Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs

 
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] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Tech Support >> RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 1/20/2016 7:15:24 AM   
Tejszd

 

Posts: 3413
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
Bump. Another month....

(in reply to Tejszd)
Post #: 31
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 2/16/2016 10:00:41 PM   
CCDrizzt

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 2/13/2016
Status: offline
Hi Steve,

With the following options set in the following way in Campaign.txt file:

# Recycle Disbanded BGs (0 = Never come back, 1 = Return next day)
1
# BGs that start on a friendly depot map can only reform on maps linked to starting map by friendly depots
1
# Maximum distance from starting map a BG can look for a supply depot to reform on (-1 for unlimited)
-1

Forced to disband battlegroups they don't return with the exception of the ones that have started Campaigns/ops in their own big supply depots. In my opinion, this is a bug (a bad bug) because, for example, in TLD they all return with the options above set in that way.
I can understand that in LSA two battlgroups can stay on one map (so there are less possibilities about disband issue), but anyway three or more battlegroups they can't stay in one map, and lose them forever it's anyway too punitive even for cut off battlegroups, especially considering the fact that first option I have listed above is set to 1 (this option should "rule" in this case I'm speaking about.)
Thanks for the attention.

Drizzt

< Message edited by CCDrizzt -- 2/16/2016 11:22:12 PM >

(in reply to Tejszd)
Post #: 32
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 2/18/2016 8:51:56 PM   
SteveMcClaire

 

Posts: 4423
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
The Campaign.txt for LSA doesn't include or support two of the options you're talking about. If you look at the stock game, that section appears as follows:

#########################################################################
# Misc. options / features
#########################################################################
# Recycle Disbanded BGs (0 = Never come back, 1 = Return next day)
0
# Locked BGs (0 = unlocked, 1 = locked) Locked = player can not choose teams
0
# BGs retreat on rout (0 = disband on rout, 1 = retreat on rout)
1
(etc...)

Note that in LSA your BGs can retreat off the map, and as you noted the stacking allows for retreats in most situations, so disbanding is less common. Additionally in LSA if a BG does disband some of its teams will automatically join any nearby BGs from the same parent formation.

Steve

(in reply to CCDrizzt)
Post #: 33
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 2/18/2016 10:32:39 PM   
CCDrizzt

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 2/13/2016
Status: offline
Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reply.
Considering that among the strings you have written only one of them it's one of the three strings I have reported, I ask you: which is the second string doesn't supported by the game? (my second or my third?)

I had viewed the original .txt file (I know how all it's set in the original game), and to be honest I have suspected what you have confirmed now. I don't think it's a good thing to have in campaign.txt string options that don't fully work (for modding reasons): in my opinion, you should consider them as bugged. On the other hand, yes, disbanding issue it's less common in LSA, but when it happens it's too punitive (for example, a mod can be made in a very different way from the org game and for this reason it can suffer more about this disband issue).

I have this question about the manual:
"Battle Groups that retreat off the strategic map will try to re-enter at 0600 during the following day’s strategic turn."
Where they can re-enter? Only in free (and/or occupied?) big supply depot maps of the same side? In the same map where they have been forced to retreat? Anything else? It's important for me to know it because it can change the meaning of some of my testing.
EDIT: another thing: this feature it's valid/it works only for border maps in Grand Campaign, or also in all ops and all other campaigns (in these cases, the outside territory it's represented by the "shadow" stratmap maps). I hope it's the second I have said, but in my tests they never return.

Drizzt

P.S. Some users say/report that they have never seen a battlegroup to return (with options set in a default way): this is the why of my testing about these options.


< Message edited by CCDrizzt -- 2/19/2016 10:47:07 AM >

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)
Post #: 34
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 2/22/2016 7:43:44 PM   
SteveMcClaire

 

Posts: 4423
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
Hi Drizzt,

Each version of Close Combat is designed to support a specific campaign, and thus they do not all support the same features to the same extent. This has been true of every version of CC.

CCLSA does not support either the second or third options you want to use from TLD. LSA behaves as if the second option (BGs that start on a friendly depot map can only reform on maps linked to starting map by friendly depots) is set to false, and thus the distance (third option) is irrelevant.

If you enable BG recycling in LSA, the BG should come back on its original start map IF that map has a major supply depot. Otherwise it should reform on the map closest to its starting map that does have a major supply depot. Note that there also has to be room for the BG to be on that map (i.e. less than 2 friendly BGs already present.)

Retreat off-map in LSA works exactly the same way I described above -- the BG tries to return via it's original entry map IF that map has a major supply depot. Otherwise it should enter from the nearest major supply depot.

