Windopaene Posted April 9, 2001 Share Posted April 9, 2001 OK, so I'll face the ire of the board, BTW, etc. and boldly go where no ne has gone before... There is one definate bug, one possible bug, and one improvement needed to 1.12 that should be dealt with. 1. Acknowledged bug - Tanks that can target and shoot through buildings. Even Steve agreed that there was something wrong going on here. Don't have the link, but Do A Search™ and you'll see that one. 2. Possible Bug - Smoke rounds. 3. Improvement - Additional PBEM "segment" to allow for the use of "Computer Chooses" QBs without the possibility that the opponent is cheating by checking out your forces before sending it. That is all, let the hostilities and angry denials begin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted April 9, 2001 Share Posted April 9, 2001 First of all, let me say I respect your right to say what you feel has to be said. Now please respect my right of reply! Are you nuts?!!!!!!!! I personally would rather see CM2 continue to be given development priority. Once CM2 is released, work can then be done to re-patch CMBO. Mace [ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: Mace ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted April 9, 2001 Share Posted April 9, 2001 I totaly agree with Mace on this man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 I totally agree with Mace and Rob/1. Who's next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 Aaaaarrrrrggghhh!! Brave man that Windowpaene, mad but brave... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windopaene Posted April 10, 2001 Author Share Posted April 10, 2001 It's a dirty job, but someone had to do it... Well with all of the pissing and moaning recently in the smoke thread and the MG thread, (which I didn't touch with a 10 foot pole), and whether or not Tournament House is gamey, I would have expected some support... However, let me say this. I too am looking forward to CM2. Of course, given that I have an 11 meg on board video setup which may or may not be replacable with a more capable video card, I may or may not even be able to run CM2. And given the fact that both of these "bugs" are capable of changing the outcome of a battle, I think they deserve attention. And as for the PBEM thing, computer chooses forces is currently broken, for competitive play. Whoever sets it up can cheat. End of story. While I'm not that paranoid, as long as "the system" exists for Germans, it will be used, and the only way to ensure the elimination of the system for a quick game is to have a secure "computer chooses" option. OK, back to the "are you crazy" posts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 I agree completely with Windowpaene. Of course, none of this is going to change anything, but it's something to talk about, I suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windopaene Posted April 10, 2001 Author Share Posted April 10, 2001 Whoohoo a supporter! :eek: and there's no "w" in Windopaene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 I sympathize with Windopaene, but alas I don't think that a patch will be forthcoming. Whatever issues are dredged up with CM1, hopefully will be addressed in some manner when CM2 is released. Depending on what happens with CM2 and any "cross-pollination" with CM1... Maybe BTS will come back and make some minor patches to CM1 (but they will undoubtedly be busy making the inevitable patches for CM2, so it may be awhile). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmead Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 I would also appreciate further patching or even a complete integration of all of the CM Barbarossa to Berlin (CM2) improvements. I would be willing to wait until after CMBB is released even . Yeah CMBO is not perfect, no one has ever acused it of being perfect. I don't expect it to be perfect, I'm not even sure I want it to be perfect (though it might be nice). We have already been the beneficiaries of many patches, which is more than I can say for 99% of the software I have bought. I still play regularly and its still fun. We can either enjoy the cup whcih is nearly full or we can bemoan the lack of the last bit that fills it. I intend to enjoy it. Eventually there will be something better, hopefully it will be CMBB and then CMBS (Burning Sands). If not it will be from some other purveyer. I can continue to take solace in the thing I do have. Nice to see some interesting threads again, it has been a bit stale of late. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 I agree with Windowpaene, only because I prefer to fight on the Western Front. I will no doubt buy CM2, but I'd rather see a patch for CM first. Now, knowing that will not happen, I'd just like to say that I pray to god CM2 will be backwards compatible with CM1, meaning these glitches that are still there in CM1 will be fixed for CM2 and that a patch or whatever can easily be applied to CM1 after they were fixed for the new version. [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Windopaene: OK, so I'll face the ire of the board, BTW, etc. and boldly go where no ne has gone before... There is one definate bug, one possible bug, and one improvement needed to 1.12 that should be dealt with. 1. Acknowledged bug - Tanks that can target and shoot through buildings. Even Steve agreed that there was something wrong going on here. Don't have the link, but Do A Search™ and you'll see that one. 2. Possible Bug - Smoke rounds. 