1.08 Bugs

[YankeeDog]

I think one of the big differences between AT-3s in 1973 and in a hypothetical 2008 engagement is the dramatic improvement in AFV sensor and targting equipment in the last 30 years.

In CMSF, an AT-3 (or any Syrian ATGM team, for that matter) generally gets off one, maybe two shots at best before it's spotted and destroyed. The Israeli tankers in 1973, while very skilled, had a lot less to work with in the way of spotting and targeting equipment. So each individual AT-3 team in 1973 probably got off a lot more shots before being destroyed.

Range is another issue. Even the Max. CMSF map size is actually rather small by open-terrain armored warfare standards. Long range ATGMs like AT-3 would become more useful on larger maps. While long ranges would, if anything, reduce hit chance, again this would increase their ability to get off more shots before being spotted and destroyed.

It's also very important to look at the quality of the crew when considering AT-3 perfomance. Because it's a MCLOS weapon, it requires a lot of operator skill. Hit % should go up dramatically with higher quality operators. It's important to note that it may not be all that realisitic to have Syrian Vets operating AT-3s. . . my guess is that their better formations get the AT-4.

But overall, there's no way getting around the fact that the AT-3 is now an antiquated system, and you shouldn't expect all that much from them. Even AT-4s are far better. They should feel a bit like 37mm PaKs in 1942. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Huntarr]

MikeyD he is correct that you can not give a FACE command to a mounted unit until after it has completed it's WEGO turn. You can however get around this by giving them an ARC command. That is how I do it. I guess I should post a Project's report

[vincere]

Next, he took aim with his M4A1 and, miracle! out of this came his second javelin, which flew straight to the original target and took out the remaining crew! Fabulous!

I've seen this on a replay of the firing in wego.

[Watson & Crick]

Originally posted by handihoc:

I reported that one some months ago, in V1.04 or 1.05, I think. I got the impression the Syrians were firing off rpgs at targets way beyond their range, but was never able to confirm that as I couldn't identify the weapons they were actually using. The bug was still there in the following update. Haven't replayed recently, but I'm surprised to see it still applies. ARe you playing V1.08?

I was playing 1.08. I'm almost positive it was a missile and not a RPG. The explosions were quite large. Maybe the bug reappeared?

[TheVulture]

1.08 bug I noticed today

The curse of the persistent waypoint

From webwing's ghost campaign, first mission (save available that shows the bug (I hope - haven't checked, but saved just before hitting 'start' and seeing the problem).

US MOUT squad currently split into 3x3 man teams. I am trying to get them to move up from their current positions to a wall around a building (whence they will breach the wall and storm in, hopefully). Each time I give them an order to move (usually 'quick') the team runs backwards some twenty or more meters before turning around and attempting to complete the move.

This behavious started before I split the squad, as it happens (no save of that though). Setup phase: move order is given. Two turns in they have nearly reached that first plotted waypoint. If I recall correctly, some soldiers had stopped moving, having reached their destinations, while others were still walking, and the 'move' command still showed when the unit was selected. I cancelled the move command and gave them a new one, which caused no problem that I noticed. A turn or two later on, I gave them an assault command to move forwards through a forested area, and the first team up and moving ran backwards some distance before going forwards.

As I said, after I split the teams, this continued, with each team doing the same thing (my memory may not be perfect on the details BTW). They all seemed to go back to the same point no matter where they started from, and I am pretty confident that it is pretty much to the point where their original move command ended.

(Incidentally, minor graphical glitch in the same scenario: after breaching the wall, on the replay the wall correctly started the turn intact, but with piles of rubble at the edges of where the breach was going to appear. Since I've also seen breaches where the replay has no problems, it isn't something that happens every time).

[pickled14]

Just started the campaign on veteran mode and noticed when moving my Abram tanks forward after taking out the static T55's they cam under heavy machine gun fire. I feel this is a bug, AI shouldn't be opening up on heavy armor and giving their position away with a weapon that has no effect.

[gibsonm]

Were the M1’s “closed down” or “buttoned up”? Both of these mean the hatches were closed (depends on who taught you).

If the hatches were open, the M1 crews would have been legitimate MG targets.

[Secondbrooks]

No IEDs and Mines being on mission causes crashes to anyone else? Has to be my CMSF then.

[pickled14]

The tank crews were buttoned up. I remember this being a problem in the original combat mission series, in fact a buddy of mine quit playing against me after his MG teams opened up on my Shermans (they were buttoned up too) and were quickly dispatched.

[Secondbrooks]

Hello again

Downloaded new CMSF's 1.07 install file from battlefront, installed it. Game ran fine in 1.07 (also with mines). Now downloaded 1.08 (patch 1.07 > 1.08 battlefront version) and again when red side is having mines or IEDs in mission : When playing mission as red or messing around in scenario editor in red deployment game just crashes. I've downloaded game's install file twice and downloaded patches (both battlefront versions, huger and smaller) multiple times but game is not working with mines when it's 1.08.

But wait a minute! I have found a solution:

ATI left-click combatibility turned OFF is the cure.

I repeat:

"ATI left-click combatibility turned OFF is the cure. "

EDIT: Yeah. Found it while was still typing this... Someones like me are just too slow.

[Zatoichi]

I saw a weird bug in 1.08 during a PBEM game at the weekend.

