Jump to content
GAZ NZ

CMBS bugs - are these fixed in relation to the new CMSF2? ( weapons ports etc )

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 10:13 PM, Michael Emrys said:

Yeah, I've been noticing something like this since the v4 engine came out. I understand and largely agree with c3k's response on this issue, but occasionally feel like it has been overdone and could use taming a bit.

This was my opinion too at first, although much more so for the T-90A/T-90AM than the mighty Abrams.....However I realised that I was basing my evaluation on my godlike view with no unit selected in Iron Mode, when I selected the vehicle in question and saw its 'perception' of the battlefield, the behaviour made a lot more sense. 

Give it a try.

IMHO Iron Mode is both a very useful tool and by far the best way to play.

PS - Not saying I disagree BTW, merely that on reflection it's not quite as bad as I thought it was.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This was my opinion too at first, although much more so for the T-90A/T-90AM than the mighty Abrams.....However I realised that I was basing my evaluation on my godlike view with no unit selected in Iron Mode, when I selected the vehicle in question and saw its 'perception' of the battlefield, the behaviour made a lot more sense. 

Give it a try.

IMHO Iron Mode is both a very useful tool and by far the best way to play.

PS - Not saying I disagree BTW, merely that on reflection it's not quite as bad as I thought it was.

I don't play in anything except Iron Mode. It does a better job of letting the player know what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe ATGMs have a built-in random failure rate. It appear the older the weapon type, the higher the failure rate. AT-3 in CMSF2 can be downright squirrely sometimes. I think Charles said IED devices have a built-in 20% failure rate. Recently I saw a Javelin missile face-plant into intervening terrain. I was greatly surprised. You don't see that very often!

One issue we don't have in CMSF2  is players toggling off tree graphics during gameplay then wondering why they're not getting LOS on a target. Because trees are so sparse and thin in the title that toggling trees off to see is mostly unnecessary. So the chance of getting confused is lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2018 at 8:42 PM, sburke said:

BF has a team of two.  If you see an item you "think" is an issue who's job is it to try and see if it is reproducible? It isn't mine I know that much.  I might be willing to help, but it ain't my job.  If you think Steve or Charles are gonna drop everything for a perceived issue.. well you are entitled to dream.  That leaves...….

That's an excuse, not a justification. Obviously it's the job of the producer to detect and correct defects in their products whether it's 1 guy in his garage or a team of 50000.

 

Usually when software developers drop their QA responsibilities on their users it's coupled with greater community participation and frequent updates. Fortunately the last update suggests that at least we'll be seeing more frequent updates in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

That's an excuse, not a justification.

It is neither, it is simply reality. The view that somehow they are supposed to find and or fix every perceived issue is simply unrealistic and follows the vein of entitlement that we hear so often. I may be a little more sensitive to it working in an arena with a user base of 20 something’s who think because their mom sliced the crust off their sandwiches that the whole world is gonna cater to their every whim. Still let’s say you think in a particular circumstance the TAC AI behaves counter to what you think it should, where do you think that should fall in BFs priority list and how closely should they follow every conversation on possible issues that pop up on the forum? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I agree, that if there is an issue (that isn't glaringly obvious) the person who discovers it should present their case with evidence beyond an anecdotal comment. Just saying something doesn't make it so. And saves are a sure fire, easy way to do that. Yes, there have been a few times where Bf was hard headed and it took some work to convince them to take a look at a problem but that is as it should be or they'd end up chasing their tails over every little thing. We have a decent vetting process here, which means a lot of the trite complaints are weeded out by the more experienced players, a sort of quality control on b****ing vs substance. LOL. How many times have we witnessed some pet peeve labelled as "game breaking"? Having said that, I believe that BF has shown a willingness and passion to fix and maintain the games much more than they don't. Anyone that's been here longer than a few years would be lying if they denied that. Once we get past the new website teething and some of the new modules are released, I believe we'll see quicker responses to such issues.

 

Mord.

