Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.02 Public Beta (Updated)

[Tanaka0]

After reading the good impute regarding the beta patch here in the topic, went ahead and finally bough the game. Just finished my first campaign and I really enjoyed it.  As a “veteran” from original Atomic collection, obviously I see much has changed improved since then.[;)]
  [blockquote]Like one of the previews posters, I too finished the Allied campaign at the end of the 3rd day by occupying the all campaign map and like him I too got the mixed-up video at the end. Played with Elite settings for me (Allies), Green for the AI (Axis) but most importantly, removed the battle ending condition due to force moral getting too low (makes it easier to destroy AI KG).

[/blockquote] Thumbs up and please do continue to improve the series I should be around to buy them [8D]

Btw, in my view, in the day & age of good looking & 3D, continue to improve the strategic aspects of the series and where these series real excel in my view:  The personal touch (those things who makes us want to keep that “funny name” guy alive the all campaign). 

Just a final note before I go start my (Elite) Axis campaign (this time with force moral rules), the guys who did the Dutch voices must have had a blast; first time I heard them, I was like “What?, who is scramming inside the toilet?”, by the 3rd battle with them, I was eager to battle “these Netherlanders” just to hear those battle scream/noises… priceless! [:D]

Cheers,

[7A_Woulf]

A priceless feeling to give my tanks their Move-orders, focus on the rest of the battle and then return to them when they are in place (or in trouble when the Evil Enemy are firing at them...) -No more babysitting! [:)]

GREAT WORK guys!!

[tigercub]

I think it is great work but its the sort of work that should have been done before the game was SOLD to us.

[final_drive]

First of all thanks for all the nice work put into LSA.

I like LSA's innovation of giving the possibility to combine two BGs onto one map a lot. However, I don't see the need why one BG has to be defined as 'frontline', and the other as 'reserve' when filling up the BG Active Roster.

As it is working now, the reserve BG adds little team slots with little BG points to the overall battlegroup screen. Especially in the following cases, the effect of combining battlegroups doesn't live up to expectations. Firstly, when combining two different battlegroups entering a map from different entry points: in this case (as in the others) the supporting BG can usually field a very little amount of (cheap) teams, which here doesn't feel right if the feature is intended to simulate some kind of flanking movement. Secondly, when combining two battlegroups of a different type, eg. an armor BG with an infantry BG, one just cannot add any significant amount of armor to an infantry BG and vice versa (this is a pity for any mods which would want to recreate lower echelon BGs on the strategic map, whereby a BG represents for instance a pure suport battalion or company, to be combined with pure infantry BGs).

What counterarguments would there be against a slightly different approach whereby two combined battlegroups are considered equal? Combining them on the Stratmap would just mean that in the Active Roster teams can be recruited from both the respective forcepools. The total amount of points to be spent would be the average amount of the separate BGs. The overall amount of slots available in the Active Roster would be the average of both individual BG's amount of slots, with no restriction at all on the amount of slots that are actually filled up by the reserve BG.

It's an idea and I can imagine that there are other gameplay reasons for which the distinction between a frontline BG and reserve should be kept in some way, but the ability to draw more teams from the reserve BG would be welcomed. Any further insight?

[Andrew Loveridge]

Hello again,

We have an updated version of this Beta, v5.60.021beta now available in the Members Club. This replaces .02 beta, and addresses much of the feedback we received. Are plan is to make this official next week, but thought we would have the Members look at it one more time before doing that. Thank you for all your input! Here is a list of additional changes;

• Grand Campaign: Added German major supply depot on Helmond map.
• 506.s.Pz.Abt. no longer gets more starting purchase points on Elite than on Veteran.
• Fixed extra team(s) could be assigned to a BG when it returned after retreating off the map.
• Fixed a case of soldier getting into circular move along the side of a long, linear obstacle.
• Fixed a case of soldier getting stuck behind an obstacle right at the map edge.
• Fixed last survivor on a team could capture terrain when routed.
• Timer and force morale now show up when viewing Overview screen.
• Scenario Editor no longer shows the wrong battle group name in the top banner when you clicked on or very close to the diamond rectangle.
• Fixed case where incorrect end game video could be shown when game ends on the Strategic screen.
• Fixed case where extra Victory Location could be awarded to opposing side when one side switched front line battle groups.
• Reduced chance of a gun damage result for non-penetrating hits on vehicles.
• Fixed crash with custom scenario on Ravenstein map when no Allied entry zone was set.
• Fixed case where a bridge could become primed for demolition when Axis captured a single bridge Victory Location.
• Scenario Editor "Battle Group Info" now reflects reinforcements that will arrive in the battle group's force pool based on turn currently selected.
• Reduced gun damage and immobilize chance for grenades versus vehicles with higher armor.
• Reduce soldier's likelihood of throwing grenades at vehicles outside of close assault situation.
• Reduced rating of anti-vehicle SP ammo (i.e. APDS) vs. infantry and terrain, so it is not used unless all other ammo is gone.
• “Under repair” bridge status now cleared correctly after movement resolution when full supply is lost and the bridge is uncontested.
• Battle Group Screen: Removing a team (returning it to the Force Pool) removes the surviving team members as well, rather than re-distributing them to bring other teams up to strength. Teams that are automatically removed due to excessive casualties (immediately post-battle) still re-distribute their personnel to fill out other understrength teams.
  
