Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Command Ops: Battles From The Bulge takes the highly acclaimed Airborne Assault engine back to the West Front for the crucial engagements during the Ardennes Offensive. Test your command skills in the fiery crucible of Airborne Assault’s “pausable continuous time” uber-realistic game engine. It's up to you to develop the strategy, issue the orders, set the pace, and try to win the laurels of victory in the cold, shadowy Ardennes.
Command Ops: Highway to the Reich brings us to the setting of one of the most epic and controversial battles of World War II: Operation Market-Garden, covering every major engagement along Hell’s Highway, from the surprise capture of Joe’s Bridge by the Irish Guards a week before the offensive to the final battles on “The Island” south of Arnhem.

Moderators: Arjuna, Panther Paul

User avatar
BigDuke66
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Terra

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by BigDuke66 »

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

The issue you experience isn't that far removed from real world operations.

Sound supply support planning requires allocating sufficient stowage space to carry an amount of supplies for "normal" combat operations from the time the unit enters combat until it can be included in its higher headquarters' next "regular" resupply cycle.

For most heavy units, resupply is on a 12 or 24 hour "standard" cycle with special deliveries for emergency requests (limited by the amount of supplies on hand and the amount of transport needed to meet emergency needs).

So, a lag on receiving "new" supplies for several hours after arrival on the battlefield is "normal" though not desirable if the arriving unit expends all its ammo and fuel in the first hour of operation.

Well if that's the case I don't mind that it works that way but like real world operation some form of improvisation needs to be folded into it.
As I said a redistribution under the attacking companies seems to me the best way to keep the operations rolling and the bridge the time till resupplies arrive.

Now when looking at the amount of ammunition that is carried it always looks like a lot because of those high numbers but just taking it down to the single weapon level makes clear that this is often not the case, I just checked a unit with StG 44 and see that the don't have enough ammo(50 shoots) per weapon for 2 full magazines, that doesn't seem to be enough for serious assaults at all.

A question to this, is the ammo shown in the E&S the TOTAL amount that the unit has in the weapons & in reserve? So in the case of this unit meaning that they have a full magazine(30 shoots) and one reserve magazine(20 shoots)?

Maybe if the E&S would show besides the total amount also the number of rounds per weapon it would give the player a better understanding how high or low the ammunition level is that the unit carries and would so better understand what the unit can or cannot do.
Rock64
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:46 am

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by Rock64 »

Navwarcol you must have missed this post by Dave

"I agree that once that UK unit does recover then yes he can call in arty support. But I don't think that is a bad thing. Each company commander would be capable of calling in arty fire or would have a Forward Observer."

It's not an accurate statement. TO&E would have a FO and a artillery radio or two, but according to the greenbook, the majority of the missions were called in over wire.

User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by BletchleyGeek »

Guys,

I think some of the discussions here warrant their own threads. Some of the questions and debates arising from them are deep and general enough to go for quite a few thread pages.

Something I think would help a lot for people to get feedback (from Dave and others) or advice on how to conduct operations effectively within the engine possibilities, is that whenever one of us comes across a situation which leaves him or her mystified or wondering whether "they're missing the point", they open up their own thread on the War Room, and share saved games and screenshots to illustrate the issue or topic.

I think it's a bit of shame that the knowledge being shared here gets "lost" as many different discussion get mixed up in one single thread.
User avatar
loyalcitizen
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:15 am

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by loyalcitizen »

I am playing the latest .258 patch and the scenario All-American Over Nijmegen. Since it is a long scenario, I have saved and come back to it over several days. When I load a save, all units that were previously on In-Situ and Auto Facing are suddenly now have the Auto (Facing) box UNCHECKED and have the arrow facing due north. This happened when I loaded the scenario on Day 2, and now on Day 5.

Units that I had personally dictated a facing to maintain that facing.

Help!
User avatar
loyalcitizen
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:15 am

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by loyalcitizen »

All-American Over Nijmegen is now over. The Somerchen objective in the suburbs of Nijmegen has overwhelming Allied forces, yet I do not get ownership of the objective? I certainly have WAY more than 10 times the combat power of the single German unit in the area. Please help me understand why the objective isn't under my control.

Attachments
Ownership.jpg
Ownership.jpg (92.91 KiB) Viewed 340 times
Phoenix100
Posts: 2950
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:26 pm

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by Phoenix100 »

Loyalcit, It's mainly an 'occupation' objective - meaning you get very little for being in there at the very end of scenario, but get incremental points for being in there, in control, during the whole scenario. When did you actually get effective control? If it was only at the end then you wouldn't get many vic points from that. Is this what you meant?

