Arma 1.2 cumulative bug list

[jeffery clark]

EDIT: On a completely different matter the Vienna Dictate and Bulgaria Claims constanta events are not that simple to fix. Splitting the two diplomatic actions "leave alliance" and "DOW" is not enough. Since if both HUN and ROM are AI controlled, it will not work with a direct "command = { type = trigger which = XXX }" command. It will only work if the seperate dow event has its own trigger that checks to see if Hungarian event 2506 has triggered, signaling that Romania refused demands. This will introduce 1 day timedelay between Romania leaves alliance with germany if they are in one and until they dow hungary. Same problem with the bulgarian constanta event.

So either we accept one day in between leave alliance and Dow or we change it so that Hungary Dows Romania, with all the unpleasantness following from that. We could change the dissent command to decrease dissent if we let Hungary Dow to offset worst consequenses.

Most likely the Xian event will have similar problems with execution sequences that necesitates 1 day time delay between diplomatic actions events.[/QUOTE]

I would suggest that the day hiatus between leave alliance and DOW is the better solution and not at all unrealistic.

 

[jeffery clark]

Here is my recommended list of Database/Graphical issues:

Everyone concur?

2
12
13
15
16
29
36
37
38
39
40
41
50
52
53
58
72
100
101
102
103 (leave this one on the exe listing as well as it has elements of both)
105
106
107
108
109
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
121
122
123
124
125

Done, also changed Bug 11 to DB bug as per Gormadoc. Someone might wanna double check me as it has been a long day. :wacko:

 

[unmerged(47302)]

Yes that is what i suggest. To my knowledge nothing remotely resembling the current naval attachements, was ever added to warships on the open sea. So just as aircrafts can only upgrade while being at an airbase so should ship attachements only upgrade when at port.

I disagree with this solution. If I remind well, there is no option for naval units to prioritise upgrade.
So if upgrade for naval units is only made at port and other upgrades are required, it will take long time, except if player click on all other units to block upgrade.

I would recommend your solution only if upgrade prioritisation is added to naval units.

 

[Gormadoc]

I disagree with this solution. If I remind well, there is no option for naval units to prioritise upgrade.
So if upgrade for naval units is only made at port and other upgrades are required, it will take long time, except if player click on all other units to block upgrade.

I would recommend your solution only if upgrade prioritisation is added to naval units.

Its the turn off upgrades option that ships lack, not the priority. So you can priority ships upgrade, same as all other units, however you cant prevent ships attachements from upgrading.

 

[unmerged(47302)]

@Gormadoc

You are perfectly right!

 

[jeffery clark]

Land supply lines can be traced through province boundaries impassable to land units (Bug or WAD?). If bug probably an EXE problem. For this and future bugs will wait until a programmer tells me if it is a db or exe bug to post.

Example:
Germany controls or has puppeted India, Nepal, Bhutan, Burma and DOWs poor Tibet. After Tac bombers destroy Lhasa garrison, germans paradrop into Lhasa but control no other Tibetan provinces. Only friendly provinces adjacent to Lhasa have impassable Himalaya borders. Was planning to air supply paratroopers, but noticed they were already supplied from Berlin. Let two days pass and still supplied from Berlin. Tried air supply mission to Lhasa. Depot was created each day and each day supplies were sent back to Berlin.

 

[jeffery clark]

Based on recent thread.

Suez Canal bug reedited. Should Suez canal should be considered a river for land units? Should Suez Canal be impassable to all naval units if hostile forces control opposing sides of the canal so naval units cannot block land movement? EXE or DB bug?

 

[unmerged(110676)]

Based on recent thread.

Suez Canal bug. Suez canal should be considered a river for land units that cannot be blocked by the presence naval units. Instead Suez Canal should be impassable to all naval units if hostile forces control opposing sides of the canal. EXE or DB bug

WAD I would say.

