Preparation of direct fire with mortar

[c3k]

Well, this thread is the first that I've seen or heard of this particular issue. Sad emotional states or not, I do not recall seeing this before. By "this" I mean the manner in which mortars only have to range in once, despite moving or engaging targets at disparate ranges and/or azimuths.

Now, there may be OTHER bugs (or disagreements in how mortars should work, which is not quite the same as a bug), but THIS one has been reported to BF.C. In fact, if you scroll up to post #14, of September 12th, you'll see that I stated it was reported. I'm not sure what the rest was about.

How to get a bug reported (at least, by me):

To get an issue looked at, then reported officially, following a few pointers will help. Focus on the facts. Couple your facts with your opinion (or basis) for why it's not portrayed in-game correctly. Cite something, show a picture. An in-game screenshot is worth, oh, a thousand words. A savegame is worth more. The two together are gold.

In this particular issue, check upstream; I asked for a copy of the savegame. I was told that it was easy and just do it myself. Um, if _you_ have already done a test, wouldn't it be nice to share that work? (In this case, the need for me to create a test scenario, then run it sufficiently to see the error, caused a delay of several days.) If you've stumbled upon a one-in-a-thousand occurrance, your savegame is precious. Sometimes it's not available. Shrug.

So, after it is seen and replicated, it can be reported to BF.C who then apply their pixie dust to it and make it all better. (There is a limited supply of pixie dust, so some issues are put on the "fix it later" list in deference to more important issues.)

I hope that doesn't sound too shrill. The goal is to fix any problem. If you see something, the manner in which it is brought up is key to getting it looked at and, hopefully, fixed.

Personally, I'd like to thank those who found this ranging error.

Ken (NOT an employee, spokesman, or family member of BF.C, just a volunteer beta tester.)

[Northman]

It's been mentioned before multiple times, both here and at other forums.

[LongLeftFlank]

Great post C3K!

Politeness costs nothing, as the old lady said when she bowed to the devil in church, and besides, you never know.

[sburke]

It's been mentioned before multiple times, both here and at other forums.

This is not specifically directed to you Northman, but I wanted to respond in general about the above and some other posts on this thread.

Other forums don't really count. For anything to get looked at you need to have it go to BF and there is no guarantee anyone you need to get it to is reading any others. I know I don't.

Secondly mentioning it has almost no bearing. Keep in mind BFs recent announcements and try to imagine their work load - they have very little time to read the forum, wonder about some of the things posted and find the time to look at them. What you really need is to engage a beta tester and honestly even as a noobie I don't take that much interest if the folks reporting it don't bother to provide a save or some specifics to look at. C3k has repeatedly stepped in recently to do just that for folks and I don't exactly see anyone lining up to say "thanks bro".

I had requested for example a while back from another person who'd posted an issue an example of a save, they said they had it, I pm'd them and have gotten no reply. I have had to chalk that one up as something not worth pursuing. We volunteers would like time to play the game as well and are not here to just chase down every suggestion someone comes up with that something might be in error.

As to Killkess's statement about 'fanboys", again briefly mentioning an item in another thread with no real data and then blaming the response of "fanboys" buys you no interest from the folks who you are trying to get to look at it. Put together a succinct statement on the issue in question with a save that demonstrates the behavior however and you are far more likely to have someone look at it ands post it to BF.

We are in essence all beta testers. To expect however to say "hey I saw something I don't think is right" with no supporting data and then get worked up because no one seems to agree or follow up is basically blaming others for not taking the time to show what you mean. If you aren't willing to take the time to show what it is you are seeing as an issue what makes you think anyone else is going to?

And just to repeat - when I see folks throwing the term fanboy, the odds I am going to spend even one second of my time is just about nil. You want me to work for free for ya then show at least a modicum of respect. Otherwise you are on your own and can rant until hell freezes over before I am gonna take my time away from the game to look at your issue and try to post a trouble on it.

[Childress]

So what's the verdict, gentlemen? Wait for the patch or 'keep moving, nothing (much) to see here'?

[eltorrente]

So what's the verdict, gentlemen? Wait for the patch or 'keep moving, nothing (much) to see here'?

Well what else is there to do? You can just stop playing and wait for a patch, or keep playing like we have been for years and wait for the patch.

I'll keep playing like I always have been. If I'm setting up troops in view of a mortar, then I expect to get blasted - patch or not. There's some wackiness going on, making them even more effective, but it's been like that for a long time, so nothing new here.

