Compiled CMBN issues

[Erwin]

Thought it might be helpful to make a list of CMBN bugs/weirdness in one place. I recall when CMSF first came out I gave up on it, only to return and be very pleasantly surprised when it got into patches 2 point something, at which point it became an xnt game.

Hopefully we'll see similar significant improvements with CMBN...

The following are compiled from comments here as well as the WeBoB site plus my own notes from playing thru 9 complete campaigns plus a bunch of individual scenarios. My hope is that eventually this may be a useful reference for the BF folks to triage what can or may not get fixed/improved in future patches/CM versions.

"1) C2 issues. In the campaigns when platoon HQ's get killed, the Co CO of that platoon cannot give C2 even when within kissing distance of his leaderless platoon(s). In addition, when a platoon HQ takes casualties sometimes it loses its C2 capabilities. This C2 capability is NOT replaced in subsequent battles.

2) KIA platoon HQ's are not replaced between battles. Again, I have 4 or 5 platoons that lost HQ's in previous (C&F) battles and they have not been replaced, nor can their Co CO's provide C2. Generally, there is something weird with the whole C2 thing as it does not seem to work per the manual. Personally, I find the HQ/leader/sniper attributes to be too subtle in CMBN to see actual differences in the game. eg: I can use my leaderless platoons pretty much the same as ones with HQ's and C2.

3) Bocage issues:

a) Using engineers to blast (x2) a hole in bocage so that tanks can pass through. However, in some situation the gap made is still not enuff for vehicles to pass thru the bocage.

It's very hard to tell between the two smaller/lower bocage/hedge graphics whether it's passable or not.

c) It's hard to see gaps in the (lower especially) bocage.

d) Buddy aid is one of the most innovative new features of CM2 and SHOULD be important in endgame scoring (apparently it is not at the moment). However, WIA are hard to see if they are adjacent to bocage as the foliage hides them. Even looking from above, I often cannot find WIA men. Tthere should be a toggle to get rid of undergrowth/bocage/hedge graphics like there is for trees. Or, a toggle to temporarily make WIA stand out more.

4) Movement Pathing: Around and on bridges and minefields, units move in strange ways that tend to get them killed. Pathing across bridges and spaces between buildings is especially weird for vehicles. Vehicles zigzag across bridges. Sometimes vehicles can drive between buildings, sometimes they cannot. Infantry take strange paths across bridges to get off them that invariably lead them into trouble. They don't move in realistic/sensible paths.

5) Artillery issues:

a) FO's: If they have a mission and get KIA, you can't cancel/alter the mission.

Hard to tell explosion differences between 81mm mortars and 105mm guns - the blast graphics look the same/very similar, even though (hopefuly) the effects may be different.

c) 81mm mortars are often used vs enemy AT guns. But, repeatedly when using the shortest firing durations the 81 mm often has little effect on AT guns even when sitting in the open and the shells explode a less than 5 meters away. By contrast other players report casualties from 60mm mortars sometimes dozens of meter away from the impact zone.

d) If your display shows something like: 80mm HE 100; 80mm Smoke 10; you can fire 100 shells, not 110. You can fire 100 HE shells or 90 HE shells and 10 smoke shells... This confuses many folks.

e) It is reported that 60mm and 81mm mortars are unrealistically effective at destroying bunkers. Why would one construct bunkers if small caliber arty could kill em that easily? (It has also been mentioned that while satchel charges etc can destroy a bunker they do not kill the crew, which was observed running out.)

6) Certain crews cannot board certain vehicles. So, for example, one cannot use one tank/recon crew to board a 2nd tank/recon vehicle. Suposedly this is to prevent gamey behavior. But, there are so many other gamey behaviors that are possible, it's unclear why this should be an issue. And of course inf currently cannot use tanks for transport.

7) Someone did tests with snipers in CMBN and found that the difference between Green and Elite "to kill" was 9% vs 19%. So, the difference between Regular and Veteran, or Veteran and Crack is too small to notice in normal gameplay outside of testing. For a game, one should be able to see a difference more easily.

Ammo issues:

a) It wastes a lot of time (esp in WEGO) to have to EMBARK in order to ACQUIRE ammo and stuff from a vehicle. Better if one could ACQUIRE ammo by simply being immediately adjacent to a vehicle with supply. This would also be a good feature for inf sharing ammo rather than the current method.

