OFFICIAL PATCH REQUESTS AND BUG THREAD V1.01

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by Konstantine:

Ok, sorry guys, but since I'm assuming BF reads this I'm going to put in my 2 cents.

No more patches, please.

The remaining issues seem to be pretty basic stuff, OOB issues can be overlooked or ignored. There's no major issues left to address IMO.

Not to insult the hard work you guys have done in compiling the above data (or BF in making the patches), but I have bought all three games and I hate, hate, hate!! upgrading to new versions.

I play a lot of pbems and it is a major source of consternation since I have to put some opponents on hold b/c others jump the gun, then switch between versions, create subfolders etc. etc.; you know the drill.

Just my two cents, but that's only because I've gladly paid full price for all three games so I feel like I can state my opinion with a clear conscience.

Flame away.

If you can manage to post here properly, (unlike me) then you can get a patch to work and update games!

Some advice before you apply the next patch - copy your Exe to another folder. If you have a problem player who didn't update - then your copy the patched.exe to another folder, revert to the old one - patch it for him and the copy the new exe back.

Ok, Michael will (probably) not be able to understand that - but some of you will

OObs are important for email games - otherwise why can't we have Tigers from the begining of the war.

Some advice for Konstantine next opponent - play in the Desert with loads of Stuarts! That will teach him!

[ February 25, 2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[Pugilist]

Thanks for the advice, Mark, but what you described is exactly what my tragically lazy a** hates doing.

You're right in suggesting it's not such a big deal. Plus, as Redwolf pointed out it isn't just OOB problems as I said. If they do patch it again I just hope they announce that it's the last one.

[Wicky]

Armoured tarpaulin ?

[ February 25, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Wicky ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Wicky, isn't that a metal basket for carrying the tarp in?

I think maybe I will take another look at the first list we compiled, and assemble the changes that have been made in 1.01 to those identified problems. I will post it in the Spanish Mod thread that has been stickied on page one. There have only been 11 replies there and I don't see them using that thread for much else.

[Wicky]

Don't think so Michael as those rivets on the original are from the top of the access/escape hatch. Plus there is some polygon modelling protruding from the hull that suggests that it was intended to be a roll.

'1.02 bmp patch' is at CMMODS

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Wicky, isn't that a metal basket for carrying the tarp in?

I think maybe I will take another look at the first list we compiled, and assemble the changes that have been made in 1.01 to those identified problems. I will post it in the Spanish Mod thread that has been stickied on page one. There have only been 11 replies there and I don't see them using that thread for much else.

[Kingfish]

I haven't read the entire thread to see if this has been brought up before, so if it has then disregard

I have a scenario with 2 reinforcement markers deployed along one edge of the map. I then edit the map, scaling it down a few notches. I expected the markers to move with the new edge, as do the units, but they don't. Instead, the markers disappear completely, even though the unit purchase screen still shows the selected units and what turn they are to arrive.

I then deleted the units and repurchased them, hoping that this would trigger 2 new markers. Nope. I then scaled the map back up to its original size and beyond to see if the markers would reappear. No luck.

Finally, I purchased a unit in slot #3, and a marker appeared on the map.

So, designers beware. Unless I am missing something, it would appear that you lose reinforcment slots if you scale down a map and it takes the marker with it.

[dangerousdave]

I'm going to guess this may have been requested before, but how about the ability to choose what folder you want to save your PBEM files into?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dangerousdave:

I'm going to guess this may have been requested before, but how about the ability to choose what folder you want to save your PBEM files into?

Can't those defaults be set in Windows somehow (if you're not on a Mac, of course)?

[Moon]

Originally posted by redwolf:

That's my impression, too.

Of the gameplay problems reported for 1.00 they only fixed one in 1.01 (the AT weapon from bulding fire suppression was reversed). The discussion about the artillery pricing was very anticlimatic with Madmatt in the same posting claiming BFC listens to us and in the next paragraph showing he didn't read anything what was posted about the issue and why it was important (not surprisingly he came up with the impression it is not important, duh).

Needless to say, but now so much time has passed and the forum is so hard to search that I couldn't come up with my own bug reports quickly.

Which I am sure will lead to BFC claiming that there will be no more patches because all the forum members are happy (because the first page of the forum is not full of reports anymore - which is caused by people giving up on reporting the same thing all over again each week).

I wonder what the beta-testers do at this time?

(answer copied over from General Forum)

Redwolf - I am getting quite tired of your constant jabs at us recently. They are unfounded, if a company has ever shown to care and support products that it has been us often enough in the past, and I am not sure what gives you reason to believe that this is going to change in the future.

Not that there is any need to justify anything, and frankly your unfriendly jabs don't even deserve a decent answer in my view, but let me tell you that all of us at BFC are very busy at work on future projects, from the new CM engine to a number of other yet unannounced things.

