Matrix Games Forums

Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: SITREP

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: SITREP Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SITREP - 10/29/2012 2:51:43 PM   
simovitch


Posts: 4182
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
The screenshot above(from RDOA)was made at the break of dawn before effective intel. As the day broke it became clear that the Germans were there in force. FTMTTR should play out just like RDOA during the first few hours.

Here's what is left of Frost's group on the night of D3:





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by simovitch -- 10/29/2012 2:52:11 PM >


_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 31
RE: SITREP - 10/29/2012 2:54:08 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1926
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Ah.

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 32
RE: SITREP - 11/6/2012 1:01:01 PM   
wdkruger

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 1/23/2012
Status: offline
Any news on when a public beta might be forthcoming?

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 33
RE: SITREP - 11/9/2012 5:53:54 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17788
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
wdkruger,

As soon as I get to the bottom of the halting issue.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to wdkruger)
Post #: 34
RE: SITREP - 11/9/2012 6:20:23 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17788
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
SITREP 1700hrs Friday 9 Nov 2012 ( Canberra time ).

Hi all. It's been a very busy week. Monday was spent at a Defence conference but the rest of the week I have been cutting code for the patch. My focus has been to try and get to the bottom of the halting issue. After putting out a new beta build last weekend Richard observed that he was finding it hard to disengage units - ie if they had Move order to head north but had enemy to the south, then his units would Halt rather than retreat or withdraw so they could continue moving away from the enemy. I also noticed that some complex attacks were being continually slipped and the sub atack groups never moving.

So I decided to tackle the latter one as it was having the biggest impact. It's taken me all week but finally I think I have cracked this one. What was happening was that when the complex attack was developed it had the superior HQ and its arty in reserve with four different sub attack tasks. It wasn't a coordinated attack, so the sub attacks were able to select their own start times dependent on their individual orders delay. The reserve and four subAttacks tasks were all linked as concurrent tasks. When the first sub attack task began it requested aditional time to complete its Move to its FUP. This was granted by the superiorHQ and the complex attack plan slipped. Alas, because the other subAttacks had not started yet it was slipping their start by the amount requested by the first subAttack. This meant in some cases delays of four to 8 hours. It was then repeated each time the next subAttack was started. So in this case the whole attack was eventually slipped by a day and everyone sat around twiddling their thumbs.

I fixed this by ensuring that the start of concurrent tasks cannot be slipped if the sourceTask ( ie the task belonging to the original requester ) has already started. This worked a treat till an assert fired to say that the advance to the reserve task end was greater than the reserve task start. These two tasks are linked sequentially. So the start of the reserve should immidiately follow the end of the advance. So I had to ad code to prevent the slipping of any sequentially linked tasks affected by the earlier mod that prevented their start from being adjusted. I have gone through an initial test and it looks pretty good now. This should mean that big scale attacks will work effectively.

While I have also fixed a number of other bugs reported by the autotesters ( see list below ) I have run out of time to address the disengagement issue reported by Richard. I will look into this next. I have a pretty good idea of how to address this. Basically I will test for the direction of the unit and the enemy threats. If it's deemed to be moving away from them, then I will reduce the probability of it halting and either increase the prob of it retreating or ignoring the threat altogether. I need to step through the code first though.

Once I have this fixed that should be it. from me.

Paul has written some conversion code for the maps to fix an anomoly that occured on some older maps that were opriginally made with an earlier version of the MapMaker. This was affecting the base altitude layer and could have the effect of creating bad spot heights in certain places. We will have to run a conversion on all maps though.

