Known bugs

Known bugs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series

Message

TAIL GUNNER -> Known bugs (10/7/2005 10:16:05 PM)
Just thought I'd start a thread to help Matrix out.... -EF2 German DCG bug This bug only seems to crop up when commanding a German battalion or regiment. It seems that when 75mm AT guns upgrade to 75mm Pak 40s around July '42, all auxiliary units start showing up at 1SP. I'm not sure if this affects any other nationalities.... -EF2 Russian Airplane There is one russkie airplane that still uses the old EF1 method of attack....no swooping in animation, just bombs the selected hex so no retalitory AA fire......sorry, can't remember which plane....I'll look it up tonight... -Road through Trenches No units are able to use roads or highways that travel through a trenched hex....you pay the movement cost of the underlying terrain.....not sure if this is by design. -AI Airplanes The AI does NOT require a spotter to launch an air attack....units that are well hidden are subject to attack. I prefer it that way, but for the human player, an enemy unit must be spotted first for an attack to commence....(yes, I've tested this) More to come.....[8D]

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Known bugs (10/8/2005 6:16:37 AM)
quote: -EF2 Russian Airplane There is one russkie airplane that still uses the old EF1 method of attack....no swooping in animation, just bombs the selected hex so no retalitory AA fire......sorry, can't remember which plane....I'll look it up tonight... Damn! Dug around some and can't figure out which plane it was.....I know I've seen it before! Also, I know it's not a bug, but I really hate the: -Assault rules Unless a unit (besides defenseless guns) are Disrupted, forget about it! Something's definitely wrong when a 12 guy MG platoon can repel 16 Shermans AND a platoon of charging engineers....[8\|] It seemed to work great when I first got the original East Front....a company of early-war panzers would blitz Russian infantry all over the country-side.....but Talonsoft changed the coding in a later patch; said the assault rules were "wrong" to begin with....[8\|] Another thing that bothers me are: -Endless Retreats If a unit fails a morale check after being fired on, it retreats....fired on again, retreats again....and again, and again, and again... Seemed ridiculous considering game turns are only 6 minutes of real time....

Capitaine -> RE: Known bugs (10/8/2005 5:44:56 PM)
quote: If a unit fails a morale check after being fired on, it retreats.... Actually, if you think about it and compare to underlying precursor game systems (e.g. Panzerblitz, Panzer Leader), I have a problem with ANY retreating during fire combat. It should be that units retreat only due to assault. Has huge implications w/ armor facing as well.

KenHR -> RE: Known bugs (10/8/2005 8:59:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Juggalo Also, I know it's not a bug, but I really hate the: -Assault rules Unless a unit (besides defenseless guns) are Disrupted, forget about it! Something's definitely wrong when a 12 guy MG platoon can repel 16 Shermans AND a platoon of charging engineers....[8\|] It seemed to work great when I first got the original East Front....a company of early-war panzers would blitz Russian infantry all over the country-side.....but Talonsoft changed the coding in a later patch; said the assault rules were "wrong" to begin with....[8\|] Yeah, assaults did get kind of ridiculous when they modded the rules. The original assault system, however, had its own problems: there were no penalties for armor assaulting into towns, IIRC and the outcomes were almost always bloodless. Has to be a happy medium somewhere. quote: Another thing that bothers me are: -Endless Retreats If a unit fails a morale check after being fired on, it retreats....fired on again, retreats again....and again, and again, and again... Seemed ridiculous considering game turns are only 6 minutes of real time.... Amen to that! Maybe just allow a unit to take just one retreat result per turn, and after that lose a step for each subsequent retreat result during the same turn? Might be a bit too bloody. Not sure there's an easy way to fix this one.

KenHR -> RE: Known bugs (10/8/2005 9:06:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine Actually, if you think about it and compare to underlying precursor game systems (e.g. Panzerblitz, Panzer Leader), I have a problem with ANY retreating during fire combat. It should be that units retreat only due to assault. Has huge implications w/ armor facing as well. I have no problem with retreat results due to fire combat. I can buy that a unit can be pushed out of its position due to volume of fire. But it's interesting that you bring up armor facing. I actually preferred the original armor facing rules, where flank and rear shots reduced a unit's defense by a set percentage, rather than implementing unit-specific Front/Side/Rear defensive values. As many pointed out when the debates raged on the TS boards, not every vehicle in a platoon would be presenting the same target area to the enemy. In fact, I've always thougt that facing rules should apply to all units. Flank and rear shots could represent a tactical advantage; a unit's front facing represents its general orientation.

