OFFICIAL PATCH REQUESTS AND BUG THREAD V1.01

[JonS]

Similar to what W&C is reporting - and I don't know if this is a bug or a feature.

In a situation with mixed nationalities on one side (e.g US and British), commanders of either nationality can command support units or squads (for coy HQs and up) from the 'other' nationality.

Seems a bit odd, though I can also rationalise it as being reasonable.

Regards

JonS

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by Watson & Crick:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Watson & Crick:

I had a platoon tank commander die in an operation in the next to last battle. In the final battle, the surving subordinate tanks could be commanded by any infantry platoon leader. This occured as US and it was w/ a sherman tank platoon. I forgot to add that this is w/ version 1.01.

</font>

[Watson & Crick]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

qb]

This happens in CMBB.

I like the fact that a senior commander from a diffrent allied nationality can command troops of another nationality under him. [/QB]

[junk2drive]

I've seen the same when I create a battle and the tanks are independant, the receive command from infantry. I just thought it was normal.

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by Watson & Crick:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

qb]

This happens in CMBB.

I like the fact that a senior commander from a diffrent allied nationality can command troops of another nationality under him. </font>

[winkelried]

Another OOB issue. In CMAK you get the M18 Hellcat TD only in Feb 45, but I have seen sources which put the first action of the M18 in Europe in June 44 in Italy with another confirming M18's in Italy in Sept 44.

To be exact: The 805th TD Bn was equipped with M18 in 6/44. Seems to have been the only TD Bn with M18 in the MTO. 644TD US Tank Destroyer Units in WW2

[ February 18, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: winkelried ]

[Snarker]

Pestilence,

You can maybe remove the "never ending ammo" bug for the sniper. It seems if you are too close (no minimum is listed in the unit description, however) the sniper team uses their defensive side arms to absolutely no effect while that deadly rifle goes unused. Kinda made sneaking into a good position useless in the scenario I was playing.

Maybe the bug needs to be changed to "sniper won't use his main weapon if too close to the enemy". Or BFC could add the minimum range to the unit description like on board mortars have if this is planned.

[ February 18, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Snarker ]

[WWB]

Originally posted by Watson & Crick:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

qb]

This happens in CMBB.

I like the fact that a senior commander from a diffrent allied nationality can command troops of another nationality under him. </font>

[WWB]

Originally posted by Snarker:

Pestilence,

You can maybe remove the "never ending ammo" bug for the sniper. It seems if you are too close (no minimum is listed in the unit description, however) the sniper team uses their defensive side arms to absolutely no effect while that deadly rifle goes unused. Kinda made sneaking into a good position useless in the scenario I was playing.

Maybe the bug needs to be changed to "sniper won't use his main weapon if too close to the enemy". Or BFC could add the minimum range to the unit description like on board mortars have if this is planned.

Snipers not using main weapon if close is by design, not a bug. If you were a one-man unit would you shoot at many more armed people 50 feet away?

Was more fun back in the CMBO when no one had sidearms and snipers would sit there, 5m apart and share smokes and war stories all game.

WWB

[Michael Dorosh]

dbl

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Snarker:

Pestilence,

You can maybe remove the "never ending ammo" bug for the sniper. It seems if you are too close (no minimum is listed in the unit description, however) the sniper team uses their defensive side arms to absolutely no effect while that deadly rifle goes unused. Kinda made sneaking into a good position useless in the scenario I was playing.

Maybe the bug needs to be changed to "sniper won't use his main weapon if too close to the enemy". Or BFC could add the minimum range to the unit description like on board mortars have if this is planned.

I've been tardy in doing the changes to this thread; got wrapped up with ROW (for which I still owe one setup).

I don't see a bug with this issue, frankly. A sniper will NOT fire his weapon if too close to the enemy; they were trained to fire from distance. If anything, the code should be changed to make snipers go into escape and evade mode when within a few hundred metres of the enemy. Or simply dig in deeper and hide. As WWB posted (simultaneous to me, it seems), this used to be the way the game handled it, and come to think of it, wasn't such an unrealistic handling of the situation.

