PATCH AND BUG Discussion

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Robart:

nope - I don't think so. Again, without being a spoiler but the Auzzies have quite a bit of ammo. Maybe one or two of my squads were low but on whole we had lots of ammo. Bad strategy, but lots of ammo...

Hmm. I don't know if the game will auto-ceasefire if only one side is low. Since you were playing the AI (do I have that right?), there's no way to check on the other side's ammo without playing with FOW turned off.

I admit I've run out of ideas. Hope BFC will comment, or lacking that some other players will speak up if they spot the same thing.

Michael

[Porkbrain]

Minor bug.

I've been playing a long series of 400 point Pure Armour QB against the AI with all other settings random.

After 2 or 3 QB's the force mix for both sides changes to either infantry or combined arms.

Well, I did say it was a minor bug

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Thresh1642:

To quote Murphy's Law: Suppressive Fire Isn't

I've played numerous games since getting CMAK, and no matter how many weapons systems you have targeted on a platoon of infantry in any terrain other than open, they still fire back.

In a recent game as the Brits I had 3 Vickers section, a Valentine, and a 25pdr using direct fire against a platoon of Germans in rough terrain. I fired at them for 5 rounds, and was still firing at them when they stood up and threw a grenade bundle at a Stuart that was passing 20M away.

Same thing happened against some Italians in a trench...I had 3 MG sections, two mortars and 2 6 pounders in direct fire at a trench. Moved a platoon of Infantry up the the left flank of the trench (most of my support fire was on the right), sent my assault in and was repulsed at 50m. These Italians stood up in their trench with 7 different wepons systems on a yellow line to them, and managed to put out such a volume of fire that my Veteran Infantry went to grund and crawled away.

I am sorry, I have a hard time believing that...

It may well be that suppressive has been weakened. In addition to the examples you cite, I too have had a sneaking suspicion that something of the sort is afoot. But suppression still happens. In playing the LoD demo, I've put suppressive fire on enemy MG teams, squads, Schreck teams, etc. and observed that they do tend to keep their heads down most of the time. Seems like they pop up only when they have especially promising targets or when somebody gets near enough to trigger their reaction to an immediate threat. This sounds like what you describe as well.

Just how far suppressive fire should be effective is doubtlessly one of those things that can be argued forever—and probably will be—but I think you may have a case.

Michael

[Lempereur]

Winter buildings are all black. I guess they didn't have time for all the winter building bitmaps?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Napoleon1944:

Winter buildings are all black. I guess they didn't have time for all the winter building bitmaps?

This is probably a lack of computer power on your part? I know that when I was running on my laptop with all the original hi-res graphics, some of the bmps were rendered as black. Once I switched to lo-res, the problem stopped.

I just did a random map, Italy, with stock winter building graphics, and they are all there.

Can we PLEASE limit this thread to CONFIRMED bugs?A look at the bmp folder will show you your winter graphics, incidentally.

[BARMAN1950]

There was a comment made that the US Sniper was armed with the M1 rather than the 1903 Springfield. I'm not sure when it was introduced but the US Army (prior to the Korean War) introduced the M1-D which was officially a sniper rifle. It had a scope (4 power, I think), it had a cheekpad, and I've heard that it had a special barrel that was specially fitted to the stock, and by all accounts was quite accurate. Anyone know anything about this??

[Michael Dorosh]

I am hoping this is a minor oversight.

Canadian infantry have drop down menus for "anti-tank weapons" when you go to edit them in the Scenario Editor, however, all the options are greyed out. I am presuming that if it was the intent not to include anti-tank weapons, the menu would not appear (there is no drop down menu for Explosive charges, for example). As JonS pointed out elsewhere, the CW had a variety of gammon grenades, anti-tank bombs and miscellaneous AT devices and it would be nice to see them included.

[Mad Russian]

Since this is the almost official semi-official site for bug reporting, I want to throw in here about my superior Shermans. I have been playtesting a scenario with a Panther. That Panther has over a period of playtests killed more than 20 Shermans. Many of them at under 200 meters. Not a single Sherman blew up. I think this inaccurate.

