A suggestion

Imp · #1 December 26th, 2009, 03:02 PM

Possibly before patch release a general check of OOBs for obvious errors like all vehicle classes > size, load cost, survivability return if zero or one

DRG · #2 December 26th, 2009, 05:27 PM

Yes, it's on the list. It's ALWAYS been on the list and it's always done to the limit of the time we have available and ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS WE TRY TO DO EVERY RELEASE

I think there's a "DUH" icon someplace but I cannot be bothered to look for it

OK ?

For the record, winSPMBT currently contains

35,072 units
14,859 weapons
15,812 formations

Don

Imp · #3 December 26th, 2009, 08:00 PM

I am fully aware of the numbers & just made this pass on the smaller WW2 which was why I suggested it while thought about as it picked up several errors. Will keep stum till finnished working on patch.

DRG · #4 December 27th, 2009, 01:12 AM

You picked up several differences in the WW2 OOB's. They may or may not be "errors" and I won't have time to look at them for at least three months

One thing with MBT that does not show up as much in WW2 is the multitude of upgrades and improvements many vehicles undergo once they enter the service of whatever nation bought them so not every Tank with the same name is going to have the same weapons or even armour in every OOB were difference will, in some cases, be the norm and all I'm going to get is a huge list dumped in my lap with hundreds of "Potential errors" highlighted that in many cases will not be errors just like the French and Czech Post war German equipment but in spades to the power of 10

Don

Imp · #5 December 27th, 2009, 04:44 AM

Realise that & therefore I have to refine search more & make judgement calls myself to stop swamping you, judgement calls & subsequent entry are what takes the time but once got thats it they are done (hopefully) no full check again. As said wont bother till after patch when will send a couple of test to see if worth bothering. If the majority thrown up are not errors then probably scrap the idea as to time consuming. The 3 cases I mentioned originaly would almost definetly be errors with exeption possibly of a few size 1 tankettes which wondered if they really should be as thats squad size.

Suhiir · #6 December 28th, 2009, 01:09 PM

Believe me the vehicle carry capacity, unit load cost issue is a major pain in the arse.
I've had to slightly adjust the carry capacity of a few vehicles because the only other choice would be to create an entire set of infantry units that fit into the vehicles.
Lesser of two evils thing.
Then there's the problem that in many cases the number of people in squads and weapon teams vary during different time periods so often a APC type vehicle is in use that just plain can't carry a TO squad. Sure, most nations will adjust the size of a squad to fit their vehicles...eventually. Or may just assume given combat losses the squad size will be less then TO so will fit anyway.
All of which makes this sort of cross checking a REAL pain in the arse.

DRG · #7 December 28th, 2009, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir

All of which makes this sort of cross checking a REAL pain in the arse.

Hmmmm... now where have I heard that before ???

It's on the tip of my tongue......
.
.
.
.
.
.
OH YEAH... it was ME!

Now try it with an additional 127 OOB's

There is "reality" and "game reality" and the OOB's need to fit the game reality becasue that's the "reality" you are dealing with here

In "reality" you can split a squad in two NO PROBLEM and send it off in two vehicles. That's not possible in the land of "game reality" and trying to make one reality fit the other without making compromises SOMEBODY is going to complain about is impossible.

Don