OFFICIAL PATCH REQUESTS AND BUG THREAD V1.01

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

The arty bug:

If, at any time during the arty delay period, spotter LOS to the target point is blocked by smoke (not dust), the strike is treated as a blind strike. This is true even for the briefest of smoke interruptions.

Treeburst155 out.

... and cannot be adjusted.

Furthermore, I can show a screenshot from a RoW game after the tourney is over where LOS is blocked by dust but the dust is not displayed by the engine. The LOS tool shows the sight is blocked but the dust is not sisible (even in fast and compatible there is no a beep).

Pretty nasty for 7-minute delay spotters in a dusty desert. They practically never work as any enemy HE, any vehicle moving or any smoke ever in 7 minutes triggers the bug - and you cannot adjust. To fire at the same spot you have to do nothing for one turn and then re-start the 7 minutes. To tip it all off, it is practially impossible to figure out where you are actually firing if the enemy is firing a similar caliber in the area.

This item is pretty top on my nagging list and BFC never said a beep about it.

Is there some kind of procedure to figure which bugs enter their internal bug list for consideration?

[Moon]

Furthermore, I can show a screenshot from a RoW game after the tourney is over where LOS is blocked by dust but the dust is not displayed by the engine. The LOS tool shows the sight is blocked but the dust is not sisible (even in fast and compatible there is no a beep).

This only happens when you get an arty impact at the very end of a turn. The smoke appears at the beginning of the next turn.

Martin

[Treeburst155]

Redwolf,

Dust will not disrupt an arty strike. If the target point is in LOS when it is plotted, the strike will come down accurately as long as no SMOKE interrupts that LOS.

Treeburst155 out.

[Redwolf]

Darn, you mean I didn't have to cancel that strike?

Although, it is very hard to tell whether it was dust or smoke. The blocking airfill was not visible during the orders phase so I don't know if it's smoke or dust. But from what Martin just posted, this phaenomenon means it has to be smoke from a smoke round fired late in the turn and would thus trigger the bug, would it?

It's very hard to tell, that battlefield is a mess of smoke, HE dust, vehicle dust, burning vehicles and snort on the monitor from my cold last week. Not to speak of the fact that everybody and their dog is firing different caliber artillery all over the place and I will have no way to tell which rounds are mine if they end up off-target.

I would suggest that the off-target arty strike mechanism is changed so that the fire mission never goes FFE or -better- goes FFE delayed but on-target if the engine decided it is off-target before or at the spotting round time. This is what every observer would do - he would request new spotting rounds or cancel if the first one were invisible and/or off-target. But he wouldn't say "well, it's off but what the hell, pour it on". If you were happy with that you wouldn't need a FO in first place.

I am aware of engine limitatiosn and the desire to touch as few code as possible, but even just cancelling the whole fire mission would be more realistic than what we have now. You could give a benefit for new targetting in that case (but then you need to fix the issue that adjusting doesn't work either right now in this off-target case).

But a true fix for the "LOS blocked at any time during targetting" would be preferrable. Spotting round time is what counts.

[Treeburst155]

Hmmm....you bring up an interesting question. Can the invisible, end of turn LOS blocks be smoke? I've only run into the invisible dust. If smoke can do this too, players won't know if they need to cancel a strike or not.

Treeburst155 out.

[Redwolf]

I have not tested by I assume invisible end-of-turn smoke and dust are treated the same.

At least if the dust is caused by a HE impact which I think mine is. I would be surprised if a shell causing smoke and a shell causing dust would be treated differently.

[sand digger]

If there is ever going to be a patch which could include changes to the 1942 Aussie TO&E, eg Trig 29 scenario, there is a primary source available concerning weapon and ammo useage and loss. That is the 9 Div Quarter Master General returns.

From a perusal of a few of such returns it is clear that the Thompson SMG, referred to there as the TSMG, and not the Sten or anything else was in regular and significant use.

There are a couple of other things being checked out so they will be added in due course. But I'm not going to do a whole lot of research unless it is likely to be used.

[Moon]

Locking this one, the explanation can be found in the "major omission" thread.

