nuzrak

I had this problem too with the Mac install Downloaded the 8GB (full install) but only have the same 10 QB files that Freyberg had. Band aid sorted that out but there obviously might be an issue with the Mac installer.

OK, must have been having a senior moment there, I see them now... Thanks Wicky and Lucky for the swift response that forced me to look again a little harder!

Is there a rough ETA on when the Mac versions of these patches will be available?

I don't think there is anything wrong with the way buddy aid is represented in game, it is simple and effectively allows the recovery of weapons and ammo from fallen soldiers; which is realistic enough without overly complicating the whole process. I like to think of it as no more than the guy being stabilized and his gear being redistributed. What I would like to see in the future is buddy aid being worth more under the game hood, in terms of moral levels and possibly even having optional point settings in the editor related to it that effect the game score. At present other than retrieving weapons there is little or no need to risk troops lives giving it I think this is an area of the game that could be added to on the back end that could provide a great dimension to the overall realism; especially in the modern game titles where the US especially put great emphasis on getting wounded soldiers out of the combat area. I also appreciate that it wouldn't be to everyone's taste, so maybe it could be tied to the 'Iron' difficulty level of the game in some way and give us hardcore guys another reason to use that level instead of 'Elite'

Thanks for doing that Vanir, I really appreciate you taking the time to look it over. Feel like I owe you a beer I totally agree, the numbers are not convincing me either that there is an actual issue, I also ran another 30 odd tests and although the numbers still favor the US vehicles I still can't honestly say that it's in anyway definitive and given that we know there is the commander fix coming for the BMP it makes it even harder to justify pursuing this any further. So agreed, let's put this one to rest.

Yes I did, because that`s how I have been running my tests since the beginning, Bradley`s and BMP`s don`t approach side on and I have never been testing the way any vehicle spots from its side arcs. So running tests with AFV`s side on is not going to prove anything relevant to the original inquiry, just potentially cloud the issue further. That said, I have never tried to test static v static AFV`s until this test either, although as Vanir pointed out I may have done so unwittingly, and I actually don`t have an issue with the way that seems to be working. My argument has been from the very start that Russian AFV`s are performing worse than I would expect when facing an oncoming AFV that seems to spot them and KIA them routinely before they ever see what`s hitting them. What Thewood is seeing with the AFV`s side on test is not uninteresting though and makes me too wonder if the fact that the BMP performs considerably better when side on if the misaligned gunner bug has again reared its ugly head? But as I keep stating, I don`t know if there is an actual issue or not, because I don't know if my expectations of what I expect to see are even realistic. Only BFC know that for sure. All I want is for someone who has a actual understanding of the game data and code to confirm either 1) Yes, that is how it is meant to work, the US AFV`s are that superior and the results you`re getting are within the margins we would expect... or 2) The numbers you are seeing for the Kill ratio for the US AFV`s when approaching Russian AFV`s forward facing arcs does indeed seem a little high, we`ll look into it...

I think you've got me wrong, I stated very clearly that I`m not trying to knock the game, what I've brought up here is not a complaint but what I see as a potential bug. I don't think given what I'm seeing my end, that has been unreasonable. You obviously, like me, feel strongly about this game and I would hope you can appreciate how difficult it can be to bring up potential issues without running the risk of appearing overtly critical and perhaps even pedantic... Anyway, have a look at this file, it`s your test on iron settings and the Bradley scored a KIA in 8 seconds! BMP spotting test NUZRAK - 001.zip

Thewood, you`re kind of agreeing with my original reason for running tests to begin with. What I am seeing in games and am seeing and continue to see in the tests does not make sense!

Thewood, absolutely we should do that. I just rerun the test again quickly on iron 5 times and the Bradley is definitely spotting the BMP around 12 seconds into the turn on average, that is a huge difference to what you are seeing which seems more in the 40+ seconds range. I think we might actually be onto something here, but I`m not sure what! Is it possible there are bad builds of the program???

OK, it could be the Iron settings verses the Elite setting I`m using, but as far as I understand there is no difference in the spotting times between the two settings just the way information is populated along the C2 chain which is not relevant in this test. But you`re correct, it is weird that we are seeing such different results though,, on average the Bradley has been spotting the BMP around 12 - 14 seconds on my box! What type of box are you running? Mine is a Win7 64bit Quad core...

