OFFICIAL PATCH REQUESTS and BUG REPORTS Thread

[JonS]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Concerning Italian 88s, ... a photo of an 88 battery? (2 x 88 shown in frame) ... Gun deployment appears to be linear.

Linear gun deployment? Really? No kidding. Pray tell, what other kind of deployment could you possibly have with two guns?

Just kidding - interesting info. Thanks for the post.

Regards

JonS

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Memo to self. Do NOT post without full brain engagement! Good idea originally, but I got ahead of myself and failed to think it through.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

Linear gun deployment? Really? No kidding. Pray tell, what other kind of deployment could you possibly have with two guns?

Couldn't they be deployed in depth? Depending of course on which direction the enemy was coming from.

Michael

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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.

Well Andreas, look at it this way.

A spotter w/o a radio would ride any distance and there would be a time delay before he can call in artillery. The time delay would simulate the laying of wire back to wherever. Time delays are already in the engine with heavy weapons teams.

A time delay in game terms can be related to anything one wants because it is something that is subjective. That means it is a choice -and "distance traveled" can easily be one choice. Another choice is calling the time delay "set-up" time for mortars or HMGs.

That is not much of a change, IMO and time delays are already covered in the current game engine.

Nothing has to change for the times when spotters w/o radios hoof it.

I'm just trying to help out a good friend who will be teaching at the War College in two months. He noticed the issue and he didn't have the time to bring it here, -so I volunteered. He is pretty busy with his current unit. Needless to say, I like it and it beats the heck out of the current way things are handled in relation to spotters w/o radios, IMO.

I'm sure that no one can say the situation with them is perfect. I'm just offering some constructive suggestions to help out. That's all.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

A time delay in game terms can be related to anything one wants because it is something that is subjective. That means it is a choice -and "distance traveled" can easily be one choice. Another choice is calling the time delay "set-up" time for mortars or HMGs.

I am sorry, I am not quite sure what is subjective about these facts, from Real Life :

'The further a wire spotter travels, the more wire has to be laid.'

'The time delay in setting up an HMG is unrelated to the distance traveled by the crew.'

The conclusion from this is that the time delay for spotters is different from the time delay for an HMG, because one is distance dependent (from very little for a ride of 250 yards to quite a lot for a ride of 6km), while for the HMG it makes bugger all difference.

You still have not said why you don't just buy radio spotters?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

A spotter w/o a radio would ride any distance and there would be a time delay before he can call in artillery. The time delay would simulate the laying of wire back to wherever.

Even setting aside for the moment Andreas' objection to this scheme, what exactly is the point of moving an FO by vehicle if he can't do anything for the period equal to the time it would have taken him just to walk there?

I mean, what is this whole argument about?

Michael

[ February 06, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

.......I mean, what is this whole argument about?

Michael

Fatigue comes to mind when spotters are forced to always be on foot during the winter scenarios.

I brought to this forum a suggestion and I have been trying to explain it.

It is about realism, it is about what happened historically.

Spotters w/o radios rode in and on vehicles all of the time --and the ONLY place where they can't is CM. I'm sorry but, its just not right. It is the same point one would have to make if sharpshooters weren't allowed to ride vehicles. Or ANY other unit.

[Andreas]

Any other unit is not trailing wire behind it in order to do its job. There are other units where this is used as abstraction, e.g. guns.

It is right.

[Ron]

Anyone played with the Italian Airborne yet? A platoon consists of 2 SMG and 2 LMG squads. The odd part to me are the SMG squads; they have 9 x Beretta SMGs and 1 x Breda LMG for a Firepower of 340 at 40m, and get this, ammo of 54!! I thought the "uber" SMG squads were supposed to have a lower ammo supply to balance the Rifle squads? Is this an oversight or is there some explanation for this I am unaware of?

Ron

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

Spotters w/o radios rode in and on vehicles all of the time...

