ASL Veteran

Hmm, that's really strange. It's possible that an adjustment to the bridge pathing routines was added after the time period that I was testing the scenario and so that behavior popped in after I was done testing it. A patch should be coming out pretty soon though so hopefully that will fix the issue. In the mean time though you should be able to get across the bridge with a few pauses. Your columns will get fairly stretched out, but your ... ahem ... supporting forces will probably take long enough to reach where you are going such that it shouldn't be too much of an issue for you overall. Frustrating? Perhaps, but it shouldn't be a game breaker for you and cause you to end the battle. Possible Spoiler*** Just so you know - there is also a known issue with one of your 'support' vehicles about reloading. It's my understanding that the vehicle will fire but then gets stuck during the reloading routine unless the crew is exposed. I haven't confirmed that myself, but I've read that from others. Once again though, it is a known item and should be fixed when the patch comes out ... hopefully very soon.

In testing that scenario I never had any trouble crossing that bridge .... I think you are describing the bridge near the set up zone that crosses the marshy terrain? The AI uses the bridge with no trouble at all and when testing it I was able to place a waypoint from the vehicles all the way up at the first bend in the road and the vehicles would cross the bridge with no trouble at all. I know that other players have described on these forums that they were playing that scenario and none of them indicated any bridge crossing issues that I'm aware of. I also didn't have any trouble with the bridges across the Dommel so I'm not sure what to tell you. You don't have the ATI click compatibility thing going on do you? Edited to add that you should make sure that you give the vehicles some separation before they cross the bridge. Give following vehicles a few seconds delay so they don't all bunch up on the bridge. You should have plenty of time to get where you need to go so there is no need to rush.

Obviously that sort of data is probably impossible to obtain. However, the good thing is that since the developers are using the same unreliable data set as the players, there is no basis for an argument that the developer's opinion on this topic is any less valid than that of anyone else. What you fail to understand is that the burden of proof isn't on the developer to meet some mythical standard, but rather for the player to show that the developer is wrong and that a change or adjustment needs to be made. The game has the information modelled in the game now and thus is the current default behavior. Unless someone can prove otherwise that default behavior isn't going to change. Why? Because that behavior is already in the game and your desired behavior isn't. Before you make attempts at being a clever disruptor fighting the good fight on behalf of those pining for the days of CMx1 redux you have to understand what the score is, what pieces are on the board, and how to play the game.

Something that you might not be accounting for is the fact that some 'fixes' and 'adjustments' only work within the version 2.0 code universe and so can't be back dated to the 1.0 code version. The game code has moved on from 1.0 so all the new 'features' that are in the 2.0 code were made for the 2.0 code. You aren't being forced to pay for patches, you are simply playing a different and outdated game. While you may disagree, MG behavior wasn't broken or bugged in version 1.0 in terms of game crashes, lock ups, freezes, etc. MG behavior was just 'different' than it is under version 2.0.

I think you might be confusing a garden hedge with a Normandy Hedgerow / Bocage. A Normandy hedgerow has a very large earth embankment topped by dense foliage that usually requires demolition charges to breach.

I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm trying to understand a point of view that the only thing that adds value to a CM product is additional features. Features as defined as engine improvements. I'm sure that just about everyone who reads these forums gets just as excited about engine / game feature improvements as GSX does. I certainly like game improvements. I even like editor improvements which many probably don't really care about. However, the other stuff adds value as well. Some don't seem to view things in that same way and it confuses me. We don't all play the game the same way, so my intent is to find out if there is anything in common among those who value game features to the exclusion of everything else. The fact is that everything else still has to be made. There can't be a game that is just 'features'. A player doesn't just play 'features'. The player has to interact with the game in some way and the vehicle by which the player uses / plays the game is through the use of Quick Battles, Scenarios, and Campaigns. You have to have soldier and vehicle models and TO&E in order to use the various forces within the context of Quick Battles, Scenarios, and Campaigns. They don't exist independent of each other. All are necessary in order for the game to be played by the end user. You can't just play with a 'feature'. The features are the set of rules by which the computer tells the various soldier and vehicle models interact with each other within the context of the game. The TO&E provides the structure by which the soldier models are organized within the game. Quick Battles, Scenarios, and Campaigns are the means by which the player uses the TO&E and the soldier models within the game environment. Features are great, but features by themselves do not make a game. Everyone can use their own judgement as to how they evaluate whether they want to purchase something or not. If someone wants to base their purchase decision on features alone - that's their choice. However, without all the other stuff there is no game to play. I suppose that the individuals who discount all the non feature portions of the game are simply assuming their presence and discounting it because of that or perhaps they don't use all the other stuff. That's the only thing I can think of. Certainly I almost never use the QB portion of the game so if BFC didn't make it I wouldn't miss it. However, BFC has to make all of it in order to make a game ... so while the buyer is free to discount anything other than features they should also understand that all the other stuff still has to be made and still has to be accounted for by BFC when making the game. I hope that made sense ...? :confused:

