RE: The bug thread. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Tech Support



Message

berndn -> RE: The bug thread. (7/23/2010 7:23:13 PM)

I had followed this thread, at least I hope so, and what I notice playing against the axis AI is that the AI don't seem to use the points to 'buy/invest' in troops before a battle. I checked the AI several times via the edit opponent button before a battle and while I see yellow marked troops ready to be deployed most of the time it looks like the AI don't use the points. This is clear to see in some battles where I only have 2 troops available against 2 or 3 axis troops and when the battle happens I notice that the AI has not invested in refreshing troops.
At least it looks like this to me.



RD Oddball -> RE: The bug thread. (7/23/2010 7:39:35 PM)

Steve could answer this question better than I but to some extent it depends on some other factors outside the singular battle. I'll have him respond.



TopGun -> RE: The bug thread. (7/23/2010 8:12:35 PM)


Hmm, I got 6 squad slowly slaughtered by a single "two men" half track. I fired the half track with all squads and the targets were green all the time but it didnt take any damage. I also had a bazooka team shooting, but they decided to use only rifles [&:] and eventually got killed with full AT ammo (team was at close range).



RD Oddball -> RE: The bug thread. (7/23/2010 8:48:41 PM)

Hey Berndn from Steve:

quote:

The AI does spend points. I’d have to see the specific case to see what was happening. It may be that it couldn’t find anything to fill the slots that were open (i.e. they were vehicle slots and it couldn’t afford a vehicle). The AI also keeps a point reserve based on the BG commander’s caution. It could be this needs tweaking. Please ask him, next time he notices this at the BG screen, to exit out and send the saved game file and I can look at it.

Steve


TopGun we noticed this ourselves and discussed it. Per Steve:
quote:

Halftrack armor is per published specs. They are vulnerable to MG fire at very close ranges, depending on the angle, and the top is open. A bullet going through a halftrack's armor has a vanishingly small chance to knock out the vehicle though. Typically what you'll see if you fire small arms at a halftrack is that an exposed crew member gets hit, and / or the halftrack stops shooting back as the gunner takes cover and refuses to go exposed again.
That being said he did agree that it was a common complaint and will revisit it for the second update. Integrity settings as well as the chance to score a grenade hit might both be higher than they should be. Thanks for confirming what we are seeing.



kaleidoscope -> RE: The bug thread. (7/25/2010 6:33:54 PM)

Building on Mook map missing external roof number "four".

[image]http://i1044.photobucket.com/albums/b443/cc2stuff/mook.jpg[/image]




zon -> RE: The bug thread. (7/26/2010 1:55:56 AM)

Cut and pasted from general forum....

Here's a Panther firing along an empty dirt road. There had been a target there, a Cromwell that filled the corridor with smoke and got out of there. The Panther continued to fire along the road for several minutes, long after the smoke dissipated. Just to be clear, that's the AI controlling the Panther. It used both HE and AT rounds on the road. At first I thought the AI was firing through the smoke just in case it hit something, but it kept pouring it on after the smoke cleared, and the tank didn't stop firing until nearby Allied infantry tempted it out of the hate-on for the dirt roadway.



RD Oddball -> RE: The bug thread. (7/26/2010 2:27:15 AM)

Thanks guys. We'll look into both of them. RE: the panther continuing to fire: Too bad this isn't going to be an easy one to replicate. Often solutions require replication of a bug in order for Steve to isolate it in the code. He can poke around a bit but there's a possibility me may not be able to find what's causing it without it actually being in the middle of doing it. We'll still look at it. Thanks!



Ivan_Zaitzev -> RE: The bug thread. (7/26/2010 3:50:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TopGun
Hmm, I got 6 squad slowly slaughtered by a single "two men" half track. I fired the half track with all squads and the targets were green all the time but it didnt take any damage. I also had a bazooka team shooting, but they decided to use only rifles [&:] and eventually got killed with full AT ammo (team was at close range).


Today I was trying to stop a HT with a PIAT team. The team was ambushing, waiting for the HT to get close, and wen it was... they decided to use their rifles! They exposed their position and the HT cut them in pieces...



xe5 -> RE: The bug thread. (7/27/2010 2:53:41 PM)

Routed/fleeing soldiers are tripping VL control in their favor. Something that had previously been addressed circa CC3.



RD Oddball -> RE: The bug thread. (7/27/2010 11:19:10 PM)

I noticed that too during testing but the thought that crossed my mind is if they're not surrendered then technically they should be able to trip the VL's. They're still targetable. I suppose a solution would be to treat them more like snipers where they can't trip VL's but they would still be treated as combatants.

Will recommend it to Steve.



SkyStrike -> RE: The bug thread. (7/28/2010 4:43:22 AM)

When I have f.e. 4 mortar teams grouped as "Ctrl 1", I click one of them on roster in battle, all of them are still selected (instead of that one I clicked). I consider that a retarded bug. If I have I have a Ctrl group selected and I click one ONE team, I want that ONE team selected, not all of them.

