Matrix Games Forums

A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback

 
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: Build 4.4.257 Feedback Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 3:48:20 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Navwarcol >>


quote:

I fully understand customer support, but I note that while customers are asking for an East Front game in one thread they're asking for help with mechanics already described in the game documentation in another


Which mechanics are you refering to jim?

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 61
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 4:03:56 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
??

Not sure what thats about..whats up Jim?

Really don't see the problem about looking forward to the east front game and asking about it, aswell as giving feedback on a patch..even though there actually may be nothing wrong. I don't play that often...so I'm rusty and I saw someone mentioning something about waypoints and formations..then I noticed the formation box didn't update properly which is being looked at and I forgot your can't set different formations as different waypoints so thought it might be the bug mentioned in another thread. Really can't see a problem with that. Maybe we should all keep our mouths shut and give no feedback? I'm sure Dave would rather get feedback even though some things are WAD rather than none at all.

Obviously the game will be signed off to the standard COTA was. I'm sure Dave doesn't want to leave it with any serious or noticeable bugs. God I really want eats front and can't wait for Dave to sign off with BFTB (it's not something I play that often due to the theater) however I know others do play it alot and they want it to work aswell as can be expect i.e no noticeable bugs.

The things noticed at the moment from what I can see are minor and not actually effecting the game so I presume can be fixed relatively easily. The only one that may affect the game is if there is a supply issue. This is a BETA patch for people to test..I expect once this goes back and whatever was noticed is sorted out it will go straight to a full release. Again it seems all the major issues are now sorted out which is fantastic.


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Navwarcol >>

I'm with you.

I haven't noted any show stoppers, and pretty much see that what was supposed to be corrected in the 257 beta release has been addressed.

I fully understand customer support, but I note that while customers are asking for an East Front game in one thread they're asking for help with mechanics already described in the game documentation in another.

And, I note Arjuna is trying to do address software quality assurance analysis, customer support, and work on an East Front game perhaps grateful that Australia is a half-world away from most of his customer base, allowing him to be productive while the customers sleep.

I used to do software logistics for combat vehicles, and there always came a time when the upgraded software had to be released because it was significantly more effective than what the troops had, even though it contained a couple of warts that required minor workarounds.

The criteria for quality assurance was it can't kill someone because of a safety defect, had to allow the troops to shoot, move and / or communicate better than the last release, and was of significant enough improvement to accept the cost of the update despite the minor warts that didn't affect the earlier criteria.





_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 62
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 4:59:21 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1931
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
I'm suddenly getting loads of CTDs too, Dazkaz. It's when you put the cursor down to place the task marker for a new order - doesn't seem to matter what. Not sure what to do about it. I saved the game I was playing just before a perfectly repeatable CTD (it repeated, exactly, from the save, every time I tried the new order), then loaded it into my new laptop (windows 8) - guess what? Won't crash. Works in windows 8..... But not in windows 7, which is my main machine. I will post a separate thread about it in the tech forum, see what Dave thinks. No point in sending him a save if it doesn't repeat on anything but my machine.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 63
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 5:01:19 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I haven't had any CTD's thankfully. If it's not repeatable I expect there isn't much that can be done. With real complex games like this and it seems to be a random thing I think of it like my PC is abit confused and gives in;) How many CTD's have you had?

< Message edited by wodin -- 2/22/2013 5:02:52 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 64
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 5:12:14 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 227
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
Just noticed something that I think other people should look out for to confirm deny - I'm experiencing situations where formations aren't stopping to form-up for an assault but are simply passing through the FUP like any other waypoint.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 65
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 6:09:44 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3642
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Slip and crib still refer to adkustments in time. A slip means the time has moved further out and crib means it been moved closer in ... Does that help explain it?


It confirms what I suspected, and I suspect that any re-adjustments to slips and cribs would have to be made manually as per the tutorial.