  WEAPONS.TXT
• Removed incorrect blast effect from 17pdr SP (APDS) ammo
• Corrected 17pdr AP penetration at point blank range.
• Corrected base accuracy for 3.7cm Pak HEAT round.
  
  FPOOLS.TXT
• Added header fields to control BG slot scaling.
  
  BGROUPS.TXT
• Modified KG Knaust default slot types so the AI will select tanks by default.

[/ul]

[Tejszd]

Great to see more bugs being eliminated....

Also, thank you for the mod maker enhancement;

# FPOOLS.TXT
# Added header fields to control BG slot scaling.

[e_barkmann]

Well, I relented and bought the bloody thing

Boot camp is broken in v5.60.021beta. CTD's abound - try selecting a boot camp tutorial and you'll be back to the desktop pronto.

cheers Chris

[berndn]

Monitor resolution 1600x1050

I checked Bootcamp too and with v5.60.021beta every boot camp mission start results in a CTD

With an ATI card with 1280x1024 and an Intel graphic chipset with 1600x1050 the small messages in battle are messed up. The last message is displayed as well as the number of messages but the scroll window above stays empty. With my intel chipset (it's a notebook) I can see the messages but it seems to be 'erased' by a new refresh/layer. With my ATI card I can see them (history of messages) by minimizing and restore. But only until the next message clears history window seen messages.

[Tejszd]

For the messages, a workaround until its fixed, zoom out and back in. It seems to work fine after that.

[berndn]

Thanks for the tip. It's unhandy because I use the history stuff if to much is happening at the same time to locate enemy contacts and to keep my soldiers from assaulting a spot instead of them going back into cover

As it's a more or less public beta I think feedback is important?

And I know that some AT guns from the germans are where they belonged to but could this be changed for the static BGs to random? If I know where the guns are it's more or less easy to avoid them or to destroy/suppress them.



And thanks for working on it to get rid of bugs and adding some more stuff to it.

[RD Oddball]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

Well, I relented and bought the bloody thing

Boot camp is broken in v5.60.021beta. CTD's abound - try selecting a boot camp tutorial and you'll be back to the desktop pronto.

cheers Chris

Thanks for your purchase Chris.

We'll look at the bootcamp. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[RD Oddball]

ORIGINAL: berndn

As it's a more or less public beta I think feedback is important?

Absolutely! Even though we do our own testing as thoroughly as our testers systems and availability will allow we could never hope to assemble a testing team that matches the broad cross-section of machine combinations, OS settings and program usage that having a public beta testing program allows. It's the same reason why other developers use the same approach. Of course you know that with your background in programming. But I'm sure others might benefit from knowing this.

I'll pass your input about the moveable historical AT guns for static BG's along and we'll give it some consideration. Since the guns aren't really a part of any strategic echelon but instead historical fixed installations that had an impact on the operation I'm not sure what can be done. Implying they're attached to a strategic BG is against the intent of this feature.

[berndn]

As for moveable AT guns in historical fixed installations. I believe it would be good for the AI as germans to freely choose where to deploy them. Reason: We can place our men ahistorical too and move ahistorical.

Nothing to worry about to much

[RD Oddball]

Understood. In context of your intent for suggesting it, it's a good idea. Something for us to keep in mind.

[topper6]

First, thank you for yet another update to this game.

I also have noticed the battle-messages disappearing, but just hit the up-arrow in the bottom of the message field twice, and the messages re-appear.

Also, i noticed the fastest runner ever in the game. A had a 60mm mortar team, american, where i had two guys left, a gunner and one assistant. The gunner was injured but when i ordered move fast i have never seen such a speed before. Was quite funny to see. He ran half the map in like 40-50 secs , as a gunner also! .

[e_barkmann]

OK a couple of observations after a few mins of play.

Sound queue 'wir sind under beschuss' is playing a lot but I am playing as the Americans. Should I normally be hearing this?

In the battle message section it indicates I've just taken a victory location when in reality, I've just lost it.

[topper6]

A thought and suggestion. When you are playing the game, could you not put the "Allies attacking, Meeting engagement, Axis attacking"-screen BEFORE the screen where you select your troops, so you know if you are selecting for offensive troops or defensive ones?

Regards, Henrik.

[RD Oddball]

Good suggestion Henrik. Would help folks who could not remember the moves they made on the strategic screen.

Chris we'll look at what you're reporting. Are those two separate issues or are they happening together for you? i.e. you hear that cue as you're losing a VL? It's not uncommon to hear some of the other sides stress queues. That's supposed to be happening to a degree but I'm not sure exactly the rules circumstances that determine when. Would have to ask about that. But that queue should not be heard when you lose a VL as allies. The text is not displaying correctly regardless.

[e_barkmann]

Are those two separate issues or are they happening together for you? i.e. you hear that cue as you're losing a VL?

separate issues.

[RD Oddball]

Thanks. My German isn't very good and assuming yours is that looks like one of the combat stress queues I'd mentioned. I'll put in a report for the other.