Current significant bugs in UV v2.20 (that I know of)...

Apollo11 · Post by **Apollo11** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 2:39 pm

Hi all,

I wrote similar list for v1.30 and v1.40 and now here is my v2.20 list...

#1
Air-to-Ground strafing (at 100ft) from fighter-bombers still appears to kill
many hundreds of enemy ground troops.

#2
Air-to-ground bombing from ordinary bombers (at higher altitudes) still
appears to kill many hundreds of enemy ground troops.

#3
Both air-to-Ground strafing (at 100ft) from fighter-bombers and air-to-ground
bombing from ordinary bombers (at higher altitudes) still appear to over
concentrate on one unit at target HEX (for attack-after-attack day-after-day).

I know that targeted unit in HEX (when there are many units present) should
first be AAA unit and then the unit with greatest assault value - but many
many times just one week unit is attacked time-after-time and all other units
in that HEX are simply ignored.

I have seen my bombers/fighter-bombers attack same weak remnant of some AAA
unit and completely ignoring all other enemy units in attacked HEX
time-after-time.

I have also seen my bombers/fighter-bombers attack same weak remnant of some
ground unit and completely ignoring all other enemy units in attacked HEX
time-after-time.

IMHO, there must be some bug creeping in code here.

#4
Level bomber accuracy vs. moving ships (non docked) from high altitude.

Many people reported that it still appears that level bombers show too high
accuracy vs. moving ships (non docked). Even at altitudes of 6000ft many times
fast moving ships (like CVs/BBs/CAs) and small fast moving ships (like DDs)
appear to be targeted and hit without much trouble.

I wonder if UV game engine takes into account the time the bombs travel
towards surface and the speed of targeted ship that moves to evade.

The 6000ft is almost 2000m (2km) and it takes a long time for bombs to travel
down to surface and, at the same time, the target is moving at high speed (30
knots).

The attacking aircraft are also targeting moving targets and I am not aware of
predicting bombsights for moving targets (all bombing sights from level
bombers are meant to calculate/predict impact on unmovable targets).

IMHO, the chance of high flying level bombers vs. moving ships (even slow APs
at 10 knots) should be minimal and one-in-a-million occurrences just like
history showed us.

Can Matrix/2By please comment on this?

Keep up fantastic work and thanks in advance!!!

Leo "Apollo11"

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 4:25 pm

1, 2 # 4 - Matrix will have to respond to these.

#3 - This is a know problem and I plan on pushing for this to be corrected. From my testing I have noticed that once a unit is targeted it stays targeted. It will be bombed until its fatigue reaches 100% at which time ground bombing comes to a halt. When the target has recovered its fatigue, bombing resumes.

A workaround for this is to target airfields and ports, I'm not sure but I think the personal loses are spread around the units.

Rick

Apollo11 · Post by **Apollo11** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 7:07 pm

Hi all,

Originally posted by Kid
1, 2 # 4 - Matrix will have to respond to these.

#3 - This is a know problem and I plan on pushing for this to be corrected. From my testing I have noticed that once a unit is targeted it stays targeted. It will be bombed until its fatigue reaches 100% at which time ground bombing comes to a halt. When the target has recovered its fatigue, bombing resumes.

A workaround for this is to target airfields and ports, I'm not sure but I think the personal loses are spread around the units.

Rick

Thanks for info Rick!

Leo "Apollo11"

Apollo11 · Post by **Apollo11** » Mon Jan 06, 2003 8:19 pm

Shameless BUMP...

Piiska · Post by **Piiska** » Mon Jan 06, 2003 8:57 pm

Hi Apollo. Thanks for this concentrated thread. The issues 1,2,3 and 4 are exactly the ones I as well consider the last remaining flaws in the UV combat model. Hopefully Matrix releases at least one more patch to correct these ones.

Apollo11 · Post by **Apollo11** » Mon Jan 06, 2003 10:16 pm

Hi all,

Opps... I forgot one other remaining issue/bug...

#5
In current (and all previous versions) UV it is impossible to get info on
enemy ships that are docked in enemy port.

Whatever you do ("Naval Search" and/or "Recon") you can't get this info.

Nor your submarines in such port HEXes report to you on enemy shipping there.

Leo "Apollo11"

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Mon Jan 06, 2003 10:29 pm

Originally posted by Apollo11
Hi all,

Opps... I forgot one other remaining issue/bug...

#5
In current (and all previous versions) UV it is impossible to get info on
enemy ships that are docked in enemy port.

Whatever you do ("Naval Search" and/or "Recon") you can't get this info.