To retreat off-map there needs to be an exit VL in the strategic map / BTD files for that side (Axis or Allied off-map exit coding is -3 or -4 as I recall.)

Steve


(in reply to CCDrizzt)
Post #: 35
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 2/22/2016 11:15:11 PM   
CCDrizzt

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 2/13/2016
Status: offline
Hi Steve,

Thanks for the info about my second and third options I had listed. So they don’t work in LSA.

Considering your words, reclying Bgs option instead it should work (good! As I have said, this is the key option about battlegroups return):
You write:“If you enable BG recycling in LSA, the BG should come back on its original start map IF that map has a major supply depot.”
Yes, I confirm, it’s exactly as I had tested.

You write: "Otherwise it should reform on the map closest to its starting map that does have a major supply depot. Note that there also has to be room for the BG to be on that map (i.e. less than 2 friendly BGs already present.)"
About “Closest”: the reform big supply depot map (to be such) it must be also supply route linked (at that moment) with the disbanding battlegroup map or it’s irrelevant? I ask you because in my tests it has never happened this thing, I mean that battlegroups they have never return (and of course there were free rooms in big supply depot maps for Bg to reform on). This is the core of the problem and the main reason of my questions.
Maybe it regards the fact that I have changed the default values of the two options that you have said me that they don’t work, causing in this way a weird behavior: I will try again with these options in the default way and Recycling option set to 1 (but I would be surprised to see them to return: we will see).

You write: “To retreat off-map there needs to be an exit VL in the strategic map / BTD files for that side (Axis or Allied off-map exit coding is -3 or -4 as I recall.)”
Ok, thanks for the info: in TLD I call them entry victory locations (yes: -3 and -4 values) and, if you mean the same thing (as I think), now it’s all clear about this feature. It works only in the maps that have inside them these specific victory locations.

Drizzt


< Message edited by CCDrizzt -- 2/22/2016 11:29:59 PM >

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)
Post #: 36
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 2/24/2016 7:39:36 PM   
CCDrizzt

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 2/13/2016
Status: offline
Hi Steve,

About: "Otherwise it should reform on the map closest to its starting map that does have a major supply depot. Note that there also has to be room for the BG to be on that map (i.e. less than 2 friendly BGs already present.)"
I have tested again this thing for four times (with recycling Bgs option set to 1 and all other options set in a default way): unfortunately, I confirm that battlegroups don't return so this is a bug (the bug I'm speaking about from the beginning).

Regards,
Drizzt

EDIT - P.S. Just for precision, about this option:
# BGs that start on a friendly depot map can only reform on maps linked to starting map by friendly depots
It’s not completely true that it’s not supported by the game: indeed, setting it to 0 (and setting recycling option to 1), all battlegroups return in their starting map position independently by the fact that in their starting map position there is a big supply depot or not.

< Message edited by CCDrizzt -- 2/27/2016 2:16:26 PM >

(in reply to CCDrizzt)
Post #: 37
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 2/29/2016 8:00:28 PM   
SteveMcClaire

 

Posts: 4423
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
CCDrizzt,

You're absolutely correct. I was mistakenly looking at the wrong place in the code when I answered you originally -- I assumed you were quoting contiguous lines of the campaign.txt, and the data about reforming on depots and the distance is much father down the file than the recycle BGs setting. This is what happens when I'm trying to look through six different code bases from years ago.

Sorry about that. I will put this in the bug database to evaluate next time there's work scheduled on the old releases.

Steve


(in reply to CCDrizzt)
Post #: 38
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 2/29/2016 10:31:45 PM   
CCDrizzt

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 2/13/2016
Status: offline
Hi Steve,

Thanks for the confirm. I consider this bug a really bad bug for the gameplay, so I hope it will be fixed soon.

When you say that I’m absolutely correct, you mean also about my P.S. about the following option?
# BGs that start on a friendly depot map can only reform on maps linked to starting map by friendly depots
If yes, this fact maybe it means that also the following option it works in LSA?
# Maximum distance from starting map a BG can look for a supply depot to reform on (-1 for unlimited)

Drizzt

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)
Post #: 39
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/6/2016 2:43:06 AM   
davidss

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline
i realized the recycle option didn't work when set to "1" ... but I didn't know it was due to a bug. Thanks Drizzt for testing this and bringing it to the attention of Matrix.
But since there is no specific plan to correct this bug ... it's probably best to set this option to "0" for any projects you're working on.

