Matrix Games Forums

This is the sequence of events when trying to coordinate a multi Bn attack by checking auto attack at box, (after setting a time well in advance of what they will require) to advance the time of the attack when all in position.

This also happend pre patch, but Im not sure if it is a bug or not.
Even if its not a bug I don't personnaly feel its happening as it should.
This method would be a very good way to coordinate attacks "AT MY Command"

image 2

image 3

image 4

image 5

DAZ,

Can you provide me with a save taken before the slipping but after the attack order.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

DAZ,

Can you provide me with a save taken before the slipping but after the attack order.

Sent saves from image 1, and image 2.

Is that what you wanted?

Edit: disregard my last. I re-read what you wanted, and have sent you a seave after initial attack orders, and before the first lot of slipping as in image 1

Whatever it is that is making this happen does not seem to replicate from a saved game reliably.

After running about 10 games from the saves I sent you only once has just one of the Bn behaved like in the images above.

However, if you give the orders as I have above from a new game, in both of my runs all 3 Bn behaved exactly as in the images above.
Does this make any sense to you Dave?

Sequence of my orders are.

1, set attack and FUP in the positions you see them in images above for each Bn

2, Set formation to V

3, set Speed and route to Fastest Quickest for II Bn HQ 48 Regt only, leave others at default.

4, click forward to 12 in the hours box Assault at time.

5, click in frontage and depth for smallest possible.

6, auto facing

7, Art Direct Spt Only

Once all the units have got to their FUP and stopped moving with the re-org task icon set them all to Assault At Auto by clicking on X

After a short period of things going well it should fall apart.

If anyone else can confirm it I would be greatfull, as it eliminates it as being related to my computer.
Or my imagination [:'(]

Thanks

Its the same again with St Vith scenario.

Can very rarely get it to replicate from a save game, but from a new game it happens every time.

Dazkaz, I've managed to recreate situation in your image5 above. Sometimes, even when end time for attack is set to end of scenario, Bn's start to send messages about abandoning attack missions due lack of time. After that they start to bunker down. This happened before any firefights.

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

Dazkaz, I've managed to recreate situation in your image5 above. Sometimes, even when end time for attack is set to end of scenario, Bn's start to send messages about abandoning attack missions due lack of time. After that they start to bunker down. This happened before any firefights.

Thanks Emir

daz,

I don't see in the screenshots for St Vith that the task has the settings you describe in your step-by-step instructions to reproduce. Is the same procedure applicable for the situation at the tutorial start?

Daz, I also can duplicate this behavior if I follow your directions....but.. why would anyone change the Assault time to auto once the units reach the FUP? Just leave the Assault time alone or put it on auto at the start and the attack comes off perfectly. No offense here but doing this looks like we are trying to pick at the engine and make it do screwy things. Whats the point?

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

daz,

I don't see in the screenshots for St Vith that the task has the settings you describe in your step-by-step instructions to reproduce. Is the same procedure applicable for the situation at the tutorial start?

You don't need to have the exact same settings as I listed mate. All you need to do is click the assault at to auto, once the unit is formed up in the FUP and ready to go.
Changeing the formation during the assault will sometimes cause this to happen as well, but other times it works as it should.
As it says in the manule that you are meant to be able to change formation during the assault, I assume this is a bug. I think the bug may be causing a few related problems, not just with the auto assault at time.

ORIGINAL: GBS

Daz, I also can duplicate this behavior if I follow your directions....but.. why would anyone change the Assault time to auto once the units reach the FUP? Just leave the Assault time alone or put it on auto at the start and the attack comes off perfectly. No offense here but doing this looks like we are trying to pick at the engine and make it do screwy things. Whats the point?

If you have tried to coordinate a multi Battalion attack, you will know how difficult it is to accurately guess what time all the units will be ready to assault at.
This leads to two major and iritating problems.

1, You set the attack at time to early.
This will lead to constant slipping of the time by the late battalions, and thus cause you to constantly have to re adjust the time for the other battalions, and any pre bombardment arty you have set up, and in a large scenario it could be a big headache.

2, You set the assault at time to late.
This means that you could waste hours while all your battalions sat on their start line ready to go but, no way of advancing their assault time.
Or you may decide that for whatever reason you want to send one of them in early. For example maybe because their FUP is not as concealed as you first thought it was and they are taking heavy fire.

As for why do you coordinate attacks, well that's a very important military concept that you would do well to employ, if you have not been doing it.

1, It prevents the enemy artillery from concentrating on one target. If you attack piecemeal they can use their artillery assets to completely destroy your Battalions one at a time, as they approach their objective one at a time.

