smbecket

I like a lot of the OP's suggestions and I give a plus 10 to the water ideas. Aside from those I would love to see round building add on features: grain silos (were there round grain silos in France?), round towers for a chateau or castle, oil tanks, etc., etc.

OK, OK, I understand that I am the one that everyone loves to hate right now. I can bear the burden. But I will reply to Oddball E8's comment that "It implies that you do not think that they care because they have not fixed this issue within the 10 days that the module has been out." Those are your words, not mine, and they are not accurate; just as there was no "hysteria" in my post or "requests for daily updates", there was no expectation of an immediate fix. My main concern was that BFC was not aware of the problem. My first thread had 160 views but only one response that was not on the mark. I assumed that there must have been some BFC staff or beta testers that saw it but, if so, no one bothered to post an acknowledgement. Communication, after all, is a two way street. After my first thread slipped into oblivion on the second page of my browser and knowing that assuming anything can be a recipe for disaster I decided that a new thread was required to insure BFC was aware of the problem. Steve, I knew very well that once you knew the issue existed it would be resolved in due course. My irritation got the better of me in the title but this was a very important issue for me. I have been working on my two maps since CMBN was released. And to suddenly find that almost 40 of the bridges on my river map were unplayable was upsetting. EZ's video was exactly what I witnessed when I tested a half dozen of my bridges; no matter how big the gap the tanks would get on the bridge but they could not get off! OK, enough said...as he slinks off into the shadows.

I, too, have been paying attention the past 12 years and I know BFC will fix any issues as fast as time and resources permit. That is why I began this thread after my first thread did not seem to get any notice. The problem, in my estimation, was a serious one and after the first thread slipped to page two I wanted to highlight it more dramatically. I used a title I believed was sure to get attention. If that offended anyone no apologies offered; the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I did not state the BFC turns out "buggy products", and as far as "hysteria" is concerned I was not hysterical when I wrote the first thread or when I began this one. I will admit I was somewhat upset/irritated that I did not receive any acknowledgement that the problem had been noted. A simple "the problem is recognized and is under review" would have made me a happy camper. Now I am! And I do not expect "daily updates" or any updates at all. Now that BFC is on the case it will be resolved in due time. ASL Veteran's observation that putting a plain grass tile at each end of the bridge hopefully is a clue. Also, the fact that it does not appear to affect the narrow stone bridges may be of some importance. I will continue to work on my 4x4 km river map, improving it with the new paths and ditch lock features until this problem is resolved. I will reiterate the plea from my first thread: BFC, if you release any packs for CMBN please, please consider including some 100 - 300 meter road/RR bridges! The monster MG bridges are great for MG but are not very appropriate in the context of a rural setting in France.

See the thread "BFC, Do You Care" which addresses the bridge problems.

On 10/16/2013 I started a thread titled "More MG Bridge Issues". In it I explained what I considered to be a new, and very serious problem with the Map Editor in MG, that all bridges on previous maps had been ruined. I included pictures of the change between the original bridges and how they were after MG was installed. There were 260 views of that thread but only one response. I found it very difficult to believe that someone from BFC and/or one of the Beta Testers had not been among that 260 but the problem obviously did not elicit enough interest for a response or an acknowledgement that there was a problem. I continued to research the problem: my friend that I play the game with checked his map files and the same problem was evident. I checked the Scenarios in CMBN and found one called "CW-Through the Loop" that had several bridges. They also had the same problem, to the point where I believe that scenario would no longer be playable as intended. I made a test map and built some new bridges to see if the problem only existed for old, pre-MG, maps. The issue exists in the new bridges. See pictures below: , , , , I assume that every scenario that has bridges will be compromised. The only bridges that I found that were not screwed up were ones that were very low and close to the water or where a substantial part of the bridge structure was on land. This apparently buried the downward curve under the bridge. It appears that Steve's statement that "As with any new feature (and these bridges required a lot of new code)..." is the key. Apparently the new code introduced a change that causes the land where the bridge would connect to curve down regardless of its set elevation. On the picture of the test bridges all the elevations are the same along the points where the bridges join the land but there is a steep curve in the center AS that prevents a connection with the bridge. One anomaly that arose is on the Test Bridges photo: the stone bridge (last one at the top) has no problem. The connection is normal. I do not know why. Can anyone else confirm that they see the same issue with maps they have designed or in scenarios with bridges? I only checked a few scenarios. I would really like to hear from BFC as to whether this is recognized as a problem and whether a fix is possible. I spent hundreds of hours creating my 4x4 km river map; it has over 40 water/land bridges and I am not enthralled at the prospect of spending dozens more changing all the bridges if this problem can not be fixed. I would be ecstatic if someone could point out a simple fix or that I had just screwed up some how!

Kensal, thanks for your reply. I do not believe the "anchoring" can be the problem as these are the small bridges not the monster ones added in MG. But to be sure I made sure there was equal elevation all around each end of my RR bridge and it made no difference. A 2x2 base as mentioned in the manual really doesn't work for the small bridges because the base fits on one AS.

I noticed a problem with bridges when I loaded my 4x4 km map in the editor. I wanted to change out a RR bridge for one of the new, longer bridges (impossible, of course, they are way, way too long and massive). To put it bluntly, all of the junctures between the RR/road and the bridge are screwed up; they no longer meet smoothly. See below: , , , , . I have a bunch more pictures but I am only allowed to post five. In the editor I can see that the elevations where the bridge and the land meet have not changed but the road/RR just sinks down. The adjacent land elevations remain as they should be. This is true in all my maps in the editor, including my 4x4 river map which has over 40 land/water bridges. I thought it might only affect old maps made prior to MG but the same problem occurred when I built a small new map with several bridges. Then I wondered if an outdated video driver might be the culprit but, again, updating to the latest driver had no affect (nVidia 680 GTX). It does not affect a game in progress because my friend sent a turn in a game using the same map that has been ongoing for months. The turn loaded fine and the bridges are OK. Out of curiosity I then created a small scenario with a platoon of German tanks to see if they could negotiate the bridges. Without exception, on the six bridges I used, the tanks could drive on the bridges. They would nose down and then pop up on the bridge and drive across. However, when they reached the end they would start to nose down and then teleport (literally) back a couple of meters and drive forward again. They would repeat this until the turn ended without getting off the bridge. After working on the RR bridge in the editor for quite a while I discovered that if you extend the land out so that half of the first arch/section of the bridge is on land the junction looks normal. The downward curve is hidden by the bridge. But that is not a good solution. In some cases with short land bridges it would restrict movement under the bridge. And trying to correct my river map with over 40 bridges would be a nightmare. BFC, please fix this!! And BFC, when you make a "Pack" for CMBN do not just restrict yourselves to units, please, please include some intermediate size bridges: 125 - 150 and 250 - 300 meters would be hugely appreciated and very useful for normal scenarios. Even better would be if the bridges could be linked end to end to whatever length the map maker desired without the necessity of an island. The MG bridges are great for simulating that historical situation but are too large, IMHO, for much use on even a 4x4 km map.

For Womble: the Panther stopped immediately upon spotting the M5A1 or because it had reached the end of its hunt command. I knew where the M5A1 was located so I had plotted the hunt command to a point where the enemy would be visible. BFC, please provide more info on the effect of destroyed optics on German tanks.

I believed that if a tanks optics were fully destroyed (red) that its accuracy would be drastically reduced. In my present game one of my Panthers in this situation (PzVA{Mid}) made a first round kill on an M5A1(Late) through its frontal aspect at 461 meters. The Panther was moving with a hunt command, the M5A1 was stationary. Is this unusual?

Martyr, no that is not possible. I have a save game from immediately before I clicked on the button to process the turn. I have reviewed that save and all the movement paths are there. Interestingly, my friend told me last night that none of his units moved either. I guess I will have to post this on the tech support forum and hope BFC can figure out what is wrong.

I had another occurrence of a problem I had about a year ago, the majority of my units did not move during a turn. This was the second incident in this game and I consider it a critical problem. As background my friend and I are playing on a detailed 4x4 km map with appx. 1.5 BNs each (20,000 pts). The first time was about turn 45 and it is now turn 51. The first time I lost a Panther that stopped broadside to a T-10. This time there was no loss that I can attribute to the problem except the loss of the ground the units would have covered if they had moved according to their plotted paths. And I had a lot of units moving, some were reinforcements rushing to the front and others were at the front and were making risky dashes to positions from which they could observe enemy positions/movement. Some units were moving on roads and some cross country. The units close to the action were primarily in a small city. I started a thread about the problem the first time it happened last year. That was on a smaller map with less points per side. Phil posted in that thread but nothing was ever resolved as to what could have caused the stoppage. I thought It might be my machine but last year I had a different one. My present computer is an Intel i7 3770k with 32 GB of Corsair RAM. CMBN is installed/runs on a 20 GB RAM Drive. I have never seen anyone else post about a problem like this and I am clueless as to what could be causing it. To give more detail about one third of the units completed part of their movement, perhaps 10 to 20 seconds, and then stopped. The majority moved a couple of meters or not at all. One HT moved for a little over 30 seconds on a hard surfaced road. These were tanks and HTs as well as infantry. The majority were out of LoS of any enemy units. Units that had designated targets did fire the entire turn. I have a save game just prior to hitting the button to process the turn. File size is a little over 109 MB. I could put the save and the actual game turn I received from my friend in my Dropbox Public folder if anyone wants to take a look. An interesting point is that when I told my friend about the problem he said he noticed that the file size when he finished his turn was in the 90 plus MBs and he wondered why it had dropped so low. It appears that the game engine had already accounted for my units not moving. I would be happy as heck if someone could point out some mistake I am making that would solve this!

Womble, thanks for your explanation. Obviously this was a design decision and perhaps the only way BFC could do it programming wise but it is not very convenient for the player. I like to split off the AT team first and have them trail the rest of the squad for safety or to send them off to an ambush site. I keep the rest of the squad together for ease of movement until the situation warrants splitting them up. Now that I know what is happening I can work around it but I hope eventually BFC can fix it.

Erwin, please expand your response.

I have been having an interesting problem in my present game that I have never seen reported. When I separate a squad into teams the AT team has an infantry symbol and one of the infantry teams has the AT symbol. This is with the 11 man Motorized PzGrenadier infantry with the PzSchreck. It is not a game breaker by any means but it is confusing when you have a lot of teams running around. Has anyone else ever seen this?

ASL Veteran: IMHO you are taking too narrow a view of the game. Not everyone plays it the same way. I play exclusively with an old Army friend by email. Currently with CMBN. I build the maps we use and develop a different "Scenario" for each game. Sometimes we battle over the same objectives; sometimes we have different objectives. Regardless, we each have the same number of points to build our force. We pass the scenario file back and forth as we each secretly select our troops. Unfortunately, since the Scenario Editor does not list the point values we have to enter the QB menu, setting up a bogus battle each time, and select our units there. Each and every parameter and change in a units status must be written down so we can re-create it in the Scenario Editor. It is an unmitigated agony. The CMBN Scenario Editor and the QB Editor do not list the units in the same fashion; some BNs are under the Armored Inf.(Mech. Inf) in one editor and under Armor in the other. Far worse, however, is the fact that not all the TO&Es are exactly the same from one to the other. Case in point: in the QB Editor the American Armored Inf. BN HQ CO. does not have an Assault Gun Plt. nor does it have any vehicles in the Recon., MG, or Medium Mortar Plt. It used to have them but not now. Further, the number of Recon. Teams are different. There are many other anomalies but I will not bore you by reciting them all even if I could remember them. It is extremely frustrating to try to build a large force other these conditions! Especially when we were building a 20 k point force per side for a game we just started. So let me give a resounding +10 to the idea of having the points listed under the Scenario Editor. I have been meaning to plead for this for the past year but just never got around to it.

JonS: How were the German radio nets organized? Were there Co. nets and a BN net, all on different frequencies; in other words did the Co. Cdr.'s have two radios? That would make a big difference as far as trying to use someone from a different Co. but shouldn't matter if they were from the same Co.

AKD: I must respectfully disagree; not so much overstated as badly stated. Let me comment in more detail. The German forces have far fewer radios and must, therefore, use them with maximum efficiency. Each Co. has 81 mm mortars and the BN has 120 mm mortars. These weapons can be critical to the success or failure of the BN's operations on either attack or defense. If the fortunes of war/military necessity remove a Co.'s mortar Plt HQ from the scene neither the Co. Cdr. or the BN Cdr. are going to allow this loss to result in the mortar section sitting in place and twiddling their thumbs. In my situation the 3rd Co. mortar Plt HQ was on detached duty and the mortars could not fire. Since the 3rd Co. was in reserve at the time the Co. Cdr. sent his 3rd Inf. Plt. HQ to act as the relay for the mortars. Likewise, the 2nd Co. mortar Plt. HQ was on detached service and the BN Cdr. sent the 4th Co. HQ to act as relay. Each was at the mortar section location but neither could act as the relay. That, to me, is nonsensical. These are HQ units from the BN with radios on the BN frequency. You, the player, are acting as the BN and Co. Cdr.s and if you order this action it should be carried out. Not to mention that something very similar would be carried out IRL. The mortars would not be left "Out of Contact"! Please excuse if I sound preachy. On the matter of the Aufklarung mortar section. They have 2 250/7s and 1 250/1. None of them have radios. But they are firing. Where do you live now? We are in the process of buying a new house in Canton, GA, and will be moving late this year.

JonS: well, I finally got my 3rd Co. Mortar Plt. Ldr. back close to the mortar section and the C2 link was established. It was amusing because on my last replay turn he drove close to the mortars when the movement ended; close enough for visual contact. When I checked some of the spotters the mortars were in contact and ready to fire. I also finally realized why the mortars with the initial forces had been able to fire the entire game - the BN Cdr. is in a cathedral tower right above the mortar section. I do not know why that did not jump out at me a long time ago. One of the command group is just shouting corrections down to the mortar crew. I still believe the inability of one of the rifle plt. HQs and the 4th Co. HQ to relay fire missions when they were adjacent to the mortar sections is a major flaw. Military units are adept at improvising on the fly and no BN Cdr. would tolerate having a major asset sitting there and not being able to fire. While it was great to find out what was going on with the PzG BN mortars it does not explain why the Aufklarung mortar section can fire. They drove to their firing location in a walled farm compound where they set up. They have no radio and they have not had any HQ unit from their or any other BN with them. Vanir Aufs B: Thanks for the link. I remember reading that post a long while back. Very good info. I printed it this time.

JonS: Yes, I understand the problem with different radio nets. That is precisely why my current game situation is so illogical. The HQ units from the Aufklarung BN can call in fire from the PzG BN 81/120 mortars and do not even experience a time increase in the fire mission. But an Inf. Plt HQ from the same Co. as one of my "Out of Contact" mortar sections can not act as a relay for the section when directly adjacent. That does not make sense, at least to me.

JonS: some of what you said is logical. The 1st Co. mortar section was next to the BN Cdr. for a turn or two as the game started. But there were no spotters in position at this time as all units were moving forward. The Aufklarung mortar section, however, was in its tracks and moved about a Km before deploying in a farm compound with no other unit anywhere near. It is firing fine. I will bring the 2nd Co.'s 4th Plt HQ unit back to its mortar section and see if that provides C2. I find it difficult to believe, however, that any radio equipped unit in a PZG infantry BN would not be capable/allowed to act as a relay for fire missions for critical assets such as these. That would be part of normal training for any tactical unit, especially the Germans, who had far fewer radios. If the game does not reflect this it is, IMHO, not reflecting the importance of having these mortars readily on call when needed. Edit: One fact I forgot to mention is that all HQs, whether from the PzG BN, the Aufklarung BN or the Tank BN can call fire missions in to any of the 81 mm mortars, the 120 mm mortars or the 105 mm arty. They are not restricted to their own BN assets.

In my current game I have a Panzergrenadier BN (motorized). Each Co. has a mortar section with 2 81mm mortars. They do not have radios. The 1st Co. mortar section was on the map at game start as was a mortar section from the Aufklarung BN. The 1st Co. mortar section was deployed at game start while the Aufklarung section moved to a setup location. Both of them have been in contact with all the BN spotters and the FO since the beginning of the game and have been firing missions with no problem. The 2nd and 3rd mortar sections arrived as reinforcements; both were set up when they arrived. They could not fire as all BN spotters and the FO listed them as "Out of Contact". I moved them to new locations closer the front and set them up again and the response was the same: "Out of Contact". Finally, I moved two HQ's with radios to the mortar sections locations; the 3rd Plt HQ to the 3rd Co. mortar section and the 4th Co. HQ to the 2nd Co. mortar section. These HQ's have contact to the respective mortar section but none of the other spotters do; still "Out of Contact". Why? This has never happened in any of my games before. None of the mortar sections have radios but two can fire and two can not. Surely the HQ's with radios that are now adjacent to the sections should be able to relay to the spotters. If anyone has experienced this before or has any input it would be greatly appreciated. Especially BFC if you see this post. The enemy is advancing and I am lacking half of my mortar strength and the majority of the rounds!

Phil, I stand corrected. CMBN-CW by itself will load the map/force structure I listed in my OP. It does not need the 4GB patch. I must assume BFC set the LAA flag itself which makes it much easier and safer for everyone. Hopefully that will allow the game to actually run with a large map and reinforced BN force structure, as I said, when the bullets start to fly. Only time will tell.

I just ran the 4GB patch on the CMBN-CW executable and it worked! I then took my largest map, 3.2x3.0 km, and added a full armored infantry BN and two tank companies to each side. The game started without any problem. That is not to say that it will not lock up with that size force once the bullets started to fly but before when I loaded just a tank BN on each side the game would not load at all. Locked up almost immediately with an out of memory problem. I believe the large map/large force fans will be very pleased! Edit: I forgot to say: Well done BFC!!

hoolaman, thanks for your post. I try to visit the forum daily but I had never heard of that bug about units peeking over cliffs/crests. Or the one about HTs moving over rubbled walls, for that matter. I guess I need to try to visit even more often. Or perhaps a lot of these types of posts are in the tech support forum. I will have to start reviewing them, as well.

My bad. Password for the Dropbox public folder is the same as the one for Photobucket, fredderf.