You did say this didn't you? That seems pretty clear that you don't really care about new TO&E or terrain or did I misunderstand? Soviets, Heer, SS, Fallschirmjager, American, British, Italian ..... they are all basically the same thing. A hill is just a hill and a tree is just a tree. I suppose you could, but then I never made any indication one way or another as to what I consider value did I? I'm also not the one taking a position in this thread about what I consider worthy of a purchase - you are the one doing that. Okay, so you consider 'features' to be integral to the way infantry carry out their business - so what. That doesn't contradict anything that either you or I posted. If the CMBN base game was the perfect infantry simulator in every concievable way and that was your sole source of value for the product then why would you need to purchase any other module, pack, or base game? Wow, that's a pretty broad definition for eye candy. So as far as you are concerned new TO&E, scenarios, campaigns, terrain, nations, weather conditions, etc .... basically everything that isn't a core engine improvement ... is classified as 'eye candy'. That's a very interesting perspective you have there. So if I'm understanding you correctly then, everything that is in the game that has nothing to do with the game's actual mechanics is all just a bunch of eye candy. Scenarios are eye candy. Campaigns are eye candy. TO&E is eye candy. Terrain is eye candy. I can see where someone would have that viewpoint. I don't know how you play and enjoy the game, but I guess if you played nothing but Quick Battles and you had already figured out to the last point what your perfect Quick Battle force was and you selected the same force every time you play then yeah, nothing but features would matter to a player like that.

You are wasting your time because he is a 'feature' guy. The only thing that matters to him are new features. He would happily continue playing the CMBN base game without any additional scenarios, campaigns, nations, formations, terrain, or weather conditions as long as he continued to get new features because none of the other stuff counts as 'value' to him. Fortunately, the way things are structured now he now has the option to simply play the CMBN base game and just buy the upgrades when they become available and patch his game as the patches are released. With this strategy he won't have to feel ripped off when he actually has to pay for scenarios, new TO&E, or a couple of bridges and windmills since he can just opt out and stick with the CMBN base game.

Well you know, getting those three things that he listed into the game is his life long "Struggle". Like the original author of that book though, I think that his suggestions would not turn out as well as he hoped since they would add some layers of micromanagement that the majority of players would be annoyed by. Maybe having a command to tell your guys to throw grenades would be useful once or twice, but then how about all those times they don't throw anything because you forgot to command them to throw them? As you can see, that could get very old very quickly. It's the same with the Acquire command for looting the wounded and the dead. Do we all really want a command box to pop up with Acquire EVERY TIME any of our truppen provides first aid to EVERY wounded or dead soldier on the battlefield? Seriously .... I guess superwoz is so super that he only has one or two wounded soldiers all game. For most players I think it would get annoying and ridiculous very quickly.

I generally play WeGo, but I have played Real Time once or twice a while back, and without any pausing the game can be very fast and even overwhelming. I have to guess that most RealTime players probably play at a higher camera altitude than your average WeGo player and from a Real Time perspective I can see where things could be more streamlined or improved. I do agree that for newer players or players who aren't familiar with this game category the Real Time aspect is very important since it's probable that the vast majority of other games out there are played in Real Time so that's the mode that a new player would probably prefer to start out in. So when players are discussing the UI, I'm thinking that the majority of those players are Real Time players and that if you play We Go everything is fine. Of course a We Go player doesn't have the time component of needing to do things quickly and efficiently with good situational awareness. I believe Steve himself has said on a few occasions that he prefers to play the game Real Time. I'm sure he is aware of the UI needs of Real Time players so you guys shouldn't form the opinion that BFC doesn't care about the UI issues that are being raised. I'm sure if Steve could wave a magic wand and create the perfect UI for Real Time play he would have waved it already.

IIRC the game only uses one core, so if you have 8 cores then only one of your 8 cores is being used by the game.

Pixeltruppen will not stay inside one of the new ditches if the ditch is deeper than 1 meter. I would guess that they don't go into the ditch for LOS purposes because they can't see out of the ditch if it is 2 meters or deeper. The way to avoid that is for the designer to restrict their ditches to 1 meter depth. If the designer made the ditches deeper than 1 meter then only a patch can alter that.

A is AI Group, not AI plan. All units will start in default group A1, and then as you add them to different groups the number will change to A2, A3, etc up to A16 (there are 16 AI groups). There is no AI plan designation assigned to the units themselves. The only way to know what AI plan you are working on is to see which one is selected in the UI over on the upper left side of the screen.

First, I wasn't addressing your proposed solution but rather the post that I quoted in my response. Second, you are making an assumption that a piece of a model can be made to be 'invisible' and not look foolish when the wheels are detached. Maybe it would be better for you to first demonstrate this invisibility on a current model using your modding prowess because models in the game begin life as a solid grey as far as I know. Third, as I said in my initial response about the anticipated chorus of 'I know that you just said it isn't going to change but we still want it changed anyway.' it's definitely not going to change in a patch and Steve has already said its not on the list or even planned for inclusion on any list. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here by pretending that we are not capable of understanding your proposed solution to a non problem. We get it. We understand it. At this point, your proposal has been rejected. I can't make it any simpler than that unless you want me to scan a picture and post it here (right back at you bud).

Current AT guns don't split into two separate pieces when you unlimber them. You do understand how big of an issue that is with regards to the in game models right? An AA gun has one model, then all of a sudden after you unlimber it your one single model splits into two models in the middle of the turn on the fly. There isn't a single item in the game currently that splits into separate models ... not one. So assuming that its even possible for the game to split one model into two on the fly in the manner of a bacteria, the code would have to be written from scratch to allow it to take place in game. How much time and effort would that take (assuming its possible to do at all?). Who knows. All this for one single FLAK gun that was largely obsolete by 1944 anyway.

Perfect. Charles was asking for it as feedback in the Deadly Mantis.

Saferight, a bug report was filed for this issue but we need more information. Was this in Real Time or WeGo and do you have a Save Game available?

It was obviously a choice to make them immovable. If I had to guess it would be that the additional 'stuff' like the detachable wheels and the extra crew movements required for making them movable was not worth the effort to make them movable. Fortunately if you want a FLAK gun that moves you can always use the various models of SdKfz with the FLAK mountings. Those vehicles were specifically designed as mobile FLAK, unlike the guns that are being asked about. In anticipation of the next obvious response of 'In spite of the decision to make them immovable we want them to move like AT guns even if we can't see the wheels detach etc' this is probably not something that is going to be changed or altered in any way in a patch. Perhaps it might be revisited in the distant future some day, but in the mean time you will probably have to deal with it as is and stick to the SdKfz versions of FLAK if you want to move them around.

A report has been filed on this one. Thanks.

It appears that sburke was generous enough to offer his assistance so you can probably pm him about your save game.

I will try to file a report for this for you. Can you list your system specs for us? I don't have a drop box account but maybe one of the other testers who do might be able to get your save file from you unless you want to try e-mailing it to me (the file might be really big though so I don't know if that's viable).

Thanks guys. I think its under control now.

You guys who experienced the problem - other than mjkerner - did any of you have any FJ uniform mods installed? I think someone released one very quickly after the game was released.

We are in the outer part of the inner sanctum. The actual paid employees are in The Inner Sanctum. Even we can't see inside the Inner Sanctum where Steve and Charles cook up their special gaming brew. It has been reported. This is probably a complicated issue though because it was tweaked several times already before you guys even saw it so its not like they just put something out there and said 'it's broken but so what, let them eat cake.'

Just so you guys know, this issue has been noted and reported. Hopefully you will see a fix soon.