List of Known Issues

[womble]

...dig their AT guns into gun pits, cover them with camoflage, etc. In the game we have neither of these options.

Yes, you do. You can use "Sandbag Walls" to make ATG positions. Camouflage isn't directly represented, though, you're right there.

[christopher.wellman]

I have found some issues that are frustrating in the campaign.

Immobilized or damaged vehicles are not repaired in later battles, example damaged tires or main guns

Units begin battles black on ammo

One man units, minimum size of a unit in the army is a buddy team, can stragglers be added to other units to fill them out

bridges are difficult to maneuver around

Great game really the first 2 issues are the really annoying ones been playing since 2003.

[akd]

I have found some issues that are frustrating in the campaign.

Immobilized or damaged vehicles are not repaired in later battles, example damaged tires or main guns

Units begin battles black on ammo

The campaign designer sets chance of resupply and refit between missions in the campaign.

[protocol]

Got it, but no Soldier in their right mind is going to LD without ammo, also changing track on a tank or changing a tire on a jeep would be done by the crew, changing a gun tube off a tank, probably not going to see it anytime soon.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Panzergrenadier (haven't checked Grenadiers yet) Medium Mortar Ammo Bearers have no mortar rounds, so on-map Mortar Teams have 28 rounds of HE.

[akd]

Panzergrenadier (haven't checked Grenadiers yet) Medium Mortar Ammo Bearers have no mortar rounds, so on-map Mortar Teams have 28 rounds of HE.

The other half of their ammo is in their halftracks/trucks but dismounting them in the editor/QB purchase screen does not transfer ammo (and same is true for the dismounted PG armored battalion available under the infantry-only force setting in QBs).

Also, mortar ammo bearers don't carry ammo in QBs, which is probably why you are seeing them with no mortar ammo. For QBs (and the first time you hit deploy in the editor) the available ammo will all be with the mortar team.

[mutait]

I haven't seen anyone else note this, so maybe it's just me, but most times (every time?) I am playing a QB as Axis and do a map preview, I get switched to Allies when the battle begins. This happens pretty reliably for me regardless of QB settings.

[xian]

Case:Building provide very little cover to inf.

Status: Unknown?

Yes, I'm finding that infantry have a far better survival chance if NOT in a building! I now avoid putting infantry in buildings - they are safer in the middle of a corn field.

Is there any response to this issue from BF?

[Scipio]

Their seems to be something wrong with them.

a) I have the mortar HQ 40m away from the mortar. The mortar is 'in contact'. If the HQ gives an artillery order to this mortar, I get a delay of 7 minutes in this special case. This might be realistic for an off map mortar, but what's the idea behind it for on map mortars in contact? Me thinks there should be no delay longer than a half minute.

A mortar can not give an artillery order to itself, but he can give direct fire. That's kind of odd, they should have at least control about their rate of fire.

By the way, while I understand the idea behind the 'out of contact' thing, I have no idea how it works, or shall we say, how to keep in contact with the mortars. The section in the manual is a bit to vague for me.

[simmox]

well,imho,no platoon leader in his right mind is going to order his men to fire small arms at a tiger/panther/med tank at 400m+ in the hopes of pinging off an aerial.

the video of them beating back a stug is all well and good,but,was it ordered by the player? there appears to be more than one platoon firing at it,and its also at close range,this i have no problem with.we didnt get to see what happens when the stug actually fired back,the shooting seemed to stop then?ill assume they paid dearly for this minor victory:)

now on more than one occasion ive had them firing at a tank and not engaging the more suitable infantry nearby in los/lof

they were american troops so maybe thats an excuse:lol

infantry are just cannon fodder for my mind.

another QB im playing,2x 155mm shells land about 100m or more from the target,which is fine,i get an email back with the next turn,my opponent says those 2 shells killed or wounded %85 of a full company,immobilized a mk4 and 3 HTs.

we both thought that was a little overkill,as it appears the shells werent really close enough to the units in question to do that kind of damage

now either the visual representation of the shells landing arent actually where the game calculates them,or,they are firing some atomic shells:)

i havent used large scale arty before in game,so ,i need to test it abit more before i can say somethings a bit off,for what its worth

[A Canadian Cat]

the video of them beating back a stug is all well and good,but,was it ordered by the player? there appears to be more than one platoon firing at it,and its also at close range,this i have no problem with.we didnt get to see what happens when the stug actually fired back,the shooting seemed to stop then?ill assume they paid dearly for this minor victory:)

It was one platoon and an MG actually. No I did not order it they just lite him up on their own.

Paid dearly - there's an understatement. The one StuG they were shooting at did not do much to them - he missed hit shots. It was this two buddies that my guys never even saw. By the end of the turn after that one only one squad had operational numbers left and they were totally rattled and pinned. The rest of the platoon and the MG team were totally decimated and running for their lives. It was bad. Really bad. That's when I realized that the bazokas were in the burning halftracks. Oh man learned valuable lessons from that engagement.

