Updated Bug List for Ver. 2.0

[Nick Papp]

Hello to everyone,

Two things of importance with the opening of this new thread.

First - the old Bugs thread has been locked down. Things were getting to be too hard to keep track of, so I have opend this new thread. Please use this thread to post any reports you may have on the Ver. 2.0 release of WIR:TMP.

Second - coding is proceeding nicely on many of the bugs identified by you all an dour Beta Team. We received a build today from Arnaud Bouis which have addressed SEVERAL of the known issues and the suggestions made by all of you who posted. We are listening and hope to encorporate as many of your suggestions as is possible in the next public patch.

With that said, the remainder of this post is a compilation of as many of the bugs and
problems I could find that were reported on this Forum and with our Beta Team. If I missed any, I appologize - coordinating and sorting between to the two source was not so easy. If you see something you posted not addresses, or something I outright missed, respond on this thread and we will take do our best to get it looked at.

Regards,

Nick Papp

=============================================

WIR: TMP Forum Bugs and Beta Team Bugs

Confirmed Bugs -

1. Reinforcements in ‘41 - Appeared in pre-release version. All reinforcements show up and all or nearly all for the entire game have arrived by the end of 1941. The reinforcements are showing up with their default equipment that they should have when they are actually scheduled for arrival. One post thought it might have to do with the delayed weeks schedule. This is accelerated by up to 50% for each turn that passes - i.e. Volksgrenadier units go from 148 weeks to 90 weeks in one turn. These problems also apply to the Soviet units as well. The air divisions do not seem to be affected. It also appears to be a coding problem and not a scenario problem.

This has already been fixed in the most recent version, now in Beta Testing.

2. Active Tank and Aircraft Pools overstated - Appeared in v2011. Several confirmations of this problem which is apparently due to a bug in the WIR Scenario Editor (which goes back to the original game). Whenever you modify the starting pool for active tank or aircraft types in the scenario, the bug will add additional quantities to each type modified. This can be edited out with Editwir.exe, but still has to be corrected to reflect historical totals.

3. Shattering of the African Front in early ‘41 - Another consistent report on the Forum. Many players experience the shattering of the North African front within a few turns at the start of the game. Several factors have been identified, most common being the actual movement of the Italian HQ. Players have reported the same problem from transferring in air or ground formations into a motionless HQ. Some have said this happens just by selecting and looking at the units in the HQ. The same is true if they modify the HQ contents in the Scenario Editor or with Editwir. One possible cause is that readiness for the HQ or subunits may get so low due to movement or transfer that the N.A. Front shatters the following turn. There was a post on the Beta Forum from Aug. 9, 2000 regarding a possible readiness bug for StuG’s and JgdPz’s attached the HQ causing the problem (one poster on the Forum noted the same). If the Italian HQ replacement level is kept above 80%, there seems to be very little occurrence of this problem.

This has already been fixed in the most recent version, now in Beta Testing.

4. Production Delay for Danzig Factory - The 4 factory in Danzig that produces Fw-190A shows 3*(106) for the delay. One post on the Forum indicated this remained even when the old ‘41 Campaign file was put in, or if the number was edited with Editwir.

5. Axis Blizzard Turns Equipment Loss - In Blizzard turns it seems that the Axis loose ALL their equipment if they try to move (even when moving in Germany). After more testing, the equipment loss problem is definitely there when the German readiness is below 50%.

6. Reduction in Rail Pool Bug - An old bug existed through v1.13x effecting the available rail-pool. If you accidentally selected (highlighted) the wrong unit for rail-transfer, then cancelled it, the Rail-pool was reduced anyway as if the unit had actually been transferred. This happens in WIR:TMP version.

This has already been fixed in the most recent version, now in Beta Testing.

7. Moving of Sub-units in HQ’s - When trying to move a unit out of a corps with 8 units (A-H), the game won’t let you transfer that unit directly to another corps. You have to transfer it to a HQ, then to the destination Corps. This occurs in the game and with the Scenario Editor - so it’s not likely an issue of readiness.

8. Mouse alignment problem in HQs - The mouse is not aligned properly. Positioning on the HQ is off by about half a line. You think you are clicking on one unit, but you get the one above it. When this is another HQ unit, it jumps you to the map with that HQ selected.