Panther Commander

[Snarker]

I've got a game going now where my German Elite sniper never expends ammo. 10 he had, 10 he has. Went through two full turns of firing.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Snarker:

I've got a game going now where my German Elite sniper never expends ammo. 10 he had, 10 he has. Went through two full turns of firing.

Now there's a good one. If you haven't done so already, can you make some save game files and send them to Madmatt et al for analysis? I am sure they'd be interested in seeing that.

[Michael Dorosh]

bump

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

Since this is the almost official semi-official site for bug reporting, I want to throw in here about my superior Shermans. I have been playtesting a scenario with a Panther. That Panther has over a period of playtests killed more than 20 Shermans. Many of them at under 200 meters. Not a single Sherman blew up. I think this inaccurate.

What kind of Sherman, precisely?

I remember that Snipes uses-no-ammo thing mentioned before.

[Ligur]

BTS fix arty or somefink pls

thnx bye

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Snarker:

I've got a game going now where my German Elite sniper never expends ammo. 10 he had, 10 he has. Went through two full turns of firing.

Snipers have a small arms defence, like other teams. This seems to have a significant suppressive effect out to about 100m. Plus it's almost impossible to spot, even from as close as 10m.

[WineCape]

One can only hope that the following artillery bug – let’s call it rather a cockroach - which has manifested itself in CMBB already, can be patched in CMAK, too wit:

Treeburst: I've done quite a bit of testing on it too. If, at any time during the delay period, spotter LOS is obscured by smoke (not dust), the strike will be off target. Subsequent green-line adjustments are ineffective. The strike must be cancelled and replotted from scratch.

To be found on this page.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

------------------------------------------------

The merit and value of the desert soldier can be measured by his physical capacity, intelligence, mobility, nerve, pugnacity, daring and stoicism. A commander of men requires these same qualities in even greater measure and in addition must be outstanding in his toughness, devotion to his men, instinctive judgement of terrain and enemy, speed of reaction and spirit. In General Rommel, these qualities were embodied in rare degree, and I have known no other officer in whom they were so combined.

-- Lieutenant General Fritz Bayerlein, Chief-of-Staff and later Commander of Deutsche Afrika Korps

[ December 31, 2003, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Mark Gallear]

I think early Shermans - all Marks with 76mm Turret front armour should have a slope of 30 degrees.

I also think that Sherman IIIs with diesel engines should be slightly less likely to burst into flame than the petrol versions.

Early Shermans should have .30 cal AA MGs on the turret - later British and Commonwealth Shermans should have no .50 AA MGs but of course US Army/French tanks should.

My link on this subject on the forum is here: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000966

[ December 31, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[legend42]

Major bug to me anyway,unit bases disappear on roads, this was in cmbb, not in cmbo.Also in CMAK, but in addition to that unit bases can not be seen on the 1st flr of all light 2 stry bldg.Once they move to the upper flr, the unit base is once again visible.None of these things were present in CMBO.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by legend42:

Major bug to me anyway,unit bases disappear on roads, this was in cmbb, not in cmbo.Also in CMAK, but in addition to that unit bases can not be seen on the 1st flr of all light 2 stry bldg.Once they move to the upper flr, the unit base is once again visible.None of these things were present in CMBO.

Yep, I saw this behaviour just tonight - both the road and the 1st floor bug. Very annoying, the first floor one.

[PlatCmdr]

Ok, more simulator than game, I'm willing to buy that, in fact, I want that. However, one thing that continues to baffle me is how and why it is necessary for both opponents to see the quality of the other person's units. I mean in what battlefield is it possible, when properly identifying the make and class of an opponent's tank for instance, to also know it is a "crack" unit versus a "green" unit. This simply doesn't happen short of interrogation of the crew, so why should it exist in this game? Is this something that could be patched?

