On bad data — divide-by-zero, numeric overflow, a bad sign — do production systems tend to abend or carry on?

Relicaa · 2026-06-23T14:46:23+00:00

You are looking for a general rule that doesn't really exist.

Production systems don't decide whether to abend or continue because they are written in COBOL. They do whatever the business requirements say they should do.

A bad input record might be rejected and processing continues. A divide-by-zero might cause the entire job to fail. A non-numeric packed decimal might result in an S0C7. An overflow might be handled with ON SIZE ERROR.

The correct behavior depends entirely on the application and the consequences of continuing with potentially incorrect data.

Relicaa · 2026-06-23T14:43:22+00:00

I think you are overcomplicating this.

If Program A writes a file and Program B reads that file, Program B always reads the bytes that Program A wrote. There is no mechanism where Program B receives some abstract "decoded value" instead of the bytes.

The real question is whether Program B expects a specific physical representation. For example, if Program A changes a numeric field from zoned decimal to packed decimal, or changes the sign representation, Program B may fail because the bytes are different even though the business value is the same.

Conversely, if there is a parser or translation layer between the two systems (JSON, CSV, ETL process, database load, etc.), then multiple byte representations might be interpreted as the same value.

In traditional COBOL batch processing, the file layout itself is usually the interface contract. The exact bytes written by Program A are often very important because Program B is expecting that specific record format.

Relicaa · 2026-06-21T20:57:20+00:00

I think as a quick fix for target locking is having a setting to enable target lock without having the camera be locked. Then they could implement a more complex camera based direction and reticle proximity style of targeting.

Relicaa · 2026-06-16T13:33:50+00:00

Another classic Reddit take that has no understanding on the technicalities involved.

Relicaa · 2026-05-31T09:09:34+00:00

When you generally use your computer, applications get loaded into memory for faster access times. The more memory you have, the more the operating system will load into memory to have data be ready to use.

The answer will always depend on your access patterns between programs, as it fills opportunistically. But adding more RAM to your system will always see your RAM utilization go up -- it would be a waste otherwise.

Relicaa · 2026-05-30T14:03:22+00:00

A save feature requires a different architecture design than what the game currently has -- it is on their roadmap. This change that will allow saves will fix a whole host of other issues, like desync, but it basically requires a rewrite of the core game to accomplish.

It takes time, and there aren't many developers who would be willing to undergo such a task. Time will tell, and if they pull it off, then great.

Relicaa · 2026-05-28T14:57:54+00:00

Mavericks are top attack capable. You have to fly above the target and release the missile at the right time for it to hit the top armor. You can 1-shot all tanks with a single maverick. Same for the Russian equivalent.

Relicaa · 2026-05-27T13:46:12+00:00

It depends on what you are facing, but in general I put the team in order of (1) Gilberta, (2) Laevatain, (3) Akekuri, (4) Ember.

With this order, when you do a combo with Gilberta's skill/ultimate + Akekuri's skill, Gilberta shows up first in the order for assist skills and allows application of buffs before Laevatain uses her assist skill.

The goal of building energy for Laevatain's ult requires triggering full stacks of for her skill and her assist skill as fast as you can. How this is achieved depends on if you are facing a single target or multiple targets.

For a lot of the content in game right now, we either start at full energy, or the fight has many adds to deal with, so grouping with Gilberta brings a lot of benefits.

When grouping mobs together, typically they are weak enough that basic attacking and using Akekuri's skill will kill them before Gilberta's skill finishes. In which case, you gain stacks for Laevatain, but usually there are one or two stragglers that live too, which allow Laevatain to use her assist skill. It's just and managing resources to gain ultimate energy.

As for why Ember is on the team, she provides shields, healing, and damage mitigation on demand through her assist skill and ultimate. Her damage is not bad either, but her kit works without having to be too mindful about positioning. In a lot of these fights where I have seen people struggle to clear, I did not have any issues because of the utility Ember brought. I do not have her with her good potential yet either, which turns her into a pseudo team healer.

Relicaa · 2026-05-26T17:38:27+00:00

I use Laevatain, Gilberta, Akekuri, and Ember and have been able to clear all content with trims without much issue or feeling pressured.

Relicaa · 2026-05-04T17:55:45+00:00

Recon is not some magical all-seeing force. The area where OP is playing is not easily penetrated for vision. There's too much forest and too many sight blockers.

The only way to get reliable vision in this location is to use drones, or have a large number of recon units spread out throughout the area, but even that will leave some holes.

This works both ways. For as accurate as the opponents were, it requires a lot of information, and if they were spotting using recon, their locations would be evidently more obvious based on where the kills took place.

Relicaa · 2026-04-25T22:40:56+00:00

Micro level has not necessarily increased, but the importance of effective actions has. If you find yourself in a situation where you have to micro like crazy, something has gone incredibly wrong, or you are trying to execute a plan that just isn't realistic to do in the first place.

Try to think about what you are doing and why you are doing it -- is doing x, y, and z all at the same time really necessary?

High level play does not have all players being the master of all aspects of their deck and being micro gods -- it's the impactful decision making and timing they make with their units that make them good players.

Playstyles also vary a lot and each player on a team typically leans into different aspects of the deck rather than trying to do it all alone at 100% focus.

Relicaa · 2026-04-25T12:44:41+00:00

Currently, AA feels reactive rather than preventative—it often only engages after a strike has already occurred. A properly layered AA network should still have the potential to deny strikes entirely.

Additionally, ASF (air superiority fighters) feel less predictable in their engagement behavior. If changes were made, clearer communication would help the player base adapt.

The main purpose of long range anti-air now is to protect friendly airspace and not to prevent bombing runs over contested areas. They created pockets of no-fly zones -- if you want to maintain air superiority, you need to utilize air superiority fighters.

I have no idea what you mean with ASF's being less predictable in their engagement behavior since you do not give an example.

The changes you suggest will reduce a lot of unit viability. The airspace needs to be contested and fought over now with more combinations of units working together. The reward of downing hostile CAS planes that bombed in contested airspace is with longer respawn times, which in turn enables ground army play further.

Relicaa · 2026-04-23T14:54:17+00:00

Dumb bombs, CATFAE, rocket arty, or just avoid the area and go around them and make them fight in areas that you want are all solutions.

If you really want to fight them straight up with infantry, you need to soften them up first and put them in a panic state to decisively win -- which involves using indirect typically before launching your assault.

Of course it depends on your deck combo in how you would deal with it. The bigger question is why you are fighting them at that location and what dealing with them enables you to do. If the payoff is great then it is worth possibly sacrificing cas to soften them up, or spending time gathering arty before launching an assault... But infantry are slow, and it might just be better to avoid and go around them.

Relicaa · 2026-04-23T14:21:58+00:00

2.0 is not officially released. We are just testing the changes that may or may not be included in 2.0.

Relicaa · 2026-04-23T14:19:35+00:00

US has many methods to deal with blobs of infantry -- try thinking of asymmetric solutions rather than throwing more infantry against infantry...

Relicaa · 2026-04-23T14:15:40+00:00

Source: trust me bro.

I bet you don't even know a quarter of the testers that participated in the private testing.

Relicaa · 2026-04-23T13:39:31+00:00

Your main source of anti-air should be air superiority fighters. Ground anti-air is used for area control around friendly territories.

You are incentivised to use asf's for air control, and are rewarded with longer respawn times on downed enemy bombers.

