Detection of enemy units and fog-of-war

[Don Maddox]

I've a question about the detection of units. The manual explains that there are several means/sources of possible detection of enemy units (visual, illumination, Infra Red, Noise, Light, Radio transmission, Radar, Remote Sensors)

In addition to them, there are the Pre-scenario start Disclosure of enemy forces at the beginning of the scenario, where enemy units can be detected by signal interception, satelite, Aerial Photo/Recon, Humint or Patrols.

All of this is well and fine, and it shows a huge level of complexity and modelling in the simulation under the hood.

But... how do I know what mean was exploited to detect each enemy unit? How do I know an enemy unit was detected visually by one of my platoons, or that only a source of noise was detected? How do I know it was located by radar? Or spotted through IR?

So far I only find that the sim shows me the detected units, but no how they were detected.

Any idea how to find this info?
Yes, I have been confused about some of this myself. Perhaps it would help if we had a system similar to ATF where there is a generic "enemy" marker placed on the battlefield, but we know little about it. This would mean the good guys detected sounds (for example), but don't have enough information to identify the source.

Combat Mission also has some FOW features built in that can fool the player into thinking that a vehicle is in a different location than it really is. It can also fool you into thinking a MBT is a halftrack until it's too late!

I have to also mention that I've been playing on the default difficulty level, which changes what information the player has available. I'm not sure how much of a difference these settings make just yet as I have not experimented with the higher settings.

[HPS]

Once a game is underway there is no way the player can determine how an enemy unit was detected.

[Don Maddox]

Once a game is underway there is no way the player can determine how an enemy unit was detected.
I'm not convined that at least some of this information shouldn't be available via the S2 officer. A real world commander would have at least partial information on how intel on enemy forces comes to his command. Did his scouts spot the enemy? Did a nearby unit share a SITREP? Did the info come from aerial recon and was relayed down the communication channel?

It seems reasonable to me that a real world commander would have at least some of this information, else how is he to know which method of collecting S2 is working and which isn't? Such information would more than likely influence the way the commander chooses to emply his remaining S2 assets.

[HercMighty]

I'm not convined that at least some of this information shouldn't be available via the S2 officer. A real world commander would have at least partial information on how intel on enemy forces comes to his command. Did his scouts spot the enemy? Did a nearby unit share a SITREP? Did the info come from aerial recon and was relayed down the communication channel?

It seems reasonable to me that a real world commander would have at least some of this information, else how is he to know which method of collecting S2 is working and which isn't? Such information would more than likely influence the way the commander chooses to emply his remaining S2 assets.

I 100% agree and have always found these games lacking in this area. Why can a game that tries to simulate "everything else" fail to do such a basic thing. The game already must determine this information, so why can it not be put into a format that can be presented to the player?

[Conquistador]

I 100% agree and have always found these games lacking in this area. Why can a game that tries to simulate "everything else" fail to do such a basic thing. The game already must determine this information, so why can it not be put into a format that can be presented to the player?

This beg the question... the manual says this factors are taken into account, but are they really factored in the program? How many of them? In what ways? Sorry to sound a bit skeptical, but when wargames hide relevant information from the player, one gets really suspicious of what things are really working under the hood, and what is simple marketing speech.

I find amazing that POA-2 is lacking to give this info to the player, when other wargames (like Harpoon), were already giving it more than a decade ago.

[Don Maddox]

I find amazing that POA-2 is lacking to give this info to the player, when other wargames (like Harpoon), were already giving it more than a decade ago.
What specific information are you saying isn't being given to the player that should be?

[Conquistador]

What specific information are you saying isn't being given to the player that should be?

"Little" things like...

Were the enemy tanks of that company detected at night through the IR devices in the M1 Abrams to the right, or was it detected because of a close by burning wreck gave enough ambient lighting to be seen by the hummer platoon to the left? Or was it thanks to the flares fired bt the heavy mortar platoon in the center?

Were the enemy tanks detected through smoke thanks to the TIS of the M1, or was a normal visual detection by an infantry platoon enough because the smoke is not thick enough?