CMBB has indeed been "closed". We have to do that at some point, and no matter how much support we give and for how long, there will always be some unresolved issues. Of course everybody thinks that his petpeeve is much more important than others and that the game is downright broken without just one extra patch, and that again is normal. If you feel you have not received enough for your money from CMBB, feel free to say so, you're entitled to your opinion. It won't change anything about our patch policy, however, and I am sure that you understand the reasons for it.

Now CMAK is still open and still supported, and I would be surprised if there won't be at least a 1.02 at some point. We do read the bug reports, and we do update our database of stuff-to-do. But you will excuse us that we don't scramble to release a new patch version everytime you post. Especially not now after CMAK is the third in the series and as such the most polished game - despite a number of remaining and more or less important issues, but again, such issues will always remain and I am quite sure that in a few years from now we'll still be getting patch requests, as we sometimes do for CMBO even.

(additional remarks:)

To all who posted bugs here - thanks a lot *again*, we really appreciate this. No matter how hard you try to squish bugs, there are always unresolved issues, especially in a simulation as complex as CM where it's not just a simple tweak to an armor penetration chart entry or somesuch to fix stuff. So thanks again for the dedication, and rest assured that it's not in vain as we won't drop CMAK support anytime soon, and in fact are working currently on a number of *supporting* projects. I'd tell you what, but since Redwolf is listening and he claims to be able to predict the future (what we think and what we will do), I don't want to make him look bad.

Martin

[junk2drive]

Thanks for the reply. I think that's all some of us wanted.

[Le Tondu]

Nothing left to fix?

Pardon me but, what about the reported issue of Infantry HQs commanding tanks? It has been around since CMBB and that is something pretty important. Isn't it?

[Moon]

Le Tondu - Who said that there is nothing left to fix? I said the contrary, that there are ALWAYS things to fix.

Martin

[Jussi Köhler]

Thanks for your reply Martin.

Guys, can we try to get this on a constructive basis again as the thread started our really well.

[John Kettler]

I know that the shock waves from CMBO are over and done with, despite how useful they were (now wish we had some cookie cutter graphic showing actual affected zone that was hotkey actuated). What concerns me more, though, as I play CMAK is that in implementing the new transparency feature in shell bursts and mortar bursts, BFC has turned fairly substantial visual events into gossamer veils, veils which are hard to spot in desert and rocky terrain, even when zoomed in. This makes it much harder to use fire support effectively, though I anticipate fewer problems with the larger caliber projectiles. The fundamental physics haven't changed. There should still be a fiery detonation, followed by some very dark, opaque combustion products, then later some transparency, not a piffle of sand thrown skyward briefly and a bit of gauze around it afterward.

Have also noticed that the mortar bursts, even when up close with zoom, are practically inaudible with sound plus ambient on. The background artillery rumble, not artillery falling on the actual battle, pretty much drowns the mortars.

Is any of this patchable?

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 02, 2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Paco QNS]

Have also noticed that the mortar bursts, even when up close with zoom, are practically inaudible with sound plus ambient on. The background artillery rumble, not artillery falling on the actual battle, pretty much drowns the mortars.

Is any of this patchable?

You can use your sound editor and put lower the wav files, once located. I use it with birds and flames, and it works.

[junk2drive]

From the main webpage of BFC:

Dec 3, CMAK now shipping

Feb 1, Patch ready for download

My prediction for 1.02

April 1st

[John Kettler]

With all the tankettes and light tanks now running around, I've belatedly realized that something needs to go on the AFV and armed vehicle placards--firepower factors as a function of range, preferably broken down by weapon mount. I find it wonderfully ironic that we routinely have this for leg units but lack it for armed softskins and AFVs

with MGs in combo with cannon or solo. Looks as though there is plenty of room to do this and shouldn't require any code changes at all.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Ace Pilot]

I noticed that the "Withdraw" command works in any direction. It used to only work in the direction of a friendly map edge. Was this supposed to change, or is it a bug?

The CMAK manual doesn't say that it should only work in the direction of a friendly map edge. However, it does refer to "retreating" when using this command. As it stands now, you can "retreat" directly toward the enemy with greatly reduced command delay.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

With all the tankettes and light tanks now running around, I've belatedly realized that something needs to go on the AFV and armed vehicle placards--firepower factors as a function of range, preferably broken down by weapon mount. I find it wonderfully ironic that we routinely have this for leg units but lack it for armed softskins and AFVs

with MGs in combo with cannon or solo. Looks as though there is plenty of room to do this and shouldn't require any code changes at all.

Regards,

John Kettler

Seconded - I'd love to know what the fp is of vehicle mounted MGs is.

[Redwolf]

You can estimate the vehicle MG firepower by comparing the maximum range to the range of various infantry MGs that you know the firepower of.

