Unit issues

[Horst]

Here are a couple of things I’ve noticed while checking unit stats in units.txt:

Updated on 16 May 15 after update 1.6.7
- M4A3E2_Jumbo lacks important game data (fixed in 1.6.0 hotfix, broken in 1.6.7 again)
- Universal_Carrier couldn’t tow the QF_40mm_Bofors_MkI_AA of 2 tonnes. A 6-pdr gun of 1.2 tonnes was the absolute maximum what was rarely ever towed by that vehicle
- UC_Wasp has the lightThreaded trait but not track_light as chassis, what gives the little vehicles a low cross-country performance. The UC transport variant is not in line here either.
- Sub_TypeIX_Submerged has a torpedo power of only 9 unlike 10 of its surface mode. Additionally, it lacks the noCapture trait
- DD_Battle misses antiSubEffect = DepthCharge
- Australian_Commandos_44 misses the marine trait unlike the predecessor
- M8_Greyhound has the minelayer trait as only one of its class
- BB_KingGeorgeV has maybe the unnecessary broadside trait unlike all other BBs
- Tactical bombers that support torpedoes and bombs can't switch back from torpedoes to bombs in combination of the Kamikaze specialisation, as there is no room for three buttons while landed. The unnecessary torpedo launch button while landed prevents showing the bomb-switch button.
- Units capable switching to an alternate, also purchasable variant of same class like tactical bombers with bombs and torpedoes, can cause free upgrades in their switched state to the alternate/original variant

[zakblood]

if that's a couple of things, you'd be welcome on many beta's

[Erik2]

Very good report. I don't mind if the next patch is delayed if these things are fixed,

[Horst]

I gladly put game developers and beta-testers to shame!
Yeah, I've unfortunately missed the beta-test for this game as I rather check forums and not the product/beta pages here.

I'm going to do more intensive unit tests in the near future to learn the mechanics, so maybe I'll notice more "couple of things".

[Erik2]

Guilty
In defense of us beta testers, there are over 800 topics and 6000 posts in the beta forum.
We didn't just play the game...

[Horst]

- Type90_75mm_AT and Type90_75mm_ART don’t have identical cost, although they can switch to each other (reported here earlier)
- Ki-45_KAI_Toryu and Ki-45_KAI_Toryu_Kamikaze don’t have identical cost

Assuming that all DDs should have sonar, especially when they have a submarine attack value, following miss the trait/feature:
- British DD_E-Class and DD_Battle
- Dutch DD_Admiralen

- Australian_Commandos(_44) miss the marine trait what US and Japanese commandos have

- A20(*)_Havoc and B26(*)_Marauder had the same bomb load capacity like the B-25 Mitchell but miss the minelayer trait. No idea what’s the requirement rule for that is, but the G4M Hamaki had even a smaller bomb load than these US bombers but has the minelayer trait. Bristol_Blenheim misses the trait too, but it really had a small bomb load, therefore plausible

- A26B_Invader as tactical bomber variant has the minelayer trait as only one of its class

- No idea what the point of terrainDamage trait is but only the G4M Hamaki strategic bombers got it as only ones of their class. Maybe it’s an redundant trait from ancient state of development

[adherbal]

Thanks for this Horst. I'll use this thread as a part of my patch "to do" list

[Horst]

- A6M2_Zero_Kamikaze has a unique "strength = 4" setting, although I don't see any influence of that in the game. Could be removed or ignored maybe

[gunnergoz]

- A6M2_Zero_Kamikaze has a unique "strength = 4" setting, although I don't see any influence of that in the game. Could be removed or ignored maybe

I'm wondering if that is not a minimum attack strength, no matter how many HP are left after interceptions, i.e. that even if the Kamikaze has but one strength point left out of the 10 it began with, it still attacks as if it had 4? This could be justified historically as the kamikaze's proved to be far more deadly against warships than ordinary bomb and torpedo attacks. They were essentially human-piloted precursors to the cruise missiles of today, with similar punch. One kamikaze attacker could, and did, sink some ships.

[Horst]

I'm wondering if that is not a minimum attack strength, no matter how many HP are left after interceptions, i.e. that even if the Kamikaze has but one strength point left out of the 10 it began with, it still attacks as if it had 4? This could be justified historically as the kamikaze's proved to be far more deadly against warships than ordinary bomb and torpedo attacks. They were essentially human-piloted precursors to the cruise missiles of today, with similar punch. One kamikaze attacker could, and did, sink some ships.

It's difficult to test different strengths as the editor won't allow changing a unit's strength; or at least I haven't found the setting yet (add this to Scenario issues if you like!). Enemies can at least damage this Kamikaze-Zero below a strength 4, so no kind of invulnerability. Switching from normal to kamikaze mode is currently not working, thus I don't know if the current strength is hopefully not modified to 4 either. A minimum combat strength sounds plausible although I rather think it's another obsolete setting.

Also found this "miniature" setting on many but not all units which is also "Zero" for some non-Zero planes. Maybe a work-in-progress setting.

[Horst]

Not a specific unit problem, but we need a better overview of the unit traits in the game. For example, the commandos have a lot of traits which you can't read all in that rather small window below. You can still barely see another trait name cut off at the screen edge.

