German AA Companies still missing support element

[DarkHorse2]

About 2 thirds of German AA Company TOE's still missing support elements.

This is important, because they never get any support elements allocated from their parent unit.

I don't know what makes them special, but other units from other TOEs can run a deficit in required support elements, but then make it up with their parent organization passing on some of theirs.

So, these companies that run 5/8 support are put at a disadvantage on a lot of rolls.

So much so, I would rather just disband them en masse than use as is. However, at the rather steep cost of 1 AP per disbanded company, I can't do that either.

WiTE2_AACo_Support.JPG (199.46 KiB) Viewed 1113 times

[DarkHorse2]

The units for this TOE, don't have the problem.

As you can see, it has 5 support elements in its TOE, but it gets support elements passed down from its parent unit.

So it is able to meet its support need of 12. This is common across all of the AA Companies of this particular TOE.

Whereas the other AA Companies (using the other TOEs) are never able to meet their support requirements.

After looking at game data, I cannot see anything to indicate why they are being treated differently.

WiTE2_AACo_Support2.JPG (208.04 KiB) Viewed 1109 times

[DarkHorse2]

This is just a partial list, as cannot get them all on one page....

But the guys in blue are good and able to meet their support requirements.

The guys in red are bad and never meet their support requirements.

And it is all dependent on what TOE they are using. All of them are running support deficits, but only the units from the TOE's in blue rectangle are given support assistance from their parent.

Reds are never given any assistance.

WiTE2_AACo_.JPG (625.77 KiB) Viewed 1104 times

[Wild]

I lower the ToE of the all the AA companies to 50 and put them in the reserve until i have enough AP to disband them all.

[DarkHorse2]

I lower the ToE of the all the AA companies to 50 and put them in the reserve until i have enough AP to disband them all.

That is a possibility.

Right now, I am sending them all to Western Front to see if they are of any use there... until I have the APs to disband them.

[tm1]

About 2 thirds of German AA Company TOE's still missing support elements.

This is important, because they never get any support elements allocated from their parent unit.

I don't know what makes them special, but other units from other TOEs can run a deficit in required support elements, but then make it up with their parent organization passing on some of theirs.

So, these companies that run 5/8 support are put at a disadvantage on a lot of rolls.

So much so, I would rather just disband them en masse than use as is. However, at the rather steep cost of 1 AP per disbanded company, I can't do that either.

WiTE2_AACo_Support.JPG

This is not the first time you have brought this up.

This has to be some kind if Bug, strange it hits this particular SU

[DarkHorse2]

You are correct. I have raised this issue before, but perhaps with not enough pretty pictures to get the point across?

I have found I have to raise a bug multiple times in order to, eventually, get it addressed....

[Denniss]

Our programmer(s) are no magician(s).
AFAIR it's on the buglist but due to limited effect it'll not be at the highest priority.
It will be looked at eventually, I would also like to know what actually triggers that misbehaviour unless it's missing support in the HQ chain above them.

[Joel Billings]

This is on Gary's list and he is actively going through his list now, so it's likely to get looked at this week. However, I can't predict whether he will be able to get to the bottom of the problem. It sounds very localized.

[DarkHorse2]

Our programmer(s) are no magician(s).
AFAIR it's on the buglist but due to limited effect it'll not be at the highest priority.
It will be looked at eventually, I would also like to know what actually triggers that misbehaviour unless it's missing support in the HQ chain above them.

Denniss,

I was not aware it was even acknowledged as a bug or on any bug list.

Last feedback I got, was pretty much not understanding the issue.

Of course, I was at a loss of how else to explain it.

Just the fact it has made it to a bug list makes me happy.

But thank you for the update.

[DarkHorse2]

Denniss,

I had to think about this some, but in general, you guys only rarely acknowledge bugs. So how would we even know it is on a bug list?

1. AC Range Circle bug - nope, that was a complete pain to submit. I believe I had to copy and paste something from the users manual and do a side-by-side comparison between screen-capture of in-game range circles.

2. Vienna Soviet Unit Teleport bug - you guys acknowledged that one pretty fast, but that was irrefutable.

3. Ju52 data - you adamantly denied an issue here. Then suddenly, it was later (at least partially) addressed.

4. missing German Torpedo Bombers - you guys acknowledged.

5. Bf 109F-4 game data - didn't acknowledge. but ultimately added some in after I had to submit references to show where they actually started with some of the German Luftwaffe units in June 1941.