Was that enemy contact position revelead because of the noise it made while moving, or because of a radar interception, or an elint detection, or radio transmission?

Were the enemy tanks detected because of the poor illumination discipline of its crew, or noise discipline, or because it was detected by remote sensors? Or did I only spot the gun flashes?

The kind of stuff it was posed as a question for this thread...

Sorry to sound harsh, but what is the purpose of modelling all of this factors (if they actually are), if all the details are hidden? Just make an abstraction and save all the calculations.

You can say this is a batallion/brigade level sim and that those factors are irrelevant to the HQ level. Fine, then make abstractions and don't care to paremeterize in the DB noise, size, light, and all those minute details for each vehicle.

You can say that all that information could cause an information overload to the player, but you can always hide them under the interface and given only if asked for.

[krigsgal]

Conquistador:
"You can say that all that information could cause an information overload to the player, but you can always hide them under the interface and given only if asked for."

Exactly my words :thumup:

Why have all these factors, if I'm not able to see and use them in my tactical plans? I'm not saying: 'drop them' - in contrary, I like this game (when it works proberly), BECAUSE it is focused on ALL these details. The more detailed, the better - but I want to see and use it. So giving the player a choice to choose would be nice :D

[Rocky]

I don't think the player needs to know that Private Kaminsky of the 2nd Platoon A Coy thinks he heard a tank, but I do agree that the player would receive some of this info.

At the very least it should be clear what type of source the intel is from - eg which is from units spotting the enemy, which is from sigint, which is from aerial recon, and so on.

[Don Maddox]

I agree that it might be reasonable to assume some of this information would be available to the TF commander, but how much and when is a matter of considerable debate. First, the TF commander isn't going to be aware that 1st squad "thought they heard a tank in the distance." Some info might be available, but how much of this data would actually be "actionable" info?

When I said I believe more info needs to be accessible via the S2 officer, what I was referring to was primarily S2 information that comes from higher (passed down through the chain of command). Even then, it is unlikely a TF would have reliable info on how the information was gathered. He would simply know that, according to higher, an enemy armored column was spotted at grid 12345678. He probably wouldn’t be informed on whether it was spotted by a helicopter, an LP/OP, or a scout vehicle from the CAV. He might have some very general information along these lines, but not terribly specific.

I do, however, agree that since the sim makes such heavy use of FOW it may be a necessity for the player to get some of this. While it is true the TF commander probably wouldn't have actionable intel down to this level in real life, the individual units would have information for their own specific situation and would act accordingly. Is the AI competent enough to do this on its own? This is a very tough problem to tackle, as POA2 is really raising the bar on fog-of-war effects and this has created some unforeseen side effects that have not been encountered much in wargaming.

You can now begin to understand why the modern US military uses the term "information warfare" so often. Timely, accurate information is perhaps the deadliest weapon of all. I'm not yet sure I understand enough of what is happening behind the scenes in POA2 to judge what needs to be changed or modified just yet. This is something we need to continue to talk about.

[tws71669]

On the simplest level, I remember a friend of mine who drove around germany in tanks recollecting that if the brigade commander wanted to listen to his own troops radio traffic, then he could choose to do so... doesn't this obviate the point that we should have more intel at least in a broad sense.
Right now it seems we can only issue orders and hope for the best.

In Gulf War one, Schwarzkopf had a tremendously detailed account of what his troops were seeing and doing through a host of sources on land and air and sea.

The reference to Harpoon is valid in one way... a task force commander sitting in Hawaii can monitor the status of his fleet in realtime because it's intended to be done that way.

If I had to rely only on what S2 had to say and not what I could visualize from information on the ground and the front lines, this would be a mess.

Unfortunately, I don;t think POA2 can be changed to reflect a more realistic flow of information, it seems this would take a big rewrite of the code.

On the skeptical side, how much is FOW and how much is "Bug" being construed as FOW?

- Tiberius :( :(

[Don Maddox]

On the simplest level, I remember a friend of mine who drove around Germany in tanks recollecting that if the brigade commander wanted to listen to his own troops radio traffic, then he could choose to do so... doesn't this obviate the point that we should have more intel at least in a broad sense.

