V1.1 A MAJOR BUG ???

[Guest machineman]

AFAIK one reason Panthers and Tigers had the very expensive transmissions they did was enable turning on the spot. As soon as the driver pressed in the clutch and turned the steering wheel one track would turn forward and one back. The drivers manual even warns drivers to be very careful with this as the tank can spin around suddenly if the the steering wheel is accidentally bumped while the motor is running.

"Smooth move Hans, we really needed that fuel truck"

Also explains why the Panther designers felt they could bias protection so heavily toward the frontal plate AND why the Jagdpanther's lack of a turret was not nearly the handicap that it was to the other turretless tank destroyers.

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

[Xavier]

Well,

I just perfom a quite boring test serie.

It seems impossible to build statistic because the AI seems to act in some different way even if the situation is exactly the same. And I must admit that's an improvment.

It appears that the hull rotating is a way to help the turret to aim the target. When the turret is aiming the target, the tank stops rotating even if the side of the tank is still exposed to the target...

In an other case the tank stops rotating to let the gun fire and the tank restarts rotating to expose its front to the target...

In an other case the tank totally ignore a potential target(a spotted and identified halftrack 200 meters at 9 o'clock)...

In an other case tank fully turns its hull in front of the target and so lost time in aiming the target...

and so, and so...

Waou, each tank commander seems to have its own personality in CM, it's great!

But in some situation it makes a little non sense.ie: Why rotating your hull when you just give an area fire order outside covered arc?

When I started this topic It seems I was confronted to the worse situation(Tanks rotating to fire on a far away crew and tanks starting to dance the hesitating valse between two potential target)so I honestly thought it was a bug. But I know now it's not

and I have to discover and test more this new feature.

[Maximus]

OK, one more note on the whole Beta Test view-point here.

Now if Bruno, Xavier and whoever else is on this band wagon about this issue would *have* participated in the Beta Testing, then we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we? We would have had it two weeks ago when this feature was "fixed" just as Matt said instead of now when the FINAL patch was released. So I still stand behind my point in that you all had your chance for user feedback through the Beta Test and some of you who chose not to participate are just now beginning to see what the rest of us have had no problem with and complaining about it. Doesn't make a damn bit of sense really!! Plus the fact you're drawing conclusions from what it *may* mean and not from gameplay experience with the patch. If you have participated in the Beta Test, you could have made mention of this then and not now. So basically you missed out on a PUBLIC Q/A session and now you're bitching because something ain't to your liking in the final product. Again, a "Johnny come lately", IMHO.

As for using bailed-out crews to "fool" a tank. Uh ah! Not gonna to happen! Play a few scenarios and you will see that tanks totally ignore bailed-out crews when there are other threats about. They only fire at them when there is nothing else in sight and usually with just MGs. Play the Villers-Boccage scenario, I'm telling ya, Whittman kicks some ass and the only way you'll get him killed is if you get too presumptious and do something stupid.

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

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

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

[MadDog0606]

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

So I still stand behind my point in that you all had your chance for user feedback through the Beta Test and some of you who chose not to participate are just now beginning to see what the rest of us have had no problem with and complaining about it. Doesn't make a damn bit of sense really!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have a problem with the tank turning toward the enemy to help speed up the turret rotation. I have a problem with the above statement. It sounds like you no longer want user feedback on this patch from people who did not participate in the public beta testing, which is more then likly a lot of people, and it includes me. I have beta tested for other games before and to do it correctly is like work. You don't play the game to have fun, you exercise the application to find problems. I don't beta test anymore because I play games to relax and have fun. If I want to get frustrated at a computer program I just go to work and do that. I have always felt that BTS has always encouraged CONSTRUCTIVE user feedback and I would hope that they continue to do that.

That said, if I find something I don't agree with in CM (which as not happened yet, and more then likly never will) I will moan and groan about it on this forum .

[Richlop]

Been playing like mad. No complaints here

[Fuerte]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadDog0606:

I don't have a problem with the tank turning toward the enemy to help speed up the turret rotation. I have a problem with the above statement. It sounds like you no longer want user feedback on this patch from people who did not participate in the public beta testing, which is more then likly a lot of people, and it includes me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, Maximus is wrong here. I "beta tested" i.e. played CM 1.1 betas, I didn't find any other problems except the bogging. Still if someone finds a problem after the final has been released, he should not be bashed about it, even if it is questionable if it is a problem or not.

I have seen the target acquisition problem before in 1.05 or earlier. Once an AT gun just kept on swinging left and right, because it couldn't decide what target it should fire at. I believe that this happens very rarely.

