PlatCmdr

Let me say that by my earlier posting of my having my question answered, your advice was helpful Walpurgis in that I was protecting my HQ behind the lines of its subordinates, and therefore, not taking advantage of its optical superiority. So, in that, your advice has definitely been helpful, thank you. I assumed by your statement, "the short answer is, it doesn't matter" summed up for me that my concern over the need for the HQ to have LOS to a target unimportant for its subordinate squads to engage those targets as long as the sqauds alone can see it. If your short answer specifically addressed that question, then fine, it's been answered. However, just to clarify for both myself and Scarhead--as the "short answer" didn't provide any detail--do the HQ and its subordinates work independent of one another when it comes to targeting? For example, if the HQ was behind a rise, yet still in command of its subordinates--who have contact of a approaching target within firing range--will they then take the initiative to fire at that target even if their HQ cannot see it to direct them, or is this not neccessary and they can and will fire at that target independent of their HQ having LOS to it? [ May 07, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: PlattCmdr ]

Ok, thanks for the advice guys. I'm going to sneak my guys closer and see what happens. Would it also be helpful that their respective HQ to also have LOS to the tank in question to provide them guidance and initiative, or is the command line being intact not necessary for them to complete this task?

True, and this does apply to the two closest squads who went in and out of shock as they received area fire around them. But, the third squad, which is only 35 meters away, has a lit target line on the tank, is unphased by area fire (remaining "ready" the whole time) but still refusing to engage the tank. I've had them pitch grenades from as far a 40 meters before, but that was in a town, and thereign might lie the problem? Are distances for tossing explosives and grendaes limited when in the woods or forest?

I'm playing a PBEM right now where I have several squads whom, while hunkered down in the woods, immobilized one Pz IIIJ (late), but now refuse to finish it off by tossing more grenades at it. The three squads are broken down as two Russian Recon and one Rifle element, the distances being 16, 22, and 35 meters away from the target. They also are in command contact with their respective HQs. "Alerted" and "Cautious" are the only stutus changes from time to time as the still very much alive, yet immobile, PzIIIJ, still is taking a crack at them. What am I doing wrong? I know Pioneer Infantry would be best in this situation, but why are these units not engaging this target?

Ok, thanks for the info. As for the Panther G - Late, I noticed it has "frequent flaws in the upper hull front." Which is more detrimental, this flaw or the shot trap? As in, would an earlier model VD or VA be the better choice given the absence of this flaw--differences in optics and side armor notwithstanding? Also, between the VA Early, and the VD, which is the better choice?

In the instruction guide for CMBB is pointed out the interesting detail about the early model Panther A having a shot trap problem. What I want to know is, does this simply affect the Panther "VA Early" model, or the later released "VA" too? Furthermore, what's strange is that on the unit identification window you can bring up when highlighting the unit on the gameboard, it lists the "shot trap" feature for all models of Panther. So, which models are truly plagued? Also, *in CMBB*, how does the VA compare in performance to the VD model?

In the instruction guide for CMBB is pointed out the interesting detail about the early model Panther A having a shot trap problem. What I want to know is, does this simply affect the Panther "VA Early" model, or the later released "VA" too? Furthermore, what's strange is that on the unit identification window you can bring up when highlighting the unit on the gameboard, it lists the "shot trap" feature for all models of Panther. So, which models are truly plagued? Also, *in CMBB*, how does the VA compare in performance to the VD model?

You cleared it up for me, thanks

I'm curious, given the situation where subordinate infantry squads have LOS to a target that their HQ doesn't have, will the squads be just as likely to engage this target as they would be if the HQ also had LOS to the same target? Or does this not matter?

Actually we have something in store in 1.03 which should help out this situation. More details once the final patch is released. Madmatt </font>

Good comments guys and glad I'm not alone on this. I've had PBEM after PBEM where I move a group of tanks atop a nice overlook position which turns out to be sniper rich. My dominant overlook turns out instead to be a shooting gallery for well hidden sharpshooters, sniping one tank commander after another, only because the AI deems this to be an inappropriate threat and unbuttons the hatch? Well, with no response from BFC, it doesn't seem likely this will be corrected in 1.03, but hopefully is something that will be addressed for CMAK.

Not exactly a bug issue, but perhaps a playability issue: What about the incidence of tank commanders automatically unbuttoning in the minutes/turns that follow after having been instructed to button up? This obviously is an issue when sharpshooters are present. There however doesn't seem to be an occurance of this in CMBO, and I was wondering, if in like fashion, the power could be taken away from the AI and placed back into the hands of the player for CMBB too?