[atiff]

Found a bug in 1.01 as follows:

I was making up campaign scenarios in a fashion like RobO's Quick Campaign. I made a scenario file (Dec 40, NA) with a slightly-edited 2k x 2k random map, custom setup zones, and certain troops that I wanted.

The problem/bug was, the Allied troops I purchased in the QB appeared not in the setup zone (which was easily large enough to accomodate them), but appeared in two "neutral" map locations; all of the vehicles (tanks and trucks) at one place, and all of the rest (infantry, guns, etc) in another place. And when I say one place, I mean it - the units were stacked directly on top of each other! (In fact, at first I though I only had one vehicle and one squad)

I have the file if anyone want me to send it to someone.

[Mark Gallear]

Started to look at the British Battalion organization and started in June 1940.

The organization of the Carrier Platoons is the most problematic. As they only can carry one section, it is not possible in CM terms to get all the men that should go into them.

I have added notes on various different platoons for extra interest.

July 1940

1940 Battalion

Battalion HQ

(Battalion HQ had its own carrier, but would it fit in it?)

Company HQ of the Support Company.

Mortar Platoon & Signals Platoon

CMAK has a 3inch mortar spotter radio 6 tubes

(Equivalent in Artillery list is 4 tubes without radio?)

This is technically correct but there was a shortage of Mortars 4 tubes with Radio may be better).

The platoon served six such 'tubes', each transported by a modified Universal Carrier. The crew had to dismount and assemble the weapon before they could begin operation. The six detachments were paired into three Sections, each provided with an ammunition truck to augment the carrier load. The truck also carried an infantry anti-tank weapon (Boys or PIAT) for defensive purposes. A seventh carrier and a motorcycle element provided platoon HQ.

Carrier Platoon

4 universal carriers, 4 Bren carriers, 3 ATR Carriers,

Section HQ 3 2inch Mortars.

Should have 13 carriers. (CMAK does the Scout Platoon of a Motor Battalion.)

The Platoon contained four Sections, each of three carriers, plus one at Platoon HQ for a total of thirteen. Each Carrier was crewed initially by three men, increased to four men by 1943, an NCO commanding a driver and one then two riflemen

Each Carrier mounted a Bren gun, which could be removed and fired from cover. Also each Section had initially a Boys Anti-tank Rifle, and later a Projector, Infantry, Anti-tank, plus a 2 inch mortar which could be fired in or out of the carrier. This collection gave the platoon a higher number of light support weapons than a Rifle Company, but its manpower was insufficient for it to hold ground indefinitely, and the profusion of German anti-tank weapons made for a hostile environment. Platoon HQ added one, later two trucks.

Mounted Version

Uni Carrier Platoon HQ

4 sections each

1 ATR Carrier

2 Bren Carrier

1 Uni Carrier 1 2 inch Mortar

(The ATR Carrier and Bren Carrier should have an extra AA Bren added, as it was standard practice and makes up for the lack of the AA platoon.)

Dismounted version

Platoon HQ

Uni-Carrier Pistol, Bren, 2 Rifles

(later added 15cwt Truck Sten, Rifle and Scout Car)

4 X section

Carrier 4 Rifles 1 Bren

Carrier 2 Rifles, 1 Bren 1 2inch mortar

Carrier 2 Rifles, 1 Bren, 1 Boys AT Rifle/PIAT

I thought about reducing the Recon Assault Section to 7 men 1 Bren 6 Riflemen (1 man would have a Grenade launcher for his rifle, as one was provided per Carrier section.) Split would give a 4 men and 3 man section and then you could add a 2inch mortar or Boys AT Rifle. The problem is a six-man section will go in a Uni-Carrier, but if you split it into two 3-man sections, they will not go in. I think BFC needs to redo the Uni-Carriers carrying capacity!

