6.1 Bugs. Are These Fixed in Next Patch? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

GH1967 -> 6.1 Bugs. Are These Fixed in Next Patch? (11/27/2001 7:00:00 AM)

I've gotta say that this is the greatest game I've played in a long time. I used to play SP years ago and what Matrix have done for this game is incredible. My thanks to all of you for your hard work and for giving us this awesome game. I've been playing and seeing a few re-occuring annoying bugs that I'm hoping may be fixed in the next patch. Most are discussed in this Forum but I thought I'd lump them together for simplicity. Here they are to let you know: *Battle/Weather sound effects. These sounds disappear when other sounds like Terrain sounds or loud firing sounds start up. I miss my weather/battle sounds. They add a lot of immersion and atmosphere to the game. *Rifles Definitely something amiss here. Rifle rounds are NOT inflicting casualties even at close range. I saw 1 hit incurred by rifles in a mainly all infantry game (at 3 hexes). Range 4-9 simply doesn't hit. *Tanks Through Walls This is another annoying one. EVERY time I go through a stone wall or house in a tank it immobilizes. There should be a substantial risk of this happening; say 10-15%, but at the moment it seems to be 100%? From what I know of tank durability and use in WWII this needs fixing. Thanks again for a great game! If any other "outstanding" bugs show up I'll edit this post. GH1967 [ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: GH1967 ]



Khan7 -> (11/27/2001 7:48:00 AM)

Hmm.. also I've noticed that when I order my 60mm mortar Amphibs (USAr) to go through a city or something, unless I move them practically hex by hex, they invariably go through a building and stick themselves. And on topic, I would also question the 100% chance of a tank getting stuck in a building.. doesn't seem quite right, though such happening is definitely a risk. As for rifles I am unconvinced that this is a real problem. I at least can say that it is an improvement, and that I haven't played enough to really speak as to whether it is an over-correction. I dunno, I would think that one of the salient flaws (which I have already heard is being addressed) is the system for determining the cost of various vehicles. It provides too little flexibility and historical accuracy, and sometimes does weird things (like making a Panther A more expensive than a Panther D). I would think a system much more similar to those we've seen in previous SP's would be much preferable, at least to set things right intra-nationality. As far as *inter*-national issues, we are told to fix these by adjusting points per side, and I would have to say this makes sense to me. Matt



Alby -> (11/27/2001 7:59:00 AM)

"I dunno, I would think that one of the salient flaws (which I have already heard is being addressed) is the system for determining the cost of various vehicles. It provides too little flexibility and historical accuracy, and sometimes does weird things (like making a Panther A more expensive than a Panther D)." Panther A should cost more than a D model, it has extra machine gun and thicker front turret armor,(128-116)... but there are alot of other pricings that make you go HMMMMMM.. agreed. I know pricing has been looked into. Stone walls cause immobilizing 100% gotta agree is a little extreme. As for rifles, check to see if you get casualties on your first shot. this is where the rifles should be most effective. Still like to see the yellow button greyed out in arty screen when an arty unit has no weapon due to a malfunction, as it is when a unit is routed/retreating or destroyed. [ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ] [ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]



skukko -> (11/27/2001 2:31:00 PM)

you can turn terrain effects(sounds) Off from preferences. First model Panther was a piece of ..... it had too weak drivewheels and some other things that immobilized 2 of 4 before they reached Kursk. (and it burned easily on its own..) Stonewalls and stonehouses.. once you have crunched them down your other tanks can drive thru it. And recovering time for immoed vehicle is shorter than it has been, now they can be used in same battle again. mosh



john g -> (11/27/2001 2:51:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Khan7:

I dunno, I would think that one of the salient flaws (which I have already heard is being addressed) is the system for determining the cost of various vehicles. It provides too little flexibility and historical accuracy, and sometimes does weird things (like making a Panther A more expensive than a Panther D). Matt
What makes the D cost more in your mind? I looked at them and thought the change in rangefinder just about equalled the additional mg. Actually with normal sighting ranges, like 10-25 the extra mg would be worth more, visibility needs to be over a mile before the extra rangefinder value comes into play.
thanks, John.