(quickly reopened thread for a sec)

Sand digger - yes, there will be a 1.02 most likely, just not anytime soon as we want to collect a few more issues in the next few weeks.

Martin

[Madmatt]

Reopening this thread in order to track issues for a future CMAK 1.02 patch.

Madmatt

[Redwolf]

Here is the problem "Pheasant Plucker" found in the OOBs:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001828

Basically, the Wasps flamethrower vehicles are included in British infantry battalions when they are not available, leading to another case of price explosion for that formation.

Also suggesting to again look at the mandatory flamethrowers in the battalions and whether that is a good thing to have in the CM OOB.

[Redwolf]

Here is a new round of investigations into the off-target artillery. Pretty complete so that you can ignore earlier information.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001796

[Redwolf]

Here is more info on British squad AT weapons (although locked at this time):

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001744

[Redwolf]

This is not technically a bug, but a suggestion that avoids unrealistic results:

Make the terrain inside sandbags not open ground, but something with better cover value.

The problem is that as it is now you only get "foxhole in open ground behind wall", which is 30% exposure (unless you hide). The TacAI often flees out of sandbag terrain cells because it doesn't recognize the sandbags as extra cover, find the 30% too high and runs for trees in the back which offer better value.

Or in other words: this choice of terrain leads to exposure of a TacAI limitation.

Giving the inside of a sandbag cell the same protection as inside a heavy building (12% exposure) seems more in line with reality and will not make the TacAI seek better ground.

[JonS]

South Africans don't have Stuarts available from the Unit Editor in Italy (and presumably they are unavailable in QBs too). This came up recently in a scenario Rune is designing that I'm helping with playtesting on.

[ April 01, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[junk2drive]

re: sandbags

if bfc were to change them, wouldn't that mess up the scens that use them? which brings up the question of what happens to scens made before 1.01? if play balance is found with 1.00 oobs and such, do they still play well with 1.01? if something is removed from the game, does a pre patch scen crash?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

re: sandbags

if bfc were to change them, wouldn't that mess up the scens that use them? which brings up the question of what happens to scens made before 1.01? if play balance is found with 1.00 oobs and such, do they still play well with 1.01? if something is removed from the game, does a pre patch scen crash?

Well, fixing any bug or changing any behaviour does change balance.

But I don't think that the lack of somebody fleeing out of a sandbag cell and instead have him fight from in there will impact any kind of decent scenario. Defender in cover is defender in cover. It is not like making all foxholes stronger.

Or in other words: the scenario would have to be bogusly relying on people fleeing sandbags unneccessary in first place.

[Steve McClaire]

Repeating some US Army OOB issues:

81mm mortar spotter for a mechanized force type (armored bn/armored infantry bn) should be 3 tubes only.

4 tube division level 105mm spotter rarely appears on the list of units. I have not tested to see exactly what combinations of date/force type allow it, but it should be pretty much universally available.

US Engineers never had flamethrowers as TO&E

US Engineers never had (AFAIK) 60mm mortars as TO&E. At least not on TO&E 5-17 Mar. 44 or later.

Would be nice if there was a US 4 tube 25pdr spotter available in North Africa from Nov. 42 on (to allow correct representation of the 175th FA Bn, which was using 25pdrs).

[Jim Boggs]

Better yet, le bump!

[MrSpkr]

Here is a thread I started on problems with vehicles and trenches.

My original post as follows:

In a recent PBEM, I defended against an Allied attack in the desert. As part of my defense, I used a lengthy (100m+) trench line as a forward position. I filled this with various infantry units, all of which were extremely short on AT weapons.

My opponent had a few light tanks. He proceeded to move one to the far right flank of my defensive position, then turned and drove his tank right down the length of the trench at full speed! My infantry (veterans and regulars all) reacted by crawling out of the trench (where they came under a hail of small arms fire). His tank never bogged, much less became immobilized, by this unusual manuever. I chalked it up to good luck on his part.

Then his tank turned around and did it again. Twice.

