RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (Full Version)

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



Message

Platoon_Michael -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (5/1/2013 10:52:31 PM)

Most glaring issues is....

1)the sometimes reoccurring 00:00 timer crash.

2)A.I.'s inability to properly assign support to BG's that are in Battle,Moving into Battle and instead assigning it to BG's that will never see battle and in some cases assigning multiple support options.

3)And the issue with how the maps are codded allowing the A.I. to place AT_Guns deep inside heavily wooded areas rendering them useless.
You can view the thread about AT_Guns Here

4)Main screen graphic error


When can we expect a patch to address these issues?



Stwa -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (5/7/2013 9:39:41 AM)

Hi Matrix,

WaR is a great game. I got it late, but I am glad I got it. [:)]

@Platoon_Michael

So based on your list, it looks like this game is down to hardly any problems left at all.

BTW, the AT gun thing can be solved many ways. I just did some simple re-coding on a few maps, and I am happy with how the guns work now.




johnsilver -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (5/16/2013 12:48:18 AM)

@Stwa Think P/M is directing the AT guns post at the stock maps, included with the game. Noticed that cannot stick them also in anything remotely wooded myself while playing P/M's stock mod.

The VetMod P/M converted to WAR? You will see that he coded the maps to allow guns to be placed in woods fairly well, even the heavy 3" and Pak43 88m.

To save a post on "another" forum, want to bring this up here.. Nice how can't use the 3" at Leidenborn (spelling) map P/M! It was a shock when the gun didn't show up.

Also.. Cutting down an allied advantage (when playing vs AI as allies) would be to not allow the 57mm to be deployed in buildings. :-)



Stwa -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (5/16/2013 1:09:42 PM)

Hi,

Not sure what you are talking about in reference to the gun issue. The thread mentioned requests solution to this stated problem. ->

What would be the best way to get the A.I. to NOT deploy AT_Guns in the middle of the woods in WAR? -platoon_michael

The stock game no-workie, because it can (on occasion) deploy AT guns (which no-movie) in the woods.

So, the only solution, IS TO MODIFY THE STOCK GAME (incuding the stock maps). But once modified they are no longer stock, hence the circular conversation.

But there are all sorts of simple things that can be done to alleviate or eliminate this phenom, but you have to willing to modify the stock game and perphaps the maps too.

Its really a NO BRAINER, and completely a NON-ISSUE, if you play exclusively against the AI. Except that the AI may have its guns find their way to the deep woods too. [>:]

But one neat thing about the AI you gotta respect. You won't catch the AI whining incesently like a stuck pig, everytime one of its guns gets deployed in the woods. [:D]



johnsilver -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (5/16/2013 9:40:47 PM)

My fault for trying 2 non related Mods into the same post STWA.

Yeah, The guns sure don't "fit" into woods in the stock maps like we are all used to without the modding that you mentioned and I also am tempted to do what you suggested with my *extremely* limited abilities.

No more H2H here. That ended 10Y ago. Time for the youngblood to take over :-)



Stwa -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (5/17/2013 4:30:01 AM)

Hi,

I totally agree with you regarding H2H. I just don't have the inclination or the talent to particpate anymore. But, I enjoy tinkering with CC games, and playing the tactical game. Sometimes, it is very entertaining just observing the combat.

Some battles are duds, but I am constantly surprised with the situations the soldiers get into on the battle maps.

The gun thing can be a drag, but if you do nothing else, just avoid letting the AI have them on maps where there might be a problem. WAR gives you alot of maps, and if you are playing single player, you can work around this. My approach is get to the tactical battles, set the forces you wan't on the maps you want, and enjoy.



Platoon_Michael -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (5/23/2013 1:42:15 AM)

When using the space bar the game shows you with the arrows that there is a connection from Champs to Senonchamps but in reality there isn't.


[image]local://upfiles/8753/07BEEE2E22D84C13AE9CFC5F6BB629F4.jpg[/image]



Stwa -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (6/11/2013 4:10:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael

When using the space bar the game shows you with the arrows that there is a connection from Champs to Senonchamps but in reality there isn't.


Hi Platoon_Michael,

I hope you have been doing well.

Your post is interesting. I always had a suspicion that something was up with the SPACE BAR. [:)]



Platoon_Michael -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (10/8/2013 8:51:48 PM)

This is disappointing.

CCR/9th Armored had held this map for several turns and was unmovable by me using the 190/62 VG.
So I moved the FB Brigade into Lommersweiler hope that with a few Tanks I could inflict some pain,gain some ground and move on.

I did hold all 4 of the southern VL's with the 190/62 VG.
And moved the FB Brigade into the map from the North.
This left the AI with no VL's in their control.

However as soon as the Battle started the AI starting crushing me right off the bat.
I lost all my Tanks and many men.
I pushed for a truce in hopes of just getting out alive and this was the end result.

The AI was still a worthy fighting force and their moral bar was still green.
They lost 1 guy and only had 3 damaged tanks.

And yet the AI BG is no where to be found.

[image]local://upfiles/8753/3B70315D9B324A1FB149DFFA97BF4111.jpg[/image]



Platoon_Michael -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (10/8/2013 8:52:33 PM)

Said Battle results.


[image]local://upfiles/8753/F2989E04EB984C54B3FEA1EC1F204BEA.jpg[/image]



Platoon_Michael -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (10/8/2013 8:53:19 PM)

And now the Strategic Map.