It would be helpful to have an UNACQUIRE or to be able to give ammo back to a vehicle or unit as sometimes one makes a mistake like taking bazooka ammo when the taker has no bazooka.

c) Why can't one board an immobilized truck to acquire ammo?

d) Ammo resupply between scenarios of a campaign - esp armor. Often some of the armored vehicles are supplied up to 100% and one is left with what they had at the end of the last scenario. It seems that the tanks with most ammo get topped up first, but that can leave a tank with hardly any shells with hardly any resupply either. Similar can can happen with inf.

e) The 7.92K ammo used by the Sturmgewehr (Stg44) assault rifle apparently can only be found in bunkers. Why not in any vehicles?

9) Ability to order a certain number of direct fire rounds to be fired. In WEGO one has to order a "dance" for the tank to move to another waypoint that has a covered arc in order to limit the number of shells it fires. (Almost always this is for HE fire. Often one one needs one or two rounds fired, but the tank is capable of firing 8 or more in a WEGO turn. This become especially critical for boogged/immobilized tanks as one cannot then limit their rounds fired with the waypoint method.

10) Covered arcs. The 180 degree arc is at least as useful as the 360 degree arc. It would save a lot of time if there were a similarly simple command to get 180 degree arcs. Also, it would be useful to differentiate arcs for anti-inf fire from AT fire.

11) When a lead unit triggers a minefield (and it's marked), following units still move into the minefield and get KIA. Doesn't make sense. Also, once Engineers have marked a minefield, units (incl vehicles) should be able to move thru it safely albeit on SLOW.

12) Bogging. One can move wheeled vehicles at all speeds in all terrains in wet conditions and they rarely bog. Tanks bog and get immobilized so often that you would think that nations would have abandoned tracked vehicle designs and converted everything to wheeled vehicles. Even when using SLOW all the time, there still seems to be a 30% chance of bogging/immobilization in any damp/wet conditions even on roads. This is is frustrating for an entertainment product and mitigates against gameplay enjoyment.

13) It is reported that tanks see infantry way too easily.

14) RAM issues. Since CM is a 32 bit software, even Win 7 64 bit systems with large amounts of RAM cannot use more than 2-3 GB to run CM2 games, hence the performance hit. There is a software that supposedly liberates us from the limitation, but BFC doesn't advise it for some reason. This needs some investigation by techie folks, as it could greatly help CM2 perfomance.

15) The cookie cutter sameness of squads and other units. In CM1 one could have a variety of experience levels within a platoon resulting in units having a uniqueness. In CM2 scenarios generally, all units (tanks etc) and squads are identical with the same squad leadership attributes, ammo loadout etc. Experience and abilities as well as armaments used to differ widely as units picked up stuff along the way. Having units are that not cookie-cutter makes the game more interesting and enhances identification with certain units and commanders.

16) Difficulty in obtaining meaningful Victory Levels. Usually the victory/defeat level one obtains seems to not have much relevance to actual performance during a scenario. You may force a surrender, not lose any units and still only get a "Minor Victory." Unclear if that is a scenario designer issue, or does the game system make it hard/impossible to provide meaningful victory levels?

17) Infantry even when hiding will fire on an armoured vehicle at long distances and especially fire on buttoned up tanks at long ranges.

18) Maybe it happens but so far have not seen a tank miss its target, especially against other armour. Playing now an all tank battle in CMBB and so often tanks miss even under 300 m but do not see this in CMBN.

19) LOS issues are an exercise in frustration and time-wasting. Even though a gun or tank can SEE a target, it frequently cannot fire at it. This explained that "a crew member can see the target but not the gunner." This is ridiculous and incredibly frustrating for a GAME. If you want to talk "realism" one would know that a gun could not fire at a target just because (say) the 3rd gun crew member could see it. In a GAME all one is concerned about re LOS is whether one can shoot at something or not. There should either be a notice warning the player that altho' a crew member can see a target, the gun cannot, or simply the game should go back to the CM1 "if you can see it, you can shoot at it." Otherwise one wastes precious minutes (esp in WEGO) trying to get a gun to fire at something before one realises it is futile. This is a big negative to gameplay enjoyment, and counter to "realism."

20) When a house is detroyed there is inadequate smoke so that units hiding behind it are immediately seen."

