Blizzard fix ETA

GulGnu · Post by **GulGnu** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 2:18 am

I know this has been asked many times before, but when can we expect a Blizzard bug fix? I'm stopping my current game as the Germs right now, because it would be a pity to let the Wehrmacht be smashed by a stupid bug...

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:27 pm

Originally posted by GulGnu:
I know this has been asked many times before, but when can we expect a Blizzard bug fix? I'm stopping my current game as the Germs right now, because it would be a pity to let the Wehrmacht be smashed by a stupid bug...

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

It will happen very very soon <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> It will be not only blizzard fix but NEW RELEASE with a lot of bug fixes and some new cool features!! HURRAY! HURRAY! HURRAY!

MagnusOlsson · Post by **MagnusOlsson** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:40 pm

Originally posted by GulGnu:
I know this has been asked many times before, but when can we expect a Blizzard bug fix? I'm stopping my current game as the Germs right now, because it would be a pity to let the Wehrmacht be smashed by a stupid bug...

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

Är du Dr Alban?

GulGnu · Post by **GulGnu** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:43 pm

Originally posted by MagnusOlsson:

Är du Dr Alban?

Bara en fanatisk beundrare... <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

/GulGnu

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 1:51 am

I'm sure it is here somewhere but I can't find it. Can someone tell me what exactly the "Blizzard Bug" is?

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 2:16 am

Originally posted by BrickReid:
I'm sure it is here somewhere but I can't find it. Can someone tell me what exactly the "Blizzard Bug" is?

Hi BrickReid, you can find info about the bug in the topic BARBAROSSA:VARIANT B. Sure will help you.

Josan.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 2:32 am

Originally posted by BrickReid:
I'm sure it is here somewhere but I can't find it. Can someone tell me what exactly the "Blizzard Bug" is?

It isn't technically a bug as such, but a poor design decision that was uncovered in part due to the reduced effectiveness of airpower against a ground attack. Basically, during the 1941 blizzards, the Axis can easily get slaughtered by the Soviet counterattack. In a test where I tried to hold as hard as possible, about 40% of the Axis strength was destroyed due to shattering, especially of Panzer korps (attacking them due to this problem is definitely an unfair EXPLOIT in this version <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> Sorry, I couldn't resist throwing in that uncalled for and untrue comment here, no insult intended for any Soviet player that has done this), in just a couple of months. It made Napoleon's retreat look like a success, almost.

Basically, the problem boils down to an original design decision. During this time period, the non-Finn Axis units, even in cities (which totally contradicts the manual) in the 1941 blizzards have their effective readiness quartered, with a minimum level of 25% (so every unit fights at 25%!!!) for shatter checks. However, losses are taken from this reduced ready state, but the losses are based on the normal readiness of the units. Thus, a high readiness unit is at a severe risk of having no strength left for the shatter check, resulting in numerous shatters for units that have received special supply (bad exploit here <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> ), or are in a city where the readiness reduction is less than open terrain. Low readiness units, on the other hand, are at a low risk of shatter, but a high risk of being thrown back. This can probably be handled by a German player by avoiding cities (but thus increasing manpower losses per the blizzard loss rules) and not using special supply (exploit!!!).

This is complete hogwash, and goes against all common sense, but it is how the game has always been. Axis airpower was always good at beating up Soviet attacks before, so the problem was harder to notice, as the Soviets would frequently not have enough strength to damage the Germans enough. The Soviets suffer the same penalties early in the 1941 game, so avoid special supply like the plague there too.

<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

By the way, all exploit notices were randomly placed to show what seems to becoming the agreed thought on exploits (at least I hope), which is that an exploit is a personal feeling, and what should not be done should be agreed upon before playing, or during if both parties are agreeable. Knowing these kinds of problems in the combat routines allow them to be exploited, which is what I would define an exploit to be. For example, playing historically the Axis player should try to boost his readiness during blizzard to improve performance, but in the game this historical behavior will penalize the player. Thus, not doing so is an exploit of the design decision. This, obviously, is probably an acceptable exploit in everyone's mind (if not please let me know how wrong I am <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> ). Thank you for listening.

