Red Thunder bugs

[Frenchy56]

Here, in tandem with the Fortress Italy thread.

 

The ZiS gun's armor plate aren't angled at all, when they actually were.

 

It should look like this, however the plate is angled at a solid 90 degrees in-game.

 

 

 

 

I also have doubts about the regular infantry section's weaponry: way too many SVT's, not enough Mosins.

They simply shouldn't appear in every single rifle squad. They should probably show up in German rifle squads however. The lack of captured weaponry and vehicles is kinda jarring, since this front is famous in part due to the massive use of captured equipment.

I'd like to know if Shermans and Jeeps are coming, since they were the most common Lend-Lease vehicles after the Studebaker trucks.

 

Also, the absence of the regular, short-barreled M37 45mm AT gun which was still quite present at that time, and I'm pretty sure was standard-issue as infantry battalion AT guns.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Frenchy56

[Chibot Mk IX]

yes, too many SVT.

If my memory is correct, there were 1 million SVT built, but the half of them were lost in disasters after disasters in first two years. 

[Frenchy56]

 

Invisible Schürzen cast a shadow on the side of this Pz IV J. I doubt Aris' mod is the cause of that.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Frenchy56

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, Frenchy56 said:

I also have doubts about the regular infantry section's weaponry: way too many SVT's, not enough Mosins. 

So, when it comes to TO&E and armaments there are possible bugs, that certainly is possible. I have to let you guys know that "doubts about it" are not going to cut it as a bug report. BFC has people that read the division equipment lists for such and such a date and such and such a place and figure out if it was possible to equip the battalions with the official armaments. Combining that with the official org charts and official complements and go from there to create what you see in game. I can tell you now hours upon hours are spent on that.

So, if you have equipment lists that seem to snow N number of weapon XYZ could not possibly be in a battalion of this type by all means feel free to share. Site your sources and build the case...

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, Frenchy56 said:

Invisible Schürzen cast a shadow on the side of this Pz IV J. I doubt Aris' mod is the cause of that.

Humm. Where is the sun in this picture though? If its high enough that could account for it.

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, Frenchy56 said:

The ZiS gun's armor plate aren't angled at all, when they actually were.

...

It should look like this, however the plate is angled at a solid 90 degrees in-game.

That gun shield looks like it might be adjustable - have to look at some more pictures is that possible?

[Frenchy56]

7 minutes ago, IanL said:

Humm. Where is the sun in this picture though? If its high enough that could account for it.

I compared with a Pz IV H next to it and a shadow wasn't cast at the same angle.

Then I turned the Pz IV J around to see how the lighting changed and the invisible Schurzen cast shadows on both sides of the tank at any angle in relation to the position of the sun.

[Frenchy56]

8 minutes ago, IanL said:

That gun shield looks like it might be adjustable - have to look at some more pictures is that possible?

" Protection was through a simple, angled gunshield ahead of the breach with cutouts in the panel for vision or optics. "

 

https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=373

 

I'd say "simple" means non-adjustable. Do you have examples of AT guns with adjustable gunshields because that seems like a superfluous feature to me.

[Frenchy56]

14 minutes ago, IanL said:

So, when it comes to TO&E and armaments there are possible bugs, that certainly is possible. I have to let you guys know that "doubts about it" are not going to cut it as a bug report. BFC has people that read the division equipment lists for such and such a date and such and such a place and figure out if it was possible to equip the battalions with the official armaments. Combining that with the official org charts and official complements and go from there to create what you see in game. I can tell you now hours upon hours are spent on that.

So, if you have equipment lists that seem to snow N number of weapon XYZ could not possibly be in a battalion of this type by all means feel free to share. Site your sources and build the case...

I'd like to take a look at the studies they made as well, because I definitely have a feeling there's something wrong with the abundance of SVT rifles. It isn't much more than a general impression, however. Just taking a look at the total production numbers can give you an impression which is most possibly correct.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Frenchy56

[DMS]

I saw some division equipment lists. Usually tables don't have separated column for SVTs, only for rifles in general. When it has - in the best case division had hundred or two of SVTs. Some examples from my notes:

143 rifle division, 22.02.43: 4059 rifles, 155 SVT, 103 lmgs, 549 smgs, 15 AVS (rare weapon!)

243 rifle division, 18.06.43: 3776 rifles, 181 SVT, 1007 smgs, 196 lmgs.

2-3 SVT for a platoon. I can post document scans for 2 cases above. SVTs weren't produced since 1942. (1 million in 1941, 200 thousands in 1942) It is fun that despite this in organizational charts till the end of war weapon of a rifleman was SVT. (letter "a" in "weapons" column - autorifle) This may confuse researcher.

