Matrix Games Forums

New information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
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  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 2:00:53 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1251
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

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.


Ok mate, thanks for the info.



I think you might have to look into some kind of hand to hand "fix bayonets" casualty Estab or some kind of retreat event for future expansions, for when they run out of ammo, because these boys have been going at it in the factory, in the dark now for about an hour.

A Coy have run out as well now so we have about 250 Irish V 56 Hardened German Paras, in a hand to hand fight, in the dark in factory area.

Not something I would like to be involved in personally


< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 2/23/2013 2:02:58 AM >

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 91
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 10:43:11 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1251
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

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.


quote:

Did you check how many trucks the supply base had?


Yes mate I posted a picture of it back in post RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/22/2013 1:56:57 PM

I know Dave is aware of it now. I guess I am just trying to justify my concern, as I'm worried it's something I'm not understanding about the game, and don't want to waste any of Dave's valuable time. So the more info I post on the issue, the more chance of someone else spotting my possible mistake.

I might start another thread, and treat it as kind of a mini AAR just related to issues I am having as I play rather than spam this post with pics etc.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 92
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 10:47:07 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
It's great you pick up these things Daz. Like Wodin said, all these discoveries make the gamne better. No one can object, for sure, and - again, as Jason remarked - they're big boys now. If they haven't time or don't want then they won't do anything with it. For me all these things you pick up on are definitely worth mentioning. You have to play the game in a really keen, detailed way (as a real fan does, indeed) to notice these things that you're seeing. I certainly miss them! Well done.

It wasn't the trucks, no - I saw that - you had plenty of them.

10,000 rounds in 20 mins - wow! yet it could easily be that, if you check the maths.

< Message edited by phoenix -- 2/23/2013 10:48:24 AM >

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 93
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 11:46:48 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17780
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Ten MGs each firing 20rd per minute would go through 4,000rds in twenty minutes. Add say 100 rifles each firing 4 rpm would be 400 x 20 = 8,000 rds. Total 303 expenditure in 20 minutes of firing = 12,000 rds.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 94
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 11:49:16 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17780
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
BTW the ave rifleman carried 60 rds of rifle ammo on him and half that again at the unit reserve - ie on the back of the jeep. Let's be generous and say 100 rds. It's just enough for a 25 minute firefight.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 95
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 1:46:10 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 621
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline
The ammo thing I had seen from when I first got the game (a few days before the last build). The numbers do add up, and having seen some real firefights and the copious amounts of ammunition used in just 5-10 minutes, I could not complain about the game's data. Usually what I am trying to do is separate before the AI does its plan my own reserve from each btn, and from each level above btn... which in a large scenario leaves me with "micromanaging" at worst 8-10 units. These become the units that step in to continue the push where their pixel-brothers run low on ammunition, etc... This way the units that need resupply are not at the front in contact, when resupply comes also. I would like it if the AI did something like this also inside the individual companies, but that may be asking a lot.

Anyway..sorry for rambling.
Dave, I do notice one other issue that did not happen before...units in direct contact with each other, less than 100m away, sometimes disappear, even in areas with no concealment factored in.. " open areas". This could be because they are hunkering down during the firefight, but cannot imagine if an entire company is doing this at the same time.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 96
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 2:10:25 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1251
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

BTW the ave rifleman carried 60 rds of rifle ammo on him and half that again at the unit reserve - ie on the back of the jeep. Let's be generous and say 100 rds. It's just enough for a 25 minute firefight.


What about the bren carriers, and the Vickers Dave?

They must surely be the main culprits here for the ammo expenditure?
I have been looking on the internet to see what info I can find about the ammo stocks for the bren carriers.

I've found some great sites but nothing so far about how much they carried. I know they are only small and being mechanised infantry have to fit 4 guys plus equipment in the back, so not masses of room for extra ammo as I imagined.







(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 97
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 2:35:05 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1251
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

The ammo thing I had seen from when I first got the game (a few days before the last build). The numbers do add up, and having seen some real firefights and the copious amounts of ammunition used in just 5-10 minutes, I could not complain about the game's data. Usually what I am trying to do is separate before the AI does its plan my own reserve from each btn, and from each level above btn... which in a large scenario leaves me with "micromanaging" at worst 8-10 units. These become the units that step in to continue the push where their pixel-brothers run low on ammunition, etc... This way the units that need resupply are not at the front in contact, when resupply comes also. I would like it if the AI did something like this also inside the individual companies, but that may be asking a lot.

