Question re THREATS

[Phoenix100]

I think you might be onto something, Harry. I just realised this morning that since I always run the game with Game Booster 3 on I might already be running without the virus checker (or part of it). So I ran the experiment twice just now without using Game Booster and noticed atrocious ten minute (game time) delays between the unit reporting it was firing (either in the log, or on the counter, or in the side bar) and the depletion of any ammo in the E&S. Looked like exactly the problem you highlight. I then ran game booster and, to be sure, went into task manager and stopped all Macaffee services. Ran the experimetn again twice and got no such delays at all. Interesting. Co-incidence?

Could be a problem, of course, a bug, but one that doesn't replicate consistently. it's always like this trying to work out whether something is a bloody bug in a game, or just something your system is doing. I'll keep trying to see if I can consistently replicate the issue, I think.

[Phoenix100]

Well, how frustrating this is! partly because you can't get the AI to do the same thing twice, so the experiment has no decent controls. Great that the AI does this, of course. You would imagine three or four different possible plans for the AI to choose from when playing this scenario - St. Vith - but it surprised me just now by gathering everything it had for a massive assault at around 9am!! No attack until then. I could see them all forming up behind Elcherath, then on they came in 3 coordinated streams. Beautiful attack. Great AI, Dave.

However, during this attack I got a 30 minute gap between a report of 'engaging' (and other indicators) and ammo depletion. By the time I got a faust fired off in the E&S there had been a second 'engaging' msg in the log, so it's possible that the faust was a lag from the msg 30 mins earlier, or possible the game said it was engaging and not a shot was fired....who knows?

I had it on double speed when this happened, by the way.
Certainly, I've so far noticed the following. 1. If you play at slow speed all the time there are no crazy counter lags and hardly any lags between fire event indicators, even with the virus checker on, running real time background checks. 2. If you play at faster speeds then switching off real time checks in the virus checker decreases the delays and lack of sync. 3. Almost always the lack of sync I've observed has been with fausts being fired off.


Maybe it would be good for Dave to check your saves at some point, Harry, because I wouldn't have a clue what was going on now.

All that said, you really have to play at a crawl to notice any of this, pausing continuously and checking. If you take the diff between states at, say, ten minute chunks, then normally it all looks about right. Doesn't mean it is, of course, but that might, as I said, account for why no one else has seen this behaviour.

[RockinHarry]

Had anti virus and all unnecessary background tasks switched off or terminated. Still no luck.

In my test scenario I tracked a single german entrenched Grenadier Coy for about 50 minutes and noted under the following conditions: Targets were approaching UK foot infantry Coy. Defending german unit was unsuppressed and not fired on. German Coy (as well as whole Btl) was left without any initial orders. ESTAB has added seperate ammo for lMG (7.92mm MG) to allow indivdual tracking.

06:10 Blue Marker & LOG entry "engaging"
06:18 Ani & SFX
06:19 120 x 7.92mm rifle ammo expended

at enemy infantry about 200-300m (measured from outer perimeter of footprint)
_____________________________

87 x K98k rifles in unit

120 / 87 = ~1,4 shots per minute (slow ROF = 2)
=====================================

06:27 Blue Marker & LOG entry "engaging"
06:40 Ani & SFX
06:41 199 x 7.92mm MG ammo expended

at different enemy infantry about 200-500m (measured from outer perimeter of footprint)
____________________________________

12 x lMG42 in unit

199 / 12 =~ 16,6 r/m (slow ROF = 20)
=====================================

06:44 Blue Marker & LOG entry "engaging"
06:44 Ani & SFX
06:44 120 x 7.92mm rifle ammo expended

at same enemy infantry about 200-500m (measured from outer perimeter of footprint)
____________________________________

87 x K98k rifles in unit

120 / 87 = ~1,4 shots per minute (slow ROF = 2)
=====================================

06:47 Ani & SFX
06:48 120 x 7.92mm rifle ammo expended
06:59 LOG entry "engaging"

at same enemy infantry about 200-500m (measured from outer perimeter of footprint)
____________________________________

87 x K98k rifles in unit

120 / 87 = ~1,4 shots per minute (slow ROF = 2)
=====================================

Stopped the test here. Need to mention that for the observed german unit the action indicator in left hand unit info panel, switched between "entrenched" and "firing" every 1-2 minutes. I wasn´t able to count the switches as I had to focus on the other info stuff. I estimatate switches to something like between 30 to 40. During the 50 minutes test time I could only associate 4 actual engagements (see above). It´s really hard to associate the given info about engagements (engaging) or attempts (firing). So "firing" could mean actually something different (tracking an enemy unit?). From the given test example, only 1 out of 4 actual "engagements" was in sync (at 06:44) according to given info.

Btw, it doesn´t make any difference for me if testing with stock or edited game files. Observations are the same.