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by DMS

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Frenchy56 said:

I compared with a Pz IV H next to it and a shadow wasn't cast at the same angle.

Then I turned the Pz IV J around to see how the lighting changed and the invisible Schurzen cast shadows on both sides of the tank at any angle in relation to the position of the sun.

Sounds good - thanks for clarifying.

[DMS]

4 hours ago, Frenchy56 said:

They should probably show up in German rifle squads however

Why? Different ammunition, complexity, 1-st round accuracy problems. 3 years after mass trophies... 

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Frenchy56 said:

I'd say "simple" means non-adjustable. Do you have examples of AT guns with adjustable gunshields because that seems like a superfluous feature to me.

Oh man I'm not an expert at all. The opening position is the game has things correct. We find stuff that shows otherwise and pass it on in a bug report. Just asking the question. There is no way we want the developers spending time verifying something on a whim. That's it pictures from a few sources showing the gun is what's needed.

[Frenchy56]

2 hours ago, DMS said:

Why? Different ammunition, complexity, 1-st round accuracy problems. 3 years after mass trophies... 

You've got me there. I guess I played too much Graviteam games, since they're set in 1942-1943, where there were still quite a few in German units.

Apart from that, should the PPSh show up as well? They're pretty abundant.

I've seen a scenario with a captured SU-85 on the German side. That's what made me think about captured weapons. Regular Heer infantry units did seldom capture enemy vehicles and use them against their enemy, just like their Soviet counterparts, and it seemed to have happened quite frequently on the Eastern Front. Why not at least make a system so instead of just making an unit that seemingly switched sides, it comes manned by a crew from its faction, with its insignia?

Anyway, this is just nitpicking, the SU-85 can shoot through tanks and blow up infantry just fine.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Frenchy56

[Frenchy56]

2 hours ago, IanL said:

Oh man I'm not an expert at all. The opening position is the game has things correct. We find stuff that shows otherwise and pass it on in a bug report. Just asking the question. There is no way we want the developers spending time verifying something on a whim. That's it pictures from a few sources showing the gun is what's needed.

Well, really, the reason I make these threads is to help make the game more accurate. One of their selling points is their accuracy to the TO&E's, vehicle models, weapons and equipment. That means it's quite bothering if you spot an inacurracy, then another, and then another. Then, some of my knowledge may be incorrect, which this thread helps with so I have other people to discuss these facts. In a conversation like the ones we have here, one side will always come out better informed, if everything goes right.

What I feel about the accuracy of CM is that it's harder to reach a very good amount of accuracy, since their games focus on different fronts and different eras, and the devs are only so many, and thus only do so much work getting these kind of things right, because they have to do the same amount of work on each game.

The Graviteam guys recently focused their efforts only on a few regiment or battalion-scale operations on the Eastern Front, while trying to make it as accurate to the last soldier fighting in the last unit. Of course, before that they had developed their 3D models of tanks and weaponry, and they are practically flawless. They only bother developing weapons and vehicles that were present in the battles they attempt to represent, and most of them were standard-issue. There are a few quirky vehicles, indeed, but they represent the operation they historically operated in.

 

 

An exchange I remember with one of the devs on the Steam Forums is when I asked about future inclusions of the SU-76M. He then proceeded to unfold every reason why the designation "SU-76M" is inaccurate to the vehicle we are talking about, and that Western sources which talk about the Eastern Front can be very doubtful.

It was quite educative and eye-opening, even though he chose to do it in a somewhat unpleasant way, which he usually does when he talks to the players on the forum.

The accurate designation is "SU-15M" by the way. I remember looking it up on Google and Wikipedia and finding only the name of the Sukhoi interceptor, nothing about a Soviet self-propelled gun. "SU-76" actually designates the entire family of Soviet self-propelled guns which had 76mm guns. The suffix "M" designates an upgraded version.

There, I just felt like writing a block of text at 1 in the morning. Good night.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Frenchy56

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Frenchy56 said:

There, I just felt like writing a block of text at 1 in the morning. Good night.

rotflmao  well done

Just to give you a heads up Ian is asking the questions to sort through what we know we can just submit and those which take more nuance.  When you first started posting CMFI items they were really straightforward issues a simple pic would show.  You have now ventured into grognard discussion.  It is way over my head and that becomes a sticking point.  I can't submit stuff that I have no idea if it is valid or not.  That may take some discussion.  ToE is one of those things.  I am trying to figure out how to separate these into ones we know we can just submit and those that may take some discussion before they become an actual ticket.  For the moment I'll focus on the CMFI post and try to put up a status for the ones that are in.