Also there has to be changes to the "battle ends on low morale". Even if the enemy has 1 panicked reserve guy it seems that he will still not be thrown off the map but still have victory locations. Sometimes one has to have 3 (!!!!!!!!) battles against a BO group reserve as the battle ends almost immediately by low morale of the enemy but only like 1-3 victory locations change owner. I consider that inadequate.





zon -> RE: The bug thread. (7/28/2010 6:27:35 AM)

Not sure if this has come up before, but you can't have two BGs (or two pairs of BGs tiled) switch places on uncontested maps. It seems like something you should be able to do.

Also, I had a PIAT unit show a green target reticle on a tank after all AT rounds were spent. I recall the target going black after the AT supply was used up in other games.



xe5 -> RE: The bug thread. (7/29/2010 4:31:56 AM)

Small bug trying to access the Soldier details screen from the Battle Group screen when a second BG has a team in the active roster.

1) Piat is added from the support BG
2) tab to the support BG forcepool and roster, select the Piat, and click Soldier button
3) Soldier details screen shown is the one the attacking BG originally had before the previous battle.

I want to be able to see Soldier details for support BG teams so I can rename my teams after the team leader.

[image]local://upfiles/31774/E0903F440A02406FB2F10BF547B3A127.jpg[/image]



RD Oddball -> RE: The bug thread. (7/29/2010 4:36:35 AM)

Thanks for bringing it to our attention Mick.



7A_Woulf -> RE: The bug thread. (7/29/2010 5:23:46 AM)

Noticed something as I restarted the GC to try the new patch:

I'm attacking with 1st Bat from Dinther and the rest of 501st in support from the south, fielding a Sniper and an Engineer team from them; -Shouldn't the only two teams in the south be those two? As you can see I'm free to deploy as I like.



[image]local://upfiles/33946/52420C0EACB54787B08B1ECCC9424503.jpg[/image]



xe5 -> RE: The bug thread. (7/29/2010 4:01:41 PM)

@7A - valid point about attack & support BG teams deploying in their respective map entry areas. Problem is - often youll have one or none support BG teams due to lack of points. In which case the support BG entry area would be relatively useless.

New beta bug report(?)
Givens:
Beta patch
GC started before applying the patch
modified ALSteams file (zero experience & morale for all teams)
modified TLD Elements file

Post-battle soldier details screen has some odd stats after an FM defeat of a static BG in Eindhoven - negative kills, negative intelligence, no coherent patern to the soldier stats.

[image]local://upfiles/31774/7FC2EDB5D9164EE58AD56EFE4DB69C88.jpg[/image]



xe5 -> RE: The bug thread. (7/29/2010 4:31:02 PM)

I call this one the 'riverbank' bug. Same game conditions as the bug report above (in fact the very next battle). Attacked with an AB BG onto Best from Son. AB BG that started the GC on Best stayed in support. Bridge had been blown 3 battles ago. Bug is that my deploy zone shows available areas on both sides of the river but I cant deploy any teams north of the river. The teams that are deployed by default on that side of the river can only be repositioned to the south side.

[image]local://upfiles/31774/8F8BD62B1F94447CB3F2D33D4C93DFEF.jpg[/image]

.zip of the saved GC file attached



7A_Woulf -> RE: The bug thread. (7/29/2010 7:25:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

@7A - valid point about attack & support BG teams deploying in their respective map entry areas. Problem is - often youll have one or none support BG teams due to lack of points. In which case the support BG entry area would be relatively useless.


Read somewhere that they were supposed to be forced to deploy according to the direction of arrival. [&:]
At Grave (the following battle) I couldn't mix the deployment of the units of the two BG's since I moved in the BG from north as a Attack Move. If I'm right about the limitations on deployment it seems that the system don't work in every battle; -And beside that I can only agree with you on the point that the lack of points makes the support BG rather useless, a squad and a sniper is about all you can get... [X(]



xe5 -> RE: The bug thread. (7/29/2010 8:10:58 PM)

A single BG is forced to deploy in a zone around an entry/exit VL according to the direction of its arrival. As the system now stands - when 2 BGs move onto a map, the attacking BG has a choice of its deploy zone or the deploy zone around the VL the support BG arrived at. Ive read nothing to the contrary. Assumed you were suggesting a design change rather than making a bug report.

Unclear what youre describing in the Grave battle?



7A_Woulf -> RE: The bug thread. (7/29/2010 8:59:27 PM)

Then we are on the same page, I had understood it as both BG's were forced to deploy according to their direction of arrival. (Can't say from where I got that idea, I would provide a link if I could...)

At Grave I moved 504th PIR from Overasselt with an 'Attack' move, but when I tried to deploy units from ithat BG at the southwest VL ('DZ E' and 'to Oss') they just bounced back to the original place around the 'to Overasselt' VL in the north-east corner.