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

I think you might be onto something, Harry. I just realised this morning that since I always run the game with Game Booster 3 on I might already be running without the virus checker (or part of it). So I ran the experiment twice just now without using Game Booster and noticed atrocious ten minute (game time) delays between the unit reporting it was firing (either in the log, or on the counter, or in the side bar) and the depletion of any ammo in the E&S. Looked like exactly the problem you highlight. I then ran game booster and, to be sure, went into task manager and stopped all Macaffee services. Ran the experimetn again twice and got no such delays at all. Interesting. Co-incidence?

Could be a problem, of course, a bug, but one that doesn't replicate consistently. it's always like this trying to work out whether something is a bloody bug in a game, or just something your system is doing. I'll keep trying to see if I can consistently replicate the issue, I think.

Yep...test results and game behavior does not appear to be consistent, even with unnecessary background processes switched off. Thought I got it finally, after switching off anti virus, internet, starting CmdOps.exe via shortcut (not autorun.exe) ect. [:(] I´ve yet to check if a fresh OS boot and game start changes anything.

Thanks for helping. [:)]

Note: I started doing these micro detail tests to figure out the games suitability for conversion of historical Operation Veritable, Hurtgen Forest Campaign, or Operation Blackcock to BftB scenarios. So mainly needed to know how a mostly infantry defending force in rather fixed defenses is handled in the game. It´s probably not quite the kind of operations the game engine is built for, but I´ll try.

[Phoenix100]

It could be accounted for as a legitimate 'info delay', like the 'orders delay', but only if that's the intention and it's programmed that way. We will need Dave to clarify, I think, when he's back from his hols. In your above experiment you seem to be able to link some kind of fire event indicator with a depletion of ammo, eventually, each time. But the worse ones are where that's not possible (because there is no depletion between subsequent indicators), leaving it open that there has in fact been no depletion at all, despite a msg in the log, or a blue marker, or a 'firing' msg in the side bar. I had at least one of those. That would mean the problem they tried to fix wasn't fixed. I'm sure Dave will want to clarify.

Do you get this behaviour even if you run the entire experiment at slowest speed, Harry?

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

It could be accounted for as a legitimate 'info delay', like the 'orders delay', but only if that's the intention and it's programmed that way. We will need Dave to clarify, I think, when he's back from his hols. In your above experiment you seem to be able to link some kind of fire event indicator with a depletion of ammo, eventually, each time. But the worse ones are where that's not possible (because there is no depletion between subsequent indicators), leaving it open that there has in fact been no depletion at all, despite a msg in the log, or a blue marker, or a 'firing' msg in the side bar. I had at least one of those. That would mean the problem they tried to fix wasn't fixed. I'm sure Dave will want to clarify.

Do you get this behaviour even if you run the entire experiment at slowest speed, Harry?

Yep...I run the tests at slow speed all of the time. Otherwise I wouldn´t be able to track all related info. [X(]

Lets see then what Dave could tell about all that. [:)]

Btw,...yes..I removed HE ammo for Fausts, Schrecks and Zooks in my edited ESTAB. No idea if that "breaks" anything, but I think having full stocks (of AT ammo) vs. AFVs is a way better investment. I also tweaked these to have way shorter effective ranges and figured these are now used to better effect vs AFV coming really close. Beforehand I noticed engagements took place mostly at longer ranges (100-200m), so there was lots of Faust/Zook ammo expended, without much hitting. Now with effective ranges of 50 (Faust) and 100m (Zooks) I have way better results vs. armor at close range. [8D]

[Phoenix100]

How do you 'fix' these things (ranges, ammo etc)? Is it easy?

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

How do you 'fix' these things (ranges, ammo etc)? Is it easy?

Re rifle ammo, duplicating it, renaming and reassigning to MGs. Simple stuff.

Adjustments to RPG weapons, mainly decreasing accuracy for longer ranges and/or limiting max ranges, while preserving accuracy for short range more or less. I did similar stuff for MGs, rifles and SMGs. This is mostly for "enforcement" of more realistic engagement ranges (50m for SMGs, 100m for rifles, 7-800m for lMGs and 1200-1500m for HMGs), not regarding other ingame factors like unit quality (training, experience, leader, aggro ect.), which surely cause more variable reults. This is pretty much rough, "experimental" editing and it might cause side effects, or otherwise mess with game behavior. Can´t tell yet.

Removing RPG HE ammo. "Simply" deleting ESTAB ammo entries and "unticking" any given Apers data. I also had to delete ammo references manually from the XML file in a text editor, once I got some ESTAB compiling errors.

It´s all rather simple edits, mostly trial and error, lots of testing ingame, not considering that I likely undermine game functionality.

Need to repeat here that my "firing" event and retreat behavior observations were already made with the stock game files.

The game editors are generally rather easy to learn and to work with. Praise! [:)]

[wodin]

I agree with your ranges except maybe rifles, isn't 100m a little to short?

