Rank the fixes for the 1.04 patch :)

[von Lucke]

Now, now Andreas! Joe said he put a whole 30 seconds of research into forming his post! I think that would qualify him as an authority! (Or, at least, a Doctoral candidate at Laval University...).

[CEO]

How about an option in the quick battle to select any of the experience levels for your troops. So you can have green troops and conscript troops.

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

No smilies were harmed in the making of this post.

[RokSS]

This thread is good whether BTS reads it or not. It is interesting to see what other players' pet peeves are.

My top 5 (including added features):

1- scurrying (indentified) crews drawing too much attention from MBTs

2- inability to veiw map in QBs before purchasing units

3- improve vision, accuracy and lethality of sharpshooters (they're supposed to have high power scopes)

4- full length movies (would be awesome)

5- TCP/IP including team play capability (a no brainer)

[Claymore]

Just pushing this to the top...I want to get to 100 (factual) posts before I even start tabulating the results.

Cheers

[aka_tom_w]

TCP/IP is the biggest new priority..

These are my top 5

1- scurrying (indentified) crews drawing too much attention from Tanks. Bailed crews should never be targets for AFV's

2 Look at that US .50 cal as it Takes out light opposing vehciles and makes their crews abandon them VERY qucikly, I think the .50 cal is modeled TOO leathal

3 More Fog of War You should not be able to see the experience level the the opposing units, damage to opposing AFV's should not be so complete or obvious

4) suggest disinformation, for example you can NEVER really know the truth, maybe there would be info displayed with a "?" like "gun damaged" on a an AFV when in fact the round ricocheted, and the opposing AFV has no damage? More fog of War more incorrect info displayed, like it is when they always think it a heavy AFV like a "Tiger Tank'? before it actually determined to be just a Pz IV.

5- inability to veiw map in QBs before purchasing units

[Juardis]

I ammend my list. Take out one of the 3 TCP/IP requests and put in number 5 from the previous post (I would LOVE to see my QB map BEFORE I buy units).

But I see the flip side to this as well. That is, you have what you have and you fight wherever you meet the enemy, be it good terrain or bad.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Dallas]

I second CEO's tweak. I play with random ai forces and as soon as you id one unit you know the experience level of the whole opposing force.

Also, it's challenging to have mixed units yourself... don't close assault with the green squad etc.

It must be somewhat realistic to have mixed experience level platoons.

[deanco]

1. Ability to remap the keyboard.

2. A 'Toggle View State' button, which would save your preferences for viewing the map and recall them with 1 button.

3,4,5...the weapon tweaks, other good ideas posted here.

I did a search on "ergonom" here and found 1 post, totally unrelated to ergonomic considerations. This issue (enduser ease of use) is the only minor complaint I can find with this game, which has gotta be one of the greatest games ever made. Thanks for listening, BTS.

DeanCo--

[Guest mch]

Excuse me butting in here,but I jes' doan

unterstand all of this .50 is "too lethal" stuff.

IIRC,Charles and Steve calculated Armor Penetration verry carefully.Now,If it just so

happens that a .50 is able to chew up a halftrack(wich it can)(I've shot one at an abandoned car before..I was speechless!)

what's so wrong with that?The .50 is still in

full production today.It was a weapon that was years ahead of it's time.I don't see a need to "dumb down" the weapon.

FWIW,I haven't seen anyone complain that the KT is "too lethal".

Just my prodding,unwanted,occidental .002

(Edit:The tone of this post might seem a tad harsh,but I assure you it's all in the spirit

of a good natured debate)BTW,I'd really like

to see the Vehicle pack released more than any patch at all! Esp.if it has the M-16!

imagine that...Quad .50! That'll be "too lethal"

[This message has been edited by mch (edited 08-11-2000).]

[RokSS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis:

(I would LOVE to see my QB map BEFORE I buy units).

