disbanded BGs

disbanded BGs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein

Message

Moss Orleni -> disbanded BGs (11/3/2008 12:10:23 PM)
Reading through the WaR game manual, I noticed that the rules for disbanded BGs are the same as CC5. However, after some quick custom ops testing, it appears that very little happens to the BG composition when a BG is out of supply and disbanded voluntarily/forcefully. - is it correct that all losses resulting from disbanding a BG are applied only to the active roster of 15 teams, ie not to the force pool? If so, it will hardly have an impact on overall strategic force balance, especially with relatively large force pools and the option to reinforce. - are the rules copied from the CC5 manual, or have they been tested in WaR? In that case, it might be that my custom ops testing was not correct. Because the only thing that I noticed happening is that out-of-supply BGs cannot move (a nice improvement!) and that vehicles/AFVs from out-of-supply BGs tend to disappear gradually (due to becoming immobile?); infantry is not affected. I didn't notice any perecntage decreases or loss of all vehicles. If that is still the case, it would mean the penalty for being out of supply remains very small. Cheers, Moss

mooxe -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/3/2008 6:14:08 PM)
This was broken in CC5. There hasnt been much of a bugs fixed list released by the guys who reworked this game. Actually testing the rules of disbanded are pretty tedious. Can we get a confirmation from someone on the team that this infact has been tested and totally fixed? From the manual... "there is a 75% chance that each team makes it back to be added to the Battle Group‘s force pool." "Disbanding a weakened Battle Group that is in supply can be an excellent way of clearing a road for better-equipped Battle Groups moving up. This allows the weakened Battle Group to reform in the rear and it doesn’t lose any of its infantry or vehicles." "If a supplied Battle Group is forced to disband it loses 25% of its active roster." "If a Battle Group voluntarily disbands while it is out of supply, it loses all of its active vehicles, and 25% of its remaining infantry units are captured before they return to the group’s supply pool. " "If an unsupplied Battle Group is forced to disband involuntarily, because it is forced off a map, it loses all of its vehicles, and 50% of its infantry units are captured. This can be a crippling loss. "

Andrew Williams -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/3/2008 7:07:19 PM)
It should be working as stated in the manual. Any futher feedback is always welcome. Moss I am on day 6 of my GC and already some of my German BG's are suffering from lack of armoured support... I should have been more careful. these BG's do not have a reinforce option so steady as she goes from now on. Tanks that have been damaged and infantry units that have taken losses are able to make some repairs in the field and find replacements, respectively. All damaged tanks are assigned for field repair after each battle. 40% of damaged tanks can be made functional, but the rest are either too damaged for repair and/or scrapped for parts to repair the 40% that survive.

Pzt_Serk -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/4/2008 12:03:39 AM)
quote: Tanks that have been damaged and infantry units that have taken losses are able to make some repairs in the field and find replacements, respectively. All damaged tanks are assigned for field repair after each battle. 40% of damaged tanks can be made functional, but the rest are either too damaged for repair and/or scrapped for parts to repair the 40% that survive. Is this 40% the same % as in CCV? My understanding is that the % is calculated for the overall damaged tanks, so you automaticly lose 1 out of 2 (and 2 out of 3, 2 out of 4, 3 out of 5, etc.) damaged (immobilized) tanks. Is it right or is it calculated on an individual basis? I.E. each damaged tank has a 40% probability to be back? 60% losses seems a bit high IMO or it would be right if could you exclude the simply tracked (not battle damaged) vehicules and make them automaticly back for the next battle. Its not like spare tracks parts were hard to find anyway.

Moss Orleni -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/7/2008 11:23:27 PM)
Hi Schrekie, you asked me more info... Well, now that my H2H buddy and I have passed the first couple of turns, I can confirm that the disbanded BG rules do not work, repeat do not work! We had a FSJ BG forced disbanded at the first turn, and upon returning, nothing has changed to either the active roster or the forcepool. I'm already kinda used to this bug, but it still is a pity since it would greatly increase the value of cutting off enemy troops... (Luckily, the out-of-supply 'no move' rule does work, a nice improvement!) So, maybe something to include for the upcoming patch? Cheers, Moss

Andrew Williams -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/8/2008 12:19:17 AM)
Ok...we'll take a good look at this

David The Great -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/9/2008 10:16:19 PM)
I am the buddy, It is indeed so that no change can be found after disbanding. Also it is not clear if the manual states losing a percentage from you're force pool or from you're roster. I would prefer force pool as roster would amount to a negligable penalty. Greets