9. Movement Problems in Scenario Editor - An error message appears every time you move (Alt-M) a corps. Sometimes the error specifically refers to something about "low supply" level for the square, but mostly its just "not allowed".

10. Secure PBEM Play Bug - There have also been a couple of posts that reference problems with readiness, supply and OP point totals ONLY during secured PBEM play. I don’t know how reliable these posts are as being specific to just the PBEM game, as there seems to be some overlap with what is going on in the regular game.

11. Creation of a Unit by the AI in a Lost Hex - The AI, at least for the Soviets, will create a second unit in a hex at times, when the first one is thrown back or shattered. I have seen this one through all versions, I guess but had forgotten about it. At certain weird times, throughout the game, the AI can create a second unit when the first is thrown out. I don’t think this happens in human games.


Possible Bugs/ Modifications -

The remaining comments are also from Forum or Beta Team posts, basically directly or restated from the original. These are not all confirmed, but are things we should look at to check the validity. Not all are bugs, as some merely state observations to better modify the play routines.

1. CAP from a second HQ will not support a HQ under attack if the primary HQ has CAP capable fighters of it own. This has always been the game's behavior.
Possible Modification.

2. Recapturing a city that was originally your own did not get the population back. For the Russians this is critical.
Possible Bug.

3. After a Finnish unit occupied the bridge hex north of Leningrad it was reported as being at supply level 5, not as supply level 0 (even during July '41 when the Finish supply lines are short).
Possible Bug.

4. Units take losses in France before the invasion even at a replacement level of 80 - the units drop in strength.
Possible Modification.

5. Fortification Level - suggestion to consider using the old method if the city is at a SL>0 and the new method when its supply level is 0.
Possible modifications of new game routine.

6. Units that were completely isolated from their, or any, HQ (ie. in a cut off pocket behind lines) are reinforced during combat with tank divisions. It should not be possible to send combat reinforcements to any unit that has supply of zero, cut off or not.
Possible modification.

7. Before a unit shatters, older version tanks are swapped in to the unit, newer tanks are swapped out (AI only?)
Possible cheat - possible game modification.

8. Readiness levels don't seem to be affected during Mud turns. (Due to changes in readiness in the game versus the old manual?)
Possible bug.

9. Able to use air units at OKW and OKH to bomb the Soviet HQ's (Western and SWestern Fronts) with Do-17's and Me-110's even though the objectives are beyond the range of the aircraft.
Possible bug.

10. In Autumn and Winter 1941 (campaign played as the Russians), factories can't be moved to the Urals, even if Rail points are 2000 or 5000.
Possible bug. Likely related to Supply Level of hex with factory in it.

11. The computer is creating new units in its turn, attacking and moving them immediately. The player can't use units (new corps) on the turn they are created. This also happens in human vs. human with HQ's that are under the computer's control. Possible bug (existing part of game play).

Old Gameplay or Design Anomalies -

Some posts on the Bugs thread actually identified old or existing design or play anomalies. Not technically bugs, but more programming issues that me may or may not be able to address. The comments of Rick Bancroft, one of our best Beta Testers and a regular on the Forum, are included in responsee.

1. Combat Shattering for Surrounded Units - If you surround two armies in a turn and attack one of them, causing a retreat, the retreating army will shatter instead of surrendering due to the other unit still being in a hex with a supply greater than 0.

"This has always been the behavior of the game in a situation with multiple surrounded units. I don’t know if it has any significant game play effect, but it does look weird."

2. Problem with AI Defense of the South West Front - (Stories of this kind are pretty consistent.) "After capturing Kiev I sent the entire 4th Pz Army towards Moscow from the SW. The Soviet AI put up a screen of units to block my advance and in general seemed to be putting up a good defense in the north and center, but it left the south wide open. My minor allies walked into Sevastopol and Rostov unopposed and Italian units are busy racing towards Stalingrad and the Caucuses oil fields with not an enemy in sight. The AI might need some tweaking, I think. At the very least it should make sure that every city within a certain range of an enemy unit should have something to defend it." One poster questioned the placement of the Soviet forces on this Front being wrong, but gave no more details.