[Horst]

- Type1_20mm_SPAAG has two available but no expire date
- Ki-44_Shoki has AxF_RadSin as wrong rotateEffect instead of moveEffect
- A6M3_Zero_Kamikaze misses the naval trait
- A6M5_Zero_Kamikaze and A6M8_Zero_Kamikaze have wrong fighter class instead of tactical_bomber and miss the naval trait
- M8_Greyhound has the minelayer trait as only one of its class
- US_Marines_45 has the guerrilla trait twice
- Sub_Gato and Sub_Balao have twice the weaponEffect Single3inch_01
- BB_KingGeorgeV has maybe the unnecessary broadside trait
- CV_Implacable has shallow_draft as chassis instead of deep_draft
- Australian_Engineers has non-existing Bren_ca as transport
- Several units have maybe obsolete "ammo = 4" variables
- US_Commandos has a unique empty deathEffect variable set

Happy fixing!

[donger]

In defense of us beta testers, there are over 800 topics and 6000 posts in the beta forum. We didn't just play the game...

I don't believe a word of that. Sure, all of you so called "beta testers" reported the bugs.... but only when you saw them while you were playing. That's not proper beta testing and trust me, I know what I'm talking about as a former programmer. Playing the game should only be one part of the testing process, you also need to double check data or try to force errors. The amount of issues that Horst found is mind boggling and while it looks like I'm putting the blame on the beta testers, I really would like to put the blame on the programmers, they should have double checked their work, because what I'm looking at in this thread is just the result of extremely lazy and sloppy programming, which makes me wonder in what state other parts of the game are. Very disappointing!

To Horst I have to say: well done, you know how to test a product the right way!

[Ripppe]

donger: Being a little harsh there, aren't you? A thing one should be aware of that this kind of beta tests are completely different thing than paid/organized test executed by proper QA teams in software development. And this statement comes from the mouth of current programmer who works on a daily basis with a dedicated QA team.

When beta testing is done by voluntary people, you can't expect them conduct such time consuming - and more thought needing - approach as would be required by tasks like double checking data integrity. Don't get me wrong. I don't say OOB:P beta testers are dummy or lazy, but as far as I know, they are just regular players, more likely to play the game (and test it that way) than dwell into the core of the game.

Other thing to remember is that Artistocrats is a smallish team. Would they had used time to tweak and double check everything (the unit data is not by far the only thing requiring developers attention) the game would be released god knows when. What is more important in my book, is that they are willing to listen to us - the customers - and are working to fix the issues.

My intention is not start pages long debate about game (or software) development 'cause I got my cup of it at work. However I'd give a little slack for the developers. They have done a great job and rooting out these inconvenient bugs and errors is an ongoing process.

Signing out,

Ripppe

E: Ah, forget to mention that luckily we have Horst.

[Hurinowski]

Upgrading my Yorktown class carrier resulted in: command points of that carrier are dashed out and deployment was no longer possible.

[Erik2]

donger: Are you calling me a liar? I have read every one of those 6000+ posts on the beta forum. You have not.
You really don't know what you're talking about. There is a big difference between testing a game on your free time and testing software as part of your work. I know, I have made my living the last 15 years doing the latter.
Thanks for contributing.

[Horst]

Just serving the greater joy of playing here!

Seriously, I haven’t actually tested much, but rather found these issues while getting my excel-units.txt conversion for my own unit data to work: kind of finding original mistakes by my own mistakes. Luckily, or maybe not for sake of finding original issues, I’m done with the format-conversion now.
Many issues are likely not harmful bugs, for example leftover redundant variables like strength and ammo maybe, hence no reason to get angry about.
The only disappointing issues are those obvious broken units with non-existing cost variable (besides lack of movement and other stats) which should have been apparent while only testing scenarios. However, last-minute changes, in particular intended fixes, can quickly screw up mechanics and units (again), therefore not always are beta-testers to blame. Releases are always stressful. I know that from my own mods in the past.
Nonetheless, I’ve got a good feeling that the game will run very smoothly soon without one year of patching necessary like with many other complex games today. Have patience for the upcoming patch, guys!

@Hurinowski
- CV_Yorktown_42 lacks important game data
The missing data includes movement, range, LOS, cost, supply, production, and attack/defense type. The rest of the stats look rather outdated compared to other variants. Same is with B26A Marauder and was with Dutch landstorm and Sherman Jumbo. I'm sure at least these broken units will be fixed with the upcoming patch too.

[SSLConf_Yolo911]

Donger is just your run-of-the-mill A-Hole you find on every forum.

Sounds like a 15 year old punk and certainly not worth listening to.

If he doesn't like the game you made he is certainly free to make his own.

[Horst]

Hello, it's me again!

Good work fixing so many issues in 1.6.7, but too bad the poor Jumbo got broken again! All current issues are updated in my first post here. I deleted all fixed issues for sake of better overview.

For anyone who doesn't like to wait for the next patch, I've made a quick (hopefully not so buggy) fix of the current 1.6.7 units.txt file. Give me a damn if something is wrong. 24h update premium service here!
Put the file into ...\Order of Battle Pacific\Order of Battle - Pacific_Data\Resources\Data or create a mod with the file at your own risk! The tutorial how to create mods should be in the Scenario Design forum.
Keep in mind that all your multiplayer participants require the same files, so either don't play MP or look for private games with the same files/mods!

[CorporalClott]

Horst, thanks for providing a new version of the file - trying it out now ...