New "02" patches for Game Engine 4 are now available

[Swant]

The banzai charge towards the enemy is still a issue. The improvemt seems to be that the troops are a bit more resilient

[weta_nz]

Just in normal play (so anecdotally) in CMBN bocage maps I've played on I've seen no problems at all. When you flank the enemy they have no option but to sometimes go toward your forces which is understandable. But I had many instances where in 4.01 my troops would have run forward from bocage with limited suppression but with 4.02 even under light or heavy enemy fire run backwards or to better cover so I'm happy.  So thanks for the quick fix 

[Bulletpoint]

4 hours ago, Swant said:

The banzai charge towards the enemy is still a issue. The improvemt seems to be that the troops are a bit more resilient

Maybe they are finally prepping the TacAI for war in the Pacific?

[Swant]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Maybe they are finally prepping the TacAI for war in the Pacific? 

I think you are onto something there! I now fully support this aggressive behaviour

[Macisle]

A huge improvement brought by the patches that I haven't seen mentioned is the fixing of QB AI setup regarding the use of buildings. I've done some testing across my titles and the AI seems to be consistently using buildings now and no longer highly favoring wall/hedge/bocage lines.

This should make for a massive enhancement of the SP QB experience on maps with a sufficient number of buildings.

I may be wrong, but the AI setup seems smarter in non-building areas as well. The AI force selection is still hit and miss, but I think may have improved as well. For every dud, I'm seeing 2 or 3 decent selections.

The current TacAI fallback behavior seems to work very well in extended wooded areas. I've got a large attack going as Soviets on a QB slice from Studienka and the German AI defenders are bleeding me in the forest areas. I'm being as careful as I can and making good use of area fire to prep for hunting forward, but the small number of remaining Germans there keep nickle-and-diming me with casualties and falling back out of LOS before I can bag all of them. It feels very realistic and the slow pace putting a major cramp on my advance time-wise.

So, good stuff and thanks BF!

[Vet 0369]

Just downloaded and installed the v202 patch for CMRT on my mid-2010 Mac Pro. Everything updated correctly, but now I'm having the same issue on the Mac as I had on the PC version (I7-8700k). On the PC, when I opened a saved PBEM save file, the loading went to 25%, froze, than crashed to the desktop. On the Mac, a saved Soviet campaign file reaches 23%, freezes, and then eventually crashes to the desktop.

Seems like an issue that is not system dependent since it happens on Windows 10 and MacOS 10.13.6. The PC is using an NVIDIA GTX1080Ti, and the Mac is using a flashed NVIDIA GTX1080. Both systems have 32Gb RAM, so there is something wrong with the CMRT patch.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Vet 0369

[PIATpunk]

It has been previously pointed out by BFC that the CMRT 4.01/4.02 patches will not gracefully recover an earlier version save game.

[user1000]

On 6/14/2019 at 1:39 PM, BFCElvis said:

- TO&E changes

Seems ambiguous

[BFCElvis]

1 hour ago, user1000 said:

Seems ambiguous

Intentionally.

Sometimes these patches also end with things like "various bug fixes" too. A TO&E change can be as subtle as the ammo loadout of a squad. 

[GhostRider3/3]

Thank you for the fixes... 

[Warts 'n' all]

Sadly, I've yet to notice any "fix" to the hedgerow "gap charging" problem.

[BFCElvis]

15 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Sadly, I've yet to notice any "fix" to the hedgerow "gap charging" problem.

That is odd because a bunch of us have run multiple tests and I play several PBEM turns for fun each day and I haven't seen it. The same test scenarios that we are using now are the same ones that showed it before the patch. I'm attaching a couple of the ones that I still have on my system here:

https://battlefront.sharefile.com/d-sc571c7a39ed4ec9b

If you still have the 4.01 patch, and feel super ambitious,  re-install the 4.01 patch. Play around with these. Then re-install the 4.02 patch and see the difference. 

[Warts 'n' all]

OK. Thanks for the advice. I will try the re-install option over the weekend. If it doesn't work I will see you in Chelsea, as much as I'd hate to go there.

