RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch?

RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series

Message

Lieste -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/15/2011 4:48:51 PM)
It is quite playable IMO, but the issues around routing and mass surrenders do tend to take something from a victory against the AI - for its faults the COTA retreat code did give a better 'second go' to the AI, and were less disastrous to the local forces when under pressure even for the player. Too often battle results are very lopsided 300 - 4500 is a poor result in some scenarios - and this is 90% due to too easy surrenders.

Arjuna -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/16/2011 1:53:32 AM)
Lieste, I have made some mods to the SurrenderRouters code. Specifically I have reduced the stdSurrenderThreatRange from 300 to 100 where the unit's rout status is RoutRecovering or RetreatRecovering. So once the unit goes to recover the enemy will have to be virtually on top of it for it to surrender personnel. We will try this mod and see if it redresses that issue.

Lieste -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/16/2011 5:28:23 AM)
I know that you have made changes, and I'm confident that eliminating the recovery not using the resilience factors (morale, determination, stubbornness etc), and this reduction in range will help. Did you ever track down the turn-then-retreat issue? The one that makes a unit in the open attempt to rout directly into (or across the front of) the unit that has just routed it... it would almost always make sense for the unit to turn and then move forwards - but the movement is made towards the new 'rear' after the facing is adjusted. I still haven captured a save from just before this happens - it isn't every time, but I'd say at least once or twice per smallish scenario - as soon as you see it happen you know that it is a dead-ish unit... unless all the nearby enemy can be induced to rout too. Anyway, my bottom line is that this is the worst of the issues, and the rest are trivial or easily adjusted with the editing tools. The system remains the best operational game currently available as far as I am concerned. (Though I did prefer COTA's retreat code :))

Arjuna -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/17/2011 2:08:58 AM)
Lieste, Please send me that save and I'll try as best as I can to investigate. But as I mentioned to the beta testers today ( where putting out a new beta build ) its probably going to mean me making some educated guessed, applying a mod and then testing it by observation rather than interrogation. Painful I know, but there doesn't seem to be much alternative at the moment till MS get their act together. Re this issue. Is the rout status of the unit "retreating" or "routing" when it first starts to move? Was the enemy unit it ends up running towards in that location at the time the routing/retreating unit starts to run away? ( in other words is it a case of the enemy unit moving to that location ).

Lieste -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/17/2011 4:53:15 AM)
Roughly the situation is that an attack is heading (say north) towards a village - there is an exchange of fires, one of the assaulting units enters either retreat or rout (I think I've seen both). The final status is almost always rout, as a mob-formation moves into intimate contact with a unit strong enough to have broken it already... The unit turns to face south (or south-west), and then proceeds to move north (or north east) (ie backwards) and into the threat(s) that retreated them - this threat is not 'unknown' and has not moved ie dug-in and under fire. The 'same' degree of retreat movement to the south would bring them out of threat range and also into dead ground. I haven't got a suitable save yet - it is always 'oh nuts! I could have done with a save of that!'. I am trying to replicate it and have a save close enough before it to stand a chance of reproducing, but other than recognising when it has happened it is hard to predict... I assume that a save made once the behaviour is happening is not terribly useful, but might at least clarify the situation at hand? I'll still have to make one for that too... As far as I can tell - the normal retreat is made facing north and the unit withdraws to it's rear. A 'normal' rout seems to be facing south and moving south... so I might be tempted to speculate that it is a unit retreating and then routed in the moment of movement (or retreating for two events in a single pulse?) (or alternatively, one that has routed, rallied and then immediately entered retreat status, but that sounds more unlikely... too many steps for the frequency I see this). Often, but definitely not always a hard/armoured formation - but leg infantry will do it too. Noticed more with armour though, as it is more brittle/smaller and often rout casualties are the only common ones.

Arjuna -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/18/2011 3:42:48 AM)
Thanks Lieste. If you can come with a save I'd really appreciate it. You may be right about it being a step up situation - ie from retreat to rout. Interesting.

BK6583 -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/18/2011 3:48:42 PM)
Arjuna, I just wanted chime in here. I've played every game of this series and have been playing and very much enjoying BfB almost every day since January. Like a marrige where over time things that bother your significant other sometimes grow large in their irritation, with BfB the whole rout engine to me is just broke. Lieste's post is spot on so I won't go any further with that aspect of routing. To expand on that, all too often when a unit routs it goes maybe a few hundred meters, stops, and goes into rout recovery; and all too often still in the line of sight of the enemy. At this point, with this engine, a couple of grandmothers with brooms can make it surrender. In reality, units that rout are so demoralized that they won't stop running until they really feel they're out of harm's way. In reading several books about the Buldge, American soldiers routed for kilometers until they were finally policed up by leaders in the rear areas. In short, the rout engine needs to simulate this far far better than it does now. Just to clarify, I'm talking about situations where a relatively clear path exists for the routed unit to move through. Certainly where a routed unit is surrounded or almost surrounded I can the understand it surrendering.

