V1.1 A MAJOR BUG ???

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

I'm not aware Maximus of a mandatory requirement for participation in the beta testing, or any waiver for non-participation which prevents one from subsequently finding something thereafter objectionable.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Test driving a car before you buy it isn't mandatory either, but it is a good idea to do so. Besides, using a beta patch did not require any bug reports made by you. So what was the harm in trying them out? Haven't you heard of "try before you buy"? So in retrospect, you have/or will bought/buy the latest patch without first trying it out when the opprotunity was there for you to do so.

I'll tell you what, in a court of law, your arguments would not hold up. Given the chance to try out something before you went with it and failed to do, and then complaining about it later is not gonna hold water in any court of law. Just like my "test drive a car" analogy, no harm is done by test driving a car, so what's the problem?

For a product that is a stable as CM, I don't see why anybody would be afraid of trying beta patches.

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

"Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII

"Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

[Bruno Weiss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If that makes the KTs (or Panthers or Tigers or whatnot) even harder to kill, as long as that brings them CLOSER to historical reality, then there is no problem, except how the Allies should deal with them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not disagree with that Doug, if it were known to be historical fact. All you have pointed out is that this particular forum debated it for a while, and decide it was known to be German training doctrine, but not that it is fully known to be battlefield practice. Training doctrines and battlefield practice are two different things. Do we know this was the historic battlefield practice with the same level of certainty that we have used to exclude squad level smoke grenades?

I never said CM was about balance, I'm the one saying it's about historical accuracy, however there is a point of deminishing returns on the functionality of the game if changes are made, yep even historical changes (though I do not see where that is 100% certain in this case), that result in a situation where a predicable response can be counted on and planned for, depending to what degree.

As for the comments made (I made that at some point), about the change being for slow turret convienance, that was my fault and misinterpretation that MadMatt or Steve, pointed out earlier. Not an issue now. MadMatt has pointed out this was actually something supposed to have been taking place but for whatever reason wasn't working correctly.

And Maximus, I wasn't of the understanding that I was under oath, though I must admit it certainly seems like a cross examination.

Where's my lawyer?

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-11-2001).]

[jshandorf]

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

Be Careful Jeff or some one is bound to blow you out of the water here.

NOT all German tanks had neutral steer (rotate on the spot) and NOT all Allied tanks lacked neutral steer, but it is NOT at all modeled in the game.

The Sherms did not have neutral Steer, the Tiger Did have it, but I'll bet the german TD mentioned about based on the Pnz IV chasis did not have neutral steer.

There is a thread about neutral steer somewhere on this board that lists all the tanks that do and don't have this VERY handy feature, but in the game ALL tanks can turn on a dime.

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know that all the Shermans could not do this and I do not know of any Allied TD that could. It is possible that the Pershing was able.

As for the Germans I am almost positive that the Panther was capable of this as was the Tiger. Thus any TDs built off these chassis would also be capable of it.

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

[Mr. Clark]

I just want to throw in for Maximus here.

I also do not understand WHY long timers here would NOT have at least played a few games of the Beta patch.

No, it was not mandatory, but complaining about new stuff here and now does seem a little odd when everyone DID have the chance to try all the new stuff, and have INPUT on all the new stuff for FIVE weeks now.

The beta patch DID NOT write over any other versions of the game, so by trying it out, you lost nothing. There was really no reason at all NOT to test the Beta out for yourself... isn't that really why it was there?

To take Maximus' example one step further... not only were we allowed to test drive the car, but we were also given FIVE WEEKS to say "Hey, I'm not sure I like the gas mileage, can you IMPROVE it?"

[JoePrivate]

"How can we outflank them when all they have to do is pivot and keep their frontal armor towards us"

Sgt. Chester J. Marczak.

[Urban Shocker]

I am a little confused on why the AI cannot determine the most dangerous target. Knowing that computers can calculate out to millionth decimal point, how could it be possible that there seems to be a tie, i.e., two objects appearing equally dangerous and causing tanks to do the "hokey pokey." Is this built in "fuzzy math" (please excuse the expression) to simulate human judgement? Thanks in advance for any comments.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

I am a little confused on why the AI cannot determine the most dangerous target. Knowing that computers can calculate out to millionth decimal point, how could it be possible that there seems to be a tie, i.e., two objects appearing equally dangerous and causing tanks to do the "hokey pokey." Is this built in "fuzzy math" (please excuse the expression) to simulate human judgement? Thanks in advance for any comments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it could be "possible" for twoo exactly equal threats to appear instantly on BOTH flanks at the Same distance at the same time in the same terrain. Then the AI does the "hokey pokey".