I think this statement requires closer examination. Think of what CM is meant to model and what it isn't. It is not an operational level game where battalions may be covering miles over a period of hours before they they get to where they are going to fight. It represents the extreme forward edge of the battlefield where the opposing forces are either already in contact or contact is imminent and the last stage of the tactical deployment for battle is in progress.

One of the features of this stage of battle is that the FOs' ride is over. They are either already at their observation posts, or are setting one up. That's what is modeled in CM because that's how wire FOs behaved in real life. To repeat, they've had the ride that you keep harping on. Now it's time they do their job.

Now, I will admit that there are problems with the way that this gets handled in CM. Unless you are playing a designer-created scenario that has considered the matter thoughtfully, there is a real danger that the set up zone for your units may not contain or be conveniently near a terrain feature that offers a good point of observation of the battlefield. If this is a problem, the solution is to design and use maps where the problem has been addressed. The solution is not to write some kind of unrealistic unit behavior into the code.

Michael

[ February 07, 2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I just noticed that in operations in v 1.0, as noted before you can't rotate reinforcement bunkers, however, you CAN rotate roadblocks that are on the map from previous battles.

Has this been fixed in 1.1? (I'm not upgrading til I'm through my current PBEMs).

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I think this statement requires closer examination. Think of what CM is meant to model and what it isn't. It is not an operational level game where battalions may be covering miles over a period of hours before they they get to where they are going to fight. It represents the extreme forward edge of the battlefield where the opposing forces are either already in contact or contact is imminent and the last stage of the tactical deployment for battle is in progress.

One of the features of this stage of battle is that the FOs' ride is over. They are either already at their observation posts, or are setting one up. That's what is modeled in CM because that's how wire FOs behaved in real life. To repeat, they've had the ride that you keep harping on. Now it's time they do their job.

Now, I will admit that there are problems with the way that this gets handled in CM. Unless you are playing a designer-created scenario that has considered the matter thoughtfully, there is a real danger that the set up zone for your units may not contain or be conveniently near a terrain feature that offers a good point of observation of the battlefield. If this is a problem, the solution is to design and use maps where the problem has been addressed. The solution is not to write some kind of unrealistic unit behavior into the code.

Michael

Hello Michael,

I would respectfully say that what CM models is what CM presents to the player. To me they are one and the same.

Ok, I am looking at a 8k x 2k map for a ME. Everybody gets to ride to the forward postions but the spotter? In this situation, the ride of the spotter is really far from over, but it currently happens to be artificially over.

Now, I know some are prejudiced against MEs, but I really, really like them. They're one aspect (amongst many) of CM that makes it GREAT in my opinion.

Another thought is: are there any times when a side doesn't have a spotter available with a radio?

In the short run, your suggestion about choosing smaller maps is a "solution." The big flaw with it is that it limits CM in an extreme way. Why have HUGE maps at all?

It seems to me that the other way to solve this is to get rid of the HUGE maps altogether. (Yuck!! I don't believe anyone wants that at all.) The other solution is to allow them to ride vehicles with some sort of time delay for setting up.

Unfortunately, taking no action continues to expose a flaw, in my opinion. Minor as it may seem to others, it is still a flaw of an otherwise brilliant diamond.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

Ok, I am looking at a 8k x 2k map for a ME. Everybody gets to ride to the forward postions but the spotter? In this situation, the ride of the spotter is really far from over, but it currently happens to be artificially over.

Okay. So, realistically, the spotter rides forward some distance—let's say 2,000 meters since that's one-quarter of the length the map you are describing—and takes up his postion. He then waits two hours for the wire to be run up to his postion. Cool with me if you want to play a game like that. Can't say that I do.

Now, I know some are prejudiced against MEs, but I really, really like them. They're one aspect (amongst many) of CM that makes it GREAT in my opinion.

Fine with me. Last week I played three meeting engagements. I don't normally play them that often, but that's the kind of battle that often occurred in NA, and I had some things I wanted to test out. Other times I will play an ME just because that's what I feel like doing.