Arjuna -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/18/2011 10:56:53 PM)
Fair point. In COTA they would continue routing if they encountered more enemy. The trouble with that was that they often then bounced abck and forth ping pong style. I'll look into this more.

Lieste -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/19/2011 12:20:07 AM)
With the retreat, part of it is eliminating 'jarring' initial directions. For me these are - directly into the unit causing the retreat onto the objective of an attack - the reason it is the objective is because I (or the AI) suspect it may be the focus of some part of his defence - particularly enemy 'held' villages/towns/cities. back down the obvious MSR, when the approach was very carefully made via tracks in dead-ground (the same with supply routeing - double envelopments are often pointless due to supply difficulties caused by this... although this is helped by devolving supply to Bn rather than retaining it at high levels (though coy level supply doesn't work at all)) In the defense, I prefer retreats 'to the rear' (or to the rear of a neighbouring unit) initially looking at the 'local' situation, and then the global rear once not under direct pressure. On the whole I mind less if the AI makes a 'good' plan for me which is then invalidated by enemy action than if it makes a stupid/bad plan based on the assumption that the only enemy are those we can see... I don't want to assault every bush, but I do want to avoid pushing unsupported HQ deep into his rear areas to get 'flanking fires' on a strongpoint on his front line... My line troops can take the risk of a shallow-ish envelopment or a deep penetrating raid, but support/supply/command elements should operate behind my FEBA, subject to updating with a successful friendly operation, or infiltration by enemy forces. Sorting this out for offensive planning can also be used for retreat/rout recovery and routeing.

Bob M. -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/30/2011 9:57:22 AM)
Would be nice to get patch progress informational updates on fairly regular basis. As someone totally ignorant of the Panther Games software development and build cycle timelines, I will in my ignorance prefer weekly updates on how the patch is progressing. But every two weeks or even monthly would be acceptable if the informational updates consistently adhered to a published frequency. My expectation is based upon information I receive from companies developing software who are under contract to the US government. Now, the cost of such informational updates in time and $ for Panther games might not have been included in their development and post-deployment software maintenance estimates. I know they're a small developmental firm with many projects being worked simultaneously. But if development and sales to the commercial wargaming community is a core element to their business strategy, I would think that customers could expect information to be provided on a predictable basis. Even the information was not relevant to this title, I think I'd accept that as an update so I would know that the patch hadn't really been touched that week. Something like, I had intentions of working on xxx issue this week, but instead spent most of the week going back and forth on the telephone with the Ministry of Defense attempting to clarify the functional user requirements for our next training aid for the Army, would be fine with me. I guess what I'm afraid of is that this title which has so much potential as a very unique, event driven, operational wargame: one of the very few that gets it right at the level above mere tactics, will go unfinished with a few really jarring bugs remaining in it. Plus, I've sort of followed the company's progress since "Fire Brigade" (which impressed me a lot for a first effort) through there next two commercial titles, each time setting the bar higher in regards to the degree of fidelity they included in the engine concerning military operations. As a former trainer in the US Army, I wish I could get more people to actually pay attention to the lessons one can learn from these games. I know Panther needs a steady income flow to develop new projects and I have no idea how much of that income Panther is willing to devote to fixing a mostly OK game. I would like to know though. Whatever the response. I wish 'Arjuna' well and his company continued success. They really are one of a kind right now and bunch of first rate guys in my book.

GBS -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/30/2011 9:26:17 PM)
Has Arjuna ever actually said he was working on a patch and if so, what it would be addressing? Maybe I missed it because most of the mention has been coming from the masses, not the top.

Lieste -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (6/30/2011 10:37:41 PM)
In this very thread, #23. Plus several more comments on fixes implemented, in testing with the Beta team etc. with on-going trouble finding and fixing due to corruption of debug strings.