-But I've might have missed the deployment area and placed them in neutral areas if there isnt any restrictions on deployement (Damn, it was 6 am in the morning, not the brightest and steadiest time of the day [;)])



xe5 -> RE: The bug thread. (7/29/2010 10:43:10 PM)

@7A - was able to reproduce your situation on Grave. Started a thread about it on the main LSA forum. Your Grave issue is closely related to my Best deploy issue above- the difference being that I attacked onto the map using a split, north/south entry VL.

Starting to grasp how the various permutations of deploy may work. Cancel my "riverbank" bug report above. Im thinking its an undocumented feature. Some of my teams were considered to have entered Best using the Son North entry VL, and some the Son South VL. Since the bridge was blown, those teams considered to have used the Son South entry werent allowed to deploy north of the river. Those teams considered to have used the Son North entry were allowed to reposition south of the river because being on the south side of any river/canal is not an advantage for the Allied player.

[image]local://upfiles/31774/1FC8302097154AAA8FA4E0AFAC5D8D1E.jpg[/image]



7A_Woulf -> RE: The bug thread. (7/31/2010 4:05:46 PM)

Anyone seen this?

Second turn in a row that none of the BG's at Son can't move to Best, have full control of the map and last turn KG Rink managed to attack from Best. (This problem only applies to Son, all other BG's with connections can move to Best)

GC (Beta) against the AI, can post a save-file if necessary. (Hey I'm learning [X(])

[image]local://upfiles/33946/382D570A94B147C0BAC1EF6EF50330DA.jpg[/image]



RD Oddball -> RE: The bug thread. (7/31/2010 5:36:01 PM)

While the bridge at Son is under repair you won't be able to move to Son Heath from Son. Once the icon returns to it's normal state (no wrench -- or spanner depending on where you're from [:D]) then you'll be able to make the move you're describing... if I'm understanding you accurately.



Boer_slith -> RE: The bug thread. (7/31/2010 5:40:47 PM)

I found a little visual bug. Not really important, but odd.

Playing on the Grave map (beta patch; 1024x768, 16bppp, 60Hz; windows XP) parts of the bridge protrude through the soldier information panel (f7). Here's a cropped image showing one place. There are other areas on the bridge that have the same problem.

[image]local://upfiles/35758/840BAB6F554A43CDBD4C2F0E44AFD5DF.jpg[/image]



stolidog -> RE: The bug thread. (7/31/2010 5:54:12 PM)

Not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but the craters caused by mortars are not changing the terrain to "shellhole"

For example, was playing Grossbeek and mortared a german team in the field, the craters were visually there on the map the next battle, but when checking the terrain/elevation it is still reading as field

[image]local://upfiles/30404/CA05B618B6674333B4AC48BFB6789041.jpg[/image]



zon -> RE: The bug thread. (7/31/2010 6:11:05 PM)

St. Odenrode...bridge blown

[image]local://upfiles/27157/192BD842076F4085A40B6AB9E151CE97.jpg[/image]



xe5 -> RE: The bug thread. (7/31/2010 7:42:16 PM)

The editor shows a Weurt<->Oosterhout connection that doesnt exist.

[image]local://upfiles/31774/8134C897E5CC4D76922C8B3559769F3F.jpg[/image]



7A_Woulf -> RE: The bug thread. (7/31/2010 9:26:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

While the bridge at Son is under repair you won't be able to move to Son Heath from Son. Once the icon returns to it's normal state (no wrench -- or spanner depending on where you're from [:D]) then you'll be able to make the move you're describing... if I'm understanding you accurately.


Looking at the yellow borders both Eindhoven and Son Heath is a valid option for 506th PIR, but as you can see they (or the Guards BG) can't move to Best; -That's my problem!
Shouldn't 506th PIR be able to improvise a river crossing and move from 'to Best North' AND 'to Best South', and both BG's should be able to attack from 'to Best South'? As it is now Best is a 'no-go-zone' for the BG's in Son, while KG Rink may attack freely... [8|]

*EDIT* Funny thing: -When the bridge is repaired the following turn, Best becomes a viable move-option... Am I missing something or is it a bug?

[image]local://upfiles/33946/FDEE26F4958F49CD84A0E22F7C95660C.jpg[/image]



squadleader_id -> RE: The bug thread. (8/1/2010 12:48:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stolidog

Not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but the craters caused by mortars are not changing the terrain to "shellhole"

For example, was playing Grossbeek and mortared a german team in the field, the craters were visually there on the map the next battle, but when checking the terrain/elevation it is still reading as field



IIRC, xe5 already reported this bug earlier. Error in the elements file...Field element Rubble To value should be 10 (shellhole).



RD Oddball -> RE: The bug thread. (8/1/2010 1:19:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stolidog

Not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but the craters caused by mortars are not changing the terrain to "shellhole"




We'd found that one after release and it's been fixed and will be part of update 2. Thanks for pointing it out.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.1875