When should we start refreshing for 1.04

[aka_tom_w]

Charles fixes it and the testers break it....

(or discover or exploit some new issue or bug)

Testers are under NDA so that's why no is talking about it in any detail, (If Steve has anything new to say I am sure it you won't miss it!) but its fair to say that patching and testing is an ongoing process and someone some where is testing the latest fix/patch 24/7. (Cleary not everyone is working 24/7, but there is always someone working somewhere on testing something.)

Sometimes when you "fix" something it causes other bugs.

So basically the longer it takes to release the patch the more bugs that get fixed, look at it that way.

just in case you missed it:

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted September 26, 2007 04:22 PM

Phillip,

Version 1.04 should pretty much close the book on the big issues that CM:SF still has. We know for sure that we need to do a patch v1.05, though, because there are a bunch of "niggly" issues that we need to clean up and haven't since we've been putting our efforts into the bigger issues. I don't doubt a v1.06 or v1.07 will come out over time, but they will probably fix only a few specific things, not the sort of laundry list of stuff v1.04 and v1.05 will fix.

Another way of looking at this is v1.05 is likely to be the last "fix" patch. The ones that follow are probably better described as "fine tuning" patches. And at some point we'll just say "we're done fine tuning" and cease patching.

As for what happens when Modules come out... the code changes will be made available to all CM:SF customers. What will not be made available (of course) are the Module specific data, such as TO&E, vehicles, terrain, etc. But things like tweaks to core game behavior and what not will not be restricted.

The goal here is to not fracture the customer base. If we made some change for the Marines Module that affected gameplay, it has to be available to all or suddenly you get into a situation where people with one Module can't play against people without it. That would be a mess.

When a player goes to make a Scenario he'll have to select what Modules it will work with. This will filter the list of units and what not that can be used with that Scenario. Anybody without the Module/s required by the Scenario will not be able to play it. So if I have a Marines Module and I make a Scenario using the "Base Game" only, then everybody will be able to play it. If I select "Marines Module" then only those with the Marines Module will be able to play.

That system should keep fracturing of the user base to an absolute minimum.

Steve

[ September 26, 2007, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

We're allllllmost there! The graphics problem we had going into the weekend was tracked down and fixed. We thought you guys would rather wait until roads were drawing instead of seeing blank space We found a couple of rogue things today so we are testing a new "Final Candidate".

From a feature standpoint v1.04 is complete. So if nothing goes boom with this last build we gave the testers we should be good to go for getting it out to you all.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

Are these features fixed in 1.04?

Pathfinding

LOS/LOF

Ajusting Arty

Breaching

Infantry

[Wodka]

Will there be a option implemented to play WEGO @ TCP/IP? I want to have the choice, as I have it in singleplayer.

[Battlefront.com]

M1A1TankCommander,

Tons of things are fixed. But specifically...

Pathfinding - many fixes, but of course I'd be a fool to say it is perfect. Even CMx1's pathfinding is still ridiculed and sworn It's the sort of thing that will never be exactly as the user wants for all situations all the time. However, v1.04 is a LOT better than v1.03, which was better than v1.02, which was better than v1.0.

LOS/LOF - same answer as above, with one exception. There will always be some visual abstraction in certrain circumstances. This is unavoidable due to computer resource limitations. But again, many things that bugged people in v1.03 are not a problem in v1.04.

Ajusting Arty - yup, fixed.

Breaching - yup, fixed.

Infantry - dunno how to answer this one because that's like saying "hey, did you fix the game?" Infantry is more responsive and quicker to do certain things if that's what you're asking about. A number of "stuck unit/soldier" bugs were squashed as well. Certain TacAI behaviors were also tweaked/improved.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Wodka,

Will there be a option implemented to play WEGO @ TCP/IP? I want to have the choice, as I have it in singleplayer.

Not any time soon. This is a major coding effort and we have other priorities. People can play WeGo via PBEM, so it's not like it is impossible to play multiplayer. I understand that some people really don't like PBEM, or like it less than TCP/IP, but compared to other things on our priority list this isn't as important. For example, restructuring Quick Battles is higher up on the priority list (not that this is happening right away either).

Steve

[SlapHappy]

Steve

What about infantry movement to facilitate achievement of los/lof? Right now it's difficult to get troops where you need them to lay fire down since you can't control each individual soldier......

[M1A1TC]

Steve

Thanks for quick reply. This is very good news

[Battlefront.com]

SlapHappy,

LOS is determined by the Action Spot (8m x 8m spot) a Team occupies. A Team will always occupy only one Action Spot, so therefore for LOS it doesn't matter where the individuals are, they all have LOS to the target. LOF, on the other hand, is traced individually. Soldiers do try to position themselves so they have clear LOF, but when they don't the game mechanics are a little liberal with LOF.

Think of it as a much less abstracted CMx1 system, but with some abstraction remaining. Not every bump and piece of cover is simulated in 1:1 detail, though a lot more of it than in CMx1 (of course). So we still have to be a little understanding of this fact to keep things balanced.

In short.. do not worry about individual positions as much as you currently feel you need to be. Also keep in mind that there are some bugs in v1.03 that might be making things look worse than they should be (firing through walls, through berms, etc. should be far less likely in v1.04).

Steve

[thewood]

So let me make sure I understand this...I am just looking for clarification:

We can expect area fire to snap to the action point regardless of LOS to a portion of the 8 x 8 grid?

We can expect fire to deviate from staright line to hit the action point?

We can expect that squad members can be shot without any possibility of LOS to the enemy?

