Wire Guided Bomb Specialisation does not work

[kverdon]

The lack of testing on the latter scenarios is really starting to show and also starting to be very annoying. The "Wire Guided Bomb" Specialisation does not do squat for Naval attack values of your aircraft, despite what it says. I checked the FW200 you get as a reward and the Naval Attack is still "7" and is insufficient to even scratch the paint of a KGV BB. I'm not sure what the intention of this specialization was, to add a fixed bonus to Naval Attack or add a new A/C with a Wire Guided Bomb that acts like a torpedo with a huge Cool Down. There is also no mention of this specialization for any unit in the units.csv file. The Calais scenario clearly needs this specialization to deal with the naval threat but it does not work. I'm just going to add a bonus Naval Attack to the FW200 for now.


I'm really sorry but the bugs and glitches in Endsieg, some of them game killing like the date bugs, are totally inexcusable for a production released product. Those of us who can mod the scenarios and or campaigns or edit the csv files can get around them but other folks are just left with coal in their stocking and a hole in their wallet.

[bru888]

There is also no mention of this specialization for any unit in the units.csv file.

That's a clue. It would stand to reason that if a specialisation affected a unit's performance, it would be listed in this specialisation column in units.csv. That seems to be how it's done and, if so, could be why this is not working. However, this presupposes that the Wire_Guided_Bomb effect was even worked out to begin with. When designing this stuff, it's possible to make create specialisation graphics and text so that it shows up in the game but neglect to attend to the details afterwards.

Image0122.jpg (244.56 KiB) Viewed 6827 times

Screenshot 1.jpg (197.64 KiB) Viewed 6827 times

[bru888]

Yup, I'd say it's a bug, alright.

Calais scenario. No specialisations:

Screenshot 1.jpg (192.04 KiB) Viewed 6821 times

Threw in a Fw200 to attack this British cruiser:

Screenshot 2.jpg (240.5 KiB) Viewed 6821 times

Here's the combat prediction:

Screenshot 3.jpg (234.6 KiB) Viewed 6821 times

Now I awarded the Wire Guided Bomb specialisation:

Screenshot 4.jpg (196.34 KiB) Viewed 6821 times

No effect on the combat prediction:

Screenshot 5.jpg (253.1 KiB) Viewed 6821 times

I'll add it to the bug database. Thanks for reporting this.

[GabeKnight]

There is also no mention of this specialization for any unit in the units.csv file.

So far I've understood it, the entry in the specialization column of the units.csv file just unlocks a unit into the purchase roster, if the respective spec is owned by the player.

The "Auftragstaktik" spec, which adds one extra damage to all infantry units, works without any entry in the units.csv file, too.
Yeah, I know, it's not absolutely the same... so, while at it, I've also tested the "Goliath Mine" spec with German engineer units, which should have the desired effect without being mentioned in the units.csv file. And although it seems to boost the general attack stats (while in high cover or not), the promised +2 assault seem to be missing. Anybody noticed that, too?

[kverdon]

Hi Bru,

While we are at it, the Wire Guided Bomb specialization is a bit off in its concept. It should add 10+ Large Naval Attack to Stategic not tactical bombers. The historical precedent for the specialization was the Fritz-X guided bomb. The size of the bomb meant it was too big to carry on anything smaller than a medium bomber. The attack effect should be 10+ as one hit was enough to disable a Cruiser and 2 hits was enough to sink the BB Roma.

I edited the FW 200 to a large Naval Attack of 13 and that was ok. However to achieve the historical effect I would change the FW 200 to a Do 217 and add 20 Large naval Attack to Strategic Bombers.

[Halvralf]

There is also no mention of this specialization for any unit in the units.csv file.

So far I've understood it, the entry in the specialization column of the units.csv file just unlocks a unit into the purchase roster, if the respective spec is owned by the player.

The "Auftragstaktik" spec, which adds one extra damage to all infantry units, works without any entry in the units.csv file, too.
Yeah, I know, it's not absolutely the same... so, while at it, I've also tested the "Goliath Mine" spec with German engineer units, which should have the desired effect without being mentioned in the units.csv file. And although it seems to boost the general attack stats (while in high cover or not), the promised +2 assault seem to be missing. Anybody noticed that, too?

I tested it the other day in the editor and I think I got a small boost while attacking in cover. I can test again and take some screenshots.

[Halvralf]

Hmm I guess a City hex is the best type of terrain to compare Goliath Mine spec? Or does anyone have a better suggestion?

[Halvralf]

So first the description of the specialization. It says Eng get's +2 Assault dmg and +2 Attack in high cover?

Screenshot 57.jpg (375.01 KiB) Viewed 6774 times

Next pic we see Eng with the spec

Screenshot 54.jpg (443.51 KiB) Viewed 6774 times

And last without the spec

Screenshot 55.jpg (662.59 KiB) Viewed 6774 times

[bru888]

So far I've understood it, the entry in the specialization column of the units.csv file just unlocks a unit into the purchase roster, if the respective spec is owned by the player.

Thanks, Gabe. That makes sense. I added this comment to the bug database:

I apparently misunderstood the function of units.csv in this regard. In the thread, Gabe said "So far I've understood it, the entry in the specialization column of the units.csv file just unlocks a unit into the purchase roster, if the respective spec is owned by the player." So that would mean the Wire_Guided_Bomb effect itself is not functioning properly.

The "Auftragstaktik" spec, which adds one extra damage to all infantry units, works without any entry in the units.csv file, too.
Yeah, I know, it's not absolutely the same... so, while at it, I've also tested the "Goliath Mine" spec with German engineer units, which should have the desired effect without being mentioned in the units.csv file. And although it seems to boost the general attack stats (while in high cover or not), the promised +2 assault seem to be missing. Anybody noticed that, too?

