Combat Planner: Not showing more than 27 arty units?

[Shadrach]

This has probably been noted before. I've been playing "Operation Goodwood" and the Allies have a large number of artillery units. So many the Combat Planner isn't able to show them all.
The max limit for the CP seems to be 27, 3x9.

Is there a workaround for this, apart from manually assigning non-showing units for attack from the map?

Maybe this is related to the scaling setting in ini, or the DPI scaling setting?

There really should be a way to scroll the unit list, unless there's something obvious I'm missing?

Also it could easily fit another 18 units in the list:

[Lobster]

Yeah. I see room for 45 so maybe that should be the limit? The only other option is to go around stack by stack and assign to direct support. That would be a p.i.t.a.

[sPzAbt653]

If this is the only scenario on Earth where this is an issue, I'd rather make a scenario change than have Ralph spend time on it. It's my scenario, and yes it is a pain to have so many Art units, but the WAllies did have a shipload of artillery and there was some reason, I can't remember why, I didn't combine into lesser units. If anyone else has seen where they have needed to have more units displayed in this window, please chime in so I can make a good decision, thanks.

[Shadrach]

Well, we're not asking for a "I'll drop everything and get right on it" here. And I see no point in making decisions on what Ralph & co should or should not prioritise. But it would be nice to get at least a "We're aware of this and have added it to the list" type of response from them.

[sPzAbt653]

But wouldn't you say that if an issue such as this affects only one scenario that it probably isn't an issue that the developers should spend time on ?

You have made other comments about not being responded to, but understand that your concerns may be addressed anyway. It's the nature of TOAW and is not going to change. [Do we really want Ralph spending any bit of his limited time responding to forum stuff?].

[larryfulkerson]

But wouldn't you say that if an issue such as this affects only one scenario that it probably isn't an issue that the developers should spend time on ?

That's one way of looking at this problem. Another way of looking at it is that this one example shows a problem with TOAW IV that needs to be fixed so that ANY scenario that has too many to be shown can show more of them. It's a bug not a feature. Once this problem is fixed it probably won't show up again since it takes so many arty tubes to present this problem.

[Lobster]

A bug is an unintended outcome. This is an intentional design decision. Calling design decisions bugs detracts from what are real bugs. This was an unfortunate decision just as limiting formation size to 32 units and limiting equipment slots to 24 were. All of these things should have been expanded when everything else was.

[larryfulkerson]

A bug is an unintended outcome. This is an intentional design decision. Calling design decisions bugs detracts from what are real bugs.

An "intentional design decision" that needs to be changed is a bug.

[Lobster]

Again Larry, in case you don't understand, intentional is something done on purpose. That is not a bug. "A software bug is an error, flaw, failure or fault in a computer program or system that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways."

[larryfulkerson]

Again Larry, in case you don't understand, intentional is something done on purpose. That is not a bug. "A software bug is an error, flaw, failure or fault in a computer program or system that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways."

Call it what you wish. It still needs to be changed. More listed arty is the goal here. Whether or not it's a bug it needs to be changed. This is an "intentional design decision" that was wrong at it's inception. A change is needed to make it right. Usually you don't change computer code that is working correctly. Usually you change computer programs when they aren't working like you'd like it to perform. Changing computer code is the most dangerous thing you can do to a computer program. It's possible to break the program. A logic error or a unended loop in a procedure or some other unforseen problem. It still needs to be fixed.

[Shadrach]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
That's one way of looking at this problem. Another way of looking at it is that this one example shows a problem with TOAW IV that needs to be fixed so that ANY scenario that has too many to be shown can show more of them. It's a bug not a feature. Once this problem is fixed it probably won't show up again since it takes so many arty tubes to present this problem.

Exactly. This wouldn't be a problem if the planner would be able to accommodate all the available units from the outset. As I see it there's two solutions to this:

1. The Combat Planner is changed to allow scrolling/pagination of the artillery part. In addition it could fit five columns instead of just three.

Caveat: Of course, this could also mean some mad mapper thinks it's a good idea to have 9999 arty units, promptly crashing the game when the planner is opened [:'(]

2. The Combat Planner is changed to consider several things to choose what units to display:
- Supply.
- Movement points used.
- Cooperation status (colours).
- Proximity to the battle.

Populating the list (from the top down), from these criteria would ensure the most likely to use units are always available in the list.

Now I think the list is either populated in order of OOB. It *may* also look like the game considers remaining movement, but places the most likely units last, resulting in them dropping outside the view...

[Lobster]

This is a bug: tm.asp?m=4614374

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Again Larry, in case you don't understand, intentional is something done on purpose. That is not a bug. "A software bug is an error, flaw, failure or fault in a computer program or system that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways."

Call it what you wish. It still needs to be changed. More listed arty is the goal here. Whether or not it's a bug it needs to be changed. This is an "intentional design decision" that was wrong at it's inception. A change is needed to make it right. Usually you don't change computer code that is working correctly. Usually you change computer programs when they aren't working like you'd like it to perform. Changing computer code is the most dangerous thing you can do to a computer program. It's possible to break the program. A logic error or a unended loop in a procedure or some other unforseen problem. It still needs to be fixed.

I totally agree, it was a lack of foresight just as failing to expand other things in the game were. Not sure what is going to happen with getting design problems addressed that should have been addressed when the game was redone.

We need a larger development/bug squasher crew. [;)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

This has probably been noted before. I've been playing "Operation Goodwood" and the Allies have a large number of artillery units. So many the Combat Planner isn't able to show them all.
The max limit for the CP seems to be 27, 3x9.

Is there a workaround for this, apart from manually assigning non-showing units for attack from the map?

Maybe this is related to the scaling setting in ini, or the DPI scaling setting?

There really should be a way to scroll the unit list, unless there's something obvious I'm missing?

Also it could easily fit another 18 units in the list:

You do realize that as artillery is assigned to attacks, it drops out of this display in subsequent calls.

So, if you assign artillery A to Attack A, then it won't show in Attack B's planner, even if still in range.

So, this is really only an issue before any attacks have been set up. Once a few attacks have been set up, this issue will melt away.

[Shadrach]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
You do realize that as artillery is assigned to attacks, it drops out of this display in subsequent calls.

Yes, I'm aware of that. However, still a pain to deal with at the start of each turn. I can't even think how this works out in the huge scenarios.

Are you able to give any insight into how the list is populated, by OOB only or does it factor into stuff like spent MP?
For some reason it seems to place the units with the least spent MP at the bottom of each formation, so there seems to be something considered there.

[Lobster]

There is still a problem because there is no way to see what is available beyond the 27.