[ClarkWGriswold]

I'm not sure if anyone else has seen this too, but my PBEM password often gets rejected, even though it is typed 100% correctly, if I enter it too quickly. If I wait a few moments longer I can backspace and retype the exact same password (it doesn't use *'s, so it's easy to see that it's the same) and it works fine on the second try. I can reproduce this 100% of the time, so it's no fluke.

[PezBailarin]

Same issue here. I blamed my cheap bluetooth keyboard and my eyes.

[patboy]

After bombing, MG position logged in a bunker was submerged by water as shown by the pics below...

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

...whereas life goes on in the bottom of the river!

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Pat

[GreenAsJade]

Case:Building provide very little cover to inf.

Status: Unknown?

I have the opposite experience.

Read the thread about "two stoopid things". In there, it is explained that the cover inside a building is of the "dice roll" type. You can find a link to a video where I show my inf guy in a building being peppered with tracers, but he doesn't die. It is explained that this is due to the abstract cover operating in the building...

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

Note: this thread would be way more useful if it had just facts and not discussion. As it is its almost useless due to the volume of traffic in it.

[Narses]

I would recommend that plyrs be permitted to select units in QB without "Rarity." Keeping the point values for total units is fine.

I've played countless games from "strict" to "none" and don't get it. What is the purpose. It seems it simply prevents the plyr from setting up exactly what units he wants from those available in this time period.

I generally use QB as in the early CMx1 games to see how certain units react against each other to satisfy some issue or question I have. Sometimes to pratice tactics. Or sometimes just to set up a small quick battle I want to design without the complications of the full Editor.

If I want 3 Panthers and 2 halftracks or scout cars why can't I ?

All in all though CMBN is great.

Ed

[GreenAsJade]

For example, this one ^^^^. How exactly is this a "known issue"?

[Scipio]

I've played countless games from "strict" to "none" and don't get it. What is the purpose. It seems it simply prevents the plyr from setting up exactly what units he wants from those available in this time period.

You got it. That's the purpose. However, you ask for something that is already part of the game. If you set the rarity to 'none', rarity points are shown as unlimited. So what's your point?

[dieseltaylor]

Tanks firing on the move. I hope that made the BF to do immediately list.

[Rex J.]

Case:Building provide very little cover to inf.

Status: Unknown?

I set up a test map with squads hiding in buildings, and platoons outside firing at the buildings from 30m to 80m ranges. Using just rifle and LMG fire (both German and US) there were no causalities among the 20 test squads (10 each German and US).

When I ran the test again using the regular target command (as opposed to target light) and the platoons started using their rifle grenades and bazookas and panzerfausts, well that was just a bloodbath.

So the buildings seem to provide perfect cover to prone soldiers from light arms fire, but not much from even light explosions.

I have no idea if that is historically accurate or not. Can anyone enlighten us?

2) Crew members of crewed weapons firing their small arms at random targets and giving away the position of the crewed weapon (bazooka, mortar, AT gun, MG) is definitely a frustration (as mentioned by others in this thread). The AI should limit this behavior to firing back when fired upon or to firing at VERY close enemy, not at enemy 100+ meters away.

+1 to that

A possible issue: from what I've noticed, submachine guns seem to be causing a lot of casualties at ranges over 100m - that is, beyond their effective range. Has anyone else noticed that?

[xian]

Interesting test... good job.

I've found that even small arms fire is deadly to units in buildings compared to when they are lying in open ground.

[LemuelG]

So the buildings seem to provide perfect cover to prone soldiers from light arms fire, but not much from even light explosions.

Seems appropriate, buildings should if anything amplify the effects of HE by providing a large amount of extra shrapnel.

I would also like to echo DieselTaylor's concern - tanks (with maybe the exception of M4s) simply should not be firing on the move, let alone hitting anything when they do. A definate case to be answered there... I do not expect a fast-moving StuG to be able to one-shot a moving Honey. Not something I'll ragequit over, but not even the other player was proud of that moment.

Of course, in SF that would not raise an eyebrow. Not anymore, I think this area needs looking at ASAP.

[GreenAsJade]

I set up a test map with squads hiding in buildings, and platoons outside firing at the buildings from 30m to 80m ranges....

Good job! Great to know!

[Erwin.Rommel]

I set up a test map with squads hiding in buildings, and platoons outside firing at the buildings from 30m to 80m ranges. Using just rifle and LMG fire (both German and US) there were no causalities among the 20 test squads (10 each German and US).

When I ran the test again using the regular target command (as opposed to target light) and the platoons started using their rifle grenades and bazookas and panzerfausts, well that was just a bloodbath.

So the buildings seem to provide perfect cover to prone soldiers from light arms fire, but not much from even light explosions.

I suppose he's talking about the accuracy when the unit has been spotted but not the building againest the area fire.the issue seems long exist from the CMSF era,the small arm's area fire nearly can do little harm to the enemy except the surpressing effect but when a unit in building has been spotted and be targeted then,the incoming fire become deadly effective even the targeted unit has prone and seeking cover.