aka_tom_w Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I think the lack of version control is an issue where one player can play v1.02 vs someone else playing v1.01 :confused: That one issue in its self should warrent a new v.103 patch -tom w Hi Steve Thanks for getting back to me The issue is that for now one player might think they prefer to play v1.02 in a PBEM orTCP/IP game but the other play might prefer some of the more "gamey" features of v1.01. So now you cannot be sure your opponent is using the SAME version you are. In CMBO when a patch was released it was immediately imcompatible with the previous version so that players all had to upgrade or they could not conitue their PBEM's. This was a GOOD thing and we are looking for it in CMBB. If you release v1.03 will it ONLY be compatible with other players playing CMBB that have up graded to v1.03? (it should be ONLY compatible with CMBB v1.03 for the purposes of PBEM and TCP/IP games the issue of fairness in tournements comes to mind ) thanks -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Tom, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />is the version control issue something that you consider worthy of time and attention, I mean will players using the new v1.03 still be able to play vs. those using v1.01 or v1.02? As you might guess I think this is a fairly significant issue.I'm not sure I understand what the issue is. Of course people have to be using the same version. That is the way CMBO and CMBB thus far have been and need to continue being. It is not safe to have different versions playing against each other in CM or any other game for that matter. Steve </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterX Posted March 9, 2003 Author Share Posted March 9, 2003 As I understand it in CMBB now a player can play v1.01 vs a player playing v1.02 with no problems at all. I just launched CMBB using the 1.01 exe. I was able to play the 'TEST gun' scenario offerred by a player in the 'Unhittable' thread. There was no incompatibility problem though, the TEST scenario was created to show a bug in 1.02. This time, the German platoon quickly dispatched the Russian AT gun. I wonder if I revert to 1.01 for my ongoing PBEM what negative consequences I'd suffer. Other than tanks plowing HE into hills in front of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by PeterX: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As I understand it in CMBB now a player can play v1.01 vs a player playing v1.02 with no problems at all. I just launched CMBB using the 1.01 exe. I was able to play the 'TEST gun' scenario offerred by a player in the 'Unhittable' thread. There was no incompatibility problem though, the TEST scenario was created to show a bug in 1.02. This time, the German platoon quickly dispatched the Russian AT gun. I wonder if I revert to 1.01 for my ongoing PBEM what negative consequences I'd suffer. Other than tanks plowing HE into hills in front of them. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by PeterX: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As I understand it in CMBB now a player can play v1.01 vs a player playing v1.02 with no problems at all. I just launched CMBB using the 1.01 exe. I was able to play the 'TEST gun' scenario offerred by a player in the 'Unhittable' thread. There was no incompatibility problem though, the TEST scenario was created to show a bug in 1.02. This time, the German platoon quickly dispatched the Russian AT gun. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boshar Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer76: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Boshar: Probably a driver problem but I upgraded to Cat 3.1 and CMBB 1.02 at the same time so I can't be shure which upgrade introduced this problem. I use Cat 3.1 and 1.02 and havent seen this. Which gfx card do u use? I have the 9700 Pro. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Tom, I'll mention this to Charles in case he hasn't heard it from anybody else yet. For the record: Any scenario file can always be played by any version newer than what created it. In theory it works in reverse with a older version using a scenario created by a newer version. Once a game is started it should only be playable by the version which created it or higher. But once saved in the newer version, it should be only playable by that version. With PBEM game this means if one person upgrades during a game, and the other doesn't, there SHOULD be a notice that the other player also needs to upgrade. However, I am not 100% sure of this. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadepm Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Steve, During a recent PBEM match in ROW III I accidently started vesion 1.02 to play a file that had not been converted from 1.01. It worked fine so I thought that my opponent had converted but just forgot to tell me. At the end of the game, however, the scores reported to each player were slightly different which is when I found out the file had indeed never been converted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Am I the only one who loved being able to play 1.01 vs 1.02?? To me, this simply eliminated the need to synchronize patching between me and my dozen PBEM partners. And no harm done if there were a few turns played, where the versions were different. And the need to start-save-start with new version was eliminated too. I'd much prefer if the version control stayed well away from my CM... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Tom, I'll mention this to Charles in case he hasn't heard it from anybody else yet. For the record: Any scenario file can always be played by any version newer than what created it. In theory it works in reverse with a older version using a scenario created by a newer version. Once a game is started it should only be playable by the version which created it or higher. But once saved in the newer version, it should be only playable by that version. With PBEM game this means if one person upgrades during a game, and the other doesn't, there SHOULD be a notice that the other player also needs to upgrade. However, I am not 100% sure of this. Steve OK thanks Steve Some of us having been posting to this thread because the way it "IS" is not the way it "Should be" (i.e. "there SHOULD be a notice that the other player also needs to upgrade") in v1.02. I don't think I am the only one to have noticed this and it is VERY easy for you folks to verify on your end, no save game file is needed, just fire up a TCP/IP or PBEM game between one player using v1.01 and the other player using v1.02 and you will see there is no notice that the other player needs to upgrade. Thanks -tom w [ March 09, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Jarmo, I'd much prefer if the version control stayed well away from my CM...That would be a very bad idea. Any code change we make has the potential to cause a game to be screwed up if the other player isn't using the same version. Would you rather have a one time transition period for whatever game you happen to currently be playing, and have there be no problems. Or would you rather be a couple of turns into a game and find out that you are both seeing different results? That is entirely possible. For example... If we change the armor values of a tank, and that tank gets hit... different results could happen depending on which version is resovling the game. Or a blast effect could be altered and on one turn the round hitting would behave one way, on the next turn a different way. There are endless possibilities like this that requires both versions be the same in order to avoid. Charles was away this weekend so he could not look into this issue. But he was quite surprised to hear about it. This is something that WILL be fixed with 1.03 for sure. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 O.K. Good news. There will be a third patch to tidy up the loose ends that still seem to exist. Good on yer BFC. Good to see customer service levels are still maintained at a high level. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSulo Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Is "imported troops not affected by QB ammo setting" considered a bug worthy of fixing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Hi, Just like to add that I could not be in more agreement with the philosophy of BFC on patches. The reverse slope AT gun problem does look like a bug to me, and yes, potentially a show stopper. However, once that is sorted out, lets move on to the new version of CM. With such a small company as BFC it is neither reasonable, nor practical, to ask for a constant stream of patches. Now, what was that about a Cold War version of CM , Fulda Gap here I come ! All the best, Kip. [ March 10, 2003, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Jarmo, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'd much prefer if the version control stayed well away from my CM...That would be a very bad idea. Any code change we make has the potential to cause a game to be screwed up if the other player isn't using the same version. Would you rather have a one time transition period for whatever game you happen to currently be playing, and have there be no problems. Or would you rather be a couple of turns into a game and find out that you are both seeing different results? That is entirely possible. For example... If we change the armor values of a tank, and that tank gets hit... different results could happen depending on which version is resovling the game. Or a blast effect could be altered and on one turn the round hitting would behave one way, on the next turn a different way. There are endless possibilities like this that requires both versions be the same in order to avoid. Charles was away this weekend so he could not look into this issue. But he was quite surprised to hear about it. This is something that WILL be fixed with 1.03 for sure. Steve </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by kipanderson: Just like to add that I could not be in more agreement with the philosophy of BFC on patches. The reverse slope AT gun problem does look like a bug to me, and yes, potentially a show stopper. However, once that is sorted out, lets move on to the new version of CM. With such a small company as BFC it is neither reasonable, nor practical, to ask for a constant stream of patches.Agreed. It just seems like this thing slipped into the 1.02 and wasn't there before, at least not manifesting itself in such ways. The Operational Art of War (by Norm Koger) had a kind of similar problem: in the last patch the AT rules were changed, and something was screwed and passed the testing, so now tanks were practically invincible against infantry. A patch never came for this. So, obviously a great care needs to be taken to test out the changes so that no new patches are required right after. The less changes in the patch, the less testing is needed = the sooner we get it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 SuperSulo, Is "imported troops not affected by QB ammo setting" considered a bug worthy of fixing? Most likely not, but I will make sure Charles is aware of it and let him decide. Might be that he is already. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by kipanderson: Now, what was that about a Cold War version of CM , Fulda Gap here I come ! All the best, Kip. Blasphemy... How can they move on to WW3 when there are WW2 theaters still to be covered? First we must have the West Front re-done. Then re-do the East Front. Then we can hit the Med. Then, MAYBE, the Cold War. But I would prefer Vietnam. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 working on the superhighinterweb, a lot of my work is change requests like this. but i think everyone here knows the frustration Charles must be feeling having to go back & fix CM when the whole of the BTS team must be baying to do the re-write. so, cheers for fixing the showstopper. forget the new models. i've got hot cash here waiting for CM2 (3, 4 ...). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 when are we going to open threads about the new game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 So that's the end of the updated models? That really sucks as there are A LOT still using incorrect models! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Other Means: so, cheers for fixing the showstopper. forget the new models. i've got hot cash here waiting for CM2 (3, 4 ...). So what you're saying is you'll continue to pay for incomplete games, one after another, always looking forward to the next unfinished product insted of wanting what you already paid for to be finished? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Vader's Jester: So that's the end of the updated models? That really sucks as there are A LOT still using incorrect models! OK Then.... so thanks for all those Positive Waves there Mister Jester Man! They have offered the THIRD FREE patch and all you can say is: "That really sucks as there are a LOT still using incorrect models! " well there you have it I guess you can't please all the people all the time.... -tom w [ March 10, 2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 One minor bug I discovered is when trying to change the facing of a MG pillbox during the setup phase of an operation, I can't do it except by clicking M for move and then changing the direction. It can't be done with the normal command. (Is it O? I play this game every day and I can't even remember!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Vader's Jester: So what you're saying is you'll continue to pay for incomplete games, one after another, always looking forward to the next unfinished product insted of wanting what you already paid for to be finished? :confused: What would you expect from a finished product? For myself, I don't think any game that tries to simulate reality can be complete in the simulation part, but it can be finished as a game. Rather, the core game can be improved by having a simulational bit slanted onto it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.