So what's 1.03 fix?

[Juardis]

I just downloaded 1.03, but I don't have time to execute the patch before I go to work. Besides, I need to convert my PBEMs first. Can someone be so kind as to list what has been fixed (if indeed that info exists)? 'preciate it.

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

Jeff Abbott

[The DesertFox]

Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord

v1.03 UPDATE PATCH - Windows

July 26, 2000 www.battlefront.com

This is the version 1.03 update for "Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord".

It updates versions: 1.0 through 1.02. Please follow these instructions:

1. Note the following files contained in this update:

- Combat Mission.exe (application file v1.03)

- "New BMP" directory, contains 1720.BMP through 1729.BMP

(10 graphics files)

- 00002080.WAV (sound file)

2. Replace the old "Combat Mission.exe" application file with the new

one.

(NOTE: If you already have v1.01 or later, you can skip steps 3 and 4).

3. Move the CONTENTS of the "New BMP" directory into the "BMP"

directory. Make sure you move the ten files INSIDE "New BMP" into the

BMP directory - do not copy the "New BMP" directory itself.

4. Move 00002080.WAV into the "WAV" directory. If you originally

did a "minimum" install and don't see a "WAV" directory, then just

create one.

You're all done! Below is the list of changes made.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

v1.03 7/26/2000

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Play-by-email format has changed. Both players must use v1.03

to be compatible.

* Infantry moving in the open is more vulnerable to casualties than

before.

* Small-arms units, especially MGs, fire more rapidly at units that

are moving in the open.

* Top-mount MG range increased for: Stuart, T8, PSW 234/3

* Vickers MG is available to British and Polish paratroops.

* Running units spot enemies more poorly.

* Mortar shell top armor penetration capability reduced slightly.

* The 'front line' in Operations does not tend to shift quite as

much in the attacker's favor as it did before.

* v1.01 made pillboxes just a little bit too resistant to artillery.

This resistance has been toned down slightly.

* Fog of War 'preference' is remembered properly.

* Unit point values have been tweaked, especially small recoilless

weapons. Vehicles with veteran or better experience also cost more.

* Quick Battles

- Max length is now 60 turns.

- Troop quality, weather, and time of day can be set to "random".

- The automatic force chooser can now pick Conscript (on Low

quality setting), and Crack and Elite troops (on High quality

setting).

- Allow a slightly higher portion of points to be spent on artillery.

- In a 2-player Quick Battle, a reminder window appears to both

players if there is a handicap in force size.

- Attacker-to-defender ratio in points is slightly reduced.

* TacAI (esp. for tanks) is less 'distracted' by targets of lesser

importance.

* Vehicle reinforcements are more likely to be placed on a road, if one is

(very) nearby.

* Operations have always been able to end when one side is "pushed off"

their own map edge, but the algorithm which determines when this has

occurred is more forgiving now, and allows the force to be "squeezed" up

closer against that map edge before force-ending the operation.

* Sound volume no longer automatically raised to maximum when CM starts

up.

* FOs are no longer automatically fully resupplied between battles in an

operation.

* Foxholes dug in Tall Pines terrain were treated (in part) as if they

were dug in the open. This is now fixed.

* Vehicles that button up or turn away are less likely to lose visual

contact with their *current* target.

* One can no longer change a rotation waypoint to a movement waypoint,

therefore circumventing command delay.

* Computer player is smarter about exiting units for points (when allowed

by scenario).

* Grenade and demo charge attacks against armored vehicles can no longer

cause collateral damage to friendly units.

* Random map generator no longer creates "spiky" hills.

* Silhouette rating for M24 Chaffee reduced.

* Bailed crews now have poor visual spotting ability.

* When a sound contact to an enemy vehicle is lost, the sound effect of

its engine stops too.

* Units out of ammo will never be shown as 'reloading'.

* Pillbox MG ammo no longer 'wraps around' back up to 254 or 255 shots.

* Reinforcements in an operation are no longer sometimes placed in

impassable terrain.

* Turret penetrations are likely to cause more crew casualties than

before.

* Time penalty for adjusted artillery missions is slightly reduced.

* Captured troops don't stay panicked for unreasonable lengths of time.

* A bug which sometimes caused a unit which had just suffered a casualty,

but had not fired, to say "reloading", has been fixed.

* Split squads kept split at the end of a battle during an operation no

longer have problems remembering the number of casualties suffered.

* Sometimes in the scenario editor, squads split into teams would be

given different squad I.D. numbers. This has been fixed.

* Deleting a split-squad team in the editor simultaneously deletes the

other team as well. Also, the point values for split-squad teams are

corrected, and correct data is shown for them in the cursor-hotspot info

window.