Here is the list of fixes for this week::

  • Ensure that attack are called off due to lack of time if the shortfall exceeds the assaultDuration. ( PA 10835 )
  • Fix Assert in DetermineSlippageResponse() to account for cases where the FUP has been terminated and its times all set to its start. ( MSP 5511 )
  • Ensure attackSubHQs determined after independents in End of Scenario attack ( PA 2343 )
  • Ensure that all stored peripheral task force groups are factored into the unitCount inside VerifyPlanForceGroups() regardless of their status ( SMP 4097 )
  • Modify Assert inside AssessForSubAttacksWhoseReorgsCanBeBroughtForward() to cater for cases where an attack is scheduled to start next minute while it's status is set to current. ( TA 1789 )
  • Ensure that OnCallSpt forces subtracted from Independents before developing end of scenario attacks. This avoids the possibility of allocating the same unit to more than one current task - ie reserve and assault. ( SRF 16165 )
  • Ensure that the start of concurrent tasks are not slipped if the sourceTask they are linked to is already current. This prevents continual slipping of complex tasks, where their starts are not coordinated. ( SMP 4228 )
  • Prevent the allocation of a forceGroup subject to a task if it is not suitable. ( SFTTAR 4309 )
  • Added new member to SlippageTask and modified slippage code to ignore End if nextTask is ignoring its start time. This ensures that linked tasks are slipped and cribbed correctly. ( SMP 4311 )
  • Ensure that existing peripheral forceGroups are deducted from the CoreFG at the start of DevelopMissionPlan() ( SMP 4098 )



_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 35
RE: SITREP - 11/9/2012 8:28:27 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1926
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Wow. It looks like very difficult work, Dave. Much appreciated. Well done if you think you've bottomed the halting issue? I wasn't sure - was that what you said above - that you had, finally, fixed the halting issue, bar those iterations of it raised by Richard? Thanks for the update, anyway. Hope to see that patch soon, then.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 36
RE: SITREP - 11/9/2012 1:32:37 PM   
wdkruger

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 1/23/2012
Status: offline
Thanks for the update.

Warren

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 37
RE: SITREP - 11/22/2012 1:13:04 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17788
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Hi all,

I have just kicked off the upload of a new build (4.4.254) for our beta bunnies to test. I have made extensive mods to the combat system in an effort to achieve better historical casualty rates and improve the way units react including halting, retreating and routing. I think I have it about right but will need feedback from the beta testers to confirm that. If this is forthcoming I'll initiate a new patch. Here are the changes for the latest build.

Fixes for Build 4.4.254 include:

  • Ensure that attack are called off due to lack of time if the shortfall exceeds the assaultDuration. ( PA 10835 )
  • Fix Assert in DetermineSlippageResponse() to account for cases where the FUP has been terminated and its times all set to its start. ( MSP 5511 )
  • Ensure attackSubHQs determined after independents in End of Scenario attack ( PA 2343 )
  • Ensure that all stored peripheral task force groups are factored into the unitCount inside VerifyPlanForceGroups() regardless of their status ( SMP 4097 )
  • Modify Assert inside AssessForSubAttacksWhoseReorgsCanBeBroughtForward() to cater for cases where an attack is scheduled to start next minute while it's status is set to current. ( TA 1789 )
  • Ensure that OnCallSpt forces subtracted from Independents before developing end of scenario attacks. This avoids the possibility of allocating the same unit to more than one current task - ie reserve and assault. ( SRF 16165 )
  • Ensure that the start of concurrent tasks are not slipped if the sourceTask they are linked to is already current. This prevents continual slipping of complex tasks, where their starts are not coordinated. ( SMP 4228 )
  • Prevent the allocation of a forceGroup subject to a task if it is not suitable. ( SFTTAR 4309 )
  • Added new member to SlippageTask and modified slippage code to ignore End if nextTask is ignoring its start time. This ensures that linked tasks are slipped and cribbed correctly. ( SMP 4311 )
  • Ensure that existing peripheral forceGroups are deducted from the CoreFG at the start of DevelopMissionPlan() ( SMP 4098 )
  • Modified code inside TaskMove::ReassessOptions() to only Halt when under serious threat and not just because the unit is not making progress.
  • Reduced probability of halting where unit is trying to move away from closest threat and the unit is not co-located with the closest threat.
  • Where unit co-located with closest threat but is trying to move away, it will now retreat rather than halt.
  • Remove LOS check inside CanFire() where a unit is passed in as unit will be from know visible threats. In other words stop double checking LOS. This ensures that a unit can have a chance to fire at a visible threat and reduced processing - excellent! In testing it increased the number of fire events by 70%.
  • Increased range of routs from between 600 and 1200m to 1800 and 2700m
  • Added code to give priority to covered terrain when retreating/routing.
  • Extensive modification of Fire code both for APer and AArm fire to get more historical casualty results.
  • Decreased the probability and quantum of surrenders that occur when a units routs.


