aka_tom_w Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by Madmatt: Actually we have something in store in 1.03 which should help out this situation. More details once the final patch is released. Madmatt that sounds good thanks are we talking about days, weeks or Months, for the expected release (when its DONE ) of the final 1.03 patch? just curious you know :confused: -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted May 1, 2003 Author Share Posted May 1, 2003 When its done. Here is another bone for ya, that pesky issue of correcting out of LOS arty and having it still hit the same spot...It's fixed. Madmatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlatCmdr Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by Madmatt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PlattCmdr: Good comments guys and glad I'm not alone on this. I've had PBEM after PBEM where I move a group of tanks atop a nice overlook position which turns out to be sniper rich. My dominant overlook turns out instead to be a shooting gallery for well hidden sharpshooters, sniping one tank commander after another, only because the AI deems this to be an inappropriate threat and unbuttons the hatch? Well, with no response from BFC, it doesn't seem likely this will be corrected in 1.03, but hopefully is something that will be addressed for CMAK. Actually we have something in store in 1.03 which should help out this situation. More details once the final patch is released. Madmatt </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeW Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Target lock. I had two reg inf squads, out of command, watching four enemy squads retreating. I targeted the lead enemy squad since he was in the open at 66% exposure. 81m for one of my squads and 114m, 56% exposure for the other. My two squads have line of sight on all four squads. My thought was to get a good lick on the lead guy, then when he ran into the creak bottom and broke line of sight my guys would pick up one of the other enemy squads in the open and hammer on them. When they lost line of sight on the first enemy squad and another ran across the opening they did not target him. When the first enemy squad came out of the creek bed on the other side and came into line of sight again they immediately targeted him. This was in 1.02. I was able to produce something simular, but not exact in 1.03c. Has anyone else noticed this behavior? This maybe normal for a squad which has been manually targeted, but does seem a little strange. The lock is a little tight when they wait on the chance that the target will reappear ignoring visible shots at closer range. Of course with EFOW and out of C&C they might not be having LOS long enough on the new targets to break the lock. I don't know. It just felt a little odd. lee I notice there has been no response on the TCP to Pbem change over problem where one player loses his order phase. Does anybody know the proper way to do this without the penalty? I played Borisovka Station and the duel with one of the AT ended with it finally getting knocked out. It took several shots but felt realistic. Good work on the tweaks and thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Excellent! The 'TC unbuttons and gets capped' issue has been bugging me for a long while. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeW Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Target Lock. On the subject of targeting your inf manually and they hold that target and don't fire at other targets, even when the unit goes out of LOS or beyoud 500m range. I tested this in 1.03c patch and this seems to be a problem to me. See above post for details. I did move the commander into C&C of one of the units but didn't make any difference. I didn't target the commander manually and he would fire at targets of opportunity. lee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankist Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Originally posted by LeeW: Target Lock. On the subject of targeting your inf manually and they hold that target and don't fire at other targets, even when the unit goes out of LOS or beyoud 500m range. I tested this in 1.03c patch and this seems to be a problem to me. See above post for details. I did move the commander into C&C of one of the units but didn't make any difference. I didn't target the commander manually and he would fire at targets of opportunity. lee In CMBB, infantry in general is more hesitant to fire/engage new targets, than in CMBO; I guess that this is a design decision, not a bug. Some guys say, that using a covered arc would make infantry fire earlier/more often, but Steve said, that covered arcs are only a way to RESTRICT fire, not the other way round. I too saw veteran MGs not firing at enemies 100 m away for a whole minute; maybe there is already some kind of relative spotting implemented... Tankist 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saukopf Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Hello, Im using the 1.03c patch and noticed a problem with the scoring. I let the computer generate a quick battle *allied attack* and I play as the german defender. I deploy strong forces around whatever flags the computer generates and go to the 