Arjuna -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/8/2011 1:25:43 AM)
SITREP Friday 8 July 2011, 1000 I have been working full time on the game this week and have managed to fix a number of issues relating to movement. Bridge demolition now works as intended. Removed requirement that unit must be an engineer to blow. Fixed Infinite Loop causes by not culling waypoints prperly inside DevelopMissionPlan(). ( NOTE - need to ensure waypoints culled properly as force moves. See AdvanceAlongRoute(). Waiting on suitable saved game. ) Ensured that Player Waypoints are not being ignored by subordinates. Ensured that Player waypoints are being removed as force passes. Ensured PlanMove now calls proper formation pathing routines when catering for crossings. Ensure task waypoints set correctly for all subordinate Move tasks. Ensure CullRouteLoopbacks() factors in waypoints. Just from the observations I've made of the autotesters these fixes also appear to fix the issue of HQ leading the charge. These were occuring because of route loopbacks and waypoints not being passed down the chain. I'll be putting out a new beta build later today so that these can be tested thoroughly. I have a few other issues I want to address next, namely APer fire effectiveness and review the routing code. Once we get these sorted I'll work up a patch installer and look to getting that tested by the end of July ( subject to work requirements of course ).

Arjuna -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/8/2011 1:26:39 AM)
BETA TESTERS WANTED We're in need of two new beta testers. If you are interested, email me at dave[at]panthergames[dot]com along with a brief resume, highlighting any game development, beta testing and/or military experience you may have.

oldspec4 -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/8/2011 3:55:35 AM)
Thanks for the update..I'm looking forward to the fixes.

phoenix -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/8/2011 7:45:57 AM)
Patch and add-on sometime in August, then, if all goes well? Fantastic.

sharper -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/8/2011 10:44:49 AM)
great news

PirateJock -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/8/2011 12:45:15 PM)
Great news and thanks for the update Arjuna [:)] Will the HTTR Scenario pack be coming along at the same time? Cheers

simovitch -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/8/2011 1:45:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PirateJock Great news and thanks for the update Arjuna [:)] Will the HTTR Scenario pack be coming along at the same time? Cheers Yes, it's being developed and tested with this patch. You will need the patch to play the HTTR scenarios, but of course you won't need to buy the scenarios to get the patch.

PirateJock -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/8/2011 4:12:05 PM)
Great news got even greater [&o] Thanks

Arjuna -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/12/2011 1:05:24 PM)
Just to let you know that we are now onto build 238. Fixes since last one are: Ensured that suboprdinate units now processed for exit eligibility. Fixes force not exiting problem. Fixed assert at ScenRoute.cpp, line 3622. Was erroneously choosing a foot path instead of a mot path because the FG Values hadn't been recalced since reallocation of units. Now forces a recalc of FGValues before calcing route. Fixed assert at ScenMissionPlan.cpp, line 3887 caused by not adjusting end times of missionTask and planTasks if these were of a different type to bossTask. It now caps the end and StartAt times of missionTasks and planTasks if these are greater than the bossTask. It also ensures that orders are sent to subordinates with changes. Fixed Assert at ScenMissionPlan.cpp, line 3920 caused by not checking for valid route before determining route duration. Now checks and if invalid due to boss routing it sets the end time for task to missionEnd. When the boss finishes rout recovery he will recalc route and send orders. Fixed Assert at TaskDoctrine.cpp, line 3550 caused at Game start when a subordinate tries to reschedule its boss's reassessment and it's boss doesn't yet have a curr unit task. Now checks and ignores if no curr unit task. This just depended on the sequence of seeding the on map forces at game start. Ensure that new formation movement mods work with non-road column formations. Modified ObjectiveAchieved() test for TaskDefend. Now returns true if formation type is inSitu and unit within task radius. This prevents a lot of atStart units moving a few metres.

loyalcitizen -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/13/2011 6:25:48 AM)
I assume that the upgraded In-Situ defense stats are already in place? Since In-Situ is the only way to prevent the AI from tiring the units out with constant unneeded shifting about, I certainly hope that is making it in to the patch.

Arjuna -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/13/2011 9:53:55 AM)
loyalcitizem, Sorry I don't understand your question. what do you mean by "upgraded In-Situ defense stats are already in place"?

phoenix -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/13/2011 11:39:18 AM)
Arjuna, I would guess he means that in the build you're onto right now - 238 - you have included already the table of in situ values that you gave as a suggested adaptation in another thread on this forum - the thread complaining about the 30% figures on in situ orders - remember? I mean the table where you suggest cohesion changes to 60 from 30 etc.

loyalcitizen -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/14/2011 9:58:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arjuna loyalcitizen, Sorry I don't understand your question. what do you mean by "upgraded In-Situ defense stats are already in place"? Yup, Phoenix is correct. Just wanted to make sure your suggestions on the other thread was making the cut. They are needed and appreciated.

Arjuna -> RE: Any update on the ETA of new patch? (7/14/2011 2:27:39 PM)
Thanks for reminding me. I had forgot. Now in. [:)]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.09375