< Message edited by davidss -- 3/6/2016 2:45:53 AM >

(in reply to CCDrizzt)
Post #: 40
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/6/2016 5:07:34 PM   
CCDrizzt

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 2/13/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: davidss

i realized the recycle option didn't work when set to "1" ... but I didn't know it was due to a bug. Thanks Drizzt for testing this and bringing it to the attention of Matrix.
But since there is no specific plan to correct this bug ... it's probably best to set this option to "0" for any projects you're working on.

It's not true that it doesn't work. It works only partially as I have written: only Bgs that start a campaign/operation on their own big supply depots, with recycling option set to 1 they all return.
Having said this, I had already finished to speak about this bad bug, so why you write here only to say me to give up? It has no sense for me (I don't have insisted without reasons and I have spoken with Steve with courtesy): probably you don't know it, but there are mods and upcoming mods that already need this correction, that's all. For sure if many users will post like you, bugs they will be never resolved.

Drizzt

< Message edited by CCDrizzt -- 3/6/2016 5:14:14 PM >

(in reply to davidss)
Post #: 41
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/6/2016 9:30:35 PM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline
relax CCDrizzt. he didn't say give up. he said " But since there is no specific plan to correct this bug " AND there isn't a specific plan...as matrix said they would look at it and " evaluate next time there's work scheduled on the old releases."
that could and has been never in a lot of cases. were still waiting years later for stuff to be updated and FIXED or resolved.
many of us...including me ALOT ... post stuff to try and get issues fixed. we all try and do our bit. but don't hold your breath, matrix has moved on to another game and this is an ongoing battle with them.

also...he thanked you for bringing it to matrix's attention. you did some good work here, testing etc....SO ???????

< Message edited by STIENER -- 3/6/2016 9:33:38 PM >

(in reply to CCDrizzt)
Post #: 42
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/6/2016 10:14:27 PM   
davidss

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline
Hi Drizzt,
sorry, I wasn't trying to discourage you.

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 43
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/6/2016 11:16:29 PM   
CCDrizzt

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 2/13/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: davidss

Hi Drizzt,
sorry, I wasn't trying to discourage you.


Are you crewman? I ask you because I have seen that Steiner has replied for you. If you are Crewman, your previous post now it has more sense.
Anyway trust me, it's all ok for me: I have just written what I think, but of course I'm not angry with you.

Drizzt

(in reply to davidss)
Post #: 44
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/6/2016 11:26:48 PM   
CCDrizzt

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 2/13/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

relax CCDrizzt. he didn't say give up. he said " But since there is no specific plan to correct this bug " AND there isn't a specific plan...as matrix said they would look at it and " evaluate next time there's work scheduled on the old releases."
that could and has been never in a lot of cases. were still waiting years later for stuff to be updated and FIXED or resolved.
many of us...including me ALOT ... post stuff to try and get issues fixed. we all try and do our bit. but don't hold your breath, matrix has moved on to another game and this is an ongoing battle with them.

also...he thanked you for bringing it to matrix's attention. you did some good work here, testing etc....SO ???????

I'm completely relaxed. I have just written what I think with a "clean intent": I don't use emoticons so sometime it's difficult to understand the spirit of some posts. Your last question (so????) it has simply no sense for me: you can try to read again my post with a spirit "less prevented" and you will see by yourself that there is nothing of bad in my post.

Drizzt

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 45
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/7/2016 1:15:00 AM   
davidss

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline
Hi Drizzt,
Yes, I am crewman at the Close Combat Series forum (also previously known as GameRat).
When I first figured out that Recycle BG's didn't work as I expected, I was disappointed. But I decided to continue work on the GJS update and be content with how the game is currently functioning.
I set this option to "0" ... in case it caused unexpected problems when set at "1".

I also removed Air Support, because at times, I think it causes the game to crash.

I also hope the Recycle BG's option gets fixed in a future patch. Steve has always been helpful to me, and he has released lots of good patches in the past. One of my favorites is his new vehicle path finding update.

I wish you good success with your modding projects :)

(in reply to CCDrizzt)
Post #: 46
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/7/2016 6:28:51 PM   
Stwa


Posts: 484
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline
Bump. Another month.... [Great Thread ]

(in reply to davidss)
Post #: 47
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/7/2016 8:48:10 PM   
CCDrizzt

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 2/13/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: davidss

Hi Drizzt,
Yes, I am crewman at the Close Combat Series forum (also previously known as GameRat).
When I first figured out that Recycle BG's didn't work as I expected, I was disappointed. But I decided to continue work on the GJS update and be content with how the game is currently functioning.
I set this option to "0" ... in case it caused unexpected problems when set at "1".