Last time I checked they were pretty solid in the middle between infantry HMG and LMG.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Moon:

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

That's my impression, too.

Of the gameplay problems reported for 1.00 they only fixed one in 1.01 (the AT weapon from bulding fire suppression was reversed). The discussion about the artillery pricing was very anticlimatic with Madmatt in the same posting claiming BFC listens to us and in the next paragraph showing he didn't read anything what was posted about the issue and why it was important (not surprisingly he came up with the impression it is not important, duh).

Needless to say, but now so much time has passed and the forum is so hard to search that I couldn't come up with my own bug reports quickly.

Which I am sure will lead to BFC claiming that there will be no more patches because all the forum members are happy (because the first page of the forum is not full of reports anymore - which is caused by people giving up on reporting the same thing all over again each week).

I wonder what the beta-testers do at this time?

(answer copied over from General Forum)

Redwolf - I am getting quite tired of your constant jabs at us recently. They are unfounded, if a company has ever shown to care and support products that it has been us often enough in the past, and I am not sure what gives you reason to believe that this is going to change in the future.

Not that there is any need to justify anything, and frankly your unfriendly jabs don't even deserve a decent answer in my view, but let me tell you that all of us at BFC are very busy at work on future projects, from the new CM engine to a number of other yet unannounced things.

CMBB has indeed been "closed". We have to do that at some point, and no matter how much support we give and for how long, there will always be some unresolved issues. Of course everybody thinks that his petpeeve is much more important than others and that the game is downright broken without just one extra patch, and that again is normal. If you feel you have not received enough for your money from CMBB, feel free to say so, you're entitled to your opinion. It won't change anything about our patch policy, however, and I am sure that you understand the reasons for it.

Now CMAK is still open and still supported, and I would be surprised if there won't be at least a 1.02 at some point. We do read the bug reports, and we do update our database of stuff-to-do. But you will excuse us that we don't scramble to release a new patch version everytime you post. Especially not now after CMAK is the third in the series and as such the most polished game - despite a number of remaining and more or less important issues, but again, such issues will always remain and I am quite sure that in a few years from now we'll still be getting patch requests, as we sometimes do for CMBO even.

(additional remarks:)

To all who posted bugs here - thanks a lot *again*, we really appreciate this. No matter how hard you try to squish bugs, there are always unresolved issues, especially in a simulation as complex as CM where it's not just a simple tweak to an armor penetration chart entry or somesuch to fix stuff. So thanks again for the dedication, and rest assured that it's not in vain as we won't drop CMAK support anytime soon, and in fact are working currently on a number of *supporting* projects. I'd tell you what, but since Redwolf is listening and he claims to be able to predict the future (what we think and what we will do), I don't want to make him look bad.

Martin </font>

[rune]

You don't like it if someone makes untrue claims, but then you turn around and try to speak for Battlefront.

"Which I am sure will lead to BFC claiming that there will be no more patches because all the forum members are happy (because the first page of the forum is not full of reports anymore - which is caused by people giving up on reporting the same thing all over again each week)."

Unless you suddenly work for Battlefront, or suddenly are privy to insider information, then you are full of hogwash. What you did was a cheap shot and that all what it was. Well, Moon already stated there will be a second patch, so you are wrong on that count already. What is fixed or not is a complete guess on your part, and your comments are nothing more then trying to put a bad light on what the guys are doing.

Trust me, everyone sees EXACTLY what is happening.

Rune

[ March 02, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

[Redwolf]

You didn't read what I wrote either. I claimed nowhere that there would be no 1.02.

Of course there will be a second patch. The question is whether it contains stuff considering everything claimed considered.

I will edit my posting to make it more clear.

[ March 02, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

OK, to be a little more constructive, here is a list of the things I noted.

List of unfixed issues with CMAK 1.01:

Artillery pricing

In Quickbattle purchases, the Allied artillery modules are much too expensive

because they have a lot of ammo. This leads to the a-historical

results that a) the Germans having heavier artillery than the Allies

available in any reasonable Quickbattle up to 1500 points and some

of the Allied modules are mis-ordered against each other, for example,

the 155mm U.S. is much more affordable than the 105mm (which is

regimental and probably the most commonly shot non-mortar shell in

that timeframe). The problem gets worse in June 1944 when

U.S. artillery becomes quicker and hence even more expensive.

Quick fix suggestion: cut ammo for most modules in half, ammo for the

U.S. 105mm to 1/3rd and adjust prices accordingly.

Better fix suggestion: I and other said they are willing to make a

catalog of suggested ammo levels.

Impact: make Quickbattles more realistic (a lot, no decent artillery

for the Western allies is not a good thing to have). No impact on

scenario players.