Right now it seems we can only issue orders and hope for the best.
True, but the commander can only spend a brief amount of time doing this, nor can he effectively monitor more than one such source of information in real time.

In Gulf War one, Schwarzkopf had a tremendously detailed account of what his troops were seeing and doing through a host of sources on land and air and sea.
He did, however, this was distilled through many layers of command. The theater commander doesn't have the time to sit and listen to what a single brigade is doing over the command net. Even if he did have the time, distance limits the effective range of even modern radios. The standard radio the US Army uses has a fairly short distance. I have worked as a staff NCO in both a battalion and a brigade TOC and I can tell you (based on my limited experience) it is highly unusual for a commander to actually monitor the net in person. This is usually left up to the various S sections and battle staff NCOs. The higher the level of command, the more "abstract" and the exercise of command becomes.

I've been in two wars and participated in more training exercises than I care to remember. I don't think many people truly understand how difficult it is to simply maintain situational awareness of your own units, let alone monitor the enemy. Even at battalion level, we couldn't effectively monitor the command nets for all the companies 24 hrs per day. True, when something really hot was going on the battalion commander might listen in for a while, but more often than not his source of information is the company commanders, S2, and his immediate higher. I not saying a commander never has the option or assets to get some of this information if he really needs it, but I am saying there are definite limitations and gaps in what he knows. Real battles are often a start and stop, hurry-up-and-wait affair due to command difficulties.

The reference to Harpoon is valid in one way... a task force commander sitting in Hawaii can monitor the status of his fleet in real-time because it's intended to be done that way.

If I had to rely only on what S2 had to say and not what I could visualize from information on the ground and the front lines, this would be a mess.

Yes, but even this type of situation has definite limits. The commander in a situation like this knows what each ship and plane is doing and where it is, but information like enemy sightings isn't instantaneously transmitted across the whole command system. And it must also be pointed out that the US Navy and Air Force are "systems oriented." A ground unit is a whole different can of worms and can't be micromanaged from the top in the same manner. A given battalion can be spread over a very large area with surprisingly little actual real time knowledge of what subordinate units are doing and a minute by minute basis.

What you guys are really talking about is the Force 21 model of modern combat. This is a goal within the US military and such systems are being tested at various levels, however, information management has not quite evolved to that level just yet for ordinary units. Only a very few organizations have all of this equipment at their disposal, and testing and theory are still ongoing.

Having said all that, yes, I do think it is reasonable to make some of this information available via the S2. But it should be quite limited and perhaps even inaccurate depending on the morale and proficiency level of the unit in question. Commanders make bad decisions based on inaccurate intel all the time. Fratricide is also very common on the modern battlefield. The extra information is useful, but it also creates a whole new set of challenges to deal with.

Good thread. :cheeky:

http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/ustrans.html

[tws71669]

Having said all that, yes, I do think it is reasonable to make some of this information available via the S2. But it should be quite limited and perhaps even inaccurate depending on the moral and proficiency level of the unit in question. Commanders make bad decisions based on inaccurate intel all the time. Fratricide is also very common on the modern battlefield. The extra information is useful, but it also creates a whole new set of challenges to deal with.

Good thread. :cheeky:

http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/ustrans.html
Don, these are excellent, excellent points that better exemplify what I wanted to say... and your direct experience in these matters I think help lend credibility to the nature of the game's more confusing points.

I suspect that some of us are suffering from what I call "Flight-sim" mentality...where you have an all-seeing-eye kinda radar that expresses in realtime exactly what is happening. I know I am a little guilty of that.
But I do think there is room for more accurate improvements in the intel model based on a few of the opinions in this thread.

more later, I have been up for almost 2.5 days... Hospitals never sleep...
:whlchr:

[Don Maddox]

I suspect that some of us are suffering from what I call "Flight-sim" mentality...where you have an all-seeing-eye kinda radar that expresses in realtime exactly what is happening. I know I am a little guilty of that.

But I do think there is room for more accurate improvements in the intel model based on a few of the opinions in this thread.

