Graviteam

English-speaking community => Graviteam Tactics: Operation Star => Topic started by: lavish on November 11, 2011, 07:03:06 PM



Title: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on November 11, 2011, 07:03:06 PM
The title says it all. Now let's get to the point.  :)

Heavy weapon disabled (or immobilized?)
I get this message sometimes with german 50mm mortar initially after I end the deployment phase. The mortar cannot be moved at all, though it doesn't have taken any damage. So far I haven't encountered this bug with other mortars.

Vehicles getting stuck
Vehicles may sometimes get stuck in dense forests and urban areas. I mean that they keep on going against an obstacle and do not know how to reverse properly and take a new path. Many times I can manually order them to reverse and everything is ok then, but this requires micromanagement from a player. Sometimes, however, they get immobolized like halftracks driving slowly on a building and flipping over on its back - with style! ;D No formation movement modifiers were set during these accidents.

A.I. making fire preparations (artillery) on neutral keypoints in the beginning of the battle
I've seen A.I firing a rocket barrage on neutral keypoint immediately in the beginning of a battle. There's no chance that my troops could have moved there in under 2 minutes. I was defending and I only had one square with one keypoint under my control and still A.I. decided to bomb empty field.

Keypoints and circles around/near them
I've seen circles marked with dotted line around some keypoints. Is this the area where my troops need to be to hold/capture a keypoint? If so, why a keypoint is outside of the circle like near school of Taranovka? Is this intentional? And why this circle is not around every keypoint?





Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on November 11, 2011, 09:00:12 PM
Heavy weapon disabled (or immobilized?)
I get this message sometimes with german 50mm mortar initially after I end the deployment phase. The mortar cannot be moved at all, though it doesn't have taken any damage. So far I haven't encountered this bug with other mortars.

Yes, there is a bug and a very long time, unfortunately we can not reproduce.

Vehicles getting stuck
Vehicles may sometimes get stuck in dense forests and urban areas. I mean that they keep on going against an obstacle and do not know how to reverse properly and take a new path. Many times I can manually order them to reverse and everything is ok then, but this requires micromanagement from a player. Sometimes, however, they get immobolized like halftracks driving slowly on a building and flipping over on its back - with style! ;D No formation movement modifiers were set during these accidents.

This behavior is changed in a patch, but of course to drive through forests and villages not on the road is not desirable, as in real life it can lead to jamming or reversal for vehicles.

A.I. making fire preparations (artillery) on neutral keypoints in the beginning of the battle
I've seen A.I firing a rocket barrage on neutral keypoint immediately in the beginning of a battle. There's no chance that my troops could have moved there in under 2 minutes. I was defending and I only had one square with one keypoint under my control and still A.I. decided to bomb empty field.
It's not a bug. AI is not spying for the actions of the player and the location of player's units, in other words not a cheater. Therefore, it may "proactively" shelling suspected sites, including the neutral squares. Actually just like in real life is not necessary to go shelling targets are mistakes.


Keypoints and circles around/near them
I've seen circles marked with dotted line around some keypoints. Is this the area where my troops need to be to hold/capture a keypoint? If so, why a keypoint is outside of the circle like near school of Taranovka? Is this intentional? And why this circle is not around every keypoint?
It's not a bug. Such a circle (on map) means intelligence data - for example, that the enemy will defend this square, or arrange an ambush there (presumably, if a circle around the key point, it is likely to defend this point). But as with any intelligence data that may not be accurate (in real life and in our game).




[/quote]


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Danielefc on November 15, 2011, 11:40:03 AM
Defensive positions not firing:

I find that placing most weapons but specially AT guns and Heavy MGs in trenches actually hurt their ability to fire alot(!). Its always a problem but just to give an example here is what happened in one game:

I had a perfect ambush setup in a little village and when the enemy attacked i was also abit lucky. They came from the angle i had covered with a heavy MG and a 7,5 AT gun (both in trenches). The MG was 3-400 meters from enemy and the AT gun about 300. Closer to the enemy where to dug in infantry platoons. But the MG almost never fired and the AT gun only got of 2 shots on the single KV-1 coming up the road (KV-1 managed to get of 10-12 shots in the same time.)

Lines of sight and fire where perfect, i had an arty barrage on the attack area. Still the tank managed to charge through the infantry trenches and just crush the gun under its tracks. All looked very cool i must say. And in the end I did win but no thanks to the MG or AT gun at all. Rather my arty barrage shattered the enemy infantry and the tank eventually ran out of ammo and i could charge it with infantry.


Anyway - too put it shortly: I find dug in MGs and AT guns very very inefficient.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on November 15, 2011, 02:15:51 PM
If you dig in the gun, then you need to follow the arc of fire. That is, you like to exchange guns protection vs a sector of fire.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on January 17, 2012, 03:04:42 PM
Hey, here's a collection of bugs and suggestions,or ideas for future development of the game(s):

Bugs

Achievement: Terror of tanks (25 tanks destroyed)
- I only destroyed 5 and got this achievement


Suggestions for APOS (and SABOW)

1. Force player to play battles in a certain order on the operational map
- It's a disadvantage for AI if a player can deside the order and area of a battle

2. Add smoke grenades for infantry
- Gives slightly more time for infantry to survive under heavy fire

3. Show vehicle damage text only for player
- Add an option to show inflicted damage only above player's vehicles

4. Urban assault / clear houses
- Units attack and clear all nearby houses as they advance (not just run past them and get shot in the back  ;))
- Maybe include this as a modifier(?)

5. Movement modifier: Vehicles on roads only
- Add an option for movement modifier that only vehicles of selected units drive on a road
- Infantry don't use roads with this modifier
- Infantry can assault villages and forests while vehicles stay / advance along the roads giving fire support. Very handy for player and AI too!

6. Show or visualize number of units + casualties of platoons and squads on the unit panel (= right top corner of the screen ).
- Easy and fast way to check strength of your platoons and squads!

7. Add / modify artillery control panel
- Give an option to show artillery panel without selecting a spotter
- Show all the spotters and corresponding artillery batteries on that panel
- Show both on map and off map artillery units there
- Give possibility to adjust the number of shots for on map mortars per fire mission

-> 8. Ground fire: Only for units / mgs near their squad leader

-> 9. Possibility to make a squad leader automatically guide indirect fire of platoon's mortar
- Would be especially handy for SABOW and when there's lots of units
- No need to micromanage fire of several single mortars

:)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: randall.flagg on January 17, 2012, 03:30:06 PM
Heavy weapon disabled (or immobilized?)
I get this message sometimes with german 50mm mortar initially after I end the deployment phase. The mortar cannot be moved at all, though it doesn't have taken any damage. So far I haven't encountered this bug with other mortars.


Andrey Ive seen something similar in the quick battles.  The German 50mm mortar wont fire because it seems to be out of ammo.  Is this the same bug?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on January 17, 2012, 07:33:11 PM
Achievement: Terror of tanks (25 tanks destroyed)
- I only destroyed 5 and got this achievement
Checked

1. Force player to play battles in a certain order on the operational map
- It's a disadvantage for AI if a player can deside the order and area of a battle
I don't understand it  ???

2. Add smoke grenades for infantry
- Gives slightly more time for infantry to survive under heavy fire
In long-range plans

3. Show vehicle damage text only for player
- Add an option to show inflicted damage only above player's vehicles
In squad panel its only for player


6. Show or visualize number of units + casualties of platoons and squads on the unit panel (= right top corner of the screen ).
- Easy and fast way to check strength of your platoons and squads!

This place is full

7. Add / modify artillery control panel
- Give an option to show artillery panel without selecting a spotter
No place for it

-> 8. Ground fire: Only for units / mgs near their squad leader

In long plans


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on January 17, 2012, 07:33:52 PM
Heavy weapon disabled (or immobilized?)
I get this message sometimes with german 50mm mortar initially after I end the deployment phase. The mortar cannot be moved at all, though it doesn't have taken any damage. So far I haven't encountered this bug with other mortars.


Andrey Ive seen something similar in the quick battles.  The German 50mm mortar wont fire because it seems to be out of ammo.  Is this the same bug?
If you do not have shells that he should not shoot


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: hamrock on January 17, 2012, 08:03:29 PM
Suggestion:

Field fortifications, barbed wire and bunkers.  Heavy MG34. Emplaced mines. Sniper teams for both sides.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: randall.flagg on January 17, 2012, 08:22:33 PM
Heavy weapon disabled (or immobilized?)
I get this message sometimes with german 50mm mortar initially after I end the deployment phase. The mortar cannot be moved at all, though it doesn't have taken any damage. So far I haven't encountered this bug with other mortars.


Andrey Ive seen something similar in the quick battles.  The German 50mm mortar wont fire because it seems to be out of ammo.  Is this the same bug?



If you do not have shells that he should not shoot


OK thats makes sense but in a quick battle shouldnt all the units have ammo?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: anon on January 18, 2012, 02:07:26 AM
Yo Andrei,

Would it be possible to get an HD version of the icon for the .exe? The red star is nice, but its resolution sucks.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on January 18, 2012, 08:29:34 AM
OK thats makes sense but in a quick battle shouldnt all the units have ammo?

Yes all units in qbattle have ammo if you don't change it in q.battle options.
Can you describe the situation in more detail?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: hamrock on January 20, 2012, 10:37:28 AM
The latest  DLC has some very good looking summer troops. Even NKVD with their distinctive green tabs.  Now please consider the SS troops. Currently a Heer figure represents these.  Would you consider the SS troops in camo smocks?   It all adds to the immersion.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: randall.flagg on January 20, 2012, 12:55:43 PM
I know Ive mentioned this several times in other threads but I didnt want to the feedback/suggestion thread to be without mention of it.

Redesign the Operation Editor.
At least to the point where it isnt necessary to manually edit text files to add units to an operation. 
You have an excellant wargame engine here and its shown it can do tank simulations and eastern front wargames very well.  But to be the huge success you deserve you need to add multiplayer and make the Operation editor far easier to use.  Because the AI is better than most other titles in the genre multiplayer can wait until you have the time and funding to add it in the future.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on January 20, 2012, 08:50:25 PM
I know Ive mentioned this several times in other threads but I didnt want to the feedback/suggestion thread to be without mention of it.

Redesign the Operation Editor.
At least to the point where it isnt necessary to manually edit text files to add units to an operation. 
It's dont have a sense.
For 2 years did not have much desire to do something in it by players.

But editor in current state allows developers to fast build of operations.
Any improvements is a waste time.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: randall.flagg on January 20, 2012, 09:14:42 PM
But editor...Any improvements is a waste time.

OK your call, but in the end your going to end up hurting your sales.
Vladimir mentioned in an interview for Armchairgeneral.com that that most users didnt use the editor in steel fury so you werent planning to improve it. That was incorrect,  its not that the steel fury customers didnt want to use the editor, we did.  Its that the op editor is not intuitive at all.  My point is he was blaming us when he should have been building a more intuitive editor. 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on January 20, 2012, 09:52:30 PM
OK your call, but in the end your going to end up hurting your sales.
May be but may be not. Sales of SF (with editor, yes  ;D), is very poor.

One thing I can say for sure that sales in general don't depend from some specific features.

Vladimir mentioned in an interview for Armchairgeneral.com that that most users didnt use the editor in steel fury so you werent planning to improve it.
It's totally right. In december 2011 editor has major upgrade. In Jan12 patch - minor upgrade. This trend will continue in the future.

But these improvements will be directed to _accelerate the development_ of operations. Not chewing on the obvious, or questionable replacing for operation template creation with super fast method Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V to some garbage with GUI, etc.

Its that the op editor is not intuitive at all.  My point is he was blaming us when he should have been building a more intuitive editor. 
It's a very simple. Simplest than SF editor in 10 times or more. But with another conception.

For example:
SF editor 2x2 km area + 1 mission = 1-3 day for creation
APOS editor 10x10 km area + 1 operation (up to 20 missions in terms of SF) = 1-3 hour to creation

Sorry but SF editor is really suxx  ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: KEYSTONE07950 on January 20, 2012, 10:05:22 PM
Can someone do a step by step (for us dummies) tutorial on how to use the operations editor?  What I need is an explanation of what folders to set up and what files go in which folders.  Pretty Please? :)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: randall.flagg on January 20, 2012, 10:39:10 PM
Andrey, I see your points.  And you know your sales, your available resources, and your code.  I dont.  The AP series is measured against Battlefront's Combat Mission series.  And the AP series outshines the CM series in every area except the editor and multiplay.  So if you do nothing else youve still scored quite a coup.
    I hear your reluctance to put more resources into an editor that does exactly what you want it do. But your a programmer, you may think "GUI's are for dummies".  We're users, and we need GUI's.
Regardless, thank you for discussing it and responding to my concerns.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on January 20, 2012, 11:27:32 PM
The AP series is measured against Battlefront's Combat Mission series.  And the AP series outshines the CM series in every area except the editor and multiplay.  So if you do nothing else youve still scored quite a coup.

Each game has its own features. Let CM be our own and AP our own.
For 10 years, the development of CM, its editor and multiplay a very well. We do not make sense to strike where our positions are weak.

I hear your reluctance to put more resources into an editor that does exactly what you want it do. But your a programmer, you may think "GUI's are for dummies".  We're users, and we need GUI's.
No, of course good GUI it's a great. But it really slows down the development of the game in our case. Since for the development does not need it, but spend time on it instead of the game need a lot.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on January 20, 2012, 11:30:16 PM
Can someone do a step by step (for us dummies) tutorial on how to use the operations editor?  What I need is an explanation of what folders to set up and what files go in which folders.  Pretty Please? :)

I was uploading this manual many times, upload still:)
http://files.mail.ru/8XUEPK

click red button to download


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Capt Sam on March 10, 2012, 02:43:33 AM
Here is a bug that I apologize if it has already been reported.

Airplanes hit trees don't crash.  Not just a single tree, but many:
(http://i.imgur.com/4YyeQ.jpg)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on March 10, 2012, 09:08:57 AM
Even worse. Airplanes will never fall  ;D

It's not a bug, it's feature.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: oho on March 22, 2012, 05:12:28 PM
Great game - very deep. Only sometimes the russian infantry seems too aggressive when it should be on defense. Is this a known problem or am I the only one who notices it?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: bob on April 02, 2012, 05:15:10 PM
In the platoon state/reinforcements screen, how do I know which units are allied and which units are mine?
EDIT: Never mind. The color, stupid me ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: tonyuk on April 04, 2012, 05:22:27 PM
Tactics manual in PDF with 78 pages, freezes around page 50. Tried redownloading and same result. My other PDF files with around 70 pages I can access all OK. Can you please check this out, maybe the original file is corrupted.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on April 04, 2012, 06:08:27 PM
Tactics manual in PDF with 78 pages, freezes around page 50. Tried redownloading and same result. My other PDF files with around 70 pages I can access all OK. Can you please check this out, maybe the original file is corrupted.

Yes it's an Acrobat reader issue.
Try to open it through Foxit reader (another PDF viewer) not in Acrobat.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: tonyuk on April 04, 2012, 09:28:15 PM
Tactics manual in PDF with 78 pages, freezes around page 50. Tried redownloading and same result. My other PDF files with around 70 pages I can access all OK. Can you please check this out, maybe the original file is corrupted.

Yes it's an Acrobat reader issue.
Try to open it through Foxit reader (another PDF viewer) not in Acrobat.

Thanks Andrey, that one works!


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Capt Sam on November 11, 2012, 01:03:12 AM
I've found some issues with the map icons.  I usually have no icons visible, but the map and mini-map get creative, leaving artifacts from earlier positions:
(http://i.imgur.com/T9QSg.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/5xjV7.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Mozoz.jpg)

The map is drawing icons in old positions that have moved!  This only happens in the map screen or when the mini-map is on.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Xenophon on November 11, 2012, 04:14:37 PM
Can someone do a step by step (for us dummies) tutorial on how to use the operations editor?  What I need is an explanation of what folders to set up and what files go in which folders.  Pretty Please? :)

I was uploading this manual many times, upload still:)
http://files.mail.ru/8XUEPK

click red button to download

Hi Andrey

Can you re upload the file the link is dead  :'(


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on November 11, 2012, 04:22:43 PM
Ok, we will check it.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Redmarkus4 on November 12, 2012, 05:56:43 PM


The map is drawing icons in old positions that have moved!  This only happens in the map screen or when the mini-map is on.

I have also seen this but on both mini map and main map.  Also, the icon type changes so the 'ghost' icons have one shape and new icons have a new shape.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on November 15, 2012, 09:37:08 PM
There is a bridge on the Rakitnoe map that does not connect to other side of river.
Is this normal and considered a damaged bridge for game purposes?
Please make a screenshot what is the bridge with mini map on.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on November 15, 2012, 09:37:59 PM


The map is drawing icons in old positions that have moved!  This only happens in the map screen or when the mini-map is on.

I have also seen this but on both mini map and main map.  Also, the icon type changes so the 'ghost' icons have one shape and new icons have a new shape.
Ok, wait, next OBT :)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on November 16, 2012, 06:48:09 PM
Ok wiil be fixed


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Tanker on November 17, 2012, 10:17:51 PM
Good find!


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on November 23, 2012, 06:24:45 PM

I havnt played the game for a few weeks, and saw the new video on you-tube.
I read the new update and patch and the list of fixes, goodie!!
So i downloaded and installed them, no problems there, Started a new Profile  re-assigned my keys and configured my mouse.
The anticipation was killing me, i started a QB all seemed well, and....... what the... :o  the big blue boxes around selected units, oh dear!!
Surely there must be an option to turn these off, i searched and searched but it would appear not. :'(

Suggestion No1: Give the player the option to turn them off/on if he wants to.
                 No2: The same option with the enemy map contacts.

For a game with such attention to detail and realism these are not very realistic and detract from the over all "feel" of the game.
So PLEASE more user options, thank-you.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on November 23, 2012, 07:35:14 PM
Hey dane49'
I understand what youre saying, but by left clicking youre not actually turning them off, only de-selecting the units, which you then cannot give orders to without re-selecting and the box appearing again.
I like to go to ground level, squad lock and look around from the units perspective. The blue box is very distracting!
I'd rather we just had more user options to turn a few things on and off in game, how difficult can it be to implement i wonder?
Such small details as this make such a big difference!


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on November 23, 2012, 08:36:39 PM
Ive just tried that, still have the small squad markers but no blue box.
Much better, thanks.
I wonder if anyone could make a mod to disable these markers/blue box.
If i knew how to do it myself i would have a go.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Santini on November 24, 2012, 02:44:14 AM
The AP series is measured against Battlefront's Combat Mission series.  And the AP series outshines the CM series in every area except the editor and multiplay.  So if you do nothing else youve still scored quite a coup.