_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to wdkruger)
Post #: 38
RE: SITREP - 11/22/2012 1:50:14 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7977
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I can start to imagine if you've made the game less deadly then I expect many scenarios will be difficult to complete the Obj's on time.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 39
RE: SITREP - 11/22/2012 4:23:12 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17788
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Certainly the trick has been to get casualties down while still maintaining momentum. That's why I have put so much effort to reduce the amount of halting and increase the rout distances. I have been using the BFTB tutorial as my testbed and while there is a range of outcomes over multiple run throughs in general the US 4th Armoured Division can barrel its way into St Vith after two days. So that's not bad progress against two reasonable infantry regiments.

In point of fact there is more firing now and hence more suppression. In many cases the effectioveness of fire has been increased while certain modifiers have been adjusted. With more suppression you often find an outnumbered defender effectively neutralised allowing the attackers to close and force it to retreat or rout.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 40
RE: SITREP - 11/22/2012 11:00:33 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7977
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Sounds great mate.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 41
RE: SITREP - 11/26/2012 5:56:30 PM   
Agema

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

The screenshot above(from RDOA)was made at the break of dawn before effective intel. As the day broke it became clear that the Germans were there in force. FTMTTR should play out just like RDOA during the first few hours.

Here's what is left of Frost's group on the night of D3:


And that is why I never even try to take the road bridge!

Playing the BftB Market Garden expansion, I've barely ever got significant forces into the Western suburbs like I managed in HTTR.

In HTTR, I could usually secure a decent position in the west suburbs, and anchor the rear around Oosterbeek and the woods, then hold a good defensive perimeter (ideally with the rail bridge not blown up) and wear down the Germans enough for the XXX corps to smash through the enfeebled remnants. Of course, it's not so easy in the remake because you can't readily surrender the supply point - but I could hold a perimeter further west.

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 42
RE: SITREP - 11/27/2012 2:04:34 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7977
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I haven't played CO for a long time now. Mainly due to Phoenix mentioning the halting bug. Now I'm aware of it I know it will start to annoy me, also I wish there where more smaller scenarios, but hey.

Anyway I was reading Daves list of patch fixes and to me it sounds like a massive improvement yet again to the game, I'm pretty excited to see the new fire effectiveness and better suppression than before. I'd like to see instead of rout a unit perform a hasty fighting retreat\withdrawal and only rout in extreme circumstances where a unit is poorly trained, badly led and low moral. Fingers crossed the units don't start routing to quickly again with the new changes.

Still really looking forward to the patch and will be buying COTA scenarios and get HTTR in the sale.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Agema)
Post #: 43
RE: SITREP - 11/27/2012 10:30:09 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1588
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
Will there be an "Open Beta" before the release or will the Beta team handle all testing?

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club

"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 44
RE: SITREP - 11/30/2012 12:51:45 AM   
wdkruger

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 1/23/2012
Status: offline
Any news on the latest build of the beta? Really looking forward to it.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 45
RE: SITREP - 11/30/2012 3:04:24 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17788
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Testing revealed two issues, both of which need to be addressed.

The first relates to force formations. I issued a defend order with a frontage and depth of 900m and aligned this so that the forward edge ran along the line of woods. I didn't specify a formation type. when it executed it ended up deploying into line and pushed the line units way forward of the tree line. It should not have done this. I had written code previously that adjusted the desired frontage and depth based on persQty and formation type with that of the required frontage and depth. But it turns out that this works fine so long as the frontage to depth ratio of the selected formation type matches approximately the ratio specified by the player. In this case the line formation that the AI chose has a ratio of roughly 2:1 where as I specified a 1:1 ratio in the order. Consequently it doubled the depth and hence pushed out the forward line.

To fix this I need to rule out selecting a formation type unless its frontage to depth ratio is in alighnment with that specified in the order. But I also need to modify the interface to prevent the user from setting a depth that would distort the ratio too far.

I think you'd agree that because this thwarts the players intent it does need to get fixed.

