1.13?

[LeBlaque]

Okay, I did a search, hopefully a "thorough" one before posting this, and am wondering if there is any word IF and WHEN a 1.13 version of CM will come out to repair the supposed invulnerable-to-infantry halftracks and any other Final-FINAL "bugs" that need squashing. Honest question, please no flamethrowers...

[Guest Space Thing]

1. EVERYBODY is waiting patiently for CM2.

2. ANY work on a 1.13 patch will delay CM2.

3. Yes, IMO, there should be a 1.13 that includes many desired things.

4. There aint gonna be a 1.13 patch.

Sorry.

[Schrullenhaft]

There'll only be a 1.13 patch if Madmatt can confirm any problems with the current 1.12 patch. Some people are claiming problems with TCP/IP games locking up, where they didn't before with 1.1. If it can be proved that the code is to blame, then maybe there'll be another patch.

As for the "invulnerable halftracks" I'm not sure that can be positively identified as a bug despite the anedoctal/testing evidence put forth so far by forum members. So if there is another patch it may not address this particular problem.

[Ksak]

I'd rather see a T-34 rumbling across the screen than a burning halftrack.

[Tanks a Lot]

I think that tanks with gun damage should automatically retreat instead of waiting for the inevitable.

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by Tanks a Lot:

I think that tanks with gun damage should automatically retreat instead of waiting for the inevitable.

And I don't, and therein lies the rub, for BTS.

Because whether I'm right or wrong (and there isn't a right or wrong here) they are ska-rewed in either case, 'cause one of us is sure it ought to be the other way 'round. No offense meant; this is a matter of pure opinion, and that's what game designers are for.

They have carried a cocktail napkin vision through to fruition, with outrageous success, and now they're out to top it. How many of us bozos have solved the world's problems and made a billion on a cocktail napkin, but trudged into work the next day same as usual?

So with most of the groggier points taken care of, unless there are documentable bugs (maybe the HTs are, dunno, no one seems to have any problem killing mine), no reason to spend another minute on anything not related to the Eastern Front... this user interface/combat sim/game is DONE-Done-done and off to the Next Plateau, says I. IMHO.

[Guest Napoleon1944]

I noticed quite a few lockups during TCP/IP. The red bar freezes at 100%. I think this warrants a patch. Happened over the net and LAN.

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

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon

[TeAcH]

Ill jump in here before someone pounces on Napoleon to say that I know of several other people, myself included who have experienced lockups during TCPIP play. I'm not saying that I know what causes it..may not even be the game, although one does wonder.

TeAcH

[jKMkIII]

Also in 1.12 operations are ****ad..

We played Carentan operation with 0m no-mans-land setting and after first battle my friend was pushed back few hundred meters from where my first troops were.. and front was straight line

And he also tested (don't remember operation) that you only need one man to sneak as far as possible and enemy will be pushed back few hundred meters from that position

Have not checked if it is same for all types of operations, but at least for Carentan v2 (+ I edited it to 0m no-mans-land)

So I say we really need 1.13 ..just get working code from old betas where it worked.

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

jK.MkIII

[chrisl]

Originally posted by jKMkIII:

And he also tested (don't remember operation) that you only need one man to sneak as far as possible and enemy will be pushed back few hundred meters from that position

Have not checked if it is same for all types of operations, but at least for Carentan v2 (+ I edited it to 0m no-mans-land)

I've just finished th first battle of an op and didn't see this type of thing at all--the enemy finished with a couple of AFVs behind my lines, and they were pulled out before the next op. The front lines were also a bit convoluted-IIRC there was a large Red setup zone with a straight line across it, several small white zones out front, each containing about a platoon, and a blue zone that was empty. I think this is a destroy op, but it wasn't explicitly stated. My only complaint was that it didn't give a casualty AAR (which at least some earlier versions did, though they were generally wrong after the first battle), which is minor, as I had a pretty good idea of my losses just from looking.

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

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[Guest Germanboy]

The Halftrack 'bug' is a figment of people's imagination. They die just fine in 1.12

As for TCP/ip lockups, I have not noticed any, but I don't play it often that way. Also, I am on a Mac.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Priest]

I have expereinced TCP/IP lockups and play at least 4 IP games a week. (MI-GO and Barnes I am waiting, not to mention that Lorak an a$$ wooping is iminent for you).

Also Mark IV when you make an arguement can you please bother to back it up. Now whether you agree or disagree with Tanks a Lot at least develop a reason why other than you want CM2. Any development we find now can and will help CM2. My idea and gun damaged tanks is long and complicated with some logic coding that may be unfeasible for CM1 but may for CM2. Still to simply say well there is disagreement so BTS probably will ignore it because of CM2 is somewhat weak. A gun damaged tank should retreat when they realize the gun is unable to fire (this is not always obvious). So if a gun fires every 20 seconds then when the Gun does get hit and the crew is determined to have not have noticed then on the next fire attempt the crew could then react as the gun would not fire. Having a Sherman or Panzer IV die needlessly is stupid as is having a JagdTiger sucking up ammo hits. Niether is realistic. If you have an actual arguement then I would love to hear it but when discussing these topics nothing will be gained until we thouroughly discuss the issue first and then second make a logical arguement to BTS. Then BTS will make the decisions on manpower and priority.

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

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

-Kryton of Red Dwarf

[This message has been edited by Priest (edited 03-06-2001).]

[Alexander]

A gun damaged tank should retreat when they realize the gun is unable to fire (this is not always obvious)

Exactly. A Cm turn = 60 seconds of real time. I surmise a gun hit might not be readily apparent to the crew. At least not instantaneously apparent, as it is to the player. The crew traverses and try to shoot, fumbles with it, curses at it...THEN- maybe an intense minute later- they reverse out of harm's way.

Bottom line, IMHO,- no new coding required.

[Priest]

I would say that such a logic change makes a simple code change impossible for it to work right. An Elite commander is going to deduce the problem well before a green CO but the fact of the matter is that 1 minute on the battlefield is a real LOOOOOOOOOONG time so to say that after not being able to fire for a minute is not realistic at all. Yes there should be a delay but

gunner: Sir it didn't fire

Commander: What!

gunner: Sir she won't fire

Commander: Damnit shoot man!!!

Gunner: (presses button) Nothing sir!!!

Commander: Damnit, Phillips get us the hell outta here

Driver: Aye sir!

1 minute I think not. Remember there is a good chance they are not reloading during that minute but hitting the "bang" button. That does not take too long my friend. I will contact my friend a Tank driver and see what he says but 1 minute on any battlefield is like an hour anywhere else.

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

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

-Kryton of Red Dwarf

[JunoReactor]

IMO, the gun-damaged tank issue does not require a patch, because even if, "yes it is realistic", it doesnt matter much in the game if that tank dies or not after having its gun knocked out. Ok, maybe a mobile MG platfrom, but looking from your perspective, that is unrealistic, too. So, the conclusion is that -from a point of view from the ultimate "realist"- you want that tank alive for the negative victory points it will bring to you when it is knocked out. What you're doing is taking the unrealsitic just out of the simulation part of the game and putting it into the abstract, namely the point value calculation system.

To be fair, the argument that it would not be unrealistic for a tank with gun damage to sit like a duck for 60 secs. I have never been in a tank, but I would imagine that a hit would be felt by the whole crew, while a hit that damages the gun should rock the whole tank. Since it does not penetrate, there would be nothing for the crew to fiddle with from inside, so the instant reaction would be to drive out of harm's way. As fast as possible.

This is mainly in response to Priest.

[Tanks a Lot]

I don't think a patch is needed for this alone, but if they decide to release another patch for something they feel is a critical problem, I think this should be considered.

[Guest KwazyDog]

The problem with the gun damage issue may be much more complicated than it first seems guys, as these things usually are.

For instance, if youd like the tank to get out of the way as soon as its gun is damaged, this is really going to become annoying when you wish to use its bow MG to suppress infantry.

The answer to this is maybe the tank should only get out of the way if fired at by an AT gun, but then you get into grey area where people prefer the tank to stay put because the AT gun only has X percentage of killing the tank and its MG support is much needed at Y time, etc, etc.

And then there is the case of a tank getting a damaged gun that isnt reported back to the opposing player. Lets say you had a King Tiger on overwatch and artey damages its gun...would you like it to move out of sight or stay there to bluff the Stuarts?

As you can see guys, this is a lot more complex than would first seem, and to change something like this at this late date would be asking for trouble...

Dan

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 03-07-2001).]

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by Priest:

whether you agree or disagree with Tanks a Lot at least develop a reason why other than you want CM2. Any development we find now can and will help CM2.

Because this has been debated before by people whose opinions I have come to respect, without reaching a definite conclusion.

Some of us think a Gun-damaged tank can still contribute to the overall success of the combined arms mission, at the player's discretion, whether as bluff or as mobile MG platform. Some of us think that the odds of a crew, knowing the main gun is out of commission, continuing in such a battle, is unlikely.

The points are that with two informed schools of thought, 1) continued disagreement by "informed" players indicates no compelling need to adjust the user interface for this condition, and 2) that the user/player should be given the benefit of the doubt whenever there is no compelling evidence to the contrary.

This allows players concerned mainly with historically correct combat sims to agree on a set of "extra" rules for added (perceived) realism, while players concerned mainly with a great gaming experience can pursue victory to the max, with most of us probably somewhere in the middle.

I don't like automatic decisions made on my behalf, yet much of the charm of Combat Mission lies in the TacAI's ability to react independently to situations in the context of orders I've issued. The designers have allowed certain latitudes and built-in certain restrictions and I think their balance is generally correct.

At least, I have had very few games spoiled for me because gun-damaged tanks were not automatically withdrawn. How would the AI withdraw them? By what route? If the automatically-withdrawn AFV barges through an enemy flank attack, will we see many complimentary posts here? If my AFV is gun-damaged an inch from the enemy side of the map after fighting all the way across it, am I to accept that it will autopilot back a couple of kilometers across potentially hostile terrain? Or how far will it go?

to simply say well there is disagreement so BTS probably will ignore it because of CM2 is somewhat weak.

To be clear: I have no idea what BTS will or will not ignore, but they haven't ignored very much IMHO... except for the birdsong of the American robin, but that's the arrogance of power for you... ( previous thread). I simply cannot see delaying such an important game (CM2) for what is obviously a debatable feature, even though there are some good arguments for it. We can micro-analyze CMBO into the next century but it is what it is, which is the vision of the designers, and I respect their ability to carry out a whole, unified theory.

I won't really respond here to the examples you gave of gun-damaged tanks doing x or y, only because the main point is that if BTS swerved first this way, then that, based on some gamers' opinions, we would still be waiting for the Gold version.

So with all that said, I don't necessarily disagree with Tanks a Lot, but my main reason is that I want CM2. This argument just isn't strong enough to hold it up. Much of what people are asking for in the forum goes beyond CM2, and into CMII, or in other words, a new game engine. Micro-tweaking CMBO for questionable (not wrong, but questionable) features does not advance the big picture.

BTS has competition, too, and diddling endlessly with what is already successful = standing still = going backwards.

[Vetch]

Just wanted to chime in and say that the TCP/IP lockups are real and are happening to both mac and pc users.

If you haven't had a great match become unplayable in the middle in 1.12 because of this, count yourself lucky.

Thank god it doesn't happen all that frequently. But I sure do hope they can track it down.

On than that I'm happy to see them slogging away on the next game.

[Priest]

Okay talked to my tank friend and he said MarkIV you are a Loser

On a more serious note. I think I tried to state what Kwazy said in that there are a lot of factors and coding would probably not be possible to do in patch form (maybe if CM2 code is backwards compatible). Also how can you say that a tank without it's main gun would not be used in it's anti-infantry role. Well in that is a load. Now how about a tank that is "brittle" like a broken inf squad. What this will allow is the tank to be inconsistent but still a viable platform. Again since we cannot do this right then why bother now, but we can discuss it and even have a friendly arguement that may find its way to enhancing the game in some form (see CM2). Our other option is to be quite. I do not see that happening.

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

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

-Kryton of Red Dwarf

[Guest Madmatt]

Ok guys, we can't fix what no one reports to me and if 1.12 file transfer lockups are happening so frequently then I need to start seeing some files sent to me (which I have not).

If the game locks up then send me the autosaves from both players, passwords and a recap of when and how the crash happened. Give me as much detail about your gaming system as you can including your connection type and speed.

Thanks!

Madmatt

[Priest]

Matt I will send you some by this weekend because I will probably play 4 or 5 games by then, this of course is dependent that I see this behavior (which I have before). I will include all specs and I will try to play on 4 different machines also.

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

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

-Kryton of Red Dwarf

[Binkie]

Just a footnote to the TCP lockups discussion...I have had the red bar "freeze" at 100% on many occasions, and remain "frozen" for up to a minute...but it always continued after that.

So whether this is related to the reports above, or whether it's a bug or not, the lesson here is don't go hitting buttons and ESCaping and Alt-Aing and Ctrl-Alt-Deling just because you've read this discussion and your bar freezes for a bit. Be patient for a bit, it may resolve itself.

[TeAcH]

Binkie, I can appreciate what you are saying but I have lockups during the turn crunching phase and sometimes during the red bar data transfers which occur after the 100% and prior to the completing data transfer notice. Whole game freezes IIRC. Then the save files are corrupted.

Ill gather then up and send them to MadMatt.

TeAcH

[Guest Madmatt]

What a I really need is the turn PRIOR to the turn which has the freeze. I know its hard to get these but unfortunately there is little I can do with the corrupt files themselves.

Give me as much info as you can when you send me any files. I need your system specs espically and info about the type and speed of TCP connection.

Thanks!

Madmatt