Very odd discovery

[Oaty]

I've found out why cavalry can quite often beat a phalanx unit head on. Part of the problem is it can take cavalry forever to lose thier charg bonus. Where on the other hand infantry lose thier charge bonus rather quickly most of the times. When I tested this bug it becomes quite obvious when you use infantry

First to make this bug obvious take some infantry and give them an attack and charge bonus of 50. Now make sure it's line is slightly shorter than the phalanx so as not to wrap the phalanx in the beginning. Now charge the phalanx head on and watch most of the frontline of the phalanx drop dead. Even though the spears held them back, it appears that if a spear hits a charging unit it has a chance to be killed even though the charging unit is not in range. Now once the charge is dead the phalanx works properly against the infantry taking just about all of thier casualties on the flank.

Now I went with vanilla units to ensure this bug is occuring unmodded. I used urban cohorts against militia hoplites on default unit size. I ranged 3-6 kills each time I charged and made sure my line was shorter as not to hit them on the flanks from the charge. I also used Carthage sacred band out of phalanx formation with nearly the same results. I then used Gaulic chosen swordsmen with nearly the same results.

Then I decide to use testudo on a phalanx head on. This was devastating and killing 6-10 units each time. What caused this was it took a while for the cohorts to lose thier charge.

So the tests caused 8-25 percent of the unit being destroyed from a head on charge even though they were not in range to make a kill.

Again to emphasize the phalanx works properly once the charge is lost.

But since it can take a while for cavalry to lose thier charge plus its' near impossible to watch the effects since it occurs so fast with them getting entangled but using infantry on the test makes this bug obvious.

Anyways I'll try posting a screenshot or 2 to show the effects of the charge, that is if they came out.

[Oaty]

Ok only 1 screenshot came out anyone know what program I can use to convert it from tga to jpeg. I forgot to turn fraps on. Or I can email someone the pick to be converted if they so desire.

[Productivity]

Irfanview (http://www.irfanview.com/) will do it Oaty.

[Oaty]

Got it converted, I had infanview and didn't know it did that. So got a differnt program and it's converted

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y5/oaty/00301.jpg

As you can see in the pic a whole line of Macedonian royal pikemen got decimated without any dead Romans nearby wich shows how they are dieing without being in range of getting attacked

[Colovion]

holy crap

[cruix]

this thread probably would be more at home in the Ludus Magna. Very very interesting work indeed!

[Oaty]

I guess I should explain the pic better. I was using Roma infantry auxillia with the minumum delay set to 50 against unmodded Macedonian Royal Pikemen. Also a charge and attack of 50 give nearly the same results, pikemen were being killed even though they were untouched.

What happened was in the initial charge nearly the whole front line of pikemen fell dead. After that though the auxillia even with there superior stats were routed because they were taking on a phalanx head on. The second auxillia came in and finished the job.

Giving unnatural stats emphasizes the bug, but still show up with plain vanilla RTW units.

Also the test with Urban cohorts shows another bug where you can get a prolonged charge bonus by using testudo to attack

[caesar44]

?????????????????one of the biggest bugs

[The Stranger]

shite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.........i never noticed it but it is true. just like horse pushing back phalanx (normal pike phalanx) for 5 meters. creating ta formation that looks like this \_/

[Gaius Drakan]

Indeed, these bugs are problems. Have you also noticed the bug that enables Hoplites with their short spears, to defeat the Macedonian Pikemen Phalangites, with their huge spears

[The Stranger]

i think it is the same bug

[ToranagaSama]

Very nice work!

Oh, where does it end with this game?

[antisocialmunky]

I believe there was a whole thread that talked about how effective testudo was in splitting non-elite phalanxes in half. Now we know why.

Good job.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Good spot. We're looking into it, and hopefully there will be a fix for it in BI.

[Intrepid Sidekick]

Charge effects and bonuses did have problems but these have been largely resolved.
We're having a look at the Testudo behavior though, as that seems rather odd.

BTW ramping scores up to 50 will produce some very peculiar results.
The calculations for charges were never intended to deal with such large figures.

With BI you should find that original RTW phalanxes are a lot more sturdy against head on cavalry and infantry charges.

As a side note AFAIK "minimum delay" only has an effect on the fire rate for missile units. Are you saying this has a proven effect on hand to hand combat too?

Intrepid Sidekick
#C.A. Staff#

[The Stranger]

is the testudo formation still in BI.....8-)

[IceTorque]

As a side note AFAIK "minimum delay" only has an effect on the fire rate for missile units. Are you saying this has a proven effect on hand to hand combat too?#

0 ,1 beats 25 ,1 for melee but no difference in rate of fire for ranged units.

[Productivity]

BTW ramping scores up to 50 will produce some very peculiar results.
The calculations for charges were never intended to deal with such large figures.


