Page 1 of 3
Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:01 am
by dazkaz15
I have managed to play about 2 hours since downloading the patch, so this is only my first impressions.
I first fired up my saved Hofen game, and things seemed very quirky with the supply.
Supply routes where taking partial losses for no reason, and the routes were only being drawn for one of the units even when others had supply on route.
So I thought I would fire up a new game, to see if it was any better.
Wow! What a difference.
The supply was working great, the defend orders were deploying smoothly, and the M8's, and Stuarts where being hit in built up terrain at night by hand held AT weapons.
So my first impressions are, that to get the full benefit of the new patch you need to start a new game not use a save, and that so far a new game is playing great [:)]
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:06 am
by GBS
Big time CTD with Joes Bridge.
Tried to restart the scenario numerous times and got a Program Stopped Working before it would even start.
Did get the "this may take some time " message.
Before that I played through Hofen, no probs.
I will reboot my computer and see if it works.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:40 am
by Phoenix100
GBS. I couldn't open any HTTR scenarios on my laptop unless I first did the fix I mentioned here:
tm.asp?m=3527704 Like you, I just got a crash message instead. Suggest you try the fix as it worked well for me. I think the Joe's bridge map is called Joesbrig.cop
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:16 am
by GBS
Phoenix,
I am at work so I cant look. Where will i find "Mapmaker"?
Greg
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:26 am
by GBS
Saw some odd things or at least things I had never seen before when I finally got Joes Bridge running. The two static units north and south of the bridge with the 88s never were killed completely and they never gave up. In game it showed both down to one man with a rifle after 24 hours of assaulting and I never could take the objectives because of them. I surrendered just to check them out and on review they both had two men with rifles and the guys in the north unit had cohesion of 100%. The 88s were long gone probably taken out by air strikes.
Edit: This looks like the first item on the list of fixes. Perhaps its not fixed.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:24 pm
by 82charlie
Same here GBS. One guy with a rifle stopped the whole Irish Brigade from crossing the bridge.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:45 pm
by GBS
Yea, its not working. Same thing happened this try. I attacked the two men in the south garrison with a company of 125 Irishmen. The company just sat on top of the garrison screening it from view. Later it moved off anf I could see the two Germans were still there.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:12 pm
by dazkaz15
Dave could this be the same problem as you discovered here that has crept back into the code somehow?
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
The first thing I checked was the surrender code and noted that for much of the time the American units were retreat recovering but not routing or rout recovering. As such they missed out on testing for surrender as this was only applying to routing and rout recovering units. I changed this to also include retreating and retreat recovering where the enemy is very close and where they have been engaged within the last 2 minutes. This resulted in more surrenders.
But then I observed one single recon unit holding out after the other two had surrendered. It had just two M8 armoured cars. So I stepped into the AArmFire Event and quickly noticed that the number of AFVs being deemed eligible for targeting was zero. This was occurring because the formation aspect modifier was applied against the quantity of AFVs. This mod is used to limit the number of targets you fire when a unit is say in line and you are firing from its flank. You will be likely to see and engage those elements on the closest flank but not those on the far side. Well this is fine where the range is fairly long but not appropriate where the range to the furthest edge of the target is close.
So I now reduce the effect of this mod when the target is close. I ameliorate that a little if the terrain is covered. I ran the save again and I think it has made a significant difference. The recon were dispatched within 3 hours. Check out this screen shot.
But then I observed one single recon unit holding out after the other two had surrendered. It had just two M8
tm.asp?m=3306399&mpage=2&key=
I have been having the same problems with the M8's again in my AAR especially when they get down to the last one.
I've not had time to check if it is still a problem in the latest patch yet though.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:26 pm
by Mahatma
The surrender issue mentioned above by GBS and 82charlie, is that a major problem? I was looking to play more scenarios but will postpone a CoOps binge if necessary.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:42 pm
by Arjuna
Need some saves fellows to test.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:16 pm
by GBS
I would be happy to email my save file to you Dave or post it here if I new how. Can you give me an email address?
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:28 pm
by GBS
Dave, I ziped my save file and tried to email to you. Hope you got it.
Greg
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:36 pm
by BletchleyGeek
ORIGINAL: Mahatma
The surrender issue mentioned above by GBS and 82charlie, is that a major problem? I was looking to play more scenarios but will postpone a CoOps binge if necessary.
If those static units are sitting on top of objectives, they will be a problem.
Dave fixed a problem with static units not surrendering, a couple days back on the input of the beta testers, under different circumstances as the ones listed in the change list.
