Fixes in the non-public versions (Current build: 2.3.65)

Cougar_DK

Former POA2 Thread Keeper
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
693
Reaction score
0
Location
Denmark, Farum
Country
llDenmark
Hi guys, here is info about the current build for POA2:

Version 2.3.65 released


Added/Adjusted:
  • Added new checks to DataView that check that arty weapon system mountings have their IF flag set to true, and also that the gun is IF capable.
  • When placing units on the map and bringing up the “Detailed Unit Data” form for each, clicking “Cancel” on the Unit Info form now un-checks the option on the placement options form and exits the loop (if multiple units are being placed in the operation).
  • In the initial setup phase formations can now be placed as reinforcements. All of the units get the same entry turn, and are placed on the map edge near the HQ.
  • When saving a game as a scenario, “manually selected” objectives are not counted as victory points for the defending player.
  • Improved AI selection of default SOP target types. In many cases, the AI wasn’t selecting anything at all based on player mission or expected enemy force.
  • Added new checks to DataView to show what wpn sys do not have any commo assigned.
  • Can now set/limit the civilian types included in the scenario.
  • Set Game Forces form tree view window color changes to off-white when selecting flank forces.
  • Weapon System full-list report now has the option to include “Used-by” countries.
  • A minimum weapon systems/ammo nominal accuracy is now required for indirect fire to be spotted. This means that inaccurate systems (such as unguided rockets) will only fire FFE, and their mission accuracy can not be improved through adjustment. Note that this also means they may not specifically target enemy unit since that requires that the fire be spotted; however they can target the location of the those units and still cause losses/casualties.
  • Updated AI targeting for small arms fire – more likely to fire.
  • Added user selectable “sub-groups to Maneuver groups – replaces “carriers” from previous version for more flexibility.
  • Added new mode to Maneuver Groups – “Move & Hold”. When selected, sub-groups will execute any unload orders and then depart the objective and move to specified location (to get helicopters out of harm’s way or to provide supporting fire, for example).
  • Updated Intermediate Objectives form to show all objectives and to update as values are changed.
  • Added VP’s for moving unit off the “opposite” map edge for attacking players (that have a defined map start edge) and when neither player has discrete victory objectives. Points are awarded at 5 times the normal VP value. The award applies only to an attacking player (which can be both players in a meeting engagement).
  • Redid artillery code to better model adjusted fire/bracketing. Now the spotting round impact points are stored explicitly to the nearest meter, and adjustments are made accordingly to the current target aiming point (which may not be the center of a loc for moving units).
  • Added arty time-out to nation values. The time-out applies only to spotted/adjusted fire – if the spotting unit can not communicate back to the firing unit within the specified time, the mission is cancelled.
  • Added additional checks for spotted fire to insure spotting unit can see target, or that an immediate subordinate can take over if it can instead.
  • Updated form used to set-up an artillery mission to be more “aware” of the situation when enabling/disabling options, and also runs faster and more user-friendly.
  • Added new “Cross Check” reports to Weapons System Data Editor: 1) Guns/Launchers, 2) Move Type & Speed, 3) Stacking and other basic vals 4) Commo systems. These reports are intended to more easily identify common database errors and make corrections but also easy references as well.
  • Added generic checks for common errors to the Weapons System and Ammunition Data Editors. To enable them, click the checkbox at the bottom of the form before clicking [Close].
  • Put in a check for locations without any terrain assigned when creating new scenarios and the TEC loaded in. IN these cases, the locations are assumed to have the first entry named “Open” or “Clear”.
  • Updated combat reports and staff office info for arty missions to be more explicit.
  • Added a “No FOW” option for non-FOW Locked games that gives reports as if there were no FOW in force (reports only – FOW remains active for all modeling, communications, and orders purposes).
  • Second force tree (AI vs. AI games: referee mode) now shows icons for unit status. Also, the second-force tree form now stays on top of all other forms.
  • Aircraft actual speed set to nominal speed when placed on the map, or when weapon system changed at set-up.
  • Added additional checks when changing a unit weapon type or qty – now it checks passenger limits, ammo on-hand, targets, and movement path/altitude considerations either adjusting if possible, or deleting it not.
  • Adjusted AA fire accuracy for unpowered/unguided rounds based on “lead” distance as a proportion of the range to the target. Radar-controlled guns do not suffer as much than others.
  • Improved AI for arty missions – better takes into account friendly positions, and likely enemy positions when forces are not well known.
  • Added new cross-check reports to weapons data: Ground/Air targeting options, and ROF.
  • Now max of 5 rounds per “burst” in reporting, even for very rapid fire systems.
  • Adjusted combat reports to include more relevant information for AA fire.
  • Completed AI for Recon and radiation detection mission assignments. AI will handle it for AI-controlled forces, and also for human ones, if desired. Recon/detection units will search for enemy units in specified areas, normally in front of their unit or HQ, although units assigned to the TFHQ will range across the entire front of the force without transgressing flank boundaries).
