warrenpeace

Vanir: Thanks for the additional info. That is interesting about the effects of crew quality. I still find it odd that once they actually spot the weapon regular quality crews retreat and fire smoke. Maybe it is just coincident with suppression levels getting too high.

Played around in a gunnery range with 20 mm vs sherman's. The results are kind of interesting. If they go down the range in hunt mode the Shermans will pop smoke and retreat when they get fired on. Interestingly, if given a slow or quick command, they seem to ignore the fire and go straight ahead without hesitation until the enemy gun is sighted (you have to get very close to sight <100 meters). Once the gun is sighted they then pop smoke and retreat. I don't think this behavior is quite right. Why stop and retreat when you finally have the enemy in your sights? Why is there no contact icon until you are right on top of the gun, even thought it has been pummeling your tank for 500+ meters?

C3K, That was very funny.

It seems like the consensus is that it is being modeled correctly. Perhaps the issue is the binary nature of the Tac AI. In the face of 50 caliber machine fire (12.7 mM, I believe), the tank will ignore it, but the reaction to 20 mm fire is the same as the reaction to a 75 mm AT gun, pop smoke and retreat. Perhaps, there needs to be more variability in the Tac AI's decision making, i.e. in the face of 20 mm fire the tank only retreats half the time. Perhaps I will set up a test just to see how this works.

I would agree, except you can't attack on your own terms. Even once you know where the gun is (by being spotted by some infantry nearby), it is impossible for the tank to reengage because the gun starts shooting and the tac AI pops smoke.

I find the dynamic between Sherman tanks and german 20 mm AA guns a bit strange. When my tank encounters one of these guns, I usually find out be hearing the 20 mm shells bounce off the front of the tank, which results in the crew popping smoke, and the tank retreating. Besides retreating, it is really annoying that the tank never seems to know where the shells came from. This seems odd to me for two reasons. 1) Why is the tank running away when the 20 mm shells cannot penetrate the target? (Very different from heavy machine gun fire), and 2) Shouldn't the tank be able to get some idea where the gun is located? I would think at least a sound contact should pop up. (Also you would think tracer rounds would give away the position.

Glad I could help. This bug is really annoying in a couple of the scenarios.

In my tests the walls were not related to the behavior. It was entirely dependent on the building type and its orientation relative to the map. I will upload my test scenario when I get home this evening so you can examine.

sburke Just wanted to remind you about this.

Okay, I think I have isolated the problem using the editor. It only effects the first (5 story) and second buildings (4 story) in the "other" tab of independent buildings. (I only tested these in September, 1944 Holland) Furthermore, the problem only occurs when the buildings are oriented N-S roads. On E-W roads they work as they should, with entrances at the indicated doors on both sides. On N-S roads there appears to be only one entrance to the building which is on the north side of the building if the building is facing west or the south side if the building is facing east. This entrance appears to be though a brick wall. Clearly some sort of bug.

Played around a little in the editor. The buildings in question are independent buildings under the other tab. The 5 and 4 story ones are the ones in the scenario. I think they are specific for MG. When I put them in a row, like in the scenario, soldiers were able to enter through the doors, so it may be that they are interacting with the walls in a funny way. However, when I put them in a row with the front of one house blocked by the back of another, I found that troops could enter the houses through the walls at the junction points. My thinking at this point is that "doors" are actually in the corners of the building and have entrances on two sides, even though the door is only shown on one side. I wonder if the walls are blocking the entrance to the doors on the street side (even though it doesn't look like it should), and that the other side is what allows the troops to move through the interior walls. Steve and Company will have to look at this.

sburke: Here is a link to the save file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzV0uA0huxg5Q3BTZHVCMy11Wk0/edit?usp=sharing Wicky: thanks for the pic tip. I don't think the rubble is playing a role. The next group of buildings down is undamaged and the same squad cannot seem to enter the one on the end using a door. I think there is a problem with the image not matching the structural features of the building. My guess is that the doors are actually coded on the opposite side from which they are shown. This would make sense as to how the guys finally got into the building.

