Another Beta Build or Final Patch

[dazkaz15]

Thanks for taking the time to look into it Peter [&o]


Its a big ask because I know you are busy, but when you get time, do you think you could do a quick summery as to the distribution daily, starting from day 3, and maybe spread the counters out a little bit so I can see what's going on better [;)]
Which units ran out first, and when, what was the stocking level like in the Regimental bases that have bight yellow boxes at the end of the scenario?
Did you adjust the min. max , normal supply distribution options at all in the units orders?

In my game I have set the Panthers to Max everything, I wonder if this is upsetting the distribution a bit?
The problem with that theory is that the other Regiments were full as well, and there units were set to default distribution.

Thanks mate [:)]

[Phoenix100]

Daz. Summary of daily distribution? What time would you like me to give it for? And what figure do you want - where will I find it? All I've been looking for is the number opposite 'basics'. When you say summary, what do you mean? I might have time at the weekend if it's not a massive task, but I'm not sure what you mean.

I didn't touch anything, in terms of buttons governing supply. I moved a few units out, as you see, but then reattached them well before day 8. That was it. It may be that you would need to look at it in detail for what you want when you get back, but Dave has my test scenario and is aware of the point and said he would look at it today, so I'm sure if there's something there he'll find it.

I'm unclear about how player control affects supply. All mine were re-attached at scenario end and had no orders at all, I think. But yours will all be under direct control in various groupings. Is it the case that nevertheless they would always draw supply from their organic base, and even if that is so, would them being tasked by the player affect the priority given them by the AI when resources are scarce?

[dazkaz15]

For a summery I was thinking something along the line of what the bases have in them at a time between the resupply events at 06:00 and 18:00, so about 12:00 or midnight, this is to ensure that there are no basics in transit between the units.
An example of the summery would be: Basics LVII Corps base 0/984, 116 Pz Div 0/691, 16 Pz Regt 62/66, 60 Pz Gren 51/56, 156 Pz Gren Regt 60/66, 560 VG Div 0/536 etc
Also a screen shot to show the basics distribution over the map like you have already provided, but without the objectives turned on so I can see which units are which, would be awesome [;)]

This is how I imagine the distribution/rationing of supply is handled in game:
All the bases on the map try to keep the same % of supply. If for example you have 10% of standard supply in the Division base and it is supplying 2 Regimental bases one with 50% the other with 10% the base with 50% will get no further supply from division until it reaches 10%.

Prioritizing supply via the min, norm, max buttons is not very user friendly at all, because it gives you very little feedback as to how this will effect the amount of supply. I don't even recall ever seeing any details about it in the game manual?
How I imagine it to work though is norm is 100% of standard supply level. Min would be 50% and max 150%.

So if you know you are about to order an offensive, you would set the supply levels (Ammo, basics and fuel) for your Coy to max. The Regimental base will then send out supply to top up that unit to 150% of its standard supply level. The regimental base will then ask for more from division. Division will look at its supply level.
As rationing is in force because the Division base is below 50% (rationing automatically comes into force at 50% for ammo and 33% for basics) it will send out a limited amount of supply to bring it just above the % of supply the Div base currently has. It will allocate no more supply to other Regiments attached until their supply level is the same as Div.
The same thing will happen between Corps and its attached divisions.

I don't know if these assumpions are right because I have never been able to find it written down anywhere, so if its wrong please clarify the use of min. norm, max buttons, and rationing for me.
Thanks [:)]

[dazkaz15]

Its very important not to have all your supply in your regimental bases, because if your regiment base gets destroyed, the units that were attached to it will automatically try to draw from the next organic base up the chain.
In this case it will be the empty Division base that sent all its supplies down to Regiment.
OOPS[:D]

Of course there may come a time when Division runs out completely, because the aim is to always keep the next highest echelon base just under the stocking levels of the lowest subordinate base, but they should reach this empty stage at roughly the same time.
There is currently no way that I know of to send supply back up the line for re-distribution.
If for example one of the Regiment bases was still fully stocked, because it was on a section of the front that saw no action, there may be a circumstance where this base is still fully stocked with ammo, but the Division, and one of its attached Regiments empty.
Another consideration for Command Ops 2 is supply sharing, but Dave is aware of this as I have seen him mention it before, and that it might be possible to introduce it into a future version of the game engine.

[Phoenix100]

Well, I agree with all these points, Daz. And Dave will be able to see from my test I sent him that the Regimental base is always full and the Divisional base always nearly empty, so I'm sure he's onto it. I probs won't have time this weekend it seems to do that summary thing though. I'd forgotten it's midsomer (my family has a Finnish component) and hence there has to be quite a lot of socialising and drinking etc.

If we ever get a CO2 I'm sure supply will be better. With only 30 people responding to the poll at the top of this page I, as ever, wonder how the prospect of making CO2 could ever be feasible (except as a labour of love). The supreme importance of the AI (enemy and friendly) in these types of games seems blatently obvious to me, as does the fact that this game is a step-change away from the next best 'wargame' available, for example, from Matrix (or anywhere). But activity in the various forums here would tend to suggest that my views aren't widely shared, sadly.