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadDog0606:

I don't have a problem with the tank turning toward the enemy to help speed up the turret rotation. I have a problem with the above statement. It sounds like you no longer want user feedback on this patch from people who did not participate in the public beta testing, which is more then likly a lot of people, and it includes me. I have beta tested for other games before and to do it correctly is like work. You don't play the game to have fun, you exercise the application to find problems. I don't beta test anymore because I play games to relax and have fun. If I want to get frustrated at a computer program I just go to work and do that. I have always felt that BTS has always encouraged CONSTRUCTIVE user feedback and I would hope that they continue to do that.

That said, if I find something I don't agree with in CM (which as not happened yet, and more then likly never will) I will moan and groan about it on this forum .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're misunderstanding my point here. I have no problem with constructive critism regarding an anonomoly within the game code. What I do have a problem with, and BTS for that matter, is that when people complain about something without substancial support for their claims. And in this particular case, where there was an open public beta test going on and the people that are complaining didn't participate in the public test. Personally, everytime a beta patch was released, I was right on it. Mainly because I much prefer the latest changes and enhancements over the last official version. And when the Beta patches did nothing to the game code other than creating a new executable, leaving the v1.05 executable untouched, what harm was there in trying a beta patch. It's not like SFC where everytime they came out with a patch you had to delete and reinstall the whole game before you applied the new patch, SHEEZ!

As KwazyDog has told me in private, he wonders why BTS even bothered doing the Beta Patches if no one was going to use them.

The way I look at this situatiom is that for those that did use the beta patches, found no problem with this hull rotation thing and now that the final patch is out, we get bitchin' from all around from people who didn't use the Beta patches. Like I keep saying, sounds like a "Johnny come lately" to me.

In other words, people had their chance to participate in the "creating" of this final patch and they didn't take part and now they see fit to complain about something they don't like.

BTS did this Beta Test in the hope that wide user feedback could help in making THIS the final patch for CMBO. So you see where I'm coming from? Now that the v1.1 patch is released, we still have people bitchin'. Ironically, these are people who didn't take part in the Beta Test.

Sorry to keep on rambeling like this, saying the same thing over and over, but trust me, this is the exact same sentiment in the BTS camp.

I've been here since last January, during the Beta Demo days and I have seen CMBO go through numerous changes. Most of which have been great and groundbreaking. So I've followed the development from Beta to v1.1 now. I know BTS's attitude toward critism, so this is why I'm coming off like this with the "Johnny come lately" title. BTS didn't have to do the Beta test and we would be stuck with v1.1b16 as the Final v1.1 Then more time would have been lost in doing additonal tweaks therefore delaying work on CM2.

Now thank you very much and thank you for your support.

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

A major bug . What must the guys at BTS be thinking when they hear their hard (and much requested) work being described as such.

I had an example in the beta patch where a Panther was engaging my defending Brit Infantry at close range when my 6pdr decided to open up at it's side. The Panther spotted it's second shot and rotated the hull while switching the HE/MG fire to the gun. Unfortunately for the Panther it did no good, because as soon as it's front was facing the 6pdr the gun crew slammed a precious tungsten round in the tube and blew it up with that.

All of the above happened without any orders from me whatsoever and I'll say again that IMHO the AI in that little episode alone was without equal - in fact way way out in front - of anything I've ever seen in 15 years of computer wargaming. It may not yet be perfect but it is something special.

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

"We're not here to take it - We're here to give it"

General Morshead's response to the popular newspaper headline "Tobruk Can Take It"

[GravesRegistration]

One fact overlooked by CM is that the gunner in an AFV would take aim and fire.. then for the second shot the acquisition could only be maintained if the hull of the tank did not move. In CM the tanks turn their turret, fire and then the hull immediately starts turning which would blow the second shots aim in real life. It's not unrealistic for them to turn the hull towards the threat but I've noticed the hull moves little bits between each shot (if firing at a moving target) this would be disastrous for the aiming and it's destroying the threat that truly will save the tank not the front armor. I haven't tried the new patch (v1.1)and after all I've read here I am not looking forward to the frustrations being expressed on this board. But I will give it a try.

CM is still the best computer tactical simulation in existence.

I'll end this with my Advanced Squad Leader motto which unfortunately dose not apply to Combat Mission.

"it's not what you know"

"it's what you throw"

God help me, I do miss the dice.