Anyway..sorry for rambling.
Dave, I do notice one other issue that did not happen before...units in direct contact with each other, less than 100m away, sometimes disappear, even in areas with no concealment factored in.. " open areas". This could be because they are hunkering down during the firefight, but cannot imagine if an entire company is doing this at the same time.


quote:

This way the units that need resupply are not at the front in contact, when resupply comes also. I would like it if the AI did something like this also inside the individual companies, but that may be asking a lot.


How is the game modelled for supplying units in close contact?

I have always assumed that unless you get the yellow message with a % of the convoy lost, that when you got a "Resupply Arrived" message in the log you got 100% of what was sent, or you got no Resupply Arrived message at all.

Can you actually get a "Resupply Arrived" message, without a warning that you only received a fraction of what was sent, if indeed you only get a tiny bit of that supply, as per the query I posted earlier in the thread, ref only getting a few tins of beans when I wanted ammo?

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 98
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 3:17:01 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1251
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Ok I have re-read the Game Manuel again, and the only thing I can see about supply interdiction is as posted below.

quote:

To reduce the processor load, the transport column is not managed like a regular unit. So it does not move along the route each minute. Rather, when its scheduled Supply Transport Event occurs it reviews the situation at that time and determines whether or not it can get through to the unit. If not, it
165
will abandon and try to return to the Base. If it can get through, it determines any losses due to enemy threats to the route and deducts these from the assigned personnel, transport and supplies. It then delivers the supplies to the unit ( converting ammo into actual rounds as appropriate ).
At this time you will receive a message on screen ( and in the Message Log ) informing you of the delivery. This will be a routine message if all goes well. However, if it suffers losses it will be upgraded to Urgent and if it’s abandoned altogether it will be Flash.


It makes no mention of a reduced supply delivery for units in contact with the enemy, only for attrition to the supply coulomb on route.

If anyone can find the relevant bit about not being able to supply to troops in contact please post it to put me out of my misery

It does however mention this:

quote:

Rationing
If there is insufficient supplies to meet all current requirements or there is insufficient handling capacity ( ie the ability to load the supplies on the trucks ) then a Depot may ration or limit the amounts it dispatches to its drawing units. When this occurs each request will only receive a proportion of its requirements. Emergency requests will get a greater proportion than routine requests.


Which could be relevent to my base which was cut off from the SEP at the time of delivery.

Just wish it could have been .303 not tins of beans

Just wait till I get my hands on that QM

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 2/23/2013 3:20:43 PM >

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 99
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 3:37:09 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 562
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline
Stowage planning for vehicles is defined by weight more than space. Allowances would be made for racks for projectiles issued in one unit per shot quantities for main weapons, and the remaining weight allowance being assigned as the vehicle crew individual weapons (e.g. pistols, carbines, rifles, light machine guns, medium machine guns, heavy machine gun).

The stowage for crew individual weapons ammo was organized around the standard issue package for the assigned weapons (e.g. size / weight of clips, small weapon ammo boxes, heavy weapon standard ammo boxes, etc.).

Aside from defining the package handling size for racks or nooks and how accessible the areas needed to be to the crew, (ammo stowage on the bottom of the chassis might be forbidden in the design), space was left somewhere to handle that weight.

Based on that, I found a Bren 2-pounder variant ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier ) which has stowage for 112 rounds. If issued in standard boxes, it would be roughly 95 percent of the ammo weight assigned to the vehicle. If the rounds required perculiar racks to make them accessible, then the round weight and rack weight would be 95 percent of the assigned ammo load weight for the vehicle.

The remaining weight would be allocated among crew-served secondary weapons.

Hope this helps.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 100
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 4:21:27 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 562
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline
If I read it correctly, a base unit lacking sufficient reserve supply may not send enough forward to the demanding unit.

Response to demands in those situations fill emergency requests first as constrained by available transport, and ration the remaining allocation to routine requests once the transport is freed from emergency demands.

You can look at the Base Unit as a kind of nozzle on a hose. If there's more volume requested from the base than it can send out, the response to routine demands will be deferred, and emergency demands rationed.

In addition, each SEP is set on how much of the potential scenario demands it can pass through (e.g. a historically-oriented designer wouldn't allow an air drop SEP to handle the flow of supplies requested by every air landed and ground combat unit in a scenario [Think of the Nazi 6th Army isolated in Stalingrad being supplied by air]).

