OFFICIAL PATCH REQUESTS and BUG REPORTS Thread

[MarkEzra]

Testing note on Cliffs in CMAK: at 2.5 (standard setting) There is no inf. cliff restriction. at 5 or above there is a cliff restriction. I tested both CNBO and CMBB at 2.5 Each had the inf. cliff restriction.

[Redwolf]

Madmatt,

regarding the artillery prices mostly excluding Allied artillery in normal TCP/IP Quickbattles:

Some of us think it would be a smooth fix to lower the Allied artillery prices by giving them less ammunition than they currently have (that means the pricing scheme as such stays the same, the price is not just lowered).

If the interested parties (dalem, YankeeDog, Treeburst, me and a few others) would come up with a concrete proposal, would that be useful? I could imagine BFC wouldn't be too exited about doing lots of math for Quickbattle improvements.

On the other hand, it's a fair amount of work, so some feedback first would be useful.

[Darknight (DC)]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Reams and reams of data and no real correlation to what you think is wrong in the game.

If you wanted to say - briefly and succinctly -

a) what is represented in CM

what the reality was

c) the suggested fix for the patch

That would help. Lots of good data there but it started to look like a simple laundry list, or "Mark Gallear's Guide to What Tanks The British Used". That's great, but you need to show what is broken in CM before we can suggest that it be fixed.

[/QB]

Okay, let's try your format Michael....

a) Canadian Company/Battalion Commander modelled with service dress cap, same as all other Commonwealth infantry;

Service dress cap rarely worn by regimental officers in the field. Most pictures of Canadian officers from battalion level down show the khaki beret to be the proper headgear. According to Canadian regulations, ONLY officers above the rank of Lt-Col were allowed to wear the service dress cap in the theatre of operations, all other personnel wore the beret (khaki for infantry, black for armor, etc). Also, officers below the rank of Colonel were not permitted to wear the service dress cap with Battledress.

c) I suggest using the head model used with armoured troops. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to change but the armoured troops wear a beret already, so maybe it's not difficult to implement that model with the Company/Battalion HQ unit for Canadian troops.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Darknight_Canuck:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Reams and reams of data and no real correlation to what you think is wrong in the game.

If you wanted to say - briefly and succinctly -

a) what is represented in CM

what the reality was

c) the suggested fix for the patch

That would help. Lots of good data there but it started to look like a simple laundry list, or "Mark Gallear's Guide to What Tanks The British Used". That's great, but you need to show what is broken in CM before we can suggest that it be fixed.

Okay, let's try your format Michael....

a) Canadian Company/Battalion Commander modelled with service dress cap, same as all other Commonwealth infantry;

Service dress cap rarely worn by regimental officers in the field. Most pictures of Canadian officers from battalion level down show the khaki beret to be the proper headgear. According to Canadian regulations, ONLY officers above the rank of Lt-Col were allowed to wear the service dress cap in the theatre of operations, all other personnel wore the beret (khaki for infantry, black for armor, etc). Also, officers below the rank of Colonel were not permitted to wear the service dress cap with Battledress.

c) I suggest using the head model used with armoured troops. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to change but the armoured troops wear a beret already, so maybe it's not difficult to implement that model with the Company/Battalion HQ unit for Canadian troops. [/QB]</font>

[VictorCharlie]

not sure if that has been reported yet;

the SPW 250/10, SPW 251/9, 251/10 and 251/17 use the allied 30cal flexible in the gun rack instead of the MG42 flexible.

[Darknight (DC)]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The problem with this is that some units didn't get the beret until 1944. And before 1943, no one had them. They were still wearing the FS Cap. [/QB]

Before 1943 is a bit of a moot point because Canadian infantry troops aren't in combat prior to Sicily 1943 anyway (except for Dieppe, of course). Some units may not have been issued the beret prior to 1944 but some were (and there's lots of pictures of Canadian officers in the beret throught the period 1943-45). I think it would be fair to say that for most of the time Canadian troops were in combat the beret was officially worn (even though there's always exceptions).

To be fair all around, maybe it would be possible to have Canadian Bn/Coy HQ switch to the beret after Sicily (or maybe a month or two later).

Not only is it historically accurate but I think it would also help make the Canadian troops a bit more distinct from their British counterparts.

[Michael Dorosh]

Ok, you've convinced me. I added it to the first post.

[...................................]

STUG IVs seem to have two main guns :eek: They have the same ammo layout as a Lee/Grant.

Umm...feature or bug?

[YankeeDog]

Nevermind. . . misread the post.

[...................................]

Mmmm, errrrrr, - I reloaded the same game and the STUG IV now has just one gun :confused: If it is a bug then it's an intermittent one.

[von Lucke]

Not sure if this is a bug, or just something that's been around forever that I've never noticed before:

Normally, in a single battle scenario, you can't choose fortifications as Reinforcements. In Operations, however, you can.