[elementalwarre]

TacAI dithering: i assume this is from TacAI deciding something's the best target one moment and turning towards it, then reevaluating the next moment because floating point and real terrain means which target is technically nearest can change each moment if the targets and/or the tank are moving

if so, is this kind of fudge factor possible: if the unit's current target needs no more time to start firing at than the other target, -continue on the current target-. perhaps also maneuver to avoid the other, but kill THIS target first

perhaps the fudge factor exists and could be tweaked, or other problems happen if the factor's too big, or this just isn't common enough to spend programming and simulation time on, or this is intentionally meant to simulate a gunner cracking under pressure. i dunno. i'm just suggesting. BTS?

although, has anyone seen a tank hull rotating one way as the turret goes the other? a movie of that would have me ROTFLMAO even if it was my tank

hull turn by AI: perhaps TacAI could consider where's the opponent map edge. i'm not for or against this, just suggesting. 1.1's behavior in this respect is just fine by me

no doubt these have been thought of. i haven't seen them in this thread though, so i'd like to know more before i say more

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

[GravesRegistration]

If I was a gunner, in a tank, in combat

(and wasn't to busy crapping in my pants) and my Commander ordered : 12 o'clock... no.... 2 o'clock.... no 12 o'clock

no 2 o'clock.... No... I would shoot him and have the assistant driver take over the periscope. I would.

[Guest ciks]

Just my thoughts on the issue

Basicly, new hull-rotating feature is improvement.

BUT is it ok for a tank to turn the frontal armor from general enemy direction (and possible routes of advance), to engage Halftracks, Crews and even spotted/identified Infantry squads (not closer than some 200m)? IDENTIFIED non-dangerous (to tank) enemy units (i cannot stress this enough - identified)!

Another thing: maybe it can be programmed so, that AFTER tank had rotated its hull to deal with spotted enemy unit (on flank), and the unit is knocked out (or out of tank's LOS), tank rotates hull BACK to ORIGINAL direction?

[Guest ciks]

sorry, double post

[This message has been edited by ciks (edited 01-12-2001).]

[Vanir]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Panther, Tiger and KT could do it and TDs built on those chassis. But this means the vast majority of the TDs in the German inventory could not.

British Cromwell and perhaps (?) Churchhill could also. In fact, the Germans copied the system from the Brits.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Bruno Weiss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now if Bruno, Xavier and whoever else is on this band wagon about this issue would *have* participated in the Beta Testing, then we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Maximus, we've filed for tax exemption under the non-profit clause, The Bruno Anti-1.1 League. In fact I have no doubt that regardless of our participation in what you seem to term as a one time only chance to provide feedback, else lose all rights thereof, that we'd still be sitting right here discussing it all over again because supporters of this change aren't inclined to listen to the points of concern. Their more concerned with finding defensive positions to substantiate the need. The fact that BTS made it publicly available is laudable, the fact that some people believe that meant everyone who plays CM would just quite naturally run in here and test the beta, or had some civil obligation to do so is something of a leap of logic. Of the two dozen or so opponents I've PBEM'd in the last few months, only a mere few even come to this forum. I don't believe they are aware of their AWOL status.

The fact is, because the love it or leave it crowd have concentrated on attempting to justify the change, the discussion has mostly been about abstractions of who thinks who has a right to strike "john", and not about the particular merits of the thing. The most amazing aspect of which to me, is that some apparently believe that at any point in time a singularly uniform point of view is just naturally going to take place.

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

"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 01-12-2001).]

[FutbolHead]

What I have gathered reading through this thread is this;

The side in agreement with tanks changing their facing and not just rotating the turret have based this on historical information that they have read.

The side that disagrees with the "new" way tanks work admits that they have no data to support their view, they just think or feel it's wrong.

This thread is on 7 pages now with this kind of argument?

[Henri]

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

Where's my lawyer?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You get a court-appointed lawyer, ant it is Steve

Henri

[Henri]

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Tom, let's face it: if you find yourself with two equally dangerous opponents on opposite flanks, either you have stuck your head into the meat grinder or you have been outflanked.

In both cases, the best thing to do is to realize that you are in deep doodoo and to reverse to try to get out of there as soon as possible.

"...Duh...Sir, there's a Panther in front and an AT gun on the right, sir..."

"Turn the hull towards the most dangerous one, you idiot!..."

"Errr, which one sir? They seem equally dangerous to me, I mean, even from the front, that AT gun would..."

"The gun, the gun!..No no, the Panther!, ...hmmmm...yeah, maybe we should gitdahell outta here..."

...BOOOM!...

Henri

[PawBroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Self Quoted for the benefit of ALL side:

Now I am not meaning that because it had been discussed, it shouldn't be brought to fore again once in a while.

But a little more respect for the community as a whole and for the guys who made it all happen in the first place might help.

...

I have no right whatsoever to belittle or doubt your sincerity and willingness to make CM a better experience for all of us by contributing your feedback in here for your fellow CMers to partake on them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That stands for those defending what has been basically a standard feature for quite some time.

As a side note, Xavier who incidentally started this whole thing is one of the very FEW dedicated players of CM who are actually contributing to the expansion of the installed basis in our merry FrogLand.