[Redwolf]

14) RAM issues. Since CM is a 32 bit software, even Win 7 64 bit systems with large amounts of RAM cannot use more than 2-3 GB to run CM2 games, hence the performance hit. There is a software that supposedly liberates us from the limitation, but BFC doesn't advise it for some reason. This needs some investigation by techie folks, as it could greatly help CM2 perfomance.

This analysis is a little off. First of all, RAM has nothing to do with the issue. What you run out of here is virtual address space. Do not buy more RAM to load your big scenarios, it does not help.

BFC has for reasons unknown instructed Windows to never give it any virtual memory allocations above 2 GB. I don't want to repeat the fight I had with Phil about it in this thread. A quick search will tell you how to raise this to 3 GB if you have a 32 bit OS and 4 GB if you have a 64 bit OS. If you have Win7 you can do it in a clean way not objected to by Phil (still on your own risk), otherwise you can do it in a way reported working by users but not desired by BFC.

I am not sure offhand whether or if so why setting this leads to a performance increase as users have reported. It shouldn't. But then god knows what the heck is going on inside Windows when you ask for the 2 GB restriction.

In addition there were much rarer instances of running out of graphics memory. But if that is happening to you you will get a clear error message saying so, so there is no mistaking one case for the other. In this case getting a card with more memory or turning down your graphics quality options should help. I can't verify this since I didn't have this problem.

Hope this helps and doesn't lead to more flames.

[Mord]

15) The cookie cutter sameness of squads and other units. In CM1 one could have a variety of experience levels within a platoon resulting in units having a uniqueness. In CM2 scenarios generally, all units (tanks etc) and squads are identical with the same squad leadership attributes, ammo loadout etc. Experience and abilities as well as armaments used to differ widely as units picked up stuff along the way. Having units are that not cookie-cutter makes the game more interesting and enhances identification with certain units and commanders.

That's a non issue and has to do with scenario design decisions not anything wrong with the game. At platoon level you can change each squad's fitness, leadership, head count, motivation, experience and supply. What else is there?

Mord.

[Statisoris]

That's a non issue and has to do with scenario design decisions not anything wrong with the game. At platoon level you can change each squad's fitness, leadership, head count, motivation, experience and supply. What else is there?

Mord.

You can give them customized unit names too.

[Mord]

Yep. You can rename leaders and units...so I'd say strike number 15 off the list.

Mord.

[noxnoctum]

I think he meant the affects of being in command aren't as obvious (no heart, star etc.) but looking at some of the tests people did on the effects of command it plays a big role.

Also frankly I find units much more unique feeling now since you can actually look down and see all the various small arms being used and there is a noticeable difference between say... a squad with their LMGs and MP40s still and a squad that only has Kar98s left. I find it much more satisfying to see it playing out in front of me than have it be just a number on a screen. Especially since you can see how much of a dramatic effect a squad losing their LMGs has on their firepower output (especially a German one). One of the reasons I much prefer wego since it allows me to actually watch the battles very close up and see all the drama.

For me the biggest issues are lack of an armor cover arc, the lack of a "Hunt" order that's not move-to-contact (the latter is very important too though!) and lack of better multiplayer options (lobby + tcp-ip wego or autopause every 30 seconds or both). I know BFC insists that most never touch multiplayer but I think that's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think the game could get much more popular with real MP support. Just as an example look at Men of War which while not really a wargame is much more so than stuff like Company of Heroes and although very clunky (IMO much harder to get into than CMBN) got really big thanks to a lot of MP options. As long as we get it by the time Bagration comes out though I'll be happy.

I agree though about LOS being pretty funky sometimes though and confusing. I've had many situations where a vehicle behind some trees could not "see" the terrain on the other side but when something actually appeared on the other side it was able to fire at it. And the reverse situation as well.

I also would like it if infantry did not move in a straight line. It seems they don't do this when on a hunt order so maybe this can be remedied at some point to spread them out more on quick, move, fast, etc. Though I usually split squads to get around this.

About the tanks they do seem to miss hardly ever. But in CMx1 they seemed to miss a whole lot even at relatively short ranges. I can't really speak about that with any authority though I have no idea what % hit rates they had during WW2 for experienced crews. It does seem like they kinda just ported over the accuracy of CMSF vehicles but t could all just be in my head. I was playing with an AT gun though the other day and it missed several times at only 500 meters or so.