JJKettunen -> RE: Known bugs (10/8/2005 10:27:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenHR In fact, I've always thougt that facing rules should apply to all units. Flank and rear shots could represent a tactical advantage; a unit's front facing represents its general orientation. I agree.

Capitaine -> RE: Known bugs (10/8/2005 10:53:55 PM)
The retreats in the fire phase due to "volume of fire" perhaps can be justified in some sense -- just like the insanely unrealistic small arms ranges used in the game -- but as a gameplay technique (partic. with only 6-min. turns) it's ridiculous to the point of laughter. To see in the fire phase a shot, a retreat, a shot, a further retreat, another shot, another retreat, all giving (in the case of armor) a shot at the unit's rear after a "retreat" of 250m (1 hex) per shot. The reason you should only retreat by assault is a matter of scale: With a 250m/6 min. scale, you only should force a retreat in an assault just to take the hex. In fact, in Panzerblitz and Panzer Leader, even overruns did not give a retreat result (the defender remained in place; perhaps more realistic itself). If you want more, you need a much more complex morale system including suppression and rout rules that apply during a unit's movement phase; not the opponent's combat phase. Otherwise, "retreats by virtue of volume of fire" should be player-decided. 250m+ retreats in 6 mins. are unrealistic for armor AND infantry; but really ludicrous for infantry.

lancerunolfsson -> RE: Known bugs (10/8/2005 10:57:14 PM)
quote: Flank and rear shots could represent a tactical advantage; a unit's front facing represents its general orientation. Yeah this is the way to go in unit based games.

Capitaine -> RE: Known bugs (10/9/2005 12:05:07 AM)
The tactical advantage was exactly the reason why armor facing was added to the campaign series. Agree it should apply to infantry as well at this scale. But you shouldn't have non-assault retreats in the game.

Jason Petho -> RE: Known bugs (10/9/2005 1:41:51 AM)
Although incomplete, here are my two bits on the matter. ________________________________ Enhancements I would like to see as created from a Designer/Player (monster sized scenarios) Point of View. A. General 1. Combine all the games into one large game spanning from 1914 to somewhere in the near future. 2. Combine all games into one easily updateable version that is compatible on all operating systems, Mac too maybe? 3. Maintain support: technical or otherwise 4. Improve the Programmed Opponent!! 5. Improve the Dynamic Campaigns!! B. Editors 1. Organizations/Order of Battles. � Revise the current .oob files to include all the latest revisions. � Expand the number of nations to include all relevant nations as individual nations. For example, Canada as Canada and not part of the UK. � Expand the time frame availabilities as mentioned above. � The ability to Drag and Drop for the editor! This would be ideal for some of the large order of battles I work on. � Add all new units and adjust coding to suit the new units to work efficiently. (ie: ships, recce aircraft, supply units, trains, kampfgruppe HQs, etc) 2. Map Editor � Combine all map templates into one, giving the option of being able to create a map displaying anywhere in the world. � Increase the number of special buildings, terrain types, terrain tiles, etc � The ability to import a base map in either jpg or bmp with the options of being able to resize and rotate it to suit. � The ability to change the colour of the hex number labels to something other that white. It is hard on the eyes!! � More elevations levels � LOS button with variable distance 3. Scenario Editor � A SHIFT or ALT ability to place and move units about the map by selecting a HQ and all subordinate units would move to a chosen location. Would make moving Divisions around much, much simpler. � The ability for the designer to set changes during the course of a scenario in visibility, supply levels, weather, terrain status, etc � An EVENT Editor! IF X,Y Hex is captured, THEN add reinforcement, etc. Endless possibilities for this! � Add/Remove additional tiles. Hex side anti tank ditches, increase the number of destroyed tiles, add burning foliage/buildings tiles � Add/Remove shell craters � Add/Remove damage roads/rails, etc � New features such as die roll for vehicle breakdowns (reducing 1SP) dependent on time of year, location, supply status, etc etc. 4. A NEW Unit Editor � A new GUI unit editor allowing one to easily create and add new units to the game. With this one should be able to adjust all the values, add bmps, add unit text information, etc. � Make all unit information consistent utilizing mm � km/h � kg , etc C. IN GAME 1. Utilize the old East Front assault routines which allow disrupted units a stronger chance to survive an assault. 2. Increase VPs of halftracks � as done for PB#2 3. Add moveable aircraft which will overfly all terrain types, regardless of elevation change 4. Allow the player to decide the type of unit bases they wish to use. 5. Enhances engineer types and capabilities. In addition: road/rail repair, build trenches/bunkers, build hexside bridges of various levels, build pontoon bridges, build antitank ditches, build roadblocks, destroy special buildings, etc 6. Limit number of retreats or remove the retreats altogether except during assaults maintaining the reduction in morale and if 0 is reached, the unit is destroyed. 7. The ability to combine/split transport in the same organization level (company/battalion) 8. Alter the unit facing system. In my opinion there should be a penalty for being attacked from the rear or side � for any unit � but I do not think the way it is portrayed in the present Campaign Series is the best way to do so. 9. Enhance Recce capabilities for Recce units � there is little to none at the moment 10. Artillery � redo the whole works. Incorporate FO�s. Incorporate counter battery fire. Etc. 11. The ability to reassign units IN GAME to other HQ�s to form kampfgruppes. 12. Have all 0 assault units increased to 1, changing the code where 1 cannot assault but can counter-assault when being assaulted. 13. For larger scenarios, the ability for SP recovery for infantry/vehicle types. Maintenance units, medical units. Take care and good luck Jason Petho