"This is definitely an old AI problem, as noted by someone on the Forum. If the AI is playing the Soviets and they are battered badly, they have always pulled in almost every single unit to the center and north, leaving the south undefended. This will probably be a tough one to fix."

3. 1941 Soviet Shattering on the Attack - "Also, the Russian unit that attacked it is shattered. Zukov was in command and the unit had base readiness of 60’s. This was in the early versions of WIR as well - the readiness of units makes them more vulnerable to shatter."

"Actually, as the poster said, the use of special supply seems to make a unit susceptible to shattering - I have noticed this through many games as the Soviets also. It seems to go away or become much more rare after the first year."

Memory Issues -

There have been several posts about the game either not starting or eventually crashing to the desktop following an "Insufficient Memory" error message. One of our Beta Testers followed this up and found that the release version of the game is now using about 575kb of 640kb base RAM, up 20kb from the prior builds. There may be several manifestations of this problem with attaching or transferring units. One of the clearest examples is an insufficient memory message in the HQ air screen if the number of air formations in the HQ exceeds five. When you try to choose an air formation, you get insufficient memory and are dumped out to the map screen. We are working to make sure the program is utilizing the memory available most efficiently to eliminate these kinds of problems in future builds.



[This message has been edited by Nick Papp (edited September 17, 2000).]

[frank1970]

I´ve played Wir for a long time and looked forward the update.
After reading the long forum-sessions I knew there are a few minor problems in the program.
I discovered a new one. If you play WIR with the keyboard and select an unit with subordinate Bn, you can look at these Bn by preesing the name key (A;B,..).
This works perfectly. But when you press a key more ( I mean there are 3 Bn, A,B,C and you press D), you get the information of a unit and the unit is added to the division. This works severel times (There were 3 Bn and pressing F I got a "new" unit). After closing the division screen all these new Units are deleted.

[Yogi Yohan]

Just want to remind of the "Baku bug" - rail is not being built from Baku westwards after the Axis capture it.

[JConn]

Not sure if it's a bug but the Finnish forces do not surrender when Helsinki is captured.
The Rumanians do throw in the towel with the fall of Bucharest

[sapperland]

In 2 Russian HQ's I was placing just AC in, never had thier OP's increase above zero. I first noticed this in early 42. I was not looking for it before so I am not sure when (start of campaign?) this problem shows up. I had moved the AC out and played another entire year and the OP's stayed at zero each turn I remembered to check.

[daniel123]

a unit that shatters instead of surrendering gives back readiness to serve as replacements and a unit that surrenders has all men and equipment lost. so a unit that is forced to retreat and shatters instead of surrendering will have an effect on the game.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by daniel123:
a unit that shatters instead of surrendering gives back readiness to serve as replacements and a unit that surrenders has all men and equipment lost. so a unit that is forced to retreat and shatters instead of surrendering will have an effect on the game.

Not sure I understand you here. The issue of multiple surrounded units where one unit retreats into the other unit's square and shatters there even though its obviously surrounded is a known problem. In normal situations where the unit is not surrounded it is supposed to shatter rather than surrender.

[JConn]

Northwest, Kalinin, and Volkov Soviet HQ's will not move via rail even when totally empty. Not an important bug but something that also is a leftover from the original WIR

[Stefan Comtesse]

I tested simultanuously with Wir2.0 and my old version Wir1.1 in order to find some of the bugs mentioned in your bug thread. Here are the results along with some suggestions.
Conf.Bugs:
1. All bugs related to the Scenario Editor already existed in Ver.1.1 and made edited games completely unplayable, even without changing anything and only saving as a new scen file. Using Editwir however never led to any problems.
2. When correcting the pool problem, please reduce the increments from 200 pieces to 10 in Editwir.
3. This occured 2 times, always after the first turn, always without moving the Italian HQ, unfortunately I am uncertain of further details.
4.This happens not when using the old Wir1.1 obwir-file in Wir2.0. It is also correctable using Editwir2.003 in setting delay to 0 or 1. If perhaps someone at Matrix used the Scenario Editor when editing the Air Units instead of Editwir at least one time, then the reinforcement problem mentioned in 1. could also be explained. The delay for (R) Armor is determined by value (E) READINESS in Editwir. If you change the readiness of the Volksgrenadier-Units to 99 using Editwir you will see them in 1941. I suppose the Scenario Editor changes this values automatically when saving to a scen file.
7. Never had this problem during testing, perhaps you tried to transfer a unit with low readiness. It is always possible, in accordance with the rules, to transfer units with readiness even below 5 from a HQ to a corps, but not vice versa.

