c3k

Um, this is not exactly an accurate statement.

(Getting off-topic, but it does address the above: MOST patches seem to've allowed an "update" to current games. You usually load a savegame to the patch exe, hit "go" and the next savegame is up to date. That's a tough explanation to follow, but the patches USUALLY allow this type of update. Don't hold off a game due to expectations of a patch breaking it.)

This is an example of how a well documented bug can get immediate attention and sent up the chain. The screenshot shows the problem. The youtube video makes it painful to watch. Paper Tiger took this and ran with it... He did additional tests to show it's not a one-off issue, but that it may be (probably is) endemic to all German machinegun fire. Next, let's see if it is present for US/CW/Axis machineguns... Regardless, due to the clarity of the presentation of the bug, it has been brought to BF.C's attention. Well done, Killkess. Thanks, Ken

Ahh, yes, that's easily explainable. That crosswind is blowing the shells over, such that they just clear the bole of that pine about 15m up. And, there is a knothole on that side of the tree, gnawed larger by progressive generations of squirrels. It is modeled, but not shown. Okay, serious answer: I don't see that as a bug. It is not a "good" model, but recognize that the action spot positioning of the crew and mortar takes a higher priority than an individual tree. There must be some sort of "fudge" for imagining that the mortar is displaced, say, 30cm to the left or right. Could troops find a gap in trees to fire mortars? Absolutely. Did that limit where the mortar could fire? Absolutely. Does the game limit the field of fire based on positioning? Absolutely. Is this a bug? Um, not in my opinion. Just my .02. If you consider this a bug, then let's break it off into another thread and take it up there. Ken

Killkess, Excellent video. That seems very wrong. Savegame? Thanks, Ken

Not throwing gas on a fire, but just to explain the inner workings more fully, let me expand on my earlier comments. BF.C has asked us to work as beta testers. That is pretty cool. Part of the deal is that we cannot disclose anything we see which isn't in the public purview. So, I won't make any statements regarding the status of this reported bugs. (However, true bugs, reported with savegames and screenshots which SHOW what is clearly a bug, do seem to get resolved more rapidly than other issues.) As far as this issue showing in other forums, as stated above, other forums simply don't matter. As a beta tester, I'm a volunteer. I've only got so much extra time in my day. If I have to spend it re-creating someone else's work, then I don't have time to spend playing, chasing other bugs, or doing something else worthwhile. I make value judgments on which bugs I'll try to grab off the forum. (And I spend every minute of every game I play searching for bugs. The vast majority of bugs I report are those I've found myself. (And I still think these are great games.)) So, given some time in my day devoted to CMxx, I have to choose whether I drop what I'm doing to pursue something in a thread, or to continue on my own path. It's a value judgment. Ken

Well, this thread is the first that I've seen or heard of this particular issue. Sad emotional states or not, I do not recall seeing this before. By "this" I mean the manner in which mortars only have to range in once, despite moving or engaging targets at disparate ranges and/or azimuths. Now, there may be OTHER bugs (or disagreements in how mortars should work, which is not quite the same as a bug), but THIS one has been reported to BF.C. In fact, if you scroll up to post #14, of September 12th, you'll see that I stated it was reported. I'm not sure what the rest was about. How to get a bug reported (at least, by me): To get an issue looked at, then reported officially, following a few pointers will help. Focus on the facts. Couple your facts with your opinion (or basis) for why it's not portrayed in-game correctly. Cite something, show a picture. An in-game screenshot is worth, oh, a thousand words. A savegame is worth more. The two together are gold. In this particular issue, check upstream; I asked for a copy of the savegame. I was told that it was easy and just do it myself. Um, if _you_ have already done a test, wouldn't it be nice to share that work? (In this case, the need for me to create a test scenario, then run it sufficiently to see the error, caused a delay of several days.) If you've stumbled upon a one-in-a-thousand occurrance, your savegame is precious. Sometimes it's not available. Shrug. So, after it is seen and replicated, it can be reported to BF.C who then apply their pixie dust to it and make it all better. (There is a limited supply of pixie dust, so some issues are put on the "fix it later" list in deference to more important issues.) I hope that doesn't sound too shrill. The goal is to fix any problem. If you see something, the manner in which it is brought up is key to getting it looked at and, hopefully, fixed. Personally, I'd like to thank those who found this ranging error. Ken (NOT an employee, spokesman, or family member of BF.C, just a volunteer beta tester.)

And here I was looking at this thread to find out whether a "Mac-F12" was a new machinepistol or fighter aircraft or combination of the two! ... I shall return to my PC and let a Mac guy answer your query...