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Known bugs (10/9/2005 5:07:44 PM)
An excellent wish-list Jason....hopefully someone at Matrix is taking notes... Let me add a few more things: 1. Captured equipment - Rommel and Kursk scenarios come to mind 2. Points awarded for shot down airplanes Also, Jason, I see you share my love for mega-scenarios....and I see you've crafted a bunch of scenarios for The Blitz... Can you recommend the biggest and best ones? They don't rate the "size" of the scenario at the Blitz if I remember right.... The bigger the better![:D] Chad

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Known bugs (10/9/2005 5:28:45 PM)
quote: Amen to that! Maybe just allow a unit to take just one retreat result per turn, and after that lose a step for each subsequent retreat result during the same turn? Might be a bit too bloody. Not sure there's an easy way to fix this one. I thought alot about this this morning....and I think I came up with something.... Check it out: I agreee losing a step if failing a morale check would be way to bloody....the game is already too bloody... But what if there was another level of suppression in the game...something between Disrupted and Normal... I'd call it Pinned or just Suppressed (yes, stolen from Steel Panthers[8D]) If a unit fails a morale check after being fired on, instead of retreating, it becomes Pinned. If the unit is Infantry, it could be assumed the troops are laying low and looking for cover.....thus, depending on terrain, the unit becomes invisible to the attacker (Clear terrain being the exception). Being Pinned would last one full turn and reduces movement, attack and defense by 25% (versus 50% for Disrupted). Armored units that fail morale after being fired on wouldn't retreat but would be considered Buttoned (SP again[:D]). They would of course still remain visible to the attacker but their attack for counter-fire and the next turn would only be 75% effective...also ANY unit that takes artillery fire should face an increased chance of becoming Pinned.... Finally a reason to lob shells at tanks! To further add to the morale system....try this on for size: Any unit which reaches a morale of 3 becomes Routed....Routed units are not under control of the player, they spend all their movement points on retreating as far away as possible... Furthermore, any unit that reaches a morale of 1 Surrenders....if enemy units are closer than any friendly units.... Just off the top of my head.....must go to bed now[>:]

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Known bugs (10/9/2005 5:36:45 PM)
quote: 9. Enhance Recce capabilities for Recce units � there is little to none at the moment I agree! All Recce does is die quickly.... How about this? Recce units have a special ability....Recon!(duh) I'd like to see them use their Recon ability to take a "snapshot" of enemy terrain that's within their LOS....this would cost the same points as firing (usually 40), and reveal enemy units...depending on terrain. So a tank in the open would always be seen...whereas an AT gun in the woods not so much... Depending on what they see, they could choose to stay and observe...or get the hell out!

