Bug list

[FrankHunter]

The bugs I have fixed for the 2nd patch are

1. Range check error which occurs when sending supplies to the centre of ops.
2. Forced march still rests when fatigue is high.
3. Range check error and other behaviour when setting bridge to be blown or built.

Are there any that I've missed?

Thanks

[erdsja39]

I am right with you for the 3 points.

Range check error is the most inconvenient.

And it's not really a bug, but i will like to have an overview on the map. A zoom out and zoom in will help us when we play to see divisions and corps.

[warren_peace]

Frank,

You should also check out the depot bug I mentioned.

Warren

[FrankHunter]

Warren, let me see if I got this right, you assigned 2 corps to operate independently of the Army LOC. They were assigned to the same depot which I assume had lots of supply and a third, I assume non-independent, corps received the supply from that town?

[FrankHunter]

Doing a zoom-out feature is too big for a patch. It would require artwork. Its on my list for things to be added to the system next time around though.

[Rainbow7]

I've listed these several times already. If you've looked at them, please let me know so that I can stop repeating the same things.

1. Adjacent icons overlap -- part of a unit icon in one hex will appear slightly on top of the unit icons in the adjacent hex. No matter which you select, it doesn't bring the "lower" icon to the top. This hides the unit's information, and there appears no way to get at it until that unit has moved. If this isn't clear, I can try for a screenshot. It's definitely a nuisance.

2. After moving the turn speed slider once, it remains double mapped with the left and right arrow keys (which also moves the visible portion of the map).

3. Why no red dots to complement the blue dots on the mini-map?

[FrankHunter]

Yes, I've seen those. On #2, next time around the slider will have to be removed and done differently. I have tried to separate it from the key mapping but am unable to do so.

[benpark]

Frank, is it possible to get the movement arrows for leader counters in the next patch?

[warren_peace]

Pretty close. At the begining of the 1805 scenario I assigned two corps to get supplies from an independent depot. This depot also started shipping supplies to other corps as well, not supplied by this depot. These other corps were never assigned independent depots by me, but in their info sections had depots named, apparently as default at the start of the scenario. By the way, this was occuring letting the computer control the supply.

Warren

[MarkT]

The Fr. COLBERT cavalry unit was sent out to recon... But the Icon was showing infantry??
1809 [Charles Variant]. Later it changed back. In the confusion, multiple orders were issued. A very odd one [:(]

[FrankHunter]

Warren, could you tell me which town was the depot?

[warren_peace]

Hi Frank:

The depot sending the supplies is Nernberg. THe incorrect recieving corp is Soult. Soult has Donnauworth as his depot (although that was never set by me). I can send you the saved game if you give me your e-mail address.

[FrankHunter]

Warren, I've checked this and its because the AI is running the supply.

[FrankHunter]

benpark : Sorry, but HQs don't plot their routes. They just use the objective as a guide but they tend to bounce around in order to keep their corps in command. So because there's no plotted route I can't display the arrows.

[benpark]

No problem Frank. Thanks for the answer, and the last patch. Great game now.

[Rainbow7]

Frank,

1. Will you be adding blue dots to the mini-map to indicate known/reported location of enemy? This would go someway, at least, to addressing situational awareness.

2. I notice that selecting a city still does not display its victory point value. Is this as intended? It would be nice to have.

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: Rainbow
1. Will you be adding blue dots to the mini-map to indicate known/reported location of enemy? This would go someway, at least, to addressing situational awareness.

Hi Rainbow,

Sorry to butt-in but, as I mentioned in my campaign log thread, I don't think this would be of much use.

The daily intelligence only provides a partial snap-shot of reported enemy locations and as such is of little value in determining enemy movements or plans.

The true value can only be gained by plotting the changes in these reports over several days to produce a pattern. This requires judgements to be made by the player which cannot, and should not, be made by the program as it is part and parcel of the skill of command to be able to do this. Its what made Napoleon a great general. If the program did this for us then we would all be no better or worse than the program allowed us to be.

Also the key thing an intelligence map is that it needs to show the estimated strength of the enemy as this is the only evidence of its main troop concentrations and line of advance. So a simple spattering of red bots on the mini-map would be very misleading as a scouting cavalry division would have the same visual impact as the enemies main body.

It would certainly be useful to have the ability to plot intelligence reports on a campaign map within the game but my personal view is that this should include minimal, if any, assistance from the program itself.

What is required however, is the ability to annotate the map with notes and assumptions similar to the comments I make against the intelligence reports in the campaign log.

Comments like "Probably the same corps reported at Regensdorf 2 days ago." are vital when reviewing your intelligence later because they remind you of your thinking at the time you last updated it. Oh! and arrows are vital too so you can visually mark what you beleive the enemy intentions are.

[Rainbow7]

You're not butting in at all. It's good to have feedback. I agree with you. And I disagree. The strength of computers is that you don't have to do the manual work you would have had to with a board game. I see no reason why the computer shouldn't plot intelligence reports for me, with some indication of their age - I'd be putting the markers in the same spots anyway. Having this "intelligence map" editable with annotations, moveable markers, etc. would be necessary. The suggestion to put little red dots on the mini-map is essential for me because Frank isn't going to add any of our suggestions to this version of the game. And so as it stands, there is zero (absolutely no) situational awareness. Viewing the intelligence reports, you can't even scroll the map around. The red dots are a simple compromise. Even Napoleon, I'm sure, could look at his map as he read his intelligence reports.

As for your remarks in your Log thread, I agree that too much information from the computer on this "intelligence map" would devalue the fog of war and other things. But if the computer simply put a flag on the map with "18000 troops, intelligence report 3, May 11" ... I'd be happy.

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: Rainbow
You're not butting in at all. It's good to have feedback. I agree with you. And I disagree. The strength of computers is that you don't have to do the manual work you would have had to with a board game. I see no reason why the computer shouldn't plot intelligence reports for me, with some indication of their age - I'd be putting the markers in the same spots anyway.

I also agree and disagree. I agree that it would be sensible for the computer to display the strength and location of the current daily intelligence reports on an intelligence map. Where I disagree is with the idea that they should remain on the map and be aged.

After a while the map would inevitably become cluttered with aging intel reports which would generate a fog of war all of their own. In my expereince the key to making use of the intel reports is not in plotting every single one you have ever had but in comparing the current set with the previous one and making human judgements on which to carry forward and which to delete.

For example a new report of 15,000 men at Straubing might be the leading elements of the 28,000 men reported at Cham two days ago or the force of 17,500 men reported at Landau yesterday. As the general I have to look at these patterns and decide whether to move the forcemarker at Cham to Straubing or the one from Landau. Merely leaving all three force markers on the map doesn't help me gain an impression of enemy movements at all and I certanly don't want the computer making the decision for me.

So, I suppose my ideal would be a function which superimposed the daily intel reports over my existing manually maintained intel map and allowed me to adjust my own existing force markers to reflect the new information.

[FrankHunter]

The dots for the enemy have been added to the 2nd patch. In full view games they are the enemy corps HQs. In fog of war games they are sighted enemy divisions and in full fog games they are the last reported position of enemy divisions.

If I do another campaign I plan on adding a time/date to friendly and enemy units so you know how old that position report is and I will change the way reports are displayed so that you can view the map at the same time.

Currently the game only keeps track of the last report for both friendly and enemy. It might be interesting to allow the player to look at the map by day so that he can look at the reports as of Sepotember 10th, then 11th and so on up to the present date. That too would be something for a future campaign.