Official First Edition Strategy Guide Errata Thread

[Treeburst155]

Wow.

Treeburst155 out.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Terrapin:

In the Italian infantry squad, the 41' Bersaglieri squad shows 5 Carcano Rifles. It should be 10. This was noted by someone else as well.

I presume you are referring to page 1/81? I see no listing for 41 Bersaglieri at all. Do you mean 1941? The book says 42 but does not include 41.

So say "someone else noted it" but I see no other references to this on the first page of this thread.

[ December 22, 2002, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Spook]

Oops. I committed a "brain fart" of my own in my latest errata post.

Michael, the statement:

1/97.... Under "1941 Infantry"

should be amended to read "1942" instead.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Spook:

Oops.

I hope I got it right...glad I didn't pay you 15 dollars US for that list!

[Michael Dorosh]

bump?

[Michael Dorosh]

Despite Steve's post on the issuance of a new 2nd Edition - should we keep going with this?

[Frunze]

Presumably they'll rework the tables and proofread the spelling instead of just letting a spell-check program do it, etc. But if there are other errors that might slip by routine checks, it might be helpful to point 'em out.

There's a number of places in the manual where "??" appears between two sentences. It often seems to come after statements that are doubtful, inaccurate, or just need clarifying. Possibly this indicates where the author, or some editor, indicated a problem that needed correcting, but the correction was never made. If someone is going to edit the manual now, simply searching through the file for "??" will pull up these statements that may need correction, or in any case the question marks should be removed.

For example, on page 1/34: "Trenches and Roadblocks can block all wheeled vehicular movement across them. ?? Fully tracked vehicles can pass, but with a high chance of bogging." Is this fully accurate? Can tracked vehicles cross roadblocks? According to page 61 of the CMBB manual, they can't. Stuff like that.

[sluggo]

I was about to order this book but given all the update needed, I'd like to wait until corrected. Anyone have any idea if an update will be coming any time soon? Or is it not worth waiting since it may be some time before available?

[markgame]

Originally posted by sluggo:

I was about to order this book but given all the update needed, I'd like to wait until corrected. Anyone have any idea if an update will be coming any time soon? Or is it not worth waiting since it may be some time before available?

Reportedly the new edition will be out in February, and they will not be sending out any of the first editions anymore.

[ December 23, 2002, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: markgame ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Despite Steve's post on the issuance of a new 2nd Edition - should we keep going with this?

yes

helps them get it right

and because it is too entertaining to quit now.

I don't have my typo riddled 1st printing yet but I am enjoying the quotes and posts in this thread.

Don't stop now.

-tom

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by sluggo:

I was about to order this book but given all the update needed, I'd like to wait until corrected. Anyone have any idea if an update will be coming any time soon? Or is it not worth waiting since it may be some time before available?

Just in case you missed it:

Here is the official word:

from this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=004745;p=1

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted December 23, 2002 02:13 PM

Hi all,

It is with great disappointment and embarrassment that I have to make this post. As you all know, we

pride ourselves on quality and attention to detail. Sadly, as I will explain below, we had our first failing

in regards to our high standards. We also consider the support of our customers something that

should NEVER be taken for granted or abused. Hopefully you all will see in this post how seriously we

take legitimate customer dissatisfaction and how completely we seek to address it.

As most of you know the Combat Mission - Barbarossa to Berlin Strategy Guide (Strategy Guide for

short) was released a few weeks ago. You also know that it didn't take long before people started

posting typos and mistakes found when their copies arrived. At first we thought this was not

surprising since the book is 300 pages long and it is a first edition. We thanks people for the

corrections then sent them off to the author for a 2nd edition print run.

A little while later some more mistakes were pointed out. We started to feel like the number of errors

was getting to be a bit much, but we didn't feel that even this number was a "killer". Again, we took

the errors and handed them off to the author.

Argh... another week went by and even MORE mistakes were pointed out! Now we knew that was

something seriously wrong with the text. The new batch of mistakes were handed over to the author

and we stated that we needed to put out a PDF errata correction ASAP.

*SNAP* the straw that broke the camel's back hit us this weekend. Yet another thread was started

up detailing errors, both grammatical and factual, which clearly showed that the bottom of the

problem had not been found. The problems found thus far were enough that even a PDF errata

correction wasn't likely to be good enough.

We had a very quick conference about the problems with the Strategy Guide, and everybody agreed

that we needed to do the following:

1. Stop the sale of the Strategy Guide without further delay. This was done on Sunday, December

22nd. All orders placed before we put up the backorder notice will be sent out.