Nor your submarines in such port HEXes report to you on enemy shipping there.

Leo "Apollo11"

I'll add it to the list.

Rick

Apollo11 · Post by **Apollo11** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 9:42 pm

Hi all,

Another shameless BUMP...

In thread "Who needs B-17s when you have the P-70A???":

showthread.php?threadid=30932

several UV players reported _HUGE_ A2G looses.

Can Matrix/2By3 please confirm this as bug?

Leo "Apollo11"

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 9:49 pm

Ok, I'll add #1 to the list and see what the programmer has to say.

Rick

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 12:00 am

Originally posted by Apollo11
#4
Level bomber accuracy vs. moving ships (non docked) from high altitude.

Many people reported that it still appears that level bombers show too high
accuracy vs. moving ships (non docked). Even at altitudes of 6000ft many times
fast moving ships (like CVs/BBs/CAs) and small fast moving ships (like DDs)
appear to be targeted and hit without much trouble.

I wonder if UV game engine takes into account the time the bombs travel
towards surface and the speed of targeted ship that moves to evade.

The 6000ft is almost 2000m (2km) and it takes a long time for bombs to travel
down to surface and, at the same time, the target is moving at high speed (30
knots).

The attacking aircraft are also targeting moving targets and I am not aware of
predicting bombsights for moving targets (all bombing sights from level
bombers are meant to calculate/predict impact on unmovable targets).

IMHO, the chance of high flying level bombers vs. moving ships (even slow APs
at 10 knots) should be minimal and one-in-a-million occurrences just like
history showed us.

The chance of hitting a moving ship should decrease to a meaningless value as the attack altitude increases.

IIRC the tactic for the ships was to crank up to full speed then wait until they saw the bombs released then crank the rudder hard over.
This works because the bomber has to assume that the ship will either go straight turn port or starboard and at a particular speed so that the bombs can arrive at the surface in the same place as the ship and at the same time.
A very very difficult thing to do, and it gets harder the higher the bomber is.
The few times that a ship was hit was when enough bombs were dropped that the ship could not get out of the pattern (shotgun) or when the ship was unaware of the bomber and was moving in a straight line at a constant speed. Or a really bad day for the ship (the bomber blew his bomb run and accidentally dropped the bomb in the right place).

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 2:25 am

Please add transport/fast transport troop loading to the queue as a bug that needs to be fixed up.

Loading ships should attempt to equally spread out the load across the available ships, not stuff the first couple to where people are hanging off the sides and leave others almost completely empty.

Due to this situation, especially with Fast Transports, capacity is either wasted or load/unload times are dramatically increased for nothing.

Perfect example of this:

Scenario 19, Allies.

Take all ships capable of a Fast Transport mission and form them into 1 TF. This shows a capacity of 5300

Send this TF to pick up the 810th Engineer Aviation Battalian located at Basse-Poya. This unit has a load cost of 1400.

Let the turn run. You'll find you picked up almost none of the unit!

Take the exact same ships and split them up into single ship Fast Transport TF's and replicate the orders. Run the turn. Not only will you have the entire unit loaded, you'll find some ships are completely empty because there was nothing left to pick up when they had their turn.

The fact that individual ships have a different capacity collectively then the exact same ships placed in a TF given the exact same orders pretty much makes it a bug. Two identical things should produce the same results.

The math routine that is doing the loading needs to be adjusted to not load things sequentially (which is what it would seem to be doing) but instead load/unload in parallel. I have no idea how complicated a change this is, but unless it is made, we are forced to micromanage individual assests to get proper value out of them. Currently, the only way to do this is to use many single ship TF's which goes against the concept of this being a higher level strategy game.

With a AK unload rate of 600 onto a beach, I want to load a unit spread out across enough AK's so the troops come off in 1 day. Putting extra tranports into the TF to ensure that the troops are within the < 600 range and the supplies take up the rest of the space (coming off slower over the next day or so) should be the way the program deals with it. As it is now, the first couple ships fill with troops and the rest carry supplies.

Another example of where things go wrong is loading multiple units into a TF. One puts in some large ships and some small ships. Mathwise, it fits with tons of room to spare because in your mind, you allocate small ships for the small units and big ships for the large unit. First thing you know, the load master goes and sticks the big unit on the small ships, blowing up your plans and making you require additional ships due to the one unit per ship rule.

Since much of this type of game is about logistics, it seems to me that this part of the game must allow us the most in the way of being flexible. What I find is that it is the number one reason that I have to save & reload due to these kinds of mistakes being made. The fact that Operational Points are used instantly when trying to sort out tranport related tasks means there is no undo button, yet it is the one thing that REALLY needs an undo button.