I was playing the Aalst scenario in the Nijmegen campaign and noticed a problem entering the damaged five story buildings along the main street. The troops did not seem to use the door, but instead traveled all the way to the end of the apartment block, entered the last building, and came though the buildings to get to the middle one. This was particularly odd as there are no internal doors between the buildings. I have posted links to the pictures below to illustrate the problem. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzV0uA0huxg5aENNWVMyb2FIUWM/edit?pli=1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzV0uA0huxg5RUdRUlZ0MG8yZGc/edit?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzV0uA0huxg5TmhuWlcxOVozc2c/edit?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzV0uA0huxg5YWxCaXlKb1V5WXM/edit?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzV0uA0huxg5TEJ4Wi1aa200SjA/edit?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzV0uA0huxg5OGNveVhEM3ZFNWc/edit?usp=sharing PS I tried posting the links as images but they did not seem to work. Is there a trick to this?

Currently stuck on Hueman Locke bridge. I have three hours, but still having problems. I was able to take the first two objectives, but suffered too many casualties to get a win. Ammo is a serious issue.

I don't think Steve's explanation can be correct, but I wonder if there isn't another possibility. Since the tanks are 800 meters apart, the time of flight for the projectile is about 1.3 seconds which means the projectile will fall 8.3 meters. So the sherman gunner has to aim this far above the tank. Therefore at 400 meters from the target the projectile is at its apogee and will be falling. I one assumes a triangle the shot is coming down at a slight angle of 1.19 degrees from perpendicular. (However, the angle will be slightly larger because the triangle assumption assumes a constant speed of falling and in reality acceleration is increasing. I don't have the math skills to figure this out.) I wonder if that slight downward angle is sufficent to make the shot trap untenable. When Charles moves the tanks up, I wonder if the decrease in angle is sufficient to allow trapping.

I was playing a game and my Vickers team lost 2 of its 3 guys, but the wounded gunner was still alive carrying the gun and 2000 rounds of ammo. Based on Wikipedia, the ammo would weigh 50 lbs, while the gun+tripod would be another 50 lbs. In addition, there is the water to carry (Not sure how much is needed, but I would guess at least 10 liters, or 25 lbs). Besides the weight, I'm just not sure one guy has enough hands to carry everything.

I also think WynnterGreen made an excellent point. Small guns should be more mobile.

Just to clarify, I certainly wasn't implying any criticism of the beta team. I'm sure they caught plenty of bugs. I was just stating what I perceive as the benefits of an open beta, which are used by a lot wargame makers. I certainly respect BFC's decision not to go that way, but personally I kind of like it. As long as the annoying little bugs get fixed in a timely manner (which it sounds like the will be) I am happy.

How would this differ from putting out a patch and having us put out another patch? Effectively it's the same, but conceptually it's a huge can of worms that we absolutely will not touch with a 10' pole. It is in reality the same, but by stating that it is still a beta it means you acknowledge that there may still be some errors in it. I just think it makes you guys look bad to have a half a dozen trivial bugs pop up right after you release a patch. (I think some one even compared it to Obamacare.) By putting the "beta" label on it, it entirely reverses the psychology of the end user. It makes the customers think they are part of the process and will engender a greater feeling of support that may actually result in a few more sales. In your post, you suggest that there is a large downside. Perhaps I am missing something.

Lethaface, all of the little bugs were uncovered within three days after release of the patch. Clearly the beta test pool is too small.

I really think the BF should consider doing open beta testing on the late builds of their patches. All of errors found in 2.11 (CMBN) and 1.11 (CMFI) would have been caught before the final version was released. The open beta format seems to work well both for Command OPs and War in the East, and given the nature of most war gamers, they would be happy to help. Just my 2 cents.

No, please explain.

I agree. This or some sort of follow the road toggle on movement commands would be number one on my list as well. (Followed by additional AI triggers in scenario editing).

I only bought CMMG about a week ago, so it may very well have been there in 2.10. I'm not sure if it entirely cosmetic, or if it results in artillery strikes coming in a bit earlier. Someone from BF should comment.

Was playing a MG scenario using 2.11 patch. Noticed that when firing in indirect mode I would get the observer saying "Fire for Effect" before last spotting round fell. I think this is purely cosmetic, but it does seem the the observers have ESP.