That may be true, but I fail to see why it should produce strange results here. The non phalanx, charging unit is killing the phalanx without even getting into contact with it. Surely regardless of the values, that is an issue?

[antisocialmunky]

When does a unit lose it's charge bonus? When it reaches a full stop after charging is started?

If that's true, you could try and ramp up the pushback stat to see if that helps stop a unit to get rid of the charge. That would resolve the phalanx's cavalry weakness and reduce the amount of dead from impact with a speeding Legionaire. The non-touching killing wouldn't be an issue if it weren't so obvious. It would balance out the fact that phalanxes can unphalanx and turn really quickly and unrealistically.

[Mongoose]

Charge effects and bonuses did have problems but these have been largely resolved.
We're having a look at the Testudo behavior though, as that seems rather odd.

BTW ramping scores up to 50 will produce some very peculiar results.
The calculations for charges were never intended to deal with such large figures.

With BI you should find that original RTW phalanxes are a lot more sturdy against head on cavalry and infantry charges.

As a side note AFAIK "minimum delay" only has an effect on the fire rate for missile units. Are you saying this has a proven effect on hand to hand combat too?

Intrepid Sidekick
#C.A. Staff#

Wow, that great! ~:thumb: i was worried you guys would say something along the lines of "It's a feature, not a bug"


It's nice to see this kind of thing getting fixed in the XPAC :bow:

[Puzz3D]

It's very encouraging that two CA programmers took note of this, and responded so quickly. Nice find Oaty especially after we thought all the major issues were identified. I have seen men die in non-charging melee when the man striking at him was not close enough for his weapon to reach the man. I don't know what to make of it, but it doesn't seem to happen too often.

[pezhetairoi]

I've seen it in zoom-ins, but never thought it enough of a problem. I guess it's just representative of the occasional guy that got through that the animation failed to show.

[Oaty]

@ Intrepid sidekick


As a side note AFAIK "minimum delay" only has an effect on the fire rate for missile units. Are you saying this has a proven effect on hand to hand combat too?

stat_pri 5,5, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25, 1

stat_pri 5,5, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25, 50

I changed the very last value wich was a 1 to a 50 to get the emphasized results

Caligulas unit editor says that stat is the min delay, but from my current understanding may be wrong. Sorry for the confusion on that part.

[Nelson]

You da man, oaty!

[pezhetairoi]

*filled with admiration* But, yes, I take issue with the spear vs long pike bug. I tried giving meagre eastern infantry spears, and put them up against standard phalanx pikemen and they beat the phalanx pikemen just by fighting on a gentle slope. How?!

[Red Harvest]

Good spot Oaty.

Can't say that I'm surprised as the units have always been rather deadly at the first contact of a charge even when it appeared they should be at a distance. What you have found confirms some of it.

Hope they have fixed a lot with BI.

[sapi]

wow - important find oaty - maybe this is part of the over-dominance of cavalry that mtw fans noticed early after rome came out....

[Intrepid Sidekick]

Hi there,

We have taken a closer look at this and it seems there were some issues with how frontal attacks interacted with the special case code relating to phalanxes.
We think we have got a nice fix for this. ~:cool:
You may find that attacks to the front facing of phalanx units may be a tad more painful to the attacking unit and that flanking or attacking from the rear will become more important.

Think this slipped under our radar as BI's focus isn't on Phalanx warfare.

Thanks to Oaty for spending his time looking at this issue and bringing it to our attention.

Intrepid Sidekick
C.A. Staff

[Wishazu]

Sweet, nice one for bringing this up Oaty, and thanks for fixing it CA :) i cant wait to see them in action now.

[edyzmedieval]

This determined me to buy BI pronto when it appears on the market.....

[Yawning Angel]

Very impressed with this thread/issue, in no particular order . .
- Oaty for finding, researching and explaining it clearly
- everyone else for not jumping up and down and whining
- CA for quick, helpful posts explaining what was going on and fixing it :2thumbsup:

[sik1977]

Very impressed with this thread/issue, in no particular order . .
- Oaty for finding, researching and explaining it clearly
- everyone else for not jumping up and down and whining
- CA for quick, helpful posts explaining what was going on and fixing it :2thumbsup:

Here's to hoping the trend continues... ~:cheers:

[Red Harvest]

Hi there,

We have taken a closer look at this and it seems there were some issues with how frontal attacks interacted with the special case code relating to phalanxes.
We think we have got a nice fix for this. ~:cool:
You may find that attacks to the front facing of phalanx units may be a tad more painful to the attacking unit and that flanking or attacking from the rear will become more important.

Think this slipped under our radar as BI's focus isn't on Phalanx warfare.