[sburke]

As of post 14 c3k had reported it. The process now is to wait and see what BF thinks. I don't think there is much question at least within this thread of it appearing barfed. What BF will think or whether it will make it in next patch or have to wait for a following one or upgrade release etc etc no idea. I expect BF is really busy what with them having at least two games they have said they have in the pipeline (Bagration and CMSF2) and a module for CMBN coming. It may take a bit. I expect that is true in general for requests, issues etc.

[c3k]

Not throwing gas on a fire, but just to explain the inner workings more fully, let me expand on my earlier comments.

BF.C has asked us to work as beta testers. That is pretty cool. Part of the deal is that we cannot disclose anything we see which isn't in the public purview. So, I won't make any statements regarding the status of this reported bugs. (However, true bugs, reported with savegames and screenshots which SHOW what is clearly a bug, do seem to get resolved more rapidly than other issues.)

As far as this issue showing in other forums, as stated above, other forums simply don't matter.

As a beta tester, I'm a volunteer. I've only got so much extra time in my day. If I have to spend it re-creating someone else's work, then I don't have time to spend playing, chasing other bugs, or doing something else worthwhile. I make value judgments on which bugs I'll try to grab off the forum. (And I spend every minute of every game I play searching for bugs. The vast majority of bugs I report are those I've found myself. (And I still think these are great games.))

So, given some time in my day devoted to CMxx, I have to choose whether I drop what I'm doing to pursue something in a thread, or to continue on my own path. It's a value judgment.

Ken

[sburke]

PS - Thank Ken for taking the time to sort through some of this and get it reported. As a fellow player I do appreciate it.

[Killkess]

U guys took me wrong as so far as i am realy thankfull for anybody helping to make things better with CM2. On the other hand we had plenty of discussions which went nuts because some people tended to "defend" even the most "questionable" lets call it features. I dont know if these were the beta-testers or not. I am also not interested if they were or not.

[sburke]

U guys took me wrong as so far as i am realy thankfull for anybody helping to make things better with CM2. On the other hand we had plenty of discussions which went nuts because some people tended to "defend" even the most "questionable" lets call it features. I dont know if these were the beta-testers or not. I am also not interested if they were or not.

My apologies then, but can we just drop the whole use of "fanboy"? It seems to have a variable definition ranging from anyone that is simply contrary to anyone who defends the game/BF strategy/pricing/CMx2 as an engine/the color green/the letter "t" etc etc. as is (whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant).

[Childress]

'Fanboy', like 'racist', often seems like one of those ad hominem epithets which the losing side hurls at an adversary in order to preemptively shut down his argument.

[Killkess]

Ok to get back on track lets go back to mortars:

It happened to me several times that my opponent placed his mortars into places i would have never thought of. While maybe more of a minor glitch it was a problem because he fired from a place i didnt even think about to bombard.

[Michael Emrys]

Ok to get back on track lets go back to mortars:

That's certainly odd, but I think it belongs in another thread.

Michael

[c3k]

Ok to get back on track lets go back to mortars:

It happened to me several times that my opponent placed his mortars into places i would have never thought of. While maybe more of a minor glitch it was a problem because he fired from a place i didnt even think about to bombard.

Ahh, yes, that's easily explainable. That crosswind is blowing the shells over, such that they just clear the bole of that pine about 15m up. And, there is a knothole on that side of the tree, gnawed larger by progressive generations of squirrels. It is modeled, but not shown.

Okay, serious answer: I don't see that as a bug. It is not a "good" model, but recognize that the action spot positioning of the crew and mortar takes a higher priority than an individual tree. There must be some sort of "fudge" for imagining that the mortar is displaced, say, 30cm to the left or right.

Could troops find a gap in trees to fire mortars? Absolutely.

Did that limit where the mortar could fire? Absolutely.

Does the game limit the field of fire based on positioning? Absolutely.

Is this a bug? Um, not in my opinion.

Just my .02.

If you consider this a bug, then let's break it off into another thread and take it up there.

Ken

[LongLeftFlank]

Yeah, I could kvetch about IG indirect fire shots at minimum range targets (e.g. needing *higher* gun elevation -- play a little Angry Birds if you're unclear on this concept) smacking into trees 40m+ downrange of the gun. But I won't....

Oops, maybe I should do some basic geometry before mouthing off about that. (hint: max elevation of the LG18 is 73deg)

[womble]

What BF will think or whether it will make it in next patch or have to wait for a following one or upgrade release etc etc no idea. I expect BF is really busy what with them having at least two games they have said they have in the pipeline (Bagration and CMSF2) and a module for CMBN coming. It may take a bit. I expect that is true in general for requests, issues etc.