Possible Bugs, Mod.:
2. Good idea, but with a reduced value.
4. Confirmed, should not happen.
5. Very good idea.
6. The (bad) AI also tends to preferably reinforce corps which are subject to bombing attacks from weak attackers (e.g. german allies).
8.I think you shouldn't have changed the readiness loss / supply routines. One of my Panzerkorps was cut of near Kiev in zero supply after plotting 1s6s9 (1 movement, 2 static attacks). Nevertheless the readiness of the PzDiv.'s remained between 55 and 73%! Three hexes away, another Panzerkorps ended up in supply level 4 after plotting 6699 (4 movements without fighting)with readiness of the PzDiv.'s (not Inf.Div., as you may suspect!) between 15 to 22%. The new rules describe how tired a unit may be, but not how much fuel and ammunition is available. Historically, even "static attacks" used up a lot of supply, probably not much less than driving along an empty road without fighting. Using Wir1.1, and even more using Second Front without the special supply order, I always had to be very cautious with my precious Panzerkorps, now I no longer have to. On the other hand, in 1941, the only possibility for the Russian player to slow down the Germans was in sacrificing some invaluable units by plotting through the German supply lines. This is no longer worth the effort. Another example: the units of a Russian Army in zero supply lost only 1% per turn (without moving)! In Wir1.1 they lost approx. half of their readiness per week, something I consider historically far more accurate. However, a far more heavier effect on the game balance, even more than changing the air rules, has the readiness boost for the Russian forces. Did you remove the additional readiness loss of the Soviet player in 41, 42, and 43 along with the normal readiness attrition for both players? You said, the computer "cheats" no longer when balance is set to even, does that bug now reappear? In Wir2.0 the average soviet readiness reaches some 75% compared to 53% in Wir1.1 (Balance set to even). When the Blitzkrieg supply expires at the end of august, the Germans now have great difficulties to advance any further, historically, this happened some weeks later when the weather changed.

Old gameplay:
1. Should be changed.

Suggestions:
1. Air operations of a HQ should be allowed after combat units had been transfered to it. This will not affect the play balance, but ease game play, especially because you cannot load a game without exiting.
2.Units in a HQ should loose readiness when the HQ is moved (bad for the Germans, but more realistic).
3. Ground attack aircraft should regain their cannons.
4. Oil/Ressources should not exceed their initial maximum when regrowing (Germany needn't attack Russia at all with those growing rates in Wir2.0).
5. I'd like to know the new formulae for the West/Italian Front calculation.
6. Take another, closer look at the new cover of your manual.pdf!

[daniel123]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Not sure I understand you here. The issue of multiple surrounded units where one unit retreats into the other unit's square and shatters there even though its obviously surrounded is a known problem. In normal situations where the unit is not surrounded it is supposed to shatter rather than surrender.

what i'm saying is that is you surround multiple units on a turn and force a unit to retreat the game will shatter the unit instead of surrending. the manual on page 18 in talking about shattered unit says some part on the shattered unit will be returned to higher HQ. on page 18 on surrender of a unit all parts of the unit will be permanently lost. so this bug allows a surrounded unit to give resources back when it should not.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by daniel123:

what i'm saying is that is you surround multiple units on a turn

Yes, this is a known problem.

[juheja]

Not necessarily a bug, but:
Two adjacent troops making plots like 4s7 and 77s (first attacking an enemy together, the other attacking unit advancing into the hex, and then both units attacking another unit together) won't work. This will result the second unit attacking the second hex alone, and on the next pulse the other unit doing the same.