KapHelmet -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 1:51:23 PM)
Well I for one am DEEPLY disappointed by this... this is perhaps the most blatant bug in CC5, and the one that has the biggest disruption factor for campaign games... and the testers never found it? Yeah right. It seems like a management decision to me, this bug cannot be missed by anyone who cares about the game. So Matrix decided to deliberately release this leaving major playability issues and game issues unaddressed. It is not like you could have missed that bug from even the most rudimentary check list. So okay... you have put effort into uniforms and a new strat map... all the easy skin stuff ... but the game is otherwise CC5, without even bothering to fix the outrageous bloody bugs that were embarassing enough when CC5 came out originally (how many years ago now? Seriously, HOW MANY YEARS?!)... I have to say I find it disgraceful that this new version is released with the same old boring and tedius and cheap bugs in it. How many players of CC are there in the world anyway? Why don't you just Open Source the damn code and let some players who care fix these crappy bugs? Isn't ANYONE at Matrix ashamed of releasing this like that? This is one of my favourite games... but actually I regret paying you for WaR now... you don't deserve it. Do some real work and fix bugs in the engine, then you would be able justify money for the game. As for the skin, well maybe you have pleased the guys who fantasise over uniforms, but quite frankly I don't care less how they are dressed - JUST FIX THE DAMN BUGS.

Iron Stringbean -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 1:55:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KapHelmet Well I for one am DEEPLY disappointed by this... this is perhaps the most blatant bug in CC5, and the one that has the biggest disruption factor for campaign games... and the testers never found it? Yeah right. It seems like a management decision to me, this bug cannot be missed by anyone who cares about the game. So Matrix decided to deliberately release this leaving major playability issues and game issues unaddressed. It is not like you could have missed that bug from even the most rudimentary check list. So okay... you have put effort into uniforms and a new strat map... all the easy skin stuff ... but the game is otherwise CC5, without even bothering to fix the outrageous bloody bugs that were embarassing enough when CC5 came out originally (how many years ago now? Seriously, HOW MANY YEARS?!)... I have to say I find it disgraceful that this new version is released with the same old boring and tedius and cheap bugs in it. How many players of CC are there in the world anyway? Why don't you just Open Source the damn code and let some players who care fix these crappy bugs? Isn't ANYONE at Matrix ashamed of releasing this like that? This is one of my favourite games... but actually I regret paying you for WaR now... you don't deserve it. Do some real work and fix bugs in the engine, then you would be able justify money for the game. As for the skin, well maybe you have pleased the guys who fantasise over uniforms, but quite frankly I don't care less how they are dressed - JUST FIX THE DAMN BUGS. ... wow ... [sm=crazy.gif]

KapHelmet -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 2:35:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iron Stringbean ... wow ... [sm=crazy.gif] Well yes I am crazy about it to be honest. It just isn't acceptable to package up the same stuff and ship it out every few years, with the same flaws. This bug is going to be easy for developers to fix. Why? Because: 1. It can be reproduced 100% of the time. 2. It is trivial to reproduce. 3. The error is obvious and blatant - it isn't like it is something obscure that only happens in strange circumstances. 4. They have the code. So why isn't it fixed? I want to see a patch that fixes at least these blatant simple bugs... then we can all get back to arguing about whether panzerschrecks are too good, whether mortars blow up AT guns too easily, whether it is reasonable to have to give a Move order 50 times moving 1 pixel at a time to get a tank to cross a bridge, etc. I find it unacceptable that this product defect is still there, and I want Matrix to know that - and I encourage everyone else to complain about it too, so then maybe Matrix will find the motivation to fix it. Being nice to Matrix all the time is all well and good, but it doesn't seem to have helped with getting defects resolved. I like Matrix, and I want them to succeed - but maybe sometimes they need help in choosing their priorities. If I see something that is quite indisputably outrageous, then I complain about it. Maybe that seems a little crazy to people who would prefer to keep quiet and keep playing the same flawed game over and over and over again... and actually it makes me happy that people like that think I am crazy... :) So - Matrix - what's the story? You gonna fix it?

LitFuel -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 2:45:33 PM)
Dude...chill...you are way over the top. He said they will look at it. Obviously you have an axe to grind beyond this one problem and your not helping by being "crazy". I'm having fun with it now and sure there will be future patches.