Khan7 -> (11/27/2001 4:44:00 PM)

okok, maybe a bad example. But I know there are others. Anyone? And this point is pretty moot anyway as it has already been announced that this feature is getting a fix. Matt



Warrior -> (11/27/2001 6:23:00 PM)

I don't see ONE DAMN THING described in this thread that is a BUG! What I see are player's not getting their personal preferences catered to by the game, and crying it must be a fault in the game. I've been testing v7, and I have YET to find a BUG! Will people PLEASE get their language together and use the right words?!? For instance, "I don't like this, could it possibly be addressed in a future patch?" NOT, "I don't like this, it must be a BUG!" The only thing BUGGY in this thread is the inexact use of words - words which give the impression that the game is a piece of trash full of "bugs." IT IS NOT!! (Hear me roar!)



pax27 -> (11/27/2001 7:25:00 PM)

Ohhhhhhhhhhkay Warrior, nice soldier, down boy
As for the rifle situation that BUG ok ok, that change has been made to represent the actual effectiveness of a WW2 rifle. Iīm not making this up, thereīs a post about it (rifles in v6.1 I think) and it explains it. The "tank imobilized in building" is annoying, Iīm prepeared to buy a couple of pltīs of halftracks for this reason alone But seriously, houses were used as hiding for guns and armour and thereīs actually a post discussing this too somewhere. The sounds do dissapear, like when you hold your pointer over a stream or a fire it kills the background sound, and the cricket sound during night battles freaks out on me from time to time, i.e it just getīs very load and annoying. Most of this can be fixed by going into preferences and switch battle sound effects (I think thatīs the one) off and on again, and you get the background sound back.



Larry Holt -> (11/27/2001 8:28:00 PM)

I have to agree with Warrior. A bug is something that does not do what the designer intended it to do. While the wall thing seems not to be realistic to me, I cannot say what the designer had in mind so I cannot call it a bug. To answer the original question. No. V7 is a cleanup of OBs and some changes to the MC code to fix a few real bugs. There is no coding changes to the game engine for the things that were asked about.



Frank W. -> (11/28/2001 1:14:00 AM)

*Battle/Weather sound effects. okay,there are some sound probs. but it doesnīt disturb me that much......
*Rifles wrong. try US rangers (Garand) or german FJīs (FJ gewehr ) w/ quite good experience and run some tests....i like my US units,as the kill good with the m1 garand,okay the "normal" rifles as K98 or such donīt hit very good,but they WERE not real good weapons,so i think itīs okay.take terrain effect into account.... *Tanks Through Walls nope, the chance is some 92-94% i would guess. but still to high i agree on this point.
greetinx frank



pax27 -> (11/28/2001 4:50:00 AM)

I also think itīs wrong of people to throw around the B word. But I donīt see how the point is lost in this. There is a small soundproblem (I have a temporary suggestion above) but is it wrong to point theese things out? Not if you ask me.
And like I wrote, the rifle-usefullness and tank/building-breakdowns have been discussed before, basically the rifleīs are portraided correctly, but the breakdowns are not. At least that seems to be the general notion.



generalrichmond -> (11/28/2001 5:55:00 AM)

No, to point things out is fine. A bad attitude or one like "we deserve better" would be atrocious. But I really don't hear that kind of stuff for the most part. I do think Matrix has been good on responding to and appreciating feedback. And when it's done well (on our part) it facilitates the addressing of issues. But I am somewhat lost here. According to a post by Paul back about a month or more ago, don't look for anymore 'updates' or 'patches' for SPWaW. They are putting their efforts into other things.



