes last night so now there is an additional state to the F6 key which shows whether a unit can assault or not. Take a bow Miquel. [&o]

[Arjuna]

FYI that StuG Coy did not lose it's assault capability till it was down to 1 tank at 0933 on Day 2.

[wodin]

Dave, Thanks for taking note and then working on the game..it was just a hunch..but obviously you thought it worthwhile to alter the game..good work.

The other issue is say you have three coys in attack..one has fallen into the 20% problem..but the other two attacking along side haven't. I'd have thought that that Coy would still attack or be put into attack due to the support on either side. This is where I think if a unit is involved in attack but has friendly support close by again these new rules should be looked at.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Take a bow Miquel. [&o]

No worries, Dave [:)]

Just one note: in Dave's screenshot you guys are seeing whether enemy units are assault capable or not. That's because Dave took the screenshot with the 'God mode', in which there is no FOW at all. In the actual public version, there's no such a thing as a God mode, so you won't be able to access that info for enemy units.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Dave, Thanks for taking note and then working on the game..it was just a hunch..but obviously you thought it worthwhile to alter the game..good work.

The other issue is say you have three coys in attack..one has fallen into the 20% problem..but the other two attacking along side haven't. I'd have thought that that Coy would still attack or be put into attack due to the support on either side. This is where I think if a unit is involved in attack but has friendly support close by again these new rules should be looked at.

Jason,

I did consider that but when a unit has suffered such horrendous cas, it's very hard to get troops going regardless of the presence of others nearby. The only way the Soviets got them to comply was with NKVD units who would shoot the runners and turn them back. We don't have such means available on the western front. There already is provision within the UnitMoraleCheck() for a modifier for nearby friendlies. So that's already in the mix as far as morale checks are concerned. But I don't think there would be too many commanders who would commit a shattered unit to an assault on the assumption that their neighbours would prevent them from retreating or routing.

[skarp]

thanks Dave I must get on and do some playing again