Official Patch Version 1.04 Thread

[dalem]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

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.

I raised the same point the day I got AK and found that the U.S. Armored Infantry companies get screwed out of their dozen or so inherent bazookas. Steve explained the reasoning behind it and I disgree with it, but at least there is a reason.

And to be fair, CM:BO and CM:AK do a better job with U.S. TO&E than a lot of dice and paper wargames I've played, so I'm not going to jump up and down on their nuts too much. (And I think that if you looked back at the history of Steve's posts on this topic you'd find that personally he tends to share our views on this topic.)

However, if and when CM2 comes out and assuming it's WWII, then I would expect and demand that the U.S. OB gets the same masturbatory detail that must be marketed to the Germanophiles.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, since the "missing" bmp issue has been fixed, I reckon the fat lady has indeed sung on this one.

[Redwolf]

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.

No, once a spotter is put into a scenario the ammo amount is fixed.

So existing scenario would not have ammo levels changed.

It's pretty obvious that this is the way it is implemented since you have to remember edited ammo levels anyway. It's a safe bet there is no special logic to tell a "native" 120 ammo load from an edited 120 ammo load.

[JonS]

Originally posted by dalem:

However, if and when CM2 comes out and assuming it's WWII, then I would expect and demand that the U.S. OB gets the same masturbatory detail that must be marketed to the Germanophiles.

With a slight modification this is basically my position. Actually, not really a modification, more of an addition. I'd like to see all represented nations get roughly the same level of detail. However, given BFCs demonstrated performance* on this, I don't hold out much hope.

OTOH, BFC could kill two birds with one stone by introducing more flexibility into the CMx2 unit editor. For example, if when purchasing an FO you were able to specify:

. 1) Nationality

. 2) FO

. 3) Quality

. 4) wire or radio

. 5) calibre (50mm - 203mm or 16")

. 6) # of guns (1 - 72)

. 7) Number of rounds HE (1 - 999)

. 8) Number of rounds Smoke (depends on calibre,

. . . . not more than 50% HE)

with appropriate rules behind the scenes for which nations get what calibres, when, etc, then the price were calculated based on all that. QBers would be happy since they could tailor arty support to their budget, and the scenario designers would be happy since they could create just the right FO. And the editor interface would be somewhat 'cleaner too, since there'd only be a single FO purchase option. Aircraft could be handled the same way. In both cases (arty and air) the defaults could be the most common for that nationality at theat time, for those who don't want to fiddle.

So, for example, the British default might be "regular, radio, 3-in, 6 mortars, 120 HE, 30 SMK" or "regular, radio, 25-pr, 8 gun-hows, 106 HE, 24 SMK", but with the option to create, for example an senior FO with control of the complete divisional arty a'la "elite, wire, 25-pr, 72 gun-hows, 720 HE, 146 SMK" for a VICTOR target from a fixed OP in a huge scenario, down to a small "green, radio, 25-pr, 4 gun-hows, 32 HE, 0 SMK" newbie troop FO to use up the remaining points in a small QB.

The interface for infantry and armoured formations would perforce be different, but the same flexibility to modify existing stock units could still be built in. 'Units' both in terms of the make up of individual sections (numbers of men and weapons carried), and the way sections and support weapons combine to form pns, coys, and bns. That way a "Rifle Bn 44" could be modified - for those so inclined - to become a "Commando 44".

In other words - don't tell me what I can and can't have. Give me the damn tools so I can make it myself.

Regards

JonS

* to wit: many many of the TOE issues in CMAK were brought up in CMBO, 4-5 years ago. In some respects, things even seem to have gone backwards, with Madmatt openly stating that BFC don't care that the CW units are carrying the wrong SMG, etc.

[ November 22, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[YankeeDog]

No, once a spotter is put into a scenario the ammo amount is fixed.

So existing scenario would not have ammo levels changed.

[/QB]

No kidding. I had thought that if the ammo level for a spotter was unedited (i.e., 'default'), then the ammo level in the scenario would change with any changes to the settings to the ammo level in the default TOEs.

Live and learn.

Now I'm even more P.O.'d this change wasn't made. :mad: I'm going to go blow off steam and . . . um. . . play CMAK .

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

However, if and when CM2 comes out and assuming it's WWII, then I would expect and demand that the U.S. OB gets the same masturbatory detail that must be marketed to the Germanophiles.

With a slight modification this is basically my position. Actually, not really a modification, more of an addition. I'd like to see all represented nations get roughly the same level of detail. However, given BFCs demonstrated performance* on this, I don't hold out much hope.

