Arma 1.2 cumulative bug list

[unmerged(74599)]

Jeff,

Bugs 79 - 91 are not mine... they are Ghost_DK's..... please give him credit.

Thanks,

As per 90.

Add a command code that allows for "military control" to be added through event.

The fact is that there are numerous command codes and triggers that should and could easily be added to facilitate event repair and make the game a much more versatile platform for game development.

Many of these would come in handy fixing vanilla events, and game functions that are now buggy. I am glad to see that such enhancements are now open for discussion and I recommend a new list be developed specifically addressing these ideas, since they are relatively easy to do.

Thanks.

 

[coreymas]

As per 90.



The fact is that there are numerous command codes and triggers that should and could easily be added to facilitate event repair and make the game a much more versatile platform for game development.

Many of these would come in handy fixing vanilla events, and game functions that are now buggy. I am glad to see that such enhancements are now open for discussion and I recommend a new list be developed specifically addressing these ideas, since they are relatively easy to do.

Thanks.

Please make sure that when you make statements like "easy be added" or "relatively easy to do" that you are sure you are absolutely correct on that....

Being a professional IT developer myself every time I hear those types of statements from a customer I cringe. Usually "easy things to do" turn out to be much more complex.

As for making suggestions/bug reports that is what this thread is all about. If you felt that you were not able to make such suggestions then please do not feel that way. I know that I value your input.

As for a separate list of "enhancement requests" i think that is an excellent idea.

However.... the final decision on all of this will be Johans....

 

[unmerged(56137)]

Please make sure that when you make statements like "easy be added" or "relatively easy to do" that you are sure you are absolutely correct on that....

Without the code its not really possible to be sure of anything, but it is perfectly feasible to assume that adding command triggers would be far less troublesome than ironing out the bugs in the combat system or some of the major issues already listed.

 

[vinnym116]

Greek minister Chief of Army: Theodor Pangalos should be picture M18007, not M18008.
Minor bug, simple fix

I consider Enfield Arsenal tech team for the UK to be a duplicate of Royal Small Arms Factory.

Turkish minister Mustafa Ismet & Ismet Inonu are duplicates.

 

[unmerged(74599)]

Please make sure that when you make statements like "easy be added" or "relatively easy to do" that you are sure you are absolutely correct on that....

Being a professional IT developer myself every time I hear those types of statements from a customer I cringe. Usually "easy things to do" turn out to be much more complex.

As for making suggestions/bug reports that is what this thread is all about. If you felt that you were not able to make such suggestions then please do not feel that way. I know that I value your input.

As for a separate list of "enhancement requests" i think that is an excellent idea.

However.... the final decision on all of this will be Johans....

Excelent. And why not make the "final" version of the game something which maximizes utility for the development of new projects? I totally concur with the idea of including the trigger included in point 90, even though it is not a bug but simply "annoying" as you put it. You are calling this an "enhancement." I would suggest, as I have before that it is really not an enhancement, since it is not the creation of a new feature, but merely making something accesible for modification outside of the EXE, and does not add a "new" feature, but simply makes an existing feature modable.

Apparently, you would wish to improve the convoy system by creating a trigger which will allow for the ai to be programmed to build convoys, or switch the AI to one that builds convoys, when a country is suffering from convoy attrition. It is an execelent idea. It is also an very good example of how creating new triggers and commands will make the work of bug repair much easier by making existing game functions accesible to modification through "text" files.

As for the ease of application M&M is quite right, it is impossible to tell precisely how difficult something would be. That said, based on my programming experience copying already existent, and proven coding should be a relatively simple matter, in comparison to some of the more laborious work involving graphics conflicts and such, which I am sure you know with your wealth of experience, are extraordinarily hard to track down in a complex game system such as the HOI II.

I look forward to other people making suggestions for a more comprehensive text accesible command and trigger system, precisely of the kind you are recomending here in point 90, to make HOI II a superior game development platform upon which new modifications can be based.

 

[Jamie550]

How about misc.txt values? Those should be the easiest of all unless HoI has a very esoteric memory model.

 

[unmerged(47302)]

The bug list would be easier to read if each bug would start by a quick identification and not by credit.