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 3:24 am

Originally posted by RickyB:

THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

By the way, all exploit notices were randomly placed to show what seems to becoming the agreed thought on exploits (at least I hope), which is that an exploit is a personal feeling, and what should not be done should be agreed upon before playing, or during if both parties are agreeable. Knowing these kinds of problems in the combat routines allow them to be exploited, which is what I would define an exploit to be. For example, playing historically the Axis player should try to boost his readiness during blizzard to improve performance, but in the game this historical behavior will penalize the player. Thus, not doing so is an exploit of the design decision. This, obviously, is probably an acceptable exploit in everyone's mind (if not please let me know how wrong I am <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> ). Thank you for listening.

Rick,

I think I know why giving the Germans special supply in blizzard 1941 weather causes them to shatter. Without the special supply they are too cold to move but with special supply they have enough energy get out of there as fast as they can. After all don't they show up in Germany the next turn?
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Svar

[ August 30, 2001: Message edited by: Svar ]</p>

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 8:35 am

Thanks Ricky,

Comments taken in jest. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Thanks for the info. I'm surprised this is a problem that has been around since the game first came out. I've never noticed it as a problem before after playing a ton of games. Maybe because I prefer to beat the Soviets to within an inch of their existence before the blizzards set in <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> and hope they don't have enough strength to do a front wide counter offensive. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> My problem with shattering with my Soviets in '41 also seem to go away within 3-4 weeks and only a unit that has been beaten back 3 or 4 times by a marauding Panzer Corps running down a rail line really shatters on me. And occasionally when I forget to use my exploit technique to supply a unit that I've withdrawn but that is still within range of Panzer forces. That may be why other players have problems with the Blizzard and Soviet penalty shattering - because they are not using the more realistic exploits that I've been arguing about. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

Damn, I'm beginning to sound cocky lately. My true identity is starting to show. Sorry, I'm just having fun.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 8:40 pm

Yeah, I never noticed the German side of it in the 1941 blizzards either, but I think airpower helped hide it, so it was rare enough to miss. I also only played a person once using the earlier versions, and the AI is not good so... I don't know how long the Soviets have the problem, but it may be limited to the first 4 turns or something, which is a disaster anyway.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 11:28 am

Originally posted by RickyB:

an exploit is a personal feeling

"to utilise for profit" or "to advance or further [one's position] through exploitation"

That's what my dictionary says about "exploit".

Sorry, but sometimes the truth remains the truth no matter how you try to accomodate opposing views. "exploit" is not a "personal feeling". Count me among the opposition, I'm afraid.

For example, playing historically the Axis player should try to boost his readiness during blizzard to improve performance, but in the game this historical behavior will penalize the player. Thus, not doing so is an exploit of the design decision.

Flawed logic. There is no such thing as a negative exploit. That word can't be used here by its own definition. The penalty comes from a bug in the game. The bug in this case was hidden till now by other factors. If the special supply worked correctly there would be no exploit since the use of special supply is supposed to aid you, not hurt you.

I have a hard time believing Gary left this in deliberately. Most likely he never saw this because it was hidden by other factors. Having a third of the German army shatter in a 4 to 6 weeks is most certainly not "historical behavior", and considering the author of the game, this can't be a deliberate "design decision". Why make a design decision and then hide it behind other characteristics which cancel it out?

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 12:01 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

"to utilise for profit" or "to advance or further [one's position] through exploitation"

That's what my dictionary says about "exploit".

Sorry, but sometimes the truth remains the truth no matter how you try to accomodate opposing views. "exploit" is not a "personal feeling". Count me among the opposition, I'm afraid

Ed,

It's not the definition of the word, it's the interpretation of an action. I don't think anyone out there will argue with you that a Panzer Korps shell with any empty unit wandering around in your rear area, cutting supply lines , capturing cities, and causing general mahem is an exploit of the rules. Some rules however are not as clear as that and that is where the "personal feeling" comes in. Some of the actions allowed by the rules that you feel are an exploit, others feel are legitimate actions. Granted there aren't many that people dissagree with you on but those few that people do have caused some very heated arguments. I think you will be the first to admit that not everyone agrees with you on everything.

