Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:45 pm**

@Telumar
What real issues do we have?
I know only about the "flak isn't working in none-flak units" bug and I really would like to see a hotfix for it so we can continue playing & scenario design.

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:05 am**

Yeah, a hotfix for known issues would be very helpful; though my non-AA units defend with their AA assets against direct, support and interdiction attacks. I think I posted parts of the toaw_log.txt somewhere.

Klink, Oberst

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:47 pm**

They do? Mh, interesting.
I thought no AA outside AA units works.

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:52 pm**

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Yeah, a hotfix for known issues would be very helpful; though my non-AA units defend with their AA assets against direct, support and interdiction attacks. I think I posted parts of the toaw_log.txt somewhere.

Klink, Oberst

This makes me wonder. If AAA assets were made a non AAA unit counter would they perform their duties? If yes then someone could use that as a work around. Even to the point of changing the graphics on one of the non AAA counter that isn't used to AAA.

Bottom line, it sucks to have to use work arounds for this. I don't wish to appear negative but it seems support for this game, even patching something like this, has evaporated or at best, become glacial.

Even worse, they still charge $40 US for a virtually unsupported game. Seems rather unethical. [:-]

Posted: **Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:04 pm**

Panama,

ja, it is bleedin' frustrating to say at least. Regarding the AA units/icons, see:

tm.asp?m=3004187&mpage=1&key=AAA�
tm.asp?m=3053630&mpage=1%EF%BF%BD

Perhaps it only works properly during inetrdiction and not direct attacks? Can test with a modified Tutorial '41. Let's see how the Stukas survive an attack of a Yugoslav HQ with 12 x 37mm SPAAG.

Klink, Oberst

In guess one has to look for such a line in the toaw_log.txt:

AIRCombat:Yugoslavia Division Cerska, Cerska AA.Btl contributes anti-aircraft fire (9).
AIRCombat:Attempt Penetration: Germany 11.Pz Division, SG 2.
AIRCombat:Committed to furball: Germany 11.Pz Division, SG 2.
Combat :Germany 11.Pz Division, SG 2 escapes attrition (insufficient attack).
AIRCombat:End penetration attempt.
AIRCombat:SG 2 targeted by Yugoslavia anti-aircraft fire (27/57).

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:15 pm**

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

@Telumar
What real issues do we have?
I know only about the "flak isn't working in none-flak units" bug and I really would like to see a hotfix for it so we can continue playing & scenario design.

Ok, let's see. We have these bugs in 3.4 (there are other minor ones, but these are the main bugs):

Artillery cooperation bug
Artillery assigned to bombard will additionally attack in adjacent cooperative assaults, if the assault can be arranged to take place before the bombardment is executed. See: tm.asp?m=2627710

Helicopter icon info bug
Helicopter units don’t show icon info when on some terrain types (e.g. alpine). Actually this is not related to any terrain type. Rather it is dependent upon whether the unit is adjacent to a friendly or not.See tm.asp?m=2636638

Old Supply rail lines
Old Supply rail lines continue rail supply past a blown bridge. This is not a problem with New Supply. See tm.asp?m=2653213

Special characters
Special characters (ä, ö, á etc) can't be entered in the editor (they are correctly displayed in the game, though). See tm.asp?m=2561892

Sce Editor: Clipping/Pasting formations
Clipping/Pasting formations still screws up event targets (for Withdraw Unit events, for example). This is an old TOAW I bug. Note that clipping/pasting etc. individual units has been fixed so that event targets are not screwed up by that anymore. But this still remains. still screws up event targets (for Withdraw Unit events, for example). This is an old TOAW I bug. Note that clipping/pasting etc. individual units has been fixed so that event targets are not screwed up by that anymore. But this still remains.

Retreated units can still be embarked
- even if they move during their friendly player turn. This goes back at least to ACOW. Note that under "New Turn Order Rules" the "Retreated" condition has basically disappeared. See tm.asp?m=2672535

PO assist Reorg bug
Using PO Assist allows formations in Reorg to recover organization. This is done by cycling through the orders till you hit "Independent". Then the reorganizing formation is no longer reorganizing. See tm.asp?m=2680744

New Supply/blown bridge bug
New Supply won't trace through a blown bridge over a deep water hex even though ferry units allow movement through the hex by units. See tm.asp?m=2697218

Sitrep Log Bug
The sitrep is dumping out only the first page of the Detailed Combat Report Loss Screens- in other words only the first 17 lines.See tm.asp?m=2885859&mpage=1&key=&#2886448 - post 6 ff.