Non-static units which have been almost depleted and are either actively pursued by enemy forces (or they perceive enemy firepower to be overwhelmingly superior) should surrender quite quickly. So Daz's 'two guys and a mule' thing should be solved.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:55 pm
by decaro
ORIGINAL: phoenix
GBS. I couldn't open any HTTR scenarios on my laptop unless I first did the fix I mentioned here:
tm.asp?m=3527704 Like you, I just got a crash message instead. Suggest you try the fix as it worked well for me ...
There's a fix for
the fix?
That doesn't bode well for this patch.
Update: according to another thread, this preliminary patch is just for BftB -- when this patch passes muster, then all the expansion files will be updated as per what was done in the past with major fixes.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:26 pm
by BletchleyGeek
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
There's a fix for the fix?
That doesn't bode well for this patch.
Update: according to another thread, this preliminary patch is just for BftB -- when this patch passes muster, then all the expansion files will be updated as per what was done in the past with major fixes.
Public beta patches are by definition meant to be a wild ride. We appreciate very much people coming forward and trying them out, as this increases the exposure and always brings along more information (most importantly, crashes). But there's no need to dive head first into the bleeding cutting edge, as you might get cut [:)]. Actually, nobody is really compelled to update their installs with official patches unless they want to engage in MP or they stumble into a CTD.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:04 am
by Mahatma
ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
ORIGINAL: Mahatma
The surrender issue mentioned above by GBS and 82charlie, is that a major problem? I was looking to play more scenarios but will postpone a CoOps binge if necessary.
If those static units are sitting on top of objectives, they will be a problem.
Dave fixed a problem with static units not surrendering, a couple days back on the input of the beta testers, under different circumstances as the ones listed in the change list.
Non-static units which have been almost depleted and are either actively pursued by enemy forces (or they perceive enemy firepower to be overwhelmingly superior) should surrender quite quickly. So Daz's 'two guys and a mule' thing should be solved.
Doesn't sound too horrendous. I'll crack on with a scenario and report back.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:04 am
by mst007
I restarted All American Over Nijmegen and have problems with 2 men and a luger holding 2 separate VP areas, but I now understand that its just BTFB that has been fixed, maybe I`ll start one of those battles instead. I can however already see great improvements in the routing and surrendering of enemy units. Cheers all!
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:59 am
by BletchleyGeek
ORIGINAL: GBS
Edit: This looks like the first item on the list of fixes. Perhaps its not fixed.
Okay, I'll need to correct my previuous statement as I got slightly confused.
This issue - that of static units not disbanding nor surrendering - was reported by simovitch last Monday and fixed. Dave added it to the list of fixes for build 269, which is what you got as it was what we sent to Matrix on the 16th, but the thing is that it was actually a fix for build 270 (which should be the one earmarked to become the official patch).
Sorry about confusing you guys on this particular issue.
Nonetheless, if anyone can send a saved game with these excessively stubborn units, we can check that we covered all the bases.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:59 am
by BletchleyGeek
Okay, Mark sent me the saved game and I checked it out with the current version in our source repository. Note that the version reads '269' but that's because we haven't updated yet the build number.
At the Mook rail bridge a Flak battery was hanging out
https://www.dropbox.com/s/urd0nmwxl0qve ... .46.56.png
which surrenders a two minutes after the action starts
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r33ft7dmuoxo ... .47.59.png
In Groesbeek we have a similar situation with two other Flak units
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ekfqt3n6wv6z ... .49.28.png
the first to surrender is the one to the west of Groesbeek
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p1dphb22g14x1 ... .51.39.png
and then, sometime later, the one to the northeast is a goner
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8i9zv1zmujbgo ... .52.39.png
So I'd say that the fix we have for the next build is working as we expected.
RE: Feedback for Build 4.6.269
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:00 am
by Phoenix100
Oh. That sounds like an awful issue, if it means units won't surrender but fight on to the last man. I assume Mark Trowbridge's hope (above) that it's limited to HTTR etc is in vain, since the engine is the engine, and all Dave meant by his comment was that the maps hadn't been converted for the add-ons. That won't affect this issue. I haven't got much time at the moment, so I think I'll hold off playing until the final is out. It's very frustrating to start a long, complex scenario, like From the Meuse to the Rhine, only to find that a bug like that is wrecking things. It's hours of concentration wasted, I think. Not from the point of view of developing the game, but from the point of view of playing it. And, like I said, time is short at the moment. Hope the final doesn't take too long. If the bug is known and is significant, is there no chance at all of a hotfix for it?
