Jump to content
weapon2010

I hope this Is not a New Bug.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mirekm61 said:

With Weapon2010 we play pbem is the same game as he presented. My infantry also likes to shoot their tanks.
Infantry with the order of movement, the position of the tank already known in the previous round. It's probably not a coincidence, the new installation would only help, there is no installer with the last amendment.

Just noticed your trigger happy unit had -2 Leadership commander too.....I doubt that's a coincidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Just noticed your trigger happy unit had -2 Leadership commander too.....I doubt that's a coincidence. 

i hope thats the issue

Share this post


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

i0k9v582cak11.jpg?width=480&auto=webp&s=

Is not altogether the cream of the crop, is he?  :D

At this stage of the war Germany was scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel. Maybe in this case they had already gone through the bottom of the barrel and were scraping up the muck that lay below.

:lol:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, first off, posting out of context video's of 30 second snippets doesn't really help. Posting all in bold also doesn't do anything to further your point. 

Has anyone posted save games of any of this for other testers to check themselves? It's quite easy to do.

Additionally, was this PBEM already in progress? As in, you were playing the PBEM on v4, then you patched the game and continued playing the PBEM on patched v4? It is well known that applying any type of patch/upgrade and then trying to resume a saved battle may result in some odd behavior. 

I have upgraded all of my games to patched v4, and I have not encountered this bug in any of them. 

My suggestion would be to take a breath, confirm if this is in fact a PBEM that was started pre-patch, and try to post save files for other testers to run and see if they can figure out what is going on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also worth noting that friendly fire was certainly in CMx1 - although it really only cropped up in night battles with low quality troops. But they could definitely mis-identify an friendly unit as an enemy and start firing on it, and this was an intentional feature. I don't know whether it made it in to CMx2 or not though, because I think the only night battles I've played were with modern forces, and it is far less likely there with modern unit tracking and battlefield awareness capabilties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

Also worth noting that friendly fire was certainly in CMx1 - although it really only cropped up in night battles with low quality troops.

Exception: I had casualties from friendly fire during daylight with regular quality or better troops in CMBO. Careful examination of replays showed that it was a case of a squad running into the the stream of an already firing MG though, so that may be a little different than what you have in mind. It's the only friendly fire incident that I can recall in CMx1.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW:  It's been a while now, but am pretty sure I also recall incidents of friendly fire at night in CM1.  Not sure I recall seeing that in CM2. 

One does get friendly fire when an enemy appears close to a friendly and is fired upon.  Friendlies are easily suppressed in this situation by any fire.  But, I thought that required 50 cal or larger to actually cause casualties.  It's news (to me at least) that smaller than 50 cal can cause a friendly casualty - unless there is this "ricochet feature" mentioned earlier.  But, have never experienced (or perhaps never noticed?) that phenomenon in the tens of thousands of hours I have player CM2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erwin said:

FWIW:  It's been a while now, but am pretty sure I also recall incidents of friendly fire at night in CM1.  Not sure I recall seeing that in CM2. 

One does get friendly fire when an enemy appears close to a friendly and is fired upon.  Friendlies are easily suppressed in this situation by any fire.  But, I thought that required 50 cal or larger to actually cause casualties.  It's news (to me at least) that smaller than 50 cal can cause a friendly casualty - unless there is this "ricochet feature" mentioned earlier.  But, have never experienced (or perhaps never noticed?) that phenomenon in the tens of thousands of hours I have player CM2.

In the CMx1 implementation, units were immune to small arms 'accidental' friendly fire (as in CMx2), but in the kind of situation where a friendly unit was mis-identified as an enemy unit and deliberately targeted. small arms fire *would* cause casualties - the usual friendly immunity was turned off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheVulture said:

In the CMx1 implementation, units were immune to small arms 'accidental' friendly fire (as in CMx2), but in the kind of situation where a friendly unit was mis-identified as an enemy unit and deliberately targeted. small arms fire *would* cause casualties - the usual friendly immunity was turned off.

Yes, that's what I recall as well.  Thanks for the clarification.

What I also liked about CM1 was that sound contacts were not accurate the way that they are in CM2.  You could blast away at a sound contact in CM1 and miss by many meters.  It took me some time to realize that if you shoot at an enemy sound contact in CM2 it's highly likely you can suppress or do damage.  That seemed less realistic than the way it was implemented in CM1.  But, then again, perhaps in RL, sound contacts are actually accurate(??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Has anyone posted save games of any of this for other testers to check themselves? It's quite easy to do.

I have saves from the OP. I just have not had time to look at them. Still might not get to them today. Are their others with similar happenings? If so PM me and we can arrange to get files...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Additionally, was this PBEM already in progress? As in, you were playing the PBEM on v4, then you patched the game and continued playing the PBEM on patched v4? It is well known that applying any type of patch/upgrade and then trying to resume a saved battle may result in some odd behavior.

yes, we started on version 4.0, I can share my files.

Share this post


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

Additionally, was this PBEM already in progress? As in, you were playing the PBEM on v4, then you patched the game and continued playing the PBEM on patched v4? It is well known that applying any type of patch/upgrade and then trying to resume a saved battle may result in some odd behavior.

The Captain has it, I suspect.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Ok, first off, posting out of context video's of 30 second snippets doesn't really help. Posting all in bold also doesn't do anything to further your point. 

Has anyone posted save games of any of this for other testers to check themselves? It's quite easy to do.

Additionally, was this PBEM already in progress? As in, you were playing the PBEM on v4, then you patched the game and continued playing the PBEM on patched v4? It is well known that applying any type of patch/upgrade and then trying to resume a saved battle may result in some odd behavior. 