Warrior -> (11/28/2001 8:38:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by General Richmond:
But I am somewhat lost here. According to a post by Paul back about a month or more ago, don't look for anymore 'updates' or 'patches' for SPWaW. They are putting their efforts into other things.
I think you are totally correct. As I understand it, v7 will be the ultimate SPWaW, and all further efforts by Matrix will be on the new games like Combat Leader.



mao -> (11/28/2001 7:07:00 PM)

quote:

To answer the original question. No. V7 is a cleanup of OBs and some changes to the MC code to fix a few real bugs. There is no coding changes to the game engine for the things that were asked about.
One question, more for interest than anything else, why are the versions jumping from 5 to 6 to 7, rather than incremental version changes (6 to 6.1 to 6.2 etc.)? Are the changes in v7 so great?



Larry Holt -> (11/28/2001 8:35:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by mao:
One question, more for interest than anything else, why are the versions jumping from 5 to 6 to 7, rather than incremental version changes (6 to 6.1 to 6.2 etc.)? Are the changes in v7 so great?
V6 made MAJOR changes to the infantry routines. Before that there was a situation where often any infantry fire caused one casualty and rifles and MGs were pretty much the same as far as casualities at long range. V7 will make MAJOR OOB changes. That is before they were the best effort given time constraints. Now they should be the best possible.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (11/28/2001 8:57:00 PM)

Gotta support Warrior in this thread here. A "bug" is an occurence that generates something horrible. Like crash your system in the middle of the game and lock up the computer. Or perhaps makes the screen image do something erratic or unpredictable. I hate seeing people use terms that indicate they havent thought out their comment well. Sure I hate tanks blindly driving into buildings.
So dont give them 10 hex sudden commands in the middle of a built up piece of terrain!. Its not a "bug" its the person at the keyboard not using their own AI thats at fault. You can also constrict the tanks available range of discretionary movement radius.
Brick walls, again this isnt a "bug" you just dont like the game at that point. There are plenty of things about the game that frustrate me. But I also get frustrated by never rolling dice rolls, that never seem to go below the needed number to get a result I was hoping for. Does this mean my dice need fixing, nope, just dont buy any lottery tickets that day. The solution to everyone thinking Steel Panthers needs yet another "patch" is to realise that the game can only be "fixed" so often before the people that "fix" it get tired of endlessly doing so. Steel Panthers is what it is. I have been playing Whittman's Gamble lately.
Whats with this scenario I ask myself? Each time I play it I walk down the whole damn column and eliminate everything I shoot at. Statistically that seems odd to my brain.
But its not a design error.
I happen to know that in real life that is precisely what mr Whittman did. In a horrifying incident, that man and his Tiger tank almost single handedly eliminated an entire British column. I think it is precisely that Steel Panthers generates preposterous results that makes it seem real to me. Warfare is about preposterous events. Does anyone recall Sgt York, Auddie Murphy, hitting the Bismarck in the rudder, the battle of Midway, the Germans failing to "liberate" the people of the Ukraine, man the whole of human history of warfare is full of cases where you just cant believe it actually happened that way. For all those that seem disgruntled about Steel Panthers "bugs", how about signing on with the next stage of the evolution of Steel Panthers and prepare to buy CL.



gdpsnake -> (11/28/2001 10:18:00 PM)

