Preparation of direct fire with mortar

[sburke]

Um. Bug fixing should come first or they have to go and fix the bug for anything they make before they fix it, instead of fixing it in the existing code so it's fixed for everything thereafter. Perhaps doing the fix for "legacy" code should come later, but fixing it in the current cut (v2.whatever) ought to be a priority.

Bug fixing is a constant so holding up releases for bug fixing (unless it is something that just completely crashes the game) is not likely to take precedence. Then again what the hell do I know.

[womble]

Bug fixing is a constant so holding up releases for bug fixing (unless it is something that just completely crashes the game) is not likely to take precedence. Then again what the hell do I know.

AAF thinking, that. "Here's a bug we know about, let's release the next version with it in, so we have to fix it twice."

And the mortar bug is real close to breaking the game for me. I feel dirty every time I use a mortar in DF, and resent it every time one is fired at me in that mode.

[Baneman]

I find that strange, womble - after all, you used ( and suffered from ) the same mortars for many many games before you knew about the bug.

Even though it's a bug, it affects both players equally, so nothing has actually changed from all previous battles.

We just play with what we've got until it gets fixed/improved.

[DavidFields]

But, Baneman, it does affect those who are essentially role-playing the game--trying to simulate the actual situation.

From using mortars essentially always indirectly in CM1, I had begun to use them almost always directly in CM2. They are HE machine guns, that one puts on a hill, and with the artillery mechanics of short-firing, just 2-3 accurate rounds will cripple an enemy unit, if there is no prep rounds and one can shift from target turn to turn.

There are two levels of reality: 1. from a doctrine stand-point, did they do that in reality, and 2. could they have done that in reality.

People can, and do, argue 1, from a philosophical standpoint. Gamers often want to change decisions made by others in the past.

2 is more subtle. There are reasons for breaking it--the most important, possibly, has to do with helping the AI (like the gun traverse issue).

I see this as an issue which, after some hurruphing, will be fixed (unless it really is a critical AI issue)--as I see crews bailing from AFVs acting like commandos will be fixed.

[Edit--in addition to requiring prep rounds, I see making mortars much more spottable when they direct fire as one possible improvement]

[sburke]

AAF thinking, that. "Here's a bug we know about, let's release the next version with it in, so we have to fix it twice."

And the mortar bug is real close to breaking the game for me. I feel dirty every time I use a mortar in DF, and resent it every time one is fired at me in that mode.

I am not sure I follow the logic. When they fix it, whenever that is, they will only have fixed it once. The question though is really how much effort does something take to fix and where are they in the release schedule. If it is simple and the next version of whatever isn't about to go out the door, then it likely would get fixed. If however it is something that is going to take some work and the release is imminent I suspect it wouldn't make it. BF has committed to maintaining at least two versions so having multiple patches is something I expect they are taking for granted.

I understand it may be breaking the game for you. I feel somewhat the same about the barbed wire in pbem issue, but sometimes you just have to be patient. In an ideal world I am sure they'd prefer to fix bugs immediately and not affect the production cycle. Life however is a series of tradeoffs until it sucks so bad you'd prefer to be dead.

[womble]

I find that strange, womble - after all, you used ( and suffered from ) the same mortars for many many games before you knew about the bug.

I think for me it's an unfortunate coincidence of two things with discovering this bug exists. Firstly, starting to (attempt to) use mortars in direct fire on a regular basis and secondly coming up against my first opponent who's doing the same on a significant scale. I had little success in my early attempts at using DF mortars, so abandoned that mode of usage until deciding recently to have another go.

Even though it's a bug, it affects both players equally, so nothing has actually changed from all previous battles.

Except the perception. And, as I say, the frequency, which has magnified the perception.

We just play with what we've got until it gets fixed/improved.

I'm very inclined to ask for limitations on the use of DF mortars in future HvH games, especially QBs, until this is fixed. So we (I and my opponents) won't be playing with the DF mortars that we have until it is fixed/improved.

Also, given that the bug is only just coming to light, I have to wonder whether it was introduced in a later patch, so has only affected a sample of the games I've played.

[womble]

I am not sure I follow the logic. When they fix it, whenever that is, they will only have fixed it once.

I'll try and explain agian. If they fix it now, they have two places in which it needs to be fixed: CMBN v1 and CMFI v2. If they wait til say the CMBN v2 upgrade comes out, they'll need to fix it in 3 places. Even if the code base is entirely modular, and the fix in the source of one subroutine will be applied to all the versions because there are absolutely, definitively no (zero, none) differences in that code section between the versions, they'll still need to check that what they have designed the architecture to do is actually still working.

Since none of us have any idea and should realistically have no expectations as to when any new product is releases, BFC can take as long as they need to hunt down the current known bug population and exterminate them so that the next generation of code isn't carrying forward the sins of its fathers.

[BFCElvis]

Mortars will also continue to fire on targets that are out of LOS after the mortar is moved, as long as the target order is not cancelled.

This is an excellent catch and one I had never seen. It is also good in that it takes very little time to recreate and confirm. Thank you.