Halsey -> RE: Known bugs (10/9/2005 7:38:02 PM)
For anyone still interested in EF. There is a mod at The Blitz website. Units retreated from combat retain their forward facing Op fire resolution has been increased to insure more defensive firing. These improvements make it feel like a new game.[;)]

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Known bugs (10/21/2005 8:09:43 AM)
In the Crucible of Death LCG for EFII, there's a problem with the CrucibleLCG_8.map. Your units enter at the lower left corner of the map on a highway. The only way to advance is to go downhill on the highway towards a small village called Falkenberg. But there's no way to get out of the valley and advance further.....elevation changes won't permit it for your wheeled and armored units.... Lowest level is 15m next is 90m next is 165m too much! ChadG

Damascus -> RE: Known bugs (11/29/2005 9:27:10 AM)
I have found a problem with WF and EF2 conflicting with products from Real, sich as Real Player and Rhaposdy. The sounds (movement, firing, etc.) go into a loop and don't end until the next sound. When the Real product is removed, the problem disappears. Real tech support tried to help but eventually said that the games were not Windows XP supported so they couldn't help.

CHFoster -> RE: Known bugs (11/30/2005 3:28:36 AM)
Jason, Good to be in touch again! As I'd expect, your list is thoughtful and right on. In general, I agree with all your suggestions. Two thoughts: 1) I'd argue artillery shouldn't be completely redone. A simple but effective fix is to overlay a 'units of fire' concept onto the current artillery system. Each artillery unit, type of artillery or side (depending on the ease of implementation) would have a given number of times it can fire in each specific scenario (set in the scen editor). Otherwise, availability et al remain the same. My guess is these Matrix 'upgrades' to the CS will be modest in nature plus I am concerned about breaking a game that is a classic. In my experience, every grognard think he knows better how a game should be designed - but strangely none agree on what that design is. While I fall subject to the same rule, this suggestion is in the spirit of the original games (see smoke, flares, etc), simple-ish to implement and effective in solving the major imbalance historical artillery assignments create. More complex concepts like counter-battery fire are neither in the spirit of the original CS nor particularly relevant in a WWII game. In short, it mostly fixes the problem with the least resource cost and least risk to the system as a whole. 2) The 'one mega-game' concept is very attractive but is quite a bit different than the current situation. There are a number of problems which are not trivial which would need to be solved not to mention and ENORMOUS amount of database work. A few examples: the terrain values differ between CS games. For example, towns provide different defensive benefits in EF then WF (due to the different nature of towns in Eastern and Western Europe). Likewise, 'sides' (Axis/Allied) are hard coded. The program doesn't have any way to assign 'sides' dynamically. Last example, the OOB files are different for the same sides in different games. These would need to be reconciled and merged. My goal is not to be negative but rather to be realistic. Unless Matrix tells us otherwise, it is logical to assume that resources will be precious. The 80-20 rule thing we need is some way to easily mix and match sides. Since there is no easy way and since (I assume) Matrix is unlikely to do it for us, what is probably simplest is to lower the barriers for modders like me to do custom mods. I could make a wish list for this, but one suggestion off the top of my head would involve a simple flat file for each game containing the 'sides', 'countries' and 'country numbers', modifiable by users. This alone would be a huge step to open the games up to more casual modding. On the other hand, John Tiller has gotten considerably more sophisticated in his encryption techniques since the CS. The anathema of all of the above would be a bolstering of encryptions, destroying any ability to mod and limiting users to the narrow fields available in each shrink wrapped game. That would be very bad. Happy to discuss this further and very happy to be discussing it at all, Craig --- Craig H. Foster The Campaign Series Resource Center

