Jump to content

Bug/glitch thread


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, domfluff said:

"Clearly better" is a bit strong. It definitely seems odd that the base level T-55 is more expensive, but it's not just a straight upgrade.

The primary focus of tanks is to fight other tanks first. With the upgraded ammunition to do that, it is a clear upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love doctrine 'discussions'...seriously, it is half the reason I do this.

So I think the answer is not one or the other but how smoothly one could make the transition between; here between combined arms roles (we have a similar problem happening in the modern environment but in different spheres).  Combined arms is the overarching "strategy" of landpower in every credible military since, let's just say for arguments sake, Cambrai.  For most of WWI and, for the allies particularly, large portions of WW2 the lead combat arm was infantry (please, let's not get into artillery statics).  The concept of mechanize infantry and the combined arms team was still in its infancy and while big armor clashes happened the overall pace and pulse of battle was determined by infantry maneuver with tanks and artillery supporting.  The Germans did have "blitzkreig" (a word that is not totally made up) but it was 1) nascent and 2) largely pulled off by a fringe group of officers that made miracles happen in May-Jun '40 in spite of what the mainstream was pushing for - "Sure Heinz, go push tanks over those Roman bones and see where it gets you...we will do the Schlieffen plan redux" (check out "The Blitzkrieg Legend" by Karl-Heinz Frieser for more).

But CMCW is 35 years later and oh my the world had changed.  Almost all infantry were mechanized, the footborne masses were on the fringe.  The west and the east had learned some very hard, but good, lessons from the last war and had zero intention of repeating the mistakes.  Infantry had to share the throne with armor and artillery/air/EW was becoming something else entirely (we call it Joint Fires now).  So now advantage was not to whoever had the best infantry or tanks...it was to whoever could transition between lead combined arms on the fly.  We enter into an age of ambidextrous landpower.  Both sides of the equation for CMCW have very different approaches to the "problem" but primacy on rapid transition between armor-infantry leading roles is as easy to see as the tactical structures that were built (MRR and TF structures).  It is also seen in equipment, we no longer have 4 types of tanks (light, infantry support mediums, heavies and super heavies) that populated the 50s and 60s, enter the MBT a jack of all trades. 

What is really interesting is that history is a wheel and we are right back on it today.  Our "enablers" keep becoming "operators" on the modern battlefield (e.g. cyber, IA/IO) across multiple domains (ok, so before "that kid in the class" starts harping in on "All the Capt is talking about is that multi-domain BS", trust me we are moving well beyond what the US Army put out as "new wine").   And again as roles change "what can be weaponized" and "how fast" is becoming the challenge..it is why traditional military mass is mattering less and less.  But watch that wheel...it spins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jace11 said:

T-80B1 does not have the GLATGM guidance module on turret, but does have the shadow for it. There is a similar shadow on the T-64B1 turret.

Then, to fix this glitch they'll have to remove the shadow on the T-64 and... add the guidance module on the T-80! 😄

Yes, this is said tongue-in-cheek but I'm not kidding too much. In fact, while there was a T-64B1, that is a T-64B without the guidance module for gun launched ATGMs, actually there was no T-80B1, ever. That is: no T-80B was ever produced without being ATGM capable. 

Of course, I am for keeping the "T-80B1" in the game, just to represent a different ammo loadout for the T-80B, but if one has to fix its 3D model, the ATGM sight should be added, not the shadow removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 1:07 PM, Stagler said:

Pretty significant bug:

Whatever happened in the last patch, it seems to have given US troops and vehicle gunners IR optics instead of NV optics or something

Here is several images of M113A2 gunners destroying BTR-60s through smoke with their M2s during a game, and during a test mission i made to prove the bug exists. You can see the tracer firecoming right through the smoke in all images. I have attached a test mission so you can test it yourself.


As it stands now. Covering with smoke while playing as Soviets is completely useless and pointless.



Yeah, bit of a whopper this, I tried your mission and added a bit of Red AI, to set a smokescreen and advance a few minutes later so I could view from the US side. Seems like Dragons have thermals, if you split them off as an antitank team you can see this as the rest of the team does not, this is mentioned in the 1.01 patch notes. The M113A2 vehicle gunners seem to have thermals too, but I haven't checked all vehicle mounts. The fact that basic infantry without dragons can't see through smoke (when they do have NVGs) leads me to believe its a "mount" issue as opposed to NVGs acting as a thermal sight. 

So far I have only seen the M113A1 and M113A2 exhibit this behavior and only when opened up with the 50 cal manned.

Hope this is fixed promptly but I expect we will have to wait till they finish the integration of the PBEM and steam release.


Also, there is a new bug with dragon. Now AT soldiers carrying a dragon can engage targets with their M16 through smoke. As if the dragon gives blanket thermal vision even when on their back.


Edited by Jace11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/4/2021 at 9:44 AM, Halmbarte said:

Anyone else notice that the left drive sprocket on the M60 doesn’t rotate? The right one is normal. 


Posted back on the first page. Maybe it will be fixed with the next patch. Or maybe with the next release.  I would love to see the British and German kit added to this era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2021 at 11:15 PM, Artkin said:

Sure, waiting on that T80UM in all its royal (looking) ERA. :)

The T-80U (UK/UA/UE-1 etc.) are the vehicles I want to see the most:


But I'd be equally happy with a few T-80BVs to tide me over:


We also really need to see vehicle smoke generators properly modelled for CM:CW (& the other modern(ish) titles TBH).  :rolleyes:

PS - It took me absolutely ages to find a decent sized, linkable image of a T-80BV.....Has Vlad had them all modernised into BVMs already?  :o

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

btr-60 pb models have some issues. The lower LODS use the btr-60pbk model with two aerials but the highest lod switches to the pb model. This has some erroneous shadows, including one for the extra aerial which it no longer has. Game is missing the correct LODs for 60pb.

The BTR-60 pbk uses the pb model without the extra aerial???

Also the MG on top of the T-64A has a green gun barrel.


Also t-55 model is using the t-55m accessories which is for a different colored texture set and is why the fuel tanks  on the hull appear so bright.

Edited by Jace11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

One building on the map "Huge Dam-rough (2160 x 2784) 024 Assault.btt" has no doors, so it is impossible to enter - and also to leave the building if you put your troops inside at the deployment phase. It is the control tower on the airfield.




Edited by Bufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...