 

[jeffery clark]

Possible Suez area related bug report by Froglegs. If enemy occupies Suez then Sharm el Sheikh cannot be invaded from the Red Sea. The Sharm el Sheik beach would have to be moved from Suez Canal to the North Red Sea zone to make it invadable. Additionally Eilat has a Red Sea beach, but no port. If you amph assault you cannot bring in supplies nor sea transport troops in or out. Eilat maybe the only province in the game with a beach but no port. Jeff says that Eilat is a port at least today.

edit: bug 5000DB

 

[Calad]

1) paradrop mission effeciency decreases instead of increases with the research of relevant air and land doctrine techs. Specifically, if researched techs provide mission efficiency X the current paradrop penalty equals X when it should be 1-X (CAN ONLY COMPLETELY BE FIXED BY PI).

Has this one fixed yet?

 

[Gormadoc]

Based on recent thread.

Suez Canal bug reedited. Should Suez canal should be considered a river for land units? Should Suez Canal be impassable to all naval units if hostile forces control opposing sides of the canal so naval units cannot block land movement? EXE or DB bug?

This is not a bug but WAD. In HOI2 straits-canals are controlled from 1 province, this is a design decission. However most will agree that both provinces should be held before narrow straits or canals are open. This would be an enhancement of gameengine imo. We can hope for this feature in user enhancements patches or in HOI3 which will hopefully be announced next week.(See Paradox Mayheim announcement, http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=415 )

Possible Suez area related bug report by Froglegs. If enemy occupies Suez then Sharm el Sheikh cannot be invaded from the Red Sea. The Sharm el Sheik beach would have to be moved from Suez Canal to the North Red Sea zone to make it invadable. Additionally Eilat has a Red Sea beach, but no port. If you amph assault you cannot bring in supplies nor sea transport troops in or out. Eilat maybe the only province in the game with a beach but no port. Jeff says that Eilat is a port at least today. EXE or DB?

It is DB issues.

The Naval taskforce mission efficiency combat modifiers are bugged.

Naval taskforces with "No Mission" (parked in a seazone), gets a +10% combat modifier. Naval taskforces on ASW mission gets 0% to 10% combat modifier depending on mission efficiency (50% to 100%) 50% = 0% combat modifier, 100% = 10% combat modifier.

So untill player has researched the late war ASW boosting naval doctrines it is more efficient to hunt subs by parking ASW taskforces in a seazone than to put it on ASW mission.

"No Mission" should have either 0% or -X% combat modifiers.

Still to early to say anything about detection, but sofar there is indication that No mission also has higher detection rates for subs on convoy raiding than ASW mission with 50% missien efficiency

The ASW mission is only semi fixed.
Taskforces on ASW mission will only detect submarines on convoy raiding missions. Submarines on "No Mission", Move, Rebase, ASW, Naval Interdiction or combat Patrol will never be detected by taskforces on ASW missions.
Taskforces on No Mission, move, combat patrol or naval interdiction has no problem in detecting submarines on all types of mission.

During the testing of this, i seem to have uncovered some interresting info on how CVL's work, which i for one was not aware off. It seems that CVL's with screens that engages a pure submarine taskforce closes to 90% of escort firing range and not 90% of CVL range which i previoulsy believed they did. So setting CVL's and escorts to hunt for subs packs a pretty powerfull punch since both CVL's and screens will be in range of subs. I think CVL's are the only Capital ship that behaves like that against subs.

Is this something new or is it me that just did't know better ?

 

[jeffery clark]

Has this one fixed yet?

I am sure the paradrop bug is a top priority for the HOI Patch Project. If u didn't know already, there is a work around in the current CDCP mod.

 

[Javaslinger]

Dude, there are a LOT of bugs in this list... is there another patch coming? Or an unofficial patch/fix mod?

Javaslinger

 

[unmerged(74599)]

Is this something new or is it me that just did't know better ?

I always assumed that they improved ASW mission effectiveness. That is the way it should work, imo.

 

[sbr]

Dude, there are a LOT of bugs in this list... is there another patch coming? Or an unofficial patch/fix mod?