Each game has its own features. Let CM be our own and AP our own.
For 10 years, the development of CM, its editor and multiplay a very well. We do not make sense to strike where our positions are weak.

I hear your reluctance to put more resources into an editor that does exactly what you want it do. But your a programmer, you may think "GUI's are for dummies".  We're users, and we need GUI's.
No, of course good GUI it's a great. But it really slows down the development of the game in our case. Since for the development does not need it, but spend time on it instead of the game need a lot.

I dunno, personally I feel the one area that is hurting Achtung Panzer the absolute most is the fact that there are no custom campaigns.

Putting in the 40 hours to build a gui that then permits the fanbase to put in thousands of hours in content creation seems to me to be an absolute no brainer.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on November 27, 2012, 03:13:00 AM
yeah i would like custom campaigns..but as Graviteam are a small team with limited man hours I'd rather have more quality and features in the actual game than time spent making an editor for custom scenarios.

AP OS beats CMx2 in many aspects..but I have to put CMx2 above it solely because of WEGO. It's such a huge thing to me, I get to see all the action etc in the replay. Where APOS I know I missing some thrilling action at times..well most of the time. I also like CMx2 bigger scale of graphics though I do prefer the bigger maps of APOS. Infact every other aspect of the games APOS for me comes on top. Though CMx2 for all it's gripes will be top of my list as I said because of WEGO. If APOS ever had the option where you can pause anytime and rewind the action I'd be a happy man.

Still for a realtime only game nothing comes close to APOS. I normally can't stand realtime games, usually a click fest. the only games I enjoyed where Close Combat 2 ..after that the inf became more and more vulnerable, I enjoyed the later game sin the series but I had to mod the Inf survivability. Then along came AP and nothing comes close. Graviteam are the most underrated developer around.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on November 27, 2012, 04:09:59 AM
The AP series is measured against Battlefront's Combat Mission series.  And the AP series outshines the CM series in every area except the editor and multiplay.  So if you do nothing else youve still scored quite a coup.

Each game has its own features. Let CM be our own and AP our own.
For 10 years, the development of CM, its editor and multiplay a very well. We do not make sense to strike where our positions are weak.

I hear your reluctance to put more resources into an editor that does exactly what you want it do. But your a programmer, you may think "GUI's are for dummies".  We're users, and we need GUI's.
No, of course good GUI it's a great. But it really slows down the development of the game in our case. Since for the development does not need it, but spend time on it instead of the game need a lot.

I dunno, personally I feel the one area that is hurting Achtung Panzer the absolute most is the fact that there are no custom campaigns.

Putting in the 40 hours to build a gui that then permits the fanbase to put in thousands of hours in content creation seems to me to be an absolute no brainer.

Yes a GUI tastic editor would help BUT the only issue is an easier way to create DIV POOL files.  JUST a utility for this should help a metric TON for people IMO.  The fact is the editor EXCEPT for setting up div pool is quite simple to use.  Its JUST ripping/modifying/creating a custom one that trips people up IMO.  Once your past that its pretty simple.  So if someone could make a simple GUI-tastic utility to create custom div pools.......................  Could be used for both APOS AND SABOW.  I do not have the knowledge to do such things so do not ask me...lol :P 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Capt Sam on December 04, 2012, 12:10:04 AM
Could we please have the unit icons off on the big map when they are off on the 3d world?  This will force the player to read the map like he should be doing.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 04, 2012, 12:20:46 AM
Could we please have the unit icons off on the big map when they are off on the 3d world?  This will force the player to read the map like he should be doing.


Or ,how about this as a suggestion also-

Only show unit icons of the units that the overall commander has either a visual a radio or landline communication with.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 04, 2012, 05:53:39 AM
Could we please have the unit icons off on the big map when they are off on the 3d world?  This will force the player to read the map like he should be doing.


Or ,how about this as a suggestion also-

Only show unit icons of the units that the overall commander has either a visual a radio or landline communication with.

It is not clear why this is necessary, if the 3D player still  can see all. It seems contrary to the choice of showing it. And do not make a game of hide and seek  ;D.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 04, 2012, 05:58:04 AM
OK,your right,
I didn't think  that suggestion very well.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: whukid on December 04, 2012, 07:59:27 AM
I have a suggestion:


HOW BOUT SOME MAPS!  ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on December 04, 2012, 08:36:00 AM
Burning airplanes! 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on December 04, 2012, 11:04:41 AM
Here's an idea,
How about giving the player the option to turn off unit icons, map icons, various parts of the UI, so the player can decide how he wants to customise the game to his own taste.
I personally play without using the map at all, and the UI disabled.
I like a nice "clean" screen, much more realistic and immersive.
When you squad lock on an individual unit and drop to ground level to follow it, i dont think any other game comes anywhere near this.
Just those damn blue boxes spoil it for me!
And was war not a game of cat and mouse?
If you want to see the enemy look through your binoculars, not just cheat and look on the map!
I love to send out  Reccy units and follow them to try and find where the enemy are.
Reconnaissance units where the most important units in the field, something that seems overlooked.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 04, 2012, 02:44:40 PM
I don't know why you can't turn the blue boxes off in your game.I've been able to do this in a number of ways and have explained on other posts how to do this,yet you keep bringing this subject back up.

I am able to achieve the nice clean screen with no UI or unit icons with my game,so I don't know why you are having this problem.

I think you need to take the time to look at all the hot keys and spend some time experimenting with the UI options.

The UI button next to the flag will turn off all the icons and blue boxes,and there is a hot key to turn off the UI.

I'm really at a loss here trying to figure out what it is you want exactly to get the results you are looking for.

Please don't take this wrong,I am not trying to demean you with this posting,I'm just trying to figure out  and ascertain exactly what it is you are asking for.And why you seem unable to achieve this.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on December 04, 2012, 03:29:11 PM
 :P BURNING AIRPLANES!!!!   :P


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on December 04, 2012, 04:51:35 PM
Hey Dane,
I must be going daft, ive tried the button next to the flag (enable key points display button), called "view counters mode" button.
This cycles through three different icons modes. The blue boxes, squad markers, and squad markers with names.
But it doesnt turn off the icons/markers altogether.
I have read the other posts and tried what you suggested.
The hotkey options are fine, and i know how to turn the UI off.
That isnt a problem.
But you cannot disable the markers/icons either on the map or in game.
By disable, i mean they are not visable.
What im after, is when you select a unit, you will have no icons or markers appear at all.
And like Capt Sam said, it would be nice to have to use the map.
I know i have mentioned it several times before, its just something that niggles me, but could easily be resolved.
You have buttons to disable The briefings, Tactical Info and Key Points, but not icons.
If i knew how to Mod it myself i would, but im an Auto electrician, not a computer programmer!
I will just have to wait for the next patch and cross my fingers!

And while we're at it, lets have some burning airplanes, towed 88's and Nebelwerfers ;)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 04, 2012, 05:44:34 PM
Schuck,

I'm uploading a video on YouTube now to show how I was able to turn everything off and still lock the camera on individual units.You will still get the icons temporarily while you ID where that unit is on the map to lock the camera on(Which is essential for me because I like to know where that unit is in relation to the other units),but after that its quite simple to revert back to pure screen without the UI and unit ID clutter you don't want with a few simple clicks.

As soon as the video has uploaded I'll post it here.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bonpRRzZ3I


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on December 04, 2012, 07:55:49 PM
Hey Dane,
I see what youve done there mate, and thats kind of how i do it anyway.
But i dont use the map, as it gives the enemy positions away.
And i already click off the selected unit to get rid of the "blue box" as soon as ive given an order.
I just thought you may have had a magic way of not getting them at all.
Nevermind, 2 slightly different ways to play a great game, on that we can agree! ;D
And thanks for taking the time to do that.

Still like to see towed 88's, (well towed AT guns full stop) and Nebelwerfers. ;)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 04, 2012, 08:10:44 PM
Quote
But i dont use the map, as it gives the enemy positions away.

I never know where the enemy is until they have been spotted or fired and gave their position away,otherwise just my units are visible on the map
.
No magic way of eliminating the icons completely for me,I actually prefer them for reference when giving new commands.But I guess there should be an option in the options menu to completely do away with them if the player doesn't like them,as long as its an option though,because I still use them if only briefly.

Andrey said the 88mm AA is set for a future DLC,and I also heard mention that guns will be towed eventually ,but haven't heard anything about Nebelwerfers(Those would be nice-mounted and unmounted).

And a Panther tank 8)-this game almost feels incomplete without one regardless of what year these current and future DLCs are suppose to represent.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 04, 2012, 08:31:25 PM

And a Panther tank 8)-this game almost feels incomplete without one regardless of what year these current and future DLCs are suppose to represent.


I couldn´t agree more.

Bring us a Panther tank in the new DLC, please!!!

Edit: and as you´re working on it make all three version please :)))


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on December 04, 2012, 09:14:05 PM
I agree with you Dane,
It should always be an option, as some people like to play with them on.
A Panther would be nice guys.
As long as we get some more weapons from this time period im happy.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Capt Sam on December 04, 2012, 11:04:10 PM
Having all Icons turned off for the map is realistic.  It forces the player to read the map.  Map reading is challenging, but it increases immersion and enjoyment!  It is "Hide and Seek" to a point.

I also like to turn the mini-map off sometimes and use the NUMPAD5 hotkey for a virtual compass to see which way is North.  I figure which way I'm facing and open the map to get my bearings.  Seeing all those unit icons on the map destroys the immersion and is cheating, since I don't think every soldier and vehicle had a GPS microchip back in WW2.

I'm not saying turn them off completely, but if unit icons are off in the 3d world, why not in the 2d map?



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 05, 2012, 12:04:11 AM
I always disable the mini map.

Don't really need it,been over these maps so many times that if I was to parachute into Taranovka tonight blindfolded I'd probably be able to figure out where I am 10 minutes after hitting the ground and removing the blindfold. :D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on December 05, 2012, 10:12:45 AM
Dane,
I know that feeling, i look at pictures on google earth, and actually recognise some of the places! ;D
But i think you and Capt Sam are right.
The ability to turn on and off certain icons in game and on the map is a big selling point.

More options to customise = more appeal to a wide audience = bigger sales = more money!


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 05, 2012, 12:14:55 PM
More options to customise = more appeal to a wide audience = bigger sales = more money!

More options to customise = more time and resources to make it, test, check and support = appeal to more bugs and delays in updates = smaller audience = lower sales = lack of money!

Thanks no!  ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on December 05, 2012, 02:26:55 PM
Blimey,
All that effort and money just to have the options to turn on and off some map and squad icons.
The game already has the ability to turn on and off Briefings, Key Points, Tactical info (Command rings etc), Mini Map, in fact the whole UI can be turned off!
Can it really be that hard to implement such minor changes that will make such a big difference to game play, and keep the small band of hardcore followers happy, compared to say a new area of operations?
And you think you'll get bugs which will delay updates etc? :o
We don't even want them removing, just to be able to turn them off!

Oh well :'(


 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 05, 2012, 03:55:34 PM
The game already has the ability to turn on and off Briefings, Key Points, Tactical info (Command rings etc), Mini Map, in fact the whole UI can be turned off!
And its not right.

Can it really be that hard to implement such minor changes that will make such a big difference to game play, and keep the small band of hardcore followers happy,
We implement different minor and major changes in each update. But some changes not suitable for different reasons.

compared to say a new area of operations?
New area of operations is guranteed make happy relatively lot of players. Some switch is not. But test and support is need for first and second.
 ;D

And you think you'll get bugs which will delay updates etc? :o
I think we get bugs when implement some features and fix for this bugs will delay updates.

We don't even want them removing, just to be able to turn them off!
Removing somthing is good. More good than add ;D. Switch is bad.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 05, 2012, 04:02:22 PM
I always disable the mini map.

Don't really need it,been over these maps so many times that if I was to parachute into Taranovka tonight blindfolded I'd probably be able to figure out where I am 10 minutes after hitting the ground and removing the blindfold. :D

And its not final, Russian modders take an info from German and Russian archives about battles around Taranovka in summer 1943 :D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 05, 2012, 04:26:43 PM
I always disable the mini map.

Don't really need it,been over these maps so many times that if I was to parachute into Taranovka tonight blindfolded I'd probably be able to figure out where I am 10 minutes after hitting the ground and removing the blindfold. :D

 ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 05, 2012, 10:12:34 PM
It would be nice If I was informed (changed icon) about the fact that there is no anti tank gun or mortar but only soldiers remain when it is destroyed.

I was quite often surprised why the gun didn´t fire and then I realized that the crew had no gun  ;)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 07, 2012, 03:33:42 PM
Hi Andrey,

I had a problem recently with artillery again   :)

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3520858/Re_AP_OS_bugs_thread.html#Post3520858

It decided to move and didn´t react to my orders. (go back or rotate)
It is possible to stop it sometimes but after while it starts moving again this way.

(http://www.voidhunger.borec.cz/chyba.jpg)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on December 07, 2012, 06:17:48 PM
Maybe in a state of panic?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 07, 2012, 06:26:52 PM
May be not enough crew members to operative ride, you have the same part was killed or wounded. And the fatigue level approaches the critical value.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 07, 2012, 06:35:46 PM
May be not enough crew members to operative ride, you have the same part of some of those was killed or wounded. And the fatigue level approaches the critical value.

If they are exhausted why are they pushing the gun away from my position? and without my order ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 07, 2012, 06:51:38 PM
May be not enough crew members to operative ride, you have the same part of some of those was killed or wounded. And the fatigue level approaches the critical value.

If they are exhausted why are they pushing the gun away from my position? and without my order ;D

So why are tired that in the snow roll gun  in night. May be AI think that enough to fight.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Tac Error on December 08, 2012, 02:38:18 AM
A long time ago, evacuating tank crews would do this... ;D

(http://i.imgur.com/2TCdF.jpg)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Tanker on December 08, 2012, 05:51:01 PM
Haha.  It's the first time they've been warm since the battle started.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 08, 2012, 05:52:25 PM
A long time ago, evacuating tank crews would do this... ;D

(http://i.imgur.com/2TCdF.jpg)


Good old times... with good old interface  ;D

And now
(http://imgur.com/1bi6Z.jpg)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 08, 2012, 06:15:17 PM
looking good. what are the blue dots?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 08, 2012, 06:55:52 PM
looking good. what are the blue dots?
Part of the feature 42  ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 12, 2012, 01:06:11 PM
it´s not important but would it be possible to made sparks from penetration/ricochet more denser? :



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ZDBinC0XI

0:12 sec


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 12, 2012, 01:48:13 PM
it´s not important but would it be possible to made sparks from penetration/ricochet more denser? :



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ZDBinC0XI

0:12 sec

And so it is, in game even more than in the video, just the game video speed up to 6x times - and sparks quickly disappears.

And of course in the game is dependent on the type of projectile and explosion conditions.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 12, 2012, 05:36:33 PM
The sparks look OK to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENuZXc_JLNU


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 12, 2012, 05:53:55 PM
Sparks (and even a form of explosions) depend on the type of projectile and explosion conditions (depth of penetration, fuse action, characteristics of contact, etc.).
And most importantly - set up everything as the human eye sees, not the under/over exposed camera with saturation.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 12, 2012, 06:05:49 PM
Sparks (and even a form of explosions) depend on the type of projectile and explosion conditions (depth of penetration, fuse action, characteristics of contact, etc.).
And most importantly - set up everything as the human eye sees, not the under/over exposed camera with saturation.

Yes,all this plays an important part in how the graphics are portrayed and visualized in the game.
Camera angle,lighting,frps and speed settings for the game will give different results in viewing perception.

I'm very pleased with the graphic visuals in this game.And they seem to get better all the time,much better than a year ago.And I've yet to find a game of this type whose quality in this area is equal to or better than what we have with this game.

Hopefully,one day we may even be able to see the turret blow off of the tank when the force of any internal/external explosions generates enough power to warrant it.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 12, 2012, 07:06:10 PM

Hopefully,one day we may even be able to see the turret blow off of the tank when the force of any internal/external explosions generates enough power to warrant it.

I think Andrey said that turret blow off was very rare and it will not be modeled.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 12, 2012, 07:11:22 PM
It's not a must have feature for me,but thought it would look cool especially when the HE rounds in some of the heavier caliber tanks start cooking off after being destroyed.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 12, 2012, 07:12:37 PM

I'm very pleased with the graphic visuals in this game.And they seem to get better all the time,much better than a year ago.And I've yet to find a game of this type whose quality in this area is equal to or better than what we have with this game.


Me too, graphic and effects are perfect.

I would like only smaller sparks and the density of them higher ;)

(http://voidhunger.borec.cz/cologne1.jpg)

(http://voidhunger.borec.cz/cologne2.jpg)

(http://voidhunger.borec.cz/sparks.jpg)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 12, 2012, 07:19:45 PM
Quantity and density of the sparks in a game and in a real word is derived due to penetration conditions and shell type.
Such as the frames from chronicle is rare visible to the human eye. Is a result of a camera exposition value.

The similar shell as in our chronicle in similar conditions

http://imgur.com/MZg5z,efzut,uiinb
http://imgur.com/MZg5z,efzut,uiinb#1
http://imgur.com/MZg5z,efzut,uiinb#2


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 12, 2012, 07:41:40 PM
Quantity and density of the sparks in a game and in a real word is derived due to penetration conditions.
Such as the frames from chronicle is rare visible to the human eye. Is a result of a camera exposition value.

OK ;)

It´s true that in the Panther photo there are a lot of sparks due to the gun mantlet which somewhat slowed down the shell which penetrated underneath.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 12, 2012, 08:12:58 PM
I think the shell hits are represented pretty good in this game IMHO,I've never noticed them to be of a one size fits all nature,but very varied in visual presentation depending on the what shell hits what vehicle and at what angle I've never really had a "Bull Shit" moment in this regard. :D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: whukid on December 12, 2012, 08:28:05 PM
Dear Santa-Andrey,

I've been real' good this year, so I'd like to ask for ammunition explosions to do more visual damage, like making the turret fly away or blowing the roof off. I'd also like to ask for an under-the-table SABOW "Centurion playable" DLC, but I figure that's too far out :P


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 13, 2012, 05:51:28 PM
One more thing I would appreciate is information about how many AP shells are left. in the next patch please ;)

 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 13, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
One more thing I would appreciate is information about how many AP shells are left. in the next patch please ;)

 

Detail info about all amunition and loaded shell is available from first version of the game
http://imgur.com/prYuY,Qu6G6


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 13, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
One more thing I would appreciate is information about how many AP shells are left. in the next patch please ;)

 

Detail info about all amunition and loaded shell is available from first version of the game
http://imgur.com/prYuY,Qu6G6

OOOOOPS :-[     Thanks!


