To&E Data Error (UNCON "Fighters")

[Peter Panzer]

Howdy folks:

...just thought I would pass this along...

The "Equipment" rating scale (Poor-Excellent) for UNCON Fighter Command units' ATGM's is backwards. Selecting "Poor" rather than "Excellent" results in the unit being equipped with the best range of hardware and vice versa.

Currently:

• Poor = AT-14 Kornet E
  
• Excellent = Sagger B

[JonS]

uh, they're unconventional. It says so, right there on the box.

[Peter Panzer]

The slippery bastards.

[MarkEzra]

Thanks for posting...I'll link this to the beta forum...Slippery bastards...yes....but maybe not in this case

[Peter Panzer]

Thanks Mark - hopefully that will be an easy one.

Question:

Can the issue with AFV main guns sometimes remaining depressed after engaging low angled targets be addressed for v.1.1?

Just as often as not, the gun will fail to re-elevate into a parallel position with the hull after doing so. I originally thought this was the visual cue for a damaged main gun, however it appears to just be a bug.

This can be reproduced by placing enemy infantry in very close proximity to an AFV causing the gun to depress. Once the infantry is eliminated, the main gun will remain at the low angle for the remainder of the scenario. Oddly, it will elevate when engaging new targets, but will then return to the depressed position afterwards. I have especially noticed this with M2/M3's.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if additional details are necessary.

[dima]

Thanks Mark - hopefully that will be an easy one.

Question:

Can the issue with AFV main guns sometimes remaining depressed after engaging low angled targets be addressed for v.1.1?

Just as often as not, the gun will fail to re-elevate into a parallel position with the hull after doing so. I originally thought this was the visual cue for a damaged main gun, however it appears to just be a bug.

This can be reproduced by placing enemy infantry in very close proximity to an AFV causing the gun to depress. Once the infantry is eliminated, the main gun will remain at the low angle for the remainder of the scenario. Oddly, it will elevate when engaging new targets, but will then return to the depressed position afterwards. I have especially noticed this with M2/M3's.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if additional details are necessary.

Peter, can you provide a savegame that demonstrates the issue, this will help. Please email it to me at "dimastep at gmail dot com"

Thanks!

[Peter Panzer]

Hello Dima:

File sent - details are included in the body of my e.mail.

Your responsiveness is very much appreciated. Hopefully, this will be an easy one to correct as well!

By the way, if you fellows really want to get fancy, showing stabilized main gun systems tracking a point on the horizon while the vehicle moves over broken terrain would be a splendid detail. Recoil would be nifty as well.

All in due time I suppose - keep up the good work.

[MarkEzra]

Thanks Mark - hopefully that will be an easy one.

Thanks, again for catching this one...It indeed appears to be an easy one and BFC is aware.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for pointing this out! It was a small error made (by me, of course ) in the TO&E data. I had the order of the RPG and ATGM entries inverted so that the bad choices were likely to be drawn from instead of the poor ones when better quality was chosen. It will definitely be fixed for version 1.10.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Welcome back! This is the kind of fantastic customer service that makes BFC so special!

Also, left you something very treadhead on the GDF. Bumped so you'd see it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Roter Stern]

Ahem....

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=946956&postcount=7

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=911019&postcount=2

:cool:

...also note that their entire TO&E seems to be reversed, not just the ATGM assets, i.e. RPG and LMG quality and quantity, number of men per squad, etc.

[MarkEzra]

Louch: I've sent this over to BFC...I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks!

[c3k]

Louch,

That was a good catch...a year ago!

And the way you brought it up AGAIN six months ago was also well done!

(Hmm, I wonder if the free-flowing nature of this forum is not the best way to notify the designers of possible errors?)

Thanks,

Ken

[MarkEzra]

Hi Louch...Took time to verify your report. Here's the result:

The command groups WERE backwards and as Steve noted...will be fixed.

Large groups: I used Large to demonstrate any similarity or difference in Fighters/Combatant. Medium and small are the same with each reduced by a rifle sqd. HQ units were the same so not shown. Where Team pics are missing read rifle sqd duplicate.

