WineCape

Add me to the list for the program to be had via your dropbox share GAJ. Well done.

Eric Arthur Blair, better known as big brother, better known as Stevie G.

"When it's ready."

Enjoy. Onwards to the next round of scrutiny

Still in the pipeline. Given the iminent release of the patch v1.01 -- and possible follow-up patch(es) -- we want players to get a few months of extra play under their belts before we kick-start this.

BFC like the legitimate complaints all right mind you, just the drama queen stuff is starting to get "the roll your eyes" treatment, not because some think it's a perfect game, but because it has been dealt with many times before and a quick search won't hurt at all. In lieu of a quick search, some will give helpful posts for the umpteenth time, some will post condescending replies. Unlike a poster earlier saying it's a waste of time to complain, some changes have already been made in the latest patch because/due to forumites unearthing legitimate bugs and voicing said issues in a specific, clear, rational way. It's also OK to voice general unspecific complaints - perceived or not - but it aint helpful for the BFC/beta-testers in chasing them down, so these complaints get usually ignored. And there were some annoying bugs mind you, some you already mentioneded, that has already been fixed in patch v1.01. Just rest assured, the known bugs unearthed will be worked at and will be sorted out in due time. Of that, BFC's track record since CMBO-days are testament. Obviously no amount of bug fixing is going to satisfy you if you believe that CMx1 is more fun then CMx2. But that is to be expected as change/evolution is not always welcome by some. Since you made a canyon sound echo, I gather you won't be scared of the sound coming back to you.

Nobody knows when, except the programming Jar, and unlike the FIFA 2010 World Cup Soccer Octopus (RIP), he's in no mood for predictions.

Seeing your opponents setup zone and swopping attacking / defending roles with certain battle parameters is a known bug that has been fixed in patch v1.01 AFAIK.

If you have the Steelbook copy, some might want to take it off your hands if you decide this is not your cup of Java.

As mentioned elsewhere and previously, it would be a neat feature for future iterations of CM if you could beforehand select the numbers of shells to shoot off from your ammo pile for mortars and artillery.

As Steve implied: "It won't change." As helpful posters said: (1) Agree to change the setup zones yourself and make them larger; (2) or agree beforehand not to launch 1-min bombardment; (3) take it on chin or don't play that person again if you cannot come to an pre-battle agreement; (4) limit beforehand the max points on arty and/or size as per in-house play rules.

"Blame" Rokko for delaying the patch -- http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99105

Steiner14, While I don't doubt what slysniper has observed is not true, it will only come to pass to change anything or something of CMBN within a controlled tested environment. What part of 350 tests run on a moving shooter having a hit% success rate of initially, ranging between 5-15% only, don't you understand is currently the norm for v1.00? 5-15% hits out of 350 shooting contests? That's roughly 35 hits average out of 350 tests? Still too high? Some would say yes, and BFC is again in agreement and tweaked it even lower. Or what part of BFC's stated position that they have tweaked it even lower for patch v101 is beyond comprehension? Nobody is disagreeing that ultimately we can even have less hit% from a moving shooter. Maybe BFC has now tweaked it to a 2%-5% hit probability? Or 0,5%. Who knows. So spare us the hyperbole of making out anyone having an argument against any position taken, as being accused of as "CM fanboys", as much as you are being (not) accused of as a "CM-hater, which I'm sure you are not, as nobody are silly enough to do so. For Inbetween these two extreme positions lie rational discussion based on big sample tests to get things changed. Further changes have been made to the engine code, despite your allegation of "fanboy" discussion influencing the opposite effect.

Will have a look at it and bump it up if I can reproduce the same issue. Regards.

We wish all other war genre games well, and financial success too. Alas, I also have heard over the years a lot about punted products purporting to be iPhone & iPad killers. And I have a BlackBerry phone.

Bold = mine: EDIT: Apologies, post deleted as Sgt Joch beat me to it in clarifying what Steve said, as that is how I understood it too, as explained by the Sarge. I personally would love the old HUNT order (for AFV's versus AFV's) to be implemented again for the CMx2 engine in a WWII setting, if possible. BFC is on record that they will look at HUNT, as a movement order we're all familiar with due to the CMx1 trilogy, together with a major UI overhaul at the next family of releases.

