Patch update?

[fry30]

If he told us the truth he'd probably kill us shortly thereafter

[Stingray]

The new updated v1.10 demo is out just now. This is just a demo.

The v1.10 patch is next, but I don't think it'll be today. The v1.10 will be only for people who have CM:BN (v1.00 or v1.01) and do NOT have Commonwealth. If you have Commonwealth, you don't need this patch (in fact, you should NOT install it because it'll erase your module).

It will update the base game engine to v1.10, same as what is included in the Commonwealth module already(i.e. the module includes Commonwealth and already has the base gam eengine updated to v1.10).

Martin

Based on the previous post by Steve, I concluded that there will be a patch for the CW mod to improve on the Lynx and Tiger II. Am I correct??? If so, can you give an guesstimate on when? Will this also allow the Lynx to be purchased during QB?

Would appreciate your input. Thanks

[Michael Emrys]

Based on the previous post by Steve, I concluded that there will be a patch for the CW mod[ule] to improve on the Lynx and Tiger II. Am I correct??? If so, can you give an guesstimate on when? Will this also allow the Lynx to be purchased during QB?

Would appreciate your input. Thanks

Going by the current pace of releases, I'd guess that is still some way off. Like at least a month. They are going to want to take stock of whatever bugs are operating in 1.10, devise fixes, and then test the fixes. That is usually a time consuming process and isn't all they would be working on at the moment.

Michael

[Stingray]

Going by the current pace of releases, I'd guess that is still some way off. Like at least a month. They are going to want to take stock of whatever bugs are operating in 1.10, devise fixes, and then test the fixes. That is usually a time consuming process and isn't all they would be working on at the moment.

Michael

Thanks for the reply. No hurry...take the time to get it right.

[JonS]

Any word on the patch for us guys who could careless about playing with the Brits?

*wibble*

{padding}

[gunnergoz]

Don't you want the SS?

Not enough to buy a module just to get them.

[Taki]

A Readme what really has been fixed would be fun. Because when there isnt anything done on the Major Problems i cant care less playing the Brits.

So Reame on the Fixes yes/no?

[Vanir Ausf B]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1345085&postcount=17

[Taki]

Thx, but very very very dissapointing.

[~Viajero]

Thx, but very very very dissapointing.

Hopefully this is not the end or the beginning of the end, but just the end of the beginning.

[Taki]

Just played the New Toys Demo. It still feels like CMSF with WW2 Camo (tank fights for Example). Target Spotting, Tracking and Engage is the same as in the Abrams. Mostly 1 Shot = 1 Hit. Only the Forcefield Tree Tec. can stop Rounds!

[Vanir Ausf B]

I recently did some testing that showed CMBN tank fire accuracy matched up closely to expected numbers. I think part of the problem is that many people formed their opinion of what WW2-era accuracy was by playing the early Combat Mission games. But those games under-modeled accuracy, a fact that tread heads repeatedly told BFC at the time. It seems they have finally listened.

Tank spotting is probably still too optimistic with regards to areas to the side of the tank. And tank crews still have the same Borg-like ability to instantly and unerringly communicate information with each other that they have always had since CMBO.

But the biggest cause of uber-armor in CMBN isn't the tanks themselves, but the limitations in what infantry can do against them.

[dieseltaylor]

I think we have a problem here. Rexford's figures VAB quotes are a trifle worrying. They appear to ignore the fact that with very high velocity guns the sights could be set to 900 metres and they would hit any tank target between 20 to 900 metres.

However this is on a level surface and I have yet to see any detail of what happens on rising or falling ground. Intuitively I feel that accuracy drops off considerably compared to firing across level ground. Range estimation surely becomes much more important for getting hits.

And then spotting the shot to adjust - tanks like the Tiger and the Panther were better gun platforms than the equivalent Allied tanks with HV guns where obscuration by smoke/blast made good spotting tricky.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I wish Rexford had gone into more detail about how came up with those numbers. He did mention they they are purposely more pessimistic than firing range figures.

Some tests that noob ran recently suggest that CM does not use optics to modify accuracy; that optics are only used for spotting purposes and that tank gun accuracy is basically a straight function of muzzle velocity modified by a few other factors such as crew quality. This is of course how it also worked in the CMx1 games.