As to it showing up as 'yours' in the Objective list. Pass. Don't know how much control you need to achieve that. But I would have thought if you have significant enemy within the objective range circle then even if you outnumber them it might be that they stop you having possession. I'm not sure, but I thought you could also be prevented having possession by barrages and such like. Could be wrong on that.

I always find the Objective definition circles too wide, personally. (Maybe it's the cheat in me...) You can reduce them easily enough in the scenmaker.
User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by dazkaz15 »

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

The issue you experience isn't that far removed from real world operations.

Sound supply support planning requires allocating sufficient stowage space to carry an amount of supplies for "normal" combat operations from the time the unit enters combat until it can be included in its higher headquarters' next "regular" resupply cycle.

For most heavy units, resupply is on a 12 or 24 hour "standard" cycle with special deliveries for emergency requests (limited by the amount of supplies on hand and the amount of transport needed to meet emergency needs).

So, a lag on receiving "new" supplies for several hours after arrival on the battlefield is "normal" though not desirable if the arriving unit expends all its ammo and fuel in the first hour of operation.

Well I wish someone would schedule it in for later arrival then because it's p****g me off just sitting there with 232 men, and 114 trucks, and 369 tons of ammo for the whole day, just 3km down the road while my digital soldiers, are bleeding, and dying with no ammo [:@]
Lazy g**s. [:D]
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen

I am playing the latest .258 patch and the scenario All-American Over Nijmegen ...

I thought that the latest Beta build doesn't address the HttR add-on until it becomes officially Patch 4 and all the kinks are worked out?
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
MorningDew
Posts: 1144
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by MorningDew »

I thought it didn;t come with converted HttR scenarios, but that if you are patient, it would convert them when the scenario opens.
jimcarravall
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by jimcarravall »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen

I am playing the latest .258 patch and the scenario All-American Over Nijmegen ...

I thought that the latest Beta build doesn't address the HttR add-on until it becomes officially Patch 4 and all the kinks are worked out?

The initial Beta Update resulted in a longer to load time for HttR scenarios than BftB, but the HttR scenarios were playable once loaded.

Opening with the new software didn't correct the problem for a subsequent "new" game on my machine.

If I recall correctly, it was an issue with compiling maps so supply routing would work with the beta release.

I ended up installing the Beta Patch, then opening the HttR maps with MapMaker and later the scenarios with ScenMaker, and once loaded in the appropriate program, saving them back to the same name.

I was later told that doing this with ScenMaker was sufficient, but that was after I did the MapMaker load and save, which seemed to work. I did the ScenMaker just to be safe on those scenarios I hadn't checked following my MapMaker excursion.

A good recommendation was to save the post-patch compiled files to a different name to avoid problems with the recompiled files becoming corrupted.

If the new names end up working, it'd be a good idea to use them to overwrite the original files so the configurations and file structures match.

Hope this helps.


Take care,

jim
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen

All-American Over Nijmegen is now over. The Somerchen objective in the suburbs of Nijmegen has overwhelming Allied forces, yet I do not get ownership of the objective? I certainly have WAY more than 10 times the combat power of the single German unit in the area. Please help me understand why the objective isn't under my control.

loyalcitizen,

can you upload a saved game?
User avatar
BigDuke66
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Terra

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by BigDuke66 »

Nothing big but maybe these typos in the estab could be corrected:
12,8cm PjK 80 L/55
7.5cm PjK 42 L/70

10,5cm StuH 42 L/28 ammo is mixed up, AP ammo in the Aper slot and HE rounds in the Aarm slot.

What's the 12.2cm HE there for? No weapon uses it.
navwarcol
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:30 pm
Contact:

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by navwarcol »

ORIGINAL: Rock64

Navwarcol you must have missed this post by Dave

"I agree that once that UK unit does recover then yes he can call in arty support. But I don't think that is a bad thing. Each company commander would be capable of calling in arty fire or would have a Forward Observer."

It's not an accurate statement. TO&E would have a FO and a artillery radio or two, but according to the greenbook, the majority of the missions were called in over wire.

Rock, I did miss that, sorry!
User avatar
RockinHarry
Posts: 2344
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by RockinHarry »

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Nothing big but maybe these typos in the estab could be corrected:
12,8cm PjK 80 L/55
7.5cm PjK 42 L/70

10,5cm StuH 42 L/28 ammo is mixed up, AP ammo in the Aper slot and HE rounds in the Aarm slot.

What's the 12.2cm HE there for? No weapon uses it.

Think the Pjk (Panzer jager kanone) and KwK (Kampfwagen kanone) are both correct, but the term Pjk is used for tank hunter AFV (JPz IV L70 and JagdTiger) and such, which have a slightly adapted version of the standard Kwk.