  • Units assigned to recon/radiation-detection missions are never included in any maneuver group (even if they otherwise would).
  • Updated Batch run process to clear memory between each run.
  • Updated CAS AI & player CAS form to better pick ammo to use against object targets (IP’s, obstacles, bridges, etc.). * The ammo selection form now shows how many rounds need to be fired to achieve the kill probability level displayed.
  • Recon Missions form for player selection of units and missions completed. Added to the Main Menu | Maneuver Groups/Recon option.
  • Added ID labels to Map Areas.
  • Aircraft on a CAS mission will maintain altitude on the run-in based on the absolute elevation of the target, flying higher only to avoid obstacles (but never lower).
  • Rounds that “miss” their intended target and impact off-map now have no effect.
  • AI takes into account rounds that might miss their intended target when selecting targets.
  • Update AI routines for airstrikes – will not strafe and will also more readily attack ground targets when the AI force is all-air and most of the enemy force is known at a high confidence level (otherwise the AI may “wait” for better targets to appear).
  • Added ability to have objectives for each player (meeting engagement - both are attacking).
  • Added setting to remove CAS air units from the game after they make their strike pass (will fly to on-call station first). Can greatly speed up program execution.
  • TFHQ Altitude was never set when the first unit selected for a force was a “custom unit”, and an aircraft selected for the TFHQ.
  • Added a “Add Qty” up-down adjustment when selecting formations to add to a force from the TO&E. This makes it easy to add a large quantity with a single click.
  • When multiple reinforcement units enter in the same loc, non-hq units will enter first in case of overstack
  • Can now use Del, Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V keys when selecting a force.
  • Adjusted AI routines that call in CAS to be more aware of airpower available as a function of the estimated enemy force size.
  • Added ability to “reincarnate” air units after they complete a CAS mission. This allows a small number of units to execute a large number of strikes by having each unit repeatedly “reborn” at full strength and its initial ammo loads. Because air units are very “costly” in terms of processing time, this scheme results in scenarios that execute much faster than if they contained a large number of air units (even if those units are off map most of the time).
  • Force tree now updates at the start of each pulse instead of once per turn.
  • Added option to show wpn system name in the Force Selection form.
  • Smoke no longer drawn offmap
  • Added 60 second auto-save when selecting forces.
  • Added new “Active IP’s” – one IP can change to another in a specified time (used to open and close heavy blast doors on IP’s, for example).
  • Ammo accy values (at range) can now be greater than 100% (to better model ability to hit targets smaller than the standard 5 sq m). Additionally, they can also be decimal values for probabilities less than 1%.
  • Accy adjustments for wpn system mountings and gun/launchers are now straight percentage adjustments, and can be greater than 100.
  • The Help | About box now shows the data files names and dates used by a loaded game.
  • Added new force values: fatigue, default speed % of max, engage HQ’s first, pause to engage, move/urban combat SOP’s (some were already assignable to units, but this allows he player to easily set it for the entire force at the start).
  • Added new SOP value: “Do not let AI issue movement orders” – applicable to both units and the force. When set, the AI will not issue specific movement orders to the unit (ignore if part ofg a maneuver group). This setting allows players to move a unit to a certain location for an AI player without worrying that the AI will change those orders or subsequently move the unit to a different location.
  • Players can no longer issue discrete movement orders to units that are part of a maneuver group.
  • When assigning a unit to a maneuver group, existing move orders are cleared if necessary, after confirming with player.
  • Added supplemental MOE data – saved to file XMOE_Data.TXT in /Action Reports folder. Files saves time of kills, unloads, and entry on map in turn/pulse format).
  • Added “sighting profiles” to weapons systems, which are explicit and replace old general methods of visual/IR sighting.
  • Stopped reporting of in-flight units being killed by collateral damage in MOE (was showing the firing unit).
  • Added additional combat phase reports for missile/in-flight events and failures.
  • Updated guidance system controller routines to use radio as the default instead of wire (if no link is specified).
  • Updated movement path editor so that patrol paths are not removed when a unit’s path is edited (as long as it hasn’t started the patrol loop).
  • Can now reorder formation HQ’s during initial force selection (so B Co could be placed higher in the list than A Co, for example). Used for command and control in absence of higher HQ.
  • Active IP operations can be flagged to stop if IP is occupied by enemy player (checkbox on IP info form).
  • Added new “Unit Occupies Loc/Area/IP” Event Trigger.
  • The Place Units On Map unit grid and, and Main Form force tree are redrawn if a unit HQ is changed in the Detailed Unit Info form.
  • New sighting profiles now affect gun system accuracy when firing DF. The effect is determined by getting the sighting prob for perfect conditions (100% illum & 20 deg C) and comparing it to the sighting prob under actual conditions. The adjustment is ½ of the difference (i.e. if it is 50% likely to be sighted under current conditions, the accuracy will be improved by 25%).
  • Added new “move unit after unload” panel to unload form – makes giving orders a lot easier and more explicit.

Things that didn't work right:
  • Corrected a cosmetic issue where the mission for the RedForce (Player #2) wasn’t always being correctly reported on the final Victory Screen.
  • Corrected an issue where the “Call for Arty/IF” menu choice wasn’t being enabled in the main menu when it should have been.
  • Corrected an issue where the Place unit on map grid sometimes scrolled after placing a unit.
  • When using the right-click menu re-assign function (during force selection) the acting HQ wasn’t being set to the new actual HQ.
  • Corrected an issue where initially detected civilians were being returned to “unknown” status on turn 1.
  • Fixed a problem with un-powered in-flight units (such as large arty rounds) when fired in IF mode: their in-flight time was being set based on the DF range instead (usually resulting in them coming up short of their target).
  • In-flight units created form arty fire sometimes had too of a low muzzle velocity to reach the target (using database values), so now the muzzle velocity is changed (at the instant of firing) to match the entered maximum range.
  • Un-powered in-flight units’ targets were being reset if no friendly unit could spot the target.
  • Corrected a problem on CAS from where typing in the number of rounds could result in a “not an integer” error.
  • Corrected an issue with batch runs when the data files were “non-standard” – no longer asked to select them again between runs.
  • Corrected AA fire “overshoot” for small arms.
  • Corrected an issue in the combat replay where ranges and locations were being shown incorrectly.
  • Fixed issue with Maneuver Groups form that randomly switched objective set being edited.
  • Corrected a problem with composite units when “Units Cleared” when selecting a new force.

Grab it here.

Full change history here: UpdateList.txt
 
Last edited:

tws71669

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
434
Reaction score
0
Location
St. Mary's ER
Country
llUnited States
My experience has been that every friday a new build has been released to the test team. Since we're on build 80 I'm getting a feeling we are close. I have never heard of a company though that was stupid enough to lay down an exact date... heheh good for suicide not for businesse... so I wish I could say more


Let's hope a few more weeks.
-Tiberius
 

Cougar_DK

Former POA2 Thread Keeper
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
693
Reaction score
0
Location
Denmark, Farum
Country
llDenmark
HercMighty said:
Changes sound good but when are they coming?
Herc, I know how you are feeling, but thrust me that Scott and his team is doing EVERYTHING they can. But we keep finding small things, even in Build 90 so please be patient.
 

Old&Slow

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey, USA
Country
llUnited States
Yes But how does it all work ?

as a tactical level combat sim ?

Do all units in a Inf. Sq. move together ?

Can you load/unload the APC`s with Inf.?

Does the ATGM `s work ?

Does the LOS tool work ?

Do the Attack Helos actually attack anything ?

Do Apaches still get shot down with AK 47`s ?

I just got a new system and before I re-install POA-2 I wonder if there is a Game in there somewhere ?

We could never tell because of the bugs or features that looked like bugs or misunderstanding of how the bugged interface worked :nuts: .

I player "Seahorse" about 50 times with the first 2 patches and it seemed IMHO completely removed from my concept of Modern Land warfare.

It`s great that all those exotic details that no one knows how to use or what they do in the Game are starting to "work", but if you still need to enter an enemy hex and close combat them what`s the point ?

The point of modern Combined Arms warfare is to spot and kill at a distance, either with the Platoons/Company`s organic weapons or calling in Arty /Air / Naval.

None of this seems modeled or working right in the first patched Scenario versions of the Game.

Some insights on how an actual scenario plays out would be appreciated at some point.

Thanks
 

Hub

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
414
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
From my experiences so far-

. . . as a tactical level combat sim ?
It still has a long way to go before it is completely right- there are a lot of small, irritating things that aren't fixed yet, and a few major ones, too. See below.

"Do all units in a Inf. Sq. move together ?"
Yes, but they can also be made to move separately from each other now- this seems to work OK.

"Can you load/unload the APC`s with Inf.?"
Yes.

"Does the ATGM `s work ?"
Yes.

"Does the LOS tool work ?"
It seems to work fine now- including allowing for vertical height (such as with helos).

"Do the Attack Helos actually attack anything ?"
Yes, viciously. Watch the ROF setting for your Hellfires though, or they will all be salvoed on the first appropriate target.

"Do Apaches still get shot down with AK 47`s ?"
No. I took multiple hits last night from up to 14.5mm MG's and was damaged but not shot down.

"I just got a new system and before I re-install POA-2 I wonder if there is a Game in there somewhere?

We could never tell because of the bugs or features that looked like bugs or misunderstanding of how the bugged interface worked .

I played "Seahorse" about 50 times with the first 2 patches and it seemed IMHO completely removed from my concept of Modern Land warfare.

It`s great that all those exotic details that no one knows how to use or what they do in the Game are starting to "work", but if you still need to enter an enemy hex and close combat them what`s the point ?"
I don't know about close combat, as I have not been in that situation to this point.

"The point of modern Combined Arms warfare is to spot and kill at a distance, either with the Platoons/Company`s organic weapons or calling in Arty /Air / Naval.

None of this seems modeled or working right in the first patched Scenario versions of the Game.

Some insights on how an actual scenario plays out would be appreciated at some point."
I find the game to be gruesomely tedious to set up- a myriad of settings and details that have to be painstakingly clicked on unit by unit- partly because there are so many, partly because some settings that should be set sometimes "unset," or don't get passed down to child units like they should. You end up checking everything. Infantry will load and unload from carriers, but it is still impossible to set follow on movement orders for dismounts after they disembark- you have to wait until the turn after they are unloaded and plot new orders for them. On map indirect fire units, like mortars, do not always work as they should- the game sometimes doesn't "know" they are IF units. There is incorrect information in Dataview- the latest instance I found was allowing the M2 Bradley to be able to carry 10 dismounts- it can carry 7, but really only six with all their gear. Same for the M3, which should only carry up to four.

The problem with testing this game is that it is gigantic - there are reams of things to check and recheck, and the number of people actively testing the patches is very small. I see the game being fixed eventually, but it will be a very long time before it can be considered completely bug free - I would say many months from now, not days or even weeks.

Creating maps with ADC 2 is incredibly labour intensive and difficult, although the results look great, if you can stay the course.

My own personal feelings towards the game are that even though I waited in anticipation for years for it, I'm pretty sick of it now. I have spent many hundreds of frustrating hours in testing, and between that and all the micromanaging involved, I doubt I will ever play it much, even if it does get completely fixed. Unless you play very small scenarios or are a masochist at heart, right now, it's just too unwieldy. Maybe things will change - who knows.
 
Last edited:

andrew

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
I actually wonder if the game is not better suited to WWII. Perhaps simpler weapons and simpler technology will take a lot of the complexity and micro managing away and leave a more playable game.
 

Hub

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
414
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
andrew said:
I actually wonder if the game is not better suited to WWII. Perhaps simpler weapons and simpler technology will take a lot of the complexity and micro managing away and leave a more playable game.
A playable game(s) already exists in the form of Panthers in the Shadows and Tigers on the Prowl- two games I have and still play, and still enjoy immensely. Although these two games have reams of detail in them, I never feel like I'm being smothered by them. The interfaces are easy to understand and well laid out. If the guts of these two games could remain relatively intact, while upgrading them to a Windows environment and updated graphics, then HPS would have two winners for sure.
 

Old&Slow

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey, USA
Country
llUnited States
Hub said:
A playable game(s) already exists in the form of Panthers in the Shadows and Tigers on the Prowl- two games I have and still play, and still enjoy immensely. Although these two games have reams of detail in them, I never feel like I'm being smothered by them. The interfaces are easy to understand and well laid out. If the guts of these two games could remain relatively intact, while upgrading them to a Windows environment and updated graphics, then HPS would have two winners for sure.
What all of us were asking for and expecting for 7 years. I too still have TOP/PITS on the HD and paly them, best tactical level WW II Games ever.

Thanks for the details on POA 2 , it`s what I was afraid of :cry:

BTW: If you like oldies, Shrapnel Games has the XP version, with many enhancements, of SSI`s Steel Panthers: Main Battle Tank as a free download. Works fine if you carefully follow the download & install. Still a fun Game IMO.
 

Hub

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
414
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
I've got SPMBT also and have just started playing it again.

Of the games currently included in the Modern Military Sims forums, I would urge someone to buy TacOps, if they wanted to know how best to spend their money on a sim. It is easy to learn, the interface is intuitive and it is much deeper than it looks at first glance (or second). It "gets the job done" with a lot less hassles than POA 2 right now. Apparently Major H has a wish list with a zillion things on it- if he could somehow figure out how to add a few more height levels to the game, I'd be happy and to hell with the other stuff...

I'm looking forward to putting Raging Tiger through it's paces. ATF had a few niggling things that bugged me, but it sounds like RT has them rectified. With the editors and tools that will come with RT, I hope to get lots of mileage out of playing it. The ability to use realistic terrain and elevations in RT is an attractor for me.
 

XRAY

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
308
Reaction score
2
Location
UK
Country
ll
I’m not giving up on POA2 quite yet, there are improvements and bug fixes following each patch and the game is much more stable.

OK there are still problems, but Scott still says he remains committed to fixing and enhancing the simulation so I guess I’ll stick it out to the end.

I can understand the frustrations of those players not in the loop, having to rely on second-hand reports from beta testers must be a right pain in the proverbial.
 

HercMighty

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
405
Reaction score
3
Location
Charlottesville, VA
If Scott really wanted to fix this game two things would have to happen:

1. Use all of us to test. And do some real tests, not just here are some fixes.

2. Have a forum. I cannot believe Scott has decided to go this route. It takes time to read emails and answer them, it cannot take that much more to come here and do the same thing. Also we would also all be able to participate and I think things would get fixed faster and better.

The way they are going about this is ruining the game. Most posters here are saying even if the game were ever to get fixed this experience has already ruined for them. I have sent emails to Scott and have yet to hear back on them, some of them before build 72. I guess if you are not in the club you do not rate a response back.
 

gregb7

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2003
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
amen to that. the only people that really care about
this game are right here. why not use all of us to
test this out. it might even speed things up. as it
is, i can see people shelving this for good while waiting
for it to get fixed. at least if people are helping
with the testing, they'll have the thing installed and
be getting SOME use out of it.
 