What determines when the AI uses Gr. 39 HL?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 13, 2012, 09:45:02 PM
One more thing I would appreciate is information about how many AP shells are left. in the next patch please ;)

 

Detail info about all amunition and loaded shell is available from first version of the game
http://imgur.com/prYuY,Qu6G6

OOOOOPS :-[     Thanks!

What determines when the AI uses Gr. 39 HL?

If it finds a suitable target. As any another ammo.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: orson on December 15, 2012, 04:45:19 PM
Hi Andrey  , thanks for all the hard work so far  :)

Been having a few problems since the new patch with confused AI and holes that can hide a tank !

I just sat with my head in my hands watching a MkIII disappear into a hole it made with its own 75mm

Hazards that a tank driver might face .....  trees , holes , other vehicles  .... is it so hard to make the AI avoid these traps ?  The AI drive until they hit something  , cant they see further than 2 feet ? In 4 games i lost about 4-5 vehicles ... all to falling into craters and infantry trenches : /


So do i try and micro manage , and get frustrated that they ignore all my suggestions and try the hardest route thats most likely to present side or rear armour .

Why do units reach a waypoint and turn with rear towards the enemy ?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 15, 2012, 05:14:10 PM
I think the one area that needs to be better are the sounds. IMO, there is room for much improvement.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 15, 2012, 05:19:36 PM
I think the one area that needs to be better are the sounds. IMO, there is room for much improvement.
Sound mods? (Now 2 available)

What do you think needs to be improved in this area?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 15, 2012, 05:23:13 PM
I think the one area that needs to be better are the sounds. IMO, there is room for much improvement.

hmmm I think that original sounds are better than those mods


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 15, 2012, 05:25:04 PM
Hi Andrey  , thanks for all the hard work so far  :)
Thanks


I just sat with my head in my hands watching a MkIII disappear into a hole it made with its own 75mm
Screenshot please

Hazards that a tank driver might face .....  trees , holes , other vehicles  .... is it so hard to make the AI avoid these traps ?  The AI drive until they hit something  , cant they see further than 2 feet ? In 4 games i lost about 4-5 vehicles ... all to falling into craters and infantry trenches : /
Screenshots please. Its to hard say about it without it.


Why do units reach a waypoint and turn with rear towards the enemy ?
Any waypoint has own direction which put from you then order is sent.
Please screenshot again :)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 15, 2012, 05:26:04 PM
hmmm I think that original sounds are better than those mods

It is good when there is a choice. Hard to to please everybody.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 15, 2012, 05:34:18 PM
Why do units reach a waypoint and turn with rear towards the enemy ?

Yes this drives me crazy too :)



but I think it´s good , that there are some loses due to the quality of ground (shell holes, snow, mud, trenches) like in real life.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 15, 2012, 05:39:53 PM
Too bad the tow cables on the tanks are useless in this situation.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: orson on December 15, 2012, 05:52:20 PM
Hi Andrey  , thanks for all the hard work so far  :)
Thanks


I just sat with my head in my hands watching a MkIII disappear into a hole it made with its own 75mm
Screenshot please

Hazards that a tank driver might face .....  trees , holes , other vehicles  .... is it so hard to make the AI avoid these traps ?  The AI drive until they hit something  , cant they see further than 2 feet ? In 4 games i lost about 4-5 vehicles ... all to falling into craters and infantry trenches : /
Screenshots please. Its to hard say about it without it.


Why do units reach a waypoint and turn with rear towards the enemy ?
Any waypoint has own direction which put from you then order is sent.
Please screenshot again :)

Afraid i rage quit so no screenshot  :-X

I can describe the action , 6 MKII and 2 MKIII N  , facing some infantry and a 37mm .. .. the 37mm fired a few rounds making a few holes , the MKIII's returned fire making a few more holes ... when my tanks advance a MKII got stuck in a hole ..ok no problem i can nudge it out with a MKIII ... it worked ... then the MKIII slides into the same hole

Where is that panzergranadier column i ordered to flank , ok thats right ..one vehicle is on its way the rest are all facing each other in a tiny group : /  so do i micro manage and give individual orders ?  

I'll play another game and hope i dont fall into any more holes ... if i do i'll screenshot .

All of this is summed up by asking can you extend the AI collision detection and hazard avoidance ?  Now the AI cant see past 2 feet when driving .

I wanted a tank to move about 5 feet forwards ... it turned and drove about 15 feet to the side and then drove to the spot i asked , but if i tell it to rotate to the spot and then drive forward it manages to obey..

 Not much point giving me order options to issue if they are only vague guidance  ...if i want a platoon to assault i dont just wave a floppy hand in the direction .. i give them definite orders ...or am i not in charge ?



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 15, 2012, 06:08:46 PM
All of this is summed up by asking can you extend the AI collision detection and hazard avoidance ?  Now the AI cant see past 2 feet when driving .
He does so, but that he should see the obstacle and not to fight. Well, the terrain must be able to.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 15, 2012, 06:10:58 PM
I'll have to have a look at these mods. Once I find them am I to assume that I can use one or the other?

I'd like to state what the game does very well in regards to sound and that is of explosions. It is great to hear the delayed sounds of a distant barrage.

I'm not sure how to articulate this but IMO many of the sounds are flat especially the small arms fire. They don't cover a far enough area away from the source for one and they just seem stifled and subdued. This goes for the engine noises too. Maybe it is a hardware thing and superior range for some of the sounds would be too taxing on hardware? I'm not sure. But, I live in an area where many people practice small arms shooting and I can quickly determine around where the sounds originate, and many are from neighbors some distance away.

Ill try the mods and then see where the sounds stand. I really should have played and concentrated on what I think is lacking before offering a suggestion to improve them.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 15, 2012, 06:34:45 PM
I don´t remember if I have posted this in simhq forum before, but....

there are two attack sites.
When you move the mouse on the right site there are red dots which show which units will be involved in the fight.
(http://voidhunger.borec.cz/atack1.jpg)

But if you move the mouse first on the left attack site and then on the right the red dots are missing in some units which should be involved.
(http://voidhunger.borec.cz/attack2.jpg)

(http://voidhunger.borec.cz/attack3.jpg)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: orson on December 16, 2012, 12:44:41 AM
All of this is summed up by asking can you extend the AI collision detection and hazard avoidance ?  Now the AI cant see past 2 feet when driving .
He does so, but that he should see the obstacle and not to fight. Well, the terrain must be able to.

I can't make any technical explanation , because I don't know how the game is coded at all , but after observing the AI manoeuvre , I can imagine that a point extends front and back .. maybe even 360 degrees around a unit .. that tells a vehicle when he will collide with an object ... either scenery or another vehicle , currently vehicles only take avoiding action when they are touching or very close
..  are we off into a deep area asking for collision detection at a higher level ... to extend the area out a bit further ?

Is it even possible for a tank to know if a crater is in its path or not ?

 If not , then maybe heavily shelled areas could be coded "on the fly" as impassible ...  an area that any sensible tanker wouldn't even try to cross ... so goes around ? Same for defences , trenches etc

The weighting seems too high on the physics models , seen a lot of halftracks and tanks stood on end after crossing uneven terrain , maybe moving the weighting/centre of gravity down lower would work ?

not asking much , just recode every vehicle in the game is all  :-*


Even after these small points its such a cool game  8)

* off to finish the campaign ..i'm across the river ...just awaiting the release of the reserve Tigers ! ;)




Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 16, 2012, 04:30:03 AM
It seems I didn't have the VSPOSM mod enabled. I forgot about that one. Was there any other sound mods to try out?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 16, 2012, 05:58:35 AM
It seems I didn't have the VSPOSM mod enabled. I forgot about that one. Was there any other sound mods to try out?

There is 1 or 2 on the Sukhoi Russian forum,but they're rather difficult to access without a translator and you have to sift thru ads and timers to activate them,but it sounds good and I use it.But like I said it's a PITA to activate.If you want to,give it a shot.

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=66230

The one I use is called Front sound mod 1.01


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 16, 2012, 06:38:33 AM
Yikes. You are right. It is a pain.

I might try another day unless someone has hosted it on an English site.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 16, 2012, 06:49:14 AM
I finally got it.  Oh, and I think I inadvertently ordered a bride also.

Thanks.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: orson on December 16, 2012, 01:45:18 PM
So i carried on playing and got the screenshot you wanted ...


(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5857/greatyo.jpg)

So , i hoped it was isolated event ... nope ... synchronised tank balancers  : /  its like some cosmic alignment ...

Do you tell me this is working as intended ?

The one closest drove in and out of the hole 3 times before they got to this point .....  cant they just avoid the holes  ?

At least once they found a hole make them avoid it  , not play in it like the war finished and they are back to 8yr old playing in the sandpit .

 :-\


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: benpark on December 16, 2012, 01:58:56 PM
There are certainly some pathfinding adjustments to still be made. I have also seen AFV's get stuck in shell holes. As well as try to drive up a building, rather than around it.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: orson on December 16, 2012, 02:11:08 PM

On a brighter note ... tank assaults now are just amazing when they go right...watched these 3 MKIII's assault a village , popping smoke as they went ...

...also watched with jaw open as a Tiger fires its anti infantry grenade into a trench  !!  Amazing game



(http://imageshack.us/a/img266/1631/crush1.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/crush1.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img703/8408/crush2g.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/crush2g.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img809/5213/crush3f.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/crush3f.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img854/633/approvedj.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/approvedj.jpg/)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 16, 2012, 02:33:14 PM
Those crew members need to go back to driving school for retraining,and they should be shown scratching their heads in that shot. ;D

Actually,if those drivers were under my command,their transfer papers to the infantry would already be sent. :D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 16, 2012, 03:55:25 PM

There is 1 or 2 on the Sukhoi Russian forum,but they're rather difficult to access without a translator and you have to sift thru ads and timers to activate them,but it sounds good and I use it.But like I said it's a PITA to activate.If you want to,give it a shot.

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=66230

The one I use is called Front sound mod 1.01

I was able to fudge my way through and get was is titled Atmospheric_Sound_Mod_v1.07. It is a huge improvement. The small arms from a couple different rifles are too subdued still but the battle sounds are immersive.

Andrey, what is bothering me about the sounds, especially the vehicle sounds is this;

If I have the camera positioned on the tank I get the loudest sounds as you would expect. As I rotate the camera the sounds get more quiet. Maybe not entirely realistic but it does convey that I am not focused on that area and allows for direction determination, even if the camera/position wasn't moved much in terms of distance. This is something I would definitely not change.

  But as I continue to rotate the camera away from the vehicle the sounds disappear completely even though the vehicle is still very close.

My suggestion, if it were possible, would be to put a limit on how low of a level the sounds go to while still being in close proximity to the source. i.e. Make them low and muffled but not gone completely.

Hope this makes sense.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on December 16, 2012, 04:09:26 PM
This..this is a major issue that really needs fixing before any other new features etc etc. Something must be done with regards to Tanks moving around obstacles..or if it can't be done make the craters\ trenches etc in away where a tank can get back out again..


As for tank assaults..well I find they try an close to much rather than keep back abit..they move in like Infantry moving up for close combat. I'd rather see the Tanks stay back and try and gain tactical advantage from distance (well within effective range).

So i carried on playing and got the screenshot you wanted ...


(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5857/greatyo.jpg)

So , i hoped it was isolated event ... nope ... synchronised tank balancers  : /  its like some cosmic alignment ...

Do you tell me this is working as intended ?

The one closest drove in and out of the hole 3 times before they got to this point .....  cant they just avoid the holes  ?

At least once they found a hole make them avoid it  , not play in it like the war finished and they are back to 8yr old playing in the sandpit .

 :-\


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: orson on December 16, 2012, 05:32:16 PM
Those crew members need to go back to driving school for retraining,and they should be shown scratching their heads in that shot. ;D

Actually,if those drivers were under my command,their transfer papers to the infantry would already be sent. :D


The reward for such driving is to be sent off to charge enemy machine guns under a no fire order !  >:(


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 16, 2012, 05:49:53 PM
I once had a platoon of infantry refuse to assault an imobilized Russian T-34.I ordered them repeatedly to attack it and they refused and would just mill around it like it was a May Pole and doing absolutely nothing.I eventually was able to bring an Artillery barrage down on the tank and destroy it and I left the mutinous platoon in place to suffer under the same HE barrage as punishment for failing their unit,comrades and Fuhrer.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 16, 2012, 07:25:11 PM
I once had a platoon of infantry refuse to assault an imobilized Russian T-34.I ordered them repeatedly to attack it and they refused and would just mill around it like it was a May Pole and doing absolutely nothing.I eventually was able to bring an Artillery barrage down on the tank and destroy it and I left the mutinous platoon in place to suffer under the same HE barrage as punishment for failing their unit,comrades and Fuhrer.

Infantry do not attack if they are out of grenades.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 16, 2012, 08:54:31 PM
Quote
Infantry do not attack if they are out of grenades.

In this instance this was a reserve platoon that was behind the main line of resistance,kept especially in reserve to counter attack any breach in that line.They should have had at least a basic load of grenades considering this was their only combat assignment for the whole battle.

They failed miserably and their reward for failure was friendly fire Arty barrage.
My way of dispensing military field justice ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Void on December 16, 2012, 09:27:08 PM
Quote
Infantry do not attack if they are out of grenades.

In this instance this was a reserve platoon that was behind the main line of resistance,kept especially in reserve to counter attack any breach in that line.They should have had at least a basic load of grenades considering this was their only combat assignment for the whole battle.

They failed miserably and their reward for failure was friendly fire Arty barrage.
My way of dispensing military field justice ;D

 ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Beelzeboss on December 17, 2012, 01:53:50 PM
There is huge bug with placing MGs inside the bulding. It's impossible to do. They simple don't want to enter bulding instead they deploy outside on open ground or street ;/ Sometimes they just walk around.
(http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/9682/shot201212171346100004.jpg)
MG walking around the building. They've made full circle or two and after that they deployed in an open ground

(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5826/shot201212171348100005.jpg)
Same here

(http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/8201/shot201212171351490007.jpg)
Here MG is deployed behind the bulding. Two men are inside but not even in front of it.
(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/140/shot201212171359120010.jpg)
After few of my attempts to redeploy them whole squad is sitting in front of that bulding and yes on open ground

Regular infantry squads behave much better but still there are some problems. As I said once before, sometimes there are some freaks in squads who don't won't to lay in cover with rest but instead of this they prefer open ground. Enemy see them and open fire first(I don't have screen right now). Ambush failed before it even starts. Infantry is also to weak against tanks in close combat (woods, cities). I see situations like one lonely tank was holding against almost whole platoon in dense woods. Tank killed most of the man before he was damaged. For maybe 10 minutes nobody was even firing. They were staring at each other. Of course there are opposite situations where infantry simply smash tanks that are without cover in woods but i Think right now infantry is definitely too weak against tanks. Once I've seen tank that stopped just before foxhole(he almost entered it), killed all man inside and then go to next faxhole where he did the same.

Last think. I don't know is it possible to fix but enemy AI is too often sending his tanks without infantry into villages or forest.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 18, 2012, 02:49:22 PM
Quote
I was able to fudge my way through and get was is titled Atmospheric_Sound_Mod_v1.07. It is a huge improvement. The small arms from a couple different rifles are too subdued still but the battle sounds are immersive.

I just tried this sound mod also v1.07 and it does sound rather subdued for some weapons,you may want to try the front sound mod v1.01 by Helmul for a comparison.

I swithched back to that one because it sounds better too me.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 18, 2012, 03:36:56 PM
Quote
I was able to fudge my way through and get was is titled Atmospheric_Sound_Mod_v1.07. It is a huge improvement. The small arms from a couple different rifles are too subdued still but the battle sounds are immersive.

I just tried this sound mod also v1.07 and it does sound rather subdued for some weapons,you may want to try the front sound mod v1.01 by Helmul for a comparison.

I swithched back to that one because it sounds better too me.

Got a link for that?

Seems like it read that this 1.07 could be used in conjunction with the Helmul mod and that they both have to be placed above the update.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on December 18, 2012, 04:01:08 PM
Same link as earlier it should be in the 1st posting for that link.I thought I read or translated that Helmul updated his sound mod after the last August updates.Like I said earlier I tried both sound mods and noticed a difference(don't know if it is attributed to my PC configurations)But,I found The Front Sound mod 1.01 to sound better to me.This could be a personal preference on my part,I'm not sure.But to me the sounds were more distinct.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 18, 2012, 06:18:56 PM
http://rusfolder.com/33747316

Here is the link for it. Downloading now.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on December 18, 2012, 09:51:04 PM
Have been having a go with that link for a couple of days now,
And just keep getting "At the moment foreign traffic from this file is larger than Russia 's."
And it wont let me do anything!
Im trying to get Atmospheric Sound Mod v1.07, anybody outside of Russia got this?


And one other thing, ive noticed most of the buildings in game have thatched roofs, but they dont seem to burn to well, even after taking direct HE hits, which should set fire to most things. Minor point!

Dear Santa, ive been a good boy, can we have more burning things please!  ;)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 18, 2012, 11:03:23 PM
Have been having a go with that link for a couple of days now,
And just keep getting "At the moment foreign traffic from this file is larger than Russia 's."
And it wont let me do anything!
Im trying to get Atmospheric Sound Mod v1.07, anybody outside of Russia got this?


And one other thing, ive noticed most of the buildings in game have thatched roofs, but they dont seem to burn to well, even after taking direct HE hits, which should set fire to most things. Minor point!

Dear Santa, ive been a good boy, can we have more burning things please!  ;)

Here you go. Atmospheric 1.07

http://keep2share.cc/file/50d0f7589def2

and the front sound mod

http://keep2share.cc/file/50d0f8bd70239



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: budd on December 19, 2012, 12:32:04 AM
Quote
I was able to fudge my way through and get was is titled Atmospheric_Sound_Mod_v1.07. It is a huge improvement. The small arms from a couple different rifles are too subdued still but the battle sounds are immersive.

I just tried this sound mod also v1.07 and it does sound rather subdued for some weapons,you may want to try the front sound mod v1.01 by Helmul for a comparison.

I swithched back to that one because it sounds better too me.

Got a link for that?

