nevermind Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Come on people,this is the final patch for CMBB.I dont know how many more betas there will be so lets get some feedback going.Where do we stand on the unhitable gun bug?What about the other stuff?I dont have enough time or testing ability to contribute,but i figured i could atleast provide a little *nudge* and *poke* to get yall going again Your playing..err umm..work is much apreciated 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Not to mention, the sooner these things get fixed, the sooner we Scum-Sucking Euro Whiners (SSEW) will stop whining! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 One thing that I have noticed is that when I set up a TCP/IP game, CMBB gives me an incorrect IP address for my opponent to connect into. I just ended up waiting and waiting for him to connect. He even tried connecting to what CMBB gave me while still on the phone with me and it wouldn't connect. I got the correct IP address by connecting here: http://lawrencegoetz.com/programs/ipinfo/ When I supplied what that website gave me, it worked. I won't trust CMBB anymore. (For now.) I will say one thing and that is when I had a dial-up 56K connection the IP address given by CMBB was always correct. This was my first attempt with a TCP/IP game since I got DSL. I just noticed this about a half hour ago. I hope that it helps. [ April 26, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Subject: wrong TCP/IP address. Subsequent tests show that CMBB displays the same IP address as "172.16.1.10" each time I attempt to host a TCP/IP game. This happens even after I've turned off my computer for an hour or two. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Le Tondu, That is NOT a bug. The gsme reports the ip of the ethernet card, not the external ip address. Same thing here with a firewall and my internal network. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Originally posted by rune: Le Tondu, That is NOT a bug. The gsme reports the ip of the ethernet card, not the external ip address. Same thing here with a firewall and my internal network. Rune No problem. Thanks. It was just something that I never encountered before I installed version 1.03c. I just wanted to contribute. That's all. Yet, if that website can find my IP address, is it logical to believe that a future CM would? [ April 26, 2003, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 172.16.1.10 isn't in the internal IP address range though.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenm Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 I started a thread on this tonight, might of screwed up because this is probably an obvious problem (bug). Using 1.03c, playing the CD version of "21st Army Counterattacks operation" as Allies per the creators recommendation. Over 4 battles I kick the computers ass but get a Minor Defeat result. Here's the results--tell me if this is a minor defeat-- Results reported just like the AAR Axis/Allies Men Ok 9/326 (yes he only had 9 men on the board) Total Casualities 362/253 Men Killed 183/125 Mortars Destroyed 6/0 Guns Destroyed 5/0 Vehicles Destroyed 2/5 All other parameters were 0/0. Spoiler--AI had a ton af air force, maybe this went incorrectly into the calcs. Minor defeat NOT! Major Vic YES! Is there a bug in the victory calc in 1.03c? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike8g Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Another (small) issue: The 75mm Inf Gun 1937, which is available from Oct 1944 onwards, is displayed in grey colors. Looks like to be a pointer mismatch as there are yellow textures present. Grey textures start with BMPs 4440 Yellow textures start with BMPs 104440 As the gun shares some textures with the 150mm Inf Gun there is no simple workaround with copying the yellow textures over the grey ones. Marcus [ April 27, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: mike8g ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OBJ Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Madmatt- Dismount BUG in 103c? I had a plt of Pz 38 (t)s each carrying a 50mm Mort team moving fast over steppe terrain. I ordered all tanks to pause 10 seconds and the Mort teams to dismount right along side the tanks then move to separate positions. Next turn the Mort tms dismount immediately and move off to their new positions after 19-20 seconds. The tanks however, remain paused for the entire turn? Should any transported unit dismount immediately? Because they're Mort, I can't see the command delay, only the set up time shows. Why would the tanks sit idle for the turn? I tried eliminating the pause. The tanks sit without moving for 50-52 seconds? I tried eliminating the existing orders for the tanks and issuing new orders, without a pause. The tanks sit without moving for 50-52 seconds? Is this a BUG? HQs, MGs, 81mm Mort, Arty spotters all seem to dismount immediately from HTs, trucks, and kubelwagon at the vehicle end points (red square at the end point). The HQs, MGs, 81mm Mort, Arty spotters all also seem to move almost immediately even though all their waypoints are in white? This dismounting behavior seemed to be the same whether the HT, truck or Kubelwagon had or did not have other movement orders beyond the last current order (way point marker in red). The immediate dismount makes sense, but I’d have expected some ‘command pause’ given the dismounting units way points were still all shown in white? Also in the same game I saw suppressed infantry sneaking directly toward the nearest cover, which was also directly toward the enemy, which had several squads spotted in the cover the friendly suppressed units were sneaking toward. This quite naturally resulted in the friendly infantry being eliminated. I know infantry retreating toward the enemy was a problem before, perhaps it still is when the nearest cover is toward the enemy. The weather was thick fog with visibility limited to 83m. I'd have thought the natural instinct would be to retreat away from the enemy back into the fog? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Borisovka Station IF you have not yet played this scenario vs AI as the Russians you should try it use the LATEST v1.03c patch there are AT guns behind the the crest of a ridge they are hard to hit BUT not impossible if anyone thinks "the unhittable AT gun behind the crest of the ridge" bug is still an issue you should try this scenario as the Russians. I have played this one a few times now ( I got decimated the first time!) and I feel VERY good about the way AT guns behind the ridge are handled. I think this is a good example of how v1.03c completely fixes this old bug!!! I have been play testing (playing) v1.03c since it came and it feels and looks VERY good to me at this point! MANY thanks to Charles for the dedication and persistance in dealing with the unhittable AT gun bug. I think it is good and FIXED now IMHO. Anyone else out there play testing Borisovka Station as the Allies? Thanks Again!! -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenm Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 So have the victory/defeat calucations changed in v1.03c or not? How could anybody get a minor defeat when the AI has 9 soldiers on the board and the player has 200+? There were no visible flags on the board. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 kenm, this looks like an operations-specific bug. There is probably something wrong with operations with no flags. I think the general audience here has no great expectations about CM operations being too prone to be bug-free. There are a number of issues which makes them hard to use for competitive play. I think it's more of a nice extra but only for "fun". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Originally posted by Madmatt: I would still like to see some example files (from 1.03c) of a unit panicing and heading TOWARD the enemy. Just be sure that there are not any enemy units BEHIND the panicing tank as you, as the player, can not always tell what and where a enemy unit is located which is panicing the unit. I have it front of me right now. Unfortunately it is a hotseat game I didn't save and the force owning the unit will autosurrender when I press "done". Here is a description: - T-34/76 is near own map end - races towards 8 fully spotted tigers - no enemy units in game besides these spotted tigers - the T-34 is not panic'ed, the unit box doesn't say anything about its morale - global morale is at 2% (as I said, this force will autosurrender now) - I see the hull MG firing at some of the Tigers, but no red target line and no main gun shot Screenshot at beginning of turn: http://65.96.131.208/tmp/towards-enemy1.jpg Screenshot 25 seconds later (unit gets knocked out): http://65.96.131.208/tmp/towards-enemy2.jpg The T-34 had no player orders and moved towards the enemy on its own. Anything I can do? The game is still open and I can watch the movie and can take screenshots. This is 1.03c. [ April 27, 2003, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Originally posted by GJK: 172.16.1.10 isn't in the internal IP address range though.... Yes, it is. 172.16.*.* is an internal range. WWB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Originally posted by kenm: I started a thread on this tonight, might of screwed up because this is probably an obvious problem (bug). Using 1.03c, playing the CD version of "21st Army Counterattacks operation" as Allies per the creators recommendation. Over 4 battles I kick the computers ass but get a Minor Defeat result. Here's the results--tell me if this is a minor defeat-- Results reported just like the AAR Axis/Allies Men Ok 9/326 (yes he only had 9 men on the board) Total Casualities 362/253 Men Killed 183/125 Mortars Destroyed 6/0 Guns Destroyed 5/0 Vehicles Destroyed 2/5 All other parameters were 0/0. Spoiler--AI had a ton af air force, maybe this went incorrectly into the calcs. Minor defeat NOT! Major Vic YES! Is there a bug in the victory calc in 1.03c? The way operation victory is calculated final outcome is very tied to the conditions the author set and less so to the casualty count. That one had some victory condition issues that deeply effect the named outcome. But, with ops, you can not lose a man, yet not make your objective and you will take a major defeat. One thing that is true no matter what kind of CM game you play is that only dead units are counted in the casualties. Survivors do not matter in the scoring, save not being dead. So, it is not a bug. WWB [ April 27, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: wwb_99 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Originally posted by wwb_99: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GJK: 172.16.1.10 isn't in the internal IP address range though.... Yes, it is. 172.16.*.* is an internal range. WWB </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Olesen Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 I found some unexplained differences btw. the editor unit costs and the QB generator costs. Take a look in this thread. This is probably not restricted to 1.03c, but it would be nice to know if it is a bug or a feature, and - if it is a feature - why. And if it is a bug, will it be corrected? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 Do not take yout T-34s into the Borisovka Station, comrades. Aka_tom_w is a german spy, you will be driving your tanks into a cauldron. :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 I don't know if this has been noticed before but on the odd occasion a platoon of tanks shows up, but the HQ is called, Individual Platoon HQ 1 etc. Here are picts to show what I mean. I have the game file saved if needed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 I believe the term "Ind" stands for "Independant" and not "Individual". Doesn't look like anything approaching a "bug" to me. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 Panzerman, what interface MOD is that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 Vanir ausf B, that's "Pakfan's interface mod", and you can get it at the data base. I use it to, cool mod. And I played the "Borisovka Station" battle agian, and I agree with aka_tom_w, looks like the AT bug is fixed. I mean crap, what do people want?? a instant hit everytime your Pz fires at a AT gun?? I think BFC has got it down to a balance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mchlstrt Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 This isn't a Bug but I thought I'd throw the idea out there. maybe for CMAK. For units that share the same Model having one or two individual .BMPs for each individual unit would allow Markings so that we could tell them apart ingame without having to click on them. For example, i'm working on the T-26 line & the m39 is also the T-26E & the OT 133. Having seperate Turret Side or Top .BMPs for each would allow some at least semi-historical Markings for each unit. a seperate Gun Barrel .BMP for the OT would also allow 'cutting it off' to make it look more like an actual Flamethrower. I tried this on my Mod & it looks good, but you can't really do this right now, practically speaking. This could give a lot of Playability & Eyecandy return for a smaller investment than putting in Models & Graphics for each Unit, though I'm no Programmer so that part's a guess. Just food for thought. strt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 Originally posted by tracer: Vanir ausf B, that's "Pakfan's interface mod", and you can get it at the data base. I use it to, cool mod. And I played the "Borisovka Station" battle agian, and I agree with aka_tom_w, looks like the AT bug is fixed. I mean crap, what do people want?? a instant hit everytime your Pz fires at a AT gun?? I think BFC has got it down to a balance. I have no idea if it is realistic? :confused: I don't know how hard AT guns were to spot and then hit? (in Real Life) :confused: BUT now in the game in v1.03c, I would say this aspect of the game is "well balanced" and certainly playable as it is no longer impossible to hit AT guns behind a ridge. Just on the "feel" of "Borisovka Station" scenario alone I think the AT gun Bug has been completely dealt with and that aspect of the game works fine now. In fact in playing v1.03c lately (a lot) I would go so far as to say ALL aspects of the game work fine now. IMHO -tom w 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.