Another thought is: are there any times when a side doesn't have a spotter available with a radio?

Sure. Lots of times. And if they were moving fast any distance from their line of departure, that meant they they simply did without on-call artillery. Happened lots of times.

In the short run, your suggestion about choosing smaller maps is a "solution."

Not at all. My suggestion was (if you care to go back and read it) that maps have a terrain feature in or conveniently near (like within a couple hundred meters at most) the setup zone from which the critical parts of the battlefield can be brought under observation. In real life this was usually one of the first steps a commander saw to in planning a battle. Capturing and securing such sites was a key part of operational strategy. The rest of the battle generally didn't go forward unless that had been done some hours or even days before.

I'd say (and several other posters in this thread have tried to tell you) that the bottom line is if you are in a fluid situation like a meeting engagement, take a radio or plan on doing without artillery. That's what armies did in real life.

Michael

[Wicky]

Don't know if it's my graphics card but there seems to be a slight graphics gitch with the rear lower hull in the US M7 B1 priest.

If one gets to level 1 there is a funny bleeding effect. Not sure what's causing it as I thought it was my doing when doing the latest snowy mods but after much head scratching and pixel poking I reviewed the original and found it there as well.

[Redwolf]

I think it would be better to open a new thread for the non-radio spotter movement problem, it makes it hard to spot for bug reports here.

The new thread should probably start out with a suggested model for more realistic treatment

[REVS]

Ron wrote

Anyone played with the Italian Airborne yet? A platoon consists of 2 SMG and 2 LMG squads. The odd part to me are the SMG squads; they have 9 x Beretta SMGs and 1 x Breda LMG for a Firepower of 340 at 40m, and get this, ammo of 54!! I thought the "uber" SMG squads were supposed to have a lower ammo supply to balance the Rifle squads? Is this an oversight or is there some explanation for this I am unaware of?

So far your post has passed without comment, but I'm with you on this one Ron, it sounds like a boo boo that should be headed for Patch 2 for amendment. The ammo load should be something more like 25.

PS: I play most of my gaming against a feller who loves playing conscripts, and he's great at sniffing out the best bargains he can find, points-wise. I can imagine his eyes will light up when he finds these boys in the bargain bin!

[sand digger]

Following on from my complaint about a lack of contour or other visual indicators of land rise and fall, here is something constructive. And before rushing into say that it is excessively unrealistic compared with the real world, in practical use it would be impossible when using this suggestion to have anything near a 100% knowledge of every bump and fold in the terrain. Plus it is simple.

Modify the present LOS tool so that you can do a LOS check from any point on the map. Thats it, simple. Retain the excellent 'degrade over distance' feature which will help to make the change far from unrealistic as to the knowledge which may be gathered from using it.

And a second suggestion, give recce units an improved ability to spot concealed enemy units.

[flamingknives]

LOS checks from anywhere on the map is horribly gamey, unrealistic etc. I sure as hell don't know what I can see from the hill in front of me - that's what recon units are for.

As for spotting - how far away can you spot someone hiding in a camouflaged foxhole?

[Private Bluebottle]

I've been through the thread from start to finish, some interesting comments. However, I have a few questions and one or two points, which don't appear to have been made yet.

1) Why, in the Commonwealth TO&Es are there insufficient towing vehicles for the 2 Pdr AT guns?

2) Why is there this artificial seperation between AT rifle equipped carriers and pure Bren gun equipped carriers. My understanding was that universal carriers were equipped with both an LMG and an AT rifle, as well as a 2in mortar.

3) To further complicate that point, Australian universal carriers (Local Pattern) were equipped with Vickers MMGs/AT Rifles/Bren guns and upon occasion, all three were carried, as well as the 2in mortar.

4) Australian officers' headgear - below Brigade level, particularly early in the war, even battalion commanders wore steel helmets, not peaked caps, when in the line. A minor quibbled, I know but one worth thinking about.

