Patch features

[James Crowley]

Does the CMRT 1.01 patch have any commonality with the BN 3.10 upgrade, available with the Vehicle pack, as I cannot recall there being any specific information available in regard to fixes/additions with 3.10?

[eniced73]

Also.........Can someone elaborate on these??

Improved damage modeling for external systems on tanks

Improved QuickBattle choices

[SlowMotion]

I like this usability improvement

"Mouse text for targeting: too close or out of range"

[akd]

I like this usability improvement

"Mouse text for targeting: too close or out of range"

Note that this applies only to the primary weapon system of the vehicle, and that deciding what is primary is somewhat subjective. A flamethrower tank that shows "out of range" means the flamethrower is out of range, even though the target may be well within range of the gun or MGs. And a M2A3 Bradley that shows "out of range" on a target means the cannon is out of range, even though the target is probably still within TOW range.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Also.........Can someone elaborate on these??

Improved damage modeling for external systems on tanks

Improved QuickBattle choices

Hmm. Good question.

I suspect that "improved QuickBattle choices" is a blanket statement referring to all of the various fixes made to QBs. These are mostly TO&E errors such as missing units and formations. That list of changes alone might fill a whole page There were also some very significant purchase price changes made to a certain infamous class of weaponry.

I'm drawing a blank on the external system modeling for tanks.

[akd]

I'm drawing a blank on the external system modeling for tanks.

The only thing I can think of are some recent fixes in Black Sea that I thought were model specific, but perhaps some aspect carried over to other titles.

[MikeyD]

Since CMRT first release they've been tinkering with flamethrower fire. It should be prettier and have less of a framrate hit along the lines of CMBN pack.

[MikeyD]

Improved QuickBattle choices

If I were to hazard a guess I'd say they were talking about the number of vehicles that had got disinterred from the bowels of the TO&E and are now also available as individual vehicles.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

There were also some very significant purchase price changes made to a certain infamous class of weaponry.

Woohoo, no more rocketpalooza QB's.

[A co]

DSHK looks cool. It's going to make thing hard on German recon vehicles. Nice to have an MG with a big shield like that, too.

[Battlefront.com]

As to the QB improvements, there were two primary types:

1. Refinement to what is available as Specialists and Individual Vehicles. Not strictly a QB problem, but it's something that likely hurt QB gameplay far more than scenario creation.

2. Significant changes to the TO&E to purge vehicles from the Infantry force selection. There were a number of vehicles that could be purchased when there should have been none.

And of course tweaks and fixes to TO&E that apply to the Editor choices often apply in QBs. There were a number of improvements made to German formations so there is that too.

Steve

[Amizaur]

BF, could you please shed some light on the "Improved damage modeling for external systems on tanks" part ? What is this about ? Thx

[antaress73]

I played myth of invicibility as the germans and as far as I can tell.. the improved vehicule external damage change made an impact as THREE heavy tanks were mission kills because either the gun or the weapon controls were destroyed by non - catastrophic spalling hits or weapon mounts partial penetrations. Which rarely happened before with a single hit. The improved long range optics on the jagdpanzer IV also were a factor as I destroyed 16 tanks with the four of them.

[Hister]

Is this change more historically plausible or not then?

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Thanks for the patch BF. Hopefully we will see an expansion early next year (after Black Sea), perhaps covering the combat later in 1944 and including SS, Hungarians, Romanians etc. Things have been very quiet on this front for far too long!

Subtle hint mode now turned off! :-)

[Amizaur]

I played myth of invicibility as the germans and as far as I can tell.. the improved vehicule external damage change made an impact as THREE heavy tanks were mission kills because either the gun or the weapon controls were destroyed by non - catastrophic spalling hits or weapon mounts partial penetrations. Which rarely happened before with a single hit.

IIRC (Don't have time right now to check it) previously the gun could only be destroyed by "Weapon" hits. It NEVER happened from "weapon mount" (so, basically, a mantlet) hits.

This change could mean MORE gun damage happening. I hope that chances for damage during hit were lowered, to not increase overall gun damage chances (which were rather high IMO).

P.S. On the other hand, gun damage chance from mantlet hits is absolutely realistic thing. This way a tank can get it's gun damaged from an angled shot, and not only from directly frontal shots, as it was.

[Amizaur]

Just checked - now after patch a "weapon" hit means guaranteed (or almost guaranteed) gun damage, a "weapon mount" penetration means a high chance for gun damage.

I'm afraid we'll see even more gun damages now, than before.

BTW things like front turret penetration destroying the tracks, or lower hull partial penetration damaging the optics makes me still amused... I know damage is random, but some combinations of "hit place/damaged system" should really be excluded...

[Mastiff]

for some reason this patch made the Assault scenario more laggy.

[Oddball_E8]

Hmm... gonna have to update my soundmod (again...) since I noticed the sound I had for the DshK isn't really working well.

Might have to mess about a bit.

[Amizaur]

I wonder if the bug about T-34/85 HE shells penetrating Panther front armor was corrected in the patch ? It worked somewhat like HEAT round, so T-34/85 crews tended to use it against Panthers at long ranges.

[Jim1954]

I noticed this wording in the release features but I cannot seem to find the Jagdpanther anywhere, in QBs or the editor, formations or single vehicles.

Am I imagining this?

•Improved long-range optics for JPz IV, Jagdpanther

[Mord]

It's because it's not in RT as far as I know. It might be wording that is meant for the CMBN patch when it comes out.

Mord.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I wonder if the bug about T-34/85 HE shells penetrating Panther front armor was corrected in the patch ? It worked somewhat like HEAT round, so T-34/85 crews tended to use it against Panthers at long ranges.

It was not corrected in the patch (that I know of), because I never reported it. Instead, I came to the conclusion that it is probably not a bug.

I had been working under the assumption that only the Panther Gs suffered from glacis armor quality reduction in CMRT, since that is what the manual suggests. But in referencing armor quality ratings from CMBB I noticed that Ausf A (late) and IIRC Ausf A (mid) were also listed as having a chance for flawed armor. Further more, I noted that flawed Panther glacis plate armor was not associated with a reduced resistance %. That suggested the possibility that flawed Panther glacis was subject to special rules. One of those rules could be that instead of a reduction in resistance, flawed Panther glacis plate may be subject to an increased chance of weak point penetration.

To test this idea I tested T-34/85 HE against Panther A (early) at 1000 meters. The penetration % was only slightly above 1%, much lower than the previous results I had with later Panther models. A flat 1% chance of penetration was the means by which weak point penetrations were modeled in CMx1 and could very well be in CMx2. In addition, I continued to see no spalling results, suggesting that the HE penetration was well below the effective armor resistance.

This theory also would explain the controversial incident in Bill H's beta AAR against Elvis in which Bill's T-34 took out Elvis's Panther G with an APBC shot through the glacis plate, a result that would be difficult to justify using typical flawed armor resistance percentages. My theory is that it was a weak point penetration.

Of course it is just a theory and it could be wrong and maybe there is a bug. But it's a theory that fits the evidence. Plus, I had a lot of other testing to due on matters more important and/or more likely to result in incontrovertible conclusions so I did not pursue it any further.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's because it's not in RT as far as I know. It might be wording that is meant for the CMBN patch when it comes out.

Indeed it is. The fix was originally made in CMBN for the next patch and was then ported over to CMRT for relevant vehicles.

[Jim1954]

Ah, another snippet of information.