Matrix Games Forums

In trying to recreate my issue from the "Hidden Movement Bug?" thread, I discovered something else (and much worse imo).

In Classic AP mode if you have an active unit selected, click on the Command (CAP) Action button, select a different unit, add CAPs to it, cancel the Command Action, when you subsequently activate that same unit, it has the CAPs added to it's AP total.

In this screen capture, I had the Maxim MMG selected as the Active unit. I clicked the Command (CAP) Action button, selected the Rifle in hex F10 (by the VP) and added all my available CAPs (6) to it. I then canceled and returned to the Maxim as my Active unit.

I then ended the Maxim's activation and selected the Rifle in F10 and as you can see, it has 13 APs instead of the 7 it should have. I then repeated this with the Rifle in H11 but this time did it twice, i.e. adding 6 CAPs and then cancelling two times in a row.

As you can see, the Rifle in H11 started with 19 AP, an impossibility no matter how you determine APs (even variable 2D6).

I wonder if the developers even tested the update. The command action button doesnt use up any command points!
With such large game breaking bugs my conclusion the game is unplayable using the normal board game rules.

the game suffers from a some issues:

1. the developer working off the first edition rules dating back to 2008 (why!?)
2. a focus purely on the controversial 'persistent AP' rules, thus anything to do with the standard AP rules being a bit of a kludge retrograde-fit as people who had some familiarity with the board game rules started to arc-up. Uwe has supported the persistent rules but I certainly don't see the board game community embracing them. It's good for the ai though.

Working with thousands of lines of code and then testing said thousands of lines of code is frankly a thankless task and fraught with danger, no matter how many testers are on board.

But it should be said - the game developer in this case is working towards aligning the game with the board game rules so I am sure that issues like the alleged one above (well researched and documented - Erik, get VR_IronFist on the testing team!) will get fixed

cheers

It's just very annoying when the first game I start with the new update, the first thing I notice is it doesnt work.
Try scenario the monsters and using caps to move tanks.

I expected the computer game to be simmilar to the board game when I bought it, but it wasn't. I havent really played it, as the zuntzu module is better I am sorry to say.

zuntzu is brilliant, agreed. Finding opponents on that system is less brilliant.

But yes, I really wanted this game to be a copy of the board game, with ai and multiplayer benefits.

One day perhaps

cheers

Thanks for the report. I've reproduced the issue. It seems I have a tentative fix.

ORIGINAL: Aladinn
I wonder if the developers even tested the update. The command action button doesnt use up any command points!
With such large game breaking bugs my conclusion the game is unplayable using the normal board game rules.

There is only one developer working on the game right now, the guys who made the graphics and wrote the manual aren't working on the game any more, so it is only I among the developers who am working on the game at the moment. I work more than full-time programming and producing and can't beta test everything myself, so I rely on volunteer public beta testers and on open beta testing. This patch had been in open beta testing for quite a while, and I addressed every issue that was reported as best I could. The Command Action passed all the tests after I implemented it, but it seems that in adding another feature later I added one line of code that broke something. Nobody reported this during open beta testing nor in our group of volunteer testers.

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant
1. the developer working off the first edition rules dating back to 2008 (why!?)
2. a focus purely on the controversial 'persistent AP' rules, thus anything to do with the standard AP rules being a bit of a kludge retrograde-fit as people who had some familiarity with the board game rules started to arc-up. Uwe has supported the persistent rules but I certainly don't see the board game community embracing them. It's good for the ai though.

Working with thousands of lines of code and then testing said thousands of lines of code is frankly a thankless task and fraught with danger, no matter how many testers are on board.

But it should be said - the game developer in this case is working towards aligning the game with the board game rules so I am sure that issues like the alleged one above (well researched and documented - Erik, get VR_IronFist on the testing team!) will get fixed

The game design is based on the original rules because I started working on the game when the original rules were the only rules available. When Academy Games began changing the rules, I agreed to modify the game design document to the extent that it was reasonable to do so. A change in board-game rules that changes only a few English words can represent a change of a thousand lines of code, and so may not always be reasonable to do. We went months over schedule and many dollars over budget accommodating the rule changes that we did make.