Supplies would be rationed, and potentially some units ignored, based on either one or both of the SEP - Base linkages and transport availability.

Hope this helps.


_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 101
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 5:29:10 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7934
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Daz..I think it means 100% of the supply that was sent out got through..not actually 100% of what they need..hough as Dave says they could burn through a 100% supply very quickly..I suggest maybe we need to monitor our ROF's more often and keep check of a units suppky..what would be cool is if we get a message telling us a unit is down to 25% ammo..OR we have an option to click for a unit to say reduce RoF when they hit a certain percent of ammo left. i.e ROF reduce to low @ 25% ammo. Tigers Unleashed has that SOP for instance.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 102
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 6:17:29 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 621
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15


quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

The ammo thing I had seen from when I first got the game (a few days before the last build). The numbers do add up, and having seen some real firefights and the copious amounts of ammunition used in just 5-10 minutes, I could not complain about the game's data. Usually what I am trying to do is separate before the AI does its plan my own reserve from each btn, and from each level above btn... which in a large scenario leaves me with "micromanaging" at worst 8-10 units. These become the units that step in to continue the push where their pixel-brothers run low on ammunition, etc... This way the units that need resupply are not at the front in contact, when resupply comes also. I would like it if the AI did something like this also inside the individual companies, but that may be asking a lot.

Anyway..sorry for rambling.
Dave, I do notice one other issue that did not happen before...units in direct contact with each other, less than 100m away, sometimes disappear, even in areas with no concealment factored in.. " open areas". This could be because they are hunkering down during the firefight, but cannot imagine if an entire company is doing this at the same time.


quote:

This way the units that need resupply are not at the front in contact, when resupply comes also. I would like it if the AI did something like this also inside the individual companies, but that may be asking a lot.


How is the game modelled for supplying units in close contact?

I have always assumed that unless you get the yellow message with a % of the convoy lost, that when you got a "Resupply Arrived" message in the log you got 100% of what was sent, or you got no Resupply Arrived message at all.

Can you actually get a "Resupply Arrived" message, without a warning that you only received a fraction of what was sent, if indeed you only get a tiny bit of that supply, as per the query I posted earlier in the thread, ref only getting a few tins of beans when I wanted ammo?


I am not sure of modeling for "in contact" Daz...mostly I meant that the way I do it, is designed so that as the frontline units run low, I have a reserve force ready to step up "through" them to continue the assault/solidify the defense, while they "request emergency supply" and wait for it to arrive..so they are not stuck "on line" with no ammunition.
Daz..off subject..but the first two up there look like screen shots..what are they from?

< Message edited by navwarcol -- 2/23/2013 6:27:46 PM >

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 103
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 6:32:18 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1251
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Thanks for your feedback Jim.

I've been reading up on the Universal Carrier myself as well. There is an excellent page here on its use in combat.

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Tactics/Formations/FireSupport/carrier_platoon.htm

navwarcol

Sounds like excellent tactical advice, thanks for your help.

Wodin

Yeah thats what I thoght.
100% of what was sent out, which means if its being rationed, will be less than what you need to top you up to full supply again.
Would be helpfull if there was a flag in the depot, or a message to let you know rationing is in effect, and by how much, so you can change the rate of your unit's fire.

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 2/23/2013 6:36:25 PM >

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 104
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 7:02:10 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Haven´t yet come to test the new build, although I´d already installed at day of release.

Since supply (distribution) is mentioned oftenly here, I´d like to ask if the small AT weaponry, like Panzerfaust could be somehow seperated from dedicated infantrymen and make them a weapon for all personnell to use and rise stocks to more appropiate levels, without substracting rifle strengths. A stock of 10 (s/b closer to 20-30 at least) an infantry coy, will quickly get it down for emergency resupply requests and thus an unnecessary strain on the supply system.

Now going to give St vith a try with the new build.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 105
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 10:12:04 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 562
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Haven´t yet come to test the new build, although I´d already installed at day of release.

Since supply (distribution) is mentioned oftenly here, I´d like to ask if the small AT weaponry, like Panzerfaust could be somehow seperated from dedicated infantrymen and make them a weapon for all personnell to use and rise stocks to more appropiate levels, without substracting rifle strengths. A stock of 10 (s/b closer to 20-30 at least) an infantry coy, will quickly get it down for emergency resupply requests and thus an unnecessary strain on the supply system.