Pioneer Platoon

Cmak has

Platoon Headquarters

2 Pioneer Rifle Squads 10 men each.

Pioneer Platoon - The Pioneer Platoon deployed two Assault Sections and one Pioneer Section under an Officer and Pioneer Sergeant. Each five strong Assault Section had its own jeep and trailer by 1943, while a 3-ton lorry carried the bulk of the Platoon stores. The Platoon commander had a motorcycle, also upgraded to a Jeep by 1943. The Assault Sections provided specialist men and equipment for the disposal of mines and breaching obstacles. The Pioneer Section was comprised of Tradesmen, a mason, bricklayer and carpenters under the Pioneer Sergeant, necessary to turn burnt out buildings into bearable accommodation for the riflemen.

Many of these men are non combatants, necessary for the running of the Battalion

Section HQ

1 Pioneer Rifle Squad – normally split in two

Anti Aircraft Platoon

CMAK has

Platoon Headquarters

4 Bofors guns

Anti Aircraft Platoon (to 1942) - this refers to four mountings each holding a pair of Bren guns. The platoon also deployed four anti-tank rifles. By 1941 they were mounted on 2 seater cars, possibly 8cwt trucks, substituted for Jeeps in North Africa, with a couple of 15cwt trucks carrying supplies. (I have never ever seen them mounted on jeeps and even pictures of the double AA mount are very rare.)

By 1944, the Infantry Division had an allocation of seventy one 20 mm Polsten AA guns, but they were never actually issued.

I suspect the Brens are put on Carriers and used to arm Armoured Cars and the AT-Rifles go into the Infantry Companies. Any spare personnel make up losses in the Company.

My suggestion is to omit it.

Infantry Companies

CMAK has:

4 X Companies

Company HQ

Bren

3 x Rifle Platoon

each of Rifle Platoon HQ

3 x Rifle squads

1 Boys ATR

2inch Mortar

The Company was commanded by a Major or Captain, with a Captain or Lieutenant as his second.

NCOs should have Rifles not Thompson SMG. They were lendlease from America would not have arrived in theatre until around November/December.

On AT rifles the evidence is contradictory - most show them in the Support Platoons, which in Combat, would be attached to individual platoons, although found one theoretical TO&E that has them with each Platoon and in the Battalion support Platoons. My calculation was 2 per company but must sources insist it is 3.

Change To:

4 X Companies

Company HQ

3 X Boys ATR (later PIAT)

3 x Rifle Platoon

each of Rifle Platoon HQ

3 x Rifle squads

2inch Mortar

The Platoon commander, a 1st or 2nd Lieutenant (known as a Subaltern), was aided by a Sergeant and two men. One, the officer's batman, served initially as a runner until the availability of radios permitted each platoon to carry a set, and then he became a signaller. The second man maintained his role as a runner, carrying messages to the Rifle Sections who had no radios. The officer carried the traditional revolver, but it was not uncommon for a rifle to be adopted until the Sten offered a more attractive alternative. Apparently, this was often obtained by 'swapping' the pistol with the 2 inch mortar gunner, but by 1944 Rifle Platoon Commanders were provided with their own Sten guns. The Sergeant, who in the absence or loss of the officer became platoon leader, and both men all carried rifles.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Watson & Crick:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

qb]

This happens in CMBB.

I like the fact that a senior commander from a diffrent allied nationality can command troops of another nationality under him. </font>

[MikeyD]

I had a couple very odd occurances over the weekend.

I set up a little battle between an Brit Valentine MkIII and German Val MkIII (giving my mods a test run). After bashing away at eachother from 300m the German popped smoke and disappeared. When he reappeared his label had changed from "Enemy Valentine III" to "CAPTURED Valentine III". I had never seen a captured tank before. I told the Brit tank to fast move over to his captured opponent. Halfway across the map the 'captured' tank restarts the fight. I ended the game and discovered the German tank was Paniced.

Has anyone else ever seen a 'captured' tank label, and has anyone else ever seen a captured tank keep fighting?

My second odd behavoir was on a QB city map. My German Val III vs a several Brit vehicles. The German spots a Sexton and knocks it out as the timer hits 60 sec. Next turn the Sexton is clearly labeled "Knocked Out" but my German tank keeps targeting it. It continuews to fire on it until it brews up. Has anyone else ever had your own tank continue to fire on a tank labeled 'Knocked Out"?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Has anyone else ever seen a 'captured' tank label, and has anyone else ever seen a captured tank keep fighting?