[Michael Emrys]

Should we gather that you are not playing with Fog of War turned on? Or at least not with Extreme Fog of War? In that setting, you will not know much about the opposing troops unless you get very close to them and have had them under observation for several turns.

When this question of how much information you should have about enemy units first came up years ago, it was pointed out that after watching an enemy unit for a while you can discern quite a bit about its state of training, morale, etc. by its performance in battle, in general terms anyway.

Michael

[Agentorange]

Not a bug but a patch request: increased availability of Italian equipment for German units after the Italian surrender. Specifically Italian armour - we get the M15/42, but it seems to me that others need to be included as well

M 13/40 AND M14/41

" These tanks were issued to two SS Sturmgeschutz detachments and also to Panzerabteilung Adria. On 30 December 1944 there were 68 tanks of the M13/40, M14/41 and M15/42 still in service with German units."

SEMOVENTE M40 AND M41

" A total of 294 Stug M42 were issued to German units in 1943 and 1944. On 31 December 1943, 191 were in service with six infantry divisions, two panzer divisions three panzergrenadier divisions and one jager division of army groups C and F in Italy and the Balkans. By 30 December 1944, despite new deliveries, that number had been reduced to 93 as a result of battle losses."

SEMOVENTE M43 MIT 105/25

"On 31 December 1943, twenty seven Stug M43 mit 105/25 were in service with the 336th infantry division and the 26th panzer division, in Italy. By 30 December 1944, 66 were still in service with army groups C and F in Italy and the Balkans."

SEMOVENTE M43 MIT 75/34 AND 75/46

"Used in Italy in late 1944 and early 1945"

AB41

"Used by German forces in Italy and the Balkans. A considerable number were issued to RSI units "

The forces available in the unit editor don't seem to really reflect the availability and issue of captured Italian armour to german units. Certainly the M42 and M43 seem to have seen pretty widespread service. Ok you're going to have to assign rarity values and this may prove problematic, but surely between us lot here we can find enough sources to get a reasonable idea of what was available when? I just think it would add more flavour to the game if this issue could be looked at and adjusted ( ie more fun )

All quotes taken from ' Encyclopedia of German tanks of world war two' By Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle. Arms and Armour press ISBN 1-85409-518-8

[ January 01, 2004, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Agentorange ]

[Mark Gallear]

I also would like to see more captured stuff in the Desert War much more common practise than on the Russian Front.

At Beda Fomm February, 1941 some 112 medium tanks almost all M13/40s were captured. The best were fitted with British wireless sets and used by the 6th royal Tank regiment. They were used in the first offensive by the DAK, but masny were destoyed for lack of diesel fuel at Musus, April 5 1941 and the rest were abandoned one b one as the fuel ran out.

[Pinetree]

I would like to be able use captured MGs etc.Its frustrating when you've got a Bren team out of ammo lying next to a captured MG34.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I am hoping this is a minor oversight.

Canadian infantry have drop down menus for "anti-tank weapons" when you go to edit them in the Scenario Editor, however, all the options are greyed out. I am presuming that if it was the intent not to include anti-tank weapons, the menu would not appear (there is no drop down menu for Explosive charges, for example). As JonS pointed out elsewhere, the CW had a variety of gammon grenades, anti-tank bombs and miscellaneous AT devices and it would be nice to see them included.

Same goes for British forces - no AT weapons of any kind for standard soldiers as far as I can see. No gammon bombs, molotovs or whatever. Tiresome, but there we go.

And I know it's not a bug, but man - I miss the Cromwell.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

I also would like to see more captured stuff in the Desert War much more common practise than on the Russian Front.

Ditto on the captured stuff - I think it's underutilised. However, this is not, technically a 'bug' although IMO it's an oversight. If it were just a matter of "Hey guys, we missed out the Panzer 42MQZ9/D32 48mm with tungsten, load it in the tank database" then I don't think this would be an issue but from what BFC have said I get the impression that they've had to use a shoehorn to lever some of the tanks in here and their biggest stumbling block has been the lack of modularity of the coding engine - so my suspicion is no more vehicles.