Those of you litterate in french should go to http://appui-feu.panzershark.com and see that Xavier and most of those guys did the translating of CM into French since the days of the first release and had been continueing their support to this cause to every single coming patches.

The number of new users gained by that horrendous work alone is numbered in tens.

As much as I fond Bruno posts a bit offensive to start with, I wish some of you would stop the systematic witch hunt.

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

You are not Obsessive-CMpulsive, you are Allied-Retentive.

Mark IV

[Guest ciks]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> FootballHead wrote: The side in agreement with tanks changing their facing and not just rotating the turret have based this on historical information that they have read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does anybody have a proof that tanks (even fast-turreted ones) in WWII rotated their hulls to face every pesky infantry unit, that appeared in LOS???

[This message has been edited by ciks (edited 01-12-2001).]

[Xavier]

Merci Pawbroon

[Henri]

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

Another thing: maybe it can be programmed so, that AFTER tank had rotated its hull to deal with spotted enemy unit (on flank), and the unit is knocked out (or out of tank's LOS), tank rotates hull BACK to ORIGINAL direction? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thik it already does -or at least Wittmann's Tiger did it last night after killing a Sherman, when I retried the Villers-Bocage scenario with 1.1. although all my German tanks were knocked out, I did not observe one instance of "unreasonable" behavior by any of my 4 Tiger tanks throughout the game. A few times, the Tiger dis switch targets, but the latter were moving in and out of sight, and I don't consider that behavior unrealistic.

Let me add that although I have locked horns with BTS muself on a few occasions, this time I think that they are being unjustly criticized, based on behavior that is mostly pure speculation.

If specific unrealistic behavior can be established as a fact, BTS have shown that they will correct it if possible. But some0 of the requirements for programmed intelligence being proposed here are beyond what any AI can accomplish.

Henri

[Guest MantaRay]

I don't find this to be a problem. I am used to using turrentless AFV's, so I guess this just means you will have to be a bit more careful in your use of them.

Ray

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

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

Click now for shelter from the Peng thread

The Red Army of the Rugged Defense Group Ladder

[Dr. Brian]

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

In CM the tanks turn their turret, fire and then the hull immediately starts turning which would blow the second shots aim in real life. It's not unrealistic for them to turn the hull towards the threat but I've noticed the hull moves little bits between each shot (if firing at a moving target) this would be disastrous for the aiming and it's destroying the threat that truly will save the tank not the front armor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I have a problem with. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Unless there is a gyrostabilizer around, these AFVs are losing their acquisition. Quite often, it is more important to get the shots off before the opportunity to penetrate your opponents armor is more important than rotating your hull.

A Sherman who's targeted the side of a Panther should not be turning it's hull (as it makes no difference since the Panther gun will rip into the Sherman). It needs to get shots off as fast as possible, without losing acquisition.

If I'm a Sherman TC and my hull is facing opposite the Panther, I'd wouldn't rotate the hull (since it'll make no difference). I'd give my gunner the best opportunity to hit the side before it's too late.

Make sense?

Question, is acquisition lost when moving the hull? As stated, it realistically is. Does CM model that?

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Jeff Heidman]

Last night I saw something that I thought was fixed back in the 1.03 patch.

I lost a Panther that, despite my orders to rotate forward, insisted on engaging a infantry target 350m away to its side, ignoring the vast numbers of (momentarily unspotted) enemy tanks to its front. So it swung the entire vehicle 90 degrees to the right. Of course a Sherman parked a round through its side armor.

Sigh. To say this is unrealistic does not even begin to describe what is wrong here. I know BTS does not wish to clutter the interface, but there really needs to be some simple command to tell a unit to orient in a certain direction and stay that way unless some really compelling reason to turn comes up. COmpelling reason being something like being fired upon from a credibale AT asset.

If coding this stuff into the TacAI is so damn hard, then let the player make those decisions, as best the 60 second turn will allow. Give them the tools to tell their tanks where to point the pointy end. Then, when people like me whine about their tank turning their weak armor around to a potential threat, it will be their fault.

The current system has an inate problem in that each unit thinks completely individually. There is no way for that Panther to think "Gee, just saw some infantry pop up on my far right flank. No matter, they are way outside man-portable AT range, and I know there is a strong friendly infantry screen on that flank, so I am going to ignore them because I know that enemy armor has been spotted up in front of me." All that Panther thinks is "Well, the only unit *I* can see right now is that infantry off to the side. I have no memory of the armor that dropped that smoke screen a minute ago after I brewed up on of their Shermans, so I guess I will just rotate my entire hull 90 degrees to the right and take a few shots at that infantry!"

This is not a problem that is going to be fixed very easily. The TacAi is just not sophisticated enough. The only solution is to give the player the option to take some of that out of the hands of the TacAI.

Jeff Heidman