TRP Adjustment Bug v1.12

[Bullethead]

DEFINITION

Adjust/adjustment: moving the MPI of on-going FFE a small amount so that the delay time incurred for the change of MPI is minimized. The area in which this is possible in CM is supposed to be shown by a lime green targeting line for the FO unit.

PROBLEMS

1. Adjustment Radius Too Small

When the FFE is falling on a TRP, the radius in which you can adjust fire with minimal delay is only 20m. This compares to 100m for non-TRP FFE.

2. Lying Lime Green Line

When adjusting fire off a TRP, you get the lime green line for the full 100m radius from the current MPI just as with non-TRP FFE. However, between 20-100m from the TRP, the FO's delay time resets to its normal, non-TRP value, even though you clicked on a place where the targeting line was lime green.

COMMENTS

The 2 problems above are an either-or situation. Either you should be able to adjust fire for up to 100m off a TRP, or the targeting line should only be lime green within 20m.

IMHO, the real problem is #1, because a 20m adjustment radius is ridiculously small, especially when working from a point as well-known to the arty as a TRP. I favor increasing the adjustment radius to several hundred meters, but it should at least be the same 100m as for non-TRP targets.

OBSERVATIONS

I have saved games showing this problem if anybody wants them.

This bug seems to be relatively new. I did not have this problem in 1.05, as various PBEM opponents can attest. And I kept on playing 1.05 instead of getting the various betas. Then my time for CM went away and I've only gotten back into it the last month or so. Only in the last week have I tried to use TRPs with v1.12. And even so, it Ariel had to point this out to me.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 03-11-2001).]

[Treeburst155]

Bump

[Guest Madmatt]

This is not a bug and their are earlier threads which talked about this. A TRP only has a 20 meter correction area radius. The benefits are near instant on-call fire support and the ability to place it any where on the map with or without LOS. Beyond 20 meters it is treated like a normal call for fire with all the penalties associated with it.

This was done for several reasons all of which I will get Charles or Steve to comment on when they are able.

Madmatt

[argie]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

This is not a bug and their are earlier threads which talked about this. A TRP only has a 20 meter correction area radius. The benefits are near instant on-call fire support and the ability to place it any where on the map with or without LOS. Beyond 20 meters it is treated like a normal call for fire with all the penalties associated with it.

This was done for several reasons all of which I will get Charles or Steve to comment on when they are able.

Madmatt

Then, with the due respect, the use of a Green Line is the bug, as you don't get any of the advantages of adjusted fire.

Ariel

[Jarmo]

I mentioned this earlier, and I still think the change sucks.

[Bullethead]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

This is not a bug and their are earlier threads which talked about this. A TRP only has a 20 meter correction area radius. The benefits are near instant on-call fire support and the ability to place it any where on the map with or without LOS. Beyond 20 meters it is treated like a normal call for fire with all the penalties associated with it.

This was done for several reasons all of which I will get Charles or Steve to comment on when they are able.

Madmatt

I would love to hear their answer because this very limited TRP adjustment radius is highly unrealistic IMHO. All a TRP means is that you've already done the whole spotting round thing at that point so you can put FFE right on it later. But once the FFE is going, it's no different at all from FFE anywhere else on the map and the process for adjusting the MPI is exactly the same. Hence, there is no real-life adjusting-process reason for this restriction in CM.

In fact, if anything, adjusting off a TRP should be easier than for elsewhere on the map because the TRP is a known point that was established during the registration process. Without a TRP, the FO has to observe the target and guesstimate its position on the map. The guns shoot at this guesstimated position, which probably isn't totally correct, so the FO often has to ask for corrections. OTOH, with a TRP, the guns and FO have already agreed on exactly where the target is, so the FO's instructions for adjusting fire off of the TRP are more accurate than otherwise.

As originally implemented, I thought TRPs were too cheap. This is because damn near everything could get some benefit from them, which to get in real life requires way more coordination, due to everybody being on different communications channels, than just 1 FO registering his own battery. So to me, the proper solution would have been to jack the price up. IMHO, this 20m adjustment radius is, to put it bluntly, bogus, and effectively destroys all utility of TRPs.

In any case, if you all decide to keep this 20m adjustment radius, at least fix the lime green line so it doesn't lie to players like it does at present.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

I would love to hear their answer because this very limited TRP adjustment radius is highly unrealistic IMHO. All a TRP means is that you've already done the whole spotting round thing at that point so you can put FFE right on it later. But once the FFE is going, it's no different at all from FFE anywhere else on the map and the process for adjusting the MPI is exactly the same. Hence, there is no real-life adjusting-process reason for this restriction in CM.

I find this very annoying also. I'm pretty sure this "feature" was introduced to correct a bug where sometimes you could get the fast-initial-response TRP bonus even many hundreds of meters from a TRP. You would target the TRP, get the 45 second delay time or whatever, and then in the same orders phase change the target to some other location and still have a 45 second delay. It didn't always work and I never really understood the precise circumstances, but it was a problem. In this case I think the cure was worse than the disease.