Now going to give St vith a try with the new build.


If you're looking for historical accuracy, you need to look at the basis of issue for the small AT weaponry at the time it was used in combat.

Military units are around what those who define battle doctrine think to be reasonable for the mission the unit will address in battle. The structure goes down to how many soldiers of the specialized skill (e.g. those primarily assigned close in AT responsibilities) would be assigned to the unit, and how many weapons were necessary to make them effective at their specialty (e.g. one heavy machine gun per two man crew, one AT weapon per AT soldier).

Under duress, any soldier with minimum training could use the weapon in combat, but it was still issued in relation to the number of soldiers assigned the weapon's primary task in the unit structure.

If you're interested in how the Panzerfaust was used by the Nazi Army, you have to look at the Table of Organization and Equipment (a US term) for those units to determine the basis of issue.

Changing the allocation can be addressed with alternate estabs, but the more tinkering done inside units on whim, the less historical fidelity for the simulation.

Hope this helps.


_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 106
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/23/2013 11:16:24 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Haven´t yet come to test the new build, although I´d already installed at day of release.

Since supply (distribution) is mentioned oftenly here, I´d like to ask if the small AT weaponry, like Panzerfaust could be somehow seperated from dedicated infantrymen and make them a weapon for all personnell to use and rise stocks to more appropiate levels, without substracting rifle strengths. A stock of 10 (s/b closer to 20-30 at least) an infantry coy, will quickly get it down for emergency resupply requests and thus an unnecessary strain on the supply system.

Now going to give St vith a try with the new build.


If you're looking for historical accuracy, you need to look at the basis of issue for the small AT weaponry at the time it was used in combat.

Military units are around what those who define battle doctrine think to be reasonable for the mission the unit will address in battle. The structure goes down to how many soldiers of the specialized skill (e.g. those primarily assigned close in AT responsibilities) would be assigned to the unit, and how many weapons were necessary to make them effective at their specialty (e.g. one heavy machine gun per two man crew, one AT weapon per AT soldier).

Under duress, any soldier with minimum training could use the weapon in combat, but it was still issued in relation to the number of soldiers assigned the weapon's primary task in the unit structure.

If you're interested in how the Panzerfaust was used by the Nazi Army, you have to look at the Table of Organization and Equipment (a US term) for those units to determine the basis of issue.

Changing the allocation can be addressed with alternate estabs, but the more tinkering done inside units on whim, the less historical fidelity for the simulation.

Hope this helps.



Speaking of bulge battle period and beyond, where the Fausts were rather an abundance weapon and you can´t really count much on official KstN of that time. Can throw some figures, but the main point is that unlike the Zooks, the Fausts weren´t specialst weapons and almost distributed to anybody and his grandma (Volksturm..) from late 44 and onwards. A short instruction, was all that needed to get them employed. Btw, found a couple among Flak unit equipment, few hundred meters from where I live in a forest (dissolvement of army group B event, during last days of Ruhrkessel battle in aprill 45).

Having that low ammo numbers means, that unnecessary emergency resupply requests got triggered, when you can rather assume that the troops have these at hand or at least nearby at the Bn trains and not pulled from a regimental supply depot, far in the back.



_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 107
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/24/2013 1:28:19 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17780
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
I'm OK with increasing the number of fausts, Piats and Bazookas. I agree that historical accounts do indicate that these were carried in larger numbers than officially authorised.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 108
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/24/2013 7:48:14 AM   
starbuck310

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
Knowning the exact amount of ammo in a unit on a hour by hour basis is pretty unrealistic. Resupply was mostly done at night and you could only expect the soldiers to have more than a standard load when in defence. Lets not turn it in to micro maangement of each round. Also what is published about offical rates of supply and consumption are mostly from the staff tables used by planners in HQs.

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 109
UNIT completely stuck - 2/24/2013 11:56:44 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Task Force Brewster. At the top of the pic. I gave it a simple order when it arrived, more or less. You can see the order. This is Spearhead v Reich (no CTDs so far, by the way) . TFB is desperately needed to assist Parker's lot at Baraque de Fraiture. It decided on a start time of 17.05, progressed to where it is now, stopped. There's nothing in the logs for any of the units in the group, except my order to move, recieved at 17.21, interestingly (given it gives the start time for the order as before the time it actually recieved the order, but maybe that's normal). I've surrendered and checked there's no threats that might cause it to replan (I have attack ticked) - there are none. In other words, it's just stopped, no reason given in the logs, and it's been stuck like that for nearly 5 hours.