FYI, HoI had an auto-timing feature for coordinated attacks that even included air support, but its engine was strictly strategic.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 66
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 6:20:31 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline
Beta feedback should be on the problems the release is defined as addressing, not new issues that hadn't been mentioned in the past.

I've been through enough beta software release cycles to recognize the difference between meaningful feedback from users who understand the scope of the problem being addressed in the release, and what amounts to nitpicking. When the feedback cycle reached the point we'd call "herding cats" we knew that it needed to be cut off and the release implemented to make any progress.

Evidence of "herding cats" is notes akin to, "Thanks for correcting the problem I mentioned, but this new one . . ." It means either the user didn't know enough about the mechanics of monitoring the game software before firing off the first complaint or didn't think the issue was important enough to bring up before the software developer asked whether he / she had collated all the complaints accurately.

Since I play the game almost daily, and don't note many of the issues mentioned as I micromanage task groups for various tactical needs in the scenarios I choose, I have to wonder if every issue raised is worth the time necessary to address them in light of the broader priorities of the development business.

That said, I don't own Panther or Matrix.

If they're willing to take care of the newly mentioned problems with limited staff and resources, good for them.

But then users shouldn't be asking questions about when they'll get their new release at the same time they're piling up rework on the old release.



_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 67
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 6:49:59 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1931
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
What's up, Jim? It's a bit confrontational, maybe? Everyone is just trying to get the game to work well, I think. Not sure who it is that's irritated you (you sound irritated) - maybe me!!. I haven't seen any queries that I thought shouldn't have been raised. Dave (who IS Panther, for these purposes, at least) invites the feedback and, though he does get narked sometimes ( :) - who wouldn't...), it's not often. And as for keeping queries to the patch issues that's not really a practical hope for mere players (which I assume you're not) who know bugger all about programming (most of the poeple buying, I suspect) - who knows whether a particular issue that has occured is down to the patch or not? It might not be in the list, but fixes in the list often throw up other issues, as you'll know being a keen player of the game.

< Message edited by phoenix -- 2/22/2013 6:50:17 PM >

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 68
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 7:04:41 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

Beta feedback should be on the problems the release is defined as addressing, not new issues that hadn't been mentioned in the past.

I've been through enough beta software release cycles to recognize the difference between meaningful feedback from users who understand the scope of the problem being addressed in the release, and what amounts to nitpicking. When the feedback cycle reached the point we'd call "herding cats" we knew that it needed to be cut off and the release implemented to make any progress.

Evidence of "herding cats" is notes akin to, "Thanks for correcting the problem I mentioned, but this new one . . ." It means either the user didn't know enough about the mechanics of monitoring the game software before firing off the first complaint or didn't think the issue was important enough to bring up before the software developer asked whether he / she had collated all the complaints accurately.

Since I play the game almost daily, and don't note many of the issues mentioned as I micromanage task groups for various tactical needs in the scenarios I choose, I have to wonder if every issue raised is worth the time necessary to address them in light of the broader priorities of the development business.

That said, I don't own Panther or Matrix.

If they're willing to take care of the newly mentioned problems with limited staff and resources, good for them.

But then users shouldn't be asking questions about when they'll get their new release at the same time they're piling up rework on the old release.




I'm quite new to the game Jim, so I may be picking up on things that have been covered in the past, or that I don't understand properly, for which I apologise. Or I may be playing a different way, or prefer different scenarios, to some of the oldies?

From other games, HOI3 as a very good example, as I was involved with that right from the start, and it was released in an appalling state, I think the feedback that people give on new games/patches initially reflects on what they find the most annoying, as there are so many other issues that need sorting, the lesser ones would just get sorted out later.