3. Improvement - Additional PBEM "segment" to allow for the use of "Computer Chooses" QBs without the possibility that the opponent is cheating by checking out your forces before sending it. That is all, let the hostilities and angry denials begin... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nuts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pritzl Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 Personally, I think there are a few things that it would be nice for BTS to take a look at again; however, it's nothing that can't wait until after CM2. To me, the absolute most important thing is that BTS consider rolling some of the improvements made in CM 2 back into CM 1. One thing I think they need to be very mindful of though is that "if it isn't broke, don't fix it." Meaning, that I hope that for the most part CM 2 features a bunch of relatively minor enhancements. This will ensure that not a ton of time is spent patching CM2 and that it'll be easier to incorporate the changes into CM1. I say save the major overhauls for CM II. As is, we all, or at least the vast majority, agree that CM is about the best game ever made. So I would much rather have them give us the Eastern front, the Mediterranean, and France 1940 in quick succession with small enhancements than waiting a year or more for each new game that, in features, makes the previous titles feel obsolete. P.S. I just thought of a great title for Combat Mission 3.... Combat Mission: Mare Nostrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 I agree with windopaene but I fear we will never see anymore patches for CMBO. I figure that with CM2 coming out there will probably be things that need patching there and by the time that's done BTS will be busy with CM3. Unfortunately I have no interest in the Eastern Front so I will have to just keep play CMBO till I get old and gray (older and grayer) Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Windopaene: and there's no "w" in Windopaene <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course there is: at the beginning. [muttering]Dumb **** can't even spell his own name...[/muttering] Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick614 Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 I think EricM has hit the nail on the head for anyone who says there will be time for more patches for CMBO as soon as CM2 is finished. Anyone who wants a CMBO patch then will be asked to be quiet because CM3 is being worked on. That said I think most of us would agree that BTS is far ahead of anyone else in their development and support. CM is the only game I play anymore and I will surely buy CM2 as soon as it comes out. Because the games are going to cover different areas and some people will certainly be partial to one or another I think it would be nice if they could continue to support all of them. However, bottom line for me is that I love CMBO right now. If there never is another patch I won't lose any sleep over it. Anyway, patch can be so vulgar sounding. I think when we are talking about BTS we should say the latest "game enhancement" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letsbe Ave. Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 Oi! Muttering! Mind your bleedin' language! Strewth! [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Letsbe Ave. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windopaene Posted April 10, 2001 Author Share Posted April 10, 2001 Michael... The "w" I was referring to is lowercase! And while one of these is an "enhancement", (fixing security up a bit), the others are bugs. I too wonder if they will ever get fixed, as once CM2 is out work will begin on CMII, and then the codebase will have moved past CMBO, and no one wants to go back and debug/patch the "old stuff", so it will never happen. Hell, truth be told, I don't really care much about the tanks/buildings bug nor the smoke bug, I really want the security fix though, (just threw in the bugs because that would lend credibility to the "need" for another patch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 Prefering the Western Front, AND having witnessed tanks target, fire, and kill THROUGH buildings more times than should EVER be possible... I have to side with the brave Windo and Deadmarsh and vote for 1.13! :eek: (I like the new EASY SMILIES... now they just need a new EASY ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 what are we currently complaining about now? LOS Straight Through Buildings? Smoke rounds firing without orders? MG's and HMG's that don't supress and aren't leathal enough. Improvement - Additional PBEM "segment" to allow for the use of "Computer Chooses" QBs without the possibility that the opponent is cheating by checking out your forces before sending it. HE firing at the Sd Kfz 7/2 37 mm with little effect. HE rounds that don't kill non armoured units and don't cause any crew casualities. and the seperate turret rotation order request so the turret can be ordered to rotate independant of the hull? Did I miss anything?. The coding alone to fix all those things should be SOLD by BTS as a disk you have to order because it would take so long to code all those fixes we "should" likely have to pay them for it. I doubt we will see those things ever fixed. Lets see how they deal with those issues in CM2. -tom w [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windopaene Posted April 10, 2001 Author Share Posted April 10, 2001 Well tom, I purposefully avoided the MG issue, as there is still some debate about that. I avoided the halftracks vs. inf