Think about it, maybe two equal anti tank teams appear? Maybe Two equal Tanks appear.

(and the most feared deadly anti tank weapon in the game ) suppose two mortor teams pop up at the same time on bioth flanks, at equal distance?

How could you program the AI to "Just pick one and Deal with it now Damn it!"

-tom w

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

I just want to throw in for Maximus here.

I also do not understand WHY long timers here would NOT have at least played a few games of the Beta patch.

No, it was not mandatory, but complaining about new stuff here and now does seem a little odd when everyone DID have the chance to try all the new stuff, and have INPUT on all the new stuff for FIVE weeks now.

The beta patch DID NOT write over any other versions of the game, so by trying it out, you lost nothing.

[/quotes]

Bollocks. You lose time. my time is juch more valuable to me than anything else.

There was really no reason at all NOT to test the Beta out for yourself... isn't that really why it was there?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought it was there so that people who *desired* to provide a service to BTS (beta-testing) could do so.

I was not aware that it was a one-time opportunity to point out problems.

This is silly. The issue is a problem or not based on whether it is a problem or not. That has yet to be established. Whether it was found out today, yesterday, three weeks ago, 2 years ago, or next Friday, is irrelevant.

Whether or not someone did or did not participate in the beta test is irrelevant.

People should spend a little more time focusing on the points made, and less time on the people who make them.

Releasing the betas was a way for BTS to (hopefully) find bugs prior to the release of the patch. This does not mean that bugs found after the release are not bugs.

I played all the beta patches, although not with the intent to find problems. I have not noticed a significant issue with the hull turning. That does not mean one does not exist.

Jeff Heidman

[Dr. Brian]

Okay, my turn to interject ... and give you a "gamey" players view.

Yes, with this I'll definately throw out crews or some low value asset to turn that Panther around so my 57 AT Gun can whack it in the side.

But, let me give you a "realist" or maybe a historical argument why almost ALL US AFVs didn't need to turn their hull.

"I'm a Sherman Commander. I know I have a fast turret.

"Opps, there is a Panther that I can get a side shot on! Cool.

"They see me. Crap! They're turning their hull.

"Let me be stupid, and not use my very fast turret to get off a few shots. I can place my best armor forward. The Panther can rip through the armor of the Sherman, front, rear, or side.

Jumpin BeJezus Batman! Isn't it obvious the guy needs to get off as many shots off before the Panther turns his front?

In conclusion, slow turret, heavily armored with respect to your enemy's assets are of course, going to turn their hull fronts.

But when their weapon, be it a PF, a Psk, a Tiger's 88mm or Panther's 75mm, it doesn't matter. It'll rip through ANY facing. I'd rather shoot first, shot fast, and hope I hit before he shoots at me.

I don't think that's far off.

It puts the "realism" out of window, by weakening the smaller tanks, like the Sherman and Pz IV.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Dirtweasle]

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

...Think about it, maybe two equal anti tank teams appear? Maybe Two equal Tanks appear. <SNIP> ...How could you program the AI to "Just pick one and Deal with it now Damn it!"

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, same as RealLife?

Tank Commander, "DRIVER!! Pivot left 20 Degrees!!! GUNNER!! Target 12:00 in the tree line!!FIRE!"

Gunner, "HE up! On-the-way!" <BOOM>

Tank Commander, "LOADER!! LOAD AP! DRIVER pivot right 40 degress! GUNNER! target track at one o'clock!"

Loader, "AP UP!!"

Gunner, "On-the-way!!"

Seems like a reasonable proximation of a close quarters kind of engagement that would cause the tank to dance a little, and that seems to be what the TacAI already is trying to do.

[Lorak]

Dr Brian,

While your sherman example would make sense if the tanks only moved thier hulls. It is very wrong.

That sherman would go ahead and start turning it's turret towards that panther...while at the same time the hull would start to rotate also.

