V1.02 on the distant horizon, Here is the first feature/change...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

How about increasing the ammo load for infantry? In CMBB, ammo is used up faster than it was for CMBO and yet we need more turns to complete a battle. This obviously makes for a lot of infantry squads who run out of ammo early. Not fun.

Ammo load has been increased for normal infantry, by at least 20 percent I think (average is now about 45-50 I would think with figures going as high as 60, as opposed to the standard 40 in CMBO).

I think it could be argued that ammo management across your force is part of what distinguishes player skills.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

How about increasing the ammo load for infantry? In CMBB, ammo is used up faster than it was for CMBO and yet we need more turns to complete a battle. This obviously makes for a lot of infantry squads who run out of ammo early. Not fun.

Ammo load has been increased for normal infantry, by at least 20 percent I think (average is now about 45-50 I would think with figures going as high as 60, as opposed to the standard 40 in CMBO).

I think it could be argued that ammo management across your force is part of what distinguishes player skills.

[MikeyD]

The only 1.02 change I'm sure about is tracking down that pesky white ampuloment glitch! ...and maybe something concerning ammo levels in QBs(?).

I have my own small wish-list for vehicle upgrades (Churchill, Hetzer, 6 punder Valentines, etc.) but a lot of the 'bugs' mentioned on the board seem to fall into the personal opinion realm. "I'd rather my tanks not retreat in the face of overwhelming odds", "I'd rather my heavy mgs advance to their deaths at the head of infantry assaults", "I'd rather my infantry be able to withdraw at a run across a 400 yard open field without panicing or dying"!

[ December 03, 2002, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[MikeyD]

The only 1.02 change I'm sure about is tracking down that pesky white ampuloment glitch! ...and maybe something concerning ammo levels in QBs(?).

I have my own small wish-list for vehicle upgrades (Churchill, Hetzer, 6 punder Valentines, etc.) but a lot of the 'bugs' mentioned on the board seem to fall into the personal opinion realm. "I'd rather my tanks not retreat in the face of overwhelming odds", "I'd rather my heavy mgs advance to their deaths at the head of infantry assaults", "I'd rather my infantry be able to withdraw at a run across a 400 yard open field without panicing or dying"!

[ December 03, 2002, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Please consider the following:

Remove the "hard" switch from turning to panning when moving the mouse down the edge of the screen. Add a transition zone, where panning and turning are happening at the same time, at a rate relative to the vertical cursor position!!

Regards,

Thomm

I hate the change made to how the camera works. It was much easier keeping one finger on the shift key for when I wanted to scroll laterally across the screen. One more example of something that never should've been toyed with.

[ December 04, 2002, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Please consider the following:

Remove the "hard" switch from turning to panning when moving the mouse down the edge of the screen. Add a transition zone, where panning and turning are happening at the same time, at a rate relative to the vertical cursor position!!

Regards,

Thomm

I hate the change made to how the camera works. It was much easier keeping one finger on the shift key for when I wanted to scroll laterally across the screen. One more example of something that never should've been toyed with.

[ December 04, 2002, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Frunze]

Has this FOW bug been reported? One of my opponent's tanks was tentatively identified as a BT Fast Tank? but the color-coded armor readout and the info screen gave info for the T-34 (which has much thicker armor. Eventually it turned out to actually be a T-34 - the bug defeated the FOW and kept me from being surprised by this.

This was a PBEM game and I still have the turnfile - I can e-mail the movie where the identification changes if anyone wants it.

Edit: I see this has been reported elsewhere, and yeah, this was a transition game so maybe that's where the bug came from.

[ December 04, 2002, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Frunze ]

[Frunze]

Has this FOW bug been reported? One of my opponent's tanks was tentatively identified as a BT Fast Tank? but the color-coded armor readout and the info screen gave info for the T-34 (which has much thicker armor. Eventually it turned out to actually be a T-34 - the bug defeated the FOW and kept me from being surprised by this.

This was a PBEM game and I still have the turnfile - I can e-mail the movie where the identification changes if anyone wants it.

Edit: I see this has been reported elsewhere, and yeah, this was a transition game so maybe that's where the bug came from.

[ December 04, 2002, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Frunze ]

[Cull]

I want an OOB at-a-glance screen to see my unit statuses. Yeah, yeah, I read Steve's comment that it's not in there because real-life commanders wouldn't have access to such detailed info on their units. However -- and realize I'm not as well-read in WW2 commander strategy as some of you -- but I don't think these commanders could hit CTRL-G and see the status of their units either, so where's the conflict here?

I have to agree with this one. Let's face it, real-life commanders wouldn't have access to about 2/3 of the info we have on the screen at any given time, so I can't buy that out. The OOB would be a nice tweak that I would find really nifty. Plus, you could always make a way to not use it if that is what you prefer. Like...not looking at it.

I hate the change made to how the camera works. It was much easier keeping one finger on the shift key for when I wanted to scroll laterally across the screen. One more example of something that never should've been toyed with.

Not that there is any call for debating people's wish-list stuff, but.....are you guys retarded?! (I mean that in a silly, slug-in-arm sort of way, not the actual mean way). What is the big deal about this? I not only found it no problem to adapt to, but prefer it this way now. Maybe there are differences in how various mice work with it, otherwise, I just can't imagine how it's a problem. Anyway.....I can see the "transition zone" idea working, if it was "soft" enough. That is, you'd need a good bit of range in the "pan & turn" zone---you'd really be pissed if you found yourself jumping between the two while trying to do both.

I can't believe I just spent all these words on that.....

[ December 03, 2002, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Jack Arilliac ]

[Cull]

I want an OOB at-a-glance screen to see my unit statuses. Yeah, yeah, I read Steve's comment that it's not in there because real-life commanders wouldn't have access to such detailed info on their units. However -- and realize I'm not as well-read in WW2 commander strategy as some of you -- but I don't think these commanders could hit CTRL-G and see the status of their units either, so where's the conflict here?

I have to agree with this one. Let's face it, real-life commanders wouldn't have access to about 2/3 of the info we have on the screen at any given time, so I can't buy that out. The OOB would be a nice tweak that I would find really nifty. Plus, you could always make a way to not use it if that is what you prefer. Like...not looking at it.

I hate the change made to how the camera works. It was much easier keeping one finger on the shift key for when I wanted to scroll laterally across the screen. One more example of something that never should've been toyed with.

Not that there is any call for debating people's wish-list stuff, but.....are you guys retarded?! (I mean that in a silly, slug-in-arm sort of way, not the actual mean way). What is the big deal about this? I not only found it no problem to adapt to, but prefer it this way now. Maybe there are differences in how various mice work with it, otherwise, I just can't imagine how it's a problem. Anyway.....I can see the "transition zone" idea working, if it was "soft" enough. That is, you'd need a good bit of range in the "pan & turn" zone---you'd really be pissed if you found yourself jumping between the two while trying to do both.

I can't believe I just spent all these words on that.....

[ December 03, 2002, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Jack Arilliac ]

[Ex Bellator]

FWIW (not a lot) I would like the following fixed:

1) Seperate .wavs for 20mm autocannons (AA) and single shot 20mm guns (light tanks).

2) Random weather tweaked so we don't get off the scale heatwaves in November (South) or frozen ground in June (North). Also Thick Fog and high winds.

3) An increase in the LOS blocking caused by Fog in particular (but also wheatfields in high summer). At present even thick fog allows you to see for 100m plus.

4) Ski troops getting the 'Hide' command. This is vital if you are ever given them to defend with in particular.

Like I said, FWIW

[ December 03, 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Rex_Bellator ]

[Ex Bellator]

FWIW (not a lot) I would like the following fixed:

1) Seperate .wavs for 20mm autocannons (AA) and single shot 20mm guns (light tanks).

2) Random weather tweaked so we don't get off the scale heatwaves in November (South) or frozen ground in June (North). Also Thick Fog and high winds.

3) An increase in the LOS blocking caused by Fog in particular (but also wheatfields in high summer). At present even thick fog allows you to see for 100m plus.

4) Ski troops getting the 'Hide' command. This is vital if you are ever given them to defend with in particular.

Like I said, FWIW

[ December 03, 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Rex_Bellator ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

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

Please consider the following:

Remove the "hard" switch from turning to panning when moving the mouse down the edge of the screen. Add a transition zone, where panning and turning are happening at the same time, at a rate relative to the vertical cursor position!!

Regards,

Thomm

I'm in complete agreement. I hate the change made to how the camera works. It was much easier keeping one finger on the shift key for when I wanted to scroll laterally across the screen. One more example of something that never should've been toyed with.</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

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

Please consider the following:

Remove the "hard" switch from turning to panning when moving the mouse down the edge of the screen. Add a transition zone, where panning and turning are happening at the same time, at a rate relative to the vertical cursor position!!

Regards,

Thomm

I'm in complete agreement. I hate the change made to how the camera works. It was much easier keeping one finger on the shift key for when I wanted to scroll laterally across the screen. One more example of something that never should've been toyed with.</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

It was much easier keeping one finger on the shift key for when I wanted to scroll laterally across the screen. One more example of something that never should've been toyed with.

Just for the record, I disagree.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

It was much easier keeping one finger on the shift key for when I wanted to scroll laterally across the screen. One more example of something that never should've been toyed with.

Just for the record, I disagree.

Michael

[Col Deadmarsh]

You like to go out of your way just to disagree with me, don't you Emrys?

[Col Deadmarsh]

You like to go out of your way just to disagree with me, don't you Emrys?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

You like to go out of your way just to disagree with me, don't you Emrys?

Nope. Don't have to go out of my way at all. I just seem to keep tripping over these odd opinions of yours everywhere I go.

Not that you aren't entitled to them of course. I just happen to disagree with this one, like so many others. I guess it could be said that you and I represent a range of opinion, surely a healthy situation, yes?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

You like to go out of your way just to disagree with me, don't you Emrys?

Nope. Don't have to go out of my way at all. I just seem to keep tripping over these odd opinions of yours everywhere I go.

Not that you aren't entitled to them of course. I just happen to disagree with this one, like so many others. I guess it could be said that you and I represent a range of opinion, surely a healthy situation, yes?

Michael

[Thomm]

I think a Reverse to Contact command would come in handy for Gun/Trailer combos (thought of this when I discovered the hard way that unlimbered 88s cannot be moved without transport, which worked excellent for small Paks).

Regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

I think a Reverse to Contact command would come in handy for Gun/Trailer combos (thought of this when I discovered the hard way that unlimbered 88s cannot be moved without transport, which worked excellent for small Paks).

Regards,

Thomm

[uhu]

Hopefully, the few incorrect datas of hungarian units will be corrected in 1.02

(for details search "hungarian" topic names)

[uhu]

Hopefully, the few incorrect datas of hungarian units will be corrected in 1.02

(for details search "hungarian" topic names)