You also have to bare in mind that each patch can introduce new problems, which might have been working well initialy, minor and major (Poor Dave )

In this game as it is at least playable, I'm trying to post the problems as I come across them, major and minor. If they have already been thrashed out in the past, or working as intended, or for a later release, just tell me, and I'll move on to the next one. If not I will try to go into more detail of the issue I am having

I love the new auto saves Dave. Very usefull for helping to identify problmes.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 69
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 7:14:42 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Jim your not taking into account new issues arising due to the changes Dave made to fix issues etc..As Dave fixes up formation code for instance that could then have knock on effects that he isn't aware of. Take the formation footprint jumping about etc I bet thats due to the new formation code..or the issue thats now fixed with regards to casualties that was due to Dave changing suppression modifiers and trying got get historical casualties in a previous beta patch. Nearly all the queries for this patch and the last one where due to patch changes, not sure about the supply issue that "if" an issue was probably there for awhile.

A game I currently beta test it seems new issues arise alot due to changes made previous test patch. I don't think people are purposely looking for very possible issue\bug to be honest all are noticeable to an extent. I do know some here really get into testing all aspects in detail and find things they feel aren't right but thats not for me..sometimes ignorance i bliss as long as I don't realise or no about it I'm happy. However these people that go into such detail also are great in advancing the game and making it even better. I understand that you have to sign off eventually and nothing will work perfectly and some things can wait for the next game infact I'm sure Dave would say if he felt something someone brought up is best waiting for the next game.

I will admit though that sometimes reading the forum and seeing issues I personally never noticed and was happily unaware of, end up not enjoying the game as much because I start noticing said issue!!

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 70
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 7:54:33 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 631
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline
FWIW, I did say above that the issues seem minor, and most are easily worked around by issuing orders without the game being paused. I HAD INTENDED that to help address the issue, as it seems possibly something related to the pause, that affects nearly all of the issues... I had not really meant "don't worry about fixing them, we can just go with a workaround"
But I do agree with what I think Jim was trying to say as well...most wargame companies are essentially a handful of people. I hope people will not be pressing for a new title, at the same time as trying to work on this one. I do also think however, that any fixes made in this title will benefit the east coast game, as well as LotB.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 71
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 8:18:40 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

I'm suddenly getting loads of CTDs too, Dazkaz. It's when you put the cursor down to place the task marker for a new order - doesn't seem to matter what. Not sure what to do about it. I saved the game I was playing just before a perfectly repeatable CTD (it repeated, exactly, from the save, every time I tried the new order), then loaded it into my new laptop (windows 8) - guess what? Won't crash. Works in windows 8..... But not in windows 7, which is my main machine. I will post a separate thread about it in the tech forum, see what Dave thinks. No point in sending him a save if it doesn't repeat on anything but my machine.


I am running windows 7, and what you said is the exact same problem "It's when you put the cursor down to place the task marker for a new order - doesn't seem to matter what."
It's very hard to get it to replicate from a save, as if you do things a little different in sequence after loading the new save it won't happen again.

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 72
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 8:23:54 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

FWIW, I did say above that the issues seem minor, and most are easily worked around by issuing orders without the game being paused. I HAD INTENDED that to help address the issue, as it seems possibly something related to the pause, that affects nearly all of the issues... I had not really meant "don't worry about fixing them, we can just go with a workaround"
But I do agree with what I think Jim was trying to say as well...most wargame companies are essentially a handful of people. I hope people will not be pressing for a new title, at the same time as trying to work on this one. I do also think however, that any fixes made in this title will benefit the east coast game, as well as LotB.


I know nothing about computer programming, but I was thinking the same thing.
If its not a total engine rebuild but based on BFTB then any problems sorted out in this release will also benefit the next expansion?

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 73
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 8:37:20 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
dave and Panther are big boys now..I'm sure they sick to their schedule..I doubt very much we influence what they work on and when;)

Anyway work is going on with the EF game and LOTB at the same time as the people working on them are different. Dave has people working on scenarios and OOB's for EF..then once signed off with BFTB and COTA I expect he will get cracking on the EF game implementing the new features.