Agreed. I guess people need to look at the POA2 map display in the same way a commander would look at the situation map hanging in his command post (TOC). The TOC map doesn't really represent absolutes; it represents a snapshot in time of the "best guess" of the battlefield. We've been trained to think in terms of absolutes with most other wargames. Let me explain.

Combat Mission models a fair degree of fog-of-war effects, however, even these are absolutes to a degree. At times a generic "vehicle" will appear on the map. This represents that a vehicle has been heard or spotted in the area, but we're not sure what type or exactly where it is due to FOW. That's great, but what do we know? We know for certain there IS a unit there somewhere because Combat Mission never just assumes we made a mistake and it's a false alarm. We also know the general location of the unit and that it is a VEHICLE, not a gun or infantry.

Most other wargames don't even model as much FOW are Combat Mission does. They also tend to deal in absolutes with friendly units. You always seem to know exactly where all your friendly forces are and what their current status is. Even the most advanced units in the US military can only drool over that kind of real-time information!

In POA2, we only know where some of the enemy are, almost no information about their strength, numbers, or type. We also have gaps in the information for our own forces. Entirely realistic. In other wargames, we may not always see every enemy unit on the map due to FOW effects, but when we do see them, we know the information is accurate once the enemy unit is revealed. Off the top of my head I can't think of any wargame that supplies the player with possibly inaccurate info once an enemy unit is spotted. We may not have all the info, but what we do have is right. In contrast, a POA2 player is much more like a real world commander. He can never be certain that what he sees on his "situation map" is the real deal. Have friendly units moved and delayed reporting that to higher? Have new enemy units arrived and not been spotted yet? Is the enemy T72 platoon on the map actually a company? These are all issues that real world commanders face and they are forced to make judgements based largely on snapshots or "best guess" intel.

I do agree with what POA2 is attempting to do, however, for this decentralized style of "TF commander" play to work, the sim needs to have solid AI that will act properly with subordinate units. I'm not sure how good the sim is at this yet. Until now, the bugs have interfered with us being able to really evaluate what the hell POA2 is capable of and how it actually plays. Now that many of the bugs are gone, we can turn more of our energy to actually getting a feel for it. Myself, I need to play a few more games and see how things turn out.

[HercMighty]

Maybe we can be given an option to select a group or groups (some type of limit on the number you can select) that says "I want to know everything going on here this turn". You would be effectivally saying I want to know what is happening with them, and then maybe what you know somewhere else won't be as detailed or accurate due to your attention on a specific group.

This is just an idea and hack away at it as you see fit. This maybe totally unrealistic or just to hard to implement into the game.

One thing I would like to point out is this is supposed to be a game. Therefore there are a lot of things you cannot simulate that is available to military users. I would think they don't just play this game, but have full simulations with staff and in an enviroment that is close to what they would expect to happen or be available to the people involved. For us allowances have to be made and some level of unrealistic features may need to be implemented to make the game fun and enjoyable.

[Don Maddox]

One thing I would like to point out is this is supposed to be a game. Therefore there are a lot of things you cannot simulate that is available to military users. I would think they don't just play this game, but have full simulations with staff and in an enviroment that is close to what they would expect to happen or be available to the people involved. For us allowances have to be made and some level of unrealistic features may need to be implemented to make the game fun and enjoyable.Therein lies the quandry: this sim was created for the military, we are the secondary market. Are you suggesting Scott should divide his time and create two versions?

And yes, the military uses extremely complex simulators that take hundreds of people to operate. Often, these involve multiple commands from across the whole country. Sometimes they involve multiple services, and at times, multiple nations. They are linked together in perhaps "the ultimate wargame." Sometimes these wargames are done in conjunction with real units, which are currently in the field conduction training and OPFOR missions. Some of the battles are simulated by the computer while others are carried out using MILES equipment. These exercises are extremely important to grooming higher level officers and that's a big part of what separates them from leaders in countries that can't affort such complex training and simulation.

You simply can't overstate how much a commander can learn from such experiences.

[HercMighty]

Therein lies the quandry: this sim was created for the military, we are the secondary market. Are you suggesting Scott should divide his time and create two versions?