Svar

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 12:34 pm

Shortly after my 1st catastrophic PBEM German game of 1941, I ran a little test to see how bad the blizzards really were. Playing both sides human, I deployed a panzer corps of 3 panzer, 2 motorized, 1 SS motorized, 1 art and 1 flak divisions into a swamp hex west of Minsk. This corps was in position by early July 1941. Then I placed 3 Soviet armies each of 3 tank/mech and 5 rifle divisions around it. Doing absolutely nothing else, I ran the game till the first blizzard turn (early December). With the German corps at 99% readiness, I used the 3 Soviet armies to attack. I tried a few times, and each time the German corps (which has suffered absolutely zero losses since June 22) shattered each time without further ado. This may help illustrate the nasty blizzard bug to those who haven't yet experienced it first-hand.

[ September 01, 2001: Message edited by: Chimera ]</p>

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 1:54 pm

Originally posted by Svar:
It's not the definition of the word, it's the interpretation of an action.

Actions are defined by words when we need to discuss them. Using a word with a different meaning from what is expected only confuses the debate.

Some of the actions allowed by the rules that you feel are an exploit, others feel are legitimate actions. Granted there aren't many that people dissagree with you on but those few that people do have caused some very heated arguments.

I'm not sure your right about that. I seem to be all alone in these debates.

Most everyone here reading this now already have their opinions on these things and thats fine, but if you want to throw out your opinion, why can't I? Also, the next new person who comes in and talks about his "tactics" (HQ mules, Panzer in Soviet backfield, infantry in panzer corps), I'm going to do my best to change his mind, or the minds of the new lurkers here who are listening, especially if he/they value(s) historical accuracy to any significant degree.

I think you will be the first to admit that not everyone agrees with you on everything.

Oh no, that's not right. There is NO ONE who agrees with me on everything. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> That's what makes us individuals.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Sat Sep 01, 2001 9:41 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
"to utilise for profit" or "to advance or further [one's position] through exploitation"

That's what my dictionary says about "exploit".

Sorry, but sometimes the truth remains the truth no matter how you try to accomodate opposing views. "exploit" is not a "personal feeling". Count me among the opposition, I'm afraid.
////
Flawed logic. There is no such thing as a negative exploit. That word can't be used here by its own definition. The penalty comes from a bug in the game. The bug in this case was hidden till now by other factors. If the special supply worked correctly there would be no exploit since the use of special supply is supposed to aid you, not hurt you.

I have a hard time believing Gary left this in deliberately. Most likely he never saw this because it was hidden by other factors. Having a third of the German army shatter in a 4 to 6 weeks is most certainly not "historical behavior", and considering the author of the game, this can't be a deliberate "design decision". Why make a design decision and then hide it behind other characteristics which cancel it out?

Ed,

Your definition of an exploit is exactly what I was basing all of my comments on. Any action you take in the game that improves your position is an exploit of the way the game plays, whether the action is historical or not, based on your own definition. There is nothing in the definition that an exploit is intrinsically bad or wrong. Using your bombers to bomb the enemy airfields is an exploit of the airfield bombing rules, at least if it works. This is a perfectly legitimate "exploit", and it fits the definition of utilizing the bombing capability for profit. Creating new corps is a use of the rules to improve (or profit from) your position in the game.

It is personal as to what someone feels is an exploit. Using a bug to advantage would probably be the only thing that I would think would be a universal exploit. What is a bug? It isn't something that doesn't work the way designed, even though coded to do what the design document says to do - that is a design problem. A bug is something that is an actual error in the code that causes problems in the program. The blizzard situation is not a bug, it was a design decision that may not work correctly, although I even doubt that. The various issues with strength rolling down through 0 back to a full byte, or two bytes, is a bug.

You misread my comment about the Axis player in a blizzard. The exploit has nothing to do with USING special supply, the exploit was about not using it to profit from the rule that penalizes the use of it. Failing to use it benefits the player, which again fits the definition of an exploit. It is an exploit of the RULE, not of an action by the player. In game terms this is legitimate, I hope, but in reality would it make any sense at all to withold supplies from starving, freezing men (bring on the vodka so at least we are feeling warm while we freeze to death).