Seems like it read that this 1.07 could be used in conjunction with the Helmul mod and that they both have to be placed above the update.

post if you get these working together, please. So these would go at the top of the list? What is the proper order for things on the update screen these days anyway.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Beelzeboss on December 19, 2012, 07:03:37 PM
What about those MGs? Is it known bug, is it going to be fixed or are you not going to change that? Or maybe I'm just grumbling? ;)

And back to the infantry vs tank once more. I don't know how it would look like in reality but is this not happening too often?
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5245/shot201212190115240016.jpg)
As I know driving with tank into city or forest without infantry cover is bad for the tank. But in game there are many situation like this were tanks in those situations are simply butchering infantry. In this example matilda killed almost entire squad and most of the second. Then he just drive away

Fire arc give me nothing in this case. Problem is that units sometimes are deployed outside the cover and this makes them visible to enemy. I don't know how to go around this.

Please upload a screenshot with this issue.


Here is example:
(http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/6978/shot201212172329400007.jpg)
I wanted to place an ambush here. I give them defence order still some men are standing outside the bulding. Sometimes there are similar situations while hiding in woods


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on December 28, 2012, 06:23:45 PM
Suggestion to reduce mincromanagement of some weapon systems.

Problem:
Units given the area fire order will keep on firing untill they run out of ammunition. To prevent this player must closely watch and micromanage units that are firing on an area: player must calculate every round fired and stop the fire manually by himself.

Solution:
Player should be able to determine duration or number of rounds fired by area fire order. Maybe this could be done by right-clicking area fire icon to cycle through different options. Area firing units should automatically stop firing after the ordered duration or number of rounds fired.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 28, 2012, 08:41:01 PM
Suggestion to reduce mincromanagement of some weapon systems.

Problem:
Units given the area fire order will keep on firing untill they run out of ammunition. To prevent this player must closely watch and micromanage units that are firing on an area: player must calculate every round fired and stop the fire manually by himself.

Solution:
Player should be able to determine duration or number of rounds fired by area fire order. Maybe this could be done by right-clicking area fire icon to cycle through different options. Area firing units should automatically stop firing after the ordered duration or number of rounds fired.

Its not reduces, its expanded micromanagement :)

Manual area firing is obsolete feature and will be removed soon.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 28, 2012, 08:42:31 PM
What about those MGs? Is it known bug, is it going to be fixed or are you not going to change that? Or maybe I'm just grumbling? ;)
Its not a bug. Heavy machine guns can not be placed in the buildings, its available only for LMGs.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Lemonade on December 28, 2012, 10:27:16 PM
Its not reduces, its expanded micromanagement :)
Manual area firing is obsolete feature and will be removed soon.
Andrey, but how would we be able to prepare an assault without area fire from mortars or sIGs/76.2 mod.1927?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 28, 2012, 10:59:23 PM
Its not reduces, its expanded micromanagement :)
Manual area firing is obsolete feature and will be removed soon.
Andrey, but how would we be able to prepare an assault without area fire from mortars or sIGs/76.2 mod.1927?

With automatic targeting from spotters and commanders coming through an communications prepared by user. In March alpha patch, you can look a prototype for this system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk9rXhfgha4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bn1GWhD7c0

Direct fire control manually by user is unrealistic and has a big price in new command system.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on December 28, 2012, 11:04:42 PM
Andrey
Surely there has to be some form of manual area firing/support firing. Wether direct (MG's, mortars) or indirect (artillery, rocket)
To remove this is to remove a basic military tactic.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Lemonade on December 28, 2012, 11:11:47 PM
I have to admit that after watching those videos you linked here Andrey, I'm even more confused. That is perhaps because of the lack of visible cursor that shows what options you used to set up the indirect fire at those Jerry APCs.
By the way, does the mortar spotter (or a spotter of other indirect firing weapons) try to lead the moving targets? Or does he only direct fire at the current position of a moving vehicle? Does he predict target's movement path?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 29, 2012, 08:02:15 AM
Andrey
Surely there has to be some form of manual area firing/support firing. Wether direct (MG's, mortars) or indirect (artillery, rocket)
To remove this is to remove a basic military tactic.

Why?
Is the battalion commander (which is a player in the game) gives instructions to each gun and mortar to shoot?
Its not a "basic military tactics" - this is a flagrant violation of subordination and subjection  ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 29, 2012, 08:07:15 AM
I have to admit that after watching those videos you linked here Andrey, I'm even more confused. That is perhaps because of the lack of visible cursor that shows what options you used to set up the indirect fire at those Jerry APCs.

No options or cursor. Its fully automatic through battery and fire platoon commanders.
The only thing that is required from player is to establish a communications.

By the way, does the mortar spotter (or a spotter of other indirect firing weapons) try to lead the moving targets? Or does he only direct fire at the current position of a moving vehicle? Does he predict target's movement path?
In current alpha only positions is used. The next version will be shooting adjusted to a direction and speed, if it allows to send through the communications.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flanker15 on December 29, 2012, 08:20:30 AM
Ok so are my guys going to start dropping artillery on any lone soldier that wanders into los?  Will I need to order hold fire on all my mortars to stop them wasting all their shells?  Can I still shell an area that has no enemy spotted but I know they're there?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 29, 2012, 10:04:20 AM
Ok so are my guys going to start dropping artillery on any lone soldier that wanders into los? 

They will not shoot at a lone soldier through indirect fire. Only direct if see it.

Will I need to order hold fire on all my mortars to stop them wasting all their shells? 
You can select who shot and who not.

Can I still shell an area that has no enemy spotted but I know they're there?
Automaticaly if AI think. Fire manually to area by individual unit basis through battalion commander (user) is not a realistic.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flanker15 on December 29, 2012, 10:55:09 AM
Cool.

I was more asking about battery fire not single unit fire into an area where no enemies are spotted like a planned barrage before an attack or harassing fire onto an area, or is off map artillery still controlled manually?

Also offtopic a bit:  Do guys ever retreat or rout?  I've seen them suppressed plenty of times but they usually go from that to annihilated or surrendered they don't seem to fall back after extended barrages or fire.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on December 29, 2012, 11:01:19 AM
Manual area firing is obsolete feature and will be removed soon.

Even better!


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 29, 2012, 11:32:10 AM
I was more asking about battery fire not single unit fire into an area where no enemies are spotted like a planned barrage before an attack or harassing fire onto an area, or is off map artillery still controlled manually?
Offmap barrage has a big price and will be operated manually some time.

Also offtopic a bit:  Do guys ever retreat or rout?  I've seen them suppressed plenty of times but they usually go from that to annihilated or surrendered they don't seem to fall back after extended barrages or fire.
Just do not retreat, and if they lose control then start retreating. At this point, the AI ​​works well as a players forces - retreat, panic etc.
Even in videos in a post above can be seen this moment.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on December 29, 2012, 12:32:00 PM
Here is the issue with these new changes..I don't think any AI is anywhere near capable of doing what your asking it to do proficiently. Eventually you'll have a game that plays itself...and there will be no options to intervene or give the AI a helping hand by removing area fire..arty plotting etc etc..

The game though giving you less todo is going up in complexity ten fold.

My fingers are crossed but all this is very worrying. The AI struggles as it is esp Inf at the moment..oh and tanks driving into holes they can't get out of and Tanks in forest wiping out platoons of soldiers when some are stood right next to it..a couple of grenades in the tracks should at least immobilise the tank but they don't do that just hang about until shot, infact many are close enough to drop grenades into the hatches and view slits...yet were giving them all the fire tasks and arty and mortar plotting etc etc and in control of the ai wire men and runners hoping to god they don't get shot up, finally we have no way of knowing if units are within visual\voice command radius either. Your video demonstration looked cool with so few units on a relatively flat terrain..but boy add more enemy shooting your wire men etc worrying.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 29, 2012, 02:17:21 PM
Here is the issue with these new changes..I don't think any AI is anywhere near capable of doing what your asking it to do proficiently. Eventually you'll have a game that plays itself...and there will be no options to intervene or give the AI a helping hand by removing area fire..arty plotting etc etc..

Well, why not?
You can always lend a helping hand to the AI  ;D​​, even special new orders are added for this. But cheat with direct commands can only be available if have been established communication and all the commanders in the field.

Ie we want in the first place was the planning, as it is in real life, but not desperate attempt to intervene from user in the middle of a battle.

My fingers are crossed but all this is very worrying.
Try alpha.

The AI struggles as it is esp Inf at the moment..
Not exactly. Just the player has a divine super powers like direct targeting to any place. So, against this background, it seems that AI is dumb.

oh and tanks driving into holes they can't get out of and Tanks in forest wiping out platoons of soldiers when some are stood right next to it..a couple of grenades in the tracks should at least immobilise the tank but they don't do that just hang about until shot, infact many are close enough to drop grenades into the hatches and view slits...

If you had to stop tanks with grenades in close combat, you have done something wrong much earlier.
Its not AI  ;D

yet were giving them all the fire tasks and arty and mortar plotting etc etc and in control of the ai wire men and runners hoping to god they don't get shot up,
As in real life, in game signalers do not run directly under fire, but hide and choose the appropriate way.
You can take the alpha version and see what wonder worry  ;D.
Again, if you need to extend a communication under close enemy fire, then nothing to do with AI. This is a mistake of who manages it all, ie - user mistake.

finally we have no way of knowing if units are within visual\voice command radius either. Your video demonstration looked cool with so few units on a relatively flat terrain..but boy add more enemy shooting your wire men etc worrying.
As in real life, If you shout something - you never know whether or not to hear.  ;D
Therefore, the soldiers in the game use different types of communication and possible overlap, well into the heat of battle of course is how it goes.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on December 29, 2012, 02:29:31 PM
Just seems your asking alot of the AI..also many battle sin the operations leave you with little to no anti tank weapons..so your only hope is the Inf doing something if the tanks close in..but they don't.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 29, 2012, 03:03:30 PM
Just seems your asking alot of the AI..also many battle sin the operations leave you with little to no anti tank weapons..so your only hope is the Inf doing something if the tanks close in..but they don't.

Run away and hide from the tanks. In the game there is no need to destroy tanks in direct combat. Especially considering the fact that infantry almost has no anti-tank grenades and anti-personel ones may damage tank only as an accident.
But territory controlled by the infantry much better if they had commanders compare to tanks.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 29, 2012, 03:10:57 PM
I hate where this is going and it saddens me that the game I enjoy the most is regressing. I'll stay tuned, but I do not like what I am hearing.

I want more control, not less!

Let me give my squads a crawl order or take cover or dash for short distances or a sprint for slightly longer. I refuse to play a game where I am merely a spectator, no matter how 'realistic' it is. If I wanted to watch a game play itself I'd watch Command Ops. There is a reason I never spent any more money on that series.


I want a fun game to spend my limited free time with, not a lesson in frustration. I've stopped buying and playing many games in my life. Don't make APOS/GT one of them.

At least put it as an option.

MORE CONTROL NOT LESS

And yes I did try Alpha before I uninstalled the whole game and reinstalled back to where it was.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 29, 2012, 03:16:24 PM
Run away and hide from the tanks.

The great tank run. Sounds like fun.  ::)

 Where to hide to next as a single tank roams the battlefield unopposed? Sheesh.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 29, 2012, 03:18:47 PM
I hate where this is going and it saddens me that the game I enjoy the most is regressing. I'll stay tuned, but I do not like what I am hearing.

 ;D

I want more control, not less!
This is an arcade way, not simulator or wargame.

Let me give my squads a crawl order or take cover or dash for short distances or a sprint for slightly longer.
These orders already present from long time and will not disappear. So how are recommendations, not mandative.

I refuse to play a game where I am merely a spectator, no matter how 'realistic' it is. If I wanted to watch a game play itself I'd watch Command Ops. There is a reason I never spent any more money on that series.
Not at all pleased. Games with direct control released of a hundred in a year, and there is no reason to make another similar one.

I want a fun game to spend my limited free time with, not a lesson in frustration. I've stopped buying and playing many games in my life. Don't make APOS/GT one of them.
Indirect control basis is switched off in the settings and you can safely play as before.


MORE CONTROL NOT LESS
More control ok, I agree, but this control may not be direct.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 29, 2012, 04:03:45 PM
The future could be like this;

You are the battalion commander and your only view is a 1 room peasant shack where you get intel reports that there are enemy somewhere. Maybe we can scan a map? A runner comes in the door and they can tell us that a platoon has panicked and we press the 'Go Get Them Somehow Somewhere' button.

Order cup of coffee. More vague reports. Who needs a full 3-d map that the player could zoom around on? A battalion commander cant do that.

Hear more reports. Place dinner order.

End Game

Now that would be realistic.

Who wants to place a pre order?



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 29, 2012, 04:15:06 PM
The future could be like this;

You are the battalion commander and your only view is a 1 room peasant shack where you get intel reports that there are enemy somewhere. Maybe we can scan a map? A runner comes in the door and they can tell us that a platoon has panicked and we press the 'Go Get Them Somehow Somewhere' button.

Order cup of coffee. More vague reports. Who needs a full 3-d map that the player could zoom around on? A battalion commander cant do that.

Hear more reports. Place dinner order.

End Game

Now that would be realistic.


Its a wargame of a Dream, yes  ;D But its not for a battalion commander is for a division or Army commander.
And as result its not an our way.

My variant:

1st act: You see map on a table and company commanders - give orders to it and make a battle plans - main and reserve with timings and movements, compare clocks and agree on conditional signals. (Deploy&Initial orders phase)

2nd act: Are you in the dugout at the observation point looking over the battlefield in the telescope and accept reports from subordinates and send orders. Sometimes talking on the phone with the regiment commander and company commanders and supports. See to map is optional.

3rd act: Retreat on a horse/car/or foot if defeat. Or walk on a battlefield and see abandoned enemy tanks and another trophys if victory.

Ie in general as a good realistic movie about the war with the ability to control battle.

P.S. Cup of coffee, or maybe even vodka - it is a good usable feature  ;D.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on December 29, 2012, 07:22:21 PM
Tigers Unleashed attempts to be uber realistic and the times you get it working I'm not sure you can say your actually playing a game anymore..esp due to command delay and friendly fow. Honestly it isn't for everybody, infact it appeals to a select few.

Be careful trying to go for uber realism, you'll lose alot of players and the game will no longer be fun but a lesson in frustration and a big lack of control.

I had an idea of an uber realistic game that really was mainly text based command reports both runner and radio with a selection of orders to choose. You'd have a map and you can update your forces and add enemy forces as and when reports come in to tell you where they are...or where they where..runners will get killed aswell so sometimes your runner wont get there or a runner wont get to you. The text would be the immersion side of the game..however you can go to see a unit personally..which will give them bonus\modifiers however during the trip you will be out of the command loop until you get back so although you make a huge difference to the unit you visit you will also be missing out on possible important events. Thats how I'd do a Uber realism wargame. All the battle is going on under the hood but all you really get is reports and the map beig updated as reports come in..if done right it could make an extremely tense game.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 29, 2012, 07:44:05 PM
Be careful trying to go for uber realism, you'll lose alot of players and the game will no longer be fun but a lesson in frustration and a big lack of control.
I totally agree. So as you can see we do not go that way which is like CM or other hardcore wargames. Which can be described as "a player should have to suffer, and the more realistic the more suffering."  ;D
Which results from the fact that the player to hide the beauty in a fog of war  ;), force him to fight monstrous interface and engage in micromanagement. In my opinion this is a bad way and it pounds the wargames to a standstill for years. What we can observe :(
Ie here is the "full control" as results in a terrible crap for the player.

I had an idea of an uber realistic game that really was mainly text based command reports both runner and radio with a selection of orders to choose. You'd have a map and you can update your forces and add enemy forces as and when reports come in to tell you where they are...or where they where..runners will get killed aswell so sometimes your runner wont get there or a runner wont get to you. The text would be the immersion side of the game..however you can go to see a unit personally..which will give them bonus\modifiers however during the trip you will be out of the command loop until you get back so although you make a huge difference to the unit you visit you will also be missing out on possible important events. Thats how I'd do a Uber realism wargame. All the battle is going on under the hood but all you really get is reports and the map beig updated as reports come in..if done right it could make an extremely tense game.
Main thing is not to overreact. Watch epic and while realistic battle sometimes interfering with its progress, in my opinion, is better than to "think" about each move for 20 minutes by hand directing all units  ;D.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on December 29, 2012, 08:24:12 PM
Im looking at all the comments here,
 and its a little worrying. :'(
I see the graphics getting better (image of the new Marder is amazing).
And the game play getting much more realistic, especially with the communications.
But the player seems to have less and less to do.
I fear the game is going in the direction of " Give the orders, press one button" and sit back and watch the battle unfold.
And thats not good!
Who wants to be just a spectator?

Im not saying micromanagement where you control every individual soldier is good, i dont believe it is.
But leave the player the option of control at platoon level with direct support fire, dont take it all away from him!

Im with Missouri_Rebel on this, you have the level of control just about right at the moment, dont touch it! Please.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 29, 2012, 08:47:30 PM
But the player seems to have less and less to do.
Use option 4.12 and you get the same with hemorrhoids micromanage as before  :D

I fear the game is going in the direction of " Give the orders, press one button" and sit back and watch the battle unfold.
No, its not right conception.
Send orders to immediate subordinates instead of all units and watch good realistic interactive war movie on a battlefield .

Who wants to be just a spectator?
Why spectator? Number of different orders that can give a player is growing from patch to patch. Sit back is not necessary. But this does not mean that we should poke by mouse all the time.
Or do you think that if you do not have babysit with all the units right away that there is something bad?

Im not saying micromanagement where you control every individual soldier is good, i dont believe it is.
But leave the player the option of control at platoon level with direct support fire, dont take it all away from him!
No, only a battalion level. In platoon level it completely unrealistic, ie more than gamplay advance from this feature.

Im with Missouri_Rebel on this, you have the level of control just about right at the moment, dont touch it! Please.
We touch it in any patch again and again...and finally touch and remove interface at all. Ok interface may be in the next game :D

P.S. May be I can not clearly explained, but the concept is not taking away the player's ability to give orders. Concept - leave to the player indirect orders or make direct ones disadvantageous when properly organized command structure is absent.
Ie player will control and manage, but not shooting and driving instead of our units.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on December 29, 2012, 10:40:22 PM
Ah, yes.
Maybe something is lost in the translation.
I do apologise.
It just sounded as though the player would lose the abilitly to order close quarter direct fire on a specified area when covering an advance or attack.
Instead the AI would control this.
I understand off board artillary would still be player controlled for the indirect support fire role. ie to soften up an area before attack. Or to disrupt enemy lines of communication and supply.
And yes, as in real life,  no line of communication = no orders passed on.