6. JU88A-4 load-outs - didn't acknowledge at all. I was surprised to see it included in most recent beta. (first reported back in Feb 2022)

7. JU88A-4 game data (production dates, etc...) - did not acknowledge, have no idea if that is going to get looked at. You guys won't even disclose what the JU88A really is.. ( A1? A5? ) <insert sound of crickets chirping here>

8. CR Equipment filter bug - you did acknowledge ( ) I guess it is on a bug list. ?

9. CR Sorting bug ( I believe I even provided the reference to the algorithm to fix this ).

and this is just on the new forum ....

Joel has been nice and helpful, when he has had time. But otherwise, I don't know if players get feedback if anything is added to a buglist? I know I don't.

[Stamb]

when i started to play this game i was asking if it is possible to have a list of known bugs publicly available, the answer was that it would take time to create it
but i still think that it might be a good idea to publish at least a most important bugs that are known, so players do not report same thing multiple times, imho

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Our programmer(s) are no magician(s).
AFAIR it's on the buglist but due to limited effect it'll not be at the highest priority.
It will be looked at eventually, I would also like to know what actually triggers that misbehaviour unless it's missing support in the HQ chain above them.

Denniss,

I was not aware it was even acknowledged as a bug or on any bug list.

Last feedback I got, was pretty much not understanding the issue.

Of course, I was at a loss of how else to explain it.

Just the fact it has made it to a bug list makes me happy.

But thank you for the update.

I don't know how to quote across properly, but as far as I can see Joel's last post in this thread was pretty clear that it had been added to the bug list?

Yes, it looks like these Mot AA units are not getting help, while the SP ones are getting help. i think I see cases where the higher HQs have support to help out but aren't giving it to these units. I can't explain it, so I'll bug it. Thanks.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0#p5000100

[Joel Billings]

Thanks for finding that quote. I thought I had mentioned I would add the item to the bug list. I realize it can be very difficult to keep track of things on the forum. Sometimes an item will appear in multiple threads, sometimes at the same time. I make an effort to look at all items posted in the tech support area. If I look at it, and I get any clarification and/or saves I ask for, I try to post whether I see it as a bug for the list or WAD. Occasionally I miss and item, in which case a bump up after a week or two is helpful. Anything posted outside of the tech support area is hit or miss, as I just don't have time to read all the posts here. I'll try to go through the list of items mentioned above, although my first question is, are all of these posted in individual tech support threads?

FYI, at various times people have asked if they could see the entire bug list. Unfortunately that's too much work to do for the benefit we'd get out of it. Currently there are just over 200 items on the list that are normal or higher priority, and over 150 low priority items. A little over 200 of the 387 items are listed as bugs. Other are tasks. These can be looking into something we don't understand, or adding a new feature or balance adjustment. Some are areas where the AI can be improved. 45% of all of the listed items date back before the release in March 2021. So many of these are fairly insignificant items that will likely never be addressed. Some of these are likely duplicates since it's hard to keep track of everything in a list this long. Sometimes an item that appears minor, can actually be causing a bigger problem. We try to pick these out for review where we can.

[Joel Billings]

Denniss,

I had to think about this some, but in general, you guys only rarely acknowledge bugs. So how would we even know it is on a bug list?

1. AC Range Circle bug - nope, that was a complete pain to submit. I believe I had to copy and paste something from the users manual and do a side-by-side comparison between screen-capture of in-game range circles.

I did a quick search for Range Circle and there's nothing on our list for this. I remember that we gave out info about how the circles are different for fighters versus bombers, and that the circles were different depending on whether you click on an airbase on the map or view them via the AOGs. I know it's confusing. Not sure if there was a consensus on what would be better. Was there something else here?

2. Vienna Soviet Unit Teleport bug - you guys acknowledged that one pretty fast, but that was irrefutable.

A Vienna warping bug was fixed 7 months ago in 1.02.12.

3. Ju52 data - you adamantly denied an issue here. Then suddenly, it was later (at least partially) addressed.

There's an issue given the way the air transport system works, that we don't allow transports to carry cargo to an airbase, gas up and fly home. There's also an issue with the system that we don't generally allow you to carry less cargo in order to increase your range. Given these limitations, we've done the best we can without a code change. The one code change we have on the list to make is to allow transports flying transport missions to non-isolated/beachhead supply to fly 45% of total range (instead of 33%). Justification is: Isolated hex = flying over enemy terrain = higher speed required = less range = normal reductions should apply.

4. missing German Torpedo Bombers - you guys acknowledged.

I assume this is something Dennis can address.

5. Bf 109F-4 game data - didn't acknowledge. but ultimately added some in after I had to submit references to show where they actually started with some of the German Luftwaffe units in June 1941.