Secondly, the Persistent AP rules originated as a design decision from Academy Games; it isn't something that I came up with and that they merely supported. I did discuss it with Uwe when he called me with the idea, and we listed pros and cons together, but it wasn't something that I dreamed up and they merely "supported."

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant
1. the developer working off the first edition rules dating back to 2008 (why!?)
2. a focus purely on the controversial 'persistent AP' rules, thus anything to do with the standard AP rules being a bit of a kludge retrograde-fit as people who had some familiarity with the board game rules started to arc-up. Uwe has supported the persistent rules but I certainly don't see the board game community embracing them. It's good for the ai though.

I'd just like to make a couple of notes on the above, before this becomes accepted as entirely true.

We started with the edition of rules that was the most current when development began, then worked closely with Uwe to make sure the computer version worked as he wanted rules-wise. This is the official computer adaptation, created in cooperation with the original designer, not something we just came up with ourselves. The computer game was actually initially designed with the original CAP/AP system. This was the first iteration, not a back-fitted kludge.

We took it out after Uwe and Eric worked out the Persistent APs system and decided that was how the computer version (which could handle that option) should work. After community feedback, we went back and put the original system in, but obviously there was quite a bit more development needed to get it working with the finished game as a at least a year of development had passed since it was originally finished and then removed.

We then issued a public beta update weeks ago to allow customers to help give us feedback on the new Classic AP system, then made the update and demo official after feedback was good. Yes, we also tested this ourselves.

To the best of my knowledge, this game already offers a lot that Zuntzu does not and it has been steadily improving since the original release, with the Storms of Steel expansion due next year.

Any issues with the system that got past us, we will absolutely address in another update. We didn't add in the original AP mode in order to have it not work. If a bug can be reproduced, we'll fix it. I apologize for any inconvenience this caused and for personally missing the bug in my testing.

Finally, I'd be happy to add VR_Ironfist to our test team if he's interested.

Regards,

- Erik

Guys (Eric & Erik) thanks for taking the time out to explain the history of PC CoH: AtB's development. I've been lurking on these boards since the game was released and can say truthfully that Eric has mentioned the above before. While I do play and enjoy Persistent APs (and see why it is tailor-made for a computer and not a board game), I also play (and actually prefer) the Classic AP mode, so I am glad you guys put it in along with the all the effort it took. As the Germans would say, "Danke!"

Ironically Erik, I did PM Eric about volunteering to help out in any beta testing capacity you guys might need/want. It's one part of my day job and something that's ingrained over the last 15+ years (I'm the Test Lead for two Products at a major Telecommunications company). Eric mentioned contacting him the second week of January as certain personnel return from vacation. However feel free to PM me sooner if I can be of service. I love this game (both PC and board game) so I'd be happy to help if I can.

I have never played the boardgame and just know about the Classic AP system from reading. I must say I am really happy with the Persistent AP system. It takes advantage of one strength of a computer versus a boardgame, i.e. the computer can do the accounting for us. It also seems to flow naturally. For example, if I have 3 squads that want to advance they can do so in mutually supporting roles advancing one hex at a time, as I imagine they would do in real life. If the enemy pops up the three of them can help each other.

I really appreciate the responsiveness of Eric and Erik. Other gaming software has come out with new versions or upgrades in the last year and they also have problems. Some of the promised new features didn't work and no comment was made to the fact that it would be corrected soon. Very frustrating. Here I feel we have a team that really listens and let's us in on what they are going to try and fix soon, etc.

Gerry

Erik and Eric,

thanks for clearing up my perceptions of the game's development.

Probably not the right thread to ask, but do you think you may be able to get the ai to use basic Classic AP rules at some stage?

cheers

Hi Chris,

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant
Probably not the right thread to ask, but do you think you may be able to get the ai to use basic Classic AP rules at some stage?

It will certainly become better at using Classic APs over time. Keep in mind we added Classic APs back in as a post-release feature for Awakening the Bear, but we did not have time to overhaul the AI to optimize it for that play mode. I expect that for the Storms of Steel release, where Classic APs will be in as feature from the start, the AI will be smarter about that mode of play. I would expect any improvements to the AI from Storms of Steel to show up in an Awakening the Bear update as well.

Regards,

- Erik

Hi Erik

I'd be interested to find out how the ai has been improved in the last couple of modules to accommodate Classic AP's

cheers

lel