A game with no interface: Click "GO" and watch until the end!!  ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Tac Error on December 29, 2012, 10:58:33 PM
If you guys want a primer on Soviet artillery techniques (something that the game is moving towards with AI artillery commanders), I saved portions of a forum discussion here...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16WJCxRpC8g58bL9pJwXuolVvQoFo2whxhcv3sxztXIo/edit



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 29, 2012, 11:22:21 PM
It just sounded as though the player would lose the abilitly to order close quarter direct fire on a specified area when covering an advance or attack. Instead the AI would control this.
Yes, it right too. You have a choice AI+command lines for free or manually for high price (+high level commander).



I understand off board artillary would still be player controlled for the indirect support fire role. ie to soften up an area before attack. Or to disrupt enemy lines of communication and supply.
Yes but with high price and may be available in automatic manner through AI in the future.


A game with no interface: Click "GO" and watch until the end!!  ;D
Not so simple.
No interface, this means that the buttons on the panels will not be an eyesore, and not something that will not be able to give orders. The interface seems to be one of the main problems for all the wargames - very complicated, very weird, discourages potential players are no worse than the mention of the genre in the game description  ;D.
So make it simple and at the same time keep the level of control and simulation is very difficult, it is best to remove it altogether. What we are going to do in the next game, I guess  :D.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 30, 2012, 12:35:36 AM
I hope what I am hearing is more of a misunderstanding andrey. Can you answer a couple of questions to clear some things up.

1) Is this optional?

2)Will we still be able to control the individual squads as far as movements and choosing direct targets?

3) Will we still be able to use the platoon orders?

Because this statement bothers me;
Main thing is not to overreact. Watch epic and while realistic battle sometimes interfering with its progress, in my opinion, is better than to "think" about each move for 20 minutes by hand directing all units  ;D.

But it is exactly this control that I want from a tactical game and ,to be honest, watching a realistic battle is something I do on t.v.. I rarely have to pause the game and most actions are quite quick to implement.

 What makes my opinion of this game so high is the ability to command such a large battle in a very immersive battlefield full of spectacular events with the help of a friendly AI and being able to get down to squad level and help make tactical decisions.

 Please tell me we can still play in what you called 'arcade' mode. It was that play that caused me to buy your game and all of its DLC's.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on December 30, 2012, 01:04:38 AM
Some massive gameplay changes happening..so i say lets wait and see, again my worry is Graviteam and giving to much control to the Tac Ai and AI's just aren't going to make as smart a decision as a human would.

I too love having total control at a tactical level but not micromanage..there is a fine balance between all this and graviteam has it perfect at the moment. I don't feel here is too much micromanagement at all and if there was I wouldn't be playing the game at all. I still want control to a point though.Mainly because AI's aren't advanced enough to be left to it. Unless Graviteam prove me wrong here. It sounds to me like your going for a Command Ops style gameplay but at the tactical level rather than grand tactical\Operational CO is. This could work..but again you really need one of the best AI's I've seen and better by far than any out there at this scale.

I feel Graviteam should make all these changes optional as you are going to lose customers if you don't. I wonder aren't we going to have squad\platoon orders any more? Just coy level if your a Battalion commander..then we have to watch how it all pans out? If so what we need is Leader stats\attributes for the Coys and Platoons and those leader stats\attributes to make a big difference on gameplay and the tac ai and how well the units perform orders. Also you don't need to have the first leader as the best stat soldier..if he dies and his second in command takes over he may infact have better stats\attributes. Plus leaders could be wounded for a day or so during an operation and then come back if it was a light wound that needed tending too. Then I'd like to see on the operational side rear area casualty clearing centers that will either patch  soldier up and send him back to his unit or tend to them and send them out of the game\back home. Casualty  Clearing centers should be able to be overrun thus a chance of losing replacements from slightly wounded soldiers. I'd like to see historical leaders if possible aswell..with enough research the names of coy commanders should be easy to find. I'd like to be able to dismiss a leader during an operation and promote the second in command if the leader performed awful and still survived.

If we start looking at the game from a Command Ops perspective it could work and be damn fantastic aswell...but really the AI..the AI needs to be really something to carry this off.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 30, 2012, 01:46:30 AM
That's all good and well if we were following Graviteam Ops instead of Graviteam Tactics, but we're not.

I could care less if the AI was brilliant in its execution if I lose control with the massive gameplay changes. They are so close to what I have always wanted and what CM could NEVER get right. Continue on with the tactical aspect with improved house clearing,  close combat,  a better command system(not some handicap),  better structural damage, quick battle editor to share user made scenarios,  MULTI-PLAYER,  better sounds (ones that don't go silent while panning in circle),  free unit placement in deployment phase,  roadblocks,  fortified buildings,  spreading fires,  better APC/unit cohesion,  better pathfinding,  more direct unit orders,  more natural unit movements and actions,  more display options(show only fire lines,  show all movement lines,show just command info), NATO symbols,  better ammo preservation,  better supply system etc. etc..

Definitely not trying to be rude wodin. I finally find a game that seems to do so much more than anything else on the market and I am loathe to have it morph into something else entirely.

EDIT TO ADD: Command Ops was probably one of my least favorite games purchased and is exactly what I don't want to see, even if in 3-d.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on December 30, 2012, 02:22:14 AM
@MR Listen..I agree with you mate! I was just trying to see how it might pan out and maybe it could work. Like you it's not really the way I want it to go, but there is nothing I can do about it, so I only hope the path they take surprises me and turns into a breath of fresh air. I'm sure you know I'm a tactical wargame nut and I want what you want but when you read Andreys vision it's opposite to how I feel a tactical game should be, but look it seems Graviteam is moving up the scale abit, and yes it still will be tactical not operational. Just not tactical at the lower end of the scale.

Anyway I expanded my wargame idea, which I feel would do what Andrey wants without the need for fancy graphics and tac ai and all that entails, yet still give you that commander feel.

"My rough idea for a uber realistic game that really was mainly text based command reports both runner and radio comms (prettify it up abit and have lots of variations and loads of text files describing the situation to really add the immersion tension and stop the messages repeating even if describing the same situation to keep replayability and immersion...) Each report at the end will give a selection of orders to choose from that you send by radio or runner. You'd have a map (most likely topographic map) that would update when new info\intel came in both enemy units and friendly unit positions (each unit will have a time sticker next to it saying roughly how long ago the last info came in), click on a unit your worried about and send a runner for sitrep update, or if radios and the lines aren't broke radio through. You'll get emergency requests full of tension describing what happening say if the Coy is being attack and about to be broken through, now thr runner could have taken half hour or more to get to you and things could have changed abit by then for better or worse but you may decide to send reinforcements or tell them to pull back etc etc .Runners will get killed aswell so sometimes your runner wont get there or a runner wont get to you. The text would be the immersion side of the game.You can also go to see a unit personally..which will give them bonus\modifiers,lets say the coy was being heavily pressed, or stalled in attack your presence and command skill while there would most likely be enough to get the attack going or keep the Coy from retreating\routing, however during the trip you will be out of the command loop until you get back so although you make a huge difference to the unit you visit you will also maybe missing out on possible important events. Thats how I'd do a Uber realism wargame. The actual battle is going on under the hood the game knows where the units are and is there is a wargame where everything is being taken into account from troop quality and quantity, leadership which is most important of your subordinates as pre battle you'll get a run down of your officers and who maybe needs watching over or who you know will get the attack done etc etc, weapons and terrain going on under the hood which you do have sometimes lots other time little control of, sometimes you may have to speed up the game because no reports come in for the first two hours but then suddenly your inundated with them trying to keep up with whats going on, then a lull etc etc but all you really get is reports and the map being updated as reports come in..if done right it could make an extremely tense game.

Maybe best at a brigade\regiment or battalion level commander I feel (could even go higher up)..would work for many eras..esp WW1 onwards. It also takes all the issues of graphics and tac ai working as it all goes on under the hood, you wont see or have to model soldiers climbing onto tanks to drop grenades down the hatch, or worry about getting your pixeltruppen to react properly graphic wise in game. Yet a tactical game is happening you just don't see it. As long as you can keep the tension going and make it feel like there is a war going on and enough variety in messages and situations cropping up it would work superb. You could even have issues coming into do with casualties or POWS etc. Your performance is measured at the end obviously if you defend successfully or attack successfully but also measured on the orders you gave at the time and how they effected the battle that was going on under the hood. At a divisional level even things like POW and casualty problems (maybe something happens and if you give the wrong order you could make a mess of things enough to cause many lightly wounded to die or become invalided home as infection kicks in due to not being attended quick enough because you moved a casualty clearing area as you thought it would be over run but it wouldn't have been as you troops held out or you never got the supplies to them or the airport was overrun so no supplies came in and less heavily wounded would be sent home again you'd get marked down for this, or even the casualty clearing station over run as you didn't give the order to pull back soon enough. This would mean you'd get you less replacements from the lightly wounded in the next attack\defense etc Sometimes the orders will seem obvious but other times you'd have to really way up all the info coming in and whether you think the leader is panicking and could hold or he does need help..or is the commander saying he can do something that you feel is to much and he just wants to impress..again you go by all the info that you have. I've rambled on enough but I think this would work..as long as the battles look to the player to be playing out realistically then you could abstract a fair bit even with regards to the battle that goes on under the hood.

Anyway I've rambled on enough. I doubt few will read this, but I hope those that do see something in the idea as a new approach."


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 30, 2012, 07:13:31 AM
I hope what I am hearing is more of a misunderstanding andrey. Can you answer a couple of questions to clear some things up.

1) Is this optional?

2)Will we still be able to control the individual squads as far as movements and choosing direct targets?

3) Will we still be able to use the platoon orders?
Try alpha of March patch.
All questions will disappear.

to be honest, watching a realistic battle is something I do on t.v..
But are you can watch on TV _interactive_ movies?  :o
I would really like have a look at it.  ;D


Please tell me we can still play in what you called 'arcade' mode. It was that play that caused me to buy your game and all of its DLC's.
Yes, of course. Arcade mode remains as before.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on December 30, 2012, 12:38:29 PM
Will the new arcade mode be the current pre march patch simulator mode?

Otherwise if it's like the current arcade mode then thats not what MR will want at all.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Beelzeboss on December 30, 2012, 01:41:31 PM
What about those MGs? Is it known bug, is it going to be fixed or are you not going to change that? Or maybe I'm just grumbling? ;)
Its not a bug. Heavy machine guns can not be placed in the buildings, its available only for LMGs.

And why is that? It seems strange for me
(http://s7.postimage.org/mn34wdc97/500px_Germans_atnt_MG42.jpg)

Once I've watched Saving Private Ryan movie. And in that movie Steven Spielberg claims that brave Americans during WWII where not only destroying en masse German Tiger tanks with their socks but they were also able to mount HMG in a Church's tower! That's truly amazing :)

And just for curiosity. Is there any way to "teach" infantry using vehicles as a cover like in real life. I can't find any game of this kind that would properly simulated this aspect of warfare except games like Full Spectrum Warrior but this is diffferent kind of game.

(http://s8.postimage.org/3zaecjp7p/425_Der_Kampf_um_die_polnische_Post_in_Danzig_19.jpg)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on December 30, 2012, 03:03:38 PM
IMO, the game is going towards better direction by making some unnecessary micromanagement procedures redundant. This allows player to focus on command and enjoy the "interactive war movie" at the same time even more (without wego). Generally, as I've understood (seen on alpha patch), everything remains the same as before except that

1) automatic functions for units are added and
2) number of orders that a player can give is limited to time constraints and also to command value or communication chain integrity of units.

Player must stilll think and decide when, where and how the units should move and what they are allowed to do (including allowance of automatic functions). It's still possible to give some spesific "micromanagement orders", but it will be impossible to spam them due to to limited commanding capacity ("limited command/action points") of the player within a certain time frame.

Why I like this very very much is that you cannot outmaneuver enemy A.I. anymore by simply mouse-clicking a lot - i.e. you cannot improve your result by micromanaging and optimizing your tactics on the fly. The game must be played more closer to the rules or handicaps that enemy A.I has. This mean more challenge and thinking depending how you are used to play.

I think many more RTS games should have these kind of "intelligent" automatic functions to reduce the need for mindless furious mouse-clicking. Maybe graviteam is one of the pioneers regarding to this and maybe in the future automated functions will get more common in other games too (at least I hope so). I remember that at least Homeworld 2 (close to usual RTS) had a simple automatic unit behaviour so that fighter units in your battle group automatically attacked enemy fighters or bombers threating your capital ships, for example.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 30, 2012, 03:21:50 PM
What about those MGs? Is it known bug, is it going to be fixed or are you not going to change that? Or maybe I'm just grumbling? ;)
Its not a bug. Heavy machine guns can not be placed in the buildings, its available only for LMGs.

And why is that? It seems strange for me
(http://s7.postimage.org/mn34wdc97/500px_Germans_atnt_MG42.jpg)

But why?
In our photo we will see LMG, you can put it in the game in the house.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Lemonade on December 30, 2012, 04:24:58 PM
And just for curiosity. Is there any way to "teach" infantry using vehicles as a cover like in real life. I can't find any game of this kind that would properly simulated this aspect of warfare except games like Full Spectrum Warrior but this is diffferent kind of game.
(http://s8.postimage.org/3zaecjp7p/425_Der_Kampf_um_die_polnische_Post_in_Danzig_19.jpg)
Yeah, but those bastards hiding behind ADGZ from the picture are from paramilitary SS, SA and police organizations and were attacking a postal office in urban environment in Septebmer '39. As far as I know, they had little to no combat experience. I don't think the real army soldiers from these times would do the same on the real battlefield, when enemy is suspected to have HE or fragmentation rounds. And this is almost always the case in APOS.
Also, vehicles tend to draw a lot of attention during combat, especially on open space, so it's not the best cover to hide behind.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on December 30, 2012, 08:54:39 PM
Missouri_Rebel and wodin,
Im with you guys on this, i think the level of control at the moment is just about right, not to much micromanagement ie. individual soldiers. Not to little control ie. Company command.
I think the best think to to is to give the player the OPTION.
Then everybody is happy and everybody continues to buy the game.
Take something out, or put something in that people dont like and you will lose customers!!

If i was going to do anything with the game, i would include command posts with tents and aerials for company/battalion comanders. And all orders would originate from here.
And i would have fuel/ammunition trucks driving to these command posts in game to simmulate re-supply.
It would give the player the opportunity to disrupt enemy supply, communications and chain of command by targeting these.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 31, 2012, 01:53:30 AM
Lavish said;
Quote
you cannot improve your result by micromanaging and optimizing your tactics on the fly.

But I want to improve my results. That is the idea of it all. Here's how I see it;

During the duration of the battle there are usually several hotspots where the battle hinges one way or the other and a host of other less important engagements. I applaud the idea of an AI that can function on its own in those lesser areas. I believe it does that now and any improvements to this part of the game can only be seen as a positive.

BUT

and its a big but, I also appreciate the ability to change my tactics on the fly, micromanagement or not. These are the minutes during the game that are the best. Heck, we advance the clock as fast as we can to get to these situations. Micromanagement is just what one needs during this time and in no way guarantees a good outcome. From what I have played I don't seem to do any better than the AI during these times and my involvement is usually a last ditch effort. To me this is the high mark of the game and a real nailbiter. Why take that away?

If you want to give players a great challenge add multiplayer. That alone would be the best improvement that I could think of. I'm sorry that you think the AI is so weak that you must restrict the actual player. I don't believe it is. There's nothing against implement a better command structure if you want to simulate the realities of combat and command. They could even cause a delay in the response time and still let players react to the changing situation. Anything but remove what I and others think is one of the most important feature, the ability to get down and dirty and involved in the tacticle aspects. Graviteam Tactics style.

At least make it fully optional. Give us the 'arcade' mode without any command points etc. and also a more restrictive mode or two.

Quote
I think many more RTS games should have these kind of "intelligent" automatic functions to reduce the need for mindless furious mouse-clicking. Maybe graviteam is one of the pioneers regarding to this and maybe in the future automated functions will get more common in other games too (at least I hope so).


They already have automatic functions in APOS do they not? And the units already react to the enemy unless restricted. No one is making you micromanage anything. Just move your units to an area if necessary and set up the type of order you want them to use. How much more automatic do you expect lavish? Again, that is what I do for many areas.

But maybe many of us prefer also to manage at least a bit more than that and I guess we just kind of expect it since its already a feature we employ and enjoy in the game we purchased. What we are doing pre alpha is not micromanaging in the first place IMO and in fact I consider it integral to the game I have been playing these many hours. I assure you I'm not worried about 'mindless' furious mouse clicking because I consider it neither.

Play the game as you do and understand that you do not have to have one without the other.


Andreysaid;
Quote
Yes, of course. Arcade mode remains as before.

As an option and as it is for August 2012 and prior?


Quote
Try alpha of March patch.

I will try again.

I understand that you have a monied interest here andrey so you are going to do what best fits your business model, but don't be surprised if you take away such a big part of the game that you also lose many customers.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Tanker on December 31, 2012, 02:53:08 AM
I agree with Missouri Rebel's view point.  I don't want to watch an interactive military movie.  If I wanted to play a battalion, or regiment CO, commanding from a bunker, I'd play Airborne Assault. 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on December 31, 2012, 03:39:31 AM
I really think people are making more of this than there really is.  Your still in command.  But now there is a delay in issueing orders based on communications.  The arty I do not think will really be much different than before.  IMO the command lag simply and command element just add another layer to the game.  But your still in control.  It is not suppose to be a RTS, nor a WEGO.  Something different in the middle.  If it does not work or such (I think it will.....so far I like where its going) a hard MOD or normal mod being a difference based on skill and preforance.  OH wait........you allready can change to much in options now.  Why would that change?

Also, command lag based on commanders abilty and getting messages to the troops is totally legit.  How the commander deals with this issue just adds another layer to the game.  Where do you place your commanders for most effect?  Where do you place your signal wire troops?  IE NOT in the front line, unless no other option.  I would like to have support guys driving around dumping ammo boxes too.  Or even medic guys doing what they do.  Set up right ,help moral.........set up bad hurt moral.  But NOT micro managed.  Just placed unit and it does its thing with min of baby sitting. 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: budd on December 31, 2012, 05:11:07 AM
My two cents: I agree with Missouri Rebel, i'll not be updating my game until i see how it shakes out. I mostly like how it plays now.Some things for sure could use improvement [infantry, towing guns, ect.]  but I don't feel over burdened by micromanagement .

 I didn't know about this arcade mode and can't find anything in that thing thats called a manual about it. Can someone explain what the difference is compared to optimal and simulation? Are the differences written anywhere? Does anyone play on simulation? I guess i've always played on optimal.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Missouri_Rebel on December 31, 2012, 07:02:03 AM
There isn't actually an arcade mode.....yet. That was a term coined by andrey when describing what the game is now and what it is like with more unit management than an actual simulation or wargame. I don't particularly agree with that assessment but, if it helps describe the style I wish to continue playing in, I will continue to use the term.