I have upgraded all of my games to patched v4, and I have not encountered this bug in any of them. 

My suggestion would be to take a breath, confirm if this is in fact a PBEM that was started pre-patch, and try to post save files for other testers to run and see if they can figure out what is going on. 

out of context? its a video showing you exactly what happened, I dont post in bold to further my point, I post in bold becasue the default print sucks and is to light and hard to read

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

out of context? its a video showing you exactly what happened, I dont post in bold to further my point, I post in bold becasue the default print sucks and is to light and hard to read

Before start should say this is not intended as a dig at you.

We do not need your text in bold though as we do not have problems reading the messages. It's not light and hard to read on ours. So it's an issue specific for you and your computer. And nobody else is making their messages bold so that you can read ours, so, therefore, what's the point?

Should you be using Windows then you can improve the appearance of text using ClearType;

https://www.howtogeek.com/howto/28790/tweak-cleartype-in-windows-7/

Also if using FireFox as your web browser then this should also help you. I found the default too fine compared to my old browser when I made the change and changing these settings helped me;

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/change-fonts-and-colors-websites-use

Edited by Oliver_88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ack!

I had a look at the turn files and there two things to comment on:

The friendly fire casualty. I am convinced that @Sgt.Squarehead called it right. The casualty is caused by the ricochet off the building not the direct fire. In which case that is nothing new and totally normal - but pretty rare. The basic rule is that small arms fire cannot cause friendly fire directly but after something is hit the ricochet is no longer treated as friend or foe so it can cause anyone casulties. So, sorry for your misfortune there @weapon2010 - especially given...

The fact that the MG team seems to be aiming at friendly targets is surprising to me. As I said Ack! I have certainly never ever seen that. Here is what is happening. The MG team in the house has spotted an enemy unit in the trees far off (sorry I didn't measure any of the distances). Lets call that 0 degrees. The dumb-ass gunner decides to aim about 15 degrees to the right directly at a friendly Panther tank. This targeting is done all on the Tac AI's direction. That is the TC casualty that started all this off. In the next turn the player has directed the HMG team to fire on the enemy - no doubt cursing said dumb-ass gunner. Sadly the gunner decides to be even dumber this time and seems to directly target a HT about 30 degrees to the left. WTH is he doing. This guy is not just showing poor aim he is picking the wrong targets completely.

As I said I have never see that kind of totally silly targeting before. I am going to consult with other testers and see if anyone else has and what the feeling is. My ask would be if any one else has saves that show this please let me know. What i am looking for is a unit that has an enemy target to shoot at but instead shoots at a friendly target instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@IanL  I believe @mirekm61 was the opposing player and had similar experiences (though once again with a -2 HQ leading the unit responsible):

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 8:02 PM, mirekm61 said:

With Weapon2010 we play pbem is the same game as he presented. My infantry also likes to shoot their tanks.
Infantry with the order of movement, the position of the tank already known in the previous round. It's probably not a coincidence, the new installation would only help, there is no installer with the last amendment.

Also I believe the game was patched from 4.00 to 4.01 while this battle was in progress:

23 hours ago, mirekm61 said:

yes, we started on version 4.0, I can share my files.

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'm gonna be honest here.....I kinda like it!  ;)

The examples we've seen here are extreme, but the behaviour itself is great IMHO.  B)

LOL sure if it turns out that poor leadership give bad directions occasionally that might be considered cool. On the other hand if every engagement is like this not so much. It cannot be every engagement after the patch since I have not see this at all and no testers have reported it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yesterday in SF2 while playing a QB, I had a BMP-1 launch an atgm at a 90° angle from the enemy's direction toward a friendly infantry squad in a building. That was a bit odd. But there was absolutely no enemy in that direction so it wasn't a missed shot from what I could tell. Unfortunately I don't have a save file so probably not super useful for debugging purposes.

Here is a screenshot I took 2-3 turns later. Path of the atgm in red. All the spotted enemies are along that main north-south street.

zyOC2On.png

Edited by Zveroboy1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 10:02 PM, weapon2010 said:

hes not firing at the Infantry contact, every burst is dead on at the commander, in my opinion, i could understand a random burst at the panther, its a persistent attack

It's hard to tell from the video above from the MG42 perspective because we have to see through the building transparency, but there appears to be an infantry contact that seems to positioned such that the Panther is directly in between the firer and the target.  It is a contact only, but the Tac AI will sometimes fire on contact targets that you, the player, can't directly target if you leave the Tac AI to choose its own targets.  The hard contact does seem too far over to the left to put the Panther between the firer and the target though - but the AI can take some inaccurate shots on occasion.  As far as the Panther commander is concerned, the AI does tend to button up a bit too slowly for my tastes, but in this instance I'm pretty sure that he isn't buttoning up because he is in the line of fire of friendly troops and doubtless nothing is registering on the suppression meter.  If you place an MG on a map and set an Area target some distance from the MG, and then put enemy troops between the target and the firer I don't think the enemy troops will be hit since the game does not simulate Grazing Fire.  It has been a while since I've tried it so I'm not going to say I'm 100 percent certain, but I'm around 95% certain.  Well, my earlier testing and the fact that Steve has acknowledged that Grazing Fire is not in the game and that he has bounced ideas that he had off the Beta Team in order to get Grazing Fire into the game.  IIRC the problem was the number of calculations that the game would have to make because the game isn't only calculating stuff at the end point or target, but rather calculating all points in between - which apparently the game doesn't do other than armored vehicles.

Whoa, sorry for the late posting - I just clicked on the thread from the Beta board because someone was asking about the first page and I didn't realize that was three pages ago.

Edited by ASL Veteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...