Jason Petho -> RE: Known bugs (11/30/2005 7:21:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CHFoster Jason, Good to be in touch again! As I'd expect, your list is thoughtful and right on. Thank you, Craig! Good to see you, has been awhile! quote: ORIGINAL: CHFoster In general, I agree with all your suggestions. Two thoughts: 1) I'd argue artillery shouldn't be completely redone. A simple but effective fix is to overlay a 'units of fire' concept onto the current artillery system. Each artillery unit, type of artillery or side (depending on the ease of implementation) would have a given number of times it can fire in each specific scenario (set in the scen editor). Otherwise, availability et al remain the same. Very interesting idea, Craig. One issue with the CS, in particular longer scenarios, the no limit to ammo or fuel for any units. quote: ORIGINAL: CHFoster My guess is these Matrix 'upgrades' to the CS will be modest in nature plus I am concerned about breaking a game that is a classic. In my experience, every grognard think he knows better how a game should be designed - but strangely none agree on what that design is. While I fall subject to the same rule, this suggestion is in the spirit of the original games (see smoke, flares, etc), simple-ish to implement and effective in solving the major imbalance historical artillery assignments create. More complex concepts like counter-battery fire are neither in the spirit of the original CS nor particularly relevant in a WWII game. In short, it mostly fixes the problem with the least resource cost and least risk to the system as a whole. There are few scenarios I play, though, where I don't attempt at counter-battery fire. quote: ORIGINAL: CHFoster 2) The 'one mega-game' concept is very attractive but is quite a bit different than the current situation. There are a number of problems which are not trivial which would need to be solved not to mention and ENORMOUS amount of database work. A few examples: the terrain values differ between CS games. For example, towns provide different defensive benefits in EF then WF (due to the different nature of towns in Eastern and Western Europe). Likewise, 'sides' (Axis/Allied) are hard coded. The program doesn't have any way to assign 'sides' dynamically. Last example, the OOB files are different for the same sides in different games. These would need to be reconciled and merged. My goal is not to be negative but rather to be realistic. Unless Matrix tells us otherwise, it is logical to assume that resources will be precious. The 80-20 rule thing we need is some way to easily mix and match sides. A lot of work would be involved, but if it could be done, I would like to see it implemented. quote: ORIGINAL: CHFoster Since there is no easy way and since (I assume) Matrix is unlikely to do it for us, what is probably simplest is to lower the barriers for modders like me to do custom mods. I could make a wish list for this, but one suggestion off the top of my head would involve a simple flat file for each game containing the 'sides', 'countries' and 'country numbers', modifiable by users. This alone would be a huge step to open the games up to more casual modding. On the other hand, John Tiller has gotten considerably more sophisticated in his encryption techniques since the CS. The anathema of all of the above would be a bolstering of encryptions, destroying any ability to mod and limiting users to the narrow fields available in each shrink wrapped game. That would be very bad. Agreed. The ability to mod is one of the key points of the Campaign Series. Taking that away would do little but hurt the series. Jason Petho

gdpsnake -> RE: Known bugs (12/14/2005 7:06:51 PM)
It's been a long time but I remember the biggest bug/gripe had to do with the units upgrading themselves in a campaign game. Very often I ended up getting loads of trucks, no troops - just trucks. You could also spice up the battle choices. Choices: Blitz, assault, attack, probe, recon, rearguard, delay, defend, counter-assault, counter-attack - the idea being how the set-up (on the roads entering versus set-up defensively with/without fortifications and mines) and amount/type of forces are chosen. Broad front versus narrow. Both sides could be blitzing or one defending while the other probed. The possibilities would provide a much wider variety of challenges and play value.

Magua -> RE: Known bugs (12/27/2005 2:19:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Juggalo In the Crucible of Death LCG for EFII, there's a problem with the CrucibleLCG_8.map. Your units enter at the lower left corner of the map on a highway. The only way to advance is to go downhill on the highway towards a small village called Falkenberg. But there's no way to get out of the valley and advance further.....elevation changes won't permit it for your wheeled and armored units.... Lowest level is 15m next is 90m next is 165m too much! ChadG Chad- That's a mistake in the map file. It's been a long time, but here's the fix. Open the map in the map editor. Go to the menu bar, and there should be a heading elevation, or something or other. Click it, and a drop down window opens displaying two numbers one is base level and the other delta I believe. These values have been reversed. Switch them, save the map, and yer good to go. sorry I can't be more specific, but it,s been a while since I looked at it.

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Known bugs (12/27/2005 7:28:08 AM)
Thanks Magua! Now I can finally finish this LCG....[8D]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875