 

[coreymas]

Cueball,

Please re-read some of my prior posts.... I did not suggest any of what you are claiming i suggested.... they are suggestions from Ghost_DK, a dedicated member of CORE and a very serious modder. I would expect such suggestions from him.

I read this thread and occasionally post in it for reasons of my own. Other than that my presence here should not infer any meaning other than another community member who loves the game and wants to be a part of improving it.

As a matter of fact i am trying my hardest to not give my opinion on any specific element on the buglist... i prefer to simply state facts about the bug and to move on hoping that the information will be useful to someone.

I have my own personal opinions about the bugs on this list and they will remain personal. Discussing my reasons why I think a bug is a bug and something else is an enhancement is not the reason for this thread.

 

[unmerged(74599)]

I read all you comments with due care and dilligence.

 

[unmerged(74599)]

It seems you feel you were misrepresented at some point. If so, how so?

they are suggestions from Ghost_DK, a dedicated member of CORE and a very serious modder. I would expect such suggestions from him.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Gormadoc]

I have trouble with combat events traits, they do not behave as i would have expected. I have a suspicion that the misc bonus somehow is applied reverse so it actually has the result that the combat event trait will mean you are less likely to get that particular combat event. I must stress this is only a suspicion sofar. Some element of chance with combat events, that makes it a bit hard to test.

But setting the bonus to 0.5 only gave me other combat events than the trait. Changing the bonus to -0.5 gave me the "right" combat event 2 times out of 3. Sample test is however to low to say anything specific.

 

[jeffery clark]

Greek minister Chief of Army: Theodor Pangalos should be picture M18007, not M18008.
Minor bug, simple fix

I consider Enfield Arsenal tech team for the UK to be a duplicate of Royal Small Arms Factory.

Turkish minister Mustafa Ismet & Ismet Inonu are duplicates.

see bugs 121-123

 

[jeffery clark]

The bug list would be easier to read if each bug would start by a quick identification and not by credit.

Hi,

What do you mean by a quick identification? If you mean to give each bug a name or phrase I think this would be problematic as some I don't even fully understand some. Also this would be very time consuming at this stage and modifying existing descriptions might interfere with the work of the HOI patch team. A list with ca. 125 bugs from a complex game is bound to be a bit difficult to read. However, I am open to suggestions for making future bugs easier to read.

 

[jeffery clark]

What do you mean by this?

I think Coreymas means that the twenty or so Bugs that include the much discussed Bug 90 are not Coreymas's posts but Ghost D_Ks. I originally had attributed these to Coreymas on the Buglist since he made the post, but if you read the post carefully Coreymas says he is simply passing along Ghost D_K's list. This was corrected on the Buglist.

So far it seems like your basic argument is to increase modding abilities by making game functions that are taken care of only in exe files accessible thru use of events. If you want to write a short description of this I will list it on the buglist as a new issue. If I simply modify Bug 90 it would get lost in the backlog as these prior bugs have already been inventoried and should not be changed.

 

[jeffery clark]

I have trouble with combat events traits, they do not behave as i would have expected. I have a suspicion that the misc bonus somehow is applied reverse so it actually has the result that the combat event trait will mean you are less likely to get that particular combat event. I must stress this is only a suspicion sofar. Some element of chance with combat events, that makes it a bit hard to test.

But setting the bonus to 0.5 only gave me other combat events than the trait. Changing the bonus to -0.5 gave me the "right" combat event 2 times out of 3. Sample test is however to low to say anything specific.

Bug 124. I have this suspicion too since I have gotten very few relevant combat events after I researched high mobiility doctrine techs even though by this time I am usually fighting minor countries with poor leaders.

 

[Gormadoc]

Bug 124. I have this suspicion too since I have gotten very few relevant combat events after I researched high mobiility doctrine techs even though by this time I am usually fighting minor countries with poor leaders.

Not sure the oppositions leader is taken into account. But hard to say for sure.

EDIT
I tested the combat events in a controlled invironment. Set soft attack on infantry model = 0 to zero. Set defensiveness to 100. Result is a neverending battle. Ministers where all set to have no ability's. Defending leader had no trait. skill lvl 1. MJ Gen.

I then attacked with one inf unit with a leader which only had one combat event trait no other skills. lvl 1. MJ gen.