5) Early in the war, Australia and the UK could not supply sufficient Brens to equip all units. Often the venerable Lewis was substituted. I can't seem to find it anywhere in the game.

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

I've been through the thread from start to finish, some interesting comments. However, I have a few questions and one or two points, which don't appear to have been made yet.

1) Why, in the Commonwealth TO&Es are there insufficient towing vehicles for the 2 Pdr AT guns?

2) Why is there this artificial seperation between AT rifle equipped carriers and pure Bren gun equipped carriers. My understanding was that universal carriers were equipped with both an LMG and an AT rifle, as well as a 2in mortar.

3) To further complicate that point, Australian universal carriers (Local Pattern) were equipped with Vickers MMGs/AT Rifles/Bren guns and upon occasion, all three were carried, as well as the 2in mortar.

4) Australian officers' headgear - below Brigade level, particularly early in the war, even battalion commanders wore steel helmets, not peaked caps, when in the line. A minor quibbled, I know but one worth thinking about.

5) Early in the war, Australia and the UK could not supply sufficient Brens to equip all units. Often the venerable Lewis was substituted. I can't seem to find it anywhere in the game.

I agree there are big time problems with the British and "Commonwealth" TO&Es

On the Universal carriers - that’s what they are carriers - not Bren gun carriers or Boys mounts. The carrier is there to carry troops and equipment about if these soldiers had a Bren or a Boys they could fire them from under the armour. When they got to their destination, they would get out and take them with them. The current vehicles are a fudge to represent this.

On the Boys there was a special carrier developed in the pre-war period for this which the British Army experimented with and decided they were not that keen on the idea. The remaining vehicles were sent to France in 1940 and lost there. There was also a "Bren Carrier" dropped before WW2 its name continued to be applied to the Universal carrier. I think the idea of the carrier as a weapons platform is a bit of pre-war created myth and the troop would normally dismount to fight.

There was an AA section in the battalion equipped with Brens on AA tripod mounts they would frequently be fitted to the vehicles in the carrier platoon, and if the crew man stood up and exposed himself would add an extra Bren to the armament. So yes you could potential fire the Boys from the slit and the Bren from the AA mount at the same time. Neither is normal, however!

There is carrier armed with a Vickers but much more normal to carry one. Only a few specialist formations were equipped with them.

It is common to see vehicles in the first year of the Desert War with Vickers guns used as AA MGs. The Bren had just replaced it as the squad weapon, however apart from the HomeGuard far as I know there was enough Brens to go round to the infantry.

[flamingknives]

In addition to the Universal carrier, there is a Loyd carrier (not in game) that was used as a gun tractor when the infantry Battalions were equipped with 6pdr ATGs. It could carry a full squad and there werre 2 per gun (at least, in official TO&Es)

Mark:

There are few more armed carriers out there (image search on google: Universal carrier)

[junk2drive]

Subject Rangers, Darby's Rangers, 1stSSF, 82ndAB.

According to this

Grunts.net 82nd AB

Grunts.net Rangers

Darby's Rangers

82nd pulled to Normandy training 11/43 and not available in cmak in 12/43

Rangers, Darby's Rangers and 1stSSF were in NA, Italy, up the boot and into France through the rest of cmak timeframe. There are no mountain troops available until 1/45.

How about giving us something besides regular infantry 12/43 to 12/44? Without having to play the back and forth in parameters game.

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

I agree there are big time problems with the British and "Commonwealth" TO&Es

On the Universal carriers - that’s what they are carriers - not Bren gun carriers or Boys mounts. The carrier is there to carry troops and equipment about if these soldiers had a Bren or a Boys they could fire them from under the armour. When they got to their destination, they would get out and take them with them. The current vehicles are a fudge to represent this.

