Not the 3.9.4 Patch...

[FreekS]

Here is my list; very different from Hermans!
Items coded xx do not have an exact match in 'The List'.

I was not always 100% sure if an item had been fully fixed; but these were the ones I remembered most during either gameplay of scenario design.

They represent only my own opinion! I typically rate CTD not so severe as the auto.sav function works well and CTD usually only causes a few minutes delay.

Numbers refer to Hermans numbering.

Freek

Very serious (Makes a lot of Scenario's unplayable)

xx. Unclassified subs not attacked by all AI missions (partly fixed but not for e.g. substrike, Transit, Unassigned, Plotted missions which I use a lot)

xx. New ground damage model (defeats all non-100% damage vicconds, a lot of scens)

xx. Ferry mission cannot go high enough anymore to operate Satellites (makes some of my favorite scens like Atlantic unplayable)

175. Map depth arbitrarily changed (reveals subs on surface in a few scens)

Serious (makes a lot of scenario's too easy/hard - poorer AI or breaks a few scens)

190. Sonobuoy helo fail to RTB and fall behind formations (makes very hard for AI to defend formation)

168. Ground strike fails to execute

27&106. Protect Victory Condition

179. On station viccond fails

122. Missiles not releasing

210. Unrep not possible in MP

136. SLBM explodes past target

XX. All sub mission execute at creep speed once inside patrol zone

72. torps chase improper targets

195. Torpedoes chasing dipping helo

141. Navigator plots path off the map (and generally is inefficient)

12&120. Planes Ignore Nav zones (on way into target)


Irritating & Cosmetic issues

187. RoE error yields wrong message

178. Nuke yields minimised

xx. Map scale off by 30%+


Very old issues (mostly worked around)

197. Torpedoes limited to cruise speed when BOL fired

1. AAA fire unlimited by altitude

184 Poor AAW missile allocation

Note: order changed after detailed discussion between HH and FS

[Bucks]

190. Sonobuoy helo fail to RTB and fall behind formations (makes very hard for AI to defend formation)

Freek,

I wanted to suggest a check for this issue from the DB POV. This may be due to the lifetime of the buoys you've been given. If they last too long the behaviour you're reporting will occur. Herman and you might want to try out cutting down the Sonobuoy lifetime (fuel) and see if your helos drop their buoys faster.

Say the formation zone was from 6nm in to 2nm or a 4nm distance for your ships to cover before each line is "replaced". You would make the lifetime of the buoys 20min based on a 12 kt speed of advance. Running the numbers is easy enough and you can decide if the results change if this can be fixed outside of the code itself.

Cheers

Darren

[hermanhum]

The endurance of the buoys could be modified, but this would not solve the problem.  A number of other poor side-effects would likely arise:
[ol][*]As per your suggestion, the buoys would be limited to use in a certain size of patrol zone.  i.e. ##nm from the group.  Other users trying larger/smaller zones would have problems with their sonobuoys.[*]The helos using those buoys must also use them for other functions.  i.e. open ocean search or sub strike missions.  If those same helos are assigned a mission other than Formation Air Patrol, then the parameters used to optimize the buoys for that function may now prove a hinderance on ASW Area patrol missions[*]Having multiple variants of sonobuoys might be possible from a human player perspective, but is not possible for any AI control.  The AI is simply unable to switch between loadouts.[/ol]I can think of a number of additional problems, but haven't detailed them for the sake of brevity.

While the suggestion to customize a database around specific problem(s) may be technically and theoretically possible, it is wholly infeasible from a practical perspective, IMO.  This is a systemic problem requiring a systemic solution.

[FreekS]

Any other players/designers/coders want to give input into priority issues ? Bucks? Others?

Of course the decision if/which decision to tackle remains wholly with AGSI and noone else, but they have indicated several times that the appreciate input.

Freek

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Any other players/designers/coders want to give input into priority issues ? Bucks? Others?

Of course the decision if/which decision to tackle remains wholly with AGSI and noone else, but they have indicated several times that the appreciate input.

Freek

Freek,

That's all I'm looking for (input) and a way we can all look at the factors involved and see what's available to address the issues. I'm about to start getting busy with some things I MUST take care of today and once I'm home later I'll work through your lists and make some comments of my own. I have a small list of requests I've made and I'd like some feedback in that direction as well.

I'll prioritise Herman's list of issues above and make sure I confirm them first and then feed 'em through to Russell to see what he can do to clear them in the next couple of 3.10 Betas maybe...

Thanks for your time Freek and Herman

Darren

[FreekS]

Interesting and disappointing that not more players/designers/DB managers want to help prioritize the issues. Maybe that menas nobody is bothered by any of the issues, maybe it means most of you have already given up. Freek

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Interesting and disappointing that not more players/designers/DB managers want to help prioritize the issues. Maybe that means nobody is bothered by any of the issues, maybe it means most of you have already given up. Freek

It sounds like you've asked and answered your own question at the same time. [:D]

As posted on June 8, 2009:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

The List of Known ANW Issues has already been posted.

I believe that the proverbial ball is in your court, now.

fb.asp?m=2134600

AGSI will either address them or continue their current policy of trying to ignore them. Since some of the problems have been around for over 3 years, I don't hold much faith in them ever being fixed.

[Anonymous]

Freek,

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Interesting and disappointing that not more players/designers/DB managers want to help prioritize the issues. Maybe that menas nobody is bothered by any of the issues, maybe it means most of you have already given up. Freek

It could also mean that most people simply enjoy their 3.9.4. Ever thought about that?

And if not, they focus on other promising possibilities like GCB2. Why should those guys waste their time on this endless discussions and clashes? Most are not interested in this Harpoon Kindergarten.

Life is too short for that.

Ralf