He never bogged, never immobilized, but certainly managed to force my troops out of the trench (and of course, I snuck them right back in) three times, at which point his infantry was able to swarm the trench and take it.

This bothered me, as I thought that a tank crossing a trench was supposed to have a much higher than normal chance of bogging or immbilization. I was particularly surprised to see that his light tank didn't even slow down significantly. I believed that a tank driving down the middle of a trench (not only visually, but as shown in the 'terrain type' window for that tank) might actually have a few problems, especially a small tank lacking the length or power to pop a track out of a trench.

So, being bored, I ran a test. I set up eleven trench lines, each about 200m-225m long. I selected fifteen MkVIb British tanks. Eleven would run the length of the trench line at top speed, while four would travel perpendicularly across the trenches at top speed. Each vehicle was to make ten passes, and the resulting bogs/immobilizations would be tracked accordingly. The ground was very dry, the weather, hot and clear, and the time, mid-day.

I was shocked at the results. After sixty turns, not one tank, either traveling along the trenches or across them, had so much as bogged, let alone become immobilized. The speed of the vehicles in the trenches was dramatically slower than the speed demon outside the trench, though this was relative (the small, fast vehicles on the trenches still moved at a reasonable speed, though the control vehicle was approximately five times faster).

Puzzled, I ran the test again. And again. Same result each time.

Then I consulted the CM manual -- it states "Only fully-tracked vehicles are allowed to enter or cross trenches, but do so very slowly and at great risk of bogging." CMAK Manual, p. 58 (emphasis added).

Really? You couldn't prove it by this experiment. I recognize the ground pressure of the MkVIb is significantly lower than the average vehicle (only .58 kg/sqcm), but I wouldn't think ground pressure would factor into bogging on trenches nearly as much as, say, bogging in soft ground or mud.

I ran additional tests using larger vehicles. I selected six Stuart IIs (ground pressure .72 kg/sqcm) and six Lee's (ground pressure .88 kg/sqcm); five of each would run along the trenches while one of each would run across the trenches.

In this one, the Stuarts all finished the course -- one bogged for less than 15 seconds. The Lees that moved along the trenches did not finish the course (apparently, 80 turns is not enough for them to run 2km of trenchlines); two of these tanks bogged, one for twenty five seconds; the other for less than 15 seconds. The Stuart and Lee running perpendicularly across the trenches both finished the course and never bogged.

Now I was concerned, a bit, so I decided to try using some heavyweights on the same map using 120 turns. I used the heaviest Allied ground-pressure vehicles I could find -- a dozen Matilda II's (ground pressure 1.12 kg/sqcm). NOW I would get some bogging and immobilizations, right?

Not really. On turn 57, two Matilda's running along the trenches bogged down. One became immobilized after 36 seconds; the other immobilized after 52 seconds. These were the first vehicles to bog or immobilize in this test. On turn 63, another Matilda running along the trenches bogged. On turn 64, another Matilda bogged. The first of this pair began moving after about 90 seconds; the other resumed moving after 214 seconds.

On turn 68, one of the Matildas that bogged earlier bogged again. It remained bogged for 155 seconds, then resumed movement.

On turn 88, the Matilda that had bogged twice previously bogged again for about six seconds, then resumed movement. Perhaps the driver stole some grog from the Royal Navy?

On turn 96, another Matilda moving along the trench bogged, then immobilized 72 seconds later.

On turn 115, one of the Matildas moving across the trenches bogged for 67 seconds, then resumed movement. This was the first vehicle in ANY of the tests that bogged moving perpendicularly across the trenches.

The clock ran out; none of the Matildas had finished the course; three were immobilized (25% of the force).

The final results are that eight of the Matildas bogged, resulting in three immobilizations.

I decided to run the test again, to see if these results were a fluke (particularly given the fact NONE of the Matildas bogged until turn 57!).

The second time around, one Matilda traveling along the trenches bogged on turn 6, then immobilized 76 seconds later.

On Turn 26, another Matilda (one going across the trenches) bogged; 273 seconds later, it resumed movement.