We don't know what was in Gary's mind when he (or maybe someone else?) created this behavior. It wasn't an accident, that is for sure. Maybe the result of the decision was unexpected, but that is not a bug. The code was specifically written to cause problems during blizzards for the Axis side, and similar code was included to cause problems for the Soviet side early in the 1941 campaign. A bug does not cause it to work this way.

A question for you. Do you change the production output at all, ever? If so, this is one of the most basic exploits. However, depending on your strategy, leaving the production alone to get immediate return from equipment due to no loss in factory output for 4 weeks, can be an exploit, because you profit from leaving it alone in this case. Strategic bombing is the same way. Neither Axis or Soviets had any real success in this, but because the game takes thousands of individual factories and only places the few critical ones on the map, this strategy can be much more successful. This is definitely an exploit of the bombing rules, when done. Where do you draw the line as to what is okay? By agreeing with your opponent. Is it any of your business or mine to label their agreement - NO. Is it good to provide your opinions here as to what is legitimate and what not - YES. So let's keep talking about exploits, and arguing about what is bad and WHY, but it is all still personal opinion.

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 12:43 am

This game is all about giving armchair generals a shot at rewriting history by trying out their own ideas about how the war should have been waged and their operational ability to achieve victory. It was purposely created in a flexible way, IMO, so different ideas could be tried. Strategic bombing is available, not because it was widely used by either side, but because if you want to go that route you can. Special supply has the flexibility (called exploits by Ed) not because of a design flaw, but because Grigsby and Co. wanted you to decide for yourself how to deploy your resources. Don't argue that a major design features like Blizzard/Russkie '41 penalties and shattering were not intended by Grigsby. There is no way those critical game balance features were not well tested.

This argument is beginning to bug me for its lack of progress. Ed, go have several drinks on me (send me the bill- I live um, somewhere in Transylvania...yeah, that's it, Transyvania. Everybody knows me there, so just put my name on it). Then, after you've had all the drinks, come back and quote any one of my entries and write "You Are Absolutely Correct! Gads, what was I thinking?!" Then we can move on. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> j/k

[ September 01, 2001: Message edited by: BrickReid ]

[ September 01, 2001: Message edited by: BrickReid ]</p>

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 6:04 am

Originally posted by RickyB:
Your definition of an exploit is exactly what I was basing all of my comments on. Any action you take in the game that improves your position is an exploit of the way the game plays, whether the action is historical or not, based on your own definition. There is nothing in the definition that an exploit is intrinsically bad or wrong.

Ok, I see this now.

The blizzard situation is not a bug, it was a design decision that may not work correctly, although I even doubt that.

If it doesn't work "correctly" it is a bug. So what is correct? Well, a third of the German army shattering in '41 blizzard does not sound "correct" to me.

You misread my comment about the Axis player in a blizzard. The exploit has nothing to do with USING special supply, the exploit was about not using it to profit from the rule that penalizes the use of it.

What rule? The "rule" is a *bug*. There are 2 different issues here. First is the abuse of special supply. This isn't the subject right now. Originally, special supply was so cheap it was used almost all the time, and most of us agree that that is a problem.

Here, I'm not talking about the abuse, I'm talking about the blizzard bug that renders the use of special supply a penalty in a particular situation when common sense says this is wrong. Special supply is *supposed* to help, it is *intended* to be a *good* thing, but for the Germans in '41 it suddenly becomes a disaster.

in reality would it make any sense at all to withold supplies from starving, freezing men

My point *EXACTLY*. The German *should* be able to use special supply to help get supplies to freezing men, but special supply in '41 during the blizzard doesn't work that way! Currently it *hurts* the Germans to use it then. That does not make sense.

We don't know what was in Gary's mind when he (or maybe someone else?) created this behavior. It wasn't an accident, that is for sure.

For sure? No way. You're the one who correctly referred to the blizzard bug as being hidden by other factors. If it was hidden to everyone playing this game until the effectiveness of air power was changed, how can you say "for sure" that it wasn't hidden to Gary too?

A question for you. Do you change the production output at all, ever? If so, this is one of the most basic exploits.