2. Work hard to get the author to make all corrections and changes ASAP so we can produce a 2nd

edition that will be free of mistakes.

3. Inform you all of the problem and...

4. Promise to send a corrected 2nd edition to each and every one of our customers who took receipt

of the 1st edition. The replacement will be sent out automatically and free of charge as soon as we

have a corrected print run in our warehouse. When will this be? We don't know, but it is certain to be

no sooner than mid to late February.

Well, there you have it. We are formally apologizing for what can only be described as an unacceptable

screwup. The number and nature of the mistakes is inexcusable. Although Battlefront itself did not

wish or cause this problem, we must accept full responsibility for it and therefore put things right with

our customers. For those of you who might speculate, the costs of such a remedy were computed

but not part of the decision to send out replacements or a PDF. If we had valued the costs more than

our customers' good will, I can promise you we wouldn't be sending out replacements

Hopefully our admission, apology, and remedy will reassure everybody that we are still the same crazy

idealists that we were 5 years ago when we started up Battlefront. You folks are the reason we are

here. We intend to never take this fact for granted.

Thanks,

Battlefront

[aka_tom_w]

Hi!

I just got mine in the mail now!

Oh hell, this is like Shootin' Fish in a Barrel, this is so much fun my wife wants to help out just to see how bad it really is

1/49 2nd para, line 2

"are within 50 meters of the enemy and then chance their orders"

SHOULD be "change their orders"

Quote from Michael:

"1/49....In the second paragraph is the statement as follows: "With any luck the enemy will already

be SHAKEN, PINNED or SUPPRESSED." This implies that "SUPPRESSED" is a specifically labeled morale state in CMBB, when it is not. "

4/6 2nd para,

"you will notice no infantry unit guns and tanks-.... ever totally run out of ammo.

I thought Tanks and guns did in fact RUN out when there were no rounds left available on/with the gun or tank. I thought it was ONLY infantry that could scrounge? That answer to the question implies otherwise.

-tom w

[ December 23, 2002, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Keep em coming, tom!

[Michael Dorosh]

bump for the day shift

[Grabenhund]

My apologies if any of these have already been listed or identified, just let me know and i'll edit them out. I highlighted the problem in bold text.

1/7 - 3rd paragraph - "Yeah, a squad of German Fusiliers may have an MG42 æa gun that may also serve as a heavy machine gunæ but..." (Weird character in text)

1/9 - Under Woods, Tall Pines, Scattered Trees - "Incoming artillery may explode in the branches of the heretofore protective tress, showering those..." (Trees is misspelled)

1/9 - 4th paragraph - "Indeed, troops may be placed within in a patch of Scattered Trees and still have a relatively clear line of sight (less so in Woods and Tall Pines) through the front of the tress." (Extra "in" should be removed)

1/10 - Picture caption - "These second-floor troops command a wide firled of fire" (firled?)

1/14 - Example Two - "Rather than defend the outskirts of a village." (Incomplete sentence)

1/19 - 2nd paragraph - "...from Combat Mission, Airborne Assault: Red Devils over Arnhem or...". (Airborne Assault title is only partially in italics)

1/20 - Combat - "The star icon represents a headquarters with a COMBAT bonus." (It's actually a lightning bolt instead of a star.)

1/21 - 1st paragraph - "...and if the headquarters has a line of site to the..." (Should be "sight")

1/22 - 1st sentence - "...do not completely block line of site." (Should be "sight")

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Grabenhund:

My apologies if any of these have already been listed or identified, just let me know and i'll edit them out. I highlighted the problem in bold text.

1/7 - 3rd paragraph - "Yeah, a squad of German Fusiliers may have an MG42 æa gun that may also serve as a heavy machine gunæ but..." (Weird character in text)

1/9 - Under Woods, Tall Pines, Scattered Trees - "Incoming artillery may explode in the branches of the heretofore protective tress, showering those..." (Trees is misspelled)

1/9 - 4th paragraph - "Indeed, troops may be placed within in a patch of Scattered Trees and still have a relatively clear line of sight (less so in Woods and Tall Pines) through the front of the tress." (Extra "in" should be removed)

1/10 - Picture caption - "These second-floor troops command a wide firled of fire" (firled?)

1/14 - Example Two - "Rather than defend the outskirts of a village." (Incomplete sentence)

1/19 - 2nd paragraph - "...from Combat Mission, Airborne Assault: Red Devils over Arnhem or...". (Airborne Assault title is only partially in italics)

1/20 - Combat - "The star icon represents a headquarters with a COMBAT bonus." (It's actually a lightning bolt instead of a star.)

1/21 - 1st paragraph - "...and if the headquarters has a line of site to the..." (Should be "sight")

1/22 - 1st sentence - "...do not completely block line of site." (Should be "sight")

GOOD work

this one especially!

"1/20 - Combat - "The star icon represents a headquarters with a COMBAT bonus." (It's actually a lightning bolt instead of a star.)"

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

List updated, thanks Grabenhund!

[aka_tom_w]

anybody else enjoying some Christmas reading finding anything new to report?

-tom w

[Grabenhund]

And some more... :cool:

1/33 - 2nd paragraph - "Site and place your mortars carefully..." (Sight instead of site)

1/33 - 3rd paragraph - "...will get a yummy led sandwich." (lead instead of led)

1/34 - Under Trenches section - First sentence needs a period

1/37 - Section "Plugging the Holes" - "....led on limbs..." (lead instead of led)

2/44 - Row 1 - Assualt boat is used instead of Assault boat.

2/52 - Row 1 - Kubelwageb is used instead of Kubelwagen

2/53 - Row 7 - Panthe is used instead Panther

2/54-55 - Rows 9-15 - Are missing PSI after Ground Pressure number.

2/55 - Row 7 - Bow/Ccoaxial is used instead of Bow/Coaxial

2/57 - Row 3 - Missing PSI after number.

2/58 - Row 1 - Data in Armor Quality, Radio, MG, and Main Weapon columns should be shifted to the right by one.

2/58 - Row 7 - Data in Armor Quality and MG columns should be shifted to the right by one.

2/59 - Row 8 - Silhouette rating is in wrong column.

2/60-61 - Somua S-35, SD KFZ 7/1 Flak Vehicle (Early), SPW 250/I Halftrack, and SPW 250/7 Halftrack are listed twice.

2/61 - Row 2 - Radio column says Radio instead of Yes.

2/62 - Row 7 - Unit listed as SPW26I/1 instead of SPW 26I/1 (Needs a space)

2/63 - Row 2 - Assaul is used instead of Assault

2/63 - Rows 3-7 - Data for Max Speed, Ground Pressure, and Silhouette are in the wrong column. Rows 5 & 6 also put the data for the radio column in the MG column instead.

Back Cover - In the first sentence of the last paragraph, there is no spacing between the words "simulation" and "commercial". Perhaps can be reworded too? Seems like a runon.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Grabenhund:

And some more...

2/52 - Row 1 - Kubelwageb is used instead of Kubelwagen

2/62 - Row 7 - Unit listed as SPW26I/1 instead of SPW 26I/1 (Needs a space)

The maximum speed for the Kübelwagen is also incorrectly listed as 25 MPH.

I couldn't find the SPW26I/1 on that page...or on any page.

Just noticed the incorrect listing for the Panzer 38 (t)E directly beneath the "Panthe" you point out also.

[Grabenhund]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The maximum speed for the Kübelwagen is also incorrectly listed as 25 MPH.

I couldn't find the SPW26I/1 on that page...or on any page.

Just noticed the incorrect listing for the Panzer 38 (t)E directly beneath the "Panthe" you point out also.

Nice finds. I wasn't checking them, but i'm pretty sure alot of those numerical values are incorrect.

Oh, and the SPW251/1 Halftrack is the last listing on 2/62, it just needs a space.

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by Grabenhund:

And some more... :cool:

1/33 - 2nd paragraph - "Site and place your mortars carefully..." (Sight instead of site) ... {snipped} ...

Actually this could be correct depending on the context. If he's talking about putting your mortar in a good SITE, i.e. a good position, then it would be correct. If he's talking about making sure of a good line of SIGHT, then obviously you would be correct.

Joe

[ December 26, 2002, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Joe Shaw ]

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by Joe Shaw:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Grabenhund:

And some more... :cool:

1/33 - 2nd paragraph - "Site and place your mortars carefully..." (Sight instead of site) ... {snipped} ...

Actually this could be correct depending on the context. If he's talking about putting your mortar in a good SITE, i.e. a good position, then it would be correct. If he's talking about making sure of a good line of SIGHT, then obviously you would be correct.

Joe</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joe Shaw:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Grabenhund:

And some more... :cool:

1/33 - 2nd paragraph - "Site and place your mortars carefully..." (Sight instead of site) ... {snipped} ...

Actually this could be correct depending on the context. If he's talking about putting your mortar in a good SITE, i.e. a good position, then it would be correct. If he's talking about making sure of a good line of SIGHT, then obviously you would be correct.

Joe</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Another bump as we end out the holiday weekend...