On turn 49, one of the Matildas moving along the trenches bogged; 40 seconds later, it resumed movement.

On turn 67, a Matilda moving along the trenches bogged; 217 seconds later, it resumed movement.

On turn 79, one Matilda moving along the trenches bogged; 27 seconds later, it resumed movement.

On turn 105, a Matilda moving along the trench bogged; 66 seconds later, it resumed moving.

None of the Matildas finished their routes in the 120 turns allotted.

In this test, then, over the course of 120 turns, six of the twelve Matildas bogged, resulting in one immobilization.

These results are vaguely disturbing. I would have expected the vehicles to bog more often, and immobilize slightly more. Instead, given these results, I believe vehicles are fairly safe running across, or even more importantly, ALONG the trenches to flush out enemy forces. Granted, had their been any infantry with AT weapons or grenade bundles in these trenches, I probably would have lost more tanks; however, the game seems to reward what seems to be a somewhat gamey tactic.

Thoughts, anyone? Is this a bug, or a feature?

Steve

I will do more testing, but I believe this to be a significant bug.

Steve

[OSX is 3 Years Old]

One feature request: SHIP THE OpenGL VERSION ALREADY! Stop whining about RAVE being killed by Apple -- IT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO MAN!!!

Although someone found it deep within their sense of humor to tell me to buy a PC (I own a PC, in fact several Personal Computers) it happens that I have made my living using a Macintosh Personal Computer...

That I was an early supporter of this game has everything to do with my posting. I turned a lot of people onto this game.

That the game was developed with RAVE is a MOOT point guys -- that technology died about 4 (FOUR!!!) years ago.

So, we are rallying around a company who develops a game for a technology that was killed off four years ago. You support this as the way? It is not the way... They told me development on an OpenGL version would be available the following year.

What gives? Ran out of money trying to sell copies of a game for a dead OS and a dead graphics technology?

I only write this because of my fondness for the game and the people behind the game.

[Pzman]

And we already told you that the next game will be OSX ready, no problem. There will be no RAVE to openGL patches... it would take at least a year most likely. Better off to wait for the next game. And please... its not that hard to reboot your computer into OS9x as long as you have one that can do so. Sure its not nice, but I can live with it.

As for the comment about the current engine CM being made for OpenGL... show me the post, I never saw anyone from BFC say that.

[WWB]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

re: sandbags

if bfc were to change them, wouldn't that mess up the scens that use them? which brings up the question of what happens to scens made before 1.01? if play balance is found with 1.00 oobs and such, do they still play well with 1.01? if something is removed from the game, does a pre patch scen crash?

Actually, that is a very good suggestion, and I dont see too much trickle down effect. It would make them behave more like they were intended. The main effect will be that units dont try and retreat out of them.

WWB

[Redwolf]

Re tanks in trenches:

I didn't do any testing on the bog rate but I did a lot of driving of CM tanks in trenches and I found the speed to be about right, i.e. slow but doable.

If people are interested we should test whether there is any bogging at all in trenches. If that is not the case, I could imagine the code has a knack in it that disables the checks for bogging (alanogous to the old bug where driving backwards wouldn't bog).

[ April 15, 2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Re tanks in trenches:

I didn't do any testing on the bog rate but I did a lot of driving of CM tanks in trenches and I found the speed to be about right, i.e. slow but doable.

If people are interested we should test whether there is any bogging at all in trenches. If that is not the case, I could imagine the code has a knack in it that disabled checking for bogging (alanogous to the old bug where driving backwards wouldn't bog).

My tests seem to indicate there is an extremely slight chance of bogging in trenches (and that only in the heavier vehicles). The test terrain was open ground in very dry conditions -- the vehicles would not normally bog in such conditions.

Steve

[PlatCmdr]

I'm getting my butt handed to me in a tourney right now due to my opponent beating me to a nicely reinforced town objective due to his use of German skiers in heavy snow conditions in Italy. Meanwhile, I'm stuck with standard US troops who continue to struggle with every step.

Why are there no US ski troops? What ever happened to the 10th Mountain Division? Please fix or somefink!