It's not the first time I've noticed stuck units. I had a para mortar platoon reorging after its drop for four hours.......(I had given it a Move order). Got out of it by issuing orders again. Haven't got a save for that, but I have saves for this, I think. Do you want saves, Dave?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to starbuck310)
Post #: 110
RE: UNIT completely stuck - 2/24/2013 1:10:25 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7934
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I am getting concerned we'll never get this patch signed off now to be honest like I think Jim is. I think if something only happens very rarely it should be left maybe...and just get the things that don't work all the time or fairly often sorted out.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 111
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/24/2013 1:28:59 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 562
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

I'm OK with increasing the number of fausts, Piats and Bazookas. I agree that historical accounts do indicate that these were carried in larger numbers than officially authorised.


I tend urge caution on issuing weapons because I wouldn't like to see the game turn into Dungeons and Dragons.

It's quite conceivable that as the war progressed more weapons than authorized showed up on the battlefield.

When I was more recently working on combat load planning for US Army vehicles, the team would get feedback from our users (soldiers assigned to the program from active units to offer a "field perspective" during design discussions) that they needed more room in vehicles for equipment they'd say "real soldiers" would accumulate outside of the TO&E and basic soldier kit for the types of units the vehicle was being designed to support.

We'd make the TO&E part of he contract because vendors could claim compensation for "government authorized" costs above the budget during progress payment discussions.

So, the engineering solution was to stick with the TO&E.

If there's a desire for more weapons to show up on the battlefield than authorized to units, I'd suggest some form of constraint based on an analogy back into historical production numbers for the weapons (e.g. 1,000,000 produced during the war, 800,000 authorized, potential of up to a 25 percent increase in the ratio of the carried quantity to authorized quantity). Yeah, if a platoon had 40 members, there's potential each member could carry a Panzerfaust in addition to his Mauser, but then some other platoon wouldn't get the authorized quantity after the depot was raided by the first.

If the game mechanics would allow it without software rework (e.g. pick among baseline unit structures in the Estab), it would be ideal for the increased combat weapon load were triggered as a game option (more supply??) at start to keep too much alternate reality (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons) from creeping into the basic game's fidelity.

To increase the quantity the Estab has to be altered anyway. Why not keep duplicates which have "authorized" and "above authorized" available if they can be triggered by game option?

Hope this helps.


_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 112
RE: UNIT completely stuck - 2/24/2013 1:31:38 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Not much point in getting it signed off if it doesn't work in crucial respects. I'm sure Dave would wish to know where things are broke - that's the whole point of issuing it as a public beta. If he doesn't then he can say so - for my part I just present the probs to him, as asked. You want me to shut up, Jason? I'm surprised that you would make such a remark as a response to my posting about a Bn level unit getting completely stuck for hours on end - a clear glitch, and this not, as I said, the only time I noticed this in the last few days. And it doesn't really make sense to talk about things only happening 'rarely' - we've only had the build for a couple of days. I've played maybe four partial games with it - ie; ran things for about ten hours in four games and seen this prob three times. First and second times I left it, third time I posted. What counts as 'rare' when you've had something so short a time? If I play for another 4 days, on that evidence, I could expect over half the games to show this issue - so is that 'rare'? We were asked to feedback and so I'm doing it. You were so irritated with an issue - the footprint/boundary box prob - that you stated you were going to stop playing the thing until it was fixed. I really don't blame you as it's difficult to play the thing at the moment for me too, what with some scenarios crashing every five minutes, and other issues (like the footprint/boundary box thing) a constant feature, but the game is certainly getting better, I think (close combat much better now, for example) and if we all gave up on playing because it wasn't perfect then there would be no feedback about the build.

< Message edited by phoenix -- 2/24/2013 1:36:14 PM >

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 113
RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback - 2/24/2013 2:56:52 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

I'm OK with increasing the number of fausts, Piats and Bazookas. I agree that historical accounts do indicate that these were carried in larger numbers than officially authorised.


I wasn´t necessarily asking for more Inf-AT ammo in the standard ESTAB (I´m doing my own figures for Custom ESTAB, or tweak them in mission editor, depending on given situation/mission setting), rather tried to point to a possible supply network clogging problem, when units/weapon systems with very low initial ammo count (like Fausts), start to trigger emergency supply requests more often.