Anti-Air Bug
I don't remember the details, but in 3,4 some units do AA, others not. This has been fixed. Every unit, if assigned proper equipment, does AA in 3.5.

---------------------------------------------------

Most of these have been fixed, but there are still issues with counterbattery fire and with new features that have been implemented in 3.5. So while most 3.4 bugs have been fixed there is still no bug free version.

Note that this is unofficial. While i'm a beta tester i am not an official spokesman.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:28 pm**

Well, let's hope it'll be ready for x-mas.

I thought I had Kharkov '43 nearly done... but then the AA 'bug' popped back up... I should charge M-G for the creation of additional Soviet Front, Corps and Divison separate and composite AA detachments, regiments... for BOTH the Voronezh AND the South West front... :/

Klink, Oberst

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:09 pm**

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Well, let's hope it'll be ready for x-mas.

Klink, Oberst

Which Year[&:][:D]

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:12 pm**

Nice to see the Special characters bug reported.

In addition I would like to see some open source maps in .MAL format added to TOAW patch.

That would be sweet specially for those like me that can't map ****.

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:00 am**

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

@Telumar
What real issues do we have?
I know only about the "flak isn't working in none-flak units" bug and I really would like to see a hotfix for it so we can continue playing & scenario design.

Ok, let's see. We have these bugs in 3.4 (there are other minor ones, but these are the main bugs):

Artillery cooperation bug
Artillery assigned to bombard will additionally attack in adjacent cooperative assaults, if the assault can be arranged to take place before the bombardment is executed. See: tm.asp?m=2627710

Helicopter icon info bug
Helicopter units don’t show icon info when on some terrain types (e.g. alpine). Actually this is not related to any terrain type. Rather it is dependent upon whether the unit is adjacent to a friendly or not.See tm.asp?m=2636638

Old Supply rail lines
Old Supply rail lines continue rail supply past a blown bridge. This is not a problem with New Supply. See tm.asp?m=2653213

Special characters
Special characters (ä, ö, á etc) can't be entered in the editor (they are correctly displayed in the game, though). See tm.asp?m=2561892

Sce Editor: Clipping/Pasting formations
Clipping/Pasting formations still screws up event targets (for Withdraw Unit events, for example). This is an old TOAW I bug. Note that clipping/pasting etc. individual units has been fixed so that event targets are not screwed up by that anymore. But this still remains. still screws up event targets (for Withdraw Unit events, for example). This is an old TOAW I bug. Note that clipping/pasting etc. individual units has been fixed so that event targets are not screwed up by that anymore. But this still remains.

Retreated units can still be embarked
- even if they move during their friendly player turn. This goes back at least to ACOW. Note that under "New Turn Order Rules" the "Retreated" condition has basically disappeared. See tm.asp?m=2672535

PO assist Reorg bug
Using PO Assist allows formations in Reorg to recover organization. This is done by cycling through the orders till you hit "Independent". Then the reorganizing formation is no longer reorganizing. See tm.asp?m=2680744

New Supply/blown bridge bug
New Supply won't trace through a blown bridge over a deep water hex even though ferry units allow movement through the hex by units. See tm.asp?m=2697218

Sitrep Log Bug
The sitrep is dumping out only the first page of the Detailed Combat Report Loss Screens- in other words only the first 17 lines.See tm.asp?m=2885859&mpage=1&key=? - post 6 ff.

Anti-Air Bug
I don't remember the details, but in 3,4 some units do AA, others not. This has been fixed. Every unit, if assigned proper equipment, does AA in 3.5.

---------------------------------------------------

Most of these have been fixed, but there are still issues with counterbattery fire and with new features that have been implemented in 3.5. So while most 3.4 bugs have been fixed there is still no bug free version.

Note that this is unofficial. While i'm a beta tester i am not an official spokesman.

And there's the fortified and ignore losses problem as well. That's a biggy.