Ok, we're going by 2 different assumptions about what "exploit" means. Maybe I should say it is "an exploit which is possible because of a bug".

Where do you draw the line as to what is okay?

I draw it when a bug or design flaw causes the game to *unintentially* allow an action that doesn't make historical sense. Infantry moving as fast as motorized units doesn't make sense. A battalion pretending to be a corps and getting away with it doesn't make sense. A full size corps wandering around in the enemy backfield causing havoc supported by air supply only doesn't make sense. Units getting special supply from multiple HQs doesn't make sense.

By agreeing with your opponent. Is it any of your business or mine to label their agreement - NO.

Of course not. When did I ever say otherwise? The players can agree on how to handle these bugs any way they wish. Its their game.

So let's keep talking about exploits, and arguing about what is bad and WHY, but it is all still personal opinion.

Yes, but opinions (my own included) have been known to be WRONG at times. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Where do you draw the line between opinion and reality? Footborne infantry can't move as fast as motorized forces. Is this the reality we all know and accept, the historical truth based on a mountain of evidence accumulated since the 1930's, a truth most people arrive at due to basic common sense, or is it just a personal opinion?

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 6:40 am

Originally posted by BrickReid:
Special supply has the flexibility (called exploits by Ed) not because of a design flaw, but because Grigsby and Co. wanted you to decide for yourself how to deploy your resources.

Then why did Gary not allow units to get special supply from multiple HQs?

Does anyone know of an example of units being routinely "co-managed" by multiple HQ organizations? Doesn't this sound just a little bit bizzare?

Don't argue that a major design features like Blizzard/Russkie '41 penalties and shattering were not intended by Grigsby. There is no way those critical game balance features were not well tested.

This "major design feature" has been hidden and ineffective for ~8 years. If it wasn't for the Matrix project to revive WiR, this "major design feature" would have NEVER BEEN SEEN. Do game programmers normally create a "major design feature" and then hide it?

"no way"? Ask Arnaud how many bugs he has fixed in WiR code. Heck, after all this work on it, the buglist still has 22 items on it.

I love what Gary does, but Gary is not a God, he's human. His games have bugs in them just like everyone else, and SSI was never known for thorough testing of games before releasing them. I can remember 2 incidents where an incompete game was shipped out the door (Clash of Steel, Stronghold), and there were others.

This argument is beginning to bug me for its lack of progress. Ed, go have several drinks on me

You're not the only one that wishes I would just go away so some can ignore historical accuracy and accept bugs as features, but alas I have no better place to be right now. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

P.S. All are free to move on whenever they want. I'm not the one holding you back.

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 8:42 am

Originally posted by Ed

"You're not the only one that wishes I would just go away so some can ignore historical accuracy and accept bugs as features, but alas I have no better place to be right now."
-----------------------------------

I apoligize for the inference in my remark that I want you to go away. That is the farthest from the truth. I'm rather enjoying our discussion and my comment was not that I want you to go away but that you are proving well grounded and highly motivated in your assertions. Well done, Ed Cogburn. I salute you. Now, what were we arguing about again? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 8:49 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote from BrickReid
Don't argue that a major design features like Blizzard/Russkie '41 penalties and shattering were not intended by Grigsby. There is no way those critical game balance features were not well tested.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote from Ed
This "major design feature" has been hidden and ineffective for ~8 years. If it wasn't for the Matrix project to revive WiR, this "major design feature" would have NEVER BEEN SEEN. Do game programmers normally create a "major design feature" and then hide it?
--------------------------------

I believe they never saw it because Grigsby and the play testers never played the game with the limitations you propose and have been imposed on players in the Matrix edition. My guess is Grigsby and company were special supplying their butts off. And rightfully so according to their vision of how it should be used. IF YOU ARE A COMMANDER OF SEVERAL CORPS IN AN EXTREME CRISES (Summer '41 for the Soviets and Blizzards for the Germans) AND YOU HOLD BACK RESERVE SUPPLIES FROM THOSE UNITS IN DIRE STRAIGHTS, you deserve to have your Corps shatter. Then you need to drawn, quartered, and hung by piano wire.