My second odd behavoir was on a QB city map. My German Val III vs a several Brit vehicles. The German spots a Sexton and knocks it out as the timer hits 60 sec. Next turn the Sexton is clearly labeled "Knocked Out" but my German tank keeps targeting it. It continuews to fire on it until it brews up. Has anyone else ever had your own tank continue to fire on a tank labeled 'Knocked Out"?

1- You do understand that the German unit's name just happens to be "Captured Valentine", just like in CMBB you would have "Captured T-34" and "Captured Panther"? There's nothing special about it.

2- Could be that if the shot was fired just as the turn came to an end, the targetting line wasn't for some reason cleared.

[MikeyD]

Ah, its stranger than that. I just tried recreating my 'Captured Valentine' thing and failed. The German tank is normally either labeled "Enemy Valentine?" or "Valentine III" depending on how well its I.D.'d. It's only labeled 'Captured Valentine' in the scenario selection list.

And the Sexton was clearly labeled "Knocked Out" with the gun drooping and crew sprawled on the ground. And between turns I think I un-targeted but the German retargeted when the next turn started. It was like he wasn't going to be satisfied til he saw it on fire! :eek:

[ February 20, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Mark Gallear]

I may have found a bug with the US 37mm gun penetration modelling.

I have being playing Blenheim Blunder-Quickplay by email both ways. I have found that the British 2pdr has great difficulty penetrating the front of a Panzer III, which as its curved is as it should be. However, the US 37mm gun in Stuarts and possibly Grants as well has no trouble at all. They almost always get a penetration if not always a kill. (Think down to its small size.) However, the guns armour penetrating power is rated slightly less than the 2 pounder!

Do not understand why - maybe the angle of the armour is missing from the equation or it does not register hull downs, although it seems to report turret front penetrations!

Anybody else noticed the uber killing power of the Stuart?

(Have lots of saves!)

[flamingknives]

Difference between face-hardened and homogenous armour figures?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

[QB] Started to look at the British Battalion organization and started in June 1940.

The organization of the Carrier Platoons is the most problematic. As they only can carry one section, it is not possible in CM terms to get all the men that should go into them.

I have added notes on various different platoons for extra interest.

July 1940

1940 Battalion

Battalion HQ

(Battalion HQ had its own carrier, but would it fit in it?)

Matters not, they would not go into battle in it.

The problem is a six-man section will go in a Uni-Carrier, but if you split it into two 3-man sections, they will not go in. I think BFC needs to redo the Uni-Carriers carrying capacity!

This is not a bug, it is a design shortcoming and will not be rectified by a patch.

The Platoon commander, a 1st or 2nd Lieutenant (known as a Subaltern), was aided by a Sergeant and two men.

No. Most platoons seem to have been led by Lieutenants (there is no such thing as a "1st Lieutenant" in the British Army), with the 2nd Lieutenant rank indicating - in most cases AFAICT - an officer in training, having graduated from Officer Cadet but still not posted to a combat unit. At least, that seems to be how the Canadians did things, perhaps the British Army was different.

Subaltern was a term applied collectively to all officers below the rank of captain, in the same manner as the term "field grade officers" applied to captains, majors and lieutenant colonels.

However, before December 1940, some platoons were led by Warrant Officers Class III (Platoon Sergeants Major).

The sergeant was the 2 i/c and called the Platoon Sergeant. Either he, or the platoon commander, were generally left LOB in action, the LOB system dated from World War One.

[BritishBulldog]

Can I just point that errors in a program resulting from the design process rather than the programming process are still bugs. All that is different is that it is easier to correct errors in coding rather than errors in design.

A bug is just the name used to describe the problem of a program operating in an unintended manner and originally was used to describe the problems caused by moths being attracted to the vacuum valves of the early computers

Matt

[ February 20, 2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: BritishBulldog ]

[JonS]

This is a new one - at least I think it is. It's kind of obscure, and hard to simply explain, so I will explain the background and how I discovered it.