1st turns order phase. I look down to see my score and expect to see 100 percent. But I dont get 100 percent. The deficit varies from game to game. Ive seen my starting score as high as 98% percent and as low as 83%. These are the exact settings im using that will always give me the odd scoring anomaly. Quick-Battle , July, 1941, Central, (Force Mix) Axis Infantry Only-----Allies Combined arms (Nationality) Axis German -----Allies Soviet (division type) Axis Infantry -----Allies Infantry (quality) Axis Medium -----Allies Random (purchase units)Axis Automatically Allies Automatically (fitness) Axis fit Allies fit (casualties) Axis none Allies none (ammunition) Axis full Allies full (sewer movment) Axis no Allies no (Battle Type) Allied Attack (force size) 500 points (mapsize) medium (handicap) none (rarity) standard (time) mid-day (tempeature) warm (weather) clear,still (game length) 50 fixed (map type) village (tree coverage) moderate (hilliness) modest hills (damage) none (choose side) Axis (fog of war) extreme (comp exp bonus) normal none Using these settings I will always get a weird starting score below 100 percent I did a little experimenting, I made just one change to the settings above by playing as the russians instead of germans. As expected my 1st turn score was 0. In another experiment I made just one change , making it an *allied probe* I got the expected 100 points as germans So whatever the problem is, it only seems to occur in an *Allied attack* and only when the Ai plays as the russians and the Human plays as germans. Can anyone duplicate the same thing? , or is it just me and some weird system problem on my end. I believe I noticed this same problem in a patch previous to 1.03c but it didnt appear consitently so I shrugged it off but now I can make it happen easily using the settings above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visom Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Am I too late, is the party over? Otherwise, I think there's a problem with the autoceasefire feature. If I start a QB where both sides have 20% ammo the game always ends after the first movie, no matter if any shots have been fired or not. Is this corrected in the final 1.03 version? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 You may have hit on something so far outside of normal parameters nobody's happened across it yet. How often do people purposefully play 20% ammo levels! You got me curious. I'll try this at home, myself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visom Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 In addition to the 20% vs 20% problem there are two other scenarios that can be a bit annoying. In a meeting where one player has 20% he has to rush the flags immediateöy. Otherwise the opponent can hit ceasefire when he has most of the flags and thereby end the game. And of course, the attacker is in a really bad situation if the autoceasefire is active from the start. Defender can choose to ceasefire at any turn he wishes. And as the defender has all the flags from the start that will be a sure win unless he ceasefire after he's lost the flags... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by Visom: In addition to the 20% vs 20% problem there are two other scenarios that can be a bit annoying. In a meeting where one player has 20% he has to rush the flags immediateöy. Otherwise the opponent can hit ceasefire when he has most of the flags and thereby end the game. And of course, the attacker is in a really bad situation if the autoceasefire is active from the start. Defender can choose to ceasefire at any turn he wishes. And as the defender has all the flags from the start that will be a sure win unless he ceasefire after he's lost the flags... that sounds like a problem to me I thought both players had to agree to a ceasefire request :confused: ? is there something new now where one player can make the ceasefire happen without the other's consent? just curious? -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by Visom: Otherwise, I think there's a problem with the autoceasefire feature. The main problem with the autoceasefire "feature" is that it exists at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: .... is there something new now where one player can make the ceasefire happen without the other's consent? just curious? -tom w [/QB]No it's not new. Check the manual. A cease fire can be imposed depending on ammo levels and the type of sceanrio being played. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Hmm.. does the fact that this thread had been 'unstickied' signify something? This is as much fun as Kremlinology... Or predicting when the verb 'to unsticky' makes it into the OED. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 One more little issue--in CMBB using EFOW, KTs are perhaps unrealistically hard to spot. They general show up as generic "Tiger" tanks (no "?"), even with Allied units w/in 10m of them. This seems a bit unrealistic, especially since KT's don't look all that much like Tigers--they're a lot bigger, with a much longer gun, and they have slope sided rather than flat turret armor. Maybe from a distance they might look alike, but not from up close, and it seems odd that KT's can now survive a 30-50 move game with lots of close combat without being correctly identified. A related issue is that PzIV's are often misidentified as generic Tigers. I admit that PzIV's DO look a lot like Tigers (moreso than KT's IMHO) but to have PzIVs, Tigers and KTs all blurring together seems a bit unrealistic. The PzIV/Tiger confusion seems to clarify at an appropriate point. The Tiger/KT confusion seems to continue a bit too long, to the point where units right on top of them can't tell 'em apart. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Haven't used 1.03 patch, but this was in 1.02: Enemy has captured some infantry units of yours and is approaching your infantry through woods. First your units don't have any contact with enemy. Then during the movie 'Infantry sounds?' unit appears. When you select this unit, it shows 'captured'. Also shows fields 'rested', 'fit' and 'ok'. I don't know if all the shown data can be known before visual contact, but I'd assume at least this captured is not supposed to be shown? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Originally posted by CombinedArms: One more little issue--in CMBB using EFOW, KTs are perhaps unrealistically hard to spot. They general show up as generic "Tiger" tanks (no "?"), even with Allied units w/in 10m of them. This seems a bit unrealistic, especially since KT's don't look all that much like Tigers--they're a lot bigger, with a much longer gun, and they have slope sided rather than flat turret armor. Maybe from a distance they might look alike, but not from up close, and it seems odd that KT's can now survive a 30-50 move game with lots of close combat without being correctly identified. I completely agree with you on this Combined Arms. I assume you noticed the problem when playing the ROW III game of King of Debrecen? It reached the point of the ridiculous where you just knew those German tanks would be King Tigers but the game kept insisting they were simply plain vanilla Tigers. No matter how many units (including numerous MG's and HQ's all with binnoculars) could see the damn tanks in plain sight and sometimes under 100 metres distance they never ever identified them properly. Sounds like a small bug to me. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 " No matter how many units (including numerous MG's and HQ's all with binnoculars) could see the damn tanks in plain sight and sometimes under 100 metres distance they never ever identified them properly. Sounds like a small bug to me." Doesn't sound like a bug (in the tradition sense) to me. I would say Charles intends the spotting behavoiur to act the way it does. NOW I would agree that perhaps that is a problem, but I would not call it a bug. (maybe a design oversight?) aside from splitting hairs here (sorry) I think that yes the KTs are unrealistically hard to identify and if they are to be confused with any other tank, they should ONLY be mis-identified as Panthers as those to tanks share similiar looks. The KT should never be misidentified as a Tiger, I think that is IMHO incorrect and not too likely. But I would guess they could be mistaken for Panthers? BUT yes I would hope it would be fixed in the next patch GOOD point! -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: BUT yes I would hope it would be fixed in the next patch GOOD point! -tom w Since this is the last patch, it's our last chance to fix things. And, as KR indicates, even in scenarios where the briefing flat out tells the Russians they're facing KTs, no amount of spotting will seem them as anything but Tigers. Actually the full FOW spotting of KTs seems to me pretty reasonable (I'm playing a KT intensive PBEM right now and suggested we play in full FOW for that reason). If Charles just reverted to that for EFOW, it would be a simple solution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three_Oh_Eight Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by CombinedArms: Ahhhh. Well, it's too late for the dozen T34s, 76 ATs, and 45 ATs that popped out to 'mad minute' those "Tigers" at then. I feel lucky to have knocked out the two I did! I thought that once the lead was within 80 or so meters and ID'd as a "Tiger" that that's what it was, and that the briefing was inaccurate. Live and learn... well, make that die and learn. :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 this is the thread for the OLD public beta 1.03c patch -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subvet Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Originally posted by LeeW: I notice there has been no response on the TCP to Pbem change over problem where one player loses his order phase. Does anybody know the proper way to do this without the penalty?This is a big one for me. Has a fix been put in for this in 1.03? If it isn't being fixed is there a proper way to switch over so that one player doesn't lose a turn? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Thanks for digging this up for others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 As for what was said in regards to the spotting ability of units in EFOW. I totally agree, thats why i don't play with EFOW anymore. It seems a little too unrealistic for me. FFOW is just right IMHO. 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.