I don't think CM models the German use of smokeless powder.

[dieseltaylor]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=31528

Is another early thread with rexford. If I had the time it would be interesting to see how they match to War Office stuff and other stuff from J D Salts collected works.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Looking through that thread, it appears Rexford's numbers are from a computer program he and Robert Livingston used.

On a related though different topic, 17 pdr APDS appears to lose stability, accuracy and penetration on close to 50% of the shots, based on analysis of many field tests, due to a piece of sabot hanging on longer than the others which unbalances ammo. In U.S. tests at Isigny, 17 pdr accuracy was terrible, and penetration suffered.

Will CM give 6 and 17 pdr APDS variable dispersion, where accuracy and penetration may drastically change from tank to tank, or battle to battle?

Haha.

[Lanzfeld]

Tank spotting is probably still too optimistic with regards to areas to the side of the tank. And tank crews still have the same Borg-like ability to instantly and unerringly communicate information with each other that they have always had since CMBO.

^^^THIS^^^

I think it would add so much to the game if there were short delays inside the tank with comms from the commander to the gunner. Also, the turrets should have some inertia while slewing. No more insta-swing turrets.

[Lanzfeld]

Patch is up!

[Taki]

^^^THIS^^^

I think it would add so much to the game if there were short delays inside the tank with comms from the commander to the gunner. Also, the turrets should have some inertia while slewing. No more insta-swing turrets.

The Gunners in WW2 had to estimate Range with their Optics and Sights and then did a First Shot as a Reference and than had to do Laddershooting (in World War 2 Online you did exactly that and it worked well). Other Problem i got with those Gunaccuracy is that the Gun CAN shoot that precise but under Combat Conditions everyone gets nervous and it all bogs down.

And beside Borg Spotting thats the Problem that gets me everytime in CMBN. Okay M1A1 with Laserrangefinder and Track&Target Helpers i can live with 1 Shot 1 Hit.

Maybe CMx1 is a bit off from accuracy, but i just cant belive that its right atm.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Depends on what range you are seeing the 1st shot hits at. At 500m or less 1st shot hits are expected.

These are the Rexford numbers I linked to earlier, which assume 35% range estimation error.

Panther 75

----------

97% at 500m, 65% at 750m, 35% at 1000m

Tiger E 88

----------

90% at 500m, 52% at 750m, 27% at 1000m

Nashorn 88

----------

98% at 500m, 72% at 750m, 41% at 1000m

PzKpfw IVH 75

-------------

83% at 500m, 45% at 750m, 23% at 1000m

Sherman 75

----------

68% at 500m, 32% at 750m, 16% at 1000m

[dieseltaylor]

The following table, based on firing table probable errors, shows the inherent direct fire accuracy of anti-tank guns when their MPI was on the target centre (ie no human*errors). *In operations*worn guns and other mis-alignments*could reduce the chance by up to half at shorter ranges and to a quarter at longer ranges. *In the first years of the war training material was issued detailing the most vulnerable areas of enemy tanks. *This may have had some use for very short range engagements with infantry anti-tank weapons. *It was unrealistic at longer ranges and the 1942 doctrine of 'centre of mass' ended it as far as anti-tank artillery was concerned. *Trials also established that a 2 or 6-pdr at the end of its barrel wear life would hit only 18 inches low at 1000 yards.

Table 2 - Chance of Hitting a Vertical 6 ft ×*6 ft Target

Gun .................1000 yds.........2000 yds.........5000 yds

2-pdr..................90%...............40%...............1%

6-pdr...................96%...............55%...............3%

17-pdr.................98%...............80%..............15%

25-pdr (Chg super).80%..............45%................7%

The accuracy of an ATG on a range is excellent. In the field I imagine that it would be worse if the gun had been hastily laid, the approaching target was from an awkward angle, obscured , the gun crew were suffering from nearby shot.

Similarly a stationary tank with a well prepared position should be approaching the same accuracy.

SO what is needed is the kind of battle practice figures where the guns are not optimally set-up. The question then is does the game engine provide bonuses for tanks that remain stationary for a few minutes and can get ranged in .. ?

Possibly Rexford's figures take this into account but without any other information has it been plucked form the air..

This from a later Rexford thread:

Following is Battlesight accuracy for Panther 75 versus Sherman front, aim at bottom of hull and range set at 1100m:

100m-100%

200m-100%

300m-100%

400m-95%

500m-81%

600m-77%

700m-82%

800m-92%

900m-99%

1000m-94%

1100m-50%

Based on dispersion accuracy with gun aimed at center of target, Panther 75L70 is one of the most accurate guns of WW II in terms of small dispersion, being smaller than 88L56 and slightly below 50L60.

And with a lower velocity gun:

For 75L48 using Battlesight, 82% average hits from 100m to 900m target range against Sherman front, with low of 69% at 500m:

100m-100%

200m-100%

300m-91%

400m-72%

500m-69%

600m-77%

700m-89%

800m-90%

900m-50%

Above figures calculated using trajectory curve for each gun developed from German data and twice the test dispersion.

For 75mm L48, Battlesight lowers 400m-500m probability but increases hit probability at longer ranges.

If a tank crew does what they are supposed to do and aims according to the book, they should hit close to 93% at 500m. We thought of holding down %'s in miniatures games to model loaders jamming a thumb, grabbing the wrong ammo and having to go back, last minute traverse corrections, etc. Misses can model reduced rate of fire.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think we can safely conclude CM does not use the battlesight numbers.

Similarly a stationary tank with a well prepared position should be approaching the same accuracy.

SO what is needed is the kind of battle practice figures where the guns are not optimally set-up. The question then is does the game engine provide bonuses for tanks that remain stationary for a few minutes and can get ranged in .. ?

According to the manual they should be getting a first shot bonus against enemy units near a friendly TRP.

[Taki]

I dont want all that accurate Accuracy but there are lot of things that needs Tweaking first.

1. The Accurracy on the Move is way to high

2. Spotting Ability of Tanks is way to high and to fast in ANY Situation

3. Subsystem Damage is a Joke. I remember that Disscussion about Tiger getting Nonpenetrating AP Shots on the Tracks and The Optic gets Damaged shot by Shot and then destroyed

Sorry but bevore we talk about Some Gun Accuracy those MAJOR Game Flaws need to be fixed.

Dont get me wrong. CmX is a Class of its own on this Sector of Wargames and one of my Alltime Favourite Games but im getting less and less optimistic about the Question if the Problems dont lie in the New CMx2 Gameengine in itself and can ever be fixed?

[fry30]

2 things. Taki are you from Close Combat Community? Behind the PACMOD if I remember correctly?

secondly, I don't think there is anything wrong with this game that can't be figured out by patches. (Now if they would release one occasionally....)

2 things. Taki if you are indeed from Close Combat then you can attest to the inherent importance of patches. I was actually surprised that Battelfield or whomever runs this franchise had only released one patch when I purchased it within the last year. Not that I am implying that the more patches a game has had over the course of its run means that it is better or worse. But anyone can admit that more patches=less bugs (i'll ignore improvements to the base game for arguments sake). And that's good for everyone.

secondly, I, although often speaking critically, do not believe that the current pace of patch releases (given the KT et al. being "not pretty enough" comments going around) is a problem. But I love bitching about it.

Still can't work my head around the idea of me purchasing this module on a whim in order to play the game on an impulse buy. I wonder what kind of incentives they have to buy online... maybe that could be my tipping point.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I dont want all that accurate Accuracy but there are lot of things that needs Tweaking first.

1. The Accurracy on the Move is way to high

It was reduced in the 1.01 patch. I don't know if they will reduce it again but BFC has said it is purposely somewhat high because reducing it to realistic levels would screw the AI. The AI is not good about stopping tanks to fire.

2. Spotting Ability of Tanks is way to high and to fast in ANY Situation

Agreed, and the instant reaction times exacerbate the problem.

3. Subsystem Damage is a Joke. I remember that Disscussion about Tiger getting Nonpenetrating AP Shots on the Tracks and The Optic gets Damaged shot by Shot and then destroyed

Could use improvement, but I don't think it's a major issue. The subsystem damage isn't so much a joke as it is highly abstracted.