I'm currently working on a fairly large map for a series of scenarios. The ground is flatish for about 3km, then rises steeply into hill country. By steeply, I mean steeply. The first of the hills rises 600-odd feet above the surrounding plain. (Yes, its based on a real location. Yes, I'm using a period map, plus photos, sketches, descriptions, etc when designing the CMAK map*). In order to get enough loft for these hills, I'm having to use 8m change of height steps. So far so good.

The problem is that while 8m steps works for the hills and bluffs, it is severly limiting on the plain. However that's my fault, not BFCs, for picking that area (though having more than 20 steps would be a help). As a result, I intitally had the plains area basically as flat as a pancake, with just the odd rise and dip.

While I was working on the tops of some of the hills I noticed that they were all very flat too, which was rather unsatisfying, so I started fiddling around with the heights to see what I could do about it. Eventually I found that if you had an area of a set height, and then spotted individual squares around in that area at either one step higher or one step lower, you ended up with quite a jumbled appearance, which when combined with rough terrain gave a good approximation of what I was after. The key bit was that the single squares of higher or lower terrain don't rise or fall the full 8m, instead they only seem to change by about half that height, and do so in a pyramidal shape.

Well pleased with myself, I proceeded to modify the tops of all my hills. Then the penny dropped - if it works hilltops, it will work on the plains. The answer to my pancake-like plains was at hand. So I covered my plains, spotting down individual squares that were either one higher or one lower than the base plain level. Usually I put about 3 squares of 'different' terrain per 5 x 5 squares. Once I'd done all that - which took a fair while since it is after all a big map - I reviewed the map in the editor, and was well pleased with the result. The hills were high and jagged, and the plains were low and flat, with some variation and interest. Happy with the world I shut down and went to bed.

Next day, I opened the scenario up to continue work on i, and after a bit I noticed that all the variation I had built in had vanished. Cursing, I assumed that I cannot have saved before I shut down. So, I went and did it all again, and made sure, really sure, that I saved it before shutting down.

Today I opened it up again to continue work, and lo and behold - its all gone again. More than a little puzzled, I modified a small patch of the map, saved it, exited the scen editor, exited the game, restarted the game, entered the scen editor, loaded the game I've been working on, and discovered that yet again it was gone. You can imagine how pissed off I am, having done the same work three times, only to have it deleted by the editor.

It seems that minor variations in altitude are being edited out by the game somehow, and this is a bug I believe.

BUG: Map Editor is changing heights of isolated squares set by the scenario designer. It appears to be doiing some sort of 'averaging' of the heights in an area, and single squares are being removed.

REMEDY: leave it at what the designer set it.

Regards

JonS

* the full map is approx 2.4km wide, by 4.5km long. Once I've finished the whole map I intend to cut out and use small sections of it to highlight various phases of the fighting, rather than just creating a single monster scenario.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

What does have access to mean exactly in the JonS post on New Zealanders? Are the vehicles crewed by New Zealand troops or UK troops under command of the New Zealanders?

Crewed By Kiwis. That should have been self evident, as British crewed vehicles are already in the game. It would have been even more self evident had you ... never mind. BFC understood, and corrected it, so it really doesn't matter that you couldn't

By way you are going to have problems getting access to the Sherman Kangaroo - (you have got the Priest Kangaroo now though) at least until they put it in the game!

*shrugs* Whatever. Priests would be better than nothing, but nothing wouldn't be an intolerable burden (hence the 'high rarity' comment).

On the JonS point about AA platoon, "* CW Bns should have AA Pns during 41 and 42, armed with Brens (twin Brens, mounted on the infamous tripod)", this is technically true but very rapidly the Brens would have been stuck on uni-carriers as suggested above or other vehicles such as ACs and the extra men used to make up losses in rest of Battalion - so I would omit. So no point in doing a twin Bren AA mount.

Sez you. I have read reports of actions that have the AA Pns intact and functioning as such until well into 1942. Also, there are more than a couple of WEs (British TOEs) that show the makeup and armament of the AA Pns throughout the period in question. I believe that BFC have generally gone with such supported data rather than "well, it's like this I think, because that's the way I think they'd do it, and I read it somewhere where some guy said the same thing on a website. Or something." YMMV. Modelling the Twin-Bren mount is not out of the realms of BFCs capability, even without adding any new weapons or systems.

Regards

JonS

BTW, Mark, the only reason I noticed your comments at all is that I was looking through the earlier parts of the thread for something for my preceeding post. Hint: editting four-day old posts with significant new material isn't a good way to get taht material noticed. Especially when there have been dozens of other new posts in the meantime, and the thread has moved on to a new page.

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

What does have access to mean exactly in the JonS post on New Zealanders? Are the vehicles crewed by New Zealand troops or UK troops under command of the New Zealanders?

Crewed By Kiwis. That should have been self evident, as British crewed vehicles are already in the game. It would have been even more self evident had you ... never mind. BFC understood, and corrected it, so it really doesn't matter that you couldn't

I am interested what was the New Zealand tank unit equipped with the Vickers and Stuarts?

On the JonS point about AA platoon, "* CW Bns should have AA Pns during 41 and 42, armed with Brens (twin Brens, mounted on the infamous tripod)", this is technically true but very rapidly the Brens would have been stuck on uni-carriers as suggested above or other vehicles such as ACs and the extra men used to make up losses in rest of Battalion - so I would omit. So no point in doing a twin Bren AA mount.

Sez you. I have read reports of actions that have the AA Pns intact and functioning as such until well into 1942. Also, there are more than a couple of WEs (British TOEs) that show the makeup and armament of the AA Pns throughout the period in question. I believe that BFC have generally gone with such supported data rather than "well, it's like this I think, because that's the way I think they'd do it, and I read it somewhere where some guy said the same thing on a website. Or something." YMMV. Modelling the Twin-Bren mount is not out of the realms of BFCs capability, even without adding any new weapons or systems.

Regards

JonS

I agree that the AA Platoon is an official TO&E but in practise, I cannot find any photos of the double mount in use. The only picture I have is a line drawing and uses twin Lewis guns not Brens. I have seen photos of the Bren on a single tripod mount, however these seem to be of training. I gather the Bren was considered by its users as totally useless as an AA MG by the accounts I have read of it being used in that role on Armoured Cars. (I suppose all AA MGs come in that category.)

What references book or internet are there for the AA Platoon in actual Combat?

BTW, Mark, the only reason I noticed your comments at all is that I was looking through the earlier parts of the thread for something for my preceding post. Hint: editting four-day old posts with significant new material isn't a good way to get taht material noticed. Especially when there have been dozens of other new posts in the meantime, and the thread has moved on to a new page. </font>

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

[QB] Started to look at the British Battalion organization and started in June 1940.

This is not a bug, it is a design shortcoming and will not be rectified by a patch.

I don't see why the bigger vehicles can take two sections. Just needs the max number of men reducing. The can currently get in six which is too many anway.

The alternative is to put the Boys AT rifle and 2 inch mortar into a 4 man section. Not seen that before in CM but it should work.

No. Most platoons seem to have been led by Lieutenants (there is no such thing as a "1st Lieutenant" in the British Army), with the 2nd Lieutenant rank indicating - in most cases AFAICT - an officer in training, having graduated from Officer Cadet but still not posted to a combat unit. At least, that seems to be how the Canadians did things, perhaps the British Army was different.

Subaltern was a term applied collectively to all officers below the rank of captain, in the same manner as the term "field grade officers" applied to captains, majors and lieutenant colonels.

However, before December 1940, some platoons were led by Warrant Officers Class III (Platoon Sergeants Major).

The sergeant was the 2 i/c and called the Platoon Sergeant. Either he, or the platoon commander, were generally left LOB in action, the LOB system dated from World War One. </font>

I am sure you are right, I am not up on ranks and followed an internet site, which was largely correct about organization and tactics.