KapHelmet -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 2:58:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LitFuel Dude...chill...you are way over the top. He said they will look at it. Obviously you have an axe to grind beyond this one problem and your not helping by being "crazy". I'm having fun with it now and sure there will be future patches. Hey I am enjoying the game and there was one patch so far so hopefully there will be more... but let us not pretend that engine defects have been regularly fixed... the game so far is a re-skin of CC5 (as far as I can see), and it does not appear to have any significant code changes... I would like to see people complaining a bit more about that - you two find it surprising that I am complaining? Damn I knew I would upset all the chilled mild-mannered guys here :) Look, at least pretend to get annoyed with these bugs - you think they will fix them if it looks like nobody cares? Okay... maybe it is over the top for me to buy a new game in a great series and to then complain about finding the very same annoying defect as the previous one... sorry everyone, I just don't know what I was thinking. :(

Venator -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 3:52:26 PM)
Actually the point is fair enough. If the game doesn't do what it says in its own manual, it needs fixed pronto. And as this is a long-standing issue with the game it damn well should have been fixed pre-release.

LitFuel -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 4:23:01 PM)
Yes, because every game out does exactly what the manual says [8\|] I have no problem with complaining(it's a good thing if warranted) but to say they did no work other then superfical stuff is a bit much and petty. So something needs fixing(which I believe is not totally broke because I seem to be enjoying it as well as many others), you complained...good for you..it's like you want a pat on the back for it.

Tejszd -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 5:36:20 PM)
Kaphelmet, I agree with you that the bug should have been found. As someone involved in testing I guess we deserve some egg on our face for not finding it and needed to be more systematic in testing. But there is no conspiracy. As per Andrew's post it will be tested and the code looked at. The comment "all the easy skin stuff" is way off the mark. I probably would have agreed with you if you were talking about COI or CCMT but this re-release has had MORE bug fixes and significant changes/enhancements then both the previous re-releases put together. I know you said you regret paying for the game but if you actually played it and looked you couldn't say, "I have to say I find it disgraceful that this new version is released with the same old boring and tedius and cheap bugs in it." Many long time CC players have posted positive feedback on the bug fixes and changes on other forums; CSS and CSO. CC5 had tons of bugs and if you looked at the list and played WAR you would see the majority have been addressed. Did some bugs get through, yes. Are they being addressed, yes. There has been one patch already and Andrew pointed out in this thread that the issue would looked at and in the Graphics card overheating thread that another patch is being worked on. Your post seems over the top for the bug you pointed out in WAR. Also, good luck with the open source request. I wouldn't mind seeing it happen but I would expect that buying the CC source code did not come cheap. So how willing would you be to give away something you paid for? What would equal the price paid for the CC code; your car, your house? They are old and need a little TLC but someone else would love to have them for free....

KapHelmet -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 7:45:16 PM)
Thanks for the considered response Tejszd. I am a big fan of CC5, and have played Grand Campaigns through end to end H2H on it and with the GJS mod. My H2H buddy and I even manually accounted for casaulties due to this bug and a similar one (hopefully fixed) whereby BGs out of supply never lost any squads. There aren't many (any) other games where I would have tolerated that... my game time is limited enough as it is, without having to write things down too. I have been looking forward to a new Close Combat for a good few years now, and so my expectations are perhaps too high and hence I have gone on the attack as a result. So perhaps I was a bit strong - my original aim was not to denigrate the work that had been done, but more the work that had NOT been done. I apologise for my tone with respect to the work that has been done - it was actually not my original intention to attack it as sweepingly as I did. And in terms of scope, I found for example the GJS mod to be a thorough and comprehensive piece of work. I have to say that so far it seems to me that WaR is in the same class of work as GJS - that is not to knock GJS at all, as it was a mod and could not alter the engine. But for WaR, you can alter the engine and can effectively do what you please with the game, so I think I am not entirely unjustified in comparing WaR with a CC5 mod, and I don't mean that as an insult, what I mean is that for WaR, AT LEAST the major bugs should have been fixed (and perhaps they will be, in which case I will shut up :)). In any case, I am very happy to play a new CC5 with bugs fixed, and I am pleased to hear that this and other bugs will be addressed, and I wish all involved the best of luck with it and I look forward to the results.

KapHelmet -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 7:53:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LitFuel Yes, because every game out does exactly what the manual says [8\|] Well, actually name some... I don't recall any other game with such major discrepancies. And I wasn't looking for a pat on the back about complaining, but I was expecting some people to agree with it at least (thanks Venator). I stick by the core of my complaint - bugs like this just aren't acceptable and should not be tolerated, and should definitely have been resolved prior to release, especially given the history of this game (the first CC5 was clearly rushed out literally riddled with bugs). Now if the dev team are on the case and are staying on top of reported defects, that is great and I will now shut up moaning about it :)

Venator -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 9:31:54 PM)
Quite. Some bugs are sadly inevitable. But it is quite staggering that something that's actually quite fundemental to gameplay should get through playtesting. Does it happen in other games? Yes. Is it acceptable? Well maybe to some people but I don't see why it should be. And some games just don't get fixed properly. I think it's fair enough to make the point.