[wodin]

phoenix..I wouldn't go by the poll. If CO wasn't viable then we'd have never got HTTR after Red Devils let alone COTA and COBFTB. Also this isn't Dave's main job but more a sideline\hobby. He def isn't doing it for the money. SO I really wouldn't worry about CO2 no being made due to financial reasons.

[Phoenix100]

Well, I would hope you're right, Jason (especially as to Panther having other income sources). But part of the reason I voted for an extra beta rather than a final just now was because I'm pessimistic about the idea of (any) devs being able to continually fund (with 'spare' time if nothing else) niche games that hold no incentive above the joy of the game itself (and I don't blame them). So I'm always thinking that as far as this game goes it's always possible that what we have now (CO1) is as far as it will get (so it would be nice to have it in as good a state as it can be).

Dave should do a poll to find out how many in here would buy his science-fiction saga (it's good - I've read one volume!) if he self-published it and told us all where to get it. That might help CO2 development![;)]

[simovitch]

I'm playing through day 4 of "Spearhead vs Das Reich" and I fully understand now what the issue is.

It is (of course) a result of the scenario designer trying to simulate limited supply. I'll bring this up in the dev forum, this thread is not the place for discussion.[:)]

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Well, I would hope you're right, Jason (especially as to Panther having other income sources). But part of the reason I voted for an extra beta rather than a final just now was because I'm pessimistic about the idea of (any) devs being able to continually fund (with 'spare' time if nothing else) niche games that hold no incentive above the joy of the game itself (and I don't blame them). So I'm always thinking that as far as this game goes it's always possible that what we have now (CO1) is as far as it will get (so it would be nice to have it in as good a state as it can be).

Dave should do a poll to find out how many in here would buy his science-fiction saga (it's good - I've read one volume!) if he self-published it and told us all where to get it. That might help CO2 development![;)]

If this wasn't the case Matrix stable would consist of about four titles:) I'd say 95% of games here are made for the love of it and aren't the main source of income for the developers..they'd starve else.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

I'm playing through day 4 of "Spearhead vs Das Reich" and I fully understand now what the issue is.

It is (of course) a result of the scenario designer trying to simulate limited supply. I'll bring this up in the dev forum, this thread is not the place for discussion.[:)]

Thanks Richard [:)]
Wishing you luck on finding an easy solution to the problem.
Sorry to spring this one on you guys so late in the patching process [:(]
If you have any more questions about it, just ask [;)]

[decaro]

So, are we going to get another beta build until all of this is resolved?
It doesn't look like a final patch is forthcoming any time soon.

[Mahatma]

I know I'm late but I vote for another Beta because the fixes are necessary for a CO2 to be finished, so why not do them immediately to improve CO1?

Pretty please can I have the following? In return I will buy Battles for Greece, encourage everyone I know to buy Command Ops and pimp Command Ops when I become famous. Everyone on the forum should donate children/wifes to Arjuna if he makes it happen. I will be on call 24/7 to beta test all appropriate things that need testing.

a. the retreat code needs editing (I'm sorry to say) because the HQs are unbelievably stubborn to the point of ridiculousness.
b. an option to check a 'only this unit' box when issuing orders so that I can reposition HQs easily and not have to worry about issuing orders to subordinates and the hassle that goes along with selecting and deselecting a bunch of units.
c. have retreating units retreat back to their HQ by the safest or covered route, which with the above change allows retreats to be a lot more sensible as HQs can be positioned tactically with this in mind.

That's it really, the game is polished almost like a diamond.

[MikeJ19]

Hi All,

I like the changes that Mahatma is mentioning above - I think that they make a lot of sense.

Have a great day,

Mike

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Mahatma

I know I'm late but I vote for another Beta because the fixes are necessary for a CO2 to be finished, so why not do them immediately to improve CO1?

Pretty please can I have the following? In return I will buy Battles for Greece, encourage everyone I know to buy Command Ops and pimp Command Ops when I become famous. Everyone on the forum should donate children/wifes to Arjuna if he makes it happen. I will be on call 24/7 to beta test all appropriate things that need testing.

a. the retreat code needs editing (I'm sorry to say) because the HQs are unbelievably stubborn to the point of ridiculousness.

Can I have a screen dump of an example where this occurs and a save. I suspect that recent changes I have made to the disband code may obviate this issue. Need a save to test it.

b. an option to check a 'only this unit' box when issuing orders so that I can reposition HQs easily and not have to worry about issuing orders to subordinates and the hassle that goes along with selecting and deselecting a bunch of units.

There are lots of side issues with doing this and so it's not going to happen for CO1. To make this work, I would need to provide at the plan development level code that could hive off the HQs into a peripheral task, appoint the highest subordinate as the hub for any formation, like we do for an attack now, and then write a swag of code to manage the HQ deployment and the cases when and if it should no longer be considered a peripheral. Now, I think it's a good option but it involves a lot of work.

c. have retreating units retreat back to their HQ by the safest or covered route, which with the above change allows retreats to be a lot more sensible as HQs can be positioned tactically with this in mind.