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I agree with your ranges except maybe rifles, isn't 100m a little to short?

Technically...Yes..off course! My edited rifles still blaze away at mostly 300m which actually is ok, but I noticed the game prefers using the rifles up to this range and sparingly uses the lMG. I´m actually try balancing equipment usage for particular combat ranges which IMO should be lMG from 700-500m down, rifles 300m down and SMG mostly for close combat situations. Since I started with seperate ammo for lMG, my units used up rifle ammo way before lMG and SMG. Could be, the high rifle ammo consumption is also related to close combat situations, but does not explain the low usage of SMGs and lMGs.

Can anbody remind me of the "effective range" cap (indicated by range ring)? Was it 0.3 or 0.5? Any other or weapon specific? [&:]

Edit: looks like it´s around 0.3

Pic below shows some typical ammo situation (before first resupply), before I tinkered with rifle fire accuracy. Initial amount was around 6k or so.

[RockinHarry]

With regard to sub machine guns, I oftenly see them engaging alone, which makes me think it´s just the NCOs and COs stand up fighting. [X(] It´s ok for an assault unit, that´s mostly equipped with SMGs down the ranks (russians!), but otherwise looks odd. Preferably, arms should be used in concert at appropiate ranges, but seems there is individual checks (experience, morale, reliability?) for each equipment and there´s mentioning in the patch thread of individual equipment beeing checked for suppression too.

[RockinHarry]

Some interesting data for various german infantry equipment APers (fire power). These are ingame values for german section size units composed with following equipment and "default" unit/leader stats:

My ESTAB:

single lMg42 = 4 APers
single hMG42 = 9 APers
rifle squad of 7x K98k, 1x lMG42, 1x MP40 = 8 APers

Original BftB ESTAB

single lMG42 = 4
single hMG42 = 5
rifle squad of 7x K98k, 1x lMG42, 1x MP40 = 9 APers

My hMG42 has slightly raised accuracy at longer range (longer effective range) and slightly higher ROF.

The slight difference (-1) in squad net APers comes likely from lowering accuracy (effective range) for K98k and MP40 in my ESTAB.

The weak original hMG42 APers indicates that you need at least a section/pair of 2 to achieve equal generic firepower than a regular german infantry squad. (10 to 9)

[wodin]

Yours look better now the HMG has more firepower but I'm not sure I'd have it more powerful than a squad with a lMG. Riflemen can take aimed fire at several enemy soldiers simultaneously you have an lMG laying down fire, compare this to an HMG42 that can send out a good burst of high rate fire but I still think the fact that your 7 rifles can each choose one enemy each with accurate fire and an lMG aswell would give you more killing power than 1HMG. 7 riflemen firing 5 rounds of aimed fire a minute could lead to 35 dead or wounded enemy, then you have an lMG firing away aswell so say add another 15 dead or wounded soldiers from the lMG thats a possibilty of 50 enemy taken out. An HMG may be able to surpress far better but whether it's accurate enough when firing at a high rate to cause the casualties a well trained squad could cause I'm not so sure.

I'd have the HMG at 8 and the riflesquad at 9 maybe 10.

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Yours look better now the HMG has more firepower but I'm not sure I'd have it more powerful than a squad with a lMG. Riflemen can take aimed fire at several enemy soldiers simultaneously you have an lMG laying down fire, compare this to an HMG42 that can send out a good burst of high rate fire but I still think the fact that your 7 rifles can each choose one enemy each with accurate fire and an lMG aswell would give you more killing power than 1HMG. 7 riflemen firing 5 rounds of aimed fire a minute could lead to 35 dead or wounded enemy, then you have an lMG firing away aswell so say add another 15 dead or wounded soldiers from the lMG thats a possibilty of 50 enemy taken out. An HMG may be able to surpress far better but whether it's accurate enough when firing at a high rate to cause the casualties a well trained squad could cause I'm not so sure.

I'd have the HMG at 8 and the riflesquad at 9 maybe 10.

Wished calculations would be that simple. [:)] There appear to be a whole lot of numbers involved for individual APers settings and it´s quite difficult to translate that to the games battlefield, just by trial and error. [X(] Particularly mixed equipment units have a different opinion, when to use which weapon at what range at what enemy. I´m still experimenting to find out. [8D]

I´d taken out the HMGs from infantry Coys and assembled them back in small Plt size units. So far these are quite effective, but not devastating. Equipment that needs to deploy in order to fire, IMO does not belong to assaulting infantry and should rather take the line support role. I know this is a backstep from the latest official ESTAB changes (composite units with heavy support weapons), but I do this for fun and my own needs. If the game can´t handle it properly, I´ll likely abandon it (..fiddling with particular game data).

As said, APers numbers do not translate obviously to battlefield efficiency, but are rather used for engagement behavior, which I try altering to my needs.

I better wait for possible clearing up from Dave and patch #3, before I procede with these time consuming experiments.