[Txema]

Hi BFCElvis,

Thank you very much for your answer!

But it seems that the  hedgerow "gap charging" problem continues arising in some situations:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/134988-hummm-patche-4-i-need-your-opinion/?do=findComment&comment=1792929

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/135173-irrational-behaviour/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1793211

Do you recognize this as a bug in the 4.02 version? Are you planning to fix this buggy behavior soon?

Thanks in advance!

Txema

Edited July 5, 2019 by Txema

[A Canadian Cat]

2 minutes ago, Txema said:

Hi BFCElvis,

Thank you very much for your answer!

But it seems that the  hedgerow "gap charging" problem continues arising in some situations:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/134988-hummm-patche-4-i-need-your-opinion/?do=findComment&comment=1792929

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/135173-irrational-behaviour/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1793211

Do you recognize this as a bug in the 4.02 version? Are you planning to fix this buggy behavior soon?

Just to further clarify the issue first reported was reproduced in 4.01 by several testers. The 4.02 build fixed those reproducible test cases. We get that after that build was out people are still hitting the problem. Several of those same testers have been trying to create a reliable test case using the new build.

A fix was made. It did fix some of the problem. Clearly not all. Still working on trying to reproduce it. If people have a game they started in 4.02 that exhibits this problem please share a save. Any saves should be for newly started games using the 4.02 build. Do not share saves from games that were started in 4.00 or 4.01 - please.

[BFCElvis]

1 hour ago, Txema said:

Hi BFCElvis,

Thank you very much for your answer!

But it seems that the  hedgerow "gap charging" problem continues arising in some situations:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/134988-hummm-patche-4-i-need-your-opinion/?do=findComment&comment=1792929

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/135173-irrational-behaviour/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1793211

Thanks in advance!

Txema

I'll see if I can dig into the Roadblock scenario mentioned in one of the posts and see if we can duplicate it. One thing that was pointed out to me by a certain brain in a jar during the 4.02 testing was that one of our test scenarios actually had very subtle ground cover because it was not a completely flat piece of ground. And units under fire may have been determining that cover was the best way to safety...even if it was 10-20m in the direction of the enemy. The point being that there could be other factors at work, other than a bug. Particularly because we haven't been able to reliably duplicate it (as we were after 4.01).

To give you direct answers to your questions. 

Quote

Do you recognize this as a bug in the 4.02 version?

Not at this time.

Quote

Are you planning to fix this buggy behavior soon?

See answer above. 

[Falaise]

2 hours ago, IanL said:

Just to further clarify the issue first reported was reproduced in 4.01 by several testers. The 4.02 build fixed those reproducible test cases. We get that after that build was out people are still hitting the problem. Several of those same testers have been trying to create a reliable test case using the new build.

A fix was made. It did fix some of the problem. Clearly not all. Still working on trying to reproduce it. If people have a game they started in 4.02 that exhibits this problem please share a save. Any saves should be for newly started games using the 4.02 build. Do not share saves from games that were started in 4.00 or 4.01 - please.

 

3 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

That is odd because a bunch of us have run multiple tests and I play several PBEM turns for fun each day and I haven't seen it. The same test scenarios that we are using now are the same ones that showed it before the patch. I'm attaching a couple of the ones that I still have on my system here:

https://battlefront.sharefile.com/d-sc571c7a39ed4ec9b

If you still have the 4.01 patch, and feel super ambitious,  re-install the 4.01 patch. Play around with these. Then re-install the 4.02 patch and see the difference. 