Like jimcarravallah worked out, some units get more of the usual share, depending upon missions. So a prepared defender would likely collect more, in preparation of a possible armored attack, in sectors favorable to armor, while a moving attacker more likely would have minimum allotments. That´s roughly the base I´m working for my own mission making.

I assume that making weapons like Fausts, non specialist weaponry, is currently not possbile, coding wise. So I´d put that rather on a future wish list.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 114
RE: UNIT completely stuck - 2/24/2013 7:05:15 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3621
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix
It's not the first time I've noticed stuck units ...


When I get a major update, I play each scenario in turn from either side, but I didn't have to go far after this last patch to notice my own stuck units as well as other issues.

In Advance to the Sure, the 317th Regt HQ units simply wouldn't move north to Bourscheid even after I gave it several orders to do so over three days of gameplay; the units had no fatigue, yet I kept getting those pesky "slipping" messages.

Further, I had numerous "application had to close" messages, usually when I tried to give units a line of march over terrrain with the shift key.

I have XP and suspect that some of these issues may have to do with all the .Net "fixes" I get almost monthy from MS, but I see that other players have had units stall, which reminds me of the "halting" issue that was causing so much agita in the HttR remake.

_____________________________

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 phoenix)
Post #: 115
RE: UNIT completely stuck - 2/24/2013 7:31:45 PM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
Ok so, question: what's the behaviour we expect to see with regards to ammo supply/consumption?

Maybe an infantry company can and should be able to shoot through all its rifle ammo in 25 minutes. But clearly WW2 didn't consist of a bunch of 25 minute battles at daybreak, after which everyone sat down and sipped tea until night-time when they'd get another 25 minutes worth of ammo for the next day. So something is off.

Someone explain what should be happening and we can start to test to see how the game state diverges from that.



< Message edited by Alchenar -- 2/24/2013 7:33:10 PM >

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 116
RE: UNIT completely stuck - 2/24/2013 8:48:36 PM   
Ramses


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


In Advance to the Sure, the 317th Regt HQ units simply wouldn't move north to Bourscheid even after I gave it several orders to do so over three days of gameplay; the units had no fatigue, yet I kept getting those pesky "slipping" messages.

Further, I had numerous "application had to close" messages, usually when I tried to give units a line of march over terrrain with the shift key.

I have XP and suspect that some of these issues may have to do with all the .Net "fixes" I get almost monthy from MS, but I see that other players have had units stall, which reminds me of the "halting" issue that was causing so much agita in the HttR remake.


I get the 'slipping' messages as well on my Windows 7 computer




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 117
RE: UNIT completely stuck - 2/24/2013 9:03:54 PM   
Ramses


Posts: 200
Joined: 2/11/2011
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
I have a stalled unit in the 'Battle for the roadblocks' scenario. Gutmann hq has orders to travel to the Wincrange junction to the southwest in order to set up a defensive screen. It just refuses to go there, even when given move orders instead of defend. If you give direct orders to the subunits, they do what they are told. When you tinker with this hq a bit it usually leads to a ctd. Savegame available if wanted.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Ramses -- 2/24/2013 9:33:40 PM >

(in reply to Ramses)
Post #: 118
RE: UNIT completely stuck - 2/24/2013 10:10:09 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17780
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
For me to determine the stalled units issue I need a save. No save...no fix. It's that simple. Send them to support[at]panthergames[dot]com.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Ramses)
Post #: 119
RE: UNIT completely stuck - 2/24/2013 10:12:49 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 621
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline
Before I post this, I need to note..when I post what I have discovered to be a "workaround" to a problem...it is not telling everyone "your problem is not important, just do xxxx to fix it".. My reasons for telling workarounds are more along the line of , sometimes if we know what works to "rig" the problem, perhaps it will help to find what caused it, and the devs can come up with a solution on a permanent basis.
Having said that, I am also getting a LOT of paused units. What has worked around it for me, has been stepping in, and grabbing each unit individually (which pulls it away from its current command structure...hence this may be an issue involved) then, I give it a move mission in the direction I was trying to move or attack with the entire formation. I do this to each unit of the formation, usually a battalion. Then they have usually started moving a few minutes later. When they reach their new destination, I reattach them to their previous HQ, and at that point, it seems to work.

(in reply to Ramses)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: Build 4.4.257 Feedback Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.125