It seems that both s and b -plots take up a time unit. I don't remember this from the original WIR. It's quite annoying sometimes - you can't make an adjacent corps help a tank corps breakthrough by making a static attack in the first two of the tank corp's plot hexes.

[Svar]

Not necessarily a bug, but:
Two adjacent troops making plots like 4s7 and 77s (first attacking an enemy together, the other
attacking unit advancing into the hex, and then both units attacking another unit together) won't
work. This will result the second unit attacking the second hex alone, and on the next pulse the
other unit doing the same.

It seems that both s and b -plots take up a time unit. I don't remember this from the original
WIR. It's quite annoying sometimes - you can't make an adjacent corps help a tank corps
breakthrough by making a static attack in the first two of the tank corp's plot hexes.

Try 4s7 and 707s, the 0 is a delay that places both second attacks on the third time impulse. Infantry Corps can use all 5 time impulses but only move or attack twice.

[This message has been edited by Svar (edited September 21, 2000).]

[sw30]

When I made an unintercepted strategic bomb run, the number of IL4 and TB3 planes in each unit increased. (Granted, the extra planes were damaged, but still...) Using this technique, I've gotten the Russian LRBs to ~220 planes. ~50 of which are damaged at one time. Can't really tell if this happens on intercepted strategic bombing, I had the detail level set on Low, so can't tell if the losses were damage or lost.

[jkokjohn]

What about being able to have a static or bombardment on 5th plot.

[Svar]

jkokjohn
What about being able to have a static or bombardment on 5th plot.

It can't be done. Any plot in the 5th plot will attack and move in that direction.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by jkokjohn:
What about being able to have a static or bombardment on 5th plot.

Supporting a static attack in the 5th phase would require expanding the plot limit from 5 to 6 to store the last "s". I've asked to increase this limit, but that would require some major changes to the game, plus a higher memory requirement, so its unlikely to happen for this limited upgrade of WiR.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by sw30:
When I made an unintercepted strategic bomb run, the number of IL4 and TB3 planes in each unit increased. (Granted, the extra planes were damaged, but still...) Using this technique, I've gotten the Russian LRBs to ~220 planes. ~50 of which are damaged at one time. Can't really tell if this happens on intercepted strategic bombing, I had the detail level set on Low, so can't tell if the losses were damage or lost.

I seem to remember a discussion about this, but I'm not sure. Nick?

If it turns out not to be an already known problem it'll be reported.

[Yverlok]

When changing an air unit's aircraft type, if there are enough aircraft of the new type in the pool it proceeds as expected. But if there aren't, the aircraft disappear into the Bermuda triangle and the unit goes to 0 operational/0 damaged. (and stays that way forever?)

Ex:
In turn 1, 4th Pz Army HQ group C (KG-77) has 118 operational, 2 damaged Ju-88A.

Change to He-111H (which has 195 in the pool), and you get 0 operational, 120 damaged (as expected).

However, if you change to S.M.79 (of which there are only 105 in the pool) you get 0 operational, 0 damaged, but the 105 S.M.79's disappear from the pool.

If you then try to change back to Ju-88A, the numbers in the pool are adjusted, but the numbers in the unit stay at 0/0.

I haven't tested it in v1.1, but the poster on alt.games.wargames who brought it to my attention found it using v1.1.

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Yverlok:
When changing an air unit's aircraft type, if there are enough aircraft of the new type in the pool it proceeds as expected. But if there aren't, the aircraft disappear into the Bermuda triangle and the unit goes to 0 operational/0 damaged. (and stays that way forever?)

In the earlier versions, such as 1.13x for sure, the unit with 0 aircraft would never get any for the rest of the game. I had that happen to me in a recent game, so I brought it up during playtesting and it has been fixed. The air unit will drop to 0 (by the way, the pool should still have that plane type in it unchanged, but since you changed it to that type it is no longer available if you try to switch again with that same unit-just check the pool from the main game menu). It will then get the typical reinforcements now, so that it will slowly build up strength. At least I just tested it and the next turn the unit received 10 damaged airplanes of that type. If you never get any for an extended period of time while there are at least a fair number of planes available in the pool, then please let us know again.

Thanks for the info.


------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi

[This message has been edited by RickyB (edited September 23, 2000).]