2, It allows you to attack from different directions, reaching the objective at the same time to bring maximum fire power onto that objective.

3, It allows you time to set up a pre bombardment, and even a creeping barrage, because you have more control over when they will start the assault it's easier to walk the barrage ahead of your troops manually.

I'm sure there are more. Ill edit the post as I think of them.

I think that if something is not meant to work in a certain situation then it makes sense to me to make it unobtainable to the user in the UI.
What's the point in having loads of buttons that can be pressed/used that do nothing, or worse cause errant behaviour.
If it don't work, or its not meant to work, then grey it out. If it is meant to work then I'm sure Dave would like feedback if it's not working or it's just going to put off new players.

Now I see. Thanks for explaining. When all this is rectified, this game will be head and shoulders above all others. The question is when...

ORIGINAL: GBS

Now I see. Thanks for explaining. When all this is rectified, this game will be head and shoulders above all others. The question is when...

No problem mate.

It's already head and shoulders above any that I have played.

I would rather every issue that people find gets fixed, but I understand Dave needs to move on to other paying projects.
Actually it's amazing he is still putting the time, and money in to support this so far after its release, but then if you don't sort all the problems out in this version, but use the same engine, then the problems will only get carried over to the expansion's.

It's already very playable so It doesn't really matter "when...." in my opinion.

I went back to the old full release version after all the CTD we had two beta patches ago, and still managed to enjoy that, even with all its problems.

It's only when you load back up the latest version, you begin to appreciate all the work that has gone into it since.

I don't mind him getting BFTB into a playable state..even if some things me abit wonky at times..I'd rather he soon get cracking on the new EF game with the issues we've brought up here fixed for it..plus dismounted units and new doctrines.then he could either patch up BFTB to the same state..make an expansion that brings BFTB upto the same feature set as EF maybe like the way BF are doing with Combat Mission..you par for engine upgrades but patches are free.

We have had three games on the West front and one on the med...really think it's about time things started moving on the EF game maybe the next patch be the last patch for BFTB.

As I also imagine Bil can't really work on his game as he will be using the newer EF version of the engine.

Last year Dave said EF could eb out by the end of the year..I knew that was way to optimistic...it's been a year since then and I believe or it appears no actual EF engine work has been done yet..lets say BFTB finally gets finished off by the Summer..we will be at least two maybe three years away from the EF game..as it seemed it took about two to three years between each release..however this is going to be alot longer, unless work has been done and it's alot further along though I doubt it as I'm sure dave's time is taken up by BFTB and these patches.

Second what you say, Daz, about it being playable and head and shoulders above right now. I still play COTA quite happily. Maybe I secretly even like it more, to be honest. Less options, less to worry about. The recent thing that has irked me - with frozen (intentionally frozen, not a bug) bases getting annihilated because I couldn't make them carry out a perfectly possible movement to safe ground - I haven't come across that in COTA at all. But maybe I was watching less when I used to play COTA, and I still have that approach to it.

As to what GBS says - I don't think this process is ever going to be over because, as we've all said many times, it's as endless as trying to predict human behaviour. Too many variables. My feeling is - provided it doesn't crash all the time (which it doesn't) - then you can work around all these little things (little, but many, so they mount up, but you can still work around them) and still enjoy a great game. So the thing about the bases being (intentionally) unable to get past stalling and waiting (shades of the old halting bug, but this is how it's meant to be....?) - my attitude is - ok, I have to take that into account if I'm messing around in the scenmaker (and whilst playing) - the bases are going to need to stay close to their SEPs unless you're sure the ground you want to move them over is absolutely clear. That's not ideal (because there are many circumstances where you would wish to have all the supplies stocked in a base right there right behind your front line troops, to be sure of getting the supplies even when you cannot maintain any longer a route back to the SEP) but you can live with it and still enjoy.

The halting bug, for example, and by comparison, was a game killer, I thought. You couldn't predict it and couldn't easily work round it. It made planning a waste of time. As far as I can see there's nothing like that anymore. Touch wood.

Re coordination of attacks. I acknowledge that its difficult to estimate the earliest possible HHour for coordinated attacks. Welcome to the real world. What I think is required here is a "new feature" that would link attack tasks. Once linked the AI would automatically calc the earliest possible HHour and set them for you for all linked attack tasks. If one slips they all slip. If they all can crib then they crib. That way the human player will not have to do the estimates nor manage any necessary slippage and cribbage. However, this is not going to get done now. There are bigger fishes to fry at the moment. The best workaround is what happens in RL - ie you set a HHour which has enough contingency built in so that all should be able to attain it and then you stick with it.

Miquel,

Could you please look into how we can disable the HHour Auto checkbox once the assault starts. Thanks.