Campaign pain in the colon

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 2:52 am

There is a problem with crew appearance that has been haunting us on the collective. In large battles, crews sometimes do not appear, and it has been difficult to fix by downsizing.

I think I have identified the problem, and it's a nasty one.

A: # of aux units;
B: # of core units;
C: # of enemy units;
D: max # of crews that will appear during the scenario;

It seems that in a campaign scenario, D = 400-A+B+C, but when that same scenario is played standalone, D = 400-A+B. Thus, all campaign scenarios must be limited to A+B+C < ca 380, whereas in a regular scenario A+B+C < ca 750 would be all right.

The destruction of non-vehicular units during a game seems to have no effect.

This could very well be a minor bug in the software, on the other hand it could be a major one. Will you good people look into it? Please?

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 3:01 am

The investigation will now begin.

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 6:22 am

Thanks, that is good to know.

Also, I have discovered something else.
The AI disregards waypoints and possibly reaction turns in a campaign though it follows them when played as standalone. Could very well be
related to the other problem.

ruxius · Post by **ruxius** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 6:37 am

<img src="redface.gif" border="0"> mangled Ruxius tried to be fixed <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

I don't know if what I am writing here may be out of topic...but I noticed that in campaigns my crews surviving a battle appear as new core forces unit in the next one..with no respect to their belonging vehicle either repaired or changed ..they will be at all treated as distinct units...is this supposed to be designed ?

Maybe these are all different aspects of the same problem...
in some way it may seems some programming variables going in overflow and so loosing consistency..something that refers coding

result is we have strange odds...

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: ruxius ]</p>

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 6:53 am

Hi, the reason the number is higher in a stand alone battle versus campaign battle is in stand alone the computer does not need to save the crews for next battle. In the campaign battles it does not know how many aux units you will use so it reserves a number of spaces for your crews. If you fill them up with core or aux units you won't get crews after baul outs. To prevent, count the number of Tanks in your core force subtract from 400 now use this number to figure out how many aux units you may have.

Example in your core force you have 30 tanks. Subtract 30 from 400 getting 370 your total units (core plus aux) can equal 370 and still get crews after bailout.

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 7:07 am

Originally posted by Mogami:

Example in your core force you have 30 tanks. Subtract 30 from 400 getting 370 your total units (core plus aux) can equal 370 and still get crews after bailout.

This is what one would expect, but the fact is different. In the example above, if the AI had 30 units or more there would be no bailout.

PS. Ruxius: I do not quite understand your written language, but I called this a nasty problem because it will take a lot of work for the collective to get around.

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 9:26 am

Just created a basic scenario with very few units. As standalone, the AI respected reaction turns and waypoints. As campaign, it respected reaction turns but ignored waypoints.

We collectivites are terrified that our crop will rot in the fields.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 2:04 pm

Hi, I should have said coreforce plus aux plus AI can equal 370 (and still have the slots for crew bailout for the 30 core tanks)(total 400 units in campaign battle versus nearly 700 it allows for a non campaign battle)

The larger/more expensive your core the larger more expensive the AI units in a campaign battle.
You can expect the AI to field a horde if you are using a large/expensive coreforce. Keep your core small.

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]</p>

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 11:45 pm

Yes, that is more or less what I found. There is still no programming need that can explains this discrepancy. In any battle, campaign or standalone, crews need to be kept track of during the battle. When the battle ends, all aux and AI units disappear and the storage they take up is freed.

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Mon Feb 25, 2002 5:47 pm

Originally posted by gmenfan:
The investigation will now begin.

Round up the usual suspects. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 6:32 pm

Originally posted by gmenfan:
The investigation will now begin.

Have you good people found out anything yet?

Fredde · Post by **Fredde** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 7:28 pm

Originally posted by Penetrator:
Just created a basic scenario with very few units. As standalone, the AI respected reaction turns and waypoints. As campaign, it respected reaction turns but ignored waypoints.

This can be fixed with a little wiggling back and forth between saved scenarios and campaign scenarios. I've created campaigns where waypoints definitely are followed, in other scenarios as well.

For the other "disappearing" crew problem. I think it has something with the maximum number of units to do, and also something with if you deleted formations. If there are "holes" in the structure, i.e. you have a and c formations but not b, the previous b units seem to still take up space in the rooster. Not sure really how this works.. but.. my personal experience, and few cents..

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 8:32 pm

Originally posted by Fredde:

This can be fixed with a little wiggling back and forth between saved scenarios and campaign scenarios. I've created campaigns where waypoints definitely are followed, in other scenarios as well.

That is the most useful bit of news I have heard about this problem yet, and that says quite a lot <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> If you could give me a little more specifics (in fact as much as possible) that would be a great help to me and many others.

Dogfish · Post by **Dogfish** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 9:51 pm

Hey Penetrator:

Empty slots do effect total number of units. They will show up in WAWED as quote "empty".

In the file there is a sequential numbering of each unit. Deletions don't renumber. If you have copied and pasted units in a .csv file this also does not fix the sequential, and therefore total unit number.

To check sequential and unit numbering, load your scenario, or saved game file with WAWED. Save it as a .csv file. Use excell to view/edit the .csv file. The seqential orderin is the column labeled "DT" the numbering should run sequentially from top to bottom.

If you make changes, save, and answer yes to keep the format. Then load the scen/save file in WAWED again, paste the appropriate .csv file, and save the scen/save file.

I hope this helps with what you're doing.

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 11:42 pm

Originally posted by Dogfish:

I hope this helps with what you're doing.

Thanks dude, I'm sure it will. The formula I arrived at above is not affected by this phenomenon however. I took extra special care not to make any deletions.

Fredde · Post by **Fredde** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 3:41 pm

Originally posted by Penetrator:

That is the most useful bit of news I have heard about this problem yet, and that says quite a lot <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> If you could give me a little more specifics (in fact as much as possible) that would be a great help to me and many others.

What I'm doing:

-First, create the scenario.
-Second, get it into the campaign.
-Third, rename the campaign files to scen files. Set waypoints again.
-Fourth, rename again, to put it into the campaign.

What is weird though, it doesn't seem to work every time. Sometimes the waypoints are accepted and sometimes not, but with enough trial and error, they eventually stick in there.
(Don't ask me why! <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> )

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 4:03 pm

Thanks... funny things we see every day...

Penetrator · Post by **Penetrator** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 5:24 pm

Bump.

Any news on the software front?