[image]local://upfiles/8753/7001616155064A499BD6C50721A8AB62.jpg[/image]



Platoon_Michael -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (10/8/2013 9:04:28 PM)

I'd also like to ask if not only can this Please be fixed but is there anything that can be done with how the AI treats their battle Groups on the Strategic Map?
They will constantly allow themselves to be surrounded.

I'm some what positive that this is a result from my previous posts about can you please correct deployment when one battle group leaves a Map and another enters from a different direction.

Post with Pics




Please!



Platoon_Michael -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (10/8/2013 9:18:31 PM)

My setting for the GC are shown below.
I'm sorry I don't have a screen shot of the AI's Moral Bar during Battle but I think the screenshot of my losses show who was getting whooped.



From the Manual Page 43.
If a battle ends because of a truce or time-out, the battlefield is still split between the forces. In Campaigns or Operations, the deployments for the following cycle are based on how far each side pushed during the previous battle. If a battle ends because of a morale failure, the Battle Group that flees loses 1-3 victory locations depending on the ratio of the winner’s Force Morale to the loser’s Force Morale. In addition, the Battle Group will lose two teams chosen at random from its force mix as a rearguard/breakout force loss penalty. If the victor has 33% more force morale than the loser, the winner will gain one victory location. If the ratio is between 33% and 66% the victor will gain two victory locations. If the ratio is greater than 66% the victor will gain three victory locations. If the fleeing side still has any victory locations left, the field continues to be split based on previous positions; otherwise, the losing side is pushed off the map.

[image]local://upfiles/8753/4596344FF3794E8E813F611A2AB275F7.jpg[/image]



SteveMcClaire -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (10/8/2013 11:10:00 PM)

If you hold no victory locations at the end of a battle you will lose the map, even if you 'won' the battle due to cracking the enemy force morale. The awarding of additional VLs for breaking enemy morale is done by calculating the distance from friendly controlled VLs and awarding those VLs closest to you. If you have no friendly VLs no distance calculation can be done and thus you get no additional VLs awarded.

The victory text is wrong, since it is being generated before the additional VLs are award and the failure condition has not yet been detected. This is a fairly rare edge case, however.

There are no plans for an update to WaR to address this at this time, but it is something I'll keep in mind.

Steve



Platoon_Michael -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (10/8/2013 11:37:15 PM)

Why then wasn't my BG at least disbanded?
They had no Map to retreat to.
The Allies win the Battle and there reward is that THEY get disbanded?

I consider this to be a huge flaw in the game and do not understand why it only receives a something I'll keep in mind answer.

At this point I can only assume that the deployment bug I've posted before is something that can not be fixed.
Therefore anyone who plays the game will constantly be disappointed.

And your answer sir is TOTALLY Unacceptable.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (10/9/2013 8:19:16 PM)

Okay, I will try and explain it again.

It is possible to 'win' a battle but control no VLs at the end. That appears to be what happened here.

The Allies caused a force morale failure to end the previous battle, but they had no VLs under Allied control. So despite causing a FM failure, the end state is Germans in control of all VLs on the map, and thus the US BG is disbanded.

As I said above, it is an edge case that the normal battle results text doesn't cover. So it's not clear what happened from the text at the bottom of the debrief screen. It could be handled better, but it is a situation that almost never comes up in play. Most players won't ever see this happen. This exact situation and the exact same handling has been in the game since CC4 added the strategic layer 14 years ago.

Steve



Stwa -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (10/16/2013 2:31:27 PM)

Uh-Huh [personnifiant Barney le dinosaure mauve]

Salut Platoon_Michael,

J'espère que vous allez bien.

Alors peut-être que vous verrez cette erreur à nouveau en 2027.



TDeacon -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (1/10/2014 6:13:15 PM)

I notice that this thread is still going, even though there is a later (most recent, AFAIK) beta patch (CC-WachtamRhein-Update-v45015b.exe).

QUESTIONS:
1) Is there some reason that we should avoid the later beta patch?
2) If the later beta patch is OK, can it be installed directly over the existing game, without installing previous beta patches first?

MH



SteveMcClaire -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (1/13/2014 6:22:06 PM)

I think the last message in this thread, prior to your own, was from a year ago. :) No, there's no reason to avoid the newer update, and yes, it's fine to install this over the old one.

Steve



TDeacon -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (1/17/2014 2:23:26 AM)

Steve,

What about my second question? In other words, do patches (either regular or beta) contain *all* fixes included in previous patches? If so, one could install the original game, plus the final patch, skip all the intervening patches, and be good to go.

MH



SteveMcClaire -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (1/17/2014 3:33:36 PM)

Sorry. Yes, all patches are comprehensive. So you can install the original game and then just the latest patch. No need to install each patch one after another.

Steve



Platoon_Michael -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (1/31/2015 4:44:14 PM)

Not really sure where to post this so I just picked an existing thread.

Why is it that one Battlegroup is allowed to move with No Fuel while another isn't?

[image]local://upfiles/8753/A31B859B373A4698B8CBDEC8E90F7E79.jpg[/image]



Tejszd -> RE: The first problem with v4.50.14b patch so far... (1/31/2015 10:28:32 PM)

It is the type of battlegroup which determines if fuel is required.

Example;
- armour and motorized infantry require fuel
- regular infantry does not



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.34375