I think you have already brought up the fact that there are two version but do not know the difference in them. So this may already be done to an extent we don't know about. And really all we have been asking for are some user screens that pull out information already in the game.

I really don't know what the ultimate solution will be. Maybe it is just a training issue ;)

[Combatengineer]

I would think that adding a column on the S2 view to show source in a general manner. I have never seen a S2 not beable with a view minutes work to state a general source:

Example: Spot Report A co.
Spot Report Higher
Spot Report relayed from 2nd Bn
Contact Report, enemy action etc.

At the TF and Bde level you would not have detail sources until after the battle when the staffs would have time (if they won) to go into detail of what happened. At Divsion and Corps level we had the luxery of doing a little more investigation, but our planning cell worked 48-72 hours out. The Current Ops cell monitored the battle, the TF fought it.

John

[Don Maddox]

I would think that adding a column on the S2 view to show source in a general manner. I have never seen a S2 not beable with a view minutes work to state a general source:

Example: Spot Report A co.
Spot Report Higher
Spot Report relayed from 2nd Bn
Contact Report, enemy action etc.

I think it is reasonable to information of this sort available to the player. As the sim already must "know" where it is getting the information on a particular enemy unit from, it seems like it would be a straightforward task to add this into the S2 report. Of course I'm probably oversimplifying it, but it's not like we're asking for an entirely new feature.

[tws71669]

Sound bite taken from a popular shampoo commercial...

"Yess...Yesss...YESSS......:D "

Having a modified S2 screen based upon both existing game data and the experiences of members in this forum would make utter sense to me. I hope this does not get put on a wishlist but is looked at as a serious enhancement meant to really increase enjoyment and understanding of the game.
A tool like this alone would eliminate a good share of confusion and griping (legitimate) The delay of information is also modelled between command staff and battlefield units so I would expect such a factor to influence this as well. Has anyone brought this up to HPS?

[Rocky]

I would think that adding a column on the S2 view to show source in a general manner. I have never seen a S2 not beable with a view minutes work to state a general source:

Example: Spot Report A co.
Spot Report Higher
Spot Report relayed from 2nd Bn
Contact Report, enemy action etc.


That would do it for me.

[Kammak]

RE: Two versions, one military one hobby market

I have to believe that there are two versions, as the web site specifically stated the game had (paraphrasing) "No known bugs, after use by the USAF for several months".

That was on the HPS POA2 site until shortly after the game was in the hands of hobby players and the posts on the wargame.ch forum started showing the bugs. That line disappeared around the same time the link to the forum disappeared too.

So unless they were blatantly lying for marketing purposes (not completely unheard of, but I doubt it here) I HAVE to think this is not the same code that the USAF has been playing with for several months. If it is, I would guess they (USAF) have already shelved it and moved on to other issues...because *even* the Air Farce would have to notice the issues with the ground combat that we have found. :cheeky:

But again, some clear statements from the developer on this (and other issues) would be very appreciated.

[Combatengineer]

RE: Two versions, one military one hobby market

I have to believe that there are two versions, as the web site specifically stated the game had (paraphrasing) "No known bugs, after use by the USAF for several months".

That was on the HPS POA2 site until shortly after the game was in the hands of hobby players and the posts on the wargame.ch forum started showing the bugs. That line disappeared around the same time the link to the forum disappeared too.

So unless they were blatantly lying for marketing purposes (not completely unheard of, but I doubt it here) I HAVE to think this is not the same code that the USAF has been playing with for several months. If it is, I would guess they (USAF) have already shelved it and moved on to other issues...because *even* the Air Farce would have to notice the issues with the ground combat that we have found. :cheeky:

But again, some clear statements from the developer on this (and other issues) would be very appreciated.

I'll let you know soon, through the good graces of the USAF and HPSSIMS I have a copy that I am looking at for my unit. We want to see If we can use it as a driver/scenario event generator for our Engineer Grp to use with it's Bn's for NCO/OF development excersises. I can't post any maps or scenarios made with it but they did not say I couldn't talk about it.

John

[Kammak]

Outstanding! I look forward to your remarks.

