Patch 3 is out - Improvements to AI, UI, Multiplayer, Random Maps and more

[Horseman]

Did encirclement get nerfed? I am in the middle of a GC running deadly grasp (or w/e it's called) and it is not causing the same amount of per term suppression as before patch. It's fine cause it was OP anyway but just wondering if this was intended.

Should still be an extra 2 suppression at the beginning of their turn (4 with deadly grasp) when encircled.

[petecoke71]

Should still be an extra 2 suppression at the beginning of their turn (4 with deadly grasp) when encircled.

Interesting - I was playing the Persia scenario and it was definitely not doing the 4 but rather seemed like 2, except there were some units that kept the same level of suppression despite being encircled. If I have time tonight I will test with screen shots. I started the GC pre-patch and probably was between scenarios when it updated but I don't recall exactly

[CaptainsCoriander]

Should still be an extra 2 suppression at the beginning of their turn (4 with deadly grasp) when encircled.

Interesting - I was playing the Persia scenario and it was definitely not doing the 4 but rather seemed like 2, except there were some units that kept the same level of suppression despite being encircled. If I have time tonight I will test with screen shots. I started the GC pre-patch and probably was between scenarios when it updated but I don't recall exactly

@petecoke 71, this also happened to me and in searching for 'Deadly Grasp not working' or: ' ...not working in Persia Scenario', found nothing, so this seems to be the only mention (that I just happened to find as I keep current on this thread for the earlier awards issues).

My experience of it was not unlike yours: running DG (deadly grasp) - although it was initially working too, at least for the first turn or two near Basra. Then as I used an auxiliary armored group that swung north against the Russians, I first saw the anomaly of only a -2 and thought perhaps it was an un-legended effect of Red Guards or Commandos, or then, just any Russians... and then it began happening on the parts of the map that still contained British enclaves to the east -and like you I saw at least one or two instances where no additional supression mounted, nor did any accurracy or initiative penalty occur.

Clearly not WAD AFAIK, or an un-lengended effect of the Persia campaign. This was well after I had the update loaded and functioning - and there were no indications of an issue w/ DG at Gazala, Egypt, or Levant. I am fooling around with this and the subsequent scenario to see if this is recurrent/broken from Persia forward, and will report back in an EDIT of this post.

EDIT:: While hardly conclusive, my Caucuses campaign instances of encirclement are usually small and scattered, but anecdotally what appears to be the case is that Russian guard units take no supression inherently from encirclement itself, although they keep what has been applied from combat while encircled and do not reset it as long as they remain surrounded. Non infantry appears to take DG effects normally. This does not appear to be legended anywhere so is an 'unwritten feature' if WAD, a bug, if not.

[andyberlin]

Well, the patch you gave me & the, now active, one on the Slitherine Membership will not install.
The error I get is:
'Failed to open descriptor file
../../../my name/PanzerCorps2.uproject'

I got the same problem. I cannot install Hotfix. I got the same error:

"Failed to open descriptor file../../../my name/PanzerCorps2.uproject"

After having installed the Patch 1.01.00, the game crashes when starting. The Hotfix does not work!

By the way, it would be very helpful to have a readme.txt where you can find a short description!

[eddieballgame]

Per the 'dev':

It's a fixed game EXE file.
You need to manually unpack it into PanzerCorps2/Binaries/Win64 subfolder in your game's installation folder.

Simply replace the 2 files with 'hotfix'.

[CaptainsCoriander]

Should still be an extra 2 suppression at the beginning of their turn (4 with deadly grasp) when encircled.

Interesting - I was playing the Persia scenario and it was definitely not doing the 4 but rather seemed like 2, except there were some units that kept the same level of suppression despite being encircled. If I have time tonight I will test with screen shots. I started the GC pre-patch and probably was between scenarios when it updated but I don't recall exactly

@petecoke71, this also happened to me and in searching for
Clearly not WAD AFAIK, or an un-lengended effect of the Persia campaign.

@petecoke71
After a little more work and looking through results from the Moscow Scenario as well, I think I have what it is doing with post patch behavior vis a vis Deadly Grasp. Apparently if a Russuan infantry unit attacks in the first turn it is encircled in it DOES NOT receive the -4 suppression it should, but rather receives only the supression it received from the attack it made (if it received any). This does not seem to matter what sort of infantry unit it is. This results in the rather odd situation where a unit that engaged in combat received less damage (usually) than one that remianed under cover.

If the surrounded unit does not attack it DOES receive the -4 suppression it should receive. I haven't checked enough results to see if this is also conclusively the case with non infantry units yet. I will tend this in the bug report thread shortly. with some additional detial since it may be something to do with the campaign scenarios only post Caucasus (since i had the update working aith DG WAD in the scenarios before Persia). ~CC

[Horseman]

Interesting - I was playing the Persia scenario and it was definitely not doing the 4 but rather seemed like 2, except there were some units that kept the same level of suppression despite being encircled. If I have time tonight I will test with screen shots. I started the GC pre-patch and probably was between scenarios when it updated but I don't recall exactly

@petecoke71, this also happened to me and in searching for
Clearly not WAD AFAIK, or an un-lengended effect of the Persia campaign.

@petecoke71
After a little more work and looking through results from the Moscow Scenario as well, I think I have what it is doing with post patch behavior vis a vis Deadly Grasp. Apparently if a Russuan infantry unit attacks in the first turn it is encircled in it DOES NOT receive the -4 suppression it should, but rather receives only the supression it received from the attack it made (if it received any). This does not seem to matter what sort of infantry unit it is. This results in the rather odd situation where a unit that engaged in combat received less damage (usually) than one that remianed under cover.

