OFFICIAL PATCH REQUESTS and BUG REPORTS Thread

[Michael Dorosh]

Redwolf - excellent, I'll edit the post to include your observations/request. Thanks for taking the time. If you find other tanks to which this applies, please let me know.

As an aside, I can see where PeterX is coming from. Not knowing who Battlefront's sources are, it is hard to argue convincingly in favour of one month OOB availability changes. Nonetheless, the discussion harms no one. We do need to be leery of making too many of these types of objections too hastily; I think too much debate on relatively minor matters may detract from the intent of the project as a whole?

Nonetheless, the conversations have all been interesting, and have turned up some good sources that many have not seen or considered before.

[Madmatt]

This might interest you guys...

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001355

Madmatt

[Michael Dorosh]

Okay, still some issues I think. I guess we can download the patch and see what is left? Some interesting stuff in the readme I hadn't yet noticed.

[Shep]

I guess we can download the patch and see what is left?

Yes, it would be great to see how much they covered.

[Mr. Tittles]

The turret thread also looks into other factors regarding hulldown tanks. Specifically, hit distribution and spotting. I think the issue may be not just the weakness of the mismodeling of turret armor but also hulldown modeling also.

Panzer IV turret armor

Some solutions:

1. Redwolfs reprograming

2. 'Tiger I' solution to reflect stronger armor

3. Curved armor to reflect the wide range of protection (100 copula, 50mm+30 mantlet, 50mm turret fronts)

4. averaged value armor (just make it 80mm with a 'panther' type weak point)

[ February 03, 2004, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

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

The penetration model for the PIAT still needs a look please. IIRC someone else has mentioned that bazookas are also ineffective.

Pre-patch I hit an L3 with three PIAT bombs in a row and it drove off unconcernedly. Three bombs going off in something smaller than most cars should be somewhat noticable.

Post patch I have now just hit a 251/1 halftrack with four PIAT bombs in rapid sucession and it simply reversed away :eek:

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

Post patch I have now just hit a 251/1 halftrack with four PIAT bombs in rapid sucession and it simply reversed away :eek:

Hmm. Halftracks like trucks are mostly empty air unless they have passenger or cargo. Thus hitting them might not do as much damage as you would expect. This does sound like overdoing it though.

Michael

[Omi]

Hmmm...British tanks still have Canadian crew. Can I change this myself?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Omi:

Hmmm...British tanks still have Canadian crew. Can I change this myself?

What's the matter, don't you like Canadians? Better not let Dorosh hear about this, he's got some powerful friends.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Omi:

Hmmm...British tanks still have Canadian crew. Can I change this myself?

Yes, the correct bmps for the prepatch Canadian/British bug are listed in post number 1 of this very thread. Simply copy the British bmps into the designated slots.

[junk2drive]

So I went to page 1, quarter way down, by snarker got deleted, you will renter when you get home.

are you home yet?

[Le Tondu]

Hello all,

Yes, I did a search for this one.

Artillery spotters without radios cannot embark on anything. You cannot even place them on vehicles during the setup.

I have to say that it doesn't makes sense to not allow an artillery spotter (w/o a radio) to embark on a jeep -or a halftrack -or a kubelwagen -or a tank. Try it.

If one considers that maybe the wire is already supposed to be in place for the scale that CM represents, then what about meeting engagements?

I'm hoping this will be fixed with the next update.

Let them ride the vehicles and just adjust the time for the unit to get set up and operate(ie. having someone trace the wire back.)

It takes so long for a HMG or mortar to get set up. Why not have something similar like that IF they ride a vehicle?

[JonS]

LT,

that is working exactly the way it is meant to.

Regards

JonS

[ February 03, 2004, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

Hello all,

Yes, I did a search for this one.

Artillery spotters without radios cannot embark on anything. You cannot even place them on vehicles during the setup.

I have to say that it doesn't makes sense to not allow an artillery spotter (w/o a radio) to embark on a jeep -or a halftrack -or a kubelwagen -or a tank. Try it.

We know, we read the manual.

If one considers that maybe the wire is already supposed to be in place for the scale that CM represents, then what about meeting engagements?

The wire is there up to where the spotters are. If the move they have to spool out some more (difficult to do from the back of a moving truck)

I'm hoping this will be fixed with the next update.

Why? It isn't a bug.

Let them ride the vehicles and just adjust the time for the unit to get set up and operate(ie. having someone trace the wire back.)

It takes so long for a HMG or mortar to get set up. Why not have something similar like that IF they ride a vehicle?

Or use a different mechanic that works perfectly well and emphasises a difference between radios and wire.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Le Tondu:

I'm hoping this will be fixed with the next update.

Why? It isn't a bug.

</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

Historically, they could ride vehicles like everyone else. With the introduction of HUGE maps, I consider it to be sort of a bug, yes indeed. An engine limitation? Maybe so.

They could ride anywhere. At the end of the ride, they could not spot for their battery though, because somehow the inconsiderate brutes whose country they were invading did not neatly lay out wires along the roads for them to plug into. It just won't do!

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

Take a ME with a HUGE map. A non-radio spotter can walk to a forward location, but not ride like the rest of his comrades in arms? That's just plain silly.

What is your problem? Buy a radio spotter - that is what mobile forces in WW2 did if they wanted to have very mobile comms. It seems to me you want to have it both ways - cheap spotters with full mobility.

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

The laying of wire should be better abstracted than what is currently considered. If one thinks about it, there is hardly any abstraction at all. Add a spool of wire to the graphic, a sound mod and voila, the abstraction is gone.

So how should it be abstracted? Please do let us know how you would model the movement restrictions of wire FOOs compared to non-wire FOOs. While you are at it, please let us know how you would model line breaks as well. The only way I can think of at the moment is a set-up penalty, like the one currently programmed in for heavy infantry weapons. That would need to be distance related though, and this would not be covered by the current engine.