But (and this is the "bug"), when yr fortification reinforcements arrive (at the start of the next battle in the Op), bunkers and minefields cannot be rotated during the set-up phase --- they all point in the direction of the enemy side of the map. The other fortification units (roadblocks, trenches, wire) all can, however.

Not being able to properly "aim" a bunker on set-up is usually fatal.

Of course, for all I know, being able to choose fortifications as reinforcements in an Operation could be the flaw...

[WWB]

Trick with "reinforcement" fortifications is to buy them for battle one and deploy them past the visible section of the map, padlocked. They will then show up, properly sited, when the map gets there.

WWB

[Michael Dorosh]

Von Lucke - I've added that to the list, it is a bug. WWB has a workaround, but that's no substitute for a patch! I've also added my own reminded that we've had the locked camera bug in the operations editor ever since CMB0.

[WWB]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Von Lucke - I've added that to the list, it is a bug. WWB has a workaround, but that's no substitute for a patch! I've also added my own reminded that we've had the locked camera bug in the operations editor ever since CMB0.

I dont think the locked camera thing is a bug, but rather by design. What if you set the camera position to be say, off the battlefield?

WWB

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by WWB:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Von Lucke - I've added that to the list, it is a bug. WWB has a workaround, but that's no substitute for a patch! I've also added my own reminded that we've had the locked camera bug in the operations editor ever since CMB0.

I dont think the locked camera thing is a bug, but rather by design. What if you set the camera position to be say, off the battlefield?

WWB </font>

[Soddball]

There's another bug from CM:BO which peeves me.

I place a unit or group of units. I then select a new unit and press 'move' to place and rotate it. The unit gets placed but the rotate action gets ignored. I reselect the unit or select another unit and the 'move' function now works properly.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Von Lucke - I've added that to the list, it is a bug. WWB has a workaround, but that's no substitute for a patch! I've also added my own reminded that we've had the locked camera bug in the operations editor ever since CMB0.

True --- unless it's a Static Operation, with no crawling map window.

(Oops: Replied to wrong message --- but you get my drift).

[WWB]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WWB:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Von Lucke - I've added that to the list, it is a bug. WWB has a workaround, but that's no substitute for a patch! I've also added my own reminded that we've had the locked camera bug in the operations editor ever since CMB0.

I dont think the locked camera thing is a bug, but rather by design. What if you set the camera position to be say, off the battlefield?

WWB </font>

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

"Mark Gallear - not sure what to include or not include from yours, you got pretty stream-of-consciousness there for awhile."

What does stream-of-consciousness mean exactly!

Reams and reams of data and no real correlation to what you think is wrong in the game.

If you wanted to say - briefly and succinctly -

a) what is represented in CM

what the reality was

c) the suggested fix for the patch

That would help. Lots of good data there but it started to look like a simple laundry list, or "Mark Gallear's Guide to What Tanks The British Used". That's great, but you need to show what is broken in CM before we can suggest that it be fixed.

Fictional Example:

a) British "Thatcher" tank available in CM from June 1943 to end of war with rarity of 150%

Fake source document indicates that Thatcher not in production until July 1943 and first trial models in combat August 1943. First issue to combat units in October

c) Suggest tank not be available at all in June, rarity be increased to 200% in July-Sep 1943 and drop to 150 in October

Or somefink. Makes it easier to see what needs to be patched or not patched than simply saying

"F-49 Bumblebee fighterbombers available historically from July 1941-43. Fix." </font>

[SSG D]

Dear Combat Mission Folks,

You have developed an excellent game. I have been practicing fire and maneuver holding attacks on CM. I love it and I don't want to sound picky, However I have one suggestion.

I was not in WWII, so I don't have any personal experience with this time period. However I spent a lot of time doing infantry problems during the 60s, both live fire and blanks. During my time in Vietnam I was an FO or a Mortar guy so I can't claim any real experience doing a real on line assault.

All that said, I am surprised how fast the CM infantry units tire while assaulting. An online assault should be a walking/shooting exercise with lots of adrenallin. Let me tell you when the guys to your right and left are firing live bullets you do not fall behind and you damn sure don't run ahead.

It seems to me that in reasonable terrain two platoons which begin the online assault in rested condition should be able to sweep through an enemy platoon position from the flank without getting that tired.

Perhaps you may wish to look at this issue before you do your patch.

SSG D

[keith rodgers]

Has foraging for ammo been mentioned yet? I know that using captured equipment has, but it strikes me that if an infantry unit that has run low on ammo is next to a similar dead unit of the same side for long enough, the troops would go through their fallen comrades pockets & help themselves to unused ammo.

[dalem]

Remember guys - we're trying to keep this to things that MIGHT be proper to address in a possible CM:AK patch.