I am not asking to be a PITA, but to understand the specifics of abstraction and whether I invest time in CMSF or CM1.

btw, I've had 12 two brothers beer and may be incoherent.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

A Team will always occupy only one Action Spot, so therefore for LOS it doesn't matter where the individuals are, they all have LOS to the target. LOF, on the other hand, is traced individually.

At the moment, when a team comes to a halt, the game takes a few seconds to figure out which action spot the team is on and then adjusts the team's formation accordingly. Unfortunately this often results in some men doing a U-turn in the face of the enemy and running back the way they came rather than just hitting the dirt and firing.

Whilst I understand the need to have a limited number of action spots to check, has something been done about this behaviour for v1.04?

The way I would see this working would be for the game engine to treat one soldier in the team as the location of the whole team (for action spot purposes) and for all other soldiers in the team to follow him. That way, if the team came to a sudden halt, the guy "on point" would hit the dirt and start laying down fire whilst the rest would form up on him, rather than him doing a U-turn.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Thomm]

Minor request: Please activate the 'Cancel Target' hotkey (if it has not been done already)!

Thanks,

Thomm

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Minor request: Please activate the 'Cancel Target' hotkey (if it has not been done already)!

Thanks,

Thomm

I just press "delete" and it cancels - not trying to be funny but did you know about this?

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Other Means:

I just press "delete" and it cancels - not trying to be funny but did you know about this?

Well, now I do! Thanks!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:

I just press "delete" and it cancels - not trying to be funny but did you know about this?

Well, now I do! Thanks!

Best regards,

Thomm </font>

[Manx]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

SlapHappy,

LOS is determined by the Action Spot (8m x 8m spot) a Team occupies. A Team will always occupy only one Action Spot, so therefore for LOS it doesn't matter where the individuals are, they all have LOS to the target. LOF, on the other hand, is traced individually. Soldiers do try to position themselves so they have clear LOF, but when they don't the game mechanics are a little liberal with LOF.

Think of it as a much less abstracted CMx1 system, but with some abstraction remaining. Not every bump and piece of cover is simulated in 1:1 detail, though a lot more of it than in CMx1 (of course). So we still have to be a little understanding of this fact to keep things balanced.

In short.. do not worry about individual positions as much as you currently feel you need to be. Also keep in mind that there are some bugs in v1.03 that might be making things look worse than they should be (firing through walls, through berms, etc. should be far less likely in v1.04).

Steve

Hi Steve,

I opened a thread in the Stategy & Tactics forum about this called "Laying down fire and squad formations". So, if only 2 out of say 9 guys are actually engaging in combat (i.e firing back) what are the others doing? Is their inactivity abstracted and not what we actually seeing?

[Mud]

Interesting.

Are Strykers any more likely to use their machine guns without explicit targeting orders? At least in 1.03, they seem a bit slow to do so, even if they have plenty of ammo, no other orders (targeting or otherwise), and spotting on a fleshy-but-dangerous target (like an RPG team with their 500mm Circle o' Death).

[Mishga]

Are we there yet?

[Hev]

i was thinking that!

[KNac]

@ thewood,

I think the anwers may be:

We can expect area fire to snap to the action point regardless of LOS to a portion of the 8 x 8 grid?

Yes, don't have much of a problem with this as long as we don't see weird stuff like shooting through berns or whatever. Any ground or object feature should stop the fire if it's between center of action spot and LOF.

We can expect fire to deviate from staright line to hit the action point?

No, shouldn't happen, if so is a bug (I suppose you are refeering to area fire cause in ALL other instances LOF is tracked directly, not to the center of the action spot). Units can or can't fire to an action spot, if they CAN they fire to the center of the spot. If some object denies LOF to the center of action spot then they will shoot agains the object (ie. a wall)

We can expect that squad members can be shot without any possibility of LOS to the enemy?

Again, NO. If there is no LOS, there is no LOF. LOF is tracked per each unit (per soldier in temas/squads). Some bizarre behaviour may happen in case in squads which are split , I don't mean split on teams, squads which are moving and occupe various positions, you may refeer to this case maybe? In this case you can observe the icon is in the middle of the line you can trace from one extrem of the squad to the other, that's the action spot as per game LOS calculations, but as each element of the squad is one or other action spot, they can get fire from the enemy even if as per game mechancis they don't have LOS from action spot to action spot.

Here is from where most of this weird stuff come IMO, one possible way toa void this is use teams as much as you can, this is split squads. This is a pain in the ass, as adds unnecessary micro and sometimes reduces firepower, effectiviness or whatever. But in MOUT or envioremnments with narrow LOS places, the weirdness may be exponential, so using teams, in current state, is not a bad idea at all.

[Canada Guy]

Would it be possible to add an icon to the info bar to show what terrain the unit is occupying? I liked knowing that my men were in scattered trees or grain. With men 1:1 and not all in the same place, it would be nice to know what the computer classifies them as accupying.

I spent a few turns trying to get all my men into rubble as I saw 3 men in open ground. If I know the computer listed them all in the rubble (even though the graphics show a little different) I would have spent more time firing and less time trying to get them all in there.

---

BTW If this is in CMSF I have not seen it but I could just be blind.

[Capital]

I'm sensing tomorrow will be the release date.

[Thomm]

Two little things I noticed today:

* the body of a dead enemy floating over a shell hole,

* all 'rubble' doodads in a destroyed building having the same orientation, making them look unnatural.

Perhaps these were addressed already?!

As long as one does not run into any of the reported quirks, CM:SF seems hard to beat in terms of atmosphere, graphics, and gameplay!!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Statisoris]

I LIKE PATCH !