But I see the flip side to this as well. That is, you have what you have and you fight wherever you meet the enemy, be it good terrain or bad.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would seem more realistic as HQs would have maps and airiel recon photos to refer to before sending in troops.

I was thinking that it could be optional, like with a enable/disable switch.

[Claymore]

Mch,

The issue of the 50cal is not its power once the rounds land on target, but how CM models the accuracy of the M2 being fired in automatic mode from the back of a moving vehicle. Check out the thread "50cal too effective?" for a complete discussion including input from those who have fired the weapon in earnest.

Cheers

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

he which maketh the first assault doth endanger himselfe most (sometimes)

[Rattus]

My 3 Shekels & 4 Groats worth...

1) Tiger armour fix...

2) .50 cal accuarcy mod.

3) FAO's who can spot whilst "embarked" & proper OP tks.

4) Attacker (maybe only Assault) can buy TRPs for registered Arty. (&maybe TRPs for MG's in night/fog?)

5) Shrapnel & incenduary ammo..., box barrages & creeping barrages.

So I'm retentive about arty !

[Fuerte]

1) Better unit bases (brighter colors or even different BMPs for different units)

2) Fix the gamma bug after visiting desktop (and change the Escape key to something else)

3) Fix the shift-key problem (screen moves left/right when it should be rotating after shift is released)

4) Faster PBEM play, 2 e-mails per turn would be nice

5) Add dedicated PBEM server and automated support for it in CM (no real need for TCP/IP this way)

6) Faster 3D engine

[Fuerte]

Oh, I forgot one:

7) Register a PBEM file type, so that when I open a PBEM file in e-mail program, it automatically loads Combat Mission with that file!

[danielh]

Fixes:

- M2 acuraccy greatly reduced, and treated like an AT-Gun by HT and Light armor

- Not moved AT-/Inf- Guns much harder to spot, and at least the same durability (only those with protective shields of course as Inf-squads

- Rocket-artillery, 28 cm Nebelwerfer all 5 rounds are shot simultaneously (enhancing the effect tremendously), and since max. firing distance was only 4000 m acuraccy should be slightly better (Test with LOS on target: 1 within 50 m, 1 within 75 m, 3 within 100, 0 within 125 m, 5 within 150 m, 6 > 200 m. Although not a pinpoint weapon the pattern should read: 1-2 within 50 m, 2-3 within 75 m, 5-6 within 100 m, 3-4 within 125 m, 2 within 150 m, 1 between 150 and 200 m. And Deviation to side should be much narrower, because all 5 were fired at once. Length-deviation can be more pronounced due to differences in the rocket propellant -> The same as in cluster bombs where side deviation is small but length dev. greater. They can be more expensive to prevent overuse, but it would add to the suspense of the game. Artillery area fire sould come more dense (shells arrive simultaneously) a battery normally fires at once (A friend of mine is artillery officer and told me they fire all guns of the battery at once, only the probe shots are individual (There's no reason to do it otherwise)). Thus enhancing the lethality and surprise moment.

- Targets well hidden in Woods are spotted much too easy once they open fire

- Differences between mortar- and barrel-gun artillery fire on armoured vehicles. A 10.5 cm HE-shell hitting a M-8 is deadly without any doubt (In CM the M-8 becomes evt. immobile), whereas it gets killed by direct small calibre direct mortarfire (Absolutely correct) -> Direct Artillery-shell hits kills Halftracks or thin plated armoured cars.

- The HMG42/or Heavy allied 0.3 MG's effectiveness against infantry is a bit to low IMO (A squad coming under fire on open ground or paved road is history within 1-2 seconds, of course the (few) survivers hit the dirt and seek for protection, but the initial effect would cost certainly more than 0 - 2 casualties). One single good digged in MG-position with free field of fire can not be stormed front on without unbearable heavy losses.