Regards,

Kevin

[Don Maddox]

Me too. I asked this question of HPS a while back but didn't get a reply.

[Combatengineer]

Outstanding! I look forward to your remarks.

Regards,

Kevin

I had duty this weekend and promptly left the disk at Drill, they are mailing it back to me.

John :mad:

[tws71669]

I would like to know what specific differences in game play you see and especially if the bugs we have been working through are present at all inthe Gov Version.... thanks!

[Combatengineer]

Me too. I asked this question of HPS a while back but didn't get a reply.

Don,

I used the board to send you an email let me know if you did not get it.

John

[HPS]

Me too. I asked this question of HPS a while back but didn't get a reply.
Other than the database editing capability, there is no difference in the military and commercial versions of POA2.

-Scott

[Combatengineer]

Other than the database editing capability, there is no difference in the military and commercial versions of POA2.

-Scott

The biggest difference is that the official version is sanctioned for use! The military is very, very, very picky about loading unapproved software on defense department computers! I hope to use this as a small home armory excerise driver for the engineer bn's under the divisional bde in our state. Even using the USAR exercise bde in the training division is a 16 month ordeal to pull off a 36 hour staff exercise. :cheeky:

John

[Kammak]

Other than the database editing capability, there is no difference in the military and commercial versions of POA2.

-Scott

Hmmmm. Then I go with my previous option above...IF this is the same version the USAF got, they have already shelved it and moved on to other topics. Or, they haven't even touched it yet.

[tws71669]

Thanks for the clarification, but can you tell me if some of the bugs we are experiencing were issues in the gov/mil version? I don't know why if the two were "no difference" then why would we have some real buggy things happening?
thank you.

[Don Maddox]

Part of the problems (as I understand it) are due to Windows XP. The military typically uses Windows 2000. It's obvious the system was not well tested with XP prior to being released.

That explains some of it, but not all. There were (and are) some issues that still need to be dealt with. Whether to continue helping with the game is a personal choice I guess. Some may feel that they are being used as beta testors by HPS. Is that a fair statement? At least to an extent it is. I guess it boils down to how much potential you think the system has and if you want to be part of the process of helping POA2 reach its potential. I can see the reasoning for going either way.

I'm helping out because I'm enjoying it.

[XRAY]

If HPS is willing to support the simulation to the same extent it gave to TOP & PITS I’m willing to go the distance.

[tws71669]

I'm in the same mindset as the rest I think. That is, if they put the work into it, I can be a patient customer. I would like to here more from HPS about what we as a community can do to improve the product. I do feel like a beta tester but I am willing to forgo the resentment since everything I have seen thus far seems to show they really want to make this game a gem of a warsim.

Submitting bug reports is the only thing I think I can do so far but maybe there is more?

BTW- I use win2k and have seen as much of the errors as I have under XP. But I would say that XP seems much more incompatible. FWIW creating a shortcut that runs the game in high priority seems to shave off some of the crashes.

As the game grows and as more countries and scenarios are released, my interests will strengthen and my dislike for a bugged out program will subside.

[Gary]

Here is something that seems a little odd. Playing scenario 3. I had moved a tank platoon into hex 1692, elevation 180m. I then took direct fire which came from an unknown enemy unit in hex 851, elevation 167m. However when I check LOS the ridge line between the enemy hex and my friendly hex, which by the way I thought I was hiding behind, has a height of 190m in hex 1552. Has anyone else come across this? I have reported this to HPS.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

hmm, tried the 98, 2K, XP idea, and found 98SE was the most stable of them all - running on a 1.4GHz Athalon w/ 512 MB ram. :) Ofc I only tried small scns, but if small works, big should too in my mind. (also, 512 is a bit too little ram for the biggies.)