OTOH, BFC could kill two birds with one stone by introducing more flexibility into the CMx2 unit editor. For example, if when purchasing an FO you were able to specify:

. 1) Nationality

. 2) FO

. 3) Quality

. 4) wireless or radio

. 5) calibre (50mm - 203mm or 16")

. 6) # of guns (1 - 72)

. 7) Number of rounds HE (1 - 999)

. 8) Number of rounds Smoke (depends on calibre,

. . . . not more than 50% HE)

with appropriate rules behind the scenes for which nations get what calibres, when, etc, then the price were calculated based on all that. QBers would be happy since they could tailor arty support to their budget, and the scenario designers would be happy since they could create just the right FO. And the editor interface would be somewhat 'cleaner too, since there'd only be a single FO purchase option. Aircraft could be handled the same way. In both cases (arty and air) the defaults could be the most common for that nationality at theat time, for those who don't want to fiddle.

So, for example, the British default might be "regular, radio, 3-in, 6 mortars, 120 HE, 30 SMK" or "regular, radio, 25-pr, 8 gun-hows, 106 HE, 24 SMK", but with the option to create, for example an senior FO with control of the complete divisional arty a'la "elite, wire, 25-pr, 72 gun-hows, 720 HE, 146 SMK" for a VICTOR target from a fixed OP in a huge scenario, down to a small "green, radio, 25-pr, 4 gun-hows, 32 HE, 0 SMK" newbie troop FO to use up the remaining points in a small QB.

The interface for infantry and armoured formations would perforce be different, but the same flexibility to modify existing stock units could still be built in. 'Units' both in terms of the make up of individual sections (numbers of men and weapons carried), and the way sections and support weapons combine to form pns, coys, and bns. That way a "Rifle Bn 44" could be modified - for those so inclined - to become a "Commando 44".

In other words - don't tell me what I can and can't have. Give me the damn tools so I can make it myself.

Regards

JonS

* to wit: many many of the TOE issues in CMAK were brought up in CMBO, 4-5 years ago. In some respects, things even seem to have gone backwards, with Madmatt openly stating that BFC don't care that the CW units are carrying the wrong SMG, etc. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

Don't you think?

Yes, I believe I gave it a try sometime back in the '60s. It was a rather pleasant experience as I recall. You might give it a whirl.

Michael

[JonS]

[aside]Another thought I've had on this are that the FOs themselves are cheap as chips, and the rounds are free and unlimited in quantity. The kicker is that every round you fire 'costs' victory points.[/aside]

Michael Dorosh, some of your thoughts about other factors might come into play in terms of in-game options: number of rounds to fire, rate of fire, number of guns to fire. So, our friend the "elite, wire, 25-pr, 72 gun-hows, 720 HE, 146 SMK" FO might call a mission as "24 gun-hows, 5 rnds/gun, rate 1" to get a steady drizzle from a subset of what he has available, or "72 gun-hows, 10 rnds/gun, rate 5" to get two minutes of hell-on-earth for the poor saps on the receiving end.

You might also want to include some indication of the degree of adjustment required before going to FFE, or to await specific user input before going to FFE at all, which would allow TOT.

Degree of adjustment could be specified as discrete steps: +/- 25, 50, 100, 200, or 400 metres, and the MPI of the FFE would fall within that. Increasing accuracy requires longer in adjustment. So, you might take a chance and do no adjustment, hoping that the rounds fall in the right place within the 800m error bounds, or spend the time to go to +/-25m accuracy. Specific delays might be affected by nationality, time frame, theatre, and quality of the FO. Feedback from the game could tell the user how long it is expected to take to increase the accuracy level, allowing a choice to be made on whether to wait or go to FFE at any point in time (or rather, any given orders phase).

In RealLife all FOs aim to get their rounds on target, and given enough time they are all able to do it. Even the Germans The real question is how long they are prepared or able to spend, and what risks they are able or forced to take.

Again, the defaults would be such that for those who don't care, the mission would adjust to +/-50m, and go straight to FFE at the conclusion of adjustment (i.e, basically what happens now in CMAK).

Similar engagement order/SOP options could be used by infantry and armour.

[ November 22, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[rune]

Just a correction, this is what Matt said about the sub machineguns.

Do you really think they would notice that? [Wink]

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

[JonS]

What correction?

BFC have known it was wrong since CMAK was released, yet don't care enough to think it's worth changing.

Granted it's minor - and personally I've swapped the pics of Stens for Thompsons, but that isn't the point is it?

Regards

JonS

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

However, if and when CM2 comes out and assuming it's WWII, then I would expect and demand that the U.S. OB gets the same masturbatory detail that must be marketed to the Germanophiles.

With a slight modification this is basically my position. Actually, not really a modification, more of an addition. I'd like to see all represented nations get roughly the same level of detail. However, given BFCs demonstrated performance* on this, I don't hold out much hope.