- AT-Guns and fieldguns effectiveness is much to low. They can be spotted much to easy especially in Woods,scat trees. One can assume that such guns, if not moved, are camouflaged and digged in which gives them in addition to the protective shield very good protection against small arms fire. In CM they can be taken out even by small arms fire up to laughable distances (> 400 m). Also the big 8.8 is of no use in this game, because it's so big, but these guns were usually digged in up to the barrel and very well camouflaged (In Africa, the Normandy and the Westwall the 8.8 took a heavy toll on enemy armor).

Greets

Daniel

[David Aitken]

danielh wrote:

> - Targets well hidden in Woods are spotted much too easy once they open fire

Opening fire pretty much negates camouflage. Ever heard of muzzle flash?

> - The HMG42/or Heavy allied 0.3 MG's effectiveness against infantry is a bit to low IMO

The effectiveness of machineguns has been discussed repeatedly and at length in this forum - try doing a search. The two basic things to keep in mind are (1) infantry in Combat Mission is shown just running in a straight line, but this is only an abstraction of what they are actually doing. They are nowhere near as good targets as this. (2) a single machinegun is not a wonder weapon which will eliminate any squad you fire in the general direction of.

> - AT-Guns and fieldguns effectiveness is much to low. They can be spotted much to easy especially in Woods,scat trees. [...] In CM they can be taken out even by small arms fire up to laughable distances (> 400 m).

Scattered trees is exactly what it says on the tin - scattered trees. Even infantry would have trouble going unspotted here. And again, once you start firing, camouflage will do you no good. As for resilience - I find bigger guns can withstand a lot, but infantry guns don't tend to have much protection, even if they're dug in.

> Also the big 8.8 is of no use in this game, because it's so big, but these guns were usually digged in up to the barrel and very well camouflaged (In Africa, the Normandy and the Westwall the 8.8 took a heavy toll on enemy armor).

What do you mean by that? 88's in Combat Mission are the nemesis of any Allied armour.

David

[Priest]

This is my wishlist. BTS usually does the right thing so I think this is how it is going to break down. 1.04 will be mostly TCp/IP. I am sure it will include other minor touch ups like the Tigers front armor.

Now TCP/IP is not going to be easy. I know I work with it for a living. So iwould think that there would be 1.05 that would simply fix any bugs that are bound to occur from 1.04. After that I think we can all agree that CM will be done and CM2 can begin.

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

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[dumbo]

"After that I think we can all agree that CM will be done and CM2 can begin."

Amen to that.

_dumbo

"Legion with his genius and knowledge and us with.....

Our Red alert bulb."

[Time]

I had a "elite" tank shoot at a squad while a sherman drove right through boacage within 5m of it and blew the crap out of my tank. A fix for this might be telling the tank to ignore infantry or armor targets depending on what you needed.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

danielh wrote:

Opening fire pretty much negates camouflage. Ever heard of muzzle flash?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David, one could ask have you ever tried to spot an AT gun fireing in an heavily forrested area thats built low to the ground, dug in and extensivly camoflaged from a turret?, I haven't, but I have tried to find other weapons that were camo'd etc in training excercises, but I digress.

MF is visible yes; but its not that easy to spot even in daytime at 800 - 1200ms. Its a bit easier today with 10x mag, & TIS's etc, compared to then with 2.5x, 3x, sights and Alied binos (Ie, US bino's) used in WW2.

Their are some good tank crew AA's concerning how hard it was to locate German and Allied (Soviet) AT guns. The standard US & UK practice when all else failed was to take a guess where the AT gun was in the wooded area and plaster the area with Arty.

Just because a PAK fires one time doesn't mean every unit on the map should know where it is, which can _seem_ to be the case sometimes in CM.

In a perfect world I'd prefer a method where spotting was increased as the AT gun fired repeatedly, while the spotting % also decreased as the AT gun killed the units within its LOS, so the next units would have to find it on their own.

BTW this is not a pitch for a fix or a slam on the algorthems in CM its my opinion from reading David's remark above about spotting and negateing camoflage thru MF based on personel experience, but not vs a dug in camo'd AT gun .