These few things would really help to streamline supply & transport, which is such a major part of this game and your followons. It's a great game already and you folks seem to want to make it better. Here's hoping you like my ideas

Veldor · Post by **Veldor** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 10:13 am

Don't know if anyone else has thought to try this but to avoid the Fast Transport problem (where sometimes they load next to no troops and take off etc).. I take advantage of the "bug" where when you cancel loading it doesn't "zero" out your load. I noticed if I cancel, load, cancel, load, etc.. I eventually show the whole unit loaded "say a Jap 821 naval garrison unit on 850 worth of fast transport"... Ive used this tactic a couple times and seemed to work out with the entire unit being transported each time...

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 4:22 pm

Originally posted by Veldor
Don't know if anyone else has thought to try this but to avoid the Fast Transport problem (where sometimes they load next to no troops and take off etc).. I take advantage of the "bug" where when you cancel loading it doesn't "zero" out your load. I noticed if I cancel, load, cancel, load, etc.. I eventually show the whole unit loaded "say a Jap 821 naval garrison unit on 850 worth of fast transport"... Ive used this tactic a couple times and seemed to work out with the entire unit being transported each time...

Does this only work with fast transports or does it work with normal transport TFs as well? We thought we fixed that.

Rick

Apollo11 · Post by **Apollo11** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 9:51 pm

Hi all,

Originally posted by Kid
Does this only work with fast transports or does it work with normal transport TFs as well? We thought we fixed that.

Rick

I thought that this exploatation bug was fixed long ago (around v1.4 if I remember correctly)...

If it is back that's bad news...

Leo "Apollo11"

Veldor · Post by **Veldor** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:34 am

I haven't tried it with regular transports but it does work on fast transports. It doesn't seem like an "exploitation bug" to me in regards to fast transports as its simply allowing you to fully load what should load in one turn anyway, right?

CapAndGown · Post by **CapAndGown** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:49 am

I just want to chime in with Mr Frag: The transport load routine is busticated nine ways to Sunday. I have sent a file off to Ross to demonstrate some of these problems.

I think, at heart, the program needs to stop adding in transports when there are not enough present (and even when there are enough present :rolleyes: ) to load the requested units. This is leading to all kinds of bugs including, but not limited to: loading the enemy's troops, not loading your own troops, adding in transports when they are not needed, reporting a unit as loading then when you click on the TF again finding it is not loading, and (most bizarely) when things go really wrong, finding a bunch of the unit fragments you tried to load show up on the ground reenforcement display!

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:33 pm

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
I just want to chime in with Mr Frag: The transport load routine is busticated nine ways to Sunday. I have sent a file off to Ross to demonstrate some of these problems.

I think, at heart, the program needs to stop adding in transports when there are not enough present (and even when there are enough present :rolleyes: ) to load the requested units. This is leading to all kinds of bugs including, but not limited to: loading the enemy's troops, not loading your own troops, adding in transports when they are not needed, reporting a unit as loading then when you click on the TF again finding it is not loading, and (most bizarely) when things go really wrong, finding a bunch of the unit fragments you tried to load show up on the ground reenforcement display!

I will add transport problems to the list.

Rick

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:35 pm

Originally posted by Veldor
I haven't tried it with regular transports but it does work on fast transports. It doesn't seem like an "exploitation bug" to me in regards to fast transports as its simply allowing you to fully load what should load in one turn anyway, right?

Point taken as long as it ONLY works that way with fast transports. I'll check it out.

Rick

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:44 pm

Originally posted by Apollo11

#2
Air-to-ground bombing from ordinary bombers (at higher altitudes) still
appears to kill many hundreds of enemy ground troops.

I can't say that I see this probelm in any of the eight PBEMs that I am playing.....20 to 30 LRBs usually kill anywhere from 40 to 180 enemy troops in a ground attack mission @ 6000 feet.

DoomedMantis · Post by **DoomedMantis** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:22 pm

I have seen massive losses caused by Allied bombers on IJN troops, even with just a few bombers and actual hits on base as well, but have done some preliminary checking and my troops didnt seem that bad off, definetely not as bad as I would have thought from the shelacking the FOW report gave. Might want to check actual losses vs reported losses.

But then again as a rebutal, in games started before 2.20, the losses are actually a lot higher than games started after 2.20 in actual terms from observation. Note I have not tested this, only rough guestimates. I will watch it more closely from now on though.