I was playing the Modern Oasis scenario - the one where Blue has 4 Abrams and Red has 10 T72s (2001).

At certain points when tanks were ordered to move, the replay would show them dipping vertically through the surrounding terrain and move very jerkily/rapidly up and down until they faced the desired direction, whereupon they moved off without further graphical oddity.

I didn't mind too much until I had the last remaining Abrams in my sights, and at the start of the next turn it did this bizarre 'dance', and my 2 T72s firing on it either missed or the shots didn't register.

Anyway, alas I just realised I deleted the save games to save disk space - it's possible the chap I was playing still has them though.

[stikkypixie]

I saw this one in 1.07, but I think it's still in 1.08.

I was playing a QB, I had a bunch of T72's and the computer Bradley infantry.

Anyway, one of my T72 got hit by an AT-4, and in the status tab showed that the autoloader was destroyed (big red cross); yet the T72 could continue loading new rounds and shoot at the hapless infantry.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by pickled14:

The tank crews were buttoned up. I remember this being a problem in the original combat mission series, in fact a buddy of mine quit playing against me after his MG teams opened up on my Shermans (they were buttoned up too) and were quickly dispatched.

Actually, firing on tanks with small arms fire is a feature, not a bug. Firstly, it DOES do damage. Check out your Abrams' sensors and smoke launchers after it's been subjected to heavy MG fire. Secondly, it's related to troop quality. Poor quality troops are more likely to spray a tank with small arms fire.

As for the CMx1 thing. I don't remember MGs opening fire on tanks they couldn't hurt. I did see the occasional .50 or MG42 take out lightly armoured tanks. One .50 armed recce vehicle hurtled past a PzIV/L70 and took it out from the rear with it's .50 in a single burst. :eek:

[stikkypixie]

No luck with T72's for me, I was playing the scenario "Fist full of Doodads" and just saw the one T72 drive straight through a bunch of buildings. Weird as hell.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[handihoc]

Yesterday I gave an inf squad in a trench a Quick move order 20metres along the trench, then another quick at right angles into an alley behind a wall. If they'd followed orders they'd have remained out of sight of the enemy for all but a couple of seconds.

Instead, when they reached the waypoint, instead of just turning and running smoothly into cover, several of them came out of the trench on the wrong side, faffed around for several seconds in the open, then ran for the designated alleyway. Result, three dead from enemy fire.

I've seen other similar behaviour recently - similar to The Vulture's report. When they reach a waypoint inf will often run back and forth, exposing themselves (so to speak!), and not get quickly into cover. Some members of a squad will even settle in the open rather than behind the obvious cover of a wall.

[c3k]

handihoc,

I've seen too much of this as well.

Ken

[stikkypixie]

Vehicle morale is another thing. I made this fun scenario where two Abrams were subjected to a 4 minute long rocket barrage. It looked bloody spectacular, and apart from the strange fact that the Abrams were unharmed, they didn't seem to notice the barrage at all. Shouldn't the morale at least go to nervous or something?

[SpitfireXI]

I would also vouch to have my infantry stay in a trench and clean it out when using the hunt command. What usually happens is half of the squad exits the trench and walks along the top and gets shot at from all sides while the other half rightly stays in the trench to clean it out unharmed.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by SpitfireXI:

I would also vouch to have my infantry stay in a trench and clean it out when using the hunt command. What usually happens is half of the squad exits the trench and walks along the top and gets shot at from all sides while the other half rightly stays in the trench to clean it out unharmed.

I just set up a test map full of trenches and, yes, it is very easy to reproduce this.

A (bug) report is underway!

Best regards,

Thomm

[John Kettler]

YankeeDog,

Are the Syrians stuck with the SAGGER B which went into production in 1973? If so, eek! The SAGGER C is SACLOS and was known before I left military aerospace in 1989. Certainly, the vehicle mounts should all be the SACLOS SAGGER C or D. This was definitely an upgrade of professional concern during my threat analyst days.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/at3sagger.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-3_Sagger

If the missile control looks like the one in the middle, then it's definitely SACLOS. Note absence

of joystick, inclusion of missile guidance electronics and optics housing both the operator's sight and the beacon tracker for the missile.

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=261&linkid=2202

Forgot to mention that per Isby's WEAPONS AND TACTICS OF THE SOVIET ARMY, Fully Revised Edition, no SAGGER launches were ever detected during the 1973 War. All missiles seen were detected in flight, and they amounted to 70% of the total launches.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 19, 2008, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Scipio]

Seen today in v1.08, turn-based mode: I've ordered a two-men HQ team to disembark and enter a building. One men followed the orders, the other started to stereotypical cross a wall and back for the rest of the turn, likely even for the rest of the battle. Giving new orders doesn't seem to solve the problem.

Dima, I've send you a save game file!

[ April 19, 2008, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[dima]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Seen today in v1.08, turn-based mode: I've ordered a two-men HQ team to disembark and enter a building. One men followed the orders, the other started to stereotypical cross a wall and back for the rest of the turn, likely even for the rest of the battle. Giving new orders doesn't seem to solve the problem.

Dima, I've send you a save game file!

Got it, thank mate!

[Pandur]

"Reverse Slope"

in 1.08 friendly units still react to reverse slope targets as if they would not be there! cover arc or not doesnt matter.

i hope that is done with soon...as its it major pain in WEGO.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request