Edited by Mord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to old CMBB days the forum's always been filled with players claiming that some unexpected disaster is a 'bug' rather than admitting they're just mediocre players or accepting that the 'fortunes of war' is part of the scenario experience. Why are my men getting gunned down when I run them across an open field? Why is my tank getting shot up while I'm hiding in a tree line? Why is my casualty rate so high when I close-assault an enemy unit? How could my Tiger armor get so easily penetrated? Why did my 2nd generation ATGM miss its target? Why can't I spot the enemy from 2km+? How did that buttoned up tank spot my bazooka team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair there are legitimate issues like "Why did my men avoid the door right in front of them and run into the street and get gunned down?"  "Why did the enemy manage to shoot my tank thru X dozen meters of dense trees when it's impossible for me to see that LOS?"  "Why can't I target the building down the street when there are no intervening obstacles, but the enemies in that building managed to kill me with no problem?" etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Erwin said:

"Why did my men avoid the door right in front of them and run into the street and get gunned down?"

Panic.  :mellow:

7 hours ago, Erwin said:

"Why did the enemy manage to shoot my tank thru X dozen meters of dense trees when it's impossible for me to see that LOS?"

Better thermal imagers.  :mellow:

7 hours ago, Erwin said:

"Why can't I target the building down the street when there are no intervening obstacles, but the enemies in that building managed to kill me with no problem?"

Submit a save to the team for their examination, with a brief explanation of the issue.  :o

Just IMHO, based on my own learning, based on quite a lot of experimentation.  ;)

The Abrams & Bradley are still overrated though.  :mellow:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Just IMHO, based on my own learning, based on quite a lot of experimentation.  ;)

Actually the target is most definitely not a bug.  It is a game limitation.  If you can't see a unit to target, you are left with the building and it is a limitation of the engine that you have to have LOF to the base tile.  It sucks, but it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sburke said:

it is a limitation of the engine that you have to have LOF to the base tile.

Are you sure?

I'm confident that I've used Area Target on the upper levels of buildings whose bases were thoroughly obscured.

Or am I misreading your statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Are you sure?

I'm confident that I've used Area Target on the upper levels of buildings whose bases were thoroughly obscured.

Or am I misreading your statement?

it has been a long standing issue with urban fighting being unable to target a building.  It could be a question of what is obscuring the base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sburke said:

it has been a long standing issue with urban fighting being unable to target a building.  It could be a question of what is obscuring the base.

Yep, @Sgt.Squarehead check out my faq post in the general area. There are links to the issue with tanks targeting in town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Building stuff. Imagine looking down at a building. With X-ray vision. (Like me.)

| a b c d e f g 

The corner is 'a', and then 'b', etc. The exterior is beneath the letters. All the letters make up ONE action spot. The letters show where each man can stand. Perhaps there are windows at 'a', 'c', 'e', and 'g'. Now, if the enemy is at 'a', he can see you. He shoots, and kills your best guy. Because that's how it works. ;)

That guy is now dead. Another guy gets enraged and wants to kill 'a'. But he cannot see 'a'. (Always, always, always, if you can see a guy, you can shoot him. With just a few exceptions.)

Instead, you want to AREA FIRE at the abcdefg building location. (Maybe 'a' ducked down. Shrug.) The game will draw LOS to the center of the action spot, 'd'. Well, 'd' may be blocked your guy by another building or a tree or whatnot. You can see the window at 'a'. You know there's a squad back there. But the game only lets you area target the center. Move and then take the shot. Or call in air.

That's the game mechanic. In a perfect world, your guy which has LOS to the window at 'a' could area target 'a'. The world's not perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A partial compensation is that individual shooters can and will target enemies even if the LOS tool fails to allow issuance of a formal Target or AF order. In fact some players have commented here that it's often better to let units select their own targets than to micro them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

A partial compensation is that individual shooters can and will target enemies even if the LOS tool fails to allow issuance of a formal Target or AF order. In fact some players have commented here that it's often better to let units select their own targets than to micro them.

Yeah. Speaks very well of the TacAI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, c3k said:

it's often better to let units select their own targets than to micro them.

+1 Other than when one wants to Area Fire, this is true over 90% of the time.  ATGM teams especially often do not like being told what to TARGET and fire when the unit (the AI) feels that the time is right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×