I also removed Air Support, because at times, I think it causes the game to crash.

I also hope the Recycle BG's option gets fixed in a future patch. Steve has always been helpful to me, and he has released lots of good patches in the past. One of my favorites is his new vehicle path finding update.

I wish you good success with your modding projects :)

Thanks David!
Yes, for now it's better to set recycling option to 0.
Considering the fact that CC The Bloody firt should be ready in the next months, I really hope that there will be updates for old CC titles in the near future. For example, also the fact that in TLD the IA never assigns mortar/arty/air support to its battlegroups during campaigns/ops it's a really bad bug (and I don't remember if it's present also in WAR).

Drizzt

(in reply to davidss)
Post #: 48
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/8/2016 3:01:36 AM   
Tejszd

 

Posts: 3413
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Stwa

Bump. Another month.... [Great Thread ]


Thanks Stwa! The more who join in and do this the better...

(in reply to Stwa)
Post #: 49
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/31/2016 7:43:41 PM   
davidss

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline
Recycle BG option defect (bug) of BG's not being able to recycle back to the Strategic map after disbandment undermines the playability of LSA GJS 7.3 Grand Campaign, in my opinion. Unfortunate ...




< Message edited by davidss -- 4/1/2016 3:34:57 AM >

(in reply to Tejszd)
Post #: 50
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 3/31/2016 10:21:17 PM   
mooxe


Posts: 313
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline
From the LSA manual...

quote:

17.8 DISBANDING
Battle Groups are disbanded whenever they are forced to leave a map, and can’t retreat, either
through loss of victory locations or from morale failure. A disbanded Battle Group becomes
unavailable for the reminder of a campaign or operation.
However, some teams/units from a
disbanded Battle Group may be absorbed into nearby friendly Battle Groups as long as they are
under the same parent formation.



So this is conflicting with....


quote:

15.3 MORALE FAILURE
If a Battle Group is pushed off of a map, and there is an unoccupied, friendly map that it can
move to, the Battle Group will retreat to the available map. If the Battle Group is able to retreat
it is unable to move next turn as it regroups. If it cannot retreat, it is disbanded. If the Battle
Group was still in supply when it was disbanded, there is a 75% chance that each team makes
it back to be added to the Battle Group ‘s Forcepool.



From the CC5 manual. I only paste this because I assume there's existing code that made it from CC5 to LSA.

quote:

If a Battle Group voluntarily disbands while it is out of supply, it loses all of its vehicles,
and 50% of its infantry units are captured before they return to the group’s supply depot.
If an unsupplied Battle Group is forced to disband involuntarily, because it is forced off a
map, it loses all of its vehicles, then 75% of its infantry units are captured. This can be a
crippling loss.


The disband penalties of out of supply units in CC5 never applied, bugged. Disbanding has always been a mystery in Close Combat. Disbanding either doesn't work, partly works, and there's no easy way to verify the percentages when it does work. LSA further mystifies it within section 17.8 by using the words "some," "may" and "nearby." Something for the future to iron out...

< Message edited by mooxe -- 3/31/2016 10:26:42 PM >


_____________________________

Close Combat Series

CCS on Youtube

Join Discord for tech support and online games.

(in reply to davidss)
Post #: 51
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 4/3/2016 7:57:31 AM   
davidss

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline
Regarding LSA units of a disbanded BG being absorbed into other friendly BG's:

During a LSA GJS 7.3 Grand Campaign, two Allied BG's were disbanded.
From what I can see, it seems all remaining units from both BG's, and including future reinforcements ... where absorbed into one BG.
End result is similar to merging three BG's into one.

below link has more info:

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=83457#83457



< Message edited by davidss -- 4/3/2016 7:59:54 AM >

(in reply to mooxe)
Post #: 52
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 4/5/2016 12:22:06 AM   
SteveMcClaire

 

Posts: 4423
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
I suspect the confusion over disbanding is the distinction between teams in the Battlegroup and teams in the Forcepool. The Battlegroup teams are ONLY the ~15 teams that you have active. The rest of the teams available are part of the Forcepool. This is the way disbanding worked in the original CC4/5. In Wacht am Rhein (I believe it was) a reduction to the Forcepool teams was added for disbanding, though the loss percentage was lower for this (I think 20%, modified by difficulty.)

LSA BGs that disband are gone, though as Davidss noted the survivors are sort of 'auto-merged' into nearby friendly BGs (though they have to have the same parent formation, if I recall correctly.)