issue, again, as there is, (was), debate about that. I guess I did forget the HE vs. unarmoured targets bug. The turret rotation command is not a bug but an enhancement, so I skipped that as well. I only put in things that are broken. Wasn't it you who stated that you'd be setting up your tanks to shoot through buildings until it was fixed? Guess I won't be playing you So there are several bugs that exist. Are they serious? Depends on your point of view I guess. Are players exploiting them? Apparently some are. How tough would they be to fix? hard to say without looking at the code, but I'd bet the PBEM change could be put in in one morning's work. The shooting through buildings might take a while to find the source of, but as it only appears in certain conditions, and can be reproduced, I'd bet Steve could find the "sweet spot" condition he described and code that bugger out. As for the smoke issue, well that's a TacAI issue, and might be the toughest of the lot, as I would guess the TacAI is some pretty gnarly code. Ditto for the HE vs. Unarmored vehicles issue. And yes, I'd pay for the PBEM fix alone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Windopaene: Well tom, I purposefully avoided the MG issue, as there is still some debate about that. I avoided the halftracks vs. inf issue, again, as there is, (was), debate about that. I guess I did forget the HE vs. unarmoured targets bug. The turret rotation command is not a bug but an enhancement, so I skipped that as well. I only put in things that are broken. Wasn't it you who stated that you'd be setting up your tanks to shoot through buildings until it was fixed? Guess I won't be playing you So there are several bugs that exist. Are they serious? Depends on your point of view I guess. Are players exploiting them? Apparently some are. How tough would they be to fix? hard to say without looking at the code, but I'd bet the PBEM change could be put in in one morning's work. The shooting through buildings might take a while to find the source of, but as it only appears in certain conditions, and can be reproduced, I'd bet Steve could find the "sweet spot" condition he described and code that bugger out. As for the smoke issue, well that's a TacAI issue, and might be the toughest of the lot, as I would guess the TacAI is some pretty gnarly code. Ditto for the HE vs. Unarmored vehicles issue. And yes, I'd pay for the PBEM fix alone...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes I do Shoot through buildings when I can. It doesn't always work but I play the game being constantly mindful that a shot straight through a building could be BOTH good for me and BAD for me. So I watch for them and Constantly check LOF for that Sweet spot) I just thought I would mention all the other issues folks here were complaining about. I'm actually getting used to the fact that it WON'T be patched. At least that way you can count on the game being stable and not changing any time soon. There is something to be said for the peace of mind you have knowing v1.12 is the final version. (Even if it is not perfect) It is STILL GREAT and I have the GREATEST respect for the Autosave Feature, no one here is complaining about having a game vanish as the result of a crash. ONe of the best things is that the Autosave ALWAYS saves the last game you were playing and this is ONE of the games BEST features. (TCP/IP is one of the game's other GREAT features!) -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 I Totally Agree that the AUTOSAVE feature is GREAT! (Heh... new forum...) I also agree that there is "peace of mind" in the 1.12 patch... I just wish the shooting through houses bug wasn't in it... :cool: (Maybe I should go play with these EASY SMILIES in the Peng thread!) :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 If CM2 inludes the CM1 units & scenarios, then it's better to wait for CM2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorBeef Posted April 10, 2001 Share Posted April 10, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: First of all, let me say I respect your right to say what you feel has to be said. Now please respect my right of reply! Are you nuts?!!!!!!!! I personally would rather see CM2 continue to be given development priority. Once CM2 is released, work can then be done to re-patch CMBO. Mace [ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: Mace ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously, at the time they'll be patching CM2.. and people will be asking: "Can we have one more patch to cm2, please? And.. how about cmbo?" and everyone will say "shhh! let them work on cm3!", So this is likely the last patch. Which is mostly fine, although some of the more outstanding bugs would be a simple fix. For the 'security' bug, they could simply have the game display some basic info on screen after connection, "force 1, self pick, force 2, self pick", ect, to prevent those sorts of problems, which wouldn't take very long at all to fix. The whole HE vs unarmored targets thing could be fixed by giving 1mm of armor to all unarmored vehicles - but I'm not sure how hard that would be, exactly. In any case, if we don't ask for CMBO patches now, we'll probably never get them - and additionally, I doubt CM2 will be backwards compatable as such.. because it wouldn't just be a magic switch - its time intensive to retroactively integrate the new features - the only practical chance, I think, is simply to import the old vehicles/weapons/ect into the new game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts