SgtHatred

Hahahaha, the idea that this place is any different from any other gaming forum is pretty funny. mil professionals indeed.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that going Hamachi-less would help your actual problem, I just always warn people about it because of its security implications. The best you can do for some of these issues is take many screenshots, or even a video of it happening, and post it periodically. That's how we finally got the floating fortifications and teleporting mines issue fixed in TCPIP mode. Also, this subforum seems more for techincal issues, I would post game bugs in the main section. It'll get more eyes.

Heh, I have the exact opposite problem. and if memory serves, it was fixed once about 5 years ago, but it returned. In turn based TCPIP, my guys will often acquire extra weapons, sometimes within a turn of starting. Maybe I could lend you some of my rifles? Anyway, it is absolutely an issue with either the way the game handles saves or does networking, and there isn't anything we can do about it. I do recommend not using Hamachi if at all possible. You only need to forward 1 port to host a combat mission game.

Bouncing and blinking contacts is a bug that was introduced in v4 of the game engine.

Sure, but that can only go so far. An organic brain can adapt to changing situations, a set of scripts and if/elses cannot. It just doesn't compare. Just gotta budget out an evening to play a multiplayer game. PBEM isn't the only option. I'd also pay full price for CM games without any campaigns or scenarios. Obviously not everyone agrees with that.

That's what the save function is for. Also, I've always been bothered by this idea I see about adults not being able to budget their time to have a night off occasionally. Not everyone is a CEO or President, you should be able to put 4 hours together somewhere if you want it.

This is pretty much true in most strategy games unfortunately. People are more comfortable going up against a script. Sounds like you've had some terrible human opponents. Also, the best way to play multiplayer is to block out an evening and play WeGo turnbased, not PBEM. No agonizing for 10-20 minutes on a turn, you gotta move quickly.

Can't really play games like Combat Mission in single player. Beating a script is not a good time.

Nice!

In this case the design decision is "prevent users from modifying software", which would include user created fixes for these problems. Anyone who has ever played a Paradox grand strategy game is aware of the concept of user created "patch" mods, because Paradox can often drag its feet for months and months on simple typos in scripts that break features.

Yet in CMBS T-90s are left without front armour since the last patch 8+ months ago. If the game was easier to mod, maybe the community could pick up on some of Battlefront's slack, and that would do more for the game's "integrity" than avoiding silly mods. Maybe we could get the Porsche Kingtiger back in CMBN, 32 months after it disappeared, or correct some of the very silly point values in quickbattle. Combat Mission has more to worry about than its "soul".

Ha, I saw the patch notes being the last response and thought, "new patch, they fixed it!", but now I see the context. Silly of me to expect such a serious but simple issue could be resolved in 8 months...

Spinning disk drives for your operating system are obsolete, you might as well be using floppy drives. Time to upgrade to SSDs.

It is frustrating. Battlefront is a small company but it seems to have the agility of a developer 100x its size. It can be pretty slow to respond.

Agility is just not something Battlefront has. Bug fixes seem to require at least a year, and it is getting worse. I suspect that they are leaning more into the Professional arm of the business these days.

Hopefully a fix for the T-90 issue can be snuck into this schedule. Not having front hull armour for T-90s significantly reduces choice in multiplayer and breaks a whole bunch of scenarios.

Scaling has been part of Windows since at least XP, and part of Microsoft's application design guidelines since that time. Battlefront is hardly the first developer to lazily ignore those guidelines, and Windows has always been very permissive letting poorly designed software run.

The T-72B3M is not in the game.

It's called Combat Mission, not Finance Mission.

Obviously Combat Mission is not the kind of game where point values for units would be related to real life costs in any way. Games like this usually use something like a Battle Value or some other arbitrary point system to compare 2 units for fairness within the game, and Combat Mission is no exception. Wanting real life costs to factor into this point cost seems extremely foolish and out of scope.

The same way people can deny that a thing happened, while also bragging about that same thing happening. People are ****ing idiots.

Yeah, I can confirm that the T-90AM has the same problem (on the Steam version anyway), and that even small arms can penetrate the front of these tanks. Hopefully this can be fixed somewhat quickly, because a tank that lacks front hull armour isn't super useful.

The T-90A front armour seems to have a bug. Any weapon can penetrate the glacis on the front of the tank, with the modifier "Hit:Opening" appearing. The lower front hull does not appear to be effected. It's the Steam version, if that makes any difference. Video evidence below. You can see the front hull of the T-90A being penetrated through the front armour and the kontakt-5 with the BMP-2's cannon, the KPVT on the BRDM-2, and the 73mm grom off the BRM-1k. Pretty sure this should not happen, especially since it pops up "Hit:Opening" when it occurs.

Not enough T-80s though.

The technical parts of that interview were very painful to listen to. Windows has been running on ARM chips for a decade, but you are unlikely to see them go mainstream anytime soon. CM does in fact run in some virtual environments and no, the 15 year old OpenGL implementation is very unlikely to be the reason why it would not run in others. CM2x is not hardware intensive to run, which is why you won't see a performance improvement from a 2014 era to a 2022 era enthusiast grade PC. CM2x just isn't very efficient and can't use all the resources it has available to it. The interviewer explaining how he discovered power states on laptops was pretty funny.