Those single M8, AC's again

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

Thanks for your time on this mate.
I'm starting to feel guilty I'm holding things up.

Don't feel guilty about that, Daz.

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
I don't mind at all if you want to sign off on this and move on.
A lot of this is subjective and situational.

That's the point of doing concrete tests.

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
I'm having problems playing the last 3 scenarios you sent. See the error in the image below.
I have made scenarios specifically for testing before, but I don't think you can get a good feel if things are right unless you play them.
That's why I much prefer the AAR way of doing things.
Besides I enjoy doing it [;)]

That's just not true, especially if you want to verify that you get reasonable tactical local outcomes. Another thing is when you need to verify that global, operational outcomes are happening, when the tactical outcomes that enable them do happen. I don't want to sound dismissing, but all the AAR's covering armour engagements never came close to be as helpful as skarp's little scenarios and his collection of statistics, when it came to identify the issue we had with the anti-armour fires model.

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
Just a note on your testing.
That was a bit of overkill, sending in the Elite 1 Coy 1 SS Pz Regt against an armoured car Platoon [:'(]

I appreciate that, but let me remind you that the title of the thread is:

Those single M8, AC's again

The M8's aren't bugged, neither do enjoy some kind of magical protection.

You can't expect to achieve the same outcomes with the bottom of the barrel that you get with the cream of the crop. That should give you a hint about what kind of problems had the German army to deal with at this very late stage of WW2.

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
I think my way of doing things might be a bit more representative [:D]

...

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
The situation that worries me the most is the one from RE: Those single M8, AC's again - 3/5/2014 1:11:09 PM
What was going on there?
3 guys were causing casualties to a dug in Coy, and causing them to retreat? A ghost AFV that is in one list but not the other?

That's because your guys know that there is an AFV, but don't know what type of AFV. Here you have the actual picture at D2 03:06. There's indeed a Greyhound there.

Indeed, there are number of problems here. First and foremost, that having the two units to 'rest' in such close proximity is a bit a of a stretch.

The fires you're seeing are anti-personnel fires: the German coy is engaging the dismounted personnel of the recon platoon (with little success).

Txema: "A buen entendedor, pocas palabras".

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna


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.

This is what Dave discovered a while back the full thread is here:

tm.asp?m=3306399&mpage=2&key=

If you do got any spare time (joke) [:D]
I was wondering if you might want to check that this has not crept back into the code somehow.
Like you said earlier the M8's are being destroyed fairly quickly when the unit is full.
Its when it gets down to the last few men/vehicles that he problems start.

This seems specific to Platoon size units.
For some reason Coy sized ones don't have this problem?

I'm off to bed now
Night night guys

[dazkaz15]

Looking at your image, I have only just realised after all this time on here that what we see in the E&S list after a surrender still has fog of war [X(]

Now I feel really daft [8|]

Good night mate, thanks for all the testing you have done on this tonight.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

Looking at your image, I have only just realised after all this time on here that what we see in the E&S list after a surrender still has fog of war [X(]

Now I feel really daft [8|]

Good night mate, thanks for all the testing you have done on this tonight.

There's nobody daft here, Daz [:)] There's just an ESL person like me, and several well-intentioned users who don't have full access and try to make sense out what the game shows them. Which sorely points out to me that we need to really make the UI to 'speak more clearly to you' [:)]

[navwarcol]

I did not know that, either!![:)]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

Looking at your image, I have only just realised after all this time on here that what we see in the E&S list after a surrender still has fog of war [X(]

Now I feel really daft [8|]

Good night mate, thanks for all the testing you have done on this tonight.

[Txema]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Txema: "A buen entendedor, pocas palabras".

Muchas gracias por el magnifico trabajo que estas haciendo en este juego !!!

[&o]

Txema

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Txema

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Txema: "A buen entendedor, pocas palabras".

Muchas gracias por el magnifico trabajo que estas haciendo en este juego !!!

[&o]

Eskerrik asko por el interes [:)] Sin embargo, aqui el merito lo tiene Dave, por persistir en lugar de tirar la toalla: esta es una aventura que tiene mucho de Don Quijote y Sancho Panza [;)]

[Arjuna]

So who is Don and who is Sancho?

[dazkaz15]

The chase is on [:D]

[dazkaz15]

D1 09:04

[dazkaz15]

D1 09:28

[dazkaz15]

D1 10:00

Edit: Think I have got my saves a bit mixed up [&:]

I did 2 runs with similar results.
Its late and I'm tired, Ill sort it out tomorrow [:'(]
Good night guys

[wodin]

Well they had high moral and cohesion for most of it..so I don't find it to surprising. The moral is dropping and cohesion so I expect soon they will surrender. You've got a platoon down to 50%..I can see 17 men trying to retreat quite easily. Remember the terrain is an abstraction it wouldn't be billiard table flat with no cover what so ever. I can picture these lads running through ditches and dips through the ground.

[dazkaz15]

Well they also have 2 possibly 3 Jeeps Jason.
Thanks for your input though.

This is why I am doing this AAR its a kind of therapy, I need more people like you to talk me round [;)]
Its also why I have posted it here and not in the Tech support forum, I don't think its a bug just a limitation of the current engine.
Just like the rigid abstracted road column formations we have to live with.

I also think that with 17 Panthers chasing them, and no AT weapons of their own, it would be more a route than an orderly retreat?
Remember they have already seen all their supporting AC's destroyed, and been rooted out of the village, then been under constant fire as they retreated over the open high ground.

I don't expect anything to be done about this.
I think it may just be a limitation of the game engine due to using Platoon size units in what should probably be a Coy size operational simulation.

Orders delay also causes problems here.
Like Repsol says maybe in Command ops 2 we need to have a pursue and destroy option?