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

I'm just saying that this is something that can be done better, for heaven's sake. Not allowing them to ride a vehicle is not the answer, in my opinion. Maybe in the next engine they'll be like everyone else in their unit.

Which means that like everyone else they can not spot for artillery. What is your idea how wire was layed? Did it magically appear?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Le Tondu:

I'm hoping this will be fixed with the next update.

Why? It isn't a bug.

</font>

[Sergei]

Btw. I don't know if the spotter team size is totally realistic for wire spotters. I think it should be larger than for a radio spotter team, something like three guys. At least when I saw cable laying teams in maneuvers, there were something like 3-4 guys per team. Leader, someone carrying the cable, one follows and checks that the cable lays well and ties it at intervals to prevent shifting.

Oh, and they should be allowed to abandon the wire when they are in danger of getting overrun and then move like any 'fast' team.

[ February 04, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[Andreas]

I think that is the real weakness in the abstraction. You need to split the job of laying the wire from the job of spotting. Laying the wire would normally be the responsibility of divisional signal troops. The artillery chaps would have their own cable sections (in German artillery battalions), but I believe these guys would just fix the lines, and maybe lay some branch lines, but not the basic network. In the German battalion, the FOO section would be three guys (one FOO, two radio operators).

Cable cutting, as well as atmospheric disturbances to radio comms, are a must in my view, for future engines. I can just imagine the howls on the boards though.

Having said that, if you want to go into that detail of modelling, you can also start making the case for field kitchens (only horse-drawn, please).

I agree that artillery could do with a massive overhaul. I look forward to seeing that in CMx2.

[Redwolf]

The cable abstraction right now creates a huge realism problem:

A spotter on the defense cannot fall back to a second position after first doing his work in an output or the first line of defense.

This is directly punishing realistic tactics, rewarding braindead die-in-place standoffs.

I assume no, but can we please have a fast spotter when it's ammo has been depleted and an "drop ammo (and hence wire)" command? We even have fallback foxholes.

[John Kettler]

Concerning Italian 88s, here's another item which may help the discussion. Page 27 of John Delaney's

FIGHTING THE DESERT FOX, Cassell, 1999,ISBN 0-304-35297-7, has a photo of an 88 battery? (2 x 88 shown in frame) being operated by Italian troops. The helmets are clearly discernible in silhouette and are all Italian. The caption says (Fair Use) "An 88mm gun being used in the anti-aircraft role by an Italian unit. Several "88s" were handed over to Italian formations to improve their fighting capabilities. (IWM STT2895)"

The caption asserts a AAA role, but the photo fairly reeks of a DF or artillery role, given low elevation angle and on-carriage firing with wheels still fitted. Gun deployment appears to be linear.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Andreas:

..........So how should it be abstracted? Please do let us know how you would model the movement restrictions of wire FOOs compared to non-wire FOOs. While you are at it, please let us know how you would model line breaks as well. The only way I can think of at the moment is a set-up penalty, like the one currently programmed in for heavy infantry weapons. That would need to be distance related though, and this would not be covered by the current engine........

Just because something is intended to be a certain way, it doesn't mean that it cannot get better. I believe the purpose of this entire thread is based upon that.

What I said in an earlier post is to let them ride vehicles and when they stop and get off, have a "set-up" time just like mortar teams and HMG teams have. This "set-up" time would simulate the running back of wire by someone and it can be based upon the time it would take someone to half run and half move to the edge of the map.

"Not covered by the current engine?" It most certainly is.

The laying of wire is abstracted in exactly the same way when they walk to a different location, isn't it?? Isn't there a delay before they can call in their artillery? Why should it be any different when the team rides a vehicle?

When we have so many scenarios with a HUGE map and/ or many turns, allowing spotters w/o radios to ride makes perfect sense. Not allowing them to ride a vehicle doesn't make sense and in my opinion, it is not realistic at all.

If there was a situation where a tank couldn't do something it historically did (-say something like traverse its turret), one would call it a bug and there would be all sorts of hair tearing until it was corrected. It is the same for spotters w/o radios not being allowed to ride a vehicle. It might not be of the sam magnitude as the tank example, but it is something that should get corrected, IMO.

If one reads my earlier posting, you will see that I gave this suggestion for future use. (No whining about taking time away from CMII please.) Yet, on the other hand, it wouldn't be all that much to have it corrected and put into CMAK too.

*This was edited only to clean up UBB code for Andreas' quote and grammatical errors.

[ February 05, 2004, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

When we have so many scenarios with a HUGE map and/ or many turns, allowing spotters w/o radios to ride makes perfect sense.

Gosh! Then

a) Don't use indirect artillery

or

use radio spotters.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

What I said in an earlier post is to let them ride vehicles and when they stop and get off, have a "set-up" time just like mortar teams and HMG teams have. This "set-up" time would simulate the running back of wire by someone and it can be based upon the time it would take someone to half run and half move to the edge of the map.

But look, the already existing wire FOs are moving as fast as the wire can be laid (actually, they move a bit faster than that IMO, but no mind). So what's the advantage of moving the spotters forward in a vehicle just so they can sit around for 40 turns waiting for the wire to catch up to them? (If you believe that the wire woudn't take so long, I've got to wonder if you are living in a dream world.) The net effect would be zilch, aside from the enemy infantry would possibly have more opportunities to shoot at them while they are waiting for their wire.

Michael

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

"Not covered by the current engine?" It most certainly is.

Well no it is not, because clearly the proposal from you would only work if the set-up time is related to the disctance traveled. Please show me where in the current engine set-up time is related to distance traveled. You have not addressed this.