Michael Dorosh Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 Some outstanding issues to bring to the attention of BFC: No BMPs installed for captured L3/33 Canadians still using the Sten rather than the Thompson - all other CW nationalities had this fixed, why not the Canadians? German LMG and HMG 34 missing Found the LMG 34 - they are in the Australian section! [ November 24, 2004, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 Gotta admire your persistence, Mr Dorosh! Well done. That's the right attitude. I can only suspect their little problem overlooking the Canadians is just another part of the general foreign policy approach adopted by your large and powerful neighbour. Maybe you could declare war on them, to attract their attention? Just a thought. And do you want me to sully this thread with mention of Allied artillery being so expensive it buggers up the popular small to medium Quick Battle meeting engagements something shocking? Or would you rather I just accepted their refusal on this one and let you take all the incoming fire? Keep up the good work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 21, 2004 Author Share Posted November 21, 2004 I suspect artillery is a dead issue by this point. However, I can't see them letting the faulty bmps stand. Can you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 1stSSF USA and Canadian USA Airborne late war Darby's Rangers CW Commandos Italian Airborne late war 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Serious stuff there indeed. Even in light of the captured L3/33, I am still VERY thankful for what has been done for us so far. One could focus on this or that and just get pissed, but we really have the ability to choose not to go there. I am grateful for CMx -period. This event with the L3/33 highlights the fact that we're all just human beings that make (you know) mistakes. We're all trying to do the best that we can. Maybe its better not to label any patch as "the absolute last one" until a couple of weeks has gone by first? "Live and learn," I say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 Originally posted by junk2drive: 1stSSF USA and Canadian USA Airborne late war Darby's Rangers CW Commandos Italian Airborne late war These would be nice-to-haves but are arguably outside of CM's scope, in the same way that naval coastal garrison troops, medical companies, etc. are. Luckily we do have a workaround for the SSF, as pointed out in my article at The Med which you were kind enough to plug the other day. Though it would be fun to recreate Commando raids (we have just about all we need to redo the Dieppe Raid if that were the case), there would be some special rules you would need to get full functionality - such as cliff scaling (which some Commando units had to do at Dieppe), timed demolitions, reusable rubber boats, etc. And possibly special morale rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Is there any chance that we could download all the missing bitmaps from someplace like CMHQ??? You know, like downloading mods? That way, they wouldn't have to have a v1.04 to create. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 Originally posted by Le Tondu: Serious stuff there indeed. I don't think it's about the small issues that are remaining, BFC has traded on its reputation of listening to the clientelle and holding itself head and shoulders over the "corporate giants" whose ways were supposedly anathema to them. Check out the Manifesto, if you've forgotten. I'm not really all that torqued about the patch though the SMG issue seems small enough to fix if the missing BMP issue is still extant. There is no way they can leave this missing BMPs as is. I've given up on the thought of Fireflies platooned with regular Shermans and consigned myself to the thought that perhaps in CMX2 they will get this correct. I doubt we will ever see Bren Tripods, but that is no concern to me either as I've yet to read about them actually being used. However, what does bother me (and many I've talked to off forum) is the lack of interest that the "little company that could" has apparently shown even those in close proximity to the design team. **shrugs** It's their image; they want to release 3D models without skins, I guess we can't stop them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I know this stinks of Americentric arrogance, but after wondering just who plays Aussies and Italians, why do the Aussies get new units?Shouldn't the minor Allied counties like USA and UK get all the flavors just like the Germans? There are bmps for SS Mech in NA, ahistorical, but you can't get IT Airborne to display properly? CMAK works just fine and I am glad to have it. Every once in a while I have to complain and then I will shut up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 Well, the Aussies had their army pay for a version just for them, as you will recall, so I guess we can be grateful that we unwashed patrons got some of the units from that module. Why aren't you guys watching the Grey Cup? I can't believe BC got two time count violations and then blew the single point convert. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Why is this thread labeled 'official'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 Originally posted by Flammenwerfer: Why is this thread labeled 'official'? Why does it have Version 1.04 in the title, for that matter... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I doubt that what BF does or does not do is based on anything else but what they perceive as the best way to make a profit. Iv got a coupla posts on severl threads that express my opinion as to what would be the best way for BF to keep their present clientel, if they are Banking on a different clientel then anything that we say is falling on deaf ears ,to coin a phrase. poppys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Murray Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 What I would've liked to see in the 1.02 patch were 2 things: 1) a proper German MG in the info panel for the SPW 251/10. I think it's a .30 cal right now. 2) a 75mm gun on the PSW 233. But, as was stated before, the game works so I can't complain too much. Besides that, there's no sense flogging a dead horse... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 Originally posted by Rob Murray: horse... Let it go, Rob....let it go.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Originally posted by Le Tondu: ...just get pissed...The immortal Ray Charles said—or in this case, sang—it best: "Let's go get stoned." Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Originally posted by junk2drive: ...who plays Aussies...I have. A couple of times. It's a lark. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Originally posted by junk2drive: I know this stinks of Americentric arroganceWhy yes, yes it does. Mace (an aussie) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: ..........."Let's.........." Michael Quoting out of context is just silly. Don't you think? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Originally posted by REVS: Maybe you could declare war on them, to attract their attention? Just a thought. Do you really think they would notice that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Do you really think they would notice that? Cute.. Well I have already addressed the L3/33 texture issue in the other thread. The MG-34 issue, while unfortunate is still rather minor. The Thompson vs. Sten thing, again a minor issue at best. It's 6 firepower points difference at VERY close range (less than 40 meters). The point I am making is that the things that Michael mentions are not in of themselves worthy of us making yet another patch. Sure, it's a shame they didn't make it into 1.01 or 1.02 or 1.03 but that's how it goes. I know that's not what you want to hear, we all love patches for our favorite games, but that's the truth. At some point, the patch cycle for a released game must come to an end so focus can be re-applied on the future and that time is now. Now, if some kind of show stopping bug rears its ugly head, well then we may have to release a new patch and it's possible that we could throw in a few extra changes and fixes to that patch (yes, like the Mg-34 thing), but as it stands now, v1.03 is the last patch for CMAK. Madmatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 So no sharks with fricking laser beams on their heads? L4m3rz!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I still fail to see how giving the German access to heavier artillery than U.S. and British, and making it worse after 6/44, is not a patchworthy item. Especially since fixing it only requires editing the ammo levels and then adjusting the price accordingly. By all amount of imagination I cannot think that this would have triggered any kind of serious coding effort. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 The only problem with that approach, Redwolf, is that it would screw up the balance on all the scenarios already made featuring the spotters in question. Even for this cost, IMHO, it still would have been worth it to make the change, but obviously BFC felt otherwise. Actually, my favored solution was to simply add a divisional-level, 4-tube US 105mm spotter with a 60-shell ammo load -- a virtual copy of the German one. And absolutely realistic, too, since the 105mm caliber existed at two organizational levels in the US infantry division: the 6-tube Regimental cannon company, and the divisional artillery (3 x 4-tube batteries). I also advocated the inclusion of a 3-tube 81mm spotter with a ~100 shell ammo load, representing the US armored division battalion indirect fire complement -- you can actually see this organization in CMAK in the US Armored Infantry division battalion TOE as 3 81mm mortar halftracks. I would think just adding a couple of additional spotters wouldn't be too hard to add, but maybe there's something about the way spotter units are coded that makes it a pain in the @ss. The other one I was really hoping for was a US Armored Infantry Company without all those damn Halftracks -- what the &*%$(# do you do with 17 M3A1 halftracks/Company on the CM battlefields. As it is now, the US Armored infantry TOEs are pretty near worthless for QBs, except maybe occasionally for the purchase of a single platoon as a mobile reserve. For some reason, in CM (and indeed in the Wargaming community in general) there seems to be almost an obsession with representing every obscure German TOE that was ever used in the war. In contrast, Allied TOEs are way too often generalized into just a few TOEs. So Ironically, what was actually a liability for the Germans IRL -- a lack of a consistent TOE structure and the inevitable logistics problems this created -- becomes an advantage in CM, since there's a German TOE to meet every terrain type and situation, while Allied players are pretty much forced into just a few workable choices. But I guess it's time to let it go. When I want to play interesting QBs, I'll go play CMBB, I guess. . . Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Originally posted by YankeeDog: The only problem with that approach, Redwolf, is that it would screw up the balance on all the scenarios already made featuring the spotters in question.Not if the default ammo value has nothing to do with the ammo set for a unit in an already-made scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.