Bugs that still haven't been fixed! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

XPav -> Bugs that still haven't been fixed! (1/31/2003 2:15:58 AM)

Look in the bug forum.

* Long Island and possibly other CVEs still eat planes

* PBEM is still out of sync, with possible gratiutous use of the escape key contributing to it

These bugs have been there forever. It sure would be nice if they would get fixed.



Wilhammer -> (1/31/2003 3:32:48 AM)

Don't forget the friendly fire stuff.



Thurmonator -> (1/31/2003 4:27:12 AM)

They also need to fix ground attack missions that always attack the same unit day after day.

Thurm



Mr.Frag -> (1/31/2003 4:33:56 AM)

More important then those, they need to fix the load command, as a very large part of this game is about logistics. Having bugs in such a core part is really troublesome.

When 1 ship can carry more then 6 ships due to how the game miscalculates things, it really needs some attention.

I hope this is NOT something we have to wait for a WitP retrofit for...Having to run single ship TF's just to work around this bug is extremely annoying.



dpstafford -> Re: Bugs that still haven't been fixed! (1/31/2003 4:36:37 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]Look in the bug forum.
[/B][/QUOTE]
One other, the excessive ground unit casualties inflicted by strafing (fighter sweeps at 100 feet).



Yamamoto -> (1/31/2003 5:04:05 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]
When 1 ship can carry more then 6 ships due to how the game miscalculates things, it really needs some attention.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I must have missed this one. My transports always seem to work right. Could you elaborate on this bug?

Yamamoto



Raverdave -> (1/31/2003 10:32:54 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]Don't forget the friendly fire stuff. [/B][/QUOTE] I am sure that this was fixed with the last patch...I certainly have not seen it since.



loader6 -> (1/31/2003 8:39:19 PM)

What about escorting fighters that say they've turned back, but their numbers don't decrease in the air-to-air combat screen? I find this irritating because my planes on CAP will sometimes turn back and their numbers do decrease. Also, if you and your enemy both have LRCAP in the same hex they don't fight so my transports get chewed up because sweeping the hex doesn't work either for some reason (I think it's because I control it).



Wilhammer -> (1/31/2003 9:00:05 PM)

Is LAE perhaps buggy for the Allies?

Look in the bug thread, in a 2.20 game, from start to now, I am getting easily repeatable friendly fire bugs.

I have operations at Madang, Amphib strike against a pretty good sized (but heavily bombed) Japanese land force.

1. LRCAP from Lae is engaging Escorts, or at least the message says an intercept is taking place.

2. Naval Strike missions from Lae pounded a transport TF under CAP from the (2) 31 capacity CVEs of the USN in a TF on follow orders to the amphibs. Result was heavily damaged ships, and mutually friendly fire on air units.

Other bug:

I have nearly all my B-17Es at LAE, it does not appear they are suffering any operational losses, despite being sent as often as the weather permits on very effective 5000ft ground attack missions.

To compound, the effect of fatigue is minimal, morale remains high, and the experience ratings are soaring into the 90s.

This after weeks of being on non-stop ground strike with 10% Naval Search on (Very effective, btw, as those high quality bombers are proving very good at hitting stuff during the search phase; subs on the surface, lone transports).

Other bomber types are at LAE, and they are getting the same benefits; B-24s, PBY B-24s, and B-25Js.



mbatch729 -> Still around (2/1/2003 3:44:26 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]I am sure that this was fixed with the last patch...I certainly have not seen it since. [/B][/QUOTE]

Saw it happen to my opponent in a recent turn.



XPav -> Re: Re: Bugs that still haven't been fixed! (2/1/2003 10:07:43 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford
[B]One other, the excessive ground unit casualties inflicted by strafing (fighter sweeps at 100 feet). [/B][/QUOTE]
My P-39s aren't bothering you that much, are they? :D



siRkid -> (2/1/2003 10:22:46 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thurmonator
[B]They also need to fix ground attack missions that always attack the same unit day after day.

Thurm [/B][/QUOTE]

Ground Target Selection

This is a known bug that we have thoroughly investigated. The AI will select one target to attack.
And will attack it until its fatigue level reaches 100% at which time it will not make any more ground attacks. Once the fatigue level of the selected target falls below 100% the AI will resume the attacks. Because of the way the code is written, it has been decided that we could cause more harm than good if we tried to fix it.

I have found that I can get around this by attacking the airfield or the port. The ground loses from those attacks appear to be spread around the available troops.

I know its not the answer you want to hear but that’s were it stands. It will remain on the list but as a low priority.

Rick



marc420 -> (2/3/2003 5:35:52 AM)

Nice to know the AI uses information it should not have access to in order to make decisions. Just how does the AI know the fatigue levels of the ground units?



siRkid -> (2/3/2003 6:22:38 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by marc420
[B]Nice to know the AI uses information it should not have access to in order to make decisions. Just how does the AI know the fatigue levels of the ground units? [/B][/QUOTE]

If I bomb a unit turn after turn, and I see that my bombing has been effective, as a human I can make a reasonable assumption that the unit I have been bombing must be hurt pretty badly. How do you get a computer to make a reasonable assumption? Does the program have to contain code that tracks every hit and do a statistical analysis to see if it should switch targets? I think your asking too much.

This is just my opinion I'm not speaking for Matrix or 2by3.

Rick



Wilhammer -> (2/3/2003 8:14:01 PM)

Kid

With Bombing of troops a CRITICAL aspect of the war, I fail to see how this bug can be low priority.



siRkid -> (2/4/2003 12:09:36 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]Kid

With Bombing of troops a CRITICAL aspect of the war, I fail to see how this bug can be low priority. [/B][/QUOTE]

From what I understand the cure may be worse that the disease. The programmer is afraid of introducing some major bugs into the engine if he tinkers with this part of the code.

Rick



dpstafford -> (2/4/2003 12:14:11 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]From what I understand the cure may be worse that the disease. The programmer is afraid of introducing some major bugs into the engine if he tinkers with this part of the code.[/B][/QUOTE]
You sure do know how to give a person the "warm and fuzzy".



Wilhammer -> (2/4/2003 6:54:24 AM)

I don't like the sound of that.

Perhaps we need a list of bugs that won't be fixed?

I consider the bombing of troops bug to be a killer, at least for me, if it is not fixed.

Why not have the airstike randomly pick a unit?

I would say do it for each squadron, one at a time.



siRkid -> (2/4/2003 7:53:27 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]I don't like the sound of that.

Perhaps we need a list of bugs that won't be fixed?

I consider the bombing of troops bug to be a killer, at least for me, if it is not fixed.

Why not have the airstike randomly pick a unit?

I would say do it for each squadron, one at a time. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't know what else to tell you. This is the way it is coded but for some reason that is beyond me it does not work.

Rick



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8515625