Redwolf Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: is anyone else still activily testing the latest v1.03b verison of the public beta patch release? I will make that savegame for Madmatt about the new TacAI-rewrites-path-on-fast-turns and/or dig out the old threads with savegames on Sunday. However, I am surprised this needs a savegame. Charles must have put that deliberately in betwen CMBO and CMBB and should know right away when you remind him. Reminder: I don't claim this is a bug, I think it's a misfeature and would prefer to have it removed (always follow player path, don't rewrite on high-speed turns). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbb Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: lunch here? The battlefield.ru site has several memories from russian gunners and all of them indicate that the gun is pretty much immediately spotted when it begins firing. The textbook I have (espacially those of Kursk) are along the same lines. CMBB felt better than CMBO for me in that regard.[/QB]Hmmm, I have trouble squaring the above with the comments of Wittmann (and others) who considered knocking out an ATG as being equivalent to knocking out two AFVs (because, in his view, ATGs were a deadlier opponent due to their difficulty to spot)... I have thought in the past that ATGs were too easy to spot in CMBB. But I haven't played v1.03b enough to see if this is still a problem. CBB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by cbb: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf: lunch here? The battlefield.ru site has several memories from russian gunners and all of them indicate that the gun is pretty much immediately spotted when it begins firing. The textbook I have (espacially those of Kursk) are along the same lines. CMBB felt better than CMBO for me in that regard.Hmmm, I have trouble squaring the above with the comments of Wittmann (and others) who considered knocking out an ATG as being equivalent to knocking out two AFVs (because, in his view, ATGs were a deadlier opponent due to their difficulty to spot)... [/qb]</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeW Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 In regards to way points, I ran a little test to compare CMBO with CMBB 1.03b. I set a string of 10 road blocks end to end. Then I set 3 axis tanks 40 meters out from them. I gave one tank a fast move order with one way point set on the other side of the road blocks. Now the AI had to take over and get the tank to that way point. CMBO: The tank moves to the road block turns and follows the line of road blocks to the end and then makes the corner and goes to the final way point. Took 2 minutes. All three did the same smooth move. CMBB 1.03b: The tank moves forward then reverses several times. At the end of the turn you can see that it has only set one additional way point and it is still blocked to the final way point. So it goes through this forward back routine over and over again. It keeps setting only one waypoint other than the end one. If this one way point that it sets isn't far enough to get around the end then it just keeps repeating the above until it finally gets it set far enough to get around. This can take 10 or more minutes. This must be what happens when you try to get through tight places. The AI just can't make fine enough adjustments to make a smooth movement around obtacles, thus it makes a large reverse and tries again with the same results. The CMBO AI handled the movements far more gracefully in this aspect. lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Now THAT's an elegant little test! Nice work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted April 12, 2003 Author Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w: is anyone else still activily testing the latest v1.03b verison of the public beta patch release? I will make that savegame for Madmatt about the new TacAI-rewrites-path-on-fast-turns and/or dig out the old threads with savegames on Sunday. However, I am surprised this needs a savegame. Charles must have put that deliberately in betwen CMBO and CMBB and should know right away when you remind him. Reminder: I don't claim this is a bug, I think it's a misfeature and would prefer to have it removed (always follow player path, don't rewrite on high-speed turns). </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Just a very minor issue... Why in CMBB the KV-1 is named KV-I? The Soviets didn't use Roman numerals for heavy tanks, thus CMBB shows, correctly, KV-2, IS-1, IS-2, etc. The only tank that follows the erroneous convention is the KV-1. Strange. A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeW Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 A couple minor items. The 20mm Flak, 37mm Flak and 37mm AT gun all use the same picture on the Unit info panel. I put a sniper in a heavy building. When the LOS tool would sight through a distant building and LOS was lost, instead of the black showing up at the point of lost sight, it would come back to the wall of the heavy building the sniper is in. This is a little miss leading. Another case with the sniper in the second story of a factory. He was just a little to far in. Now the LOS tool when it showed "sight lost" would only come back and turn black above the tracks or a wall which I was sighting over. (I could get LOS to