* Sneaking is now more sensitive to incoming fire when it decides to stop

(i.e. "advance to contact")

* Occasionally during an Operation, a vehicle knocked out in a previous

battle, when hit again, could produce a 'new' crew bailing out. This is

fixed.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

v1.02 6/21/2000

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Quick Battles can have larger forces.

* Unarmored vehicles and those with rear-facing guns are smarter about

when to rotate the whole vehicle (TacAI).

* Woods terrain doesn't "break" over elevation changes.

* UNSPOTTED infantry won't ever fire panzerfausts at enemy infantry.

* Heavy buildings are slightly less likely to catch fire. And firing

bazookas and panzerschrecks from inside any type of building is slightly

less likely to cause a fire than previously (from backblast).

* Previously, if you canceled out of the password screen and started up

a new 1-player game, CM would crash. This is fixed.

* A sharpshooter's data screen lists main weapon as "sniper rifle" (was

previously blank).

* Several small bugs fixed in how aerial rockets damage armored vehicles.

* U.S. Paratrooper battalion has 9 bazookas in its HQ Company, not 8.

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[mensch]

hey jeff there is a nifty little "read me" file that comes with the update... has tons of cool info if you bother to read it.

---------

The only reason Windows 2000 works is that, over the past 5 years, Microsoft have introduced so many new bugs that many of their older bugs have stopped working properly

- Wade Tregaskis

[Guest tero]

* Infantry moving in the open is more vulnerable to casualties than before.

That is good. I've seen American squads rush over a square almost intact when a MG42 was firing at them :-(

* Small-arms units, especially MGs, fire more rapidly at units that are moving in the open.

How do you increase the ROF of a MG ? Or do you mean they fire longer, sustained bursts ?

Incidentaly, when can we expect the (infantry) units to start picking up ammo and ordnance from killed comrades or to start using abandoned, serviceable arms and ordnace left behind by the enemy ?

* Top-mount MG range increased for: Stuart, T8, PSW 234/3

BTW: how exacly is the Stuart top MG modelled anyway? To fire it forward and down the TC had to come outside the turret in real life.

* TacAI (esp. for tanks) is less 'distracted' by targets of lesser importance.

Who decides what is important, AI or the player ? Any chance to overrule AI's preferences over target appreciation ?

* Foxholes dug in Tall Pines terrain were treated (in part) as if they were dug in the open. This is now fixed.

Good.

BTW: is there any improvement made to the bazooka/Pzschreck suppression during targeting. In real life it takes 5 secs max to line up the shot once the target has been chosen (tried that personally with a RPG during my national service). The accuracy of the shot depends on the proficiency of the gunner. Now it seems that all infantry units within LOS hose the team down as soon as it sets up for the shot. Not very realistic. Also, extracting the team after the shot has exposed the position is most difficult, almost impossible, no matter what the terrain is like. Perhaps an "evade" movement option to be added to the subsequent patches to make such extractions possible ?

* Vehicles that button up or turn away are less likely to lose visual contact with their *current* target.

How likely were they to do that previously ? How realistic is that vis-a-vis the vision devices and over all visibility out of the vehicles of the period ?

* Grenade and demo charge attacks against armored vehicles can no longer cause collateral damage to friendly units.

If they are within blast radius and not in cover why should they get special treatment ?

* Turret penetrations are likely to cause more crew casualties than before.

Any increase in possibility for gun becoming unserviceable (the body of the crewmember blocking the action) or turret getting jammed ?

[Preacher]

And you'd have noticed - Mensch - that Jeff stated in his post that he did not have time to extract the patch before leaving for work...if you had bothered to read it

Preacher

[L.Tankersley]

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

Incidentaly, when can we expect the (infantry) units to start picking up ammo and ordnance from killed comrades or to start using abandoned, serviceable arms and ordnace left behind by the enemy ?

Infantry "trading-up" to better weapons when one of their squadmates becomes a casualty is already (abstractly) modeled -- you'll notice for example that the BAR/MG42 man in a squad tends to live longer than his buddies. This is because it's assumed that if he becomes a casualty there's a fairly high chance that a rifleman will take his weapon. There was at least one thread about this several months ago.

As far as when infantry will start using captured enemy equipment, I'd say probably never.

* TacAI (esp. for tanks) is less 'distracted' by targets of lesser importance.

Who decides what is important, AI or the player ? Any chance to overrule AI's preferences over target appreciation ?

Probably both. Note that the only way for the player to indicate a targetting preference is by actually specifying a target.

* Grenade and demo charge attacks against armored vehicles can no longer cause collateral damage to friendly units.

If they are within blast radius and not in cover why should they get special treatment ?

Another abstraction, but I think a reasonable one. Give the guys a little credit for not chucking a grenade or satchel charge into the midst of a friendly squad. These sorts of attacks represent close assaults on the tank. Also, remember that vehicles in CM don't provide any cover, so a grenade or satchel charge going off on one side of a tank could cause significant damage to a squad on the other side of the tank.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Juardis]

Thanks Desertfox, I'm reading this at work (shhhh, don't tell anybody). The list is most impressive. I can't wait to get home tonight...

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

Jeff Abbott

[Guest tero]

>Infantry "trading-up" to better weapons when one of their squadmates becomes a casualty is

already (abstractly) modeled -- you'll notice for example that the BAR/MG42 man in a squad tends to live longer than his buddies. This is because it's assumed that if he becomes a casualty there's a fairly high chance that a rifleman will take his weapon.

That is OK. I was however thinking along the lines of (MG) squads running out of ammo (or Pzfausts) and sitting the rest of the scenario out helplessly while there are KIA squads around that could be used to replenish the ammo.

>There was at least one thread about this several months ago.

I've just discovered this forum and with the board being filled with data it would take months to go through them all

A topic/FAQ database would be in order ?

>As far as when infantry will start using captured enemy equipment, I'd say probably never.

If there ever was a Eastern Front game that would be cool though as at least the Finnish army replenished from captured Soviet munitions and arms.

>Probably both. Note that the only way for the player to indicate a targetting preference is by actually specifying a target.

Then again I have had squads "disobey" and changing targets when I expressly wanted them to shoot at a particular target. And there is no way to issue orders that mean "concentrate fire on <class of target>"

>Another abstraction, but I think a reasonable one. Give the guys a little credit for not chucking a grenade or satchel charge into the midst of a friendly squad. These sorts of attacks represent close assaults on the tank.

Fair enough. But then there should be a CC rule attached so that if BOTH units are under the same CC. That way they would know what the other is up to. If they were under separate CC or out of CC alltogether they would not necessarily know the intentions of other friendly units.

It is after all the one that you did not know about and see coming that gets you killed. Especially in case of friendly fire.

>Also, remember that vehicles in CM don't provide any cover, so a grenade or satchel charge going off on one side of a tank could cause significant damage to a squad on the other side of the tank.

Is there any way to program them so they become AT rounds during the assaults on armour and remain HE against softskinned/open topped vehicles and buildings ?

[mensch]

"...to execute the patch ... "

this is what he said, and in most computer languages it means applicating the programme or starting it.. he did not state he did not have time to "extract" the patch....Ive read the thread four times thinking these 30 year old eyes were getting bad, but no its not there... so had he'd said "i didn't have enough time to unstuff or unzip the file" then my post would never have been here..

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

"Brain, v. (as in "to brain") : To rebuke bluntly, but not pointedly; to dispel a source of error in an opponent."

-Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

[WendellM]

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

"...to execute the patch ... "

this is what he said, and in most computer languages it means applicating the programme or starting it.. he did not state he did not have time to "extract" the patch....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really shouldn't get involved, but the grammarian/rule lawyer in me forces me to. It's a self-extracting file (at least the PC version): cm103.exe. ".exe" stands for "executable." So, in order to "extract" the patch, one must "execute" it (and then apply it by replacing files).

Anyway, Juardis got the list, thanks to Desert Fox, so he's happy. Presumably we all have the patch, so we're happy. So, everybody's living happily ever after. The End.

[mensch]

ach you PC people... na gut na gut.

good point, now if he's a DOSe user then it makes sense.

The ease of mac users, sometimes forget the difficulties of PC users

----------

"That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!

-Anon

[David Aitken]

tero wrote:

> How do you increase the ROF of a MG ? Or do you mean they fire longer, sustained bursts?

They fire more frequent bursts.

> Incidentaly, when can we expect the (infantry) units to start picking up ammo and ordnance from killed comrades or to start using abandoned, serviceable arms and ordnace left behind by the enemy?

They do, to an extent. Notice infantry never run out of ammo - they just get "LOW", whereupon they will usually only fire once per turn, and then only in self-defence. This simulates scrounging of ammo from the battlefield.

> BTW: how exacly is the Stuart top MG modelled anyway? To fire it forward and down the TC had tocome outside the turret in real life.

That is correct. Flexible MGs cannot be fired when the tank is buttoned.

>> * Vehicles that button up or turn away are less likely to lose visual contact with their *current* target.

> How likely were they to do that previously ? How realistic is that vis-a-vis the vision devices and over all visibility out of the vehicles of the period ?

Previously, if a tank took a hit and the crew buttoned, they might suddenly 'forget' about their attacker, simply because they couldn't see it so easily. This modification simulates the crew having longer memories than a goldfish, which in reality they usually did.

> I've just discovered this forum and with the board being filled with data it would take months to go through them all

There is a search function. Why wait for replies, and expect people to repeat things they've already said, when you could search for your topic of interest and get immediate results?

> A topic/FAQ database would be in order ?

Are you offering to build one?

> Then again I have had squads "disobey" and changing targets when I expressly wanted them to shoot at a particular target. And there is no way to issue orders that mean "concentrate fire on "

Units will only switch targets if (1) their original target goes (and STAYS) out of LOS, or (2) a much greater threat, or a MUCH better target, materialises. Target 'stickiness' has been addressed a couple of times, so v1.03 should handle this much better than v1.00.

>> Another abstraction, but I think a reasonable one. Give the guys a little credit for not chucking a grenade or satchel charge into the midst of a friendly squad. These sorts of attacks represent close assaults on the tank.

> Fair enough. But then there should be a CC rule attached so that if BOTH units are under the same CC. That way they would know what the other is up to. If they were under separate CC or out of CC alltogether they would not necessarily know the intentions of other friendly units.

How many platoons do you usually see attacking a tank all at once? I reckon the few guys assaulting a tank are able to look and see what the others are doing.

> It is after all the one that you did not know about and see coming that gets you killed. Especially in case of friendly fire.

This is no more likely to happen between two different platoons than it is between two different squads, so making a difference for CC is pointless.

>> Also, remember that vehicles in CM don't provide any cover, so a grenade or satchel charge going off on one side of a tank could cause significant damage to a squad on the other side of the tank.

> Is there any way to program them so they become AT rounds during the assaults on armour and remain HE against softskinned/open topped vehicles and buildings ?

Yup, BTS are working on that for v1.04. They're also doing a Sherman which morphs into a Stuart when it wants to sneak round the enemy's flank, and special Waffen-SS units which can teleport across the map.

David

[David Aitken]

WendellM wrote:

> ".exe" stands for "executable." So, in order to "extract" the patch, one must "execute" it (and then apply it by replacing files).

As far as I know, an .exe can be a PC self-extracting archive. Therefore, you can extract it without having to do anything with it. I don't know how common these are on the PC, though (Mac equivalent = .sea).

Down, lawyer! Down! Naughty boy!

David

[mensch]

true .sea files are selfextracting.. fortunatly my mac is set for auto extract once a (.zip, .sit, .sea, etc) is downloaded.

a little sarcasim cannot be taken lightly here I guess

------

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it"

-George Bernard Shaw

[DigDug]

"* Reinforcements in an operation are no longer sometimes placed in impassable terrain."

Unfortunately, I don't think that one's fixed. I just installed the game last night, installed the 1.03 patch, replaced the 1.02 exe with the new (so yes, I'm sure I'm running V1.03).

In "A Walk through Paris", my second round of reinforcements placed 2 Sherms smack-dab in the middle of the "courtyard" at the beginning edge of the map. No way out. Those two tanks, which I really could have used, spent they're entire time bumping the inside walls of the courtyard.

Arrrrrrrrrrrgggg.

Other than that minor (which proved to be major...I lost, dammit) annoyance, this game ROCKS! Course, I've only played the 2 demo missions (to death), and the first full version mission. But lordy, I'm hooked.

[dNorwood]

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

tero wrote:

> A topic/FAQ database would be in order ?

Are you offering to build one?

David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cute. I can't speak for tero, but it seems to me that people who -need- the FAQ are hardly the people who should be writing it. I, for one, am completely unqualified to do so (knowing comparatively little about the nuts and bolts of the game or WHY certain things were done). Don't you think it might be a better idea for the people who spent -two years- working on this to put something

together?

[This message has been edited by dNorwood (edited 07-28-2000).]

[David Aitken]

dNorwood wrote:

> Don't you think it might be a better idea for the people who spent -two years- working on this to put something together?

The people who spent two years working on this are still working on it, and don't have time to mess around with FAQs. The search function is perfectly adequate.

I might also point out that many of the questions that appear here are answered by the manual - you know, that exhaustive, extensive and quite marvellous publication that BTS took the trouble to include with the CD.

David

[David Aitken]

DigDug wrote:

> In "A Walk through Paris", my second round of reinforcements placed 2 Sherms smack-dab in the middle of the "courtyard" at the beginning edge of the map. No way out.

That isn't classified as impassable terrain - it's just inaccessible. I doubt it would be a simple matter to program the game not to put vehicles where you might not want them to be.

The solution would be to allow scenario designers to place reinforcements. Maybe this is something BTS could look at.

David

[Guest tero]

>They fire more frequent bursts.

That is not quite the same, is it ? All who have acted as MG gunners in a squad know how important the firesupport it gives can be in certain situations. Then it is immaterial how often you can fire short bursts when long sustained fire is called for.

>They do, to an extent. Notice infantry never run out of ammo - they just get "LOW", whereupon they will usually only fire once per turn, and then only in self-defence. This simulates scrounging of ammo from the battlefield.

Yes. But what happens when they run out of ammo alltogether ? The teams become sitting ducks even when there are KIA squads some distance away that could be scavenged for ammo.

>That is correct. Flexible MGs cannot be fired when the tank is buttoned.

Yes. But is the fact that the TC of M5 had to actually climb out of the turret to operate it programmed in ?

>Previously, if a tank took a hit and the crew buttoned, they might suddenly 'forget' about their attacker, simply because they couldn't see it so easily. This modification simulates the crew having longer memories than a goldfish, which in reality they usually did.

OK

>There is a search function. Why wait for replies, and expect people to repeat things they've already said, when you could search for your topic of interest and get immediate results?

I tried that. I'll be damned if I have time to time to read ALL the posts to cover all the angles in any given subject. With some 10 000 posts I'd expect there is a ****load of repetition and contradictory materiel. Not to mention the changes after each patch.

>> A topic/FAQ database would be in order ?

>

>Are you offering to build one?

How much are you willing to pay me ?

>Units will only switch targets if (1) their original target goes (and STAYS) out of LOS, or (2) a much greater threat, or a MUCH better target, materialises. Target 'stickiness' has been addressed a couple of times, so v1.03 should handle this much better than v1.00.

Selfdefence is OK, going for a more lucrative target against express orders is not. Splitting squads up is not really on option in the majority of cases.

>How many platoons do you usually see attacking a tank all at once?

Judging by the fact that the tweak was deemed necessary, a lot. But that seems not to have been the issue. The issue was collateral damage to nearby friendly units.

>I reckon the few guys assaulting a tank are able to look and see what the others are doing.

Not necessarily. And it might not be the guys assaulting that are blind or oblivious of the world arround them. What if a friendly squad stumbles over the tank when they are moving out of the forest just as the others assault it ? Or if they are frozen and hugging the ground in a ditch, having been suppressed by the aformentioned tank ?

>> It is after all the one that you did not know about and see coming that gets you killed. Especially in case of friendly fire.

>

>This is no more likely to happen between two different platoons than it is between two different squads, so making a difference for CC is pointless.

Well, when I was in basic training some time was dedicated to "situation awareness". In real combat situation you REALLY need to be certain about friendly units and their disposition. Especially if you are squad or platoon commander. A single squad diddy bopping around the battle field can **** your best laid plans good. Not only does that squad put itself at risk it can also endanger the entire command by obstructing operations. A well orcherstated ballet dance can turn into a Keystone cops classic because one unit commander does not have a clue what the other units in the command are up to, due to outdated orders and intel data or for what ever reason. Hence, to make adjacent friendly units impervious or less vulnerable to certain types of weapons under certain types of situations unconditionally is less than accurate.

>Yup, BTS are working on that for v1.04. They're also doing a Sherman which morphs into a Stuart when it wants to sneak round the enemy's flank, and special Waffen-SS units which can teleport across the map.

Dear David, why don't you remove that farm produce obstructing your diggestive track.

Tero

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

The search function is perfectly adequate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beg to differ. My experience may be atypical, but I find all existing search engines horribly inefficient. Problem is they dump way too much information in my lap, most of it irrelevant to the question I have. Then I have to sift through it for endless hours to find the one thing I want. Or on the other hand, maybe I don't find it at all.

Human brains are vastly more efficient. If I ask a person a question and he knows the answer, he can usually provide it to me immediately.

As far as this list is concerned, I've noticed that a lot of the "go the the archives" is actually nothing more than a form of hazing for newbies. Most of the questions they ask are the ones anybody would reasonably ask when introduced to this new game. It's not surprising that they get asked over and over. Until *someone* produces a reasonably concise and complete FAQ I for one am willing to be fairly patient in answering questions. If you don't care to, of course you are at liberty to remain silent. But it's churlish to snap at someone just because he's asked a question that's old to you. It isn't old to him.

Michael