Thanks to Oaty for spending his time looking at this issue and bringing it to our attention.

Intrepid Sidekick
C.A. Staff

Intrepid Sidekick,

Will this be addressed for the RTW patch as well?

Thanks for the explanation.

[player1]

I guess at the time BI gets gold, they will either:
-work on next BI patch or
-work on patch for regular game

[Colovion]

I'm guessing both versions will either be the same and "set" at the same stock version... or the patch will be for both the XP and the Full and be released shortly after the XP is released.

[Dol Guldur]

Yes, well done Oaty.

And the figure you are adjusting is what has been called "lethality", the second from last (25) is the min. delay (representing 2.5 seconds).


Palantir.

[SpencerH]

Congrats to Oaty for identifying the problem and to CA for fixing it so quickly. Given the (semi) serious nature of this bug, and the amount of time it took to find it, my only concern is what other fixable errors are present in the game that have not been identified.

[Red Harvest]

Given the (semi) serious nature of this bug, and the amount of time it took to find it, my only concern is what other fixable errors are present in the game that have not been identified.

Yes, although I've been silent on that aspect in several posts, I am concerned that the combat engine still does not appear to have been fully tested.

I will pat CA on the back for admitting the problem promptly and apparently addressing it as well, and that is sincere. However, I'm also aware of what this implies about about some of the combat engine testing. It makes me uneasy.

[Divinus Arma]

Good stuff Oaty! This was very well done. Bravo!

And Thanks to CA for your concern of your community. ~:cheers:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, although I've been silent on that aspect in several posts, I am concerned that the combat engine still does not appear to have been fully tested.

I will pat CA on the back for admitting the problem promptly and apparently addressing it as well, and that is sincere. However, I'm also aware of what this implies about about some of the combat engine testing. It makes me uneasy.

The level of testing that would make all of us completely happy is a practical impossibility. No company could afford to test, revamp, and re-design such an engine program and ever actually get anything produced.

Remember, this one web-site features more than 3000 people who play the game for hours, modify it, and try all sorts of twists and turns. Each member here playing for 1 hour thus generates more than one work year worth of running time for a developer. 2-3 long weekends of play thus equates more than 40 work years of "play testing." No company could afford that prior to a release.

The CA team, especially those who are using this site for feedback, seem to be pretty responsive in terms of fixes to bugs as discovered, and they have allowed modders on this site to "play with" their intellectual property to heal problems and even alter the product. I feel they've held up their end of the sales bargain rather well.

SF

[Red Harvest]

The level of testing that would make all of us completely happy is a practical impossibility.


Here we go again. Contrary to what some seem to believe, this isn't about making something 100% perfect, it is about making sure basic parts of the heart of the game work properly. If the basic game doesn't work right it won't give a lot of satisfaction. If you buy a V-8 that is firing on only 6 cylinders, and can never fire on the other 2, you won't be too happy when someone tells you it would have been too difficult to finish the design and fabrication of a fully working V-8.

I worked for a developer of other software. He had a problem, he didn't test a lot of features before he shipped. If he got basic functionality, he was happy. Didn't matter to him if large sections of the product didn't work right. I actually landed that job by finding what he had missed and suggesting how to get it working. He used the same excuse you are giving...and his customers were getting very upset with him for it.



No company could afford to test, revamp, and re-design such an engine program and ever actually get anything produced.

Remember, this one web-site features more than 3000 people who play the game for hours, modify it, and try all sorts of twists and turns. Each member here playing for 1 hour thus generates more than one work year worth of running time for a developer. 2-3 long weekends of play thus equates more than 40 work years of "play testing." No company could afford that prior to a release.

The CA team, especially those who are using this site for feedback, seem to be pretty responsive in terms of fixes to bugs as discovered, and they have allowed modders on this site to "play with" their intellectual property to heal problems and even alter the product. I feel they've held up their end of the sales bargain rather well.

SF

Looking at your membership date, it is apparent that you don't know much about the history of these sorts of issues in RTW. I'm not trying to pick on you for being new, but this becomes a "where do I begin" problem if I try to go back through the history of RTW. I don't want to derail the thread, but you are incorrect.

First, the combat engine could have been far better tested earlier in RTW (not talking about the current efforts.) Problems were found at the demo of the original RTW. Some were addressed, many were not. The idea that it is impossible to test the ends of the envelope of the combat values is blatantly wrong. Quite a few of us have done so with portions...and found problems which we have reported. Unfortunately, without having access to the code or knowing what the code is intended to do, the testing is several orders of magnitude more difficult. We can only guess as to where the real problems are. Plus remaining problems in the game make discoveries such as Oaty's more challenging, because problems with the existing "charge" mechanics will mask them.