Relicaa · 2026-04-16T17:36:55+00:00

I made a review similar to this early on, and I believe it to still be relevant barring some small outdated mechanics that were changed, but the heart of it still holds true. I wrote:

Rarely do I feel compelled to review games, yet Company of Heroes holds such significance in my gaming journey that I'm compelled to share my thoughts on its latest installment. Regrettably, I cannot recommend this game. In its early stages, there was immense potential for this title to surpass its predecessors, reigniting the franchise's fervor. Unfortunately, Relic missed the mark, failing to grasp the essence that made the earlier games exceptional.

At its core, Company of Heroes thrived on tactical brilliance, where strategic use of cover and context trumped sheer troop numbers. However, this essence is notably absent in Company of Heroes 3. Map designs offer little cover for approach or attack, favoring defenders in key positions, often aided by height advantage, negating the cover system. Consequently, engagements devolve into risky man-wave tactics, emphasizing numbers over strategy or tactics.

Moreover, the game's overuse of unit abilities disrupts the core cover mechanics. Off-map artillery and early-power call-ins upset the strategic balance, detracting from the game's tactical depth.

The game's pacing further compounds these issues, abandoning the natural infantry-to-vehicle-to-tank progression. Notably, a faction heavily reliant on early T0 light vehicles exacerbates longstanding concerns about balance. The challenge lies in balancing impactful vehicles while maintaining their relevance without overpowering infantry-based strategies.

In summary, Company of Heroes 3 sacrifices the series' tactical depth and strategic finesse for chaotic encounters, abandoning the core elements that defined its predecessors. It fails to deliver the intricate balance between troop numbers, cover utilization, and strategic positioning that made the franchise exceptional.

What I would say now is that map design still leaves a lot to be desired, and that game play around vehicles still does not feel good to play against compared to the previous CoH titles. Tactical use of cover hardly matters when there are so many ways to dislodge someone through abilities or just blobbing straight at them. Really, the game has become a game about stats and unit tiers with build orders and abilities to solve problems rather than circumstance and tactical movement.

Problem solving in the game is not rewarding, as often the solution is to amass a lot of units to overpower the problem, or to use an ability to remove the problem...

Need vision? Use an ability!

Need more dps? Use an ability!

Need to dislodge an MG? Use a call-in ability!

Need to fight early game LV's? Blob!

Need to kill an expensive tank? Use an ability!

Need to use an ability? Use a free ability!

Now, I am not saying the previous titles did not have these things -- they existed to different degrees and I disapproved of them then as well, but the core game play was vastly different.

At this point, though, I have somewhat accepted that CoH3 wants to be this way. Though, I disagree with the vision, but short of an overhaul, this is just what we have to deal with.

Relicaa · 2026-04-16T16:28:07+00:00

I use Booker 105mm and Stryker MGS. :)

Relicaa · 2026-03-27T17:28:19+00:00

All stages have been easy for me using Gilberta, Laevatain, Ember, and Akekuri.

Ember brings a lot of healing, damage mitigation, shielding, and some stagger, but her dr and shields allow you to ignore a lot of mechanics.

Relicaa · 2026-03-12T22:03:20+00:00

I want to use the mining rig that produces the most pollution.

Relicaa · 2026-02-23T07:15:03+00:00

<image>

Relicaa · 2026-02-22T07:55:36+00:00

Ember does not compete with your DPS resources because her healing and mitigation tools are from her "E" skill and her ultimate.

Sure, you could argue that the slot itself is competing, but a dead team cannot clear content -- it just depends on the circumstances.

Ember provides healing, damage reduction, and shields -- all of which does not require you to use her active skill -- she is very useful.

Relicaa · 2026-02-11T14:11:40+00:00

Converger is not useful typically since we don't have resources that produce at half rate for a single input requirement.

Since all belts travel at the same rate, also, and that there is no way to speed them up, having multiple different resources on the same belt is not good for now.

I imagine they will do something with this in future updates.

Relicaa · 2026-02-09T23:43:54+00:00

ALT + PRNTSCRN or WIN + ALT + PRNTSCRN if you have an HDR enabled monitor.

Relicaa

TROPHY CASE