[Don Maddox]

Here is something that seems a little odd. Playing scenario 3. I had moved a tank platoon into hex 1692, elevation 180m. I then took direct fire which came from an unknown enemy unit in hex 851, elevation 167m. However when I check LOS the ridge line between the enemy hex and my friendly hex, which by the way I thought I was hiding behind, has a height of 190m in hex 1552. Has anyone else come across this? I have reported this to HPS.
Please let us know what Scott's reply is to this one.:hmmm:

[HPS]

I'm in the same mindset as the rest I think. That is, if they put the work into it, I can be a patient customer. I would like to here more from HPS about what we as a community can do to improve the product. I do feel like a beta tester but I am willing to forgo the resentment since everything I have seen thus far seems to show they really want to make this game a gem of a warsim.

Submitting bug reports is the only thing I think I can do so far but maybe there is more?
I’ve always said I have some of the best customers in the world, and sentiment like this proves it. :D

FWIW, I think at this point any POA2 customer has every right to feel resentment, because essentially they are now being used as beta testers. This was never my intention, and in fact I feel terrible for placing them in this position. Which is why Jeff and I have continued to work 7 days a week on it. But, unfortunately, we have made so many changes since the release version (both fixes and improvements) that I simply can’t beta test things with my internal resources anymore in anything like a timely manner. The original was in beta testing for well over a year.... and I delayed its release past the Xmas season to make sure we had gotten everything we could find. However, as events proved even then there were plenty of issues that popped up once other people started using it in their own unique ways.

As to what POA2 will eventually become, all I can really do is point to TOP2 and Panthers as examples. I’m still the same fanatic I was back then, and maybe even more so since POA2 really goes to the “next level” in so many ways. So I’m not going to stop working on it until it meets my standards, both as a designer and a gamer. That doesn’t mean it will be “all things to all gamers”, but it does mean it will be stable and will include enough to make it the most comprehensive simulation gamers will likely ever see for the commercial market.

For now all I can ask for is gamers’ patience, and that if they hit problems they try to send me their autosave.ops and lautosave.ops files, along with descriptions (as detailed as possible) of what they were doing when the error occurred. Or, if they have a suggestion or “feel” something isn’t right, as with Don and the helicopter situation, they bring it to our attention. There are a hundred reasons why something might not work - but I can’t figure it out if I don’t know about it (and let’s face it, I could play this for the next year straight and not even come close to hitting everything).

Thanks again for your support, and please keep all of your comments coming!

-Scott

[tws71669]

Scott,
Thanks for all your work in this forum and for really working hard to live up to your own expecations. This is exactly the kind of integrity I wish those big fat money sucking corporations that just dump software out of the abyss should be studying!

I wondered if we could help streamline your bug hunting a bit if we had a sticky forum for known/new/resolved bugs. It might eliminate duplicate submissions you may be getting and also give a standardized format for the details you ask for. Something like a "who what where when" for tidyness, then include the autosaves for the specifics. Is anything like this worth doing or is just the "hey it was like this" format good enough right now.
I remember back in the day when I worked tech support we always had a bug submisison form for customers which was archived and went through by the programmers for getting things corrected. It might help here to have such a submisison format on our user end for your sake.
Any thoughts?

Cheers,
-T

[HPS]

Scott,

Thanks for all your work in this forum and for really working hard to live up to your own expecations. This is exactly the kind of integrity I wish those big fat money sucking corporations that just dump software out of the abyss should be studying!

It’s really cool that folks are trying to help us out. :D

I think a standardized format would be a good idea. In particular this is the information we really need:

1) Description of the problem.
2) Whether or not the problem can be recreated by loading in the last saved file. If yes, all we need is that file so skip to step 6.
3) The place it occurred in the program execution - the more exact the better (“when giving movement orders” or “turn 1, pulse 2 sighting phase - progress bar about halfway across”).
4) Any text that appears down at the bottom left corner of the main screen.
5) Operating system and graphics card.
6) The last saved files (autosave.ops and lautosave.ops).

As for posting the reports and such in a sticky topic to avoid duplication... that is a very tempting proposition, and I’m sure it would save me time in the short run. But, as nice as that would be - in reality I think I’d actually have to discourage it. The reason is that I’d rather be the one to decide that something is a duplicate rather than having players do it. As complicated as this program is... I guess it’s better to be safe than sorry, even if it is less efficient and means more work for me.

Thanks again, and talk to you soon.
-Scott