The 12,2cm HE actually should belong to the captured russian howitzers (12,2cm sFH 396 (r)), usually to be found in german static divisions and later VAK (Volks Artillerie Korps) units. But you´re right, this gun has the 12.8cm HE ammo assigned. Obvious oversight.

Can confirm about the 10,5cm StuH 42 L/28 ammo to be interchanged. HE is in AARM and AP in APER. This should only effect amounts of resupply though.

Good catches.
RockinHarry in the web:

https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann
User avatar
BigDuke66
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Terra

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by BigDuke66 »

Well I never heard of a Pjk, it's either KwK for Kampfwagenkanone or PaK for Panzerabwehrkanone.
The KwK is usually mounted in a tank while to PaK is either as a standalone gun or mounted into a tank Destroyer.
See a small overview here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfwagenkanone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerabwehrkanone

Regarding the Russian artillery, not sure what Germany used as AT ammo for it or if it still had an AT capability at all.
If it still had AT capability I doubt that the values of the 12,8 can be use as that gun was coming from a PAK development where already real AP ammunition was produced while the Russian type 12,2 used HEAT as anti-tank ammo.
And in case the 12,8 ammo was used as base to make all the performance values of course those have to be redone too, it's not enough to simply change that ammo to 12,2 that doesn't alter any of the guns performance values.
User avatar
RockinHarry
Posts: 2344
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by RockinHarry »

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Well I never heard of a Pjk, it's either KwK for Kampfwagenkanone or PaK for Panzerabwehrkanone.
The KwK is usually mounted in a tank while to PaK is either as a standalone gun or mounted into a tank Destroyer.
See a small overview here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfwagenkanone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerabwehrkanone

Regarding the Russian artillery, not sure what Germany used as AT ammo for it or if it still had an AT capability at all.
If it still had AT capability I doubt that the values of the 12,8 can be use as that gun was coming from a PAK development where already real AP ammunition was produced while the Russian type 12,2 used HEAT as anti-tank ammo.
And in case the 12,8 ammo was used as base to make all the performance values of course those have to be redone too, it's not enough to simply change that ammo to 12,2 that doesn't alter any of the guns performance values.

Here´s some quote from Lexikon der Wehrmacht, regarding Panzerjager, or Panzerjagd Kanone:

Für die 7,5-cm-Panzerjäger-Kanone 42 waren 55 Granatpatronen vorhanden.

Von dieser ab Juli 1944 gelieferten Waffe, anfänglich als Pak 42 bezeichnet, später Panzerjagdkanone bzw. Sturmkanone genannt, wurden bei den Firmen Gustloff und Skoda 1.329 Stück produziert.

Es war eine etwas geänderte 7,5-cm-KwK 42, wie sie im Panzer V montiert war. Das Alkett-Fahrzeug trug in der Bezeichnung ein »A«, wog 28 t, war etwas schmäler, aber 2.350 mm hoch. Durch die lange Kanone und die 80-mm-Frontpanzerung hatte sich das Gewicht verlagert, die Fahrzeuge waren kopflastig und im Gelände nicht besonders beweglich. Bei der Truppe hießen diese Jagdpanzer »Guderian-Enten«. Trotz der hohen Feuerkraft war aber selbst der Generaloberst nicht von der Notwendigkeit dieser Fahrzeuge überzeugt.

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/panzer4.htm

With regard to the russian 122mm, my guess would be that there was no accurate data available for it and thus as substitute, the 128mm ammo data was used in ESTAB instead. Off course that´s wrong and needs some fixing
RockinHarry in the web:

https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann
User avatar
BigDuke66
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Terra

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by BigDuke66 »

Indeed, but the short form of Panzerjagdkanone or Panzerjägerkanone still seems to be PaK, so if an abbreviation is used it should stick to the usual scheme and don't invent new ones.
User avatar
RockinHarry
Posts: 2344
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by RockinHarry »

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Indeed, but the short form of Panzerjagdkanone or Panzerjägerkanone still seems to be PaK, so if an abbreviation is used it should stick to the usual scheme and don't invent new ones.

Agree. In Fritz Hahn, Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deuschen Heeres 1933-1945, they´re named "12,8cm Pz.Jg.Kanone 80" and "7.5cm PzJgK 42", but I actually do not mind much if that is shortened to just PjK. Though "PzJgK" would sound better to me too.
RockinHarry in the web:

https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann
User avatar
loyalcitizen
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:15 am

RE: Build 4.4.258 Feedback

Post by loyalcitizen »

Just got a CTD in Race for Bastogne under the latest patch. It was right after a bridge had been constructed and routes were being recalculated. Recalculating things seems to be problematic.
No, I don't have a save, it happened that early.
After restarting a new game of the same thing, I played through 3 days of the scenario with no issues (so far).
Post Reply

Return to “Command Ops Series”