Again, I have total confidence in Dennis and how he handles the air data. He has to live within the confines of the code systems in place, so he's always dealing with tradeoffs. I think he's done a great job. If you provide the background references, he will do what he can within the limits of the game/code.

6. JU88A-4 load-outs - didn't acknowledge at all. I was surprised to see it included in most recent beta. (first reported back in Feb 2022)

BTW, Dennis not only works on the air data, he updates factories and the map data. He also is now helping to keep Trey's original scenarios up to date with all the changes. A key member of the team. As you can see by his posts, he reads the forum, and you can be sure he's trying to account for feedback that people provide. In the ideal world we would all get back to everyone, but we all have limited time.

7. JU88A-4 game data (production dates, etc...) - did not acknowledge, have no idea if that is going to get looked at. You guys won't even disclose what the JU88A really is.. ( A1? A5? ) <insert sound of crickets chirping here>

Probably because it's an amalgamation/simplification of something more complicated than it's worth (or the engine) is able to deal with. One advantage Dennis gets from having volunteered so much of his time and knowledge over the years is the ability to decide how best to deal with the tradeoffs. It's the same re Jim with the weapons, and Trey with the OBs. They make these decisions all the time. They often seek out help with solutions with each other in areas where the issues overlap. Things that look at the surface as simple choices that should be made based on clear historical backup data, can actually be much more complicated and cause non-historical side effects that are worse than the original not strictly historical choice.

8. CR Equipment filter bug - you did acknowledge ( ) I guess it is on a bug list. ?

Yes, on the list. Since this is for Pavel, and Pavel is backed up, and this is an informational problem only, it's not a high priority.

9. CR Sorting bug ( I believe I even provided the reference to the algorithm to fix this ).

Same as #8.

and this is just on the new forum ....

Joel has been nice and helpful, when he has had time. But otherwise, I don't know if players get feedback if anything is added to a buglist? I know I don't.

[jasonbroomer]

Joel,

I do marvel about the continuing effort that you guys are putting into this game, so often developers publish with whatever is ready on launch day and move onto the next project.

Your efforts (both by you and your colleagues) are very much appreciated and I suspect that it is a great labour of love for you guys. I consider the results quite remarkable.

I'm sure all these queries from player, 'what about this' and 'what about that' may feel a little trying at times but should be viewed as a delight in the game from the players rather any critical nagging. We too love this game and would like to help its development as we can. We are very fortune to have you.

I trust that I speak for all players on the forum on this.

[Joel Billings]

Thanks, that's nice to hear. We couldn't do it without all the people that are working on this as a labor of love. And we appreciate those people that provide data and saves to help us make the game better.

[Stamb]

for a range circles there was a post:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6&t=384165

also link to it was provided in tech support area in mega air war feedback thread
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0#p5009100

[Joel Billings]

I went to the thread and figured out that this had already been answered re the patrol aircraft going further than the range circle because fighters show escort range circles in most cases. This had been added to the readme notes back in April and eventually to the living manual:

• Manual Addendum: Fighters, and fighter bombers with a Mission setting of Fighter, display their escort range for radius in their air unit detail screen. Fighter bombers with a Mission setting of Bomber, display their combat range (in this case bombing range) for radius in their air unit detail screen. When the range circles are shown on map using the AOG functionality if the unit consists of fighter bombers one of two circles will be shown. If its Mission setting is Fighter, the purple circle will show the area within which it can escort missions. If the FB’s Mission setting is Bomber then a purple circle will be shown indicating the range over which the plane can fly to strike a ground target. This distance is 4/3 further than the escort range, but is usually then lowered due to having a bomb loadout (this can be checked on the load out tab for the air unit). If an airbase has aircraft but no ground units present in the hex, then left-clicking on the hex will generate one or two range circles depending on the aircraft at the airbase. The green circle is the greatest escort range of any fighters or fighter bombers with Mission set to Fighter that are at the base. The purple circle is the greatest combat range of any air unit at the base. So if the airbase only has level bombers only the purple combat range circle will be shown but for fighters and fighter bombers with their Mission set to Fighter, both the shorter escort and the combat range circles are shown.


So I think the mystery was solved, it just was left with a lot of confusion given the different way the range circles have been handled. Did I miss a suggestion for how the range circles could be better handled?

[Stamb]

yeah, there is a suggestion, and you wrote it here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p4988877

...
Combat range is 4/3 time escort range. Yes, ideally we'd show both, but for now you have to toggle the mission setting of the unit to have it switch between escort and combat range.
...