illo Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 Originally posted by Mace: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by illo: This is too good product to be left unfinished. I just think your customers deserve finished product? Or don't we?I think the majority of us here are absolutely impressed by CMBB and would say that it is not 'unfinished'. Any additional ammendments BTS choose to do is just icing on the cake. Mace</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 illo, as Ive mentioned in another thread, we had two choices. One was to remove the vehicles completely that didnt have a unique model or two was to research them, make sure they play exactly as they should but use a replacement or shared model for them. This gives players greater tactical scope, something we didnt want to compromise in exchange for graphical correctness. Once we finish updating vehicles we could simply cut out any that dont have a unique 3D model, but I think most people would be happy with a more detailed wargame, which is what we wanted to create. To claim that the game is unfinished is really not fair. We researched and modeled the vehicles as accurately as we could within the game engine itself, which is the important part. I would feel the game unfinished if we had all the correct 3D models yet had generic or poorly researched armour ratings. As Ive mentioned elsewhere, CM is a wargame first and foremost and we wont reduce the tactical depth of the game for graphical correctness. If so, we would have removed trenches, too, as they arent modelled as 3D objects. Dan [ November 22, 2002, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarker Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 Dan, by all means remove the trenches. Abbott usually kicks my butt from inside those bad boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 Hehe, glad Im not the only one that hates those things Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 Well I'm not sure this was supposed to be fixed or not; it's pretty close to the problem of a hiding unit unhiding when a dead tank or something is in the arc, the bug that was supposedly fixed. On that one, I don't know, but I just played a scenario where the gun wouldn't quit UNhiding, because there was a tank in his arc, not a dead tank this time, but it was nowhere near his LOS. So... ? "B" word? It's like our problem with using arcs to try and ambush- unhide doesn't happen when "I'm ready to shoot". Bummer. Also, I see the Mtc w/ Arc thing allegedly added; the readme didn't specifically say, so I was hoping that giving an Armor arc would make my tiger Move Till "Something To Shoot At", which with the Armor arc would of course be armor. But he wouldn't budge, so I guess that wasn't in the works. It would be consistent that way, though. I also noticed that a shreck with an armor arc would not shoot at... an Armored Car? I guess only tanks and ReallyHeavyStuff counts as "Armor"? Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 Originally posted by illo: Whatever, Fanboy. You betcha! Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86smopuim Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 Kubelwagen still identified as "Jeep?" sometimes. I think I even have a saved game of that. I think this bug has a priority of 99 and a severity of 99(ie none at all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackVoid Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 Just for completeness I list this here: Ground conditions (snow) are lost when you load up a saved quick battle map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Steiner Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 Hi Kwazydog et al Sd234/4 would rate high on my list, something cool about it maybe its just an attachment to my old Airfix model (which ironically had incorrect hull which was never 'fixed' ) IS2 late also simply due to numbers used but highest in my list is the Sd251/17 (ie one with 20mm) as they are relatively numerous and I keep forgetting which Sd251 has or has not got this weapon during game with other Sd251s about. I know that the info window clearly states it but I need the graphical 'hint' Just do whatever further texture 'unsharing' you can. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperHero Posted November 24, 2002 Author Share Posted November 24, 2002 oh, and another thing that is bothering me, is why jagdpanzer iv/70 doesnt have machinegun :eek: www.achtungpanzer.com resources say that they had 1 machinegun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 I believe it had one in CMBO as well. I don't know why it lost it. I agree that the Sd251/17 should be a priority. How often or not the IS-2 was equipped with the AAMG, it is modeled as having it in CMBB, so the correct model should sport one as well. I did a small test and can confirm that the PzIII F does only use one of its coaxial MGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 After a certain point in a scenario, ( I don't know what point that was though ), my Matildas absolutely positively refused to use their AP ammo for any reason. If the unit still had MG ammo, when selecting a target, it would ask me whether to use the main gun or not, to which I reply "yes, d*mmit", but it will not, not ever, using MG instead. If the unit was out of MG ammo, it would not ask me that question, which makes sense, but still it allows me target, then refuses to fire whatsoever. Even with 77 AP remaining. In the same game, I had a BA64, with 15 ammo left, who would not fire at anything- he just absolutely refused. I saved that game and reloaded it at that point twice. First, he proceeded to fire on infantry normally, second he refused to fire whatsoever, again. The Matildas are consistent- they just won't fire, not even when they are in immediate close threat from infantry. In this scenario I have a large number of infantry who are low on ammo; not everyone, just alot. Hypothesis: is it possible that when many units are severely low on ammo, that something in the code will cause *everyone*, even those with plenty of ammo to refuse to fire whatsoever? Do these strike you as buggy behaviour? Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Originally posted by SuperHero: just lenghten the barrel of psw 234/3 abit unfortunately, that won't work, the 234/4 looked quite a bit different than the 234/3. actually, showing a Pak40 minus wheels on a 234 chassis is WAY closer to it (after all, that was practically what the 234/4 was) than lengthening the 234/3's L/24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Originally posted by SuperHero: oh, and another thing that is bothering me, is why jagdpanzer iv/70 doesnt have machinegun :eek: www.achtungpanzer.com resources say that they had 1 machinegun?in theory, yes. in praxu, however, the MG opening was often covered up with a characteristic cylindric-pyramidical cover armorplate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Originally posted by Mace: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuperHero: (1 x MG - cupola)The MG on the cupola was mainly for AA defence. It wasn't a standard fixture however. Mace</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts