[mooxe]

[davidssfx]

[mooxe]

You're welcome... having two computers side by side makes it easy.

[Pzt_Kanov]

mooxe, the suicide strategy is when you have very few units or incapable units facing an enemy with superior numbers/tactics/equipment so you rush to them and try him to get as many of your units as possible in a small amount of time so your morale drops dramatically and the enemy doesn't expand much except for the 3 VL he is going to get by your lose on morale failure, sounds stupid but you can use it in CC5 to maintain an enemy BG on a map while you bring reinforcements giving very little ground.

I hope they fix this bug as I just got the game thinking all the major bugs were fixed.

Thanks for the testing too!

[Tejszd]

Thanks for testing Mooxe!!!

[schrecken]

All the results of your testing have been reported and questions asked.


Is your wife away for the weekend?

[mooxe]

Shes away for two weeks... back this week!

[Tejszd]

[davidssfx]

In order to try and clarify some key points regarding cohesion ... I'll organize discussion of different topics into numbered sections.

1) Additional Cohesion penalties

As posted by schrechen

"Tech report.

There is some additional cohesion penalties associated with losing a battle very quickly (in the first few minutes). This was added to help mitigate the suicide defense strategy. That is probably what is kicking in here, since it sounds like he is doing the truce immediately after the battle starts. If so that would be a bug, since a truce shouldn't be triggering this penalty, only a defeat."

Question:

a) What are these additional penalties?

2) A BG returning after being disbanded with "no cohesion" ... will always get totally defeated and disbanded no matter what the battle outcome, except an agreed truce.

2a) A BG returning after being disbanded with "no cohesion" ... will always get totally defeated and disbanded no matter what the battle outcome, even an agreed truce.

2b) A BG returning after being disbanded with "no cohesion" ... will always get totally defeated and disbanded no matter what the battle outcome, even an agreed truce. This is a bug ... and should not happen. This returning BG (with no cohesion) should function the same way as other "no cohesion" BG's that have not been disbanded previously.

Question:

a) Which is a correct statement "2)" or "2a)" or "2b)?

b) If the answer to Question "a)" is  "2)" or "2a)"... is this an additional cohesion penalty? And therefore we can conclude ... that, if a BG returns after being disbanded and with "no cohesion" ... it means it has been penalized with the additional penalty, and therefore will always be disbanded with a total map defeat ... under any battle result, (except or even an agreed truce)?

c) If question "b)" is true ... will the additionally penalized BG ever restore its cohesion to a level which it can hold a map after battle? ... and if so how long (turns/days) will it take?

For reference:
the Amfreville German BG returned (after being disbanded) with "no cohesion" and then fought a 30 minute battle. The battle ended with 3 German VL's left, and higher morale than its Allied opponent ... but resulted in a German BG disband and total defeat. This German BG had previously suffered from a battle result described as "forces were destroyed or routed" (at Pont L'Abbe) ... and ended before time was out.
It has also been noted by mooxe, that a BG can have its cohesion reduced to "no cohesion" and still continue to hold maps. It is not conclusive that, if BG's returning after being disbanded and return with no cohesion can do the same.

3) Additional cohesion penalty to prevent suicide strategy:
This penalty is a feature to prevent players from attacking quickly with most/all units ... in order to produce a morale failure among their own BG, so less VL's can be captured by the opponent and their own BG remains on map longer than under normal circumstances?

Question:

a) If statement "3)" is true ... then is this the reason for the cohesion penalty that causes a BG to return after a disbandment (with no cohesion), and not be able to hold a map ... as described in "2) Question: b)" ?

b) True or False:
The answer to question "a)" is yes ... but this penalty should not happen when a truce is agreed upon.

For reference:
The Afreville German BG that was disbanded, … described in "2) for reference:" … happened at Pont L'Abbe. The German player didn't try to use the suicide strategy, but we had both placed our units so close to each other that when the battle started ... it was an all out fire fight until the German BG failed and disbanded. Therefore, it may have activated the suicide strategy penalty against this BG. This may explain why it returned with no cohesion, and was in the penalized weak state that forced a total defeat and disbandment again, even when the battle results suggested it should have remained on the map for another battle.

4) Once a BG's cohesion falls to its lowest possible state ... it will not be able to hold a map when in battle, and will be disbanded with total defeat, under any battle result. The same is true whether the BG has been disbanded previously or not. Once a BG falls to this lowest state, it must not engage in battle for a certain amount of time until its cohesion is restored to a certain level, and then will be able to hold a map.
If this result is not seen consistently ... then there is a related bug.

Question:

a) is statement "4)" true ... yes/no?

edit:

5) Due to so many factors involved with cohesion and its related effects on BG performance ... some random unexplained results occur ... such as a previously disbanded BG returning with no cohesion, and its related effect of disbanding again with total defeat ... even when battle results suggest it should not have disbanded.

Question:

a) Which of the below best explains what is happening?

a1) Statement "5)" is true
a2) Statement "5)" is true and programmers are trying to figure out what's going on
a3) Statement "5)" is true and is a designed feature. Programmers feel these random unexplained results reflect the randomness of real life battle occurrences.
a4) Statement "5)" is true but is a bug. But Programmers feel these random unexplained results reflect the randomness of real life battle occurrences, and therefore are going to leave it as is.
a5) Statement "5)" is false
a6) Statement "5)" is false and programmers are working to correct any inconsistencies related to cohesion and its results on BG's ... that may be caused by a bug.

[Pzt_Kanov]

Maybe test the same situation (disband BG with no cohesion, get it to defend another map the next turn when it reappears) but wait until the end of the time to make a truce or to attack his troops but do not rout it or leave the no cohesion BG with less than 3VL. If it stays on the map there is no bug and all is working accordingly.

[mooxe]

[davidssfx]

I checked out some more Axis saves, related to a possible cohesion bug.  

1) The only German BG's (so far) to return back to the strategic map after being disbanded are:
a) 729/709 - disbanded with total defeat at Pont L'Abbe ... returned at Amfreville with no cohesion
b) 915/352 - disbanded with total defeat at Bayeux ... returned at Bretteville with no cohesion

2) After returning back from disbandment (with no cohesion), both of these BG’s were disbanded again … even though the battle results suggested that they should have not been disbanded.  
a) 729/709 – had 3 VL’s left, and higher morale than the Allied opponent
b) 915/352 – we decided to truce immediately to see what would happen … same result as 729/709. For testing, I replayed this battle against the AI. I forced Allied units into bad situations until their morale failed, and the Axis side still had more VL’s. It still ended as a total Allied victory, and German BG disbandment.

So, a simple question … excluding any result from an agreed truce.

These returning from disbandment German BG’s (with no cohesion), that have no ability to hold a map (within several turns of returning), even when end of battle results suggest they should hold… is this by design or a bug?

[davidssfx]

OK ... found where the cohesion error started ... it was at the save 68 strategic turn.
I'm not sure what caused this cohesion error to happen ... perhaps a poor connection or something that caused data to get mixed up.
I've since tested this against AI, and found that the Amfreville BG 729/709 will hold the map even though it has no cohesion.

Also, an Allied BG returned with no cohesion ... so there must be a certain condition by which a BG is disbanded that causes them to return with no cohesion. I will look into its history and see what happened to it.
edit ... update:
The Allied BG that returned was the 231/50. I was testing for the cohesion error and forced this BG to morale fail at Bayeux before time ran out. It returned the next day at the beach with no cohesion.
So I'm thinking, from what I've seen so far ... that a BG which is disbanded before time runs out will return with no cohesion.

Recently disbanded German BG 919/709 returned at Pont L'Abbe with some cohesion, proving not all German BG's return with no cohesion.

So it appears, a BG returning with no cohesion will hold a map if battle results end in its favor. I'm sure there must be some disadvantage to having such a low state of cohesion, but not sure of what that is.  

To correct this cohesion error that occurred during this strategic turn ... the Campaign will start again from this point.

[davidssfx]

From what I tell ... there is NOT a cohesion bug
The problem we had in the campaign we were playing seems to have been caused by some data getting mixed up ... possibly from a bad connection between players, or something like that.

[davidssfx]

Upon further testing with Allied save 68 ... I have again encountered 729/709 being disbanded with total defeat when the battle results suggested they should have held.

I tried it earlier about six times and it worked as it should, but now with further tests ... I'm back to getting that problem again.
save 68 is right on a strategic turn ... so maybe that is the problem. For testing ... I've removed all but the save file I'm using. Having other saves at various stages seems to all blend together with the latest played result, which adds further confusion.
Sometimes the no cohesion BG's have appropriate battle results, and other times with the exact save downloaded again and put in the save folder by itself ... ends up with this same no cohesion BG failing to hold a map under any battle result.
you can try this from RD_DD's save 68 at the bottom of this page ... linked below.

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7960&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105

[davidssfx]

Tried it again starting with save 67, which is at  Bayeux, one battle before the strategic turn.
Fought at Bayeux (against AI) and won as Allied commander. Then did the  strategic turn ... and moved 506/101 from Pont L'Abbed to Amfreville.  First battle after that is at Amfreville against 729/709. Battled hard,  and pushed the Allies to a morale break, but the battle still ended with  a total Allied victory, even though the battle results showed the Axis  side with higher morale. Axis side also had all but three VL's.
There definitely is some varying results which don't seem right.
 
sorry for the back and forth comments, but it seemed things had gotten  straightened out there for a while. Very strange testing session.

I think programmers built in another layer of AI that detects when someone is troubleshooting the game. This activates a program that produces varying results ... so no one will ever be able to figure this out.  lol []

[Pzt_Kanov]

Having played half the campaign now I have tons of ideas and suggestions:

-The strat map looks weird at first, but then you get kinda used to it. You realize that this is the only way to have all the beaches on one strat map. Though honestly I would have prefered if you guys had concentrated in one sector, be it Omaha or Utah again but with different maps and another Strat map.

-Why you didn't gave us other features already implemented in recent CC releases? like workable halftracks that can carry troops, big ass maps like CCM, support for multiple players etc.

-There must be a way of having the cc2/CC3/CoI point system and battle editor H2H single battle implemented, it is the most fun, practical and easy way of playing online, while still having the option to play campaigns using the strat maps. Come' on even CC2 had this!

-I like the new small teams, though the MGs have one or two guys too many. Also, were there really that many .30 cals per company in normandy?

-Liked how teams need to truly be near a commander to be useful because they have lower ranks now, less leaders and more units being led by corporals and stuff (Asst. Leaders), also giving the command teams poor weapons to avoid using them as high morale and experienced assault teams.

-I don't like how the men retreat when under fire, get them to hit the dirt like other cc but retreating and canceling the order just makes them take more casualties and is annoying as hell!

-Some maps have the wrong element coded, on amfreville for example a hedgerow from the village in the south is coded as grass field and you can get LOS to the soldiers behind it from across the street in the middle. Some buildings still don't have interiors and troops look like they are on the roof on some maps.

-The initial beach landing battles are a bit overwhelming, them beign defended by few and poor morale troops does help though.

-Being an official release I would have liked to see the vehicles getting a professional treatment instead of being modded with the same tools, They still look great but having them tilt and give the impression of 3D would have been fantastic like in the stock games. I didn't like the look of the shermans though and the panthers look tiny! but they have nice skins.

-Most of the Bren groups do not have a gunner and loader assigned, so the leader gets the heavy gun AND gets to carry all the ammo so he lags way behind when moving, I have corrected this in my copy but would like to see it corrected officially.

-Liked the gun sounds, for a vanilla realease; the cannons are a bit soft compared to rifles though. Love LOVE! the different languages, uniforms, ranks that actually work as they should and the new maps are also amazing. The strat map is beautiful graphically too.

-The graphics for some weapons like mosin-nagants and the m1919a6 are already on the stock CC5 gadgets and even CC:TLD why you didn't use them? I have given every AB-MG team the 1919A6 instead of the A4 also there is never enough molotovs in any Close Combat game.

-Agree that mortars need to go, leave only the light ones.

-Also agree that the AI reminds me of CC2 somewhat.

-Allies should have an additional artillery support button when inland. Or make all maps have naval but change the icon from a battle cruiser to a cannon. This was one of the advantages of the allies.

-Great moddability potential, specially with campaign options and BG customization. Imagine a vet mod where the AI gets to use 15 units but the player only 10 or so and with fixed units like CC4.

[Tejszd]

[Pzt_Kanov]

[Tejszd]

For the CCM specific features I don't know what they will or will not be adding. Just wanted to let you and others know that the CCM or CCMT maps will work unchanged in place of an existing map (of course the standard work to replace a map within the strat map has to be done).....

Yes, would love to see a better editor (CCM / CCMT have the best editor of any CC game)....

For night (or even day) I do not believe that dynamic shadows will happen with the current game engine....