I have a few comments that I believe might improve gameplay. (NO STINKING BUGS HERE.) I've found that the AI does not purchase barges for it's armor during river crossings and never lays smoke to conceal the crossing (love those rubber raft turkey shoots but not really fun.
Perhaps the "purchase routine" if there is one, for the AI could be tweaked when the mission is determined so:
The AI buys art/ac for assaults/river crossings to more often accurately depict the "softning up" prior to attack. Oh, and lay some smoke too!
The AI buys some riverboats? to aid the crossing.
The AI buys some barges for the armor in river attacks.
The AI buys more mineclearing tanks/engineers for Assaults and more art. Oh and lays MORE smoke for cover!
I'm convinced every other squad in WW2 carried an ATR rifle?! Seems like Poland buys 50% MG squads. Britain buys 50% HQ squads with Boys ATR. Russia buys dozens of PTRD ATR's, and so on and so forth. Perhaps the scarcity factor for the AI purchase is off allowing for some really skewed results like 50 plus AT guns which get set-up so far back that nothing happens (Not to mention the absurdity of so many guns!). Players can 'improvise/restrict' units/mines and such but the AI can't (at least not yet in my experience.)
I've never seen the AI buy paratroopers and/or drop. Same with special ops or gliders. The AI mine laying routine is rather predictable as well! Another solution for AI battles involving rivers may be to randomly extend the "centerline set-up point" like other scenarios (based on LOS I'm assuming) from the center of the river (I mean the green set-up line which always appears in the water for both sides) so that many times you can's set up on the river and wait. I guess I'm focusing on the AI, not in terms of execution but in terms of initial set-up/purchase. Also, the set-up often doesn't take into account the victory objectives. Can some 'routine' be coded to help the AI for set-up? It could be very detailed but even a few simple 'common-sense' changes would go a long way for those of us who are stuck playing the game solitare. As a last thought for more scenario options: (1) Could some generated scenarios involve "Destruction of enemy forces?" You could make victory hexes for the AI to execute on but make them worth 1 point so the goal would be points garnered by KIA's.
(2) Breakthrough battles where the VP hexes are on the last hexrow and/or units must be exited for VP's.
(3) All the delays seem 'unprepared.' How about prepared delays (ie. entrenced/ready defenders). Conversely, unprepared defenders in an assault.
(4) Scenarios with only some or no units to start but they randomly (perchantage chance as well) appear on various entry points along the borders (back and/or side!). You could have a small defending force with a few bunkers that get reinforced for example.
(5) City battles other than the standard here is the map covered by Stalingrad battle where the AI buys all tanks again?!
(6) I always seem to get (I'm playing german as example) 2 polish battles follwed by one french and one brit in Europe before going to North Africa. Can this be randomized more so perhaps one is forced to play X number of battles per month or year(More battles-longer WW2 campaigns!) I'd like to believe there are more European battles in 39-40 to play some of the equipment that often gets neglected. The end also seems to go quickly too (Very few 44-45 battles)
Just some ideas to spice up the scenario generation selection. These are not bugs Warrior! LOL!



OKW-73 -> (11/29/2001 8:32:00 AM)

Dont know if its bug, but what about when using air units and opponent can see your ground units sametime...? is this gonna be fixed?



generalrichmond -> (11/29/2001 9:42:00 AM)

Guys (the last two posters), you need to read a little higher on the thread. There ain't gonna be anymore patching or coding. SPWaW has pretty much come to it's fruition, it's zenith, it's nadar, it's OK Corral. Got it? v7.0 is the final show. At least that's what we've come to understand from various Matrix personnel's postings.



pax27 -> (11/29/2001 9:15:00 PM)

I have yet to visit a post for a game that wasnīt full of "BUG"-reports and request of inzane magnitude. But most of the time the people posting falls into one or more of a few categories: The Concerned Hardcore-gamer, The Annoyed First-time palyer, The Cool 13yr Old Antagonist etc.
I guess the easiest way to go would be to fold over like a frenchman at war (sorry, just a bad joke) and shut the f**k up then
I think weīd be pretty ignorant if we thought that the feedback we give Matrix on SPWaW wouldnīt be used to fine tune their comming releases, but itīs pretty typical of people not to read all posts in a thread. Try to get someone to read your post on page 2/3
I care about this game and upcoming ones out of respect for the product and the people behind it, Iīm not here to tick people off, or for your amusement (well, I like to amuse, but who doesnīt).
I play SPWaW with great joy and pleasure, and if it wasnīt for this forum, the small faults that the game shows, would have stayed with me
BTW, I always write long post, Iguess I donīt want people to read em...



gdpsnake -> (11/29/2001 10:18:00 PM)