Cougar_DK

Former POA2 Thread Keeper
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
693
Reaction score
0
Location
Denmark, Farum
Country
llDenmark
I would be more than happy to take your findings to Scott and/or qualify them with the current build and post my results here if anyone would like that.

I don't know what the other testers is testing but MY primary objective is to PLAY the game. And I have reported a lot since build 72, ranging from interface problems to game stopping problems. And besides that a lot of wishes to make the game more playable.


Something you need to understand with programming, is that its normal to remove bugs before adding any new things to the code, therefore minimizing the ricisi adding more bugs. And thats what is happening right now.


I would like to have a dedicated support forum too, where testers could report their findings and discuss'em with other testers. Everyone would have access to read this stuff and mayby add to it. (And I have the server space and the forum... but I'm not hired by Scott or HPS so.....)
 

XRAY

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
308
Reaction score
2
Location
UK
Country
ll
Herc

I’ve been beta testing from day one and apart from one acknowledgement and a couple of confirmations have received no response from Scott to my bug reports. I have no problem with this, as long as highlighted bugs are sorted out and I receive regular updates I’m quite happy.

Have you asked Scott if you can be added to the beta team? I’m pretty sure that testers have been added to the list since the original small group.
 

tws71669

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
434
Reaction score
0
Location
St. Mary's ER
Country
llUnited States
I'm satisified with the direction things are going and I enjoy what I have so far, but yes- more needs to be ironed out. So far all the major show stoppers seems to be fixed and some excellent additions have been added. Remeber how many yeaars and patches TOP/PITS had..? Or how about Harpoon3 or Falcon4. Some of these games had as long as 5 years+ for thier growing pains.
Scott usually does reply with an explanation of what a bug was but I don't expect it, it 's just nice. I agree it would be much nicer to get some answers and replies on the forum.
I'm going to keep staying the course cuz I like what I see happening and I am anatural optomist wherever I see potential, but that's just me, I fully understand why others don't want to stick with it. There are other games to play but it would be excellent to see this game down the road from now.
It is playable in its current form, I am in an PBEM game now that is really capturing the flair I feel when I play SPWAW.
That's just my .02 cents.
-Tiberius
 
Last edited:

Cougar_DK

Former POA2 Thread Keeper
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
693
Reaction score
0
Location
Denmark, Farum
Country
llDenmark
I'm with you Tiberus. POA2 is going to be a very good modern PBEM engine. And I hope the the next build will remove the remaining problem with movement and loading/unloading. Then I'm ready for PBEM.

Scott wrote that the US military is reporting bugs and other stuff now, so it seems that there is more people testing right how.


Tiberus: Have you shifted your PBEM to Build 90 or are you still at Build 80?
 

tws71669

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
434
Reaction score
0
Location
St. Mary's ER
Country
llUnited States
I am on build 90... if you want to join in a PBEM game then pick your scenarion and sides and let me know... the more people we have testing out the pbem side to this the more it helps.:D

-Tiberous
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,900
Reaction score
516
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
I talked to Scott yesterday and he told me that work is continuing on the beta. He wants to keep the files for the beta team limited to just those people for now. The reason for that is that he is making frequent changes, and this can often break one thing in the process of fixing another.

To be honest, I have not spent any time with POA-2 recently as I have been busy with the other wargame section and with keeping Warfare HQ running. I plan to get back to it eventually.

As for the ADC mod I made for POA-2, I know it's difficult to use. That's not really the mod, it's just the nature of POA-2 mapmaking in general. There are some additional tweaks I would like to make as well, but I haven't had a chance to even look at that yet.
 

tws71669

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
434
Reaction score
0
Location
St. Mary's ER
Country
llUnited States
Thanks Don,

I hope you can get some time to tweak your map-mod. I have had a great time using it, really breathes life into the map-making process.
 
Top