And while we're discussing the lime-green targetting line that ostensibly tells you whether the point you're correcting to is within the legal adjust-fire radius or will result in a new fire mission, I would point out that it's worthless when you don't have LOS to the point in question. In future, could the end-of-line label text be changed from saying "Adjust Fire" to say something like "New Fire Mission" when you're targetting a point outside the radius? Perhaps another label ("Fire on TRP") could be used when you're inside the TRP bonus radius.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Bullethead]

Leland said:

I'm pretty sure this "feature" was introduced to correct a bug where sometimes you could get the fast-initial-response TRP bonus even many hundreds of meters from a TRP.

Could be, but it has totally destroyed all utility of TRPs. The current system is a "pay me now or pay me later" deal. You can pay the full delay time up front without a TRP by carefully planning where to call for fire several turns before the enemy arrives, then moving the MPI around quickly once he gets there. Or you can use a TRP, wait on calling fire until (if) the enemy happens to step right on it, and then be stuck paying the full delay time to move the MPI just when you need to move it the quickest. Guess which method is a more effective use of arty?

TRPs are supposed to be pre-paid. The idea is, you spent the delay time before the scenario started in the form of purchase points. You do this to make your arty more effective. But now, TRPs actually make arty less effective. It's ridiculous. I'll never buy another TRP until this gets fixed.

And while we're discussing the lime-green targetting line that ostensibly tells you whether the point you're correcting to is within the legal adjust-fire radius or will result in a new fire mission, I would point out that it's worthless when you don't have LOS to the point in question.

Very good point. If the FO knows how far he can adjust the MPI from where it currently is, he doesn't need to see the specific point on the battlefield. He can just say like "add 100 repeat" and/or use his map.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[tss]

Here's a link to my earlier post where I gave some adjustment figures from a 1936 artillery manual: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013842.html

- Tommi

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

I'm pretty sure this "feature" was introduced to correct a bug where sometimes you could get the fast-initial-response TRP bonus even many hundreds of meters from a TRP. ... In this case I think the cure was worse than the disease.

You are almost correct.

Previously you could "adjust fire" within a 100m radius of the TRP even before calling for fire. This was because once you targeted the TRP you were "on target", and could therefore adjust fire.

This could arguably even be realistic, but it tended to ruin the game since a few TRPs could cover the entire front line of most smaller maps.

The fix that was requested/suggested, by this forum, was that it should be required to actually start firing on the TRP before being able to adjust fire in the normal manner.

The fix as implemented isn't totally successful, to say the least...

(This problem "fix" is the second one for artillery in CM where the choosen solution isn't the one I'd pick if I had the final say. The first one was regarding spotting rounds...)

Cheers

Olle

[tss]

Olle Petersson wrote:

Previously you could "adjust fire" within a 100m radius of the TRP even before calling for fire.

I would call that a feature and definitely not a bug. In fact, I would allow adjusting fire in a 200-300 m radius, based on the figures of a 1936 artillery manual.

This could arguably even be realistic, but it tended to ruin the game since a few TRPs could cover the entire front line of most smaller maps.

The correct solution, in my not-so-humble opinion, is to increase the cost of a TRP.

- Tommi

[aka_tom_w]

I know I might get blasted for this but...

I can live with this TRP adjustment "bug" and believe it is considerably less important than the LOS through houses issue. (See the WYSINWYG LOS thread)

I suspect neither issue or "bug" will be addressed in CMBO as I suspect they (BTS) are very confident that v1.12 is the FINAL final version of CMBO.

So... are we lobbying for changes to this problem in CM2 or are you folks suggesting another patch for CMBO? I hope we aren't seriously lobbying ofr yet another patch to CMBO.

Again, I think that the inconvience and perhaps historical inacuracy of the TRP adjustment "bug" as it is now, is quite manageable. I think TRP's are cheap (ony 10 -15 points) so is it that big a deal if they are only really handy for such a small radius?

I know my opinion maybe unwelcome in this thread but I think this "fix" which is now considered by some here a "bug", was intended by Steve and Charles as the solution to a previous situation which was suggested to be also unrealistic prior to the implentation of this new TRP limitation.

Just my humble opinion for whats its worth.

Now... What about that LOS through buildings issue?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-13-2001).]

[argie]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I know I might get blasted for this but...

I can live with this TRP adjustment "bug" and believe it is considerably less important than the LOS through houses issue. (See the WYSINWYG LOS thread)

I suspect neither issue or "bug" will be addressed in CMBO as I suspect they (BTS) are very confident that v1.12 is the FINAL final version of CMBO.

So... are we lobbying for changes to this problem in CM2 or are you folks suggesting another patch for CMBO? I hope we aren't seriously lobbying ofr yet another patch to CMBO.