Actual changes to the root engine and mechanics (Area Fire, fatigue modeling, ammo usage and supply, etc.) are only going to get the thread

a) off track

closed up, because Madmatt has already told us that.

thanks,

-dale

[PeterX]

CMAK seems to have reduces bogging rates significantly to the point that there seems to be no perceptible difference between Wet, Damp, and Mud. Is this desirable? (See 'Brits at Anzio' thread in the scenario forum).

Additionally, tank commanders continue getting picked off at an alarming rate.

[Romulus]

I have to make the following remarks about the Italian Army units. The remarks with a * denote the points that I personally deem very important.

The lack of the following AFVs and support units

1.* The Italians produced 30 units of the Semovente M41 (with the M14/41 chassis) da 90/53 which were assigned to the X Raggruppamento (3 groups of 10 semoventi each) which fought in Sicily until its complete annihilation in July-August 1943.

2. The truck mounted 102/35 naval guns. A battalion of (truck mounted) 102/35 guns was even attached to the "Ariete" Armoured Division.

3.* The Italian manned Flak 88/56: the German manufactured AA/AT guns were assigned to several artillery battalions, for example the 6th Artillery Bn (attached to the "Ariete" Armoured Division) and a Bn of the 1st "Celere" Artillery Regt (27th "Brescia" Infantry Division).

4. The M15/42. Italy produced 90 Carri M15/42 which were assigned to the "Lancieri Vittorio Emanuele" of the "Ariete II" Armoured Division. Hence they were employed in Italy until the 8th September 1943 Armistice, then they were captured and employed by the Germans.

The lack of the following infantry units in the OoB:

1.* The Marines Battalions, which were part of the "San Marco" Rgt and were employed in the Hecker Group (from February 42).

2. The Carabinieri parachute Battalion (its TO&E should differ from that of the Army parachute battalion).

3.* The Bersaglieri MC battalion and company: every Bersaglieri Regiment (until june 42 and then in July-August 43) consisted of two motorized battalions (which are present in CMAK) and of one motorcycle battalion (e.g. the 9th Rgt) or at least a motorcycle company (e.g. the 8th Rgt).

The Bersaglieri MC Bn organization was:

3 x Bers. MC Rifle Company

3 x Rifle plt (of 4 squads each)

1 x MG plt (4 squads)

The equipment: 36 LMG, 12 MMG

4. Every motorized and swift ("celere") division included an infantry motorcycle company which cannot be found in CMAK.

5.* The Libyan Battalions. I know it can be argued that they are not featured for the same reasons the Indians were left out but I would prefer to have them even if they do speak Italian instead of their native language. That's because they represented about the 10-12% of the entire Italian Army in North Africa especially in the first stages (1940-41) of the war.

6.* The Eastern Africa colonial troops. They were a considerable part of the Italian Army in that theatre (7051 officers, 9925 NCOs, 74216 Italian privates and 274028 colonial privates). Moreover they had quite different equipment: the Mannlicher rifle and mainly the Schwarzlose MG.

The EA Colonial Battalions had 3 companies of 3 platoons + 1 MG company (18 LMG, 9 HMG).

7. The motorized MG battalion which was assigned to the (few) motorized divisions. It consisted of 4 companies of 3 platoons (48 MGs).

8. The "Folgore" Parachute Division, deployed in Northern Africa from July 41, included also an Airborne Engineer Battalion (Battaglione Guastatori).

Some inaccuracies about specific AFVs:

1.* In CMAK the 75/18 gun's performance (mounted on the Semoventi M40 and M41) is underated: in the game it is not even able to penetrate a 50mm armor from a 100m distance while it was well known and popular (among the Italian crews) since it had a higher penetration power than the 47/32 gun (mounted on the M13/40 and on the M14/41). There are several AARs that maintain that it could penetrate 50mm at 1000 yards (this is reported even in Greene & Massignani "Rommel's North Africa Campaign" p136). The point is that the Italians did use a hollow charge shell, called "Effetto Pronto" that make a higher penetration power possible for the 75/18 gun.

Another problem about the Semovente da 75/18 (so as the L40 da 47/32) is the lack of the 8mm (bow) MG.

2. In CMAK the Semovente da 75/32 is equipped with a 75/34 gun while it should be equipped with a 75/32 gun (guess it is a misprint). Maybe the confusion was generated by the fact that there were two different semoventi: the M41 da 75/32 and the M42 da 75/34 (90 units employed only by the Germans after the 8th Sept 43 Armistice and never employed by the Italians).

I am working on the planes availability dates. Hope to find something interesting.

Peppe

[Mark Gallear]

Gosh Romulus has certainly put me to shame with his presentation "Oob" and "TO&E" not only can he do bullet points, he types and can spell in English as well!