Matrix Games Forums

There is some weird behaviour of Rocket Ground Elements when it comes to defence and fortification. As long as you are in a defence position with Fort levels, they seem to perform worse than when there is no Fortification at all. Not quite sure what this could be based on.
Due to the erratic behaviour of combat it may not be evident from only these three examples each you can find below, but I have done more and the average (to me) clearly points towards this trend.

In the past Rockets were due to a bug able to reduce own fortification levels, I am wondering if they are still shooting/targeting own Fortifications which may lead to the more frequent drops in FPE/HPE when on the defence inside Fortifications?!

DEFENSE
This is how the Rocket Units look like, I Supplied them with the normal TOE so as that they have the same Ammo (cause otherwise a worse performance would be expected by the missing Ammo). These are the TOEs used. The only difference is the 4 Elements containing "Rkt" are classified as Rocket (32). And following three attacks each, 3x Fort 3 and 3x Fort 0.
As said it's erratic, to say the least, but it shows a clear trend of the "Rkt" elements falling behind on average when there is Fortification inside the Hex of the defending Soviets.

ATTACKS
The effect seems even more evident when comparing normal Rockets and Artillery attacking to what I've highlighted above. Below you can find 2 attacks where you can compare Rocket performance to what you've seen on the defence (especially inside Fortifications), I assumed initially a general lower performance on the defence being explained by doctrine/usage, which would be fine, but the weird performance drop in Fortifications is as said WEIRD!

Especially evident is the difference between the "real Rockets" marked in green.

I just thought I would mention that the total number of AP hits frequently does not equal the sum of the number of hits for disruption, destruction, and damage (when the total is not equal to the sum, the total is always higher than the components). This is shown in these combat screens, which is why I mention it here. Note that the total of HE hits is always equal to the sum of the components. Its not a big deal, and its not new, the discrepancy has been there forever. Its just strange.

As far as I can tell the newest beta (1.04.10) is working very well. Thanks for the continued support for this game. I look forward to your next game, whenever it is released and whatever it is.

Can it be that the AP hits do not sum up always, because there is armor which can avoid that the target gets destroyed, damaged, or disrupted?
For example a tank gets hit and the shell does not penetrate.

Has this issue been investigated or can be confirmed/historically reasoned what it is based on? It's still present.

dgrimes wrote: Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:44 pm I just thought I would mention that the total number of AP hits frequently does not equal the sum of the number of hits for disruption, destruction, and damage (when the total is not equal to the sum, the total is always higher than the components). This is shown in these combat screens, which is why I mention it here. Note that the total of HE hits is always equal to the sum of the components. Its not a big deal, and its not new, the discrepancy has been there forever. Its just strange.

What I would point out is the usual/general lack of DIS armored elements when it comes to AP hits. I could imagine it being related to that in some way.

Only way for Pavel to approach a question like this is for him to have a specific save, or two saves if you are running a comparison, where he can run a specific attack and look for a specific difference between the two saves. You'd have to spell out exactly what he needs to do, and what he should be looking at as the issue and where to see it after he runs the attack. I know that's a lot, but at this point, but it's the only way he'll even approach something like this. Just looking through the code at this point is not an option as he's not as familiar with the code as Gary who likely wrote the code, and Gary is not able to review the code.