The second issue concerns running the game under XP. At the moment it doesn't using our current installer. We can get it to run under XP if we simply install by manually copying files. So there is something wrong with our installer. This needs to be fixed and we're working on it.

Otherwise the feedback to the changes we did for the last build have been good.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to wdkruger)
Post #: 46
RE: SITREP - 11/30/2012 8:09:27 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7977
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Cool...I do think next game XP support should be dropped if it's causing issues...

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 47
RE: SITREP - 11/30/2012 1:50:06 PM   
wdkruger

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 1/23/2012
Status: offline
Thanks for the update. I had noticed that it is hard to align troops to a particular geographic feature. However, yhe biggest changes I am looking forward to concerns the coordination in complex (regiment level) attacks. Currently, it just doesn't work because of the multiple delay problems. I basically have stopped issuing attack or probe commands to higher level HQs. It sounds like these have been addressed earlier. I was also kind of interested how the reduced casualties/routing behavior changes have affected behavior and scenario balance.

Warren

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 48
RE: SITREP - 11/30/2012 2:38:25 PM   
Fishbreath

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/2/2012
Status: offline
I'm glad it's progressing. Is there any chance we could get an interim release on the forum in the next week or two (or the final release, for that matter)? I'm hoping to do a Bastogne AAR on the same days as it happened on a couple of gaming forums, and the coordinated attack delays and halting bug make it like pulling teeth in the currently-released version.

(in reply to wdkruger)
Post #: 49
RE: SITREP - 11/30/2012 2:40:48 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7170
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Cool...I do think next game XP support should be dropped if it's causing issues...


That would be very unfortunate.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Fishbreath)
Post #: 50
RE: SITREP - 11/30/2012 2:47:26 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1588
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
I really wonder how many still use XP, we now get W8 so it is really time for them to catch up.
I see a reason not using Vista but W7 ran fine from the start and still does it and with W8 coming it's about time to at least step up to W7.

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club

"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 51
RE: SITREP - 11/30/2012 4:45:21 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7977
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
ComradeP it's sadly a fact that eventually you have to upgrade an OS//XP has been around for over a decade now so it's had a good crap of the whip. Win7 is an excellent OS..as good or better than Win XP so I see no real negative reason for people not to update (unless they have less than 2 gig or a netbook or something as it struggle son those machines). Eventually things move on and if XP is holding up further games or if new features etc can't be done due to having to be XP compatible I feel it should be put to bed.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 52
RE: SITREP - 12/1/2012 4:33:35 AM   
Panman


Posts: 109
Joined: 8/1/2008
Status: offline
I built a new PC about a month ago and finally installed Win 7 pro. I wish I would have done it sooner. I hate going to work and having no choice about being on XP.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 53
RE: SITREP - 12/1/2012 6:53:19 AM   
loyalcitizen


Posts: 203
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
I also use XP.

(in reply to Panman)
Post #: 54
RE: SITREP - 12/1/2012 7:36:12 AM   
CharlieMike24

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/4/2012
Status: offline
@loyal citizen

.....but you also use a 19th century bicycle to get about!


(in reply to loyalcitizen)
Post #: 55
RE: SITREP - 12/3/2012 5:13:06 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1588
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
@Arjuna
Do you aim for the new patch to be released before Christmas?

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club

"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"

(in reply to CharlieMike24)
Post #: 56
RE: SITREP - 12/3/2012 8:58:33 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1926
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
I bet he does 'aim' for that. But will it happen?

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 57
RE: SITREP - 12/3/2012 10:06:06 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7977
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Unlikely as he has found a couple of serious bugs..not only that it can take a good two weeks or so for Matrix to get it ready and online once it's finalised and sent to them.

< Message edited by wodin -- 12/3/2012 10:07:20 AM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 58
RE: SITREP - 12/3/2012 10:09:58 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1926
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
yes. But they have the christmas spending incentive.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 59
RE: SITREP - 12/3/2012 10:44:11 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17788
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Yes I am aiming to. I will probably go for a public beta just so you all can get your hands on it. I need to check with Matrix re their capacity to release this before Xmas.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: SITREP Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117