Best wishes,
Steve

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:10 am**

Steve,

the 'ignoree losses' issue can be handled with proper AD and MRPB settings. Though, even I am still sceptical about it, sometimes. So far, in my ongoing revision of Kharkov '43 it works as designed; or shall I say historically. Now that you're back (haven't seen you for awhile), be prepared to be on the list of play-testers, aye?

Klink, Oberst

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:15 am**

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Steve,

the 'ignoree losses' issue can be handled with proper AD and MRPB settings. Though, even I am still sceptical about it, sometimes. So far, in my ongoing revision of Kharkov '43 it works as designed; or shall I say historically. Now that you're back (haven't seen you for awhile), be prepared to be on the list of play-testers, aye?

Klink, Oberst

The ignore losses issue is not working as it should. It should work as it was before the 3.4 patch. Before 3.4 is the default for the game engine and that is how working as designed should be. In other words, ignore losses shouldn't cause the serious problems it does. It is broken. It needs to be fixed. Work arounds to make something work properly makes this obvious.

The magnitude of the problem becomes apparent with the huge number of scenarios that no longer function properly. It's impossible for the regular TOAW player to fix these because they are not all scenario designers nor is there time to play test hundreds of scenarios.

So Shunwick is correct, there is still the fortified and ignore losses problem and yes, they are most certainly biggies.

Ever been in a spot where you really needed support and was told nothing is available, you are on your own for now? Well, I'm beginning to feel that way with TOAW. [:D]

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:39 am**

No other person than me would like the issue about the unsupplied, fortified, hero-garrisons with 1 Rifle Squad being fixed... But what to say? Even I am powerless and unable to summon the patch/hot fix sages

Klink, Oberst

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:00 pm**

ORIGINAL: shunwick

That's a biggy.

100% right. It's the biggest.

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:13 pm**

ORIGINAL: Panama

The ignore losses issue is not working as it should.

Ignore losses don't have nothing to do with this matter. They work as they always worked.

The problem is the "fortified" status which was clearly overrated (on combat results) and this has effect only on present version.

If a defender unit is on ignore losses but mobile or even dig-in (not fortified) the results from combat are sound as they ever were. However if fortified the defender is almost invincible creating unrealistic combat simulations.

Adjusting AD and MRPB make things a bit more realistic but the vast majority of scenarios aren't designed considering those settings.

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:59 pm**

Well Gentleman,

we all agree that: It's time for 3.5 to be made accessible for the majority of us, the dedicated players and scenario developers. Surely the issues reported by Telumar should have been fixed by now, uh? What I suspect causes the hold-up are those 'changes' for the naval supply and fancy stuff like naval interdiction; that will always be handled in an abstract manner and events. That should have been postponed IMHO until the land combat model bugs being resolved. Anyway, patience they say is a virtue... though it's been 2 years by now since 3.4 was released and I feel I have little 'virtue' left...

Klink, Oberst

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:15 pm**

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

What I suspect causes the hold-up are those 'changes' for the naval supply and fancy stuff like naval interdiction; that will always be handled in an abstract manner and events. That should have been postponed IMHO until the land combat model bugs being resolved.

Not only humble but logical and most reasonable opinion.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:38 pm**

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

No other person than me would like the issue about the unsupplied, fortified, hero-garrisons with 1 Rifle Squad being fixed... But what to say? Even I am powerless and unable to summon the patch/hot fix sages

Klink, Oberst

Ralph and Bob have the bug on the radar. See also Bob's posts in tm.asp?m=3056061.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:26 pm**

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

What I suspect causes the hold-up are those 'changes' for the naval supply and fancy stuff like naval interdiction; that will always be handled in an abstract manner and events. That should have been postponed IMHO until the land combat model bugs being resolved.

That would have required a time machine, since the Ignore Losses issue wasn't brought to our attention till long after work on 3.5 was under way. That's the one 3.4 issue that hasn't been addressed yet.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:48 pm**

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

What I suspect causes the hold-up are those 'changes' for the naval supply and fancy stuff like naval interdiction; that will always be handled in an abstract manner and events.Klink, Oberst

The cause of the 'hold-up' is already stated in this thread. See post #11 and post #15.

Matrix Games Forums

TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?

RE: TOAW 3.5 approaches ?