Generally I'd agree with you but the vehicles were equipped to carry their weapons in an aggressive manner, not just merely within them. They were intended, if necessay to be able to defend themselves. So their weapons were mounted, not just carried.

[qb]

On the Boys there was a special carrier developed in the pre-war period for this which the British Army experimented with and decided they were not that keen on the idea. The remaining vehicles were sent to France in 1940 and lost there. There was also a "Bren Carrier" dropped before WW2 its name continued to be applied to the Universal carrier. I think the idea of the carrier as a weapons platform is a bit of pre-war created myth and the troop would normally dismount to fight.

The British developed two specialised carriers - the "Bren" and the "Scout". Expense and a desire for a common vehicle which could carry out both roles produced the "Universal". Australia (and New Zealand) only produced their own versions of the Universal. The Australian version only had skid-steering, instead of track warping, featured a large, transverse air vent across the top of the bulkhead behind the driver and was designed from the outset to carry a Vickers as well as the Boys and Bren in the forward compartment. This is detailed in Mike Cecils excellent Profile on Australian pattern carriers. There are numerous pictures in it of Aust.Pat. Carriers carrying vickers, in the desert and elsewhere.

There was an AA section in the battalion equipped with Brens on AA tripod mounts they would frequently be fitted to the vehicles in the carrier platoon, and if the crew man stood up and exposed himself would add an extra Bren to the armament. So yes you could potential fire the Boys from the slit and the Bren from the AA mount at the same time. Neither is normal, however!

The Aust.Pat.Carrier had provision for a Bren to be mounted on top of a pole, for AA work or in a low pintle, behind the driver, on the right side of the vehicle, to cover the forward arc, over his head.

There is carrier armed with a Vickers but much more normal to carry one. Only a few specialist formations were equipped with them.

Not in the Australian Army.

It is common to see vehicles in the first year of the Desert War with Vickers guns used as AA MGs. The Bren had just replaced it as the squad weapon, however apart from the HomeGuard far as I know there was enough Brens to go round to the infantry.

There are numerous pictures of Lewis guns in use with Australian forces in the first 2 years of the war, as a replacement for the Bren gun.

Do not assume that the British experience is the same as that of the whole Commonwealth or Imperial forces'.

[Snow Leopard]

I noticed odd...When I am in scenario editor as selected Crete map. I try find tank hunter team in support section list but nope, If I select Fallschirmjäger company in infantry section, I will have two tank hunter teams with their own C/O in that company. Had you noticed it? :confused:

Cheer!

[ February 11, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Snow Leopard ]

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

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

I agree there are big time problems with the British and "Commonwealth" TO&Es

The Aust.Pat.Carrier had provision for a Bren to be mounted on top of a pole, for AA work or in a low pintle, behind the driver, on the right side of the vehicle, to cover the forward arc, over his head.

All the carriers could have the AA Bren fitted - in the manner you describe and the picture provided by flamingknives, I would like to see it on the Boys AT Rifle version as it was quite common practice in the carrier platoon.

My understanding is that they were used in the Support company of the Infantry in Armoured Divisions. I suspect they arrive in the game to early and these formations just carried the Vickers in a standard carrier in the early stage of the war.

The Australians had little Armour so it may be correct that they did not use this vehicle. If you have proof, examples TO&Es in north Africa I would be very interested!

There are numerous pictures of Lewis guns in use with Australian forces in the first 2 years of the war, as a replacement for the Bren gun.

Do not assume that the British experience is the same as that of the whole Commonwealth or Imperial forces'. </font>

I do know that the British Army did not have the tanks to equip the Australians for example, so this could be possible.

If you have written sources you can cite, pictures from the Internet of the Lewis Gun being clearly used as the Section Support Weapon, I would be interested. I would like to see the Lewis MG represented on a number of vehicles as an AA gun. Mentioned the exact ones in previous posts.

I have no sway with BFC at all, probably the opposite but if you can prove what you say they may feel compelled to do something - you never Know!