Combatant (local Boys no uniforms)

[MarkEzra]

The forum rules would not allow more than 3 pics....So we continue:

Here are the fighters (Black uniforms)

As you will note the heavier weapons belong to the Fighters.

[Roter Stern]

Looks like that old report wasn't clear enough - here's what I actually meant....

(Apologies for lack of visual aids, however I'm having some eLicance problems ... apparently no one foresaw that people can have their hard drives fail and lose those precious emailed keys ... why couldn't they just print the darn things on the back of the DVD case, like everyone else is beyond me arghhh :mad: )

... the equipment differences between Combatants and Fighters are in fact correct, as Mark pointed out - Combatants get scraps and Fighters get half-decent equipment. The thing that does seem to be reversed are their respective quality settings - essentially the exact same problem as was reported above about the ATGMs.

From what I remember this is how it all looked like... but since I'm currently not able to confirm actual formations in-game :mad: and I don't have the TO&E memorized all that well, I'm more or less going to make one up replicating the inconstancy that I observed:

Let's say we select a normal quality Fighter formation as a baseline - when loaded in-game they end up having a squad of 6 men with 1x RPK and 1x RPG7 as their special equipment.

Now if you load up that exact same formation as an excellent quality, they'll end up with something along these lines: slightly fewer men with 1x RPD (which is supposed to be worse than the RPK), no RPG7, and even possibly worse rifles (AK47s, instead of AKMs). In other words overall the 'excellent' formation ends up being a bit worse than the 'normal' one.

Where as if you make that formation as poor quality they'll end up with: slightly more men than normal, with 2x RPKs, 1x RPG (perhaps even an RPG-29), and the better rifles. So the 'poor' formation is a bit better than the 'normal' and a ton better than the 'excellent' one.

Again, I haven't closely examined unconventional TO&Es since that last bug-report a year ago, so the equipment examples above a completely made up. I'm merely trying to demonstrate how their equipment quality changes slightly depending on the quality setting and how the equipment quality is backwards to the quality setting.

[MarkEzra]

Thanks for the clarification, Louch...I'll take a run at the equip setup tomorrow to see what I can see...

[MarkEzra]

Louch: This is what I'm seeing and have reported to BFC...Thank you for your persistence

Here's the breakdown:

Fighters (large Group)

Excellent = AK 74, RPK

Good = AK 74, RPK

Normal = AK 74, RPK, RPG 7V1

Fair = AK 74, RPK, RPG 7V1

Poor = AK 74, RPK

Combatant (Large Group)

Excellent = AKM, RPD

Good = AKM, RPD, SVD (sniper rifle)

Normal = AKM, RPD, SVD (sniper rifle)

Fair = AKM, RPD

Poor = AKM, RPD

[Roter Stern]

(Apologies for lack of visual aids, however I'm having some eLicance problems ... apparently no one foresaw that people can have their hard drives fail and lose those precious emailed keys ... why couldn't they just print the darn things on the back of the DVD case, like everyone else is beyond me arghhh )

In Battlefront's and eLicance's defense, I got the issue resolved in less than a day - a Saturday morning, no less!

Louch: This is what I'm seeing and have reported to BFC...Thank you for your persistence

That's exactly the type of inconsistency I encountered a while back.

Also note that not only does the equipment get getter and more plentiful, but also the squad size increases - for example the Huge and large Combatant formations (which I just looked up on my newly working CMSF ) gain 2x riflemen in the HQ section and 1x LMG in each Squad.

As for being persistent, that's what you get for making a gaming career of playing games for free by beta-testing them

[Battlefront.com]

Note that the way it works now was intended. I wanted the selections to be random to ensure that the forces were purposefully chaotic. However, I've made some changes that will be seen in v1.10 that make the quality somewhat more related to Equipment Quality. HOWEVER, it won't be as simple as with normal military formations since in this case headcount, weapon categories (SAW vs. Rifle), and weapon type (AK74 vs. AK47) are also changing. A team with 4 men might be "better" than one with 5 men because of the weapon mix.

The order I ranked them in, therefore, may not be the same way you would rank them if you had access to the data. But that's the nature of the Uncons... they're a mixed bag so uniformity/logic should not be solid like it is for other units. Otherwise you'd wind up with conventional unconventional forces, and what's the point of that?

Steve