This would take away the command delay that makes taking out these reconnaissance elements so difficult, because the order has already been issued to the unit.
The mission is to Track down and destroy the enemy observers at Krewinkel.
The Cav recon units have AC's and jeeps so they will be fast, so you will need to send in a fast unit to take them out.
Not a lot will out run a bullet or an 75mm HE shell though once they have line of sight, and if the elite units I am using here can't hit them, then what chance do the others have?

[dazkaz15]

I have been playing around with it some more, and as a what if scenario, this extra SS Bn in the Losheim gap is actually a lot of fun.
This Gap is quite good tank terrain, and a Bn of Armour committed early to this area would have made quite a difference to the Axis time table for this operation I think.

[Phoenix100]

The terrain being an abstraction is something Jason is right about and easy to forget. When I went to Manhay recently I couldn't believe how much cover there was in areas which looked like big open fields of fire on the BFTB map (or the RL map, for that matter) - lines of hedges, walls, trees, bushes, folds in the land - flat spaces were absolutely filled with cover such that I came back complaining that it was too easy to hit targets, and to get LOS in the game (I was concerned at the time about the sniping on supply columns - and it may be that the changes which have affected that - for the better - have affected things here?). If you imagine a company strength unit occupying a wide space in such 'clear' terrain then it's possible to imagine that between all the individual elements in the company they would get a kind of 'combined' los across such gritty, granular terrain, in which case, when we're down to a handful of smaller elements it's easy to imagine them hiding and scurrying about more effectively - their 'combined' exposure would be much less. I would be happy with this, if this was what was happening in your examples, Daz - ie if this kind of effect of abstraction was actually a coded result, but I would suspect it isn't (until told otherwise), and I absolutely agree with you that it looks wrong as it is, intuitively. Dave will be able to enlighten us as to whether it's working as intended, surely?
Peter

All that said, when I check this area on street view (as a rough guide) it does look pretty clear. There's no los, in real life, for any of the units on the Kerwinkel road up to your fleeing units. But the unit nearest would have los and clear shots. Like you, I would ask - why can't it hit them?

Does unit 2.1 have LOS in the game? If so, I would say 17 panthers (is it?) against 2 or 3 jeeps at that range!!!??? What is going on?

[dazkaz15]

Well now I have someone that thinks there might be something wrong here, thanks Peter, I'm going to play devils advocate with myself [:'(]

I have been reading a lot about the Cav Recon units, and they were infect very mobile, and capable units, most with a lot of experience.
I also served myself as a Naval gunfire/artillery/air strike observer, in forward positions in just a 5 man team so I know what they are capable of, and how hard they are to find.
A 5 man team with a radio, and a Corps worth of artillery behind it is a very powerful thing.

One of the roles of the Cav Recon Troops was counter reconnaissance operations.
i.e. taking out enemy recon platoons.

I think Repsol has a good idea for Command Ops 2 on how to handle this.

ORIGINAL: Repsol

Hello

I'm not only having trouble with the M8s...I often have to chase all kinds of "almost" destroyed units around the map to finish them off.
Resulting in having to issiue a number of unnecesary attack orders and waisting time.
It would be good if we could get a DESTROY UNIT order that would tell a friendly unit to engage AND FOLLOW the enemy unit until it gets wiped out.
Or maybe even better to have some kind of checkbox in the attack order ("HUNT AND KILL DEPLETED ENEMY UNITS") to tell our units to do just that.

Almost killed off enemies is a pain in the ass...Like you said they provide spotting and also more ofthen then not mess with the supply lines

I understand that this could lead to some problems when motorised units are told to follow foot-units into woods or across crossingpoints for example but maybe when that happens we could get a message informing us that
"we are unable to follow the eneamy unit an further"...

You could target an enemy unit with any unit of yours that you think is capable of doing the job, and it will pursue the enemy, and hopefully destroy it.
At the very least this will keep the unit under pressure, and stop it from accurately spotting for the enemy artillery.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Does unit 2.1 have LOS in the game? If so, I would say 17 panthers (is it?) against 2 or 3 jeeps at that range!!!??? What is going on?

Yes it does. have LOS and is engaging it.
Its not done yet either because it still has a run in with 1.1 to go yet, Ill post that later.
1.1 does actually make it route after firing a load of HE at it, then is surrenders not long after that.

[Phoenix100]

well 5 men without the jeeps (or 17 men, or whatever), in that terrain, even, I can imagine creeping away. But the jeeps would have to go, surely?

Let me know if the jeeps are knocked out and I'll then feel happier.

It would be helpful if the player could switch off FOW in the final AARs, otherwise it's impossible to gauge results of all theses tests correctly. It's the first I've been told that FOW exists in the final AAR, despite previously mentioning the discrepancies that occur.

[wodin]

The problem is at one time we were complaining units where to brittle and retreated\routed\ surrendered to easily...now it's they are to tough. I doubt it will ever get right as it would mean code for every type of situation for every type of unit and moral\cohesion\ stubbornness stats..thats a huge amount of code. So we have to find a happy medium. I'd rather have units maybe too tough when having decent moral and cohesion than having units pack up too quickly. It's a balance that has to be found at some point and it will never be perfect one way or the other. We could get Dave fiddling around with the game for the next three or four years I'm sure. Unless the issue is game breaking or ruins the scenarios and is strikingly obvious I think serious consideration should be given whether time needs spending on it. If the issue to some seems OK and others not then it's an issue that really can be left alone, only ones that everyone can see are wrong should be looked at. This is just my opinion though. At soem point we are going to have to say enough is enough.

Saying all that it's down to Dave, he has the final say if it is an issue or not.