More discussion and suggestions:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001192

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001244

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001265

Crews killed inside a vehicle

If a vehicle is so heavily hit that none of the crew makes it out no

victory points for the crew are awarded. If at least one man makes it

out then everything works fine. For example, if one man of a 5-men

crew makes it out victory points are given for 4 crew casualties and

if the last man is killed for 5. The bug only affects the situation

that no crew marker ever appears on the map.

Suggested fix: correct counting.

Suggested easier fix: I assume that Charles has difficulties counting

anything for which no markers exists on the map. If that is the case,

then a good fix would be to never let all men die in the vehicles,

always let at least one man escape. Certainly a better situation than

the current one.

Impact: medium impact on Quickbattlers who usually play expensive

enough vehicles that the crew victory points don't have much impact.

Bigger impact on scenario players who often play with very cheap and

thin vehicles with big crews and shoot them up with 88s. In that case

a non-survivors vehicles kill is a) common and the victory points

for the crew are not neglectable compared to the points for the

vehicle itself.

Heavy weapons setup time not always reset when moving again

If a heavy weapon moves it gets a setup time after the move.

However, the is a bug that if you move, stop and then start moving

again before the setup time is over, then the old partly setup time

continues, you don't get bumped back to the full setup time.

Example: HMG with 30 seconds setup time

- you move 20 meter

- you stop

- setup time is 30 second

- you wait 20 seconds

- setup time left is 10 seconds

- you move again

- you stop again

- setup time directly after the move is still 10 seconds, not 30

Suggested fix: always bump setup time to full on any move.

Artillery targeting bug

Cutting LOS anytime during off-map artillery targeting makes the

barrage arrive at the wrong spot. NOTE that this is even when the

spotter can see the spotting rounds clearly. At the least this needs

to be changed to that the incorrect spot is hit only when LOS was

blocked to the spotting rounds. For actual realism, the FFE barrage

should not arrive at all when the spotting rounds could not be

observed.

Suggested fix: only consider LOS cut at the time the spotting rounds

are away, not for the full targeting time.

Suggested more realistic fix: if spotting rounds are not observed,

automatically add new delay and new spotting rounds, do not go FFE.

Treeburst, can you give me a link to the thread you had about this?

Concrete MG pillboxes die much faster than wooden bunkers

Title says it all. I am aware that this is caused because the

concrete pillbox is modeled to have a bigger firing slit and hence

dies more easily from firing slit penetrations.

But it is just not right, if that was the case nobody would ever build

concrete pillboxes. Not to speak of the fact that a non-pillbox MG in

a trench is also much more resistant against direct fire than a pillbox.

Suggested quick fix: tune down firing slit penetrations probability

for concrete pillboxes.

Better suggested fix: revisit the probability of a knockout when a

firing slit penetration occurs, especially for small-caliber rounds.

If the concrete pillbox is so much bigger, then an impact on the far

wall wouldn't affect the crew much. Right now it looks like the same

dimensions as for a tank turret are assumed.

Mis-modeling of Panzer IV turret

The Panzer IV dies too often from penetrations of the turret. The

reason is that while the model has a correct thin turret armor, the

smaller size of the Panzer IV turret is coded nowhere in the engine.

If you look at a front diagram of a Panzer IV compared to other tanks

you see that the turret is a) smaller, flatter, which lowers the

hit probability for shots aimed at the visual center, c) has

high-angle armor at the lower edges (which are close to the visual

center) and d) has a big gun mantlet.

Still, in CMAK 1.01 is has a chance to hit the thin armor which is

equal to the chance for the average tank where the turret is more

evenly armored and angled, bigger and more squarely formed, leading to

more probability to hit it with center shots.

Suggested fix: invent a bit in the vehicle description analogous to

"radio", "rear facing driver", "burns easily" etc which says "small

turret". A vehicle with that bit set will have modified hit

probabilities as follows:

- when hull-up, hits are direct from turret to hull

- when hull-down, the hit probability is lowered overall

Suggested quick fix: just set the vehicle description bit "reinforced

turret front" that the Tiger has. While the construction is not

comparable, the effect from a game standpoint is similar.

Thanks for your consideration.

[ March 04, 2004, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[GJK]

Add to that list (again):

Group select/move & individual path modifications: If I group select and set a movement command, I only see one path indicator for the entire group. If I want to modify any individual squads paths, I have to unselect the group and then individually select that squad/unit. That was not the case with CMBO nor CMBB.

Edit for clarification: Shift+P and turning on "show all paths" will of course show each individual path after a group move, however, in CMBO/CMBB, "show all paths" did not have to be enabled in order to see the paths of a group move. I personally don't use the "show all paths" because of the excessive screen clutter but would like to be able to see the paths of a group (only) without having to individually select each unit of that group in case I need to modify the path.

Tanks!

[ March 03, 2004, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: GJK ]