Javaslinger

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=352063

 

[jeffery clark]

This is not a bug but WAD. In HOI2 straits-canals are controlled from 1 province, this is a design decission. However most will agree that both provinces should be held before narrow straits or canals are open. This would be an enhancement of gameengine imo. We can hope for this feature in user enhancements patches or in HOI3 which will hopefully be announced next week

Gormadoc and Jia,

Won't add Suez canal access issues as bug. Interesting that HOI3 is being announced, hopefully patch will come out early enuf to be useful.

 

[jeffery clark]

Possible Suez area related bug report by Froglegs. If enemy occupies Suez then Sharm el Sheikh cannot be invaded from the Red Sea. The Sharm el Sheik beach would have to be moved from Suez Canal to the North Red Sea zone to make it invadable. Additionally Eilat has a Red Sea beach, but no port. If you amph assault you cannot bring in supplies nor sea transport troops in or out. Eilat maybe the only province in the game with a beach but no port. Jeff says that Eilat is a port at least today.

added as as database bug 5000DB to Post 4

 

[jeffery clark]

1) The Naval taskforce mission efficiency combat modifiers are bugged.

Naval taskforces with "No Mission" (parked in a seazone), gets a +10% combat modifier. Naval taskforces on ASW mission gets 0% to 10% combat modifier depending on mission efficiency (50% to 100%) 50% = 0% combat modifier, 100% = 10% combat modifier.

So untill player has researched the late war ASW boosting naval doctrines it is more efficient to hunt subs by parking ASW taskforces in a seazone than to put it on ASW mission.

"No Mission" should have either 0% or -X% combat modifiers.

Still to early to say anything about detection, but sofar there is indication that No mission also has higher detection rates for subs on convoy raiding than ASW mission with 50% missien efficiency

2) The ASW mission is only semi fixed.
Taskforces on ASW mission will only detect submarines on convoy raiding missions. Submarines on "No Mission", Move, Rebase, ASW, Naval Interdiction or combat Patrol will never be detected by taskforces on ASW missions.
Taskforces on No Mission, move, combat patrol or naval interdiction has no problem in detecting submarines on all types of mission.

3) During the testing of this, i seem to have uncovered some interresting info on how CVL's work, which i for one was not aware off. It seems that CVL's with screens that engages a pure submarine taskforce closes to 90% of escort firing range and not 90% of CVL range which i previoulsy believed they did. So setting CVL's and escorts to hunt for subs packs a pretty powerfull punch since both CVL's and screens will be in range of subs. I think CVL's are the only Capital ship that behaves like that against subs.

Is this something new or is it me that just did't know better ?

1) is this a db or exe bug, sounds like a db bug but want to be sure

2) is this really a bug. Subs moving would be travelling fast and trying to avoid contact. If subs at sea had no mission wouldn't they attack any enemy naval units (including dds on ASW) if they entered their sea zone, thereby achieving the goal of the dds on ASW duty. Also not sure why you would want to have subs on naval interdiction or combat patrol, but if they were on such a mission wouldn't they also be "found" by dds on ASW mission because the subs would attack the dds?

3) that is good to know. I didn't now this but coincidentally my ASW fleets are comprised of 16 dds and 2 CVLs so sounds like a good mix.

 

[jeffery clark]

Land supply lines can be traced through province boundaries impassable to land units (Bug or WAD?). If bug probably an EXE problem. For this and future bugs will wait until a programmer tells me if it is a db or exe bug to post.

Example:
Germany controls or has puppeted India, Nepal, Bhutan, Burma and DOWs poor Tibet. After Tac bombers destroy Lhasa garrison, germans paradrop into Lhasa but control no other Tibetan provinces. Only friendly provinces adjacent to Lhasa have impassable Himalaya borders. Was planning to air supply paratroopers, but noticed they were already supplied from Berlin. Let two days pass and still supplied from Berlin. Tried air supply mission to Lhasa. Depot was created each day and each day supplies were sent back to Berlin.

bump, bug? if so exe or db (I guess exe)

 

[coreymas]

Gormadoc and Jia,

... Interesting that HOI3 is being announced, hopefully patch will come out early enuf to be useful.

Now now Jeff don't let the cat out of the bag ....

Well actually please do... it is cruel to keep a cat in a bag..... a cage on the other hand.....