End result:

Your sherman gun is firing at the panther faster than if it just turned its turret, and your front armor is facing the panther also.

Lorak

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

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

Combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX

and for Kitty's sake

=^..^=

[Mr. Clark]

Dr. Brian, I thought the main point of Hull Rotation was to turn the weapon faster towards the enemy. In the example, the Sherman already has his turret on the enemy, and thus would not need to hull rotate... just fire away.

[Mr. Clark]

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that new "bugs" were irrelevant, it was not exactly my point.

I had assumed all along that the Beta patches were out there so that anyone who CARED could grab them and make them as close to perfect as possible before final release.

The released 1.1 patch would then satisfy nearly everyone, and BTS could get on with CM2 already.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

Okay, my turn to interject ... and give you a "gamey" players view.

But when their weapon, be it a PF, a Psk, a Tiger's 88mm or Panther's 75mm, it doesn't matter. It'll rip through ANY facing. I'd rather shoot first, shot fast, and hope I hit before he shoots at me.

I don't think that's far off.

It puts the "realism" out of window, by weakening the smaller tanks, like the Sherman and Pz IV.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps I am mistaken but Fast turrets are FASTER now, because they TOO turn while the hull is turning.And then they still fire as quick as they can!

someone please tell me if I'm wrong

ALL tanks swivel the hull toward the threat now, faster turret tanks NOW beneifit MORE from this if they are turning the turret to fire. so the Sherms will still get the first shot off... (But all tank now swivel a little slower than before)

I don't see the problem in that respect.

Comments?

Rebuttals?

-tom w

[Bruno Weiss]

Well I dunno Clark, I didn't take it that way. I think certainly at this point I should have tried it out, maybe many others. I just don't see that whether one did or didn't has a great deal to do with whether a problem exists now or not, before or not, or later down the road as yet undiscovered.

But stated as you have, absolutely I would say the more people who might have enjoined in on the beta testing of this, the less likely it might have been if anything were going to be of an unknown encounter.

Whether or not this is as real a problem as I was concerned about does not seem to be shared by most. And Steve pointed out aptly that each situation (tactical hexagonal grid situation I believe he meant), is different and takes on a little life of its own with all sorts of variations. Put that way, surely it is going to take time to ascertain whether or not and to what degree, if any, and to what extent, there might be a problem. I would think, based on that even the beta testing period was not enough time to establish that for certain. Doesn't change my mind about the concerns, just means its too complicated a thing to make absolutes about. I'll surely acknowledge that.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Dr. Brian]

Thanks for clearing that up some gang. I'm still having a problem visualizing it, and I need to explain it better too. I'll see what I can come up with after playing the v1.1 a bit more.

However, something doesn't feel right. Although this all makes sense for the slower turrets, it makes no sense when speed and fast turrets where used.

More to come, I'm sure.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Purple4Ever]

Hi,

Wanted to add my observation of this "phenomena":

I am still using the latest Beta 24 patch (NOT the new 1.1).

Whilst playing a scenario recently, I had a panther, on a low hill with a nice view of a village/town and the fields surrounding the town.

At one point, the Panther kept switching (for 20-30 seconds) targets, rotating hull and turret to fire.

The two targets it kept switching between was a "Machinegun?" (full FOW) about 100m away and a "Crew?" about 350m away.

At first, I watched with amusement as the Panther danced back and forth, and then, in frustration, I was shouting "Pick a target and fire you fool!"

Now, these were two (seemingly) harmless "soft" targets, but I would hate to see this happen when enemy AFV's are around....

Regards,

- JRB

[This message has been edited by Purple4Ever (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Jeff Heidman]

It seems there are two potential issues:

1. Tanks turning hull and turret towards flaning threats, and

2. Tanks turning towards two threats and not being able to pick which one to engage, and hence picking neither (dancing).

The 2nd issue is MUCH more important and concerning than the first.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-11-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

It seems there are tow potential issues:

1. Tanks turning hull and turret towards flaning threats, and

2. Tanks turning towards two threats and not being able to pick which one to engage, and hence picking neither (dancing).

The 2nd issue is MUCH more important and concerning than the first.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

re issue #2

I have not yet seen it reported where there was an actual REAL anti tank threat and the tank danced or twitched about.