Again, I think that the inconvience and perhaps historical inacuracy of the TRP adjustment "bug" as it is now, is quite manageable. I think TRP's are cheap (ony 10 -15 points) so is it that big a deal if they are only really handy for such a small radius?

I know my opinion maybe unwelcome in this thread but I think this "fix" which is now considered by some here a "bug", was intended by Steve and Charles as the solution to a previous situation which was suggested to be also unrealistic prior to the implentation of this new TRP limitation.

Just my humble opinion for whats its worth.

Now... What about that LOS through buildings issue?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-13-2001).]

"The bazooka was fired at the very moment before the StuG broke Line of Site

going behind the building. My guess is that the code looks at the LOS at the

time of firing and since the LOS wasn't blocked yet it ignored the building

as it had already determined that the round would hit.

What your seeing is the game engine determine that the bazooka hit the StuG

but the graphics not quite being able to show it at the same time. Remember

the game first determines if a round hits the target or not. Then determines

the exact location of where the shell lands. This is all done before any of

the graphics are shown. In this case the game determined that the StuG was

in sight and even though it was in motion it was going to be hit. The

graphics tried to show this as best they could but seemed to lag a little

behind and you see the Stug getting hit after it drove behind the building.

Such issues are pretty rare but do happen from time to time.

Madmatt"

This is from a private mail in what I think is the issue you are asking for, Tom.

I can live with that, and even with the TRPs as are now, but definitely not with the Green line lying at me

I think the posters in this thread aren't asking for a patch. They seems to you as whinning posters? If so, you need to make some search on them in the Forum

It's all a matter of perspective...

Ariel

[Bullethead]

aka_tom_w said:

I can live with this TRP adjustment "bug" and believe it is considerably less important than the LOS through houses issue. (See the WYSINWYG LOS thread)

Which itself is totally insignificant compared to the way MGs are currently undermodeled .

I suspect neither issue or "bug" will be addressed in CMBO as I suspect they (BTS) are very confident that v1.12 is the FINAL final version of CMBO. So... are we lobbying for changes to this problem in CM2 or are you folks suggesting another patch for CMBO?

I am lobbying for changes that make the whole CM family more realistic. Making CM more realistic is an oft-stated express goal of BTS, so I figure we're all helping them in this regard, and they don't mind. In fact, BTS has proven time and again that they appreciate and act on user suggestions.

Because of this, IMHO it would be a great disservice to everybody involved with CM, both players and BTS, to stop talking about problems with CM1. BTS has said that CM2 will be a refinement of CM1, not a new engine from scratch. As such, it seems reasonable to expect that all problems not fixed in CM1, or at least not recognized now and put on "the list", will also be present in CM2. Besides, all we have in our hands is CM1, so we can only discuss problems in a CM1 context.

But the CM family is BTS' baby. I leave all implementation decisions to them. I never ask for changes to be made in any specific version, I just hope to see them some time in the future. If BTS decides to do another CM1 patch, that would be great--I'd like a few things fixed in the 1-2 years it will be before I see CM2. If they decide to incorporate an improvement mentioned in a CM1 context into CM2, that would also be great, because at least the problem would get fixed eventually. That's BTS' call. But if we don't bring problems to BTS' attention, they might never get fixed.

Again, I think that the inconvience and perhaps historical inacuracy of the TRP adjustment "bug" as it is now, is quite manageable. I think TRP's are cheap (ony 10 -15 points) so is it that big a deal if they are only really handy for such a small radius?

Yes, it's a big deal. It's totally incorrect modeling a major weapons system, in this case arty. If CM had antitank guns but for some reason didn't let them target tanks, that would be a big deal, right? Same thing here.

I know my opinion maybe unwelcome in this thread but I think this "fix" which is now considered by some here a "bug", was intended by Steve and Charles as the solution to a previous situation which was suggested to be also unrealistic prior to the implentation of this new TRP limitation.

Actually, the prior situation might have been a true bug, as in code doing something other than intended by its maker. However, it was much more realistic. Even a 100m radius for "adjustments" is too small compared to real life--several hundred meters is more like it. But regardless, the current implementation of TRPs is just plain wrong, whether it's what BTS intended or not. Thus, it needs to be corrected, whether it's really a bug or not.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

[...a bunch of stuff...]

... with which I concur.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Simon Fox]

I agree with BH et al and I am sure if JonS were around instead of being infantry in Timor (snigger) he would probably agree too.

------------------

"Stand to your glasses steady,

This world is a world of lies,

Here's a toast to the dead already,

And here's to the next man to die."

-hymn of the "Double Reds"

[Spook]

I will throw in and concur that Bullethead's case is compelling, and similarly I also hope to hear Charles'/Steve's comments on this matter soon.

[Spook]

jes' a lil' bump.....

[Guest JonS]

er, yeah, what they (BH, Arial, etc) said

Thanks for the vote of confidence Simon. I know where you live ... (Perth isn't that big is it?)

JonS

------------------

*******

Quo fas et vino de femme

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 03-15-2001).]