 

On 6/21/2019 at 12:56 PM, Falaise said:

Here are 10 tests done one after another on Roadblock in 4.02
10 times there was "gap charges"
the game starts at 45 minutes, the troops arrives at the hedgerow at 43 minutes
3 times the "gap charges" took place from the 1st minute !!
I let you look at the pictures and the time or the leak took place.
there  or the troop has resisted longer, corresponding to the random or the attichar gun is located near the crossroads, so it is under the firing of light weapon that the leak took place and the delay is longer

you can see the systematic aspect of the problem that makes the game unplayable
even if I'm happy with 4.00, keeping it behind keeps me from discovering new maps and scenarios. it is rather disabling especially as I am also part of those who fixed the update of the graphics card to December 2017 to prevent the game from crashing after about forty minutes.

at 42 minutes !

at 24 minutes !

at 25 minutes

at 36 minutes

at 38 minutes

at 39 minutes

at 42 minutes

at 36 minutes

at 42 minutes

at 28 minutes

I have not made a backup and since then I have removed the game (I thought it was he who prevented me from properly closing CMBN)
Systematically this happen at home, in the example given 10 times out of 10
It seems that I am more impacted than others.
I ponder what is different I could be from other owners of CMBN.
I thought we should not be many to have a disk version of the game.
that could be a variant of the program different from that put online can be provided as well ?
I never complained of 4.00 for me the problem appeared with 4.01 and 4.02

[BFCElvis]

@FalaiseThank you. Yes, I saw those in the link that @Txema provided. They are kind of an example of why I need to take a closer look at the map (even more than the behavior in that scenario). I won't know until I'm in the game but they appear to go to the same spot each time. Also, the screenshots look like there is a dip/valley-ette between where the fired is and the bocage. So, they may be seeking the cover of being out of the firers LOS. If that is the case then whether they should be running toward the firer to seek better cover versus running the other direction is a subjective choice. Which is different than a bug. 

[Falaise]

I tried putting a bomb hole, (see higher in the thread) and it did not influence their behavior
This behavior does not occur only here
What surprises me is the systematic side that seems to occur only for me
I do not think that the model of a computer can influence the course of a program (but the computer is not my specialty) that's why I wonder if I could have had on the disc that i bought, a basic program variant currently online !!

[BFCElvis]

Looking at both the 3D map and the map in the editor (you can see the numbers reflecting a different elevation) it does appear that moving forward provides cover. I believe that is what is at work in this particular battle. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Is it possible to 'weight' an AI unit's perception of the surrounding cover?

A simple modifier to the perceived value of cover in the direction of enemy units or even the enemy direction might mitigate the issue.

TBH I've no real idea what I'm on about! 

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Is it possible to 'weight' an AI unit's perception of the surrounding cover?

A simple modifier to the perceived value of cover in the direction of enemy units or even the enemy direction might mitigate the issue.

TBH I've no real idea what I'm on about! 

 

cover, concealment, or both?  Part of the issue with the AI is it just doesn't have the capability to nuance a decision that well. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That's why I was wondering about a brute force fix like weighting.....But I know SFA about the game's inner workings, so I could be talking out of completely the wrong end. 

[Wicky]

When someone posted the Scottish Corridor campaign save file (in one of the CMBN threads) for examples of forward rush occuring I continued playing through the campaign with 4.02 and in almost all the battles the behaviour continued to obviously appear. Esp with enemy (German AI) coming forward through hedgrow gaps to be mowed down.  I figure motivation is set very high as otherwise enemy remain in place to last man and need persistant winkling out apart from when they appear spooked / provoked minimally with just gun fire near them as a trigger to their dash of doom.

Surprised to hear here that the aberrant and stubborn bug is thought done & dusted.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Wicky

[BFCElvis]

1 hour ago, Wicky said:

Surprised to hear here that the aberrant and stubborn bug is thought done & dusted.

As I mentioned.....Is it a bug? Or is it designed behavior? The Roadblock scenario that we've been mentioning, for instance. Are they advancing to better cover and/or concealment? When the same test is done with the rise in the land between the firer and the firee they don't advance toward the firer.  I haven't looked at the Scottish Corridor campaign save file yet. But what if I do and there is cover/concealment in the direction that the infantry run? 

We've done a lot of looking into whether it is a bug and have not been able to reproduce one. If it is a bug that we can we reproduce then it will certainly be addressed. But right now it isn't. Ya can't fix a bug that you can't verify as a bug.