2.03 Update Feedback

[cbelva]

Let me give a quick update on where we are at. I ran the example scenario turn that ComradeP sent me three times. I have learned that I don't jump to conclusions on one playing of a scenario turn. There is chance factors built into the game that can cause the occasional odd result (i.e. heroic stand or cowardly retreat). When I test for problems I look for patterns. In my three play thru of ComradeP's scenario turn, I didn't see anything that I felt out of place. There were 3 places there Soviet armor columns ran into infantry units (there were more than three, but only three that I felt mattered). Two were in village hexes (light urban) and one was in a forested road. In both cases of the engagements in the light urband, the infantry were heavily outnumbered. At first they held up the Soviets but by the end of the turn, the infantry had either retreated or had been killed. In the process they might take out a few vehicles. Again this was in an urban area--not unrealistic. One example, it was two WG infantry squads (no vehicles) against 6 T-80B1s and 7/8 BMP-2s and 7 Soviet infantry. In all three engagements, the 2 WG infantry squads (the FOW showed only 1, but there was 2) kills several BMP-2s, no tanks, and 1 or 2 infantry squads. In the end, the Soviets destroyed the 2 WGs as they tried to flee the hex. Soviets then continued them march. There was one instance in the forested hex were the WG infantry squads (2 or 3) were able to destroy several T-80B1s. This was more of an ambush situation in my opinion. Remember a "kill" does not be totally destroyed, it could be that the tank was just disabled and can't continue. Lucky hits can cause that.

Now--Machine Guns. I ran some test on machine guns vs. tanks based on ComradeP's comments. WE DID FIND A PROBLEM WITH MG vs. TANKS. Capn D spent most of last night working on it (at least he was still working on it at midnight).

We are continuing to work on this. My commends are not the last word. I sent ComradeP's example turn to the other team members to look at. Infantry combat is a bear to model. We have spent more hours than I care to admit working on this one issue and continue too. One word of caution, it will never be perfect and we will never get it where you will get the results every time you expect. We try to get it as close as possible. If you are waiting on perfection before buying the game--you will be waiting forever. This game now is doing the best I have seen of any computer game of this scale. This is not my first rodeo so to speak in playtesting this games of this scale. We aim for perfection, but deep down I know we will never get there. There are just too many variables and we have all watched too many war movies.

This is not a "rock, paper, scissors" game. Results are asymmetrical and that is what makes this game so intriguing to me. Combat in real life is like that too.

[ComradeP]

The turn I sent you was sort of atypical because the infantry was in suitable defensive terrain, so I don't really have any objections to them taking out a vehicle or two. My main problem was with the slow down caused by units in the clear.

The units being forced to retreat is also often not going to help much, as the tanks will still continue to fire on them and might not move on. In case the tanks are in hasty move mode, more often than not the enemy units need to be completely eliminated to keep moving and even in deliberate or assault mode, the small unit(s) soaking up lots of fire seems to reduce the performance of the tanks when dealing with other targets, as they prioritize the small unit(s).

However, if there is a problem with MG's vs. armour, that would already explain a lot of my losses I think.

[CapnDarwin]

A number of posts have flown by here and being a bit tired (was 2am when I stopped last night).

1. There was a SA value bleed that was getting into the AP routine (the combat model as you can imagine is complex as hell and we've done a number of refinements in places and it is a bear to trace at times) and that was allow an extremely low % chance of knocking out a tank but really still too big for just small arms and a MG. I will be fixing that later today.

2. For Tazak, we say kill, but the odds are the units fell out and was not destroyed. You would have to look at the losses to see if it was soft or hard and it really should be soft with the low values the small arms was generating.

3. Any weapons with AP/HEAT always have a chance to hit/damage/kill a hard target. It may be small like a LAW versus a T-80U from the front. The LAW has a better chance in the cities where flank/top/rear shots can go against much lower armor values.

Thanks for the comments and bug reports. With the large combinations of units and terrain and situations we miss things (like night vision not working right when it was clear, DOH![X(] - fixing that too).

[Lowlaner2012]

Well done to ComradeP for spotting the MG Armor over lethality issue, the Recce unit I did the test with had no heavy MG so I didn't see it..

And thanks for all your hard work on the patch and hotfix on-target guys and cheers for a great game

[jenrick]

can a APC like the Marders or a Leopard A1 be damaged by the 12.7 mm rounds to a point where they have to fall out in this game?

I am thinking the optics or some other damage that makes the tank to damaged to fully function... to be honest I don't really know how deep the damage system goes in this game.

Marders were designed to provide protection from 20mm hits initially, and later upgraded to protect against 30mm hits. A Leopard A1, except for taking a round into the engine grill from above is not going to be harmed by heavy machinegun fire, light cannonfire (23mm, 40mm etc) isn't going to accomplish anything using the munitions available during this time frame.

Now the rounds can potentially do some damage to optics, running gear on the hull, etc. If the crew was hit from ambush possibly take out a driver or commander that's out of the hatch. Beyond that however, machine gun fire isn't going to render a tank combat ineffective just less effective.

-Jenrick

[CaptCarnage]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP


What I meant with that it encourages poor play is that the player is encouraged to make a flanking move to get to the objectives in the rear, instead of removing the enemy's capability to resist as quickly as possible.

In my case, the AI's units were mostly at the first river line and were simply overrun. The "move faster" you mention is actually what crippled my chances of a decisive victory: the majority of the AI's forces were gone when my forces were barely halfway across the map.