There`s something wrong with my computer? That`s not a very helpful statement, maybe there`s something wrong with your computer... see how that works? I ran the test you posted more to prove what Vanir has already stated, that the results of spotting between two static vehicles means very little, it`s not unexpected that we would see wildly varied results on such a small number of runs, we would need to run it hundreds of times to get good numbers and of course I`m running it hotseat!!! Your test is also not relevant to the issue at hand which has never been about how AFV`s spot each other from two static positions!

Vanir, I'm not disputing that I occasionally experience some amazing runs of bad luck playing these games; just recently in fact in CMRT I had two T34/85's perform an almost perfect double flank on a Panther only to see the first ones shot ricochet off the Panthers turret and KIA the second T34 as it closed in... the Panther naturally proceeded to show the surviving T34 how it was done properly! But I'm still not convinced that simple bad luck is what I'm seeing in these instances, but it also stands to reason that if I'm having a horrible run of luck and only seeing the outliers then I would think that! I'm also not sure why vehicles performing a hunt move don't count as moving? The Bradley of course stopped as soon as it spotted the BMP but it made the spot while moving in the hunt command not after it stopped, whereas the static BMP in almost all instances failed to spot the Bradley as it moved up and even after it began firing. How else can this be tested? My original emphasis was to test the how often static Russian AFV's failed to spot AFV's moving into their forward facing arcs, because I believed they were under performing and I believe the test does a good job showing that and reveals that they are really bad at it. But the issue is clouded by the known commander bug, because the commanders did spot the Bradley a number of times; so it's probably not worth pursuing until the 1.02 patch is live. But what I really don't know is if this is even a problem with the engine as such or just a symptom of the artifact as you suggest. Unfortunately I don't have the save file from that turn where my T90's got smoked, CM Helper clears them as I go and I wasn't fast enough to think of keeping it as an example, I only have the following turn where the T90's are all sad and perforated, which looks very pretty but won't tell you much - wish I could work out how to post images though as its quite the scene! Thewood, I ran your test 10 times and the Bradley spotted the BMP first and KIA'd it 7 times. The other 3 times the Bradley released it's smoke as soon as it was lased. The BMP never fired once!

I did not test with target arcs, it was just a standard hunt command for the moving AFV and nothing for the static vehicle...

The last test I ran had the moving vehicles performing a ‘hunt’ command over a small blocking ridge line to bring its forward arc into the forward arc of the static vehicle in open ground approximately 100m away. What I would expect to see is the static vehicle to have the upper hand most of the time or at least a change in the numbers in regards to the BMP; It just seems logical that even the BMP with its narrower spotting arc should get, in theory, a bump in spotting the high profile Bradley moving up over a rise in front of it. I know sky lining isn't modeled in the game, but silhouette is a factor I believe? But the numbers so far seem to show no significant change in spotting chance for the either vehicle, static or moving! Again, it’s too small a test to be definitive, but it does seem to confirm, at least to me, a trend some of us are perceiving right across the board with Russian spotting. For example, I am playing a game H2H right now where I had 3 x T90AM’s in woods covering a relatively tight open terrain corridor between a hill and woods. A basic good key hole position. They were all systematically KIA’d by a M1 that moved into the open ground approximately 500m away in two turns. None of the T90’s spotted the M1! Now, that just doesn't seem right to me... and again its not conclusive because it's a single event, but it does seem to happen with frustrating regularity to Russian vehicles. As to what any of this shows / proves you’re absolutely right Vanir that it might not show anything more than the game engine working exactly the way it should and if that is so, then that’s great, we can put this subject to rest and move onto a tactics discussion on how to make the Russian forces more viable for H2H play. Bottom line though is that until we hear officially that there is an issue or not, more extensive testing needs to be done, and with more than just Bradley's and BMP's. If I get time I'll try to do that because my gut feeling is still that the spotting is not working quite the way it should be...