the tracks and behind the wall, it was lost further beyond them) It should have come back to the factory wall instead so that I would know to move the sniper a little closer to the outside wall. lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Rexford has posted some new(?) penetration numbers for the Soviet 122mm gun here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biltong Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Steve, Charles, Matt et all – Thanx for being accommodating with the SE/QB ammo setting issue. All the BCR players will be pleased. I know it could not have been high on your priorities list, but as always you delivered. A company that listens, cares and responds – Great way for keeping customers – You are doing good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlg85 Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Ive seen some tanks panic for no particular reason. I had a buttoned panzer III that was firing at an mg pillbox that wasnt even firing at it. It eventually panicked and ran away even though nothing was firing at it. I know for a fact I had destroyed all of the enemy AT assets , so there werent any hidden ones. I saw someone say this way back and the thread and ive noticed it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legio Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Think the number of gun hits and bogging is still far too high. In these short battles (20 -40 mins) I would expect very few breakdowns or boggings. Number of gun hits seem far too high as well. I think they increase with the more inexperienced the crews? Should be a function of hit probability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 The standard reply is that 'gun hit' encompasses anything including damage to the optics that would put the gun out of action. 'Bogging' includes anything that could mess with the operation of the running gear while traveling acrosss rough country, not just getting stuck in the mud. These all-inclusive definitions take a small bit of the sting out of all the bogging and gun hits that occur. Though I also 'feel' that gun hits are too high I don't know how the game models what part of the tanks gets hit when. [ April 14, 2003, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbb Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: The standard reply is that 'gun hit' encompasses anything including damage to the optics that would put the gun out of action. 'Bogging' includes anything that could mess with the operation of the running gear while traveling acrosss rough country, not just getting stuck in the mud. These all-inclusive definitions take a small bit of the sting out of all the bogging and gun hits that occur. Though I also 'feel' that gun hits are too high I don't know how the game models what part of the tanks gets hit when. Perhaps more testing will cause me to change my mind, but for now I believe "gun hits" and bogging are just about right. CBB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bab Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Still no fix for Hungarian names... I could correct these if you don't have the people for it. Like "Kovács" instead of "Kovacs", etc. The game DOES have the proper letters, so it's just a simple spell-check. Thanks in the name of Hungarian CMBB fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonwagon Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Patch seems to work for atg's to hit , it took my mark IIIL nine rounds to ko a 45mm atg at about 600m. Atg scouring at least five hits on me in a IP game. Some rounds did go long also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joques Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Originally posted by Madmatt: No need, Charles has already fixed it and it will be in place once 1.03 is released in its *final* form. Madmatt I am constantly amazed at the level of commitment we see from the BFC team. In this respect, BFC and Maddox Games are two veeery unique games developers. Matt, if you can extract some DNA from the Floating Brain and find a viable surrogate mother, I want to have his love child! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Originally posted by Amedeo: Just a very minor issue... Why in CMBB the KV-1 is named KV-I? The Soviets didn't use Roman numerals for heavy tanks, thus CMBB shows, correctly, KV-2, IS-1, IS-2, etc. The only tank that follows the erroneous convention is the KV-1. Strange. A. That was put in because BTS had a running bet on how long it would take, for one of you to spot it ..... Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: The battlefield.ru site has several memories from russian gunners and all of them indicate that the gun is pretty much immediately spotted when it begins firing. The textbook I have (espacially those of Kursk) are along the same lines. CMBB felt better than CMBO for me in that regard.The German crews went to great lengths to conceal their fireing positions by useing camoflage etc. Look at the height of an PAK 40, or PAK 50, add in smokeless powder & crew steps to prevent muzzle blast kick up of debris etc, and you have one well concealed, hard to spot weapon. Especialy in a buttoned up Soviet tank. Both sides considered PAK kills an achievement in its self. Regards, John Waters [ April 15, 2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Amedeo: Just a very minor issue... Why in CMBB the KV-1 is named KV-I? The Soviets didn't use Roman numerals for heavy tanks, thus CMBB shows, correctly, KV-2, IS-1, IS-2, etc. The only tank that follows the erroneous convention is the KV-1. Strange. A. That was put in because BTS had a running bet on how long it would take, for one of you to spot it ..... Regards, John Waters </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeW Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 An interesting limitation on the AI's ability to plot around obstacles. All versions. Set up the 10 road blocks end for end. Except this time I put two wooden MG bunkers in the center of this line in place of a road block. (I discovered in BO you had to use original size or there would be a gap shift-C) I also put one wooden MG bunker on each end of the road blocks. I ran the test with all the units belonging to the axis. Now give the vehicle a fast move waypoint (just one)to the other side of the road blocks and the AI will plot a course to get there. Now there are several variants from this point. If the waypoint is closer to the middle but passes over a road block, the AI will plot to the wooden MG bunkers in the middle of the line. The AI sees the wooden MG bunker as a different terrain type than the road block, but doen't test to see if it is a passable terrain type. So it plots to the bunker. It gets there and discovers that the wooden MG bunker is non-passable, so it plots to the right or the left of the wooden MG bunker to find a different terrain type. You guessed it, it finds a road block so it plots through the road block because it is different, but doesn't check to see it is passable. Now you have what is called a endless loop in programming jargon. The vehicle is stuck here and will finally cancel all orders. (Of course you would have player intervention at some point because this is obvious. There are other times when what is happening isn't so obvious and the AI just keeps messing your move up and you can't figure out why.) What happens if your waypoint is closer to the end of the line of road blocks? Well the AI will plot around the road blocks but will try to go through the MG bunker. When it gets to the bunker it will stop and do another replot and usually will continue in the same direction, thus getting around the end of the MG bunker. If for some reason it gets disrupted in its direction of movement (crowding by another vehicle) it could just as easily try plotting through the road block again. Which would lead to a replot through the MG bunker again and then on around the end. This takes a lot of time. (Again the player could see this and change it. The point being the AI's limition which in a not so obvious situation can lead to some real frustration. Probably as much frustration as trying to figure out what I'm saying. lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbertles Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Okay, this has happened twice to me using 1.03b2, and never in 1.02 and earlier. Playing a QB against the computer, I save the game by altering the type of battle listed as the save game default (ie, "Meeting Engagement" to "Meeting Engage" which is the standard file name that I use for a game in progress). The "File exists. Overwrite?" window pops up. I click "Yes" (or whatever) and the Combat Mission menu bar interface stays up, but the view window turns black and the game crashes. The supposedly overwritten file is not saved, although the Autosave is intact. The funny thing is that it only seems to do it now and then, and not consistently. I'll try to find a pattern. I'm running a Mac 1gig dual chip tower with OS9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 I have had this happen a couple of times in 1.02 as well. Not often, only about once in a hundred saves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Originally posted by LeeW: Now there are several variants from this point. If the waypoint is closer to the middle but passes over a road block, the AI will plot to the wooden MG bunkers in the middle of the line. The AI sees the wooden MG bunker as a different terrain type than the road block, but doen't test to see if it is a passable terrain type.The bunker is a vehicle for the CM engine. When the TacAI rewrite the path it does not consider vehicles to be inpassable, because either they will have moved away by the time you arrive or else the normal traffic jam resolvement kicks in. Of course, in the case of the bunker it will have never moved away and it will not contribute to the traffic jam disentanglment so your vehicle will always be maximally screwed when it arrives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Madmatt, I forgot about this item, please let us know whether you consider it: Some time ago we asked for a captured Gun tractor SdKfz 7. The rationale behind it was that it would give the Soviets a way to move their big towed guns. Right now they cannot move them at all. That is a problem for some kinds of scenario and also human-driven campaigns. Giving the gun tractor to the Soviets would allow BFC to solve that problem with a minimum of coding. At the time a BFC employee agreed that it might be a good idea and he will ask Charles about it (forgot who it was, Martin maybe?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts