Your thoughts on the 2.04 Update

[Mad Russian]

Your own obstacles/mines should allow you to pass through.

Good Hunting.

MR

[IronMikeGolf]

I just tested it and US forces were neither delayed nor attacked by passing through either a blue minefield and not delayed by an obstacle that were placed in the scenario. The AI did not plot a route around them. The minefield and obstacle were not changed to breached.

With a friendly FASCAM minefield, the AI will move to bypass if it lands while a unit is already moving and the minefield is on the plotted movement path. If you plot movement across one, the AI will route the unit around. If you force a unit to enter it, the unit is neither delayed not attacked and the minefield remains intact. Probably should be delayed and attacked when entered, though.

[hazmaxed]

Thanks to you both for the quick response.  I posted the question in this thread just in case it was a 2.04 issue.
 
And I agree that FASCAM should attack and delay every unit that enters the minefield, friendly or enemy.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Iron Mike Golf

I just tested it and US forces were neither delayed nor attacked by passing through either a blue minefield and not delayed by an obstacle that were placed in the scenario. The AI did not plot a route around them. The minefield and obstacle were not changed to breached.

This is one of the known issues that the team is working on a Hot Fix for. That should be fixed by the end of the week. Depends on the amount of free time Rob gets to fix it.

With a friendly FASCAM minefield, the AI will move to bypass if it lands while a unit is already moving and the minefield is on the plotted movement path. If you plot movement across one, the AI will route the unit around. If you force a unit to enter it, the unit is neither delayed not attacked and the minefield remains intact. Probably should be delayed and attacked when entered, though.

I agree that FASCAM minefields should be considered enemy to all units on the map.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Dimitris]

Thanks for the update guys! Been waiting for this for a while and it's the perfect way to keep the neurons busy during the vacation [:D]

[Tazak]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

The addition of the map folders in the game is to allow for different custom map sets to be used. That's the changes made for maps in 2.04.

Good Hunting.

MR

Incase anyone was wondering, you can move maps into the custom folder for any of the old user made scenarios and they load fine (just checked and it worked for me)

[Alex1812]

need some fix for Soviet MRC (BTR): http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3670711 and check the other units

[bobwriggins]

I don't know what was changed, but all of a sudden every Soviet unit is a sharpshooter with a massive rate of fire and the Americans must have left their bullets home. I've tried the "Hell on Wheels" campaign three times since the update and can't get through the first two hours without the Sovs going through everything like a hot knife through butter. Is play balance out of whack with the update or did I just get stupid between 2.03 and 2.04? Not sure what's going on, but I'm tempted to reinstall version 1[:@] I don't mind losing but it would be nice to have a fighting chance!

[cbelva]

Bob, can you post some screenshot so we can see what you are talking about. Thanks

[IronMikeGolf]

I did CA1 from US Campaign. What I am seeing as far as an accelerated Soviet pace seems to be a result of better AI route planning and waypoint management. Watching with no FOW under 2.03, there was a massive wave of traffic delays on the Soviet side. I ended up delaying the passage through Buchholz by like 90 minutes.

The attack by 61st GTR has the same result 2.03 and 2.04 when Holm-Seppensen is defended by the mech and tank companies of 4-41 IN can augmented by some cavalry scouts: the destruction of the 61st GTR. The destruction is finished on turn 1 in 2.04 instead of turn 2 as in 2.03. The number of Soviet tanks destroyed on turn 1 in 2.03 was 65-70. In 2.04, its 100-105 tanks. Lethality seems to be up a bit for both sides. The follow-up attack by 1/248 MRR happens faster.

The improved movement by the AI means that A1 really needs a forward defense and it needs to be sturdy. The AI sends a tank battalion down A1 immediately in 2.04. In 2.03, that happened starting turn 3 to 4.

It does feel like the AI is making decisions faster than previously. I see predominantly assault orders for movement in both versions. This has an impact on NATO units not stopping Soviet units unless they inflict enough casualties to break morale. Not saying this effect is unrealistic. Just stating observations.

If there is a difference in lethality, or survivability, between the two versions, I can't quantify it. It does feel like M2 equipped mech infantry has less ability to slow down or stop a Soviet assault. I see fewer multi-vehicle kill volleys, I think, in 2.04 in the CA1 scenario. In a test scenario of a Soviet tank company vs a Brit mech company, it pretty much feels the same with both versions.

[CapnDarwin]

We did not make any direct changes to the lethality of weapons. What you are getting as you noted is a smarter AI in movement. Also both sides have been tweaked for less delay impact on orders. With the AI being able to make a better more coordinated attack, you get a more lethal engagement with more weapons coming to bear on your forces.

[Lowlaner2012]

I have played about 2/3rds of the way through the first Hell on wheels mission, I have not noticed any fall in accuracy in American gunnery Bob, my m1's killed lots and lots of t-80s and other vehicles just like they did in the 2.03 version ...

I have like Iron mike noticed that the Russians are quicker and seem to be more aggressive, they even tried to flank me in the north (and nearly succeeded!!!) , I did not see anything like that in the 2.03 version also...

[CaptCarnage]

I like the fact that we (or at least I and some others) were hating Sudden Death and the way it's handled now is fine for me...
In fact, I did A Time To Dance and at the Sudden Death point - initiatied by enemy losses I must add! - I had a marginal loss at 52% so I thought, well, screw it, let's wipe Ivan from the map as I want all bridges back!
And as I soldiered on it became a slaughter fest and my strength dwindled so I called it quits: marginal loss at 42%. So Sudden Death was just fine thank you

[wodin]

I've never had a problem with sudden death.

[Mad Russian]

What we find, is in most cases playing on doesn't improve on how well you do. More often than not you end up with a lower score.

At least now you have the chance to find out.

Good Hunting.

MR

[pekische]

My feelings about 2.04 are positive:

1/ The best one: order for posture after move /hold, screen, on call, etc.../. This is the most important improve for me. It changes gameplay. This was really necessary. This is right step towards sequence orders...

2/ A less delay - great! Huge improvement....

3/ Reworked Sudden death - this way works much better!

4/ Behavior of units with screen order seems to be better.

5/ General behavior of units is better.

6/ View of the parent and child units - it is fine. But it seems to be not good enough. This feature could work better like switchable. If switch on - you can give orders, click other units etc. and you still see the parent and child of the current unit.


... UI still waits for a lot of work: more customized screen and windows, simpler hotkeys, etc.

Summary: Patch 2.04 is a big step for me!

[wodin]

Nothing has changed with regards to delay..turn time is dependent on how many units you have..how many orders you've given and if all your units are in command.

[CapnDarwin]

Pekische,

Can you post your thoughts on UI improvements up in the new requests and ideas sub forum? That would help us keep new ideas in a single place.
Simple hot keys is one wishlist item we are aware of. The game right now follows standard windows convention in the ctrl and a key style. One area we are going to expand in the next game I'd the hot bar with the LAD functions now. That will be a faster way to invoke many functions as well.

[bobwriggins]

What I've noticed is that the American units seem to be reluctant to fire even when on hold, well hidden and with good lines of site. They seem more "brittle" than in previous versions even when infantry defending in urban areas. Maybe it is the improved AI on the Soviet side. I'm trying it again and will try to post some examples, however I seem to be doing a little better this go around. Has something been changed in regards to engagement ranges? Almost seems as though my M1 units don't fire as often or accurately as in previous versions even at a 2 to 3 hex range.

[pekische]

Capn Darwin, I am very busy in these days. When I will have more free time I will write a list of my UI suggestions.