-snip-

* to wit: many many of the TOE issues in CMAK were brought up in CMBO, 4-5 years ago. In some respects, things even seem to have gone backwards, with Madmatt openly stating that BFC don't care that the CW units are carrying the wrong SMG, etc. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

I don't see a correction in your post rune.

I too have swapped the pics of Stens for Thompsons and it really isn't a huge issue, but is a bit of a nuisance since it would have been soooooo easy to correct. I think the lack of Fireflies in the Sherman platoons is more series, but whatever. Again, here's hoping CMX2 gives us the flexibility to do things better.

dalem makes a good point, however - CMAK was a surprise announcement to start with; whether or not that means we should "settle", I don't know. All of BFC's announcements are surprises, so I don't suppose that is a justifiable defence anymore.

[JonS]

Dale,

a fair summation. Perhaps I'm just less sanguine, particularly when it comes to uptake from customer input

Jon

[Figo]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Bravo! Well said...

Figo

[junk2drive]

From the info page on CMAK

"Full Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) for all the nations represented (Germany, USA, Italy, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Poland, South Africa, France) are modeled with thousands of different unit types available depending on the year, month and region."

[junk2drive]

And this

"HISTORICAL ACCURACY

Using the research and effort put into Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin as a benchmark, we have gone even further with Combat Mission: Afrika Korps to bring you the utmost in historical integrity.

Fully researched and detailed TO&E (Tables of Organization and Equipment) for all seven nations.

Accurate OB's (Orders of Battle).

Optional Historical Rarity of Units ensures players will no longer have to worry that their opponents "cherry picked" their forces.

Meticulously researched vehicle and uniform models, paint schemes and even sound effects help to bundle Combat Mission: Afrika Korps in a package that is a joy for the eyes, ears and mind to behold."

[Michael Emrys]

You actually believe claims about a product issued by its makers?

Michael

[Madmatt]

Hey junk2drive, I'm sorry, but where is the computer game you designed, researched and spent years working on again??

Madmatt

[junk2drive]

I did not comment did I. I only copied and pasted from the information page of CMAK.

Thank you for the games.

[JonS]

perhaps he could instead show you the one he paid for based on claims similar to those above?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

Hey junk2drive, I'm sorry, but where is the computer game you designed, researched and spent years working on again??

Madmatt

With all due respect, Matt, I think this comment is beneath what I have come to expect of the Battlefront team.

What you present here is, in fact, a textbook strawman argument. Junk was clearly trying to draw a direct comparision between what Battlefront claimed it would deliver with CMAK, and what it actually delivered. Criticizing his lack of personal experience as a game developer/designer is no more relevant than would be for Ford to criticize a complaining Pinto buyer for having never designed a passenger automobile.

Now, it may be that there is a legitimate counter argument to the assertion that Allied TOEs seem to be less completely fleshed out in CMAK when compared to Axis TOEs in certain areas (Artillery being my personal baliwick). However, to the best of my knowledge, neither you nor anyone else has directly rebutted this assertion here on the forums. As such, it's not surprising to me that forum members continue to harp on this subject.

I completely understand if you and other BFC employees don't have the time to offer well-scripted rebuttals to criticisms here on the forum. And honestly, I would rather you and other employees of Battlefront spend their time buiding the next generation of games than I would you spending hours responding to every little whiny criticism and response here on the forum -- and I have certainly done my fair share of whining.

FWIW, for all my complaining about the Artillery TOEs and other aspects of CMAK, I still think it is a very good game; I certainly don't regret buying it. However, it seems to me that some apparently simple aspects of the game, like Allied TOEs, are not as well thought out as the should have been. Apparently, there are a number of other forum members who feel the same way.

I dunno. Perhaps I have been spoiled by the sheer groundbreaking uniqueness of CMBO and & CMBB. While CMBO and CMBB were, and still are, each an A+ for me, CMAK is probably a B+, due mostly to TOE problems. As time goes on, I gravitate more and more back to CMBB, especially for QBs.

Take it for what you will; I offer all of this in the spirit of friendly and constructive criticism from a devoted customer.

Thank you and everyone else on the Battlefront team for your hard work.

Regards,

YD

[Moon]

My gosh, did you notice - Michael Dorosh is still angry that he's not "in close proximity to the design team" himself, isn't he?

YD, thanks for your constructive criticism. I am sure you'll understand that it's very frustrating to hear some of these things.

It's a bit like this:

-"These guys made the most accurate historical simulation every, there is nothing out there"

-"Yeah, but their third game really is missing some LMGs, FOs, and stuff."

-"No way!"

-"Way! And... and... and they promised that it all would be there. Everything. All that I ever wanted! Yes they did! Now it isn't."

-"Oh boy, that really bothers me!"

-"Yeah, me too. I really should be in closer proximity to the design team myself, then things like these wouldn't happen!"

Now for a more serious statement:

The comparison junk2drive posted is not contradicting what we delivered. Our historical research, including TO&Es is the best out there. We never claimed that it would be 100% error free. Nothing can ever be, especially not a computer game.

Keep in mind that CM is a highly complex program. It is not point-click-boom. You cannot open the code, throw in a bunch of changes and close it again. It is not that simple, not even for something appearing as simple as adding a TO&E entry here, or subtracting something here. "Hey, why can't they simply add a command to have artillery arrive in a pattern?" Well, guess what, it's not as simple as adding an entry in the on-screen menu

1.02 showed clearly that there is a point of diminishing returns. We cannot keep fixing small stuff at the danger of breaking other, more serious stuff. Yet that's what's going to happen when you fiddle around with a program too much.

Some issues that are going to remain are due to human mistake, some are due to "making the wrong choice when presented with conflicting research", some are due to information simply not being available at the time. But some are, and we've admitted this early on, due to design decisions made very very early in the process of designing CMBO. These cannot be made undone short of coding an entirely new engine. Which, incidentally, is precisely what we're doing. It will be quicker to do this than trying to fiddle around more in CM.

Keep also in mind that - unlike most of the other things going on at Battlefront these days, which are made by independent developer teams - making patches does cost us the one most valuable resource we have: Charles' coding time. That time, we all probably agree, is best spent on working on CMX2.

So like Matt said - 1.03 is the end, unless some serious issues crop up. We do continue keeping track of issues, however, and When we'd unexpectedly have to make 1.04 for some reason, some of the other minor issues mentioned might be addressed too, in full, partially, or not at all.

Martin

[junk2drive]

"The comparison junk2drive posted is not..."

What comparison? I only copied ans pasted.

Thank god, your choice of mods, this is only a game.

If BFC will search for forum posts by me they will find mostly helpful, supportive, things. I even defended you guys recently as having real lives and real jobs.

No MADMATT I have not designed any computer games, but I have been in automotive retail as a manager for over 30 years. Would you like any advice in that area?

[Moon]

junk2drive, thing is - we do not have real lives and real jobs Battlefront is a full-time job for all of us except Fernando.

Let me rephrase what I said then, quoting you: "The post by junk2drive, copying and pasting without commenting, is not contradicting what we delivered". It certainly seemed to be understood that way by others.

Martin

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Moon:

[QB] My gosh, did you notice - Michael Dorosh is still angry that he's not "in close proximity to the design team" himself, isn't he?

Moon, feel free to take that smiley and put it where the sun doesn't shine, this is not cute or amusing in the least, and I feel pretty deeply offended by this! I've tried to offer up mostly positive comments in this thread, and my gripes were very clearly laid out - lack of Stens for Canadians and Fireflies in Sherman platoons. Pretty minor stuff, really which I admitted then and now is not really show stopping.

I can't believe you post such a hurtful comment like that. I'm sincerely sorry I bothered to try and bring any of this to your attention - you'll note that this was done BEFORE the patch even went into testing phases, when it might have done some good if you actually gave a **** about all the stuff junk2drive just quoted.

If your idea of constructive discourse is to belittle people for trying to help, then I don't see where you get off with any of the rest of the comments below.

So what is it that pisses you off so much, Moon, that you need to make belittling comments - the fact that we are trying to help you live up to the claims you make on the CMAK splash page?

YD, thanks for your constructive criticism. I am sure you'll understand that it's very frustrating to hear some of these things.

Well, taking it out on me in public ought to make you feel better, Moon, maybe you can start an entire thread and devote it to trashing me. What an ass I was for thinking that I might have something to contribute.

It's a bit like this:

-"These guys made the most accurate historical simulation every, there is nothing out there"

-"Yeah, but their third game really is missing some LMGs, FOs, and stuff."

-"No way!"

-"Way! And... and... and they promised that it all would be there. Everything. All that I ever wanted! Yes they did! Now it isn't."

-"Oh boy, that really bothers me!"

-"Yeah, me too. I really should be in closer proximity to the design team myself, then things like these wouldn't happen!"

I NEVER suggested that I need to be in proximity, and was in fact referring to Jon Sowden, who I believe took the trouble of sending very detailed lists of stuff to you re: CW, most of which got ignored.

The rest of your post I won't argue with, but do me a favour and get the hell off my back - I felt a little unappreciated when I tried to start a patch thread only to see the Spanish language mod pinned to the top of the forum (what - 2% of CM players on this forum speak Spanish?) and then to be belittled by you personally because I dared suggest we actually have a discourse here.

If this is your way of dissuading people from trying to help, what does that say about you? This is embarrasing, Moon, and I think I would like an apology from you.

[ November 24, 2004, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]