I guess I can hope that it will be an option in the future to play the game as was presented in the demo that prompted me to buy the game and its DLC's.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on December 31, 2012, 08:06:16 AM
I will try again.

I understand that you have a monied interest here andrey so you are going to do what best fits your business model, but don't be surprised if you take away such a big part of the game that you also lose many customers.

If you try alpha. You must have noticed that there was not removed any feature from what was previously and added a new ones.
And do not scare us so that someone will stop buy and play our game  ;D. This does not sense, as we do the game that are good to play in the first place. And then to sell.
Otherwise, we would be doing clones and not to make any new features.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on December 31, 2012, 06:19:43 PM
As I said I want to see it in action..I like the idea to a point, my worries on the whole are it will need one amazing tac ai. I understand about making a clone thought. Though your from from any RTS I've played as I normally don't like them, only CC2 and maybe CC3 I loved for years. I also see if you do what I think your intending todo it will be a unique wargame experience. The interactive war movie expression though isn't one I'd use to try and sell your game..it sounds restrictive, infact many gamers moan about games being more like watching a movie with minimal input (talking FPS here) I wouldn't want to see this go a similar route though unlikely that expression does bring it to mind. I want a tactical wargame that looks great but also has me involved as much as I want and when I want..I like the sound of a more automated AI, but I also want to be able to jump in..because AI's aren't that clever yet. SO when I see it do something that is obvious wouldn't happen in real life  due to it being an AI I want the chance to be able to step in and give it the correct order.

If I was Graviteam I'd put all these improvements in..make the AI that good the player doesn't need to do the areas of micromanagement graviteam wish to drop and then you have the game you wnat, the AI plays that well people don't micromanage in those areas, however you still leave in the option for those who still want to.

I would like to say though that not long ago Andrey said Command Delay was no good in a tactical wargame...yet it seems it's being implemented.

Sometimes I think the language barrier gets in the way alittle here and things are read in a different way they are meant by both sides.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on December 31, 2012, 08:00:11 PM
I say just try the alpha.  :D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on December 31, 2012, 10:09:31 PM
I'm playing the Alpha..but haven't a clue whats going on to be honest. Also I'm going by what Andrey is saying the future game will be like once it's all implemented. I don't think the alpha yet is anywhere near like how it's going to be as alot of the features Andrey is saying aren't in yet fully.

Everything seemed to be the same except the blue bar and all the new info icons above the troops. I carried on playing as I normally do and not sure if the new features actually make a difference..I didn't notice anything anyway. However I'm sure once it's all done it will play differently. Oh and mortars don't work properly because the new comms isn't working yet I think. Well you can't give them indirect fire orders anymore..and so they don't actually fire. I had a whole load of mortars and they didn't fire a shot all game..I wasn't sure whether I'm supposed to send the HQ out somewhere to spot or what? Also I don't know how you work out if some comms are by radio thus no wire needed or messengers..infact I thought wire men mainly fixed the wires from the FO of an ARTY  unit back to the Art battery...in this game it looks like every unit is connected by wire. Abit confusing.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: budd on January 01, 2013, 01:08:38 AM
I see an option in the game now under realism settings for arcade, optimal, simulation,  just wondering what the real difference is in game. The options appear as active options right now.



There isn't actually an arcade mode.....yet. That was a term coined by andrey when describing what the game is now and what it is like with more unit management than an actual simulation or wargame. I don't particularly agree with that assessment but, if it helps describe the style I wish to continue playing in, I will continue to use the term.

I guess I can hope that it will be an option in the future to play the game as was presented in the demo that prompted me to buy the game and its DLC's.




Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on January 01, 2013, 02:19:03 AM
I'm playing the Alpha..but haven't a clue whats going on to be honest. Also I'm going by what Andrey is saying the future game will be like once it's all implemented. I don't think the alpha yet is anywhere near like how it's going to be as alot of the features Andrey is saying aren't in yet fully.

Everything seemed to be the same except the blue bar and all the new info icons above the troops. I carried on playing as I normally do and not sure if the new features actually make a difference..I didn't notice anything anyway. However I'm sure once it's all done it will play differently. Oh and mortars don't work properly because the new comms isn't working yet I think. Well you can't give them indirect fire orders anymore..and so they don't actually fire. I had a whole load of mortars and they didn't fire a shot all game..I wasn't sure whether I'm supposed to send the HQ out somewhere to spot or what? Also I don't know how you work out if some comms are by radio thus no wire needed or messengers..infact I thought wire men mainly fixed the wires from the FO of an ARTY  unit back to the Art battery...in this game it looks like every unit is connected by wire. Abit confusing.

Well it is an alpha test.....not even a beta test.  So indeed mortars will not often take orders.  They do still work if they have line of sight and somehow I got a mortar halftrack to fire at stuff without LOS.  The wire thing would be one of the things units would do to comunicate if they had no radio or even if they did have em.  if you look at many armys up thru the 60 and 70's would find wire spools everywhere within units.  It is a largly secure como method.  Unless the line is spliced into.  No radio transmission to intercept and way faster than runners.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on January 01, 2013, 03:16:58 AM
Exactly..playing the alpha doesn't give someone at the moment and idea on how the game will play once everything is done..it seems fine a the moment and my fingers are crossed.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on January 01, 2013, 04:44:55 PM
I think alpha march patch gives a good idea of new features that are coming. It's just difficult to decrypt the meaning of everything, but I think I've managed to understand at least the principles of those features. :)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Lemonade on January 03, 2013, 06:40:59 PM
Code:
Critical error
001: An error has occurred while initializing the program
Rakitnoe, March 8-9 1943
253 Rifle, 195 Tank Bde.
Turn 3/10
Tactical Battle at map square 11-5
Crash after deployment phase (during trench digging).

I have played through three turns with the Alpha3 patch installed.
Now, trying the Alpha4 patch without restarting the campaign.
Could this be the cause of the crash?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on January 03, 2013, 07:01:51 PM
Code:
Critical error
001: An error has occurred while initializing the program
Rakitnoe, March 8-9 1943
253 Rifle, 195 Tank Bde.
Turn 3/10
Tactical Battle at map square 11-5
Crash after deployment phase (during trench digging).

I have played through three turns with the Alpha3 patch installed.
Now, trying the Alpha4 patch without restarting the campaign.
Could this be the cause of the crash?
May be. States is changing during each patch.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Lemonade on January 03, 2013, 07:15:28 PM
This crash does happen only if I manually place my units on the map.
If, on the other hand, I load the mission and immediately afterwards end the deployment phase, the game does not crash. Weird.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on January 03, 2013, 07:19:23 PM
This crash does happen only if I manually place my units on the map.
If, on the other hand, I load the mission and immediately afterwards end the deployment phase, the game does not crash. Weird.
Please pack "out" folder immediate after crash and upload in any fileshosting, and share link for me.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Lemonade on January 03, 2013, 09:19:48 PM
Okay, I PMed you the logs.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Beelzeboss on January 13, 2013, 09:14:17 PM
I have only one question. Once more about those HMG in buildings cause I don't understand why HMG can't be deployed in a bulding? In every other game of this kind it is possible. Are they wrong? I think it shouldn't be a problem to mount HMG in a building. Maybe it should take more time to deploy but it should be possible.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on January 14, 2013, 04:34:34 AM
I have only one question. Once more about those HMG in buildings cause I don't understand why HMG can't be deployed in a bulding? In every other game of this kind it is possible. Are they wrong? I think it shouldn't be a problem to mount HMG in a building. Maybe it should take more time to deploy but it should be possible.

Its more an issue with how the game handles heavy MG's.  It handles them like mortars (which you would never put in a building).  The infantry have MG guys armed with the correct type of machine guns for side/period.  The support weapons with tripods or gun sleds (maxim) or MG42 with its tripod are not really well suited for inside building.  The larger issue as I see it is that the ai (and game engine) would have no idea where to place them in the building.  Plus the infantry squads already have MG's like mg34 and such that are allready deployed correct in buildings.  It is probably possible to do with some new code and modifiing all the buildings in game however?  No idea.  But is it worth the effort?  ANd could turn into bug central right fast.  IMO its better to place a regualr MG squad (Soviet side) and back it up with maxim or diska provideing over watch anyways.  If done right vary effective.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Aces on January 14, 2013, 07:44:46 PM
Hi chaps,

This is probably an old bug but I watched a KV-1 tank attempt to cross a bridge whose first span had been destroyed and it drove straight into the icy river and disapeared beneath the water never to be seen again as if it thought the bridge was still there.

Regards

Aces


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on March 14, 2013, 02:29:30 PM
Platoon and squad efficiency:
- Currently in-game: efficiency of platoon is calculated with respect to beginning of tactical battle (always 3 stars, even if only one man alive in a platoon/squad! Not very useful...)
- Suggestion: calculate efficiency of platoon/squad with respect to full strenght of platoon/squad.

Option 8.12: Show distance and LOS
- Notification: Graphical presentation of mouse cursor and range indication are overlapping (can't see the range under the cursor)

Thermal vision:
- Currently in-game: thermal vision can only be enabled with zoom.
- Suggestion: Enable/disable thermal vision without zoom by right-clicking binocular icon - the effect takes place immediately. Enable/disable zoom by left-clicking the icon.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on March 14, 2013, 04:22:45 PM
Platoon and squad efficiency:
- Currently in-game: efficiency of platoon is calculated with respect to beginning of tactical battle (always 3 stars, even if only one man alive in a platoon/squad! Not very useful...)
What means efficiency? What a stars?

- Suggestion: calculate efficiency of platoon/squad with respect to full strenght of platoon/squad.
That is exactly what is done.

|
- Suggestion: Enable/disable thermal vision without zoom by right-clicking binocular icon - the effect takes place immediately. Enable/disable zoom by left-clicking the icon.
But why?
This is an auxiliary variety of binoculars, what is it for no zoom is not clear.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on March 14, 2013, 04:25:00 PM
Hi chaps,

This is probably an old bug but I watched a KV-1 tank attempt to cross a bridge whose first span had been destroyed and it drove straight into the icy river and disapeared beneath the water never to be seen again as if it thought the bridge was still there.

Regards

Aces

Tanks do not respond to the bridge devastation immediately if it was driving near the bridge and was planning to drive across the bridge, and at this point collapsed a span, it will inevitably fall into the river.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on March 14, 2013, 05:01:11 PM
Are those bridges suppose to be missing that span at the beginning of a campaign.All the bridges on Rakitnoe map are not complete bridges.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on March 14, 2013, 07:24:35 PM
Quote
What means efficiency? What a stars?
It seems that I've already posted about unit efficiency before:
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3515983/APOS_SABOW_Suggestion_squad_an#Post3515983

I was talking about black dots on platoon icons  ;D

Quote
That is exactly what is done.

The system does not work as I suggested - platoon/squad efficiency/strenght is visualized with respect to beginning of a battle and not with respect to beginning of an operation. This is a bug or intended behaviour by design. Try playing two battles with the same platoon in an operation and you'll see that platoon effeciency/strenght is always full three dots, no matter how much casualties it took in previous battles. Also, check the link above so that we're discussing about the same thing  :)

Quote
But why?
This is an auxiliary variety of binoculars, what is it for no zoom is not clear.
I suggested this because the thermal feature is a wonderful visual feature in the game and I think that normal vision / thermal vision (right-click) and zoom / no zoom (left-click) should be separed features. The idea is to give a player an ability to use thermal vision without zoom (very good for observing night battles).




Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: wodin on March 14, 2013, 10:36:07 PM
Is there a thermal view in GTOS? Seems abit out of place if so.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on March 14, 2013, 10:42:39 PM
Yes,but it's optional.I think it's so you can watch the night action better.It certainly wasn't available to any of the opposing WW2 forces at this time.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Tanker on March 15, 2013, 03:12:20 AM
Hi chaps,

This is probably an old bug but I watched a KV-1 tank attempt to cross a bridge whose first span had been destroyed and it drove straight into the icy river and disapeared beneath the water never to be seen again as if it thought the bridge was still there.

Regards

Aces

Tanks do not respond to the bridge devastation immediately if it was driving near the bridge and was planning to drive across the bridge, and at this point collapsed a span, it will inevitably fall into the river.

Andrey is that a bug you have on your fix list or a feature you wish to keep?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on April 18, 2013, 07:10:10 PM
Posted screens of some bugs or weird things.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3769752/Re_AP_OS_bugs_thread#Post3769752


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on April 19, 2013, 06:16:32 AM
ability to lock an APC/halftracks infantry in vehicle.  I swore this was in allready.   ???  80 percent of the time having them jump out is what I want them to do when under fire.  EXCEPT when I am attempting to manuver my infantry in open dead ground.  THEN I WANT THEM TO STAY UNDER ARMOR while the apc gets to cover to unload them.  Otherwise they get slaughtered if no cover. 

The other time is when under mortar fire and the armored vehicle provides protection....  They get in, something blows up, they get out.....and DIE. 



AND MORE recon guys in campaigns.  WIth vehicles they can dismount...  IE BRDM-2 as example.  4 man crew....  driver/gunner and 2 guys in back.  Why can I not get the guys in back to dismount and look over the hill or something?  I do not like running into ambushes.  LOL :P 
 

Turning radius of BTR and Ratels is wonky.  IN HOOPER>  I remember the german armored cars seemed to do better.  ANd I am sure they did better in SABOW. 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on April 19, 2013, 06:59:03 AM
The turning radius is far too wide and the fact that the vehicles have some strange need to constantly offer flank and rear facings to known enemy units.

Another thing is the last squad in my SADF mech. platoons for some reason can't seem to stay stationary and is constantly moving around and giving away the platoon position.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flanker15 on April 19, 2013, 11:40:16 AM
Yeah the turning AI for ratel and BTR is reaaalllly bad, they do little dances, point the wrong way and get stuck in a loop.  I usually have to hit them with a quick reverse+stop order to snap them out of it.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on April 19, 2013, 02:05:42 PM
ability to lock an APC/halftracks infantry in vehicle.  I swore this was in allready.   ???  80 percent of the time having them jump out is what I want them to do when under fire.  EXCEPT when I am attempting to manuver my infantry in open dead ground. 

Infantry will dismount if vehicle takes fire.

If "move fast" modifier is used, infantry will not dismount under light fire intensity, but will dismound if fire intensity grows up to medium or high. That's what I've understood.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on April 19, 2013, 02:16:53 PM
The turning radius is far too wide and the fact that the vehicles have some strange need to constantly offer flank and rear facings to known enemy units.

Remember that vehicle crew do not see the same as you ("god like" commander). Playing SABOW is a good example to demonstrate how blind tanks/vehicles can be. Many times you'll expose your flank to unseen enemy that could be seen by you if you looked in the right direction. Also, vehicles turn their front against most dangerous threat in the game and may then expose their flanks to some other lesser threat. Vehicle may also get damage to tracks, which might cause them to turn its flank towards enemy.

And yes, sometimes there are some strange situations, but not so often. But it's difficult to say why. Take screenshots or videos. Then bomb Andrey with them! :D

Another thing is the last squad in my SADF mech. platoons for some reason can't seem to stay stationary and is constantly moving around and giving away the platoon position.

If you put units under "AI commander" they may move to get a better line of sight (I think, I may be wrong however).

If you order units to move with "attack", they will take own initiative and change their movement vectors during the process.

Otherwise, they will stay stationary and will not move.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on April 19, 2013, 02:21:34 PM
Yeah the turning AI for ratel and BTR is reaaalllly bad, they do little dances, point the wrong way and get stuck in a loop.  I usually have to hit them with a quick reverse+stop order to snap them out of it.

Do you mean something like this? [Andrey, check this out also]
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3770232/Re_AP_OS_bugs_thread#Post3770232

I've observed units under "AI command" making these weird movements, but it's rare.

Otherwise I like to put units under "AI command" so they can automatically concentrate fire. For example ratel or tank platoons will automatically communicate and concnetrate fire on same target.





Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flanker15 on April 19, 2013, 06:17:00 PM
Nah this is without ai controll and the area in which they figet around is very small, doing little circles, driving a metre forward then back over and over that kind of stuff.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Tac Error on April 20, 2013, 07:22:10 AM
For the Vector M3 mortar, the mortar bomb is not coming out of the mortar tube; it is created outside behind the tube:

(http://i.imgur.com/3cNEEtg.jpg)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on April 20, 2013, 08:13:32 AM
Yes of course. As I wrote early mortar tube visually not change angle and dont shifted horizontally. But this all happens with the virtual physical "tower" to be the shell path is correct. As reult and the start point was to be changed, too.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on April 20, 2013, 08:18:39 AM
Nah this is without ai controll and the area in which they figet around is very small, doing little circles, driving a metre forward then back over and over that kind of stuff.
Its not AI its commander  ;D.
If you send the wheeled vehicles in the same formation with the infantry without the proper modifiers, you naturally get strange behavior. Since wheeled vehicles can not turn as well as caterpillar, and it is difficult to move very slowly on any terrain and hold the line.
Use road modifiers, do not use a precise and tight formations.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on April 20, 2013, 08:34:02 AM
Understand the freedom to give any orders to any set of units which randomly located on the terrain does not mean that they will work with any orders.

If you give the order to the big formation that an extended in line will move 3 meters forward, it will not work. If the units are arranged in a somthing like circle, and you give the orders to move to the center of the circle in line formation - it will not work.
If you send formation in line throught swamp or bumps - it will not work. If you send formation by roads and terrain dont have a roads - it will not work.

Freedom to give any orders to any set of units is responsible for the consequences of that one who gives the order.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on April 20, 2013, 09:29:26 AM
I don't think anyone is disputing wrong orders to a mech platoon would lead to some odd behavior for the whole platoon.

But it is usually just 1 vehicle in the platoon that does strange things not the whole platoon.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on April 20, 2013, 09:39:49 AM
But it is usually just 1 vehicle in the platoon that does strange things not the whole platoon.
Example please - damage list, initial state, order, and whats happens.
And explain modifiers and order what you send.

Usually all the complaints that come in the form of screenshots - operations with groups during the fire contact or/and in some uncomfortables. And do not write what modifiers were in order. Developers can only guess what it came up with the player at this time.  ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on April 20, 2013, 09:52:12 AM
For the Vector M3 mortar, the mortar bomb is not coming out of the mortar tube; it is created outside behind the tube:

(http://i.imgur.com/3cNEEtg.jpg)


HAY THOSE guys have broken angles.   :P ::)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on April 20, 2013, 09:56:22 AM
I would post a video of this odd behavior  but Youtube  has cancelled my account claiming copyright infringement when I post videos of this game.

I don't know what Youtubes' problem is! ??? >:(

But I have only posted videos of this game on Youtube and nothing else,but for some strange reason they claim the background ambient sound for APOS is copyrighted and have cancelled my account.
I complained about this and they reinstated my account then cancelled it again for the same reason after I posted another video of APOS there.

I'm in no mood to fight Youtube over this every time I want to post a APOS video on Youtube.

I believe it is probably a form of youtube censorship for using the words "SS and Nazi" when describing some of the units in the battles of APOS videos I have posted there.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on April 20, 2013, 10:10:07 AM
I would post a video of this odd behavior  but Youtube  has cancelled my account claiming copyright infringement when I post videos of this game. I don't know what Youtubes' problem is! ??? >:(

A few months ago on YouTube something has changed and it has become a very strange service.
Apparently prepare us all to a brighter digital future where every time it will be necessary to prove that you're not a camel.

But I have only posted videos of this game on Youtube and nothing else,but for some strange reason they claim the background ambient sound for APOS is copyrighted and have cancelled my account.
This is an advanced content check system on the work  ;D. It works like this - if a match is found with the previously upload videos, then on a new is locked and if it happens for 3 times - account is banned, and you can file an appeal if you disagree  :D.
Is a strange operation, but unfortunately I suspect that it will be even worse in future. It is better to spread the video without soundtrack and even better without the image too. Although someone can copirighted and black squares too  ;D

I'm in no mood to fight Youtube over this every time I want to post a APOS video on Youtube.
I am also afraid to spread the new videos about our games :(



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on April 20, 2013, 10:30:35 AM
Quote
Apparently prepare us all to a brighter digital future

Well I have no wish to participate in a service that considers censorship,brainwashing and mind control a brighter future to look forward too.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on April 20, 2013, 10:34:57 AM
Quote
Apparently prepare us all to a brighter digital future

Well I have no wish to participate in a service that considers censorship,brainwashing and mind control a brighter future to look forward too.
May be http://rutube.ru/ ?
It certainly is not technically perfect like Youtube, but there seems to not suffer strange things.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on April 20, 2013, 10:50:30 AM
It seems to me George Orwells book"1984" has already laid the ground work and game plan for this bright new future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on April 20, 2013, 10:30:15 PM
Likly its a line of media lawyers in line to sue youtube.  So they now ban everything.  People have made and posted their own music made BY them and gotten boot up side the butt.  Appealing everything?  WHY BOTHER>..  Just do not use it.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Shadrach on April 23, 2013, 04:33:50 PM
Been playing Op. Hooper a lot lately. Here's a few suggestions for improvement in keyboard commands and a feature request.

I love how GT has a lot of keyboard options but there are some I really miss that I would use a lot.

1. Make it possible to use filters with the keyboard, since this is something useful for a lot of situations. Suggested:

F: Toggle Filter Type (the little button below units)
(have to change the default 'AI Commander' command to for instance ctrl+F for this)

Shift+F: Filters menu (the pop-up one with right-click on unit)

Ctrl+Space: Apply Filters (or ctrl+F)

2. Make it possible to change the option 4.14 (Light up battlefield in pause) during tactical battle, for instance with a toggle keyboard command. Would be very useful for those all too dark night battles. Usually I prefer to have 4.14 off but during night battles it is absolutely necessary to turn on (and easy to forget in menu)

3. Is it possible to have the options, at least some of them, available during tactical battle?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flanker15 on April 24, 2013, 06:51:07 AM
I'd like it if tanks wouldn't abandon their defensive dug outs in order to have their hull face an enemy at their flank.   They already have a hull down posistion so they need only rotate their turret and not expose their hull by leaving the hole and turning especialy as it exposes the side hull to the main enemy attack in the process!
Spg and at guns shouldn't be leaving either and should just rotate in the hole unless the spg is so big as to not have room.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flanker15 on April 27, 2013, 09:11:20 AM
Another thing I just thought of:

The HE explosions from small autocannons (20/30mm) should have a small sharp explosion sound like a grenade not a constant rumbling booming sound like heavy arty.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on April 28, 2013, 03:28:19 PM
Another thing I just thought of:

The HE explosions from small autocannons (20/30mm) should have a small sharp explosion sound like a grenade not a constant rumbling booming sound like heavy arty.

+1

Also, in general, explosion sounds and cannon shots could be louder, harder and more aggressive (like t-55 shooting sound already is). It's a bit weird that machinegun is louder than exploding artillery shells or firing tank cannon. I think explosions/cannon sound are too soft at the moment (they sound like soft bass boom).


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on April 28, 2013, 03:46:02 PM
Yes,
The tank cannons sound a little muffled.
I've been around the M-48 and M-60 tanks when they have fired their main gun and it is a very distinctive loud and piercing crack sound.

Don't know what it sounds like for T-55 though.

Also,the M-60 machine gun sounds strange too.I was an M-60 gunner in the infantry and I don't recall it sounding like what it sounds like in the game.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on May 02, 2013, 05:49:43 AM
It always has been. If your troops attacked by enemy platoon which you have not seen, the arrow is not drawn naturally, otherwise the meaning is lost in the fog of war in operations map.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flanker15 on May 08, 2013, 02:54:37 PM
New favorite bug, Flintstone plane:

(http://i.imgur.com/owqwVSH.jpg)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flanker15 on May 12, 2013, 02:40:32 PM
One more :)

This is more obvious on the new desert map but I've seen it on the old maps too, shadow artifacts that follow the camera around on the edge of the screen.

(http://i.imgur.com/Ut9iexS.jpg)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on May 12, 2013, 04:04:14 PM
Quote
This is more obvious on the new desert map but I've seen it on the old maps too, shadow artifacts that follow the camera around on the edge of the screen.

I got the same thing,but it isn't as pronounced as your shadows.For me it was on one side of the screen and looked like a flickering tree shadow and only showed up at certain camera angles.I thought my monitor wasn't plugged in very good so I seated it a little tighter in the outlet and I hardly notice the flickering now.Don't know if that is the cause of the problem,but I find that to be be minor nuisance compared to the constipated camel sounds that keep replaying over and over again in the background ambient sound ;D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Santini on May 18, 2013, 10:58:29 PM
It's probably been mentioned before, but Kraut infantry needs more AT capibility

Having entire platoons rendered helpless by the loss of a Stug or PAK is rather annoying, especially when the enemy is rolling up within 5 meters of your positions and blasting with impunity


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on May 18, 2013, 11:37:23 PM
Welcome to the club.
I think we've all expressed that in one way or another.

Andrey said it won't be so bad in the next game GT:Mius Front.
We'll see :D
The Germans didn't start to receive Panzerfausts till late 43,but I did read somewhere that the SS we're using them during a counter attack in the Mius Front sector,but they didn't have many and mostly relied on demo packs and teller mines.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Tac Error on May 18, 2013, 11:44:37 PM
There is a last name missing for some Iranian squads or vehicles?

(http://i.imgur.com/8p47Aet.jpg)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on May 19, 2013, 12:27:46 AM
You can look at the bright side.At least you know which one is the commander of the platoon at a glance-He's the one without a name. ;D :D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on May 29, 2013, 05:19:57 PM
Stuka dive bombers-From what I have read the Stuka bomb explosions formed mushroom clouds,can we expect to see this in the game at a later date.

Quote from a GD division assault near Rzhev September 1942.
"Finally the familiar drone: the Stukas were coming. Flares were fired to let the bombers know the position of our front line. Then the dance began. The first Stuka peeled off into its dive, then the second and then another. The air was filled with such a howling and roaring that one could think it couldn't possibly get any louder. Then came the crashing and detonation of the bombs. One mushroom cloud after another shot up into the air until there was a solid wall of smoke and dust in front of us. Then the Stukas flew away overhead, the roar of their motors adding to the horrible concert."


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: RedC on May 29, 2013, 05:30:51 PM
I think very interesting suggestion to add would be (at least) during deployment phase, that you can see Isopleths (Изогипса) on the main map (not only as a faint lines in the minimap). T

That could help BIG during deployment phase and planning! It help avoid triple-checking unit positioning!


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on May 29, 2013, 05:37:09 PM
I think very interesting suggestion to add would be (at least) during deployment phase, that you can see Isopleths (Изогипса) on the main map (not only as a faint lines in the minimap). T

That could help BIG during deployment phase and planning! It help avoid triple-checking unit positioning!
Use AreaLOS feature instead


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: RedC on May 29, 2013, 06:04:02 PM
Use AreaLOS feature instead
I know, its very handy, I use it constantly.

But my point was, if I could see Isopleths (Usually on minimap they can't be clearly seen most of the time), I could plan 10 times easier, offence and defense. Instead I just lower my view all the way to the ground and "move around" to feel "geography", :P

One thing could aid it then(smallest tweak): Usually when i do Ctrl+~ (AreaLOS), if I directly click other unit to select, AreaLOS will be still on (useful). But if I select other unit not by direct click, but by dragging box around it, AreaLOS would be closed and I would need to automatically re-select it again (Ctrl+~). Point is, its much easier/quicker to drag a box around a unit, if you could make AreaLOS toggle be persistant until you specifically deselect it, it would help a lot.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: RedC on May 29, 2013, 07:17:49 PM
Stuka dive bombers-From what I have read the Stuka bomb explosions formed mushroom clouds,can we expect to see this in the game at a later date.

I think it depends on what bomb types did they use. From what I see, they could carry 50kg, 250kg, 500kg, 1000kg variants in combination of course...

Look at some guy uploading explosions of such bombs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Wse0-kknY
SC 1000, SC 50...etc

You can see, they are almost the same as any fugas. So that experience was rather subjective. You can see the mushroom cloud in almost any explosion that has certain filling, design...etc and especially on type of terrain it hit. (Its all about air pressure, that is spreading of air)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on May 29, 2013, 07:49:50 PM
Quote
I think it depends on what bomb types did they use. From what I see, they could carry 50kg, 250kg, 500kg, 1000kg variants in combination of course...

The book I was reading didn't quote the bomb size.
I think the Stuka airstrikes in this game doesn't account for different bomb types or sizes and all Stuka airstrikes are mostly generic one size fits all type bomb runs.

All I see for the armament in the encyclopedia for the Stuka is primary weapon 7.62 MG and secondary weapon x5 bombs.
Most likely the 50kg or 250kg type then.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: RedC on May 29, 2013, 07:57:34 PM
All I see for the armament in the encyclopedia for the Stuka is primary weapon 7.62 MG and secondary weapon x5 bombs.
Most likely the 50kg or 250kg type then.

I think B version had max load of 1000kg (без стрелка), and D version 1800kg (again без стрелка). And both types had 4x50 kg bombs on their wings and 250-500kg (B and D respectively) bomb under the body, of course, as standard equipment. (as i remember from IL-2 Sturmovik game :D, they were my favorite target)


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on May 30, 2013, 02:01:59 AM
This is a bug!
Played a Quick Battle tonight where my Iranian M-60 tank had its tread shot off.
The crew eventually got out of the tank to fix it with their sledge hammers and I saw an enemy soldier nearby directly shoot at them but the crew didn't notice even though the sparks from the automatic rifle fire where bouncing off of the tank and not one of the crew got hit though they should have all been casualties from this direct fire from less than 15 meters.

To make matters worse the tank was hit moments later by a RPG and caught fire the crew still continued to fix the tank tread while the tank is burning, then later the tank started exploding and the sledge hammers then disappeared and the crew now had rifles but continued to hit the treads with the rifles as the tank was still exploding.
One of the crew was eventually gunned down and the other crew member then started beating the ground with his rifle as the tank continued to explode next to him without injuring him.

Normally I can somewhat rationally explain away what I think may be a bug and discount my initial thoughts but this defies a rational explanation.
I'm positive this is a bug.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Tac Error on May 30, 2013, 02:42:57 AM
I've had that problem too some time ago with an Olifant crew.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Santini on May 30, 2013, 11:06:24 PM
In the Pieper campaign, some of the Grenadier command units have too many soldiers to fit back in to their halftracks


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on May 30, 2013, 11:17:30 PM
This should have been addressed with the new c4 patch

114) Fixed incorrect headgear placing for the RPG soldiers in the new DLC.
115) Fixed a bug with the additional soldier in Panzergrenadier commander squads.
116) Added an armor maps for a new plants (poplar, corn and reeds).
117) Fixed bug that leads to problems with savegames in the tactical battle.
118) Fixed bug with wrong platoon color in the quick battle editor, when changing sides.
119) Fixed bug with incorrect modifier settings after loading the savegame.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Santini on May 30, 2013, 11:36:10 PM
Yup, and I have that installed, but it is still happening to at least one unit


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Lemonade on May 31, 2013, 01:01:54 AM
I've noticed this too. The patch didn't fix it.
If there are spare 251s or trucks available, I assign them to PzGrd command platoons to give command squads some means of transportation. That's the only workaround I can think of. :(


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Santini on May 31, 2013, 02:14:53 AM
Dude... you are a genius.

And you have saved me so much pain and effort... how do you command the guys from the one unit into the other 251?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on May 31, 2013, 02:25:30 AM
Quote
how do you command the guys from the one unit into the other 251?

Move them close to one another then left mouse click and draw a box around the two units then press the load button.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: RedC on June 03, 2013, 01:14:10 PM
In option 5 (Tactical Orders):
-"Abandon vehicle" [5.12] "Occupy vehicle" [5.13] is misleading (like you can force crew to exit or take vehicles), and should be "Mount" "Dismount".
-"Put a smoke screen" [5.25] command, what is it for? (tried it with random units, commanders, tanks..., what am I missing)

Suggestions that you are probably aware of, but I'm more interested on (planned) progress on them:

1) Order crew to get in a vehicle (especially useful when transport truck driver exits the truck and never comes back), or force crew without an equipment (i.e. gun) to use the equipment without a crew, seems fairly logical.

1b) Now the opposite, order crew to save themselves and get out of the vehicle/equipment.

2) Make truck being able to tow the guns (at least make them be towed at the beginning of the battle, if its complicated to make it work during the battle)

3) AA battle seems very undeveloped. (I had separate AA battery group in which NO equipment is able to target air targets, Tanks with AA guns can't use them -no enemy land troops around-, infantry is very lethargic even if no enemy is around and have very good visibility of the planes and plane angle of attack is good...etc) While I've seen rear gunners of other planes attacking passing enemy planes, thats pretty interesting!


Question:
From what I have seen when air support comes down, it comes down hard and seems like its a bit cheating. Note this, in quick battle, 1 infantry group (with 1 air support platoon in) per side. During the battle, planes were targeting like maniacs, killing of platoon officers with sniper precision without even spotter support! Now interesting fact:
-1 platoon I left away from the battle on hold fire (invisible from the enemy ground forces), and during my several tests, enemy planes come down ALWAYS killing my officer of the group with sniper precision.
-Same thing with a tick of battle, enemy planes sniping officers like crazy, and in each run they need to gun down at least 1 soldier, 33% officer.
-My planes can't hit anything, seriously, only kills that they made were 2 officer far behind frontline battle.
-Enemy spotter was far behind a woods and had 0 visibility on the battlefield, my spotters were right behind the front overlooking.

Did anyone had crazy experiences with planes like me, or I'm doing something terribly wrong...


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on June 03, 2013, 02:06:28 PM
oN THE AA thing.... YOU have no idea how much I have wanted to tackle that on the end user front.  It is missing element.  Making destroyable aircraft, aa guns like 2cm Flak 38, 37mm aa guns, vehicles like sd.kfz10/5..etc etc.  But as soon as you do one plane that can BLOW UP, now you need to all planes that blow up.  You do one sides aaa assets now you need to all sides.  Oddly enough I made an su2 that is modeled but not textured yet.  But there lies the rub.  Now you have 1 plane that can blow up but now you need the il-2, stuka, fw190, po2 (or whatever that is) to blow up as well. Although to be frank the stuka, il-2 and fw190 need to just be redone anyways.  Showing there age.  Currently toying with idea to make an sd.kfz10/5...have been for awhile.  Neat vehicle.  But that damned rub again.  Once you have 1, you need them all.  But not really planning to bring into GTOS if I do.  Just something different to go make.  That damned rub again. 

With aircraft I think is 2 part issue.  One they where honestly not that great attacking stuff in tactical environment.  (but then again there where assets shooting at them too).  So you dont want to make them to OVERLY powerful and keep in line with historical fact.  The second bit is there is nothing to really shoot em down with.  SO if powerful asset could just go around for 5 minutes killing everything.  Also the ai controlled air spotters are not so great at keeping themselves alive....same for command guys, arty spotters etc. 


I was intending to sneak this in with my LONGSTOP project....the aa thing.  That is going to be AWHILE do to job issues.  But hmmmmmm. 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on June 03, 2013, 02:24:28 PM
I beleave it was said that someday they would like to do towable guns.  Although really not so sure if it is worth the hassle.  Usually the battle areas are pretty bloody close to starting locations.  Now if larger 2km squares where you might need to move guys up to 4km in a hurry those neato trucks make ALOT more sence. 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: RedC on June 03, 2013, 06:45:15 PM
Well having a basic placeholder explosion for all airplanes with a simplest model is ok too, all end up with complete explosion. (If planes going down aren't implemented, then why the hell are my units even firing at the planes?   :-\ )

I think Air combat isn't primary to this game experience, I agree, it would be nice if its done, but I guess the factor of effort to make it look right and balancing things would make it far too time/resources consuming.

Basically Air is just for you to call it, control its for few min with spotters, end of story. Seems basic, its generally realistic, and easily manageable. I think with adding AA cannons etc, they would have to completely rebalance air, from algorithms of movement (evading, attacking other planes...etc etc) to its management. I hope some day when the engine gets to that point, they will tackle this fully!