The level of testing needed is not nearly as intense as you believe. There were a lot of basic function issues that preceeded this find. We had tons of sign errors showing themselves in RTW. The basic logic of many traits didn't even work. Battle difficulty levels don't seem to work right in 1.2. I don't want this to be a "crap on CA" post or thread. However, you need to appreciate the source of the concern about this latest discovery.

CA has had the benefit of reporting of these very items here and in other forums. A number were corrected for 1.2. A number remained. Most of those cannot be fixed by modders...believe me, we tried. I gave up in March and that was about the time that quite a few others seem to have reduced their efforts. I look forward to hearing what CA has accomplished with BI, but the RTW combat engine is a bit long in the tooth to still be seeing some of these fundamental problems.

AI is a different matter, so don't go confusing it with basic combat engine testing. It should be entirely possible to test each aspect of the combat engine to make sure it works. I'm not even sure how it makes sense to program the AI until that has been done...

[CBR]

For a battle engine that was used on tv about a year before release it had a surprisingly high number of bugs. It is great to see CA quickly respond to new finds but yes it is a bit worrying to see new things come up nearly 10 months after the game was released.


CBR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sorry to have encouraged you to rant, my comment wasn't intended to be all that pointed.

Your longer post, however, did clarify things for me (as noted, I do lack the sense of history some bring to the discussion). My concerns are mostly with the AI and with annoying glitches, and I haven't experienced anything as "basic" as you suggest.

I personally noted no problems with core function issues in the engine. As you rightly assert, these are issues that should be ironed out before release. My point was to note that removing all minor glitches and bugs would be too exhaustive to expect -- but I was not referring to the same thing you were. Poor communication on my part I suspect.

SF

[AmbrosiusAurelianus]

For a battle engine that was used on tv about a year before release it had a surprisingly high number of bugs. CBR

Exactly right! In a nutshell in fact. I don't think I've seen it put better.

[Puzz3D]

For a battle engine that was used on tv about a year before release it had a surprisingly high number of bugs.
I wonder how many builds the game went through during that year. Everytime a new bulid is compiled new bugs could be introduced. That's what happened with the Parthian shot and game difficulty bugs introduced by the v1.2 patch and neither one of those things were even being adjusted, so neither one got tested.

[Red Harvest]

Sorry to have encouraged you to rant, my comment wasn't intended to be all that pointed.

Your longer post, however, did clarify things for me (as noted, I do lack the sense of history some bring to the discussion). My concerns are mostly with the AI and with annoying glitches, and I haven't experienced anything as "basic" as you suggest.

I personally noted no problems with core function issues in the engine. As you rightly assert, these are issues that should be ironed out before release. My point was to note that removing all minor glitches and bugs would be too exhaustive to expect -- but I was not referring to the same thing you were. Poor communication on my part I suspect.

SF

Fair enough. I was trying not to get too much into a lecture mode, but it still was more of a rant than I wanted it to be. If you had seen some of the previous long discussions many of us have engaged in on these matters you would shudder in horror.

Anyway, I don't want to poke CA in the eye when they come and explain a recently uncovered issue. On the other hand, when I see what looks like a work process problem in a company that I have some interest in seeing succeed I find it nearly impossible to remain silent. gRgmPPPP...rrrghgghlllee...ahhhdrrrggnnn <thunk> Move along, move along, nothing to see here.

[Red Harvest]

I wonder how many builds the game went through during that year. Everytime a new bulid is compiled new bugs could be introduced. That's what happened with the Parthian shot and game difficulty bugs introduced by the v1.2 patch and neither one of those things were even being adjusted, so neither one got tested.

You could be right, but I'm not so sure. The Parthian shot issue was most likely related to changes in fire at will/friendly fire. It would trigger once after all, then halt until another command was given, when it would reset allowing a single shot.

I thought the combat difficulty levels were being changed intentionally--but I don't know that we were ever told what the real target was. The effect might have been intentional as part of trying to shift to morale based levels instead of just attack bonuses. Some heavily complained about the AI getting artificially boosted stats on hard and very hard and wanted a level field. They primarily wanted the AI to play better rather than having super peasants and all that. I never saw how that was practical, but I understand their desire. My view was more of it being a problem of difficulty being too heavily tilted toward only offensive stats (thereby accelerating combat.) The end result seems to have been that both sides were getting +7 offense, instead of just the AI--making the problem even worse from my perspective.

[sunsmountain]

The thing is, if you always test your features in a certain way, ie, a certain custom battle setup, or a certain map you like to test on, some game situations may never arise. Also, depending on how you play and time your orders, you give the AI different windows of oppurtunity. (you might, for example, give an attack order once; instead of giving it, pressing halt, sneakily moving around the flank, giving it again, etc...)

And unfortunately, this window seems to be different for programmers who play than it is for players who test.