Neil N -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 11:50:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KapHelmet and the testers never found it? Yeah right. Why don't you just Open Source the damn code and let some players who care fix these crappy bugs? released with the same old boring and tedius and cheap bugs in it. Major playability issues I had hundreds of hours of testing and never noticed it. Neither Matrix, nor S3T own the code, maybe you can help everyone out and buy it from Destineer? Then we wouldn't have to worry about th re-releases and could move on to something new Such as... Like...

Neil N -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/13/2008 11:55:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KapHelmet the game so far is a re-skin of CC5 (as far as I can see), and it does not appear to have any significant code changes... Okay... maybe it is over the top for me to buy a new game in a great series and to then complain about finding the very same annoying defect as the previous one... sorry everyone, I just don't know what I was thinking. :( I guess that I should have read the entire thread before my first reply. The first quote above is laughable. The second...it's not a new game, it was a re-release to fix as many bugs as we could be found, make the game playable on Vista, more stable in MP. Don't forget that systems are different and the way people play are different. There are some bugs and play issues being posted that testers never did see, or experience. Some of these 'posted bugs' are as much of a surprise to them as you. Hell, there are things being posted that I never saw, and cannot reproduce in my version..

dehm -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/14/2008 2:08:05 AM)
I cannot believe that. Are you telling us that disband bug was unknown? didnt you notice it? I think we must trust matrix and wait pathes which will solve that problem. The game es great, a new release which solves many bugs and let us to enjoy the game without worry about the next crash but disband bug is noticiable by everyone, posted in close combat forums many times, reproduceble in any machine (i've done),... There are many ways to tell the things, perhaps Kaphelmet aren't he best, but this bug can be found by anyone who test the game only playing the GC some hours. No problem, I believe matrix will solve it. dehm

Tejszd -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/16/2008 8:57:32 AM)
Based on testing the disband BG rules they do seem to be fixed/working, though maybe not as expected. The current rules are for the ACTIVE UNITS ONLY (the 15 you started the battle with and that data is being tracked for) and the PERCENTAGES ARE PER ACTIVE UNIT not a percentage of all the remaining active units at the time of being disbanded. The other important factor is supply, supplied or unsupplied, is based on the BG's ammo supply (for non vehicle units) and fuel supply (for vehicles) on hand when it is disbanded not based on being able to trace a supply line. The end result is that if a BG is forced to disband due to a morale failure the penalty is very limited as most of the BG's active units were probably already lost....

Venator -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/16/2008 10:11:09 AM)
quote: The current rules are for the ACTIVE UNITS ONLY I see. So the benefit is entirely marginal. If it affected the entire BG there'd be some point to having the rule but as it stands, it's pretty futile.

Andrew Williams -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/16/2008 10:19:52 AM)
It just increases the pain. The greatest gain can be had for the winning side by taking all the VL's when the "Take all VL's" box is ticked. This can cause huge losses from an otherwise undamaged battlegroup. But. As the "roll of the dice" calculates for each active unit seperately you may find losses are very low on occasion.

Venator -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/16/2008 10:42:14 AM)
quote: The current rules are for the ACTIVE UNITS ONLY If this is true then there's no real pain though. If, as I assume, ACTIVE means 'units selected for that battle'.

Andrew Williams -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/16/2008 7:15:57 PM)
quote: ACTIVE means 'units selected for that battle'. yes

David The Great -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/17/2008 1:25:41 PM)
So this would mean that a BG out of supply wich had to disband, and probably had not much left in his active roster, would return at the mapedge for a cost of maybe 2 or 3 units ? This is not worth a rule, seems verry odd to me that a BG out of fuel could regroup at the map edge with all its vehicles in his force pool at almost no cost.

David The Great -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/17/2008 1:26:44 PM)
Peiper would have signed for this one.

Andrew Williams -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/17/2008 7:16:45 PM)
This has always been the rule in CC5 No one has posted a question about this since the re-developement was announced, so it wasn't considered as a need to change item. We are now looking at if the rule can increse the penalty. (even on the non-active units) thanks for sticking with it.

Moss Orleni -> RE: disbanded BGs (11/18/2008 10:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams This has always been the rule in CC5 No one has posted a question about this since the re-developement was announced, so it wasn't considered as a need to change item. I suppose because the rule stated in the manual only makes sense at force pool level and was taken as such by many players. Moreover, since the rule does not function anyway, it could never be tested... quote: We are now looking at if the rule can increse the penalty. (even on the non-active units) thanks for sticking with it. That's good news!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.359375