About towing guns: I think quick relocation of cannons, in defence and attack, especially in smaller more fluid battles could give you the edge you need. Imagine internal concentration of forces, rush for unclaimed land/attack, or trying to escape the battle, I could count forever (but you are right, in certain categories trucks are useless, but at least they would be worthy of having them around, now they are just waste of time invested in their creation). I see they went to the great extent to incorporate separate transport units, trucks etc... They have the placeholder, only thing they need is to sum it all up.
I dont understand the fuss about it, just make the truck come closer to a cannon, crew pushing it to the truck, some countdown till they dismount it/prepare it/connect it (make all crew in a loop animation crouch-standup :) ), management of unit being tightly behind it like its towed is fairly easy to implement, same process backwards for the rest. No special animations, no special models, not even a special button :P Just colossal reprogramming of the AI :P :P


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on June 04, 2013, 04:03:55 AM
For the aircraft going poof thing.........  All the code is in place now.  Just the destroyable aircraft are missing.  If modeled from the beginning making planes blow up/take battle damage is not so hard.  Trying to do it in reversve after you have 3 LOD and phyisical model complete........well that is asking for PAIN.  But really is MASSIVE missing element.  In some battles ground forces where harassed by air power on there way to the fight and in the fight.  But having a battery or 2 of aaa fighting off air craft.......well just epic screen shots.  :D  Would also like to see light twin engined bombers in fast low level bomb runs with door gunners lighting up what they see from the air.  But that is probably just me.  :D


Oh and despite air craft not being BLOW UPable, ground fire can cause the air craft to fly off map early.  Which is why ground guys shoot at them.  This in honestly the most common sort of thing anyways. Plane takes light damage and buggers off.  BUT I remember air craft getting shot down in K43 as well.........unless I was drunk.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: RedC on June 04, 2013, 09:03:56 AM
Oh and despite air craft not being BLOW UPable, ground fire can cause the air craft to fly off map early.  Which is why ground guys shoot at them.  This in honestly the most common sort of thing anyways. Plane takes light damage and buggers off.  BUT I remember air craft getting shot down in K43 as well.........unless I was drunk.

I thought as much! And yes, I could swear too that I've seen in in Kharkov  :D

Added:
That reminds me (modeling with 3 LOD levels and physical boundary boxes) to the Total War serials. But yea, you are right its missing, and you know, maybe the can be balance made from it?

AA detachment will use up one of the empty spaces in the region (that you could use to bring more troops/tanks), and they would protect good certain distances ("protection dome over the battlefield"). Plus their presence in bordering regions could even put additional pressure to the aircrafts in present... thats for low-height AA defence... And maybe they can add reference to the mid-high level AA defence, where you better conserve equipement (85mm, 88mm...etc) so that they can put pressure over enemy aviation so unexpected events like, reinforcement delayed 1 turn more because of air action in the close-rear...etc It just opens more dynamic in the operational mode!


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: RedC on June 04, 2013, 12:41:34 PM
P.P.S.
You know whats the most missing element? :)
River barges and boats! (Both as lines of supply, gunships, transport... whatever) I miss that element so much.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on June 06, 2013, 11:02:15 AM
The very rare deployment bug is still alive: While playing Shield of Prophet the enemy AI deployed mechanized infantry behind my defensive lines on neutral territory and attacked my rear. :D


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Lemonade on June 06, 2013, 04:02:54 PM
Ah, so that's why I was attacked from the rear right after one of my quick battles started? :o

By the way, can something be done with unit rotation during deployment phase? Units almost never rotate where I want them to and I have to click bazillion of times before they finally face the correct point on the map.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on July 12, 2013, 09:00:00 PM
This is a bug I just noticed after applying the latest patch.

On the Taranovka map in town near the RR tracks and 2 storey buildings is a knocked out Russian tank and 3 destroyed Russian AT guns.

My troops walked through the middle of the tank and levitated in mid air over the rear of the tank.

The tank probably needs to show on the map that it is about 1 meter north of where it is presently projecting itself.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on August 28, 2013, 09:54:05 AM
Problem relating to command points:
- To make units stop it's more cost-effective to issue a defend or movement order near their position than give actual order "Stop".

Suggestion:
- Order "Stop" should NOT tax more command points (if any) than movement orders (e.g. "Stop" icon should not have dark blue circle).

Justification:
- Removes "cheating" described above
- The order "Stop" is much more simple than "Move" so it shouldn't tax more command points


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on August 28, 2013, 07:32:45 PM
Problem relating to command points:
- To make units stop it's more cost-effective to issue a defend or movement order near their position than give actual order "Stop".

Suggestion:
- Order "Stop" should NOT tax more command points (if any) than movement orders (e.g. "Stop" icon should not have dark blue circle).

Justification:
- Removes "cheating" described above
- The order "Stop" is much more simple than "Move" so it shouldn't tax more command points


YEs agree on the stop command.  That should be the cheapest if not free of charge on the command point. 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on August 29, 2013, 02:02:49 AM
Suggestion:

An option for setting up Quick Battles and assigning different victory flag locations.

Some of the default flag locations that are assigned by the game during Quick Battles are not of tactical importance and make for some strange battles.

I would like the option to be able to decide while setting up a QB which areas of the 1x1 grid squares are to be of tactical importance for these battles.

I think this will be an excellent option in helping to tailor the type of battles you are trying to create.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on August 30, 2013, 04:59:19 AM
Suggestion:

An option for setting up Quick Battles and assigning different victory flag locations.

Some of the default flag locations that are assigned by the game during Quick Battles are not of tactical importance and make for some strange battles.

I would like the option to be able to decide while setting up a QB which areas of the 1x1 grid squares are to be of tactical importance for these battles.

I think this will be an excellent option in helping to tailor the type of battles you are trying to create.

Totally true....seems to be completely random placement.  But not sure how you really could do this and make sense under all conditions.  Maybe best left for campaigns where the designer can place them more logically for the direction of attack. 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on September 02, 2013, 04:25:27 AM
Quote
Maybe best left for campaigns where the designer can place them more logically for the direction of attack. 


I would like to place them more logically for Quick Battles


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on September 12, 2013, 06:34:10 PM
Bug  ???

Anyone else having this problem?
Mounted infantry at the beginning of a battle-

Usually when I start a battle with my infantry mounted they will dismount for no reason about a minute into the game and then it takes 5 minutes to remount them >:(

It doesn't happen always,but it happens enough to be irritating.
Especially if I have more than 1 platoon of mounted infantry and fail to notice that one of the platoons APCs have left the infantry far behind and went well ahead without them.

I think unless the infantry are being fired on they should stay mounted until ordered to do otherwise.
Leaving the APCs for no apparent reason to me seems like a bug.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on September 12, 2013, 07:59:34 PM
Bug  ???

Anyone else having this problem?
Mounted infantry at the beginning of a battle-

Usually when I start a battle with my infantry mounted they will dismount for no reason about a minute into the game and then it takes 5 minutes to remount them >:(

It doesn't happen always,but it happens enough to be irritating.
Especially if I have more than 1 platoon of mounted infantry and fail to notice that one of the platoons APCs have left the infantry far behind and went well ahead without them.

I think unless the infantry are being fired on they should stay mounted until ordered to do otherwise.
Leaving the APCs for no apparent reason to me seems like a bug.

Have not seen that one.  BUT with no enemy contact getting my infantry to mount vehicles can take a LONG time with some never mounting at all.  Lucky for me so far MOST will mount up but some just chase after my full and empty vehicles as I get sick of waiting.  LOL 

Oh and takaovka mission....the 10 turn one... Is the victory points off for Red Army victory?   They sure seem to be to me.  ON the last 2 turns.  I have mainly kicked the teeth in of the Germans but looks like point wise will be a defeat.  SIGH.   Well I am calling it a victory whatever the points say.  LOL


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on September 12, 2013, 08:34:46 PM
The infantry dismounting without orders or being fired on is a random occurance.
Sometimes they stay in the APCs after I start a battle sometimes they dismount shortly after the battle begins.

All I know is soon after starting a battle I have to monitor the mech platoons to make sure no one has dismounted if they do I have to spend the next 5 mins. rounding them all back up and put them back in the APCs.

I have no idea what is causing it.the only orders I give the mech platoons are move orders usually by road,but the infantry seem to think they have to dismount to do this.

And I still don' like the idea of not having seperate icons for the vehicle and the attached infantry so I can command them to do different things more easily. >:(

I very rarely use  mech platoons in QBs anymore and just use the grenadiers without APCs and mount the infantry on the tanks because I like the command and control mechanics better this way.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on September 12, 2013, 09:03:38 PM
Quote
Oh and takaovka mission....the 10 turn one... Is the victory points off for Red Army victory?   They sure seem to be to me.  ON the last 2 turns.  I have mainly kicked the teeth in of the Germans but looks like point wise will be a defeat.  SIGH.   Well I am calling it a victory whatever the points say.  LOL

I never liked the way any of these campaigns play out.I've wiped out the 320th infantry in that campaign so the SS have nothing to link up with but still lose the campaign!

I just look at the statistics at the end of these campaigns and determine for myself whether or not I won or lost.
I've always been a little mystified by the results given by the game even though I accomplish the stated goals of the campaigns.I know casualties and VPs are factored into the overall results,but sometimes I can't figure out exactly which is more important.
Accomplish the mission or just grab territory and inflict greater casualties on the enemy. ???


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on September 13, 2013, 08:44:08 PM
And as expected AGAIN in the takanokva Khakov defense operation........  minor defeat by points.  Kicked in German teeth by my reasoning.   ;D  At end controlled the whole town having kicked out all Germans, killed everyone of their tanks... ALOT of them.  But was not able to capture all the important points (as expected) on the map.  All the important town stuff yep.  Always am 100 points short for a minor victory or draw.  Always minor defeat by the games reasoning.  Inflicted nearly 800 German KIA for around 470 of mine.  They just have SO much damned armor.   :P  Have to save mine for the right times and loose ALOT of infantry due to that.  The AT guns always all get wasted.  Had 1 left fully operational and 1 with no ammo.  The rest died.  Never have enough ammo for resupply from the 1 logistical platoon.  I think I use to much to resupply the 81mm mortar platoons.  The 2 air spotter you get for IL2's   ;D  SO useful at around turn 6 or so.  Get both them in a battle 6 of them flying around helps a TON.  They do not seem to kill that much but they mess up stuff pretty good.  Disrupt those last gasps of German armor and halftracks that COULD wreck everything. 

I think this mission needs 1 small static ammo point somewhere in the town IMO.  and the trucks of course as well.  It is to hard to get supply trucks into the town when its stacked full of half blown apart infantry units with no ammo. LOL

Last 2 times I had historical units turned off... I wonder if that is the problem.  I like this feature for 2nd and 3rd play as units can get swapped out by more stuff.  Mixes things up more :P

Now to start a new campaign and play as a German with ALL those toys of theirs.   :P


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Dane49 on September 14, 2013, 12:04:00 AM
I find with that one is you have to reinforce your infantry units with all the AT weapons allowed at the beginning of the campaign from the reserves or the Russians will slaughter them initially before you get a chance to get some momentum and link up.

I actually did pretty good as the Germans till I assaulted the town and had to deal with a butt load of flying KS bottles.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on October 06, 2013, 05:25:30 PM
Problem:
1) Accuracy of artillery on a new target area depends on LOS of spotter. LOS depends on position and posture of spotter. At time t the spotter can have a clear LOS (standing) -> high accuracy of artillery on new target area. At time t + 1 seconds later he may not see the target area (laying down) -> low accuracy of artillery on the new target area
2) "Order cannot be executed" at time t (commander laying down), but t + 1 seconds later the order could have been executed (commander standing).

Suggestion:
1) If player designates a new artillery target area: Use a short time interval (for example 15 seconds) to determine the best possible LOS of spotter, before calculating accuracy of artillery.
2) If player gives on order to unit: Keep checking command value of unit for 15 seconds (for example), before conclusion "Order cannot be executed"


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Aces on October 10, 2013, 12:39:30 PM
Hi Andrey,

A small feature request, could we please have the additional option to select the formation as a "V" or Panzerkiel (panzer wedge formation) for tanks.

Thanks and kind regards

Aces


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Lerch on November 07, 2013, 11:47:41 PM
Not sure if this has been pointed out before, but it sure seems like a cheat to me:
(http://i.imgur.com/Px12VRQ.jpg)
Unspotted enemy tanks make thermal signatures!  I use this as a cheat sometimes, so I know where the enemy is moving around.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on November 12, 2013, 10:07:53 AM
I use this as a cheat sometimes, so I know where the enemy is moving around.
Buuurrrrrrn, buuuuuuuurrrrrrnnn!!!

**********************************************************************

For Mius front:

On-map artillery

I'd like to see an update to on-map artillery indirect fire system. The current system is not comparable to off-map artillery. I expect equal treatment of both (responsiveness, zeroing, accuracy).

Also the fire of on-map artillery would be better in the form of fire missions, i.e. "fire three times" or "fire ten times" etc... The current system of continuous fire requires excessive micromanagement to prevent "failteam" situation (= consume all ammunition on one target if the fire is not cancelled by the player).

Wirelink / Wire laying

Wirelink system in its current form is mostly inadequate during attack because of constant movement, unless a high-ground fire/observation base can be established. I'd like to suggest that wirelink / cable units could be attached to subordinate commanders for continuous wirelaying (as in real life): A small cable group is separated and attached to subordinate commander, follows him and lays cable during movement. Each time commander and his cable group stop, a wire link is established (i.e. link is almost instantly ready to use for communications). When the commander and his cable group move again, the wirelink is lost (wirelink station is removed) until next stop.

In summy there would be two different kind of methods for wirelink establishment: a stationary wirelink station (as in the game now / no constant presence of cable group required) and a mobile wirelink (a constant presence of a cable group is required for continuous wire laying).


With a mobile wire link, it might be possible to develope a realistic system for artillery communications (with runners included in case wirelink is lost).


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on November 12, 2013, 01:41:12 PM
Also the fire of on-map artillery would be better in the form of fire missions, i.e. "fire three times" or "fire ten times" etc...
What is a "times" ?
In real life, there is no times, only ammunition count to suppress purposes as in game now. 

The current system of continuous fire requires excessive micromanagement to prevent "failteam" situation (= consume all ammunition on one target if the fire is not cancelled by the player).
I am dont understand. In real life (and in the game) you can only roughly estimate what will happen in the shelling, but guarantees no one will and you can influence to the probability of hitting the target thorough of shell counts, and nothing else.

Wirelink system in its current form is mostly inadequate during attack because of constant movement, unless a high-ground fire/observation base can be established. I'd like to suggest that wirelink / cable units could be attached to subordinate commanders for continuous wirelaying (as in real life): A small cable group is separated and attached to subordinate commander, follows him and lays cable during movement. Each time commander and his cable group stop, a wire link is established (i.e. link is almost instantly ready to use for communications). When the commander and his cable group move again, the wirelink is lost (wirelink station is removed) until next stop.
Maybe there will be some progress, but not in the release.



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Aces on November 12, 2013, 03:52:54 PM
Hi Andrey, "times" : 2 times = twice, 3 times = thrice. We call the multiplication symbol "x" times :)

So if a weapon fires 3 times (x3) it fires three rounds.

Regards

Aces

Edit: AFAIK you can already set the number of times a weapon fires in off-map artillery support to 3 rounds, 10 rounds? or until all ammo runs out when you call in the support.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on November 12, 2013, 04:43:51 PM
Hi Andrey, "times" : 2 times = twice, 3 times = thrice. We call the multiplication symbol "x" times :)
I know what is "times", I dont understand how do it relate to the arty barrage issue :)



Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Aces on November 12, 2013, 05:14:10 PM
I thought I'd explained that in my post Andrey.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on November 12, 2013, 08:41:46 PM
Some clarifications about arty in Mius (and lucid future)
The artillery will be altered so that the batteries of field artillery could bombard the neighboring cells. Then it will be the right distance, the gun count as a result we can calculate right the flight time for shells, ammunition and accuracy. Its plans, but not in release - we dont have resources for models of minimal guns types that's needed.

Of course its all for operations.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Schuck on November 12, 2013, 08:51:58 PM
I think what he means Andrey,
is you can control the number of rounds fired by "off map" arty, 3 rounds HE/smoke, 10 rounds HE/smoke, etc
but "on map" just just keep firing until they are out of shells or you baby sit them and tell them when to stop.
What he would like is the ability to tell the "on map" arty to fire 3, 10 rounds etc.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on November 13, 2013, 11:37:37 AM
Love the language barrier  ;D

I think what he means Andrey,
is you can control the number of rounds fired by "off map" arty, 3 rounds HE/smoke, 10 rounds HE/smoke, etc
but "on map" just just keep firing until they are out of shells or you baby sit them and tell them when to stop.
What he would like is the ability to tell the "on map" arty to fire 3, 10 rounds etc.

Exactly. IMO, "on-map" and "off-map" artillery should work in the same way.

**************************************

Oh, and I also would like to see more TRP:s (Target Registration Point = artillery target area). Three points is not enough for artillery fire plan when attacking.

OR

Separate TRP:s from regular target areas:
- TRPs (three or more areas) are set during deployment phase. They cannot be moved or removed during battle. TRPs are the fire plan.
- Target areas are set "on the fly" (= new coordinates) during action phase. They are separate points/areas and do not affect/remove TRPs.

Just something to think about...


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Damian on November 17, 2013, 03:41:39 AM
Since this is my first post over here-Hi to all : )
Here's my problem-also mentioned before by Flanker15: I'm also experiencing some kind of shadow artifacts-visible at the left side of the picture :

(http://imageshack.us/a/img31/5914/n7da.jpg)

and this one-I'm not sure is it a problem or this is how it's supposed to look like-squary craters :

(http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/2959/fkhe.jpg)

but I don't recall anything like that from Achtung Panzer series.
Shadows are set to medium quality and simple shaders are disabled.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on June 06, 2014, 11:00:18 AM
German repair platoon in operation Shilovo cannot perform repairs. Is this bug or intentional?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: beerhunter on June 26, 2014, 08:51:33 AM
Suggestion:
Possibility of setting ground fire for any part of platoon (squad) separately, not just for entire platoon (squad)?!?


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: Flashburn on June 29, 2014, 05:58:20 AM
Actually most repair/supply units under ai control do not actually bugger around and do their job any more.  Way older versions they most certainly did.  They would cross the map to repair vehicles or resupply units.  Now they just sit there.  Sometimes not even entering the battle at all. 

My recent Sokolovo play threw had a platoon of damaged enemy tanks with a repair platoon 3 or 4 squares away.  They never went over to fix the tanks. 


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: lavish on June 29, 2014, 11:29:19 AM
Actually most repair/supply units under ai control do not actually bugger around and do their job any more.  Way older versions they most certainly did.  They would cross the map to repair vehicles or resupply units.  Now they just sit there.  Sometimes not even entering the battle at all. 

My recent Sokolovo play threw had a platoon of damaged enemy tanks with a repair platoon 3 or 4 squares away.  They never went over to fix the tanks. 

I was controlling the german repair platoon in Shilovo, but it couldn't perform any repairs.


Title: Re: Feedback, suggestion and bug thread
Post by: andrey12345 on July 01, 2014, 07:08:52 AM
Lazy guys :).
Can not repair if:
- lock by user
- repair squads participated in combat in this turn
- can not drive there (see map availability), for example through river or swamps
- which should be repaired equipment decommissioned in scrap (have red mark)