Hey general,
There's nothing wrong with discussing ideas on a post. Perhaps a motivated programmer can offer ideas/programming fixes not related to matrix that others could benefit from (much like scenarios).
Besides, such a great game will never be truly fixed. We might not see more changes but SPWAW II may come out in the future and the 'makers' would want to at least read the ideas for making the game. A SPWAW II might sell pretty well. Look at CIV III! Sid didn't quit improving and Civ III is so far the best product yet according to reviews and the industry.
Sure, I want to see the other games get produced without everyone focusing on SPWAW but ideas should never be squelched just because no future updates are planned. I said planned, who knows what the future holds.
So lighten up and Merry Christmas! God bless America!



Paul Vebber -> (11/30/2001 1:41:00 AM)

Discussion of "how things ought to be" shouldbe moved up to the CL forum. As has been stated, SP:WaW is done. IS it perfect - HELLNO! But at this point it is more productive to spend teh time fixing things to be correct in the new game than to do much more with SP:WaW. As has been pointed out by Rockin Harry and others, between Freds editors and the preference adjustments, one can make scenarios with the game that do some pretty incredible things, but I think folks need to look into getting proficient with the tools at their disposal to make scenarios and campaigns that do what they want. THere is only so much we can do to automate them. THe game can only do so much in the "out of the box default" mode, and certainly can;t please everybody. As I said before its time for a new guard of moddes to to take up where we began long ago working without code on improving the original SP game. IF things crop up that need to be changed in the code, we may consider it if it is a bona fide bug, but at least not for about a year. IF you feel the OOBs are screwed up, fix them! you have teh tools, and get Tankhead of Fabio et al to post your revision on their site. With the great OOB manager out there, its easy to manage multiple OOBs and OOB mod projects. THe "tough bugs" like aircraft reveling enemy units are jsut too hard to fix (need to rewrite the spotting routine), well we are doing that for combat leader. We have wrapped up work on v 7 and will have an availability announcement on when v 7 will be available for down load in a day or two. THere will be a complete game download and a patch, though the patch form 6.1 may be avialable a couple days sooner than the "big package". Lost Victories will be hot on its heels (as releasing V7 means its off to the CD burner to cut in quantity). Watchtower will be close behind that.



RichardTheFirst -> (12/1/2001 6:37:00 AM)

Being a former IT Project Manager I have to disagree with Warrior, Larry and others that don't like the word "bug" and so violently are defending their lady. First of all the lady is not being attacked and secondly she does not need to be defended because her merits speak for it selves. The term "bug" in current international English (and I know because I heard it a lot from lots of users) have evolved to express not only major disasters and crashes, not only designer deviations but things that the majority of the users community think it is wrong. “Nice to haves” as we used to call it at my place are minor bugs. It is shorter to say bug than to say nice to have or user requirements, it’s not depreciative it's just easier. If a gamer thinks that other gamers will share his opinion that one particularly thing is a bug then probably he is right. And I’m sorry to say this: you are wrong. You are wrong until you are absolutely sure that the majority doesn’t think like that particular user. For example, that aviation bombardment “bug” mentioned above is really a BUG. Not because it is a designer deviation but because the majority of gamers think it is wrong.
The same applies to vehicles not choosing the best path - the majority thinks it is wrong - therefore bug. It is just too complicated to be thinking on the reasons why that thing is happening. I'm sorry again to say this but that kind of defensive attitude I saw a lot in frustrated IT people, me included at times, for I also had my share of frustration for hearing too much critics after a well done and very hard job, so I know what I'm talking about. You have to understand the users – in this case the gamers - even if it is difficult sometimes. My message is this - we all to some extent appreciate the effort dedicated to this piece of art of a game. If we criticize the lady is not because we like to criticize, it's because we are so delighted with her that we would like her to be perfect. We will never be completely satisfied, not even in version 999.01. Don't defend her so hard. If the opportunity comes all we critics will be in the same side of the barricade to defend her. [ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: RichardTheFirst ]