It'd be nice if you could grab ammo from just being next to a vehicle but that could be problematic if you're next to multiple vehicles in which case you'd need a sub-menu to distinguish between them.

I agree with you about the rubble, right now it doesn't seem to provide much cover or concealment. And seems to be pretty much "flat" regarldess of how huge the building that collapsed was.

I haven't spent much time on snipers but I wander what range was that at? It'd be nice of someone tested them out some.

Anyways those are my thoughts.

[akd]

17) Infantry even when hiding will fire on an armoured vehicle at long distances and especially fire on buttoned up tanks at long ranges.

Oft repeated, yet not once proven.

[LukeFF]

That's a non issue and has to do with scenario design decisions not anything wrong with the game. At platoon level you can change each squad's fitness, leadership, head count, motivation, experience and supply. What else is there?

And in certain instances you can specify whether they are carrying AT weapons (such as a Bazooka, in which case you can also specify the model).

[Ranger33]

17) Infantry even when hiding will fire on an armoured vehicle at long distances and especially fire on buttoned up tanks at long ranges.

This one might still exist to some extent but in my current games it is not an issue at all, they only fire when it's appropriate for the most part. Now, tanks spotting infantry is still a bit off I think. As well as the "Tanks never miss" issue. At anything less than 1km they seem to have near perfect accuracy. When doing area fire they do over and under shoot sometimes so I don't know what's going on there.

An issue I would like to add is the way buildings can "block" clicks, even when your cursor is clearly not on them, as if they have an oversized hit box. You also can't click a unit icon through a building sometimes (especially 2 story buildings). It's weird because this isn't really a problem at all in CMSF. Difficult to explain without screenshots but I'm sure you guys know what I'm talking about.

[winkelried]

d) If your display shows something like: 80mm HE 100; 80mm Smoke 10; you can fire 100 shells, not 110. You can fire 100 HE shells or 90 HE shells and 10 smoke shells... This confuses many folks.

I prefer to have a some confused people and to be able to use the full 100 rounds for HE than to be stuck with 10 rounds of smoke and not knowing what to with them. BTW the display is realistic. I am looking forward to get a similar display when we get VT fuses for the Allies.

[winkelried]

16) Difficulty in obtaining meaningful Victory Levels. Usually the victory/defeat level one obtains seems to not have much relevance to actual performance during a scenario. You may force a surrender, not lose any units and still only get a "Minor Victory." Unclear if that is a scenario designer issue, or does the game system make it hard/impossible to provide meaningful victory levels?

This is a scenario designer issue - maybe you have not occupied a target or exited enough troops etc.

[RockinHarry]

With regard to 5e (mortar vs. bunker) this needs to be elaborated. Generally the structure itself is almost mortar proof. See this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pOxaxviGEI

The weak points basically is apertures which offer a large entry for splinters from any sort of HE near misses and occasional direct hits. There´s also rare instances that shells appear to find entry through actual gaps in the 3D geometry of the wooden shelter type.

[umlaut]

21)

Germans carrying panzerfausts all too often choose to engage enemy armor at close range with rifles or SMGs, while leaving the ´fausts hanging useless on their backs. It seems to me that this happens at least half the times in situations where using the fausts would be the obvious choice.

22) Please bring back "cover armor" - I really miss that option in the game

[SlowMotion]

23) You're supposed to be able to set different targets for each waypoint. I'd think this also includes clearing targets. This clearing doesn't work.

If you have set a target in one waypoint and clear it for the next waypoint, the target is still there once your unit reaches waypoint2 and continues forward.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

That's a non issue and has to do with scenario design decisions not anything wrong with the game. At platoon level you can change each squad's fitness, leadership, head count, motivation, experience and supply. What else is there?

Mord.

Individual soldiers within the squad having different weapons like a 30cal. semi auto vs a Garand? The above items you mention can be changed in the scenario editor but let's face it, many people play this game using Quickbattles a lot of the time and none of these can be fiddled with. You always get your Sherman with exactly the same number of HE, AP & smoke rounds with no exception.

Overall, it feels much more regimented when chosing forces for a Quickbattle compared with the surprise one received when choosing forces in a CMx1 Quickbattle and finding out you've been short changed with a Green squad but partly compensated for that when your HMG is a veteran. It's nice to have some variability outside of ones control (i.e. chaos) in a Quickbattle rather than everything exactly the same, as it is at the moment.