I'm curious if anyone can answer whether the range and strength of command for the HQ is limited in support of its subordinate squads by the HQ hiding as opposed to standing upright [assuming the command line is red (intact) in both cases]? Thanks in advance.

I don't mind, that is fine... I asked earlier in this thread if any of the mac users wanted me to include an archive for them but got no reply. Thanks buddy... </font>

All I've got to say, is you are awesome! It's really appreciated.

Been following this thread for awhile and have been eagerly anticipating the arrival of these files, and then to my shock and dismay, found out it only comes as an ".exe" file... Any chance of there being a .zip or other downladable format for us starved Mac players?

Sorry children, the sandbox is now closed...just learn to follow the simple instructions provided by BFC and I wouldn't need to waste either the bandwidth nor the time to learn how to post with the cyber-geek fluency you seem to possess...

I'm hoping we can now get back to the more constructive dialogue that should be taking place here... [ April 08, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: PlattCmdr ]

You mean like double posting a Topic? </font>

"Shurely" you haven't spent your entire life unable to follow simple instructions...

BFC-- It appears no one understood your instructions to post a *seperate* thread detailing any additional hang-ups experienced with the new 1.03 beta run. Now you may have already noticed this, but I wanted to be sure and redirect your attention back to MadMatt's, "So, you say you wanna be a beta tester? Now's your chance! CMBB 1.03 Beta Released!!! " thread where you will find plenty of comments from those who've run tests. Having been frustrated with these problems in game, and desiring a workable solution, I, and I'm sure many others, don't want to get screwed with the release of a patch that's not a sufficient fix because someone forgot to follow the instructions early on. Thanks.

BFC-- It appears no one understood your instructions to post a *seperate* thread detailing any additional hang-ups experienced with the new 1.03 beta run. Now you may have already noticed this, but I wanted to be sure and redirect your attention back to MadMatt's, "So, you say you wanna be a beta tester? Now's your chance! CMBB 1.03 Beta Released!!! " thread where you will find plenty of comments from those who've run tests. Having been frustrated with these problems in game, and desiring a workable solution, I, and I'm sure many others, don't want to get screwed with the release of a patch that's not a sufficient fix because someone forgot to follow the instructions early on. Thanks.

Just a reminder for those of you running the test on 1.03. According to MadMatt's post in this thread: In order to get a response from BFC, you guys need to be placing *NEW* posts defining any problems you experience, *not* listing your comments here...see his comment below... "If you encounter issues with this patch related to the listed fixes below please post a NEW forum thread detailing what you see. If need be someone from Battlefront.com will reply to the message and possibly request pictures or a save game file which demonstrates the issue." [ April 08, 2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: PlattCmdr ]

Madmatt-- First of all, thanks for the great news and the effort all of you are putting into dealing with ironing out these wrinkles. It is much appreciated and will certainly serve to further the patronage of your customers and improve the level of gameplay down the road. For the sake of clarification, I was hoping either you, or someone else at BFC, could respond to the following: Back on March 5, Steve had indicated that there were several issues you guys were looking into. I quote him as follows: "There appears to be three hit issues that have been raised on this BBS. Here they are and where we stand on each: 1. Shots hitting ground when shooter is Hull Down - this was understood to be a bug going all the way back into CMBO, but was not apparent until CMBB 1.0 (and wasn't even seriously seen until 1.01 for some reason). This was absolutely a bug and was fixed for 1.02. 2. Shots walking to target one right after the other in a straight line - looks like something is wrong, but Charles has not looked into it yet and therefore it is not confirmed as a bug. If it turns out to be a bug Charles will try and fix it. 3. Shots impacting at base of a small hill and not hitting some types of targets (i.e. guns) when using more or less flat trajectory fire - my hunch is that this is a bug, but since I only passed the info onto Charles 5 minutes ago I don't have confirmation yet at this point. If it turns out to be a bug Charles will try and fix it. Now, with issue #1 being resolved by version 1.02, and what appears will be a resolution to the problem in issue #3 with the release of the 1.03 patch, that still leaves issue #2. Is that also addressed by the 1.03 patch? I have experienced this problem (even emailed Steve a scenario demonstrating it) in multiple PBEMs, and it has been incredibly frustrating to witness shot after shot walk its way to a target that remains untouched. Just ddn't want anything to be overlooked given that this will be the last fix. Thanks guys, and keep up the good work.

This little nipper seemed to have fallen behind...!!Bump!!