If I had wanted to win a decisive victory, I would've needed to outflank the AI's positions in one part of the map, and would have to take several hours to move to the objectives in the rear instead of destroying the enemy as quickly as possible. In those instances, I would've needed to game the system in a way instead of going for the most efficient outcome.

Yeah I actually hear what you're saying. I don't think I gamed the system in that scenario but I chose to use the southern part of the map - most of the enemy is concentrated in the center, yes, but once my guys broke through in the south I had them go for the bridges (with their VPs) in the west a.s.a.p. and all that happened before the enemy was down to 30% so I guess I was lucky there. I could have destroyed the enemy before some of my units got to those bridges and take the VPs.

[mb4329]

Wanted to see if it was just bad luck/odds, but noticed NATO units with screen orders (most noticeably recon units) are not displacing when WP forces close with them. I have played both "A Time to Dance" and "Black Horse," under v2.03 and the NATO recon units die in place (allowing the WP to move adjacent) as opposed to withdrawing in a timely fashion. In the four cases I have noticed the recon units have had clear routes of withdraw and have spotted the WP forces at 2000+ meters. I have noticed HQ, infantry, and armor units will occasionally displace, but not nearly as frequently as in 2.02 and again seemingly after allowing WP forces to close well within the "preferred standoff" range and suffering heavy losses as a result. Curious if anyone else is noticing this behavior under v2.03?


Thanks,
Merrick

[ComradeP]

There's a downside to the units in Hold mode now not firing at long range: you can't engage enemy armour when you're dug in, except at close range as units are only considered to be dug in when in Hold mode. This nullifies part of the accuracy advantage NATO enjoys and makes tank units more vulnerable (compared to dug in units) in firefights as the enemy is closer before your units open fire than it would be in a previous version.

Either a toggle if the unit is in ambush or not or a hold and a hold (ambush) order might be cumbersome to code, though. This is one of those "damned when you do, damned when you don't" things as the improvement to ambushes for a number of units is less ideal for NATO tanks.

Also: the manual isn't entirely clear about what constitutes being under fire and whether that includes artillery fire, but units in automatic resupply mode (when one of their values went into the red) don't try to scoot out of their hex when targeted by artillery fire, which can cause a downward spiral of readiness and strength that is difficult to stop.

[Lowlaner2012]

In reply to you mb4329 I did see some odd behavior last night, I was playing as the WG and had a Leopard 1 unit on hold in some trees, anyway they spotted some T-80's and the fighting started, somewhere in the middle of the cycle the Leopards took 2 casualties, then I issued new screen orders to them in the next command phase thinking that seeing as they had taken losses an they have 10+ T-80's bearing down on them they would now back off, only thing was they didn't, they sat there for a good 20 mins longer and where wiped out... so in answer you may be correct in thinking there may be a problem here... unless I was unlucky to..

Thanks

[CapnDarwin]

Merrick, what was the standoff distances for the recon in your scenario. We made some specific changes to improve the displacement of units if the min standoff is pressed both in ranges and scooting times. Can you grab a couple of screen shots showing the problem?

[mb4329]

Thanks for the reply highlandcharge.

Jim, to be honest I wasn't paying enough attention to the settings prior to the events in question. Kept thinking it was a low odds fluke and just bad luck on my part. It has got to be tough to find the programmatic balance between displacing too soon and moving too late given all the game variables in play, so no worries. I'll grab some screens and a save for you. Seems to be that within the turn cycle the WP unit would move adjacent to the scout, at that point discover it, and then engage. Typically it would be elements of a WP mech or armor company discovering a couple of HMMWV at 500 meters with predictable results for the scout section.

Regards,
Merrick

[CapnDarwin]

Merrick, I'll review the changes we made this week and see if something else changed to negate the boost in distance we gave units. It almost sounds like there is a breakdown in getting a valid scoot going when the distance is closed to min standoff. Today is lost to finishing Mod Guide 2 and posting it to the Matrix site and our weekly Dev call which will be a long one as we talk to Matrix and then discuss hotfix and update scheduling. After that I will be in code working the issues.

[Lowlaner2012]

Do you think the hotfix will be out this week?

Thanks

[CapnDarwin]

[:-]I've been advised by our producer not to make any promises or wild speculation on the date of releases for any updates including the hotfix until they have been submitted and okayed to avoid any 2.03 like issues with missed dates, upset significant others, space madness, or Red Storm update delay memes. [:D]

What I can say is we will work to close the issues quickly, test them, and get that update out that fixes the problems and doesn't make new ones. And we are evaluating new reports for possibly addition to the hotfix as well. [8D]

[Lowlaner2012]

Ok thanks Darwin

thanks for all the hard work..

[mb4329]

Sent some screens and a save prior to the event via email. Hope it will help. If you need something else let me know.

Merrick

[Mad Russian]

I want to thank all you guys for helping us with emails, and posts. These go a long way towards making the game better. [&o]

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

Merrick, sorry, I did get the your email and forwarded the info to Rob to look at. It was working okay just before shipping the update so the sudden break has me baffled. I'm sure Rob can find it with the save game.

Thanks for the help!

[22sec]

For the record, the new elevation RGB colors work perfectly with the Map Value Editor.[&o]

[CapnDarwin]

21sec, I got sidetracked and missed getting back to your question. Glad to hear it works for you.