Unfortunately I don’t have much time this week to look into this any further but I did get time to run another quick test based on some of the suggestions in the thread. I basically re-ran what I did before but this time with a BMP-3M (with an infantry command element aboard) v Bradley M2-A3 I only ran this test 10 times each way, so it’s not definitive by any means, but this is what I found. TEST 1 - M2-A3 moving into the LOS of static BMP-3M in open ground with infantry command unit aboard at approx. 100m (10 runs) Bradley Deaths 1 x KIA (BMP not spotted and no return fire) 2 x Smoke released then when smoke cleared KIA (did not reacquire BMP) 1 x KIA after exchange of fire (Bradley fired first – BMP Immobilized) Spotted BMP x 9 BMP Deaths 6 x KIA (No return fire – 4 x of these the Command squad spotted Bradley but BMP crew did not) BMP crew Spotted Bradley x 4 TEST 2 - BMP – 3M moving into the LOS of static M2-A3 in open ground, approx. 100m (10 runs) Bradley Deaths 2 x Smoke released then KIA (This is not a good test (My bad) as Bradley moved forward due to rear map edge) did not reacquire LOS on BMP 1 X KIA after spotting and firing first on BMP! What’s interesting here is that the BMP lost its Optics and Constellation array before returning very accurate fire to KIA the Bradley! BMP Deaths 7 X KIA ( 4 X of these command unit spotted Bradley but not the BMP) So as small a test as this is and consequently not conclusive, I’m still seeing something similar to the 100 runs I did earlier in the week with assorted vehicles. The command unit in the BMP definitely spots faster than the BMP crew, so that assumption does seem to be correct, but it equally doesn't matter because the information is not passed to the BMP crew and the BMP continues toward the Bradley blind to its existence. So does this prove anything or just add more confusion? It's too small a test so actually I’m not really sure. The KIA results in and of themselves do not seem unrealistic in such confined parameters IMO taking into account the capabilities and roles that these two vehicles are designed for. But that said, the spotting itself still seems a little off to me. Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that being mobile or static seems make little difference on the way that either vehicle spots and their reaction times; which is a huge tactical advantage to the US. I can accept that the Russians might not react as fast due to inferior technology and perhaps even training, but I just don’t buy that they routinely would fail to even spot an enemy vehicle in the forward arc of their BMP at 100m! So my questions are the same as they were in the original post. 1)Is what I’m seeing an accurate depiction of the technological differences between these nations optics and comms systems as we believe they will function in 2017? Or 2)Is there actually an underlying issue in the way spotting is functioning for the Russians given their different types of tech and does something need to be dialed up or down? I know you guys at BFC are very busy, but it would be nice to get someone with some idea of how the underlying code works to comment on this as it does seem to rear its head with each iteration of the engine!

There were both BMP-3 and BMP-3M's as well as T90AM's and they all died pretty much the same way having spotted pretty much nothing!

Personally I'd rather see NATO units before Marines purely because the US forces are already superior in the base product and adding an elite fighting unit will only make the creation of balanced / fun campaigns and individual battles that much trickier. In Shockforce the Marines are simply devastating and there is little reason to think they would be any different in CMBS. I too would like to see separatists and partisans added at some point, but rather than as a late postwar mop up module as has been suggested, wouldn't it make more sense to add TOE's for them in both a post and pre-war module along with the potential of winter terrain that could be used to extend the conflict both forwards and backwards? As for the US navy in the Black sea, why would they bother? Their primary role would likely be carrier and cruise missile support and they can perform both tasks from the safety of the Mediterranean and Aegean seas. I have little doubt they could push into the Black Sea and force total control of it but the tactical risk of losing a ship no matter how small still seems too great when compared to the marginal tactical advantage getting closer would provide!