Regards

KR

[akd]

Overall, it feels much more regimented when chosing forces for a Quickbattle compared with the surprise one received when choosing forces in a CMx1 Quickbattle and finding out you've been short changed with a Green squad but partly compensated for that when your HMG is a veteran. It's nice to have some variability outside of ones control (i.e. chaos) in a Quickbattle rather than everything exactly the same, as it is at the moment.

Regards

KR

Umm...no it is not. There is variability in unit soft factors in quick battles, unless the player overrides them by changing them from "typical" before purchase or directly editing them after purchase. Headcount, supply and fitness are fixed, but since QBs are often used for competitive purposes, allowing alteration of these could get very complicated.

If the AI is auto-picking, these factors may get changed just a player can change them (at the cost or gain of points). I just let the AI pick my forces in a quick test and one platoon had all regulars and another had a mix of green, veteran and regular. Not sure if the even experience of the first platoon was just chance or an AI decision. Regardless, the other soft factors (leadership/morale) were variable throughout the forces.

[Chek]

d) If your display shows something like: 80mm HE 100; 80mm Smoke 10; you can fire 100 shells, not 110. You can fire 100 HE shells or 90 HE shells and 10 smoke shells... This confuses many folks.

This one only caught me out once and then I remembered.

[Erwin]

I agree, the shell count is one of the more minor issues, and not hard to get to grips with...

[Vencini]

- Ridiculous detail: Spanish language (N, S, E, Oeste) in compass map remains in English language (N,S,E,W)

- Leaders (infantry or tanks) wear magnet enemy bullet jackets

[stikkypixie]

23) You're supposed to be able to set different targets for each waypoint. I'd think this also includes clearing targets. This clearing doesn't work.

If you have set a target in one waypoint and clear it for the next waypoint, the target is still there once your unit reaches waypoint2 and continues forward.

You can clear it by giving a face order.

[IRUNSAMOK]

If you select a unit at the start of the turn it's morale status at the end of the turn is briefly displayed in the UI.

[Zels77]

- Ridiculous detail: Spanish language (N, S, E, Oeste) in compass map remains in English language (N,S,E,W)

- Leaders (infantry or tanks) wear magnet enemy bullet jackets

I agree Vencini, but expect a message from a BF drone along these lines "unless you can prove it in court we will deny it!"

[sburke]

I agree Vencini, but expect a message from a BF drone along these lines "unless you can prove it in court we will deny it!"

And we were doing so nicely with the thanksgiving wishes, but heck I guess it beats the f word.

[Guest]

The beta testers aren't "drones". That's rude, and not incredibly helpful. Providing some kind of proof that the problem exists would go a long way toward showing that... a problem exists.

*Someone* is going to have to show a problem exists, beta tester or otherwise, or at least come up with a test to show it's reproducible, before we can look at it. Otherwise we'd constantly be jumping at shadows and not have time to take care of real issues.

Now:

Tank commanders are (usually) the most exposed men in their vehicles. Shrapnel is going to do a number on them before it hits the loader.

Likewise, infantry leaders, who tend to be the most together guys in their units, will spend more time spotting, or shooting, or doing *something* than cowering, hiding, or otherwise not doing very much. They are therefore more likely to be hit in a 1:1 simulation where bullets and shrapnel are going every which way, yes?

I have never seen any results indicating that leaders are *abnormally* likely to be hit. If you or someone else can provide some we can take a look.

[Vencini]

The beta testers aren't "drones". That's rude, and not incredibly helpful.

They are Roy Batty replicants Blade Runner type...They have souls and sentiments... They dream... (just kiding)

Tank commanders are (usually) the most exposed men in their vehicles. Shrapnel is going to do a number on them before it hits the loader.

Ok I understand that

I have never seen any results indicating that leaders are *abnormally* likely to be hit. If you or someone else can provide some we can take a look.

After playing all battles of the game I'mk on my last battle "Vierville". May be I finish it today and begings to play the campaings. I have no tests. It's my noob opinion after playing all battles (and repeating some of them them) "Ok my infantry unit it's advancing...Oh no! one casuality! Let's see... The leader again"

Thanks for answers, your work and for that great game