In my case it was only an infantry squad and a brit HT with a .30 cal MG in it.

I would be very interested to read any accounts where this behaviour led to the loss of the tank that was twitching?

-tom w

[Jeff Heidman]

As far as I am concerned, losing the vehicle or not isn't nearly as important as the annoyance at having the immersive of the game blown by watching your armor act ridiculous.

Jeff Heidman

[jshandorf]

All I want to see is my Tank rotate its hull toward a threat when in doing so benefits the tank.

For example: I DON'T want my tank turning its hull just to engage a measily HT at 500 meters when the armor on the side will protect it just fine. Just spin that turret.

I DO want the tank to spin the hull when it needs to face the front armor towards the threat that the side armor can't handle.

Get me? To me that makes sense.

To me it seems to go hand in hand that IF you need to rotate your hull towards a threat you are doing so NOT to bring the turret to bear faster but to protect yourself but at the SAME time it benefits the turret since you will most likely be targeting the threat, thus your turret will be swinging faster into position.

That is the logic I think the computer should use.

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

As far as I am concerned, losing the vehicle or not isn't nearly as important as the annoyance at having the immersive of the game blown by watching your armor act ridiculous.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK I have to agree with you "philosophically" on that one. Its sort of "funny" to watch but in the middle of tense fire fight there is NOTHING humourus about it at all!

-tom w

[Mr. Clark]

Whew!

I agree that this is a topic that will obviously require a long time to sort out.

Look at how long this thread has risen!

It'll be interesting to see where we are at when I check in tommorrow! (Off to work now... AAAUGH!!!)

[Doug Beman]

Bruno, I know that I was commenting on old issues, but without home internet I can only check this forum 9:30-6:30 EST. Therefor I have to play "Back to the Future" every day.

You made a point about "yes it was in the manual for German crews to rotate the hull to help the turret, but did they always do it?"

I think the fact that it was in the training manual should be enough to get hull rotation in the game. There is simply no way for BTS to know definitively whether German tankers always did hull rotation, or not, or what % of the time. The question they had was "do we have historical evidence that German tankers used hull rotation?" and the fact that it was at least taught to crews is about the only fact they have to go on, so the answer to the question is "yes, German tank crews should do hull rotation."

Additionally, I think that hull rotation was used more often than not for these reasons:

1)it was taught to them, and the Germans were very adept at quickly adapting battlefield experience into training, so the fact that they trained it meant they believed in it

2)it just makes good sense to turn your best (front) armor in the direction of the threat you are currently engaging, both to help swing the gun and to get the most armor toward the threat. Notice that "threat currently engaging" does not always mean "greatest threat to you at that particular time," because in war, like in CM, it's easy to get screwed up on threat identification. Like the propjocks say "it's the one you don't see that gets you."

DjB

[Bruno Weiss]

Doug, probably quite a few wishing I were in your shoes, seems I spoiled the party.

Anyway, I'd have to mull that one over. I won't profess to have some scientific data on all this either, othewise the debate would be over. But I do know that training was a far cry from battlefield practice in many areas, infantry, artillery, armor, naval, aerial and elsewhere. So while your logic may be quite correct, it might not be either. Leaving us to a 50/50 percentage of chance that it was historical, and no way then as most say of knowing how common.

Back to what I see that bothers me a little, well, I guess one would have to say a lot. I've followed a dialog ongoing for months on this forum that this or that thing, or desire, tactic, weapon, (this, that, or the other), was not included in CM because it either was not historical by proof of sufficient documentation, or it was not of commonality. In other words it maybe happend here and maybe there, but not all the time all the place, and the statements made were that CM was all about historical commonality. And as you and some others have said, this was "German" training doctrine. Was it also American, British, and Commonwealth? Because it is not just the German armor affected by this change.

So, it would seem to me that something is missing here with regard to the ready acceptance of this as both historical and as common practice based upon previous and well defined rules of acceptance with regard to what is and is not included in CM. If you see what I mean. Which, I would think might be sufficient reason to cause the smoke grenade, night starshell, cows in the fields, etc., arguments to erupt all over again but with a new reason.

And the cow bells are so...comforting.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)