Um. Bug fixing should come first or they have to go and fix the bug for anything they make before they fix it, instead of fixing it in the existing code so it's fixed for everything thereafter. Perhaps doing the fix for "legacy" code should come later, but fixing it in the current cut (v2.whatever) ought to be a priority.

[John Kettler]

LongLeftFlank,

You have both good and bad news as a result of the gun substitution you made. While it doesn't have the velocity and range of what it's standing in for, the leIG 18 does apparently have a very short minimum range modeled. I've looked all over for the leIG 18's minimum range, but have been utterly unable to find it. I've long hoped that it and the sIG 33 would eventually have the ability to transition from indirect to direct fire, given a sufficient size map.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sublime]

@womble I agree. bug fixing, especially things like this and the mg bug should be a priority. fixing released products should take precedence over making more money with new products. at least imo. thats not to say however, that bfc wont fix it before they release more games. i expect they will.

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

Were I in BFC's shoes, I'd want to know which weapons, in which game, exhibit the bizarre and effectiveness negating behavior? Since this is in CMFI, then I'd expect to find it in CMBN, too. Clearly, if that's the case, it wasn't corrected in Version 2.0, so the pending game engine upgrade for CMBN won't in itself solve the problem there.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Childress]

@womble I agree. bug fixing, especially things like this and the mg bug should be a priority. fixing released products should take precedence over making more money with new products. at least imo. thats not to say however, that bfc wont fix it before they release more games. i expect they will.

Except that the money *won't* be flowing in unless this bug and others are addressed. At least from the wallets of existing customers. BFC will, we can be confident, get around to fixing proven bugs- even if they take their sweet time about it.

[YankeeDog]

Yeah, I could kvetch about IG indirect fire shots at minimum range targets (e.g. needing *higher* gun elevation -- play a little Angry Birds if you're unclear on this concept) smacking into trees 40m+ downrange of the gun. But I won't....

Oops, maybe I should do some basic geometry before mouthing off about that. (hint: max elevation of the LG18 is 73deg)

Yeah, this issue seems to get brought up every 2-3 months or so.

Impossible to know the exact details of high angle fire with the leIG18 without specific details on the ballistics of the projectile (or, even better, a copy of the actual firing tables from the period). But in one of the prior threads on this topics, I plugged some numbers into a ballistics calculator. I don't remember exactly, and I'm too lazy to go search for it, but IIRC I got a minimum range for high-angle fire (max. elevation, minimum charge) of somewhere between 1.5 - 2km. Deliberately being vague here because the calculation was not very precise.

At any rate, unless I was WAY off with my calculations, this would seem to indicate that high-angle fire would only be possible for the leIG18 on larger CM maps, and even then only in pretty limited zones. Overall, it seems that if the scenario designer wants high-angle fire with infantry guns to be possible, they're better off represented as an off-map asset, as they have to be so far away from the target area to shoot this way that they'll probably be doing all their fire via indirect fire protocol anyway.

[womble]

One tweak I'd like BFC to make in their release model is to increase the frequency of small bugfixes. With such a comprehensively modular and, presumably, well controlled code architecture, fixing things like the deploy time bug, the target reset thing and the "dead FO denies arty" should be fixable with a pretty solid guarantee that the fix won't affect anything else, minimising the playtesting needed to ensure the code base isn't compromised by a x.x.n+1 fix.

I think the coding needed to support at least semi-automated patching would be well worth it, too, to overcome the "what about people playing with different verions?" question.

[poesel]

One tweak I'd like BFC to make in their release model is to increase the frequency of small bugfixes.

I hope they don't. Reason: you can only play against another player with the same patchlevel (with consistent data at least). CM games usually last several months. Would there be several patches during this time I had to have several instances of CM on my HD. Doable of course but not very convenient.

What I would like to have would be a better forecast on when these patches arrive. Then I could time new PBEMs better - postpone or shorten for example. But this is nearly impossible so I'm ok with how it is.

[c3k]

(Getting off-topic, but it does address the above: MOST patches seem to've allowed an "update" to current games. You usually load a savegame to the patch exe, hit "go" and the next savegame is up to date. That's a tough explanation to follow, but the patches USUALLY allow this type of update. Don't hold off a game due to expectations of a patch breaking it.)