Everyone here knows full well the EF game wont be here this year and I doubt next year either, it doesn't mean we can't ask or discuss it. Blimey we get screenies every now and again.

< Message edited by wodin -- 2/22/2013 8:38:52 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 74
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 8:38:44 PM   
Ramses


Posts: 200
Joined: 2/11/2011
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

If its not a total engine rebuild but based on BFTB then any problems sorted out in this release will also benefit the next expansion?


Agreed 100 %

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 75
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 9:03:40 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1931
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
'East Coast' game is how I feel about it.......lol.....:) Just joking, Wodin...

This present game has loads in it for me still, as I keep saying. Including the upcoming COTA pack. I certainly like the idea that Panther projects into the future, but I'm glad that at the moment they're more or less concentrating on getting this sorted so we're all happy it works well. So it works as we can clearly see it should. Some of the issues are small, but most are issues that would stop people playing after a bit if they didn't think they would be fixed. Indeed, we read here that they DO stop people playing it, pending...etc etc.

As has been said before, it's a massively ambitious project that Dave is trying to see through - to do something with game AI that is not being done anywhere else, to my knowledge. The game is unique and has, in my view (especially when you include what you can do very easily with the scenmaker - in effect create your own battles) open-ended replayability. It doesn't need an EF iteration, though I'll grab it when it comes and certainly enjoy it. But sorting out the routing/retreating, halting/attacking, close combat (to take a few of the more recent issues that have been dealt with) is well worth it. Obviously, if it crashes a lot now, for some players (even if not for Jim, lucky Jim!!) then that's worth sorting as well. I don't think anyone has been nit-picking myself. Not at all.

< Message edited by phoenix -- 2/22/2013 9:11:29 PM >

(in reply to Ramses)
Post #: 76
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 9:09:15 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
east Coast?

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 77
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 9:12:30 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1931
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Navwarcol wrote 'east coast' (accidentally) :)

Or maybe he was making a joke. A good one, if he was.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 78
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 9:13:07 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 631
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline
Wodin.. I had seen a post regarding the EF game possibly being out back in 2012... while that was OBVIOUSLY optimistic, am I understanding that you are thinking not even 2013?

And as for this subject line... I am seeing a handful of CTD also, almost all on the large Maas-Rhein map. Have not had one on another map, and this map seems possibly the largest.

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 79
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 9:16:43 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1931
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Interesting only on that map Navwarcol. That's the only map I've been playing recently. I'll have to try others...

I'm managing to avoid them by saving a lot and doing different things, plus by stopping playing every ten mins or so, then re-starting. I've no idea what's causing it. New thing for me.

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 80
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 9:36:13 PM   
Ramses


Posts: 200
Joined: 2/11/2011
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
I have experienced several ctd's in the tutorial (Return to St Vith scenario). Played the 'Hell on wheel counterattack' scenario a couple of times but it runs smoothly.

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 81
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 9:42:14 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Might be map specific thing going on?

nav..very unlikely this year in my opinion..as far as I can work out actual work on implementing the new features for EF hasn't started as such yet..scenarios and OOBs have though. So I think implementing and testing the EF games new features is going to take at least a year if not near two. I'm sure Dave would have liked to be further along as you said at one point he mention 2012 was a distant possibility.

COTA expansion isn't out yet, BFTB has to be signed off. I presume the next proper patch will be the final unless something major happens, if you think how long it takes for patches imagine how long it takes for new features then testing..such a complex game means the slightest thing probably takes days sometimes weeks to sort out.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 82
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 10:18:55 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline


In the image you can see c coy 3 Irish Gds has just passed 2.HOF

As he did so the TLOS tool can no longer pick 2.HOF up when used on C Coy Irish Gds.
I think this is a problem as far as I can tell he no longer is shooting at him, but is being shot in the back by 2.HOF.
The other units facing 2.HOF have a TLOS and are firing but are almost the exact same distance from 2.HOF as C Coy 3 Irish Gds.