Edited January 23, 2019 by sburke

[A Canadian Cat]

15 hours ago, Frenchy56 said:

Well, really, the reason I make these threads is to help make the game more accurate. One of their selling points is their accuracy to the TO&E's, vehicle models, weapons and equipment. That means it's quite bothering if you spot an inacurracy, then another, and then another. Then, some of my knowledge may be incorrect, which this thread helps with so I have other people to discuss these facts. In a conversation like the ones we have here, one side will always come out better informed, if everything goes right.

Yes, and we really appreciate it. @sburke and I are coordinating to get things logged...

 

13 hours ago, sburke said:

Just to give you a heads up Ian is asking the questions to sort through what we know we can just submit and those which take more nuance.  When you first started posting CMFI items they were really straightforward issues a simple pic would show.  You have now ventured into grognard discussion.  It is way over my head and that becomes a sticking point.

Mine too.

 

13 hours ago, sburke said:

  I can't submit stuff that I have no idea if it is valid or not.  That may take some discussion.  ToE is one of those things.  I am trying to figure out how to separate these into ones we know we can just submit and those that may take some discussion before they become an actual ticket.  For the moment I'll focus on the CMFI post and try to put up a status for the ones that are in.

Yeah, we only submit bugs that are clear and have evidence that backs them up. Well we try. Even then there is some churn and back and froth because we thought we wrote clearly and the devs have questions. None of us want BFC staff spending time looking at a bug and not being sure if it is worth them spending time figuring out what is really a problem and what is not. So, we have to ask a bunch of clarifying questions (like the gun scaling and gun shield questions) or basically reject without further references (like the number of XYZ weapon that should be available).

What I cannot do is log a bug that is not directly actionable by BFC staff. It is simply not a good use of their time and slows down development and bug fixing.

What I don't want to do is just ignore stuff that is being reported by players. Clearly there is valuable info coming in and you have spotted a bunch of things I never did - well done!

So that means if we don't see a clear path to handing it off to BFC staff I'll try to ask clarifying questions or just say yeah they will need more info. In the end I don't have hours and hours to investigate everything either. Me personally I am just not going to be wading into figuring out weapon system counts or TO&E issues. I'm just not experienced enough nor do I have that kind of time. Given that I know the people on BFC staff and the volunteers that *do* spend time researching TO&E any bugs logged would need references and a logical reasoning behind it. I know you'd like an accounting of the reference material they used and that's a fair thing to ask but I don't know it and I have never seen it so I cannot share it. Any sharing of that would have to come from Steve or another volunteer tester.

Let's keep your good reports coming and you can help us get this all logged and eventually fixed. Although I should set some expectations here too - it is not going to be fixed fast. We all want all this stuff fixed but we have to live with the realities of staffing and priorities that we don't get to control.

Thanks for your help. We really appreciate it. Really we do

[Frenchy56]

Alright, I understand.

I'll keep an eye out for practical things to report.

[LukeFF]

On 1/22/2019 at 11:56 AM, IanL said:

So, if you have equipment lists that seem to snow N number of weapon XYZ could not possibly be in a battalion of this type by all means feel free to share. Site your sources and build the case...

Mosin-Nagant production in 1943 alone dwarfed all other years of production - to add to what @DMS wrote.

 

[Frenchy56]

Pz IV G (late) and (latest) commander sticks the entire bust out of his cupola. It's inconsistent with every other Pz IV's behavior.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Frenchy56

[CMFDR]

Couldn't it that due to the terrain, his feet are slipping and he's about to fall down on the loader?

On a flat terrain, I cannot replicate what you do depict though. Any specific parameters should be known? I'm in the scen editor, 22nd June 1944 Eastern Europe eg.

Thanks for your time and dedication Falaise.

Edit: got it the other way, my bad!

Edited January 26, 2019 by CMFDR
PalmFaceMoment

[JoMac]

Interesting...v4.0 all Commanders are only supposed to have their Heads stick out and nothing more (v3.0 Commanders had their Heads & Torso stick out like the above)...I think, BF, just forgot to impose this on a few models, and would need corrected.

Edited January 26, 2019 by JoMc67

[Frenchy56]

58 minutes ago, CMFDR said:

Edit: got it the other way, my bad!

Err, come again?

[CMFDR]

J'ai compris ton post à l'envers  J'avais compris que l'état attendu est d'avoir le buste hors du tourelleau, mais en fait c'est le buste rentré et ça je l'ai compris avec le post de JoMc67.

----

I've misunderstood what was the expected state of things.

 

Edited January 26, 2019 by CMFDR

[Frenchy56]

2 minutes ago, CMFDR said:

J'ai compris ton post à l'envers  J'avais compris que l'état attendu est d'avoir le buste hors du tourelleau, mais en fait c'est le buste rentré et ça je l'ai compris avec le post de JoMc67.

----

I've misunderstood what was the expected state of things.

 

Ah, d'accord, je vois.