Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. sburke, most what I´d state here is based on my own observations and related conclusions, no matter if they´re actually true from a coding and game engine POV (how could I know for sure anyway) . While it´s nice to see issues transported back and forth between beta testers to BFC and back again to public, I´d rather prefer "unfiltered" direct responses from developers themselves. Just for clarity! To me it oftenly seems you beta testers aren´t told certain necessary datails as well, so many your public responses more often than not, leave many questions still open. At least to me. I was beta tester for a number of wargame companies as well, so I know that you need to apply to NDS (non disclosure agreements). Maybe it´s just cause of that? With regard to "support".... well I´d reported a number of issues the past couple of years, but more often than not (again) I feeled a bit....not taken serious maybe. That "feel" still prevails ATM. So if it´s just me reporting a particular issue and only response I see is "oh...we don´t see any...so no need to tell BFC", how much serious and beeing supported as customer do I feel then in consequence? Have a look at (and take serious) this and we´ll see further. If it´s not worth to spend an hour looking into it, why then should I keep working tens of hours on missions that are broken from exactly this issue? Even if no actual "bug" is to be found, it still helps me figuring out what´s probably wrong with my OS or hardware maybe. (see my sig for details). ATM my finger is very very close to the "delete all BFC stuff from HD" button to free space for more usefull things. So here again (3rd or 4th time) my latest and most serious issue ATM. Thanks!
  3. definitely yes. Think history has never seen such a terrible case where such an average guy who feeled "underrated" finding his destination in speech and drama, making him destined to become the most disastrous nation leader in history. If he´d be sent sent to an acting school, instead of that nationalist meeting for spying out, history could´ve been different as well. But on his paintings.... he´s surely way way better than me, so he must´ve been good at it sort of.
  4. Today
  5. Should have stuck with painting postcards. Michael
  6. Just out of curiosity, I loaded the Roadblock scenario to test in 3.12, 4.0, 4.01, and 4.02. In each case, I selected 1st Squad and "Quick" moved it up to the tile to the left of the gap in the hedgerow, as @domfluff suggested to replicate the problem. I did this 6 times in each version. In every case they came under fire (MGs, small arms, and usually off-map mortars) and took casualties. I ran each scenario until the squad evaded, until its members were all casualties, or until the scenario ended. 3.12: Once they stayed for the entire game. In the other 5 cases they evaded (either Fast or Slow) away from the hedgerow, back into the friendly field. 4.0: Once they stayed put for the entire game. The other 5 times they Fast or Slow moved back from the hedgerow. So exactly the same as in 3.12. 4.01: 4 times they never fled (even with only 2 members left in one case). The other 2 times they evaded forward through the hedgerow gap, and then to the right along the hedgerow to the corner. 4.02: 5 times they never fled (in one case they were wiped out entirely). The other 1 time they evaded forward through the hedgerow and then right to the corner, like in 4.01. This is obviously a small sample size and not nearly as comprehensive as what the beta testers and some others have done. I did it mostly to satisfy my own curiosity and my suspicion that my system is not generating this issue as much as some people's are. It seems for some people, this happens almsot every time in 4.01. For me, it was only 2 out of 6 times. 4.02 helped, but didn't eliminate it (1 out of 6 times). It does not seem to happen at all in either 3.12 or 4.0. But what's really interesting is that in 4.01 and 4.02 the squad NEVER evaded BACKWARD, which would seem like the most logical choice. If they moved, they only moved forward. It was only in 3.12 and 4.0 that they would ever flee backward. (Random odd fact I noticed: in 3.12, the squad leader's name is always "Lewis." In 4.0 and later, it's always "Melvin.")
  7. I don’t think anywhere I suggested just throwing one’s hands into the air. I also don’t think anyone has linked it to pre 4.0 if you have a suggestion that is the case then definitely you need to provide a save. To suggest that the one person who has access to debugging focus on this issue assumes that that is actually their priority and that is frankly not well founded. I personally have not felt this to be game breaking and I am playing across multiple titles including a pbem in CMBN. I think you are assuming from your own viewpoint what should be BF’s priorities and not looking from their viewpoint. As to the baked suggestion, that is just a thought, not anything based in actual testing. It was purely an example that this could be unrelated to what folks have suggested as the issue. Software is complicated , which means thorough testing and validation. I wasn’t suggesting it doesn’t mean fixing, just that the timeline for fixing and the prioritization has to be taken into account. Edit. Your point about bridges is a perfect example. BF has addressed that multiple times and yet yes it still exists to the point I still avoid bridges on my maps. I don’t think it is so much an issue that BF hasn’t looked at but something really basic in the code simply doesn’t like them.
  8. I don't think we should just throw our hands up here and say "oh well, software's complicated, so what are you gonna do?" I feel like that's what happened with the tanks humping bridges bug, primarily because of some of the more vocal forum members here, and all that's gotten us -- the community of players -- is a bug that still exists. Do we know for certain whether this "fleeing toward the enemy" bug appeared in CMx2 version 3? My understanding is that it did not. Has anyone -- beta testers, Charles, or whoever -- reverted their game to a version prior to 4.0 and then set up situations similar to the save games that have been submitted and confirmed to be broken? It seems like that would be a good thing to know for certain. Only Charles knows the relevant AI code that was touched between versions 3 and 4. I feel like sufficient evidence of a significant issue has already been presented (via save games, images, etc.) from multiple forum members. Unfortunately though, yes, it's across multiple threads on multiple forums. And even if the problem relates to something "baked into" only some of the maps, as you say, there is still a solution that exists that can be rectified by modifying the code. (Again, it worked before, right?) There are only 1 or 2 people who have access to the software and debugging tools needed to analyze, isolate and resolve this issue, and to be honest (but hopefully not too harsh), those people should have been all over this, by their own initiative, as soon as the problem was first confirmed.
  9. I've been micro-managing AI & user controlled troops in CM:SF2 non-stop all week, possibly longer, sure feels like it.....Not so much as a hint of a problem, even with small, inexperienced, poorly led units (they are just as dumb as they should be).
  10. Likely June 2006. Duh you just said that I blame the wine ........ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ramadi_(2006)
  11. Will do....assuming that after I finish this bottle of wine I remember to do this at all. 🍷 kidding, but I did just get in from Japan this morning so it will likely be a day. ...or so.
  12. Just to confirm the version number of my CMBN game save submissions to the testers:
  13. Another map is done, 'Bien Dong Co Plain', the 'Sea of Grass': About as close to 'tank country' as Bong-Hai gets.
  14. That could work. If it doesn't try downloading the all in one installer for 4.0 - that will certainly fix it.
  15. Edit, let me rewrite Your quoted bold line seems to now agree that patch .brz data remains, which is the main point of my posts. But what do you mean "unaccessed"? The extra brz is there and alphabetically gets priority over the other data. In case that leftover brz contains a "strings.txt" file then the game will be unplayable as such**. It will be mandatory to manually remove that brz file. The CMRT and CMBN examples that I illustrated earlier have exactly this "strings.txt" conflict. **though the main menu will still look fine, the quick battle setup screen for example will be unusable since all words (strings) are out of place there.
  16. Cool.....Ramadi is kind of popular hereabouts. Doubt that was the sentiment for the artwork model though.
  17. @sburke Please could you check the various artillery you receive against what's stated in the briefings too. I also seem to vaguely recall one briefing didn't seem to match the map and situation very well either (as if the wrong one had been imported), but I've no idea which, it was a long time back.
  18. When the game is open what version is displayed in the bottom right of the splash screen. That is the version that the game is running on....regardless of the brz files in the Data folder. When you re-install an older version on top of a newer version the exe file (for Windows) is brought back to the earlier exe file and that is what is running the game. A good example of that is the most recent patch. There aren't any new brz files. Just a new exe file. The extra brz essentially functions as an unaccessed mod file.
  19. So a while ago I made this post in the CM: Afghanistan forum showing that the cover art from that game was based off of a picture of a US Marine being barely missed by enemy fire. Well, a friend of mine linked me a post on reddit that has the SAW gunner that the CM: Shock Force cover art was based on. Apparently it is a picture of a 1st Armored Division soldier in Ramadi, Iraq sometime in 2006. Here is the original picture and the cover art side-by-side.
  20. Not yet but I’m likely to take a look now. I agree it sucks when you start in a cross fire unless that is the intent of the scenario and you are prewarned. There are a couple really good scenarios with the premise. Charge of the Stryker brigade sounds like that might be an intent, but maybe not the best way to do it. It could also be there are multiple AI plans that are crossing in an inopportune way with the reinforcement schedule. Just a guess
  21. I am not sure I understand the logic flow here. Previously you commented on the fact that the TAC AI in CM is really complicated to the point you surely wouldn’t want to do it. Then you suggest BF could easily answer questions relative to the TAC AI. Which is it? what exactly would you have them answer that would change your mindset about “supporting them”? I can tell you now as a beta tester I submit behavior to BF that “looks” wrong with as much hard data (saves and the like) as I can get. Charles then looks at it and builds a patch and says have at it. I do not expect more than that as frankly I wouldn’t understand it. I can only test and see if it seems to have worked. Testing AI is a pain in the butt as you also have to consider unintended consequences which is one reason BF is so slow to address these. As it is none of this has stopped me from playing and dabbling in design. I am honestly pretty tired haranguing folks to stop just harping on behavior to provide saves and not just comment and yet 90% of these threads are completely useless to helping isolate what might be going on. People point to one item, assume that is it and then assume because they guessed at it presto BF should fix it. I am still on the fence on this particular issue simply because something about it seems very specific but it hasn’t been nailed down yet. For example if it turns out it is specific to something baked into a map, which maps? I expect this one is going to be around a bit yet. Nature of software. In a game this complicated if you assume you will get easy fixes and easy answers you are doomed to be disappointed. Yeah it sucks, but as someone who troubleshoots software issues a lot, it is how it works. (And the software I troubleshoot isn’t even this complicated).
  22. Yesterday
  23. It will very likely be totally fine. Follow the official proceedure of watching playback with the old version, saving during command phase, shutting down and installing, then loading the save before completing the turn.
  24. Ok, I've been able to duplicate this and posted on the beta forums to have someone (or two or three) double check me. Also a couple thoughts on the specific situations that are happening (I'll hold that for now until I'm sure or someone confirms what I think I'm seeing).
  25. Good point. For BN, in the bottom right corner of the menu screen, you should see "v4.02, Game Engine 4"
  26. People should note that this patch does NOT (as some recent updates do) automatically find your installation location. It installs to the default location (which some players don't use). If you're seeing apparently un-fixed behavior, make sure that you've actually patched the installation you're playing.
  27. Me too.....A couple of my pet formations got upgraded to BMP-3Ms because it looks so nasty in game.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...