First test i set all chance to get combat event to 0% in landoctrines. except the combat event trait i was testing, that was set to 1%. HQ chance was 180%. Bonus from event trait kept at 0.05. Attacked with 4 leaders one at the time, with different attacker combat event trait and let the battle run for many months
Result: 0 combat events of any other type, except the CE which the leader has as trait. But that CE which he had as trait hardly ever happended.

increasing the bonus from CE trait from 0.05 to various higher numbers did between 0.05 to 1.00 seems to change nothing. Setting it to -0.05 had the effect that i did not see any CE from the trait aswell. So it seems like its not reversed. Leader skill did play a role, increasing leader skills gives more CE. Opposing leader skills seems to have any effect, if it do it is very little compared to own leader skill.

For fun i tried setting the combat event chance to 100% in landdoctrines that gave me mass amount of combat events. So that variable works.
The offensive and defensive CE seem to work, i only got offensive on attack and it where the right one.

 

[unmerged(74599)]

Yes, I actually developed part of the combat systems for EIR using the CE modifiers in the doctrine tree.

By increasing the frequency of defensive Combat Events I was able to substantially improve defense effectivness overall, and reflect the natural advantage of defence in war.

It does work. You are saying the leader traits do not?

 

[coreymas]

I think Coreymas means that the twenty or so Bugs that include the much discussed Bug 90 are not Coreymas's posts but Ghost D_Ks. I originally had attributed these to Coreymas on the Buglist since he made the post, but if you read the post carefully Coreymas says he is simply passing along Ghost D_K's list. This was corrected on the Buglist.
...

That is exactly what i meant

In reference to the above Statement by Jeffery does not my post #648 have new meaning?

 

[jeffery clark]

I tested the combat events in a controlled invironment. Set soft attack on infantry model = 0 to zero. Set defensiveness to 100. Result is a neverending battle. Ministers where all set to have no ability's. Defending leader had no trait. skill lvl 1. MJ Gen.

I then attacked with one inf unit with a leader which only had one combat event trait no other skills. lvl 1. MJ gen.

First test i set all chance to get combat event to 0% in landoctrines. except the combat event trait i was testing, that was set to 1%. HQ chance was 180%. Bonus from event trait kept at 0.05. Attacked with 4 leaders one at the time, with different attacker combat event trait and let the battle run for many months
Result: 0 combat events of any other type, except the CE which the leader has as trait. But that CE which he had as trait hardly ever happended.

increasing the bonus from CE trait from 0.05 to various higher numbers did between 0.05 to 1.00 seems to change nothing. Setting it to -0.05 had the effect that i did not see any CE from the trait aswell. So it seems like its not reversed. Leader skill did play a role, increasing leader skills gives more CE. Opposing leader skills seems to have any effect, if it do it is very little compared to own leader skill.

For fun i tried setting the combat event chance to 100% in landdoctrines that gave me mass amount of combat events. So that variable works.
The offensive and defensive CE seem to work, i only got offensive on attack and it where the right one.

Nice work. So from your preliminary tests it looks like:

1) land docs that increase the probability of combat events are WAD.

2) There could be some debate that leader traits that increase the probability of combat events are WAD.
a) Leader trait only triggers combat event associated with that trait (WAD)
b) increasing the probability of combat event trait does not increase its frequency of occurrence (possible bug or WAD?).
c) increasing skill level (x) of leader with trait increases frequency of combat event occurrence, but skill level (y) of opposing leader has little or no effect (probability is based on x only and not x-y which seems a bit screwy, but probably WAD).

Based in this I will delete Bug 124 for now.

 

[jeffery clark]

Yes, I actually developed part of the combat systems for EIR using the CE modifiers in the doctrine tree.

By increasing the frequency of defensive Combat Events I was able to substantially improve defense effectivness overall, and reflect the natural advantage of defence in war.

It does work. You are saying the leader traits do not?

Hi Cueball,

so it looks like land docs work for combat events. Thanx for your verification of this. However, as per my previous post to this one the jury is still out on leader traits that increase combat events. Besides the presence or absence of the trait (positive value for trait, but number itself is not important-greater number does not increase probability) the only variable that seems to effect leader trait combat event frequency is the leader's skill level and not the opposing leader's.