Before I get into it I’ just want to say this is not a criticism of the game. I’ve been playing this title to the exclusion of all my other CM games since it was released and I am having a blast with the campaigns, the editor and the stock battles against the AI. There is little doubt that this game series gets better and better with every new build released. But… after playing a number of H2H QB games at the Elite setting as both the US and Russians one thing has begun to stick out very consistently, which is that Russian troops and AFV’s even with the best optics that they can have are performing at a level nothing short of appalling when compared to their US counterparts ability to spot enemy units. In fact I would say that every game played so far as the Russian’s has gone along the lines of forward AFV’s and Infantry eliminated with little or no idea where the fire was coming from. Gradually sound contacts are established and Russian units are systemically eliminated by the scattered wall of ‘?’'s creeping toward them. Having Drones up just illuminated how bad the Russian spotting was, showing clearly M1’s and Bradley’s, often blazing away with their cannons, sitting in action squares that unsuppressed Russian units (That included T90AM’s in a couple of instances) had clear LOS to but didn’t even have as much as a sound contact themselves. Now I’ve played CM in every version since CMBO and I’m very aware that even over a number of battles we can sometimes see and convince ourselves of things that are not actually supported when tests are run so… To make sure I wasn’t just imagining this due to circumstantial bias I went into the editor and set up a small map with a small ridgeline along its center with a scattering of trees and ran a series of very simple manoeuvre tests having Russian troops and AFV’s MOVE and HUNT up onto the ridge in a mix of open and hull down positions and into LOS of US infantry and assorted AFV’s and observed the results. I then reversed the process and had the US vehicles and infantry do the same thing. I then ran this test both ways under all of the different weather conditions and light conditions. In all I run this test both ways about 50 times (the carnage was great, it didn’t take long J). Now at this stage I would normally provide stats… but frankly there is no need to because what was observed was the following, In every instance except 9 (that’s correct, just 9 in 100 runs) the US units spotted the Russian’s first and then almost as often simply eliminated the Russian units before the Russian’s could even establish a sound contact. Only twice did the US lose an AFV, surprisingly M1’s both times, to returning fire and never (that’s again correct, never) did the Russian’s ever fire first! Even more interesting was that the US AFV’s and Infantry usually spotted the static Russian’s even faster after moving! This makes me wonder how the spotting cycle is actually triggered; does it trigger when a unit enters a new action square and if so how often does that coincide with the base cycle for non-moving units? Either way, and I may be way off base as to how the underlying code functions here, but it just seems a little off in CMBS. Anyway, this is becoming a very long post, when all I really want to know is, 1) Is what I’m seeing just an accurate depiction of the technological differences between these nations optics and comms systems as we believe they will function in 2017? Or 2) Is there actually an underlying issue in the way spotting is functioning for the different types of tech and does something need to be dialed up or down?

Sorry Heirloom, we were obviously typing at the same time! So looks like it is an issue and we both found the same fix. Thanks for the reply

OK, some more info, So after some more playing around, what seems to be happening is that instead of calculating 'Direct' elevation points or areas in the usual manner the editor is instead averaging out all the other squares kind of in the same way 'Adjust' points would normally work... unless, and this is weird, I set a 'Direct' elevation point anywhere on the left edge of the map which then forces the whole map to recalculate properly! So the editor does work, but only if I set a 'Direct' Elevation point of the left map edge to start with... So something is definitely still amiss but I do have a work around it seems. As this has not come up before in these forums, I don't want to list this as a potential bug unless someone else can confirm it.

Since the patch I'm experiencing an issue with setting Elevations in the Editor, in that it is no longer calculating properly, if at all. 'Adjust all' still works but both 'Adjust' and 'Direct' no longer seem to function - they simply don't seem to trigger the calculation routine as far as I can see; not that there is much to see, but what I'm not seeing is the elevation numbers disappear momentarily in the usual way that they do when the calculation is triggered... I've checked in my other titles (CMBN, FI and RT) and they are all working as advertised, so I know this is CMBS specific. So, can some kind soul please check and let me know if they are experiencing the same thing or if it is just my install? Cheers

Does anyone know if there are any differences between using Precision Artillery with spotters with direct LOS as opposed to drones over target in regards to overall accuracy of the round? I might have been unlucky but experience so far has been that targeting with the drone seems to result in far more near misses than when using a spotter with good LOS...

It seems to be a mixed bag to me with the Bradley TOW 2's. In the US campaign I genuinely thought that they were bugged in the first battle as none of my Bradley's fired one once on any target and I even had one Bradley take out a T90 with it's cannons which seemed a little bit ballsy on the crews part and made me wonder if there was a minimum range the TOW 2 could be fired at - anyone know if that is a fact, seems reasonable there might be??? In the third battle however (post patch) I have had a Bradley take out two T90's in the same round at around 900m, so they do appear to be working at range as advertised.

I don't see them, goes straight from Urban 16 wide to Steel Rail 300! Should I re-download and re-install?