OKW-73 -> (12/7/2001 8:33:00 AM)

i agree with RichardTheFirst 101% [ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: OKW-73 ]



Paul Vebber -> (12/7/2001 9:07:00 AM)

You can call them what you want at your shop, here a bug is something that doesn't work at all,not in accordance with the documentation or causes the game to crash. If it doesn't work the way you want it to, but is the way we meant it to be is a Design Issue. IF it turns that we agree that it needs to be fixed then it gets changed, but we don't call them bugs. You can waste time in semantic arguments or you can help us out. Its a fact in the game community that more talk of "bugs" associated with a game, the more of a turn off to players. So make your choice, you can help us here or hurt us here. IF you like SP:WaW and think you might like to see better games from us in the future, choose your words carefully because they matter. The whole reason we are working on COmbat Leader is to be able to fix many BUGS and DESIGN ISSUES that we can't address in SP:WaW. IF you ever want to see CL, then contribute here in a positive way.



generalrichmond -> (12/7/2001 10:05:00 AM)

Good points, Paul. Not only words matter, but also tone and attitude. We, the faithful, are deeply interested in CL. You need to be assured of that, Matrix. And please don't allow some postings to blunt your enthusiasm for the projects.



Jack -> (12/7/2001 11:32:00 AM)

How about turn settings. The reason I think it is important is because I always play email games, and they are always mirrore to guarentee play balance.
The problem is we think we are playing a mirrored game but one game will only go 12 turns when we had it set for 25. Meanwhile the other game goes 25.
Other than that I am very happy with the game.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (12/7/2001 4:58:00 PM)

One last comment to echo Pauls feelings on the "B" word. I have heard that WWII Online is
incredibly "buggy". Has the "b" word been important. YES!! Regardless of how the industry uses the word. To me it paints a big sign on the software. The sign reads, dont waste time on this software. That in a nutshell is why words are dangerous. That is why the choice of words becomes paramount. Its why we have a file in the game to switch from swastikas to iron crosses. Who cares if the swastika means nothing to a north american. Its bad press in Germany. Freedom to choose means freedom of choice. But it doesnt mean a choice always enjoys freedom of equality. When Combat Leader appears. It will be forced under the spotlight. Steel Panthers is a hard act to follow eh. if CL succeeds cool. I am hoping to buy it myself. Good analogy here is going from Squad Leader to ASL Advanced Squad Leader. I learned Squad Leader with the more user friendly programmed instruction method (a few rules at a time). Worked fine in that game too. ASL was released as a 70 dollar manual (here read this and get back to me in a few months). No game, just a friggin all inclusive manual. No programmed instruction. Like a university degree all in one gulp sort of thing, by skipping the 5 year program and going straight to the finals.
Was quite a shock. As well written as it was, the manual costs me most of my potential new players. They take one look at the manual and go hmmmm sorry I will pass. I am assuming CL has been quite a task for Matrix. Not the least for it being forced to improve on Steel Panthers. The first release of CL is likely going to be a day with lots of underarm deorderant required (I know I would be nervous). I for one will be more than a bit dismayed if 5 days after its release the "B" word is splashed all over comments about it (keep that in mind).
So when that great day shows up, and CL becomes available. Forget the "b" word. Or are we to assume that some would be crazy enough to bluntly critique their woman 5 minutes after a session in bed too. Leave irrational comments to politicians.



Paul Vebber -> (12/7/2001 8:41:00 PM)

Redleg - wasn;t there a workaround for the turn ending too soon problem? IIRC if pad the number of game turns by 9 you get a minimum number that doesn't fall below the threshold? The game ending early happens sometimes - that is part of the game. If you lay back to long you risk not being able get back on the initiative.



Grumble -> (12/8/2001 1:53:00 AM)

Paul puts the round through the dot, again!
Well done...
Now let's move our suggestions and ideas over to CL and move on...



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875