Gosh, this is getting to be like monkey rodeo. And I don't blame the beta testers, who are merely playing the game, for not catching all of these bugs. The developers need to take, or get somebody to take, a forensics approach to quality control.

[GabeKnight]

So that would mean the Wire_Guided_Bomb effect itself is not functioning properly.

From the description it should give some hardcoded boni to attacks vs. structures and naval targets (large and/or small ) to all units within the "tactical bomber" class.

And this is not some "unfinished" spec that can only be accessed by modders or scenario designers! I know there exist some, and if those ain't working right, that's okay. But the "Wire Guided Bomb" as well as the "Goliath Mine" specialisation are officially included in the stock campaigns!

I did some further testing with the "Goliath Mine" spec (Thanks for your test, too, Halvralf! ) and my conclusion confirms, that an attack bonus is given to units in high cover terrain, but the promised +2 assault bonus is missing. The enemy units started out fully entrenched (=10):

Screenshot 800.jpg (588.68 KiB) Viewed 6746 times

Screenshot 801.jpg (531.44 KiB) Viewed 6746 times

Gosh, this is getting to be like monkey rodeo. And I don't blame the beta testers, who are merely playing the game, for not catching all of these bugs. The developers need to take, or get somebody to take, a forensics approach to quality control.

Thank you. Really, it's like you read my mind with this comment

Those bugs are getting out of hand. But, it's not really all bugs, is it? It's just work not done properly, to be blunt.

[Halvralf]

Hmm Gabe, I can't see any combat predications at all on your screenshots? To much editing?

[Halvralf]

Hmm Gabe, I can't see any combat predications at all on your screenshots? To much editing?

I had to much wine for dinner, it's obvious the screenshots are AFTER combat and you are proving the missing assault value!!! Sorry

[CoolDTA]

Gosh, this is getting to be like monkey rodeo. And I don't blame the beta testers, who are merely playing the game, for not catching all of these bugs. The developers need to take, or get somebody to take, a forensics approach to quality control.

Thank you. Really, it's like you read my mind with this comment

Those bugs are getting out of hand. But, it's not really all bugs, is it? It's just work not done properly, to be blunt.

You're right, Gabe. I know who I would hire* to do that vital job if I had a say.

(*hire = as would be paid with $$$)

[GabeKnight]

my conclusion confirms, that [...] the promised +2 assault bonus is missing.

Hey all, there seem to be problems recreating this issue with the "Goliath Mine" spec. Can anybody else confirm this please, to rule out it's just me? Thank you!

After the things I've written, this would be really embarrassing now if the problem's on my end only...

[CoolDTA]

my conclusion confirms, that [...] the promised +2 assault bonus is missing.

Hey all, there seem to be problems recreating this issue with the "Goliath Mine" spec. Can anybody else confirm this please, to rule out it's just me? Thank you!

I can confirm it. You only get the normal -7 reduction of the enemy fortification level - the promised additional +2 is missing. I'm not familiar with the editor, so I tried it with the real thing (in this case the Kursk scenario). Nevertheless, should be ok, yes?

Btw., you can't say the spec not working is really such a surprise, can you?

[GabeKnight]

I can confirm it. You only get the normal -7 reduction of the enemy fortification level - the promised additional +2 is missing. I'm not familiar with the editor, so I tried it with the real thing (in this case the Kursk scenario). Nevertheless, should be ok, yes?

Thank you, Cool! Yes, that's okay (and it's been sorted meanwhile).

There really has been good progress within the BugDB and all the reported bugs so far IMO. Most of the (recent) issues are resolved internally. They even have been considering what Admiral wrote about small errors in the 3D models as well as terminator's suggestions to fix effect animations and unit icons and such. I'm really impressed and am seriously baffled how it's been handled before, I wonder.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm beginning to be more optimistic... ...yes, it's a process...

[terminator]

There really has been good progress within the BugDB and all the reported bugs so far IMO. Most of the (recent) issues are resolved internally. They even have been considering what Admiral wrote about small errors in the 3D models as well as terminator's suggestions to fix effect animations and unit icons and such. I'm really impressed and am seriously baffled how it's been handled before, I wonder.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm beginning to be more optimistic... ...yes, it's a process...

Did the devs correct the problem with the cavalry ?

Screenshot 423.png (356.62 KiB) Viewed 6599 times

[GabeKnight]

Did the devs correct the problem with the cavalry ?

I KNEW you would ask that.

Not fixed yet, but it's logged as "Cavalry units - "Pick up their rifles" bug" bug.
And when I put it in, I explicitly mentioned in the bug report that fixing this bug would make you really happy
Sorry, don't know where the problem with that animation is, but obviously it's no easy fix.

And I still think you should apply for the BugDB yourself. But I won't bugging you with this anymore...

[terminator]

Did the devs correct the problem with the cavalry ?

I KNEW you would ask that.

Not fixed yet, but it's logged as "Cavalry units - "Pick up their rifles" bug" bug.
And when I put it in, I explicitly mentioned in the bug report that fixing this bug would make you really happy
Sorry, don't know where the problem with that animation is, but obviously it's no easy fix.

And I still think you should apply for the BugDB yourself. But I won't bugging you with this anymore...

I made a test with RiderIdle (Pioneer) without the horse :

Screenshot 1167.png (86.91 KiB) Viewed 6583 times

[CoolDTA]

There really has been good progress within the BugDB and all the reported bugs so far IMO. Most of the (recent) issues are resolved internally.

Glad to hear that.

am seriously baffled how it's been handled before, I wonder.

Hmm... like Brexit perhaps.