Steve

(in reply to davidss)
Post #: 53
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 4/5/2016 12:34:24 AM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline
Mooxe
well 15.3 morale failure doesn't apply in this case as were playing with it OFF, but your right 17.8 doesn't appear to work as it should. for sure the disbanded units are not absorbed by the parent formation in this case.
in my GC's in stock LSA we didn't have any BG's disband that I remember as we played with morale ON as the game is meant to be played, so I don't no if things work as they should in LSA.

steve...can you look into this rather large issue and perhaps fix it in the future? the disband feature and distribution of units and the recycle back after disband if turned ON.

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)
Post #: 54
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 4/5/2016 12:39:26 AM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline
to clarify...the disbanded BG's were Canadian and they were absorbed into a brit BG.
looks like the future reinforcments might have been added NOW too....which doesn't make any sense to me.

so steve then if I understand what your saying then were going to see the majority of the disbanded BG's FORCE POOL absorbed into another BG not the active teams in the force pool.

< Message edited by STIENER -- 4/5/2016 12:47:45 AM >

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 55
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 4/5/2016 12:50:36 AM   
SteveMcClaire

 

Posts: 4423
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
Hi Steiner,

Yes - most of the Battlegroup's active teams will be lost -- typically a forced disband is because you've lost a battle rather badly, and this usually means you don't have many active teams left in any case. Most of the Forcepool teams will be absorbed into friendly BGs that can be reached from where the BG was lost. From memory I believe the BGs had to be on the same map or in an adjacent map to absorb teams from the disbanded BG.

I am not sure what specific problem you're asking me to look into? I don't see anyone reporting a bug with disbanding and absorbing teams in this thread? Or are you saying that you have turned the 'Recycle BGs' switch ON in campaign.txt? If you do this them the original BG remains in existence, and no teams are absorbed by other friendly BGs. They're two different mechanisms.

Steve

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 56
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 4/5/2016 1:02:28 AM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline
yikes....see above about the disband / recycle option being turned on or off. theres a bug I think. when its turned ON the bg's don't recycle back.

we do NOT have that function ON in our GC. we are playing with morale OFF also. so we expect the BG's to disband in the right circumstances. BUT from what I can see right now...
1]the disbanded BG's were Canadian and they were absorbed into a brit BG.so NOT the parent formation as the manual states. [ BUG ]
2] the were absorbed 2 to 3 maps away from where they were disbanded. [ BUG? }
3] they include FUTURE reinforcments as well.. NOW when they were absorbed [ BUG? ]
4] there was a Canadian BG in the next map beside the disbanded Canadian BG"S that didn't get any of the canadian disbanded units [ BUG? ]


< Message edited by STIENER -- 4/5/2016 1:29:46 AM >

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)
Post #: 57
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 4/5/2016 5:44:08 AM   
davidss

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline
To clarify:
LSA GJS 7.3 has the Recycle BG's option set to "0".
I would prefer disbanded BG's recycle back to the Strategic map, but when testing this option set to "1" ... it was found to not function correctly.
Therefore, it was set to "0" in order to avoid any unknown issues.

The above mentioned Grand Campaign Steiner and I are playing has Morale "Off".

Two Allied BG's were disbanded at Hermanville (7/3 CDN and 8/3 CDN). During this battle German forces captured all victory locations ... causing both BG's on that map to disband.
The next turn, large amounts of units were found in 56/50 Div ... located on Bayeux map (three maps away) ... and is the frontline BG on this map.
There was another Canadian BG (9/3 CDN) two maps away at Thaon, but it was reserve BG.
Also, Bayeux is first battle of next turn after disbandment of those two BG's.

It appears as if future reinforcements are included in units that were absorbed into 56/50 Div.

I personally don't have a problem with where units from the disbanded BG's are placed ... as long as they shown up somewhere.

< Message edited by davidss -- 4/5/2016 6:35:30 PM >

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 58
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 4/5/2016 9:23:38 AM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline
"There was another Canadian BG (9/3 CDN) two maps away at Thaon, but it was reserve BG."

Canadian BG (9/3 CDN) was ONE map away at Thaon. Thaon is beside hermanville.


(in reply to davidss)
Post #: 59
RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs - 4/5/2016 9:34:11 AM   
davidss

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

"There was another Canadian BG (9/3 CDN) two maps away at Thaon, but it was reserve BG."

Canadian BG (9/3 CDN) was ONE map away at Thaon. Thaon is beside hermanville.



Yes, Thaon is beside ... but you blocked the Hermanville VL at Thaon with your incoming BG. That makes the connection two maps away with open VLs.

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Tech Support >> RE: LSA Outstanding Bugs 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

0.365