Heh, the 70-odd and counting are only the heads of the hairy bugs. Phil and Charles will tell you that if you count the body parts/limbs going with these heads, it is decidely more of a carnage and a gruesome field excercise.

We had 5 major iterations of patch v1.01 so far. It's currently in RC2 status, but that, unfortunately, means nothing, as RC status can go up to double digits in # sequence.

What?! And leave nothing for dessert? I thought it referred to the sound of the tank tracks.

All in good/due time, suffice to say more then half of the bugs fixed by the programmers I have yet to see them reported as a bug here on this general forum. This thread had an earlier reference wrt tank accuracy, in particular firing on the move. Now, moving tanks fire their weapons with even less accuracy.

As Phil said, he hunts bugs. Quite successfully. The treebug has been fixed in patch v1.01. I'm tallying 70-odd hairy bugs so far. And counting... And yes, apart from the no armor arc -- no, it will not be in the patch(es) to follow -- and your recently explained treebug, colour me in as another forumite that cannot fully comprehend/understand what you are trying to say with your list posted earlier.

There you go LeadMeister; the answer. Thanks Phil.

I cannot speak for Charles/Phil, but I venture the following possibilities since the tweaking of Beta 29: (1) They were happy with the (initial) tweaking of the "Mover shooting the stationery target" and vice versa test (PS: I did not present them with a sample of "mover vs mover" firing test, but other testers might have; (2) Since the above game mechanics cascades further onto the game code of a "mover shooting a mover" scenario, they might have felt the latter scenario was not tweaked enough %-wise, given what was presented to him by Beta testers, and/or drawn to his attention due to forumites expressing such concern; (3) Charles & Phil made a judgement call as to the % hits that should be achieved on a mover vs mover scenario, despite not looking at either the Beta testers or forumites actual tests, but deciding that an average 10% hit chance in (1) presented earlier in Beta should even be far lower than in (2) when originally envisioned/tweaked ......... due to the noise/bleatings here from the forumites and therefor the testers carrying said noise over to him. You tell me which above has more relevance? A combination of all the above? EDIT REASON: Forgetting the "First Second Programmer". Apologies Phil.

Charles just recently looked at the issue(s). Changes have been made.

Again, Charles did tweak the shoot-on-the-move parameters (Hit% = less) when CMBN was in development. After this tweak, and after running a limited test (n=350) during Beta pre-release as indicated earlier in this thread, the (limited) observation showed roughly 1 in 10 odds (range: 5-15% for both nationalities) of a moving firer scoring a hit on a stationery tank target at 800m, on ideal surface (even/paved), ideal weather, regular quality, head-on for both enemy tanks. If somebody wants to repeat said tests (test scenario I can provide) with both tankers moving on MOVE orders head-on, and show cause that this test has a higher hit% then when just one tanker is moving, please feel free to run 350+ tests to do a comparison. I venture to say the odds will be less on 1-10 hits, ceteris paribus, if you do run a "both firers moving test." If anything else, I doubt that running different test with different parameters for now, with n<350, is going to convince Charles to change anything (for now) on the fly, or prioritise said issue (for now) above other patch issues. On the other hand, he might look at it again and decide otherwise. It may well be that CMBN needs a further dialing down of single/few % points for scoring hits when one/both gunners are on the move given an extensive test with same parameters. The fact that you see several hits at 800m while on the move does not yet warrant the conclusion that this occurence is NOT an outlier result and thus the norm. Then you have to range the distance further out, to 1,000m and beyond and re-test to see if, all else being equal, there are some median results for a limited conclusion that at these various x-distances, we have a "Houston-we-have-a-problem" scenario. But accuracy is only be part of the problem. AKD has highlighted earlier it is not just accuracy that has to be factored in. But it will not come to a change in code just because we have various forumites posting observed results, anecdotal or otherwise, from a few tests, or observed from a few games played, or from a relative smallish sample. Even my sample of 350 tests are rather small, but I only have so much time.