Sweet! Off to post a bug report! Nits aside, I must again repeat how friggin' gorgeous you've made these vehicles appear. Well done. Ken

Of course, sticking your head through the frame brings to mind some interesting injury mechanics should you run into a wire. And is it supposed to be comfortable? I'm not overweight, but I really can't see that I'd enjoy being slung by a belt or two over a mobile spit. And where would I put my feet should I get the chance to roll downhill? I wonder what they started out designing before they settled upon that? Ken P.S. Oh, and I just changed to Wilma from Betty, based on that picture. (And, more obviously, it must always be Mary Ann not Ginger.)

Germans never did master the art of using tank-carriers to avoid wear and tear. They DID use rail transport for theater-wide movement, but anything else meant the tank had to drive there. That's a LOT of wear and tear on complex machinery which was pushing the envelope for the period. The drop-out rate on road marches was horrendous by modern standards. The lack of spares did not help. The above is meant to show how non-combat losses could be significant. (The Panther Brigade(s) march to Kursk is an extreme example. But all German tanks, even PzIV's and III's suffered from this deficit.)

Fuel levels.

Fuser, One note: the White Scout Car has a rope wound around the anti-ditching drum. Now, I'm more than willing to be told I'm wrong, but that cylinder in front of the bumper is NOT a winch. It was just a big rolling-pin meant to keep the vehicle's bumper from digging into the ground and hanging up the chassis. It literally was a roller. As such, I can't imagine any crew winding a rope or cable around it. SOME vehicles had a winch, but that would involve more of a spindle (think thread bobbin), with associated gearing mechanism. Minor nit? Oh, very much... Please feel free to correct me. Having said all that, those vehicles are GORGEOUS!!! Thank you for doing this. Ken

How big is it? If it's less than 10mb, send it to my personal email: c3kATroadrunner.com Substitute the @ symbol for AT. Ken

I see your screenshots, but I could not duplicate this. Any savegame? Ken

FWIW, a "brace" of anything is precisely two.

Welcome aboard. There are a lot of threads about artillery. Without getting too detailed, the accuracy of the artillery depends on the spotter. If the spotter cannot see where the artillery is supposed to land, or IS landing, then the artillery will be less accurate. Additionally, the skill level of the spotter will also determine the accuracy of the artillery. If the spotter is suppressed during the artillery "spotting rounds" cycle, it will be less accurate. Finally, remember that artillery is an area weapon. Precision is not its forte. Anything closer than about 300m to friendly troops would be considered "danger close". Hope that helps. Ken

Truman in 1945, while not as naive as Chamberlain, still thought that Stalin would hew to the terms of international agreements to which he or Molotov had signed. The tough anti-Communist Truman was something that evolved and didn't come into being until years later.

Without a few screenshots, or better yet, a savegame, there is nothing that anyone can offer which would be able to address the issue. Since you stated it's a PBEM, you should have a bunch of savegames. Bug? Shrug. It's worthless to speculate without the files. Ken

Oh, the screenies are great! I DEMAND 20,000 screenshots for a 20,000 point game! Very nice. Thanks.

Recognize that bad loading systems meant the gun's elevation had to be changed to get the rounds in (depending on the tank, of course). This led to range errors for every shot. The TigerII was specifically designed so that the round could be loaded while the 88L71 remained at the gunner's elevation. A minor detail which makes a world of difference in accurate LONG RANGE shooting.

Shadows in-game are uglier on AMD cards than they are on Nvidia cards. (I am not a fanboy of either manufacturer. I have owned many from both and will continue to buy from whichever provides better value to me.) Welcome to the addiction. Ken

wozpower, There is a simple solution. Remove your video card, put it back in the original packaging, and mail it to me. In exchange, I will send you an HD6850. Then, I will be burdened with your lemon of a card. I will do this for you. I await the arrival of your package. Seriously, that card, or the 670, will be replacing the aforementioned 6850 (which was only a placeholder, anyway). One of the differences in CM games is that they are not as video limited as other games. Schrullenhaft, and others, would know far more about this than I do. So, the video card is not much of a factor in framerates. (AIUI) Try a posting in the tech support section. There may some tweaks available to give you more performance. Good luck. Ken

Michael, I have tested this extensively back in CMSF. There is a huge penalty to overloaded troops. All troops will FAST or QUICK. The penalty is realized by shortening the amount of time an overloaded unit can move at those speeds. Additionally, their recovery time from their fatigue state is MUCH longer. Burdening the troops burns them out. I've done -some- testing in CMBN for this behavior (nowhere near as extensively tested as I did in CMSF). It appears that the behavior from CMSF vis a vis burdened troops is modeled in CMBN. Ken

The Germans also used staggered torsion bars (to allow for full length bars across the hull width). On one side the arms were trailing from the bars to the wheels, on the other, they advanced to wheels. This alleviated, but did not eliminate, an asymmetry of location between left and right road wheel placement. The tracks thus faced asymmetric loads, especially when turning in one direction or another. A very complex arrangement.