I have seen this behaviour a few times now and wonder if it has anything to do with this patch note?

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%.


(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 83
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 10:50:32 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline


Only a few hours into a new game and already D Coy has run out of .303 his primary ammo!

He has only engaged 4 times since the scenario started.
Is this wrong or am I making to big a deal of it, and its how it should be?

I certainly don't remember it being a problem before the patch or maybe I just didn't notice it, and its always been like this?

It may have even been a big factor in why we thought that close combat was working so bad before, in the last patch.
It wasn't an accuracy thing it was just that the casualties were so low, as no one had any ammo, and we just never noticed?

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 84
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 11:07:47 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline


At least I got a proper top up this time

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 85
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 11:09:45 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
The casualty thing wasn't anything to do with ammo..lots of lead was flying around.

The unit may not have started the scenario with that much ammo?

If you sent the save to Dave then he will be checking it out..obviously if it happened before to you it isn't going to stop if there is a problem and if there is Dave will get to the bottom of it.

Did you check how many trucks the supply base had?

I did notice they where calling in supply every hour..so obviously they weren't getting that much each time. Again now Dave knows don't worry to much about it.

< Message edited by wodin -- 2/22/2013 11:11:09 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 86
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 11:30:22 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline


27 minutes later and 2 more engagements, and its all gone again!

2.HOF is stuck underneath D Coy taking no casualties as D Coy have run out of ammo again.

No wonder the MOD never gave us Brits assault rifles that fired on full auto until the SA80 in the 80's

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 87
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 11:55:55 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8014
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Hmm..thats alot of ammo burn in 27 mins..obviously though it says engaging twice it probably has been pretty constant 27 min battle. Still 10 700 rounds of .303 and 3400 of 9mm gone in 27 mins..thats alot..whats your rate of fire set at? Though 92 rifles firing say 10 rounds a min thats 920 rounds a minute spent. Over 27 mins it's well gone I suppose gone I work that out at 24840 rounds if all rifles where firing 10 rounds a min for 27 mins..reduce it to 5 rounds a min which seems more reasonable than 10 your looking at 12000 rounds so yes I can imagine it being burned up in an intense firefight. Lowering the rate of fire for a weapon in the editor will help, but then you'll get less casualties.

< Message edited by wodin -- 2/23/2013 12:02:09 AM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 88
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 12:49:23 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1272
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Hmm..thats alot of ammo burn in 27 mins..obviously though it says engaging twice it probably has been pretty constant 27 min battle. Still 10 700 rounds of .303 and 3400 of 9mm gone in 27 mins..thats alot..whats your rate of fire set at? Though 92 rifles firing say 10 rounds a min thats 920 rounds a minute spent. Over 27 mins it's well gone I suppose gone I work that out at 24840 rounds if all rifles where firing 10 rounds a min for 27 mins..reduce it to 5 rounds a min which seems more reasonable than 10 your looking at 12000 rounds so yes I can imagine it being burned up in an intense firefight. Lowering the rate of fire for a weapon in the editor will help, but then you'll get less casualties.


Glad you did the maths for me Wodin

They are assaulting so I guess the rate of fire is auto set to max

There are 6 bren carriers in that unit, so they would be able to carry a lot of ammo!
I wonder if the ammo capacity levels for them is correct in the ESTABS?

With a total of 10 brens and a vickers thats a lot of fire power/ammo use as you say.

IF it's right I'm not really sure what to do about it?
As you know it takes so damn long with the orders delay, and stopping ect to get them to engage in the first place, and if I try to withdraw them after the 42 min order delay they will probably have another delivery of ammo anyway by then

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 89
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 1:45:18 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17790
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
First thing to note is that not all engagements or activities in general for that matter appear in the unit log. IIRC we don't bother recording it in the log if a similar event has occured within the last 15 or 20 minutes. So the unit could have been firing non stop.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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