Regards, John Waters

-------

"Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!"

[David Aitken]

PzKpfw 1 wrote:

> BTW this is not a pitch for a fix or a slam on the algorthems in CM its my opinion from reading David's remark above about spotting and negateing camoflage thru MF based on personel experience, but not vs a dug in camo'd AT gun.

Cripes, that sentence was a bit of a mouthful! =)

Engagements in Combat Mission tend to happen at shorter-than-average ranges. For example, a German 88 could hit a target miles away, but a typical CM map is less than a mile across. So in most battles, the source of any kind of fire isn't usually too hard to spot.

I haven't personally done any long-range spotting tests in CM, but I would imagine a field gun firing from two miles away wouldn't be spotted nearly as quickly as one a few hundred metres away. If you want to preserve your guns in CM, you need quite a bit of experience of how and why units get spotted, and how fire is brought to bear on them (for example, you don't want your gun to be adjacent to your opponent's main line of advance, so it'll get popped by the first tank that shows up).

David

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-11-2000).]

[Neutral Party]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Engagements in Combat Mission tend to happen at shorter-than-average ranges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense David but doesn't this strike you as a statistical paradox ?

Joe

edited to correct my atroshus spelling

[This message has been edited by Neutral Party (edited 08-11-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Cripes, that sentence was a bit of a mouthful! =)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Engagements in Combat Mission tend to happen at shorter-than-average ranges. For example, a German 88 could hit a target miles away, but a typical CM map is less than a mile across. So in most battles, the source of any kind of fire isn't usually too hard to spot.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I agree to a point, Ie, I play large maps, and prefer defensive battles with Ge Inf & AT guns so I conceal my AT guns in woods with restricted lines of fire covering aproach routes etc.

But the original post IIRC was not about range but the effects of terrain on LOS & spotting vs an dug in AT gun in a concealed area. Standard combat range for me has been anywhere from 400ms to 1019ms depending on the map and tree coverage.

Now obviously if theirs x number of units in LOS when the AT-gun fires then the % goes up it will be located, I have no problem with that, its an part of the risk .

But at the same time It should take some time to spot the AT gun do to its size and varying on level of concealment for tanks especialy buttoned to locate it, regardless of range if in a wooded area.

Typicly after the 1st shot if the tank isn't killed you immidately see the red target line come from the target to the AT gun, this should not be the case, it should take 2 - 4 shots again dependant on cover, before the tank finds the AT gun.

As an historical example the Germans generaly where possible dug in their common AT gun, the PAK 40, the only area visible was the barrel and the top of the gun sheild, the sheild was generaly covered with foilage as well.

Due to concealment and the generaly small size and profile of WW2 AT guns as well as their crews measures in camouflageing them they were not easy to locate even at 500ms, so its not just a question of range or map size .

Regards, John Waters

--------

"Go for the eyes Boo, go for the eyes!!"

[TeAcH]

Ultra Fog of War option.

-Very little info on armor hit

-You unit skill is NOT shown to enemy

(tanks included)

-The condition of your troops is not given to the enemy in such detailed. (Good, Pinned, and routed for example)

-Crews arent shown as crew to enemy

Perspective 1 lock at game start

TeAcH

[Fionn]

" In a perfect world I'd prefer a method where spotting was increased as the AT gun fired repeatedly, while the spotting % also decreased as the AT gun killed the units within its LOS, so the next units would have to find it on their own. "

Um,, that;s how it currently works.

I still think people are just playing this wrong or something...

Elvis can testify that he has NO idea what just killed two of his Shermans. One of my units had to fire 3 shots to nail its Sherman yet is still sitting pretty all unidentified and unspotted .

Also, My AT guns can usually get off 3 sub-500 metre shots before being spotted. At longer ranges they get off even more before being spotted.

Best performance so far... 6 Shermans KO'ed by 1 AT gun without my opponent ever managing to locate it.

Like I said, maybe you're just not being crafty enough with your placements.