We in fact used to do this by default but it creates some truly absurd situations if that is all that is considered. You nee to cater for cases where the HQ itself is in a precarious situation, where the threat interposes itself between the retreater and the HQ, where some other potential threat interposes, where the HQ is itself routing/retreating, where the retreater can no longer reach the HQ's location etc. Alas things are not as simple as you first think.

That's it really, the game is polished almost like a diamond.

Glad to hear it. Thanks.

[captskillet]

how are you doing Dave? doing some rehab I imagine.

[dazkaz15]

I agree the code does need looking at for HQ's, and mortars as well I think.

It just needs a tiny tweak though, to bring them somewhere in the middle of how they used to be, and how they are now.
It must be a hard one to tweak because not all HQ's are crated equal.
Some are just made up of 30 or so lightly armed men on foot, and others have 8 Panthers embedded in them!

The HQ's moral should be slightly higher, and more robust than other units, but probably not as robust as it is currently.

They should also be resilient to direct, and indirect fire from ranges over 200m shorter than this I think they would be actively participating in the defence (range is debatable).
This is to represent that they would usually be deployed in defilade, or local cover, as is found in almost all open areas in real life, but not able to be represented in game due to scale limitations.

I don't know if this kind of fidelity is possible, and suspect it will have to wait for a future version of the game engine, but the HQ's should not be able to engage enemy units when given a deployment bonus like this, as they would be in cover with no LOS to the enemy.
If the HQ unit is set to max agro however, they should be able to engage enemy units as normal, (maybe a separate tick option will be needed) but their default deployment bonus would be lost to represent they are no longer in local cover, but actively participating in the combat.
This option would help in the situation where you have a powerful HQ with embedded armour, to actively participate in the battle but be stripped of its cover bonuses.

In such a complex game these tweaks are very rarely simple, when you think through all the variables involved. I have probably only touched on a few here, and am sure there are many others.

[Deathtreader]

Hi,

Has a decision regarding another beta or go to final been made yet??

Inquiring minds would like to know! [:)]

Rob.

[Arjuna]

I put out a new build on Wednesday night and Matrix should release it as a public beta very soon.

[Phoenix100]

Great news, Dave. Many thanks. How long do you think before the Med pack comes out?

[Mahatma]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

ORIGINAL: Mahatma

I know I'm late but I vote for another Beta because the fixes are necessary for a CO2 to be finished, so why not do them immediately to improve CO1?

Pretty please can I have the following? In return I will buy Battles for Greece, encourage everyone I know to buy Command Ops and pimp Command Ops when I become famous. Everyone on the forum should donate children/wifes to Arjuna if he makes it happen. I will be on call 24/7 to beta test all appropriate things that need testing.

a. the retreat code needs editing (I'm sorry to say) because the HQs are unbelievably stubborn to the point of ridiculousness.

Can I have a screen dump of an example where this occurs and a save. I suspect that recent changes I have made to the disband code may obviate this issue. Need a save to test it.

b. an option to check a 'only this unit' box when issuing orders so that I can reposition HQs easily and not have to worry about issuing orders to subordinates and the hassle that goes along with selecting and deselecting a bunch of units.

There are lots of side issues with doing this and so it's not going to happen for CO1. To make this work, I would need to provide at the plan development level code that could hive off the HQs into a peripheral task, appoint the highest subordinate as the hub for any formation, like we do for an attack now, and then write a swag of code to manage the HQ deployment and the cases when and if it should no longer be considered a peripheral. Now, I think it's a good option but it involves a lot of work.

c. have retreating units retreat back to their HQ by the safest or covered route, which with the above change allows retreats to be a lot more sensible as HQs can be positioned tactically with this in mind.

We in fact used to do this by default but it creates some truly absurd situations if that is all that is considered. You nee to cater for cases where the HQ itself is in a precarious situation, where the threat interposes itself between the retreater and the HQ, where some other potential threat interposes, where the HQ is itself routing/retreating, where the retreater can no longer reach the HQ's location etc. Alas things are not as simple as you first think.

That's it really, the game is polished almost like a diamond.

Glad to hear it. Thanks.

Regarding point 'a' this is probably already already fixed in the next patch that you mentioned on the 17th June. I haven't played the game in a month and do not have any saves. As for 'b', that's a shame and 'c' probably isn't an issue as the retreats are fine and I was just nit picking.

I found a 'd' which is the proclivity of units to move in column formation when in LOS of the enemy. I brought this up last time and yourself mentioned how the code was adjusted to encourage better formations when the objloc is nearby. I did notice an improvement but the commanders still too readily switch to road column even when the objloc is within 1km.

An 'e' is that I can't seem to withdraw while facing the enemy. Say I have my coy X and enemy coy Y like this:
X Y
and I want to move to the west while facing Y, how can I do this? Is it possible for tanks to reverse? Surely it is!