If the surrounded unit does not attack it DOES receive the -4 suppression it should receive. I haven't checked enough results to see if this is also conclusively the case with non infantry units yet. I will tend this in the bug report thread shortly. with some additional detial since it may be something to do with the campaign scenarios only post Caucasus (since i had the update working aith DG WAD in the scenarios before Persia). ~CC

Something very odd going on then - the extra suppression should be taken at the beginning of the AI turn so shouldn't be impacted at all by whether the AI attacked or not!

[petecoke71]

Interesting - I was playing the Persia scenario and it was definitely not doing the 4 but rather seemed like 2, except there were some units that kept the same level of suppression despite being encircled. If I have time tonight I will test with screen shots. I started the GC pre-patch and probably was between scenarios when it updated but I don't recall exactly

@petecoke71, this also happened to me and in searching for
Clearly not WAD AFAIK, or an un-lengended effect of the Persia campaign.

@petecoke71
After a little more work and looking through results from the Moscow Scenario as well, I think I have what it is doing with post patch behavior vis a vis Deadly Grasp. Apparently if a Russuan infantry unit attacks in the first turn it is encircled in it DOES NOT receive the -4 suppression it should, but rather receives only the supression it received from the attack it made (if it received any). This does not seem to matter what sort of infantry unit it is. This results in the rather odd situation where a unit that engaged in combat received less damage (usually) than one that remianed under cover.

If the surrounded unit does not attack it DOES receive the -4 suppression it should receive. I haven't checked enough results to see if this is also conclusively the case with non infantry units yet. I will tend this in the bug report thread shortly. with some additional detial since it may be something to do with the campaign scenarios only post Caucasus (since i had the update working aith DG WAD in the scenarios before Persia). ~CC

So glad someone else noticed and maybe figured it out. In subsequent scenarios I didn't notice it happening anymore and thought maybe it was because the patch installed mid-scenario for me? I'm hoping it was just that

[gw15]

Per the 'dev':

It's a fixed game EXE file.
You need to manually unpack it into PanzerCorps2/Binaries/Win64 subfolder in your game's installation folder.

Simply replace the 2 files with 'hotfix'.

Thanks for helping but I do not have a "binaries" folder in PC2 folder.
Does anybody know how to tell if the hotfix was installed?

[eddieballgame]

The complete path is;

PanzerCorps2/PanzerCorps2/Binaries/Win64

[Dmurphy238]

Not sure if it as a result of this patch or perhaps a previous one but somewhere in the process, the AI seems to have gotten more aggressive but not always in a “smart” way. Have had a number of 1 or 2 strength units commit suicide by attacking full or near full strength units. Have also had units secure (in situations where the number of my attaching units would be very limited in number, i.e., on map’s edge, etc.) and probably entrenched come out to attack me just making my job so much easier.
On a completely different topic; looking forward with a future patch of not have to re-earn my unit’s medals with every new scenario.
That said; loving the game!

[uneducated]

1) Official Patch Version Numbers
When there is an update announcement, please clearly state the full version number in the title. This is helpful when we wish to verify if our launcher has the latest patch. At the top of the post, in a prominent position, there should be a link to the download location of the update file, so that it can be saved and applied manually. One shouldn't have to already know where the download location is, or need to search for it. Please ask yourselves why you haven't been doing this already.

2) Slitherine Launchers
For various Slitherine games, the launchers don't do well at actually updating the game, (update failed or patch cannot be applied is the usual sort of error.) In this case, the launcher is version 1.01.00, and today is telling me that the game is already the latest version, but (the poorly named) patch 3 came out today, so how could the latest version already be installed? Wouldn't the launcher version be 1.03.00? Why is the launcher failing to detect a newer version?

3) Thanks for continuing development!

[Retributarr]

1) Official Patch Version Numbers
(the poorly named) patch 3 came out today, so how could the latest version already be installed? Wouldn't the launcher version be 1.03.00? Why is the launcher failing to detect a newer version?

3) Thanks for continuing development!

EXACTACALLY!!!... these above highlights of your posting "uneducated"... as well as the rest of your posting is what was on my mind as well... you have zeroed in on this confounding issue precisely on the target mark~.

[PoorOldSpike]

Yeah devs, we love you to bits, but like some guys have said it'd be a good idea to avoid confusion by telling us what version number the patches refer to when you release them.
For example you posted this on 24 April-

"We are releasing Patch 3 now, and it is a big one.
It includes many improvements to Performance, AI behaviour, Random Maps mode, Multiplayer, UI and more, as well as plenty of fixes."
viewtopic.php?f=464&t=98533

But what the heck is 'Patch 3''? I'm presuming it's version 1.1.0 but correct me if I'm wrong.
PS- I also heard there's a 'Hotfix' out, whatever that is, do we need it? Will that make the game 1.1.0b or what?

Noob note- Below is my current splash screen, the current version is in tiny letters at the bottom and yours should look the same-

[Rudankort]

Yeah devs, we love you to bits, but like some guys have said it'd be a good idea to avoid confusion by telling us what version number the patches refer to when you release them.

Point taken, I'll ask Slitherine guys to publish this info. And yes, patch 3 is 1.1.0 or 1.1.0b. The latter is the hotfix, but it has no difference in feature set, only a couple of bug fixes.

[ErissN6]

I'll ask Slitherine guys to publish this info. And yes, (newest) patch 3 is 1.1.0b

Slitherine wants so even the dumbest fan 3D Steam consumer, that Slitherine think we can't understand decimal numbers with some letters.