ThePhantom Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Please Battlefront, the panzergrenadiers need AT assets. I cannot wait another month for this fix. I played McEwan's Panzer Angriffe scenario and engaged BMP 3s with my infantry. They simply did not have a chance and it was embarrassing. This is not a small issue, this is a huge issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 ThePhantom please post this over on the main boards as it's very unlikely Steve will ever look in these Scenario boards. The more attention this gets, the better the chance that it'll get fixed... QUICKLY. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankster65 Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Have some patience for petes sake! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Definitely noted. But we have reasons for not throwing patches out without proper testing and addressing other issues at the same time. Each patch we produce takes up a lot of time to create, test, upload, and support. I can not give you a timeframe for v1.32, but we are discussing that issue at the moment. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil stanbridge Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Thanks guys! Appreciate it. I'm holding off the German campaign for that very reason. (I finished the first mission without the panzerfaust mind you). I'm also holding off the Dutch campaign due to the engineers lacking demo charges 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Ooops. Am familiar with the Germans' PzFaust problem, but I thought the satchel charges issue was fixed (at least for the Canadians). You saying that now the Dutch don't have charges? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Personally I err on the patient side to get as much tweaking and any goodies if possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Panzer Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 There is a duplicate thread here, which lists some other odds and ends that would be great for v1.32. Of course, it's by no means all inclusive. For example, I also seem to recall some discussion on reexamining the amount of Canadian dismounts from LAV's and such at some point. ...we have reasons for not throwing patches out without proper testing and addressing other issues at the same time. Each patch we produce takes up a lot of time to create, test, upload, and support. Sounds good. I am really looking forward to v1.32 and am holding off on playing the NATO module until the kinks are worked out. Thanks for letting us know it's still on the radar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Anyone try a workaround here? Since "medics" will usually gain the weapons(some anyway) of the casualties they are working on, and since the German light infantry/Gebirgsjager units seem to still have the launchers, I have been experimenting with following the GbgJ units with panzergrenadier units, in case of a casualty to a light infantryman, will see if the PzG unit can get the weapon...mostly just a curiosity thing right now, but if it works,might be able to play around with it some... As this shows, I am very bored today haha 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euri Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I am not sure what is the problem you refer to. Is it the fact that there are no AT launchers in the AFVs to fire those AT rockets? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yes, apparently the last patch accidentally removed the launchers from the panzergrenadier units. Still are launchers from what I can see, in the Gebirgsjäger units, so the light infantry still can fire them, just not with the Marders for the PzGs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Just checking... someone mentioned that now the Dutch don't have Satchell Charges in 1.31. I know the Canadians didn't have em previously in 1.30 and now they do, so what's with the Dutch? I stopped my Canadian Campaign till 1.31 gave them back their stachell charges. Then I had to stop my German Campaign due to their 1,31 missile issue. Be nice to know whether the Dutch are now ok or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euri Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Yes, apparently the last patch accidentally removed the launchers from the panzergrenadier units. Still are launchers from what I can see, in the Gebirgsjäger units, so the light infantry still can fire them, just not with the Marders for the PzGs. OK. Taking this into account, I think I will pause the German Campaign at the "Fields of Fire" mission until the next patch comes out. Based on scenario description I think I will need all the AT weapons I can get. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Just checking... someone mentioned that now the Dutch don't have Satchell Charges in 1.31. I know the Canadians didn't have em previously in 1.30 and now they do, so what's with the Dutch? I stopped my Canadian Campaign till 1.31 gave them back their stachell charges. Then I had to stop my German Campaign due to their 1,31 missile issue. Be nice to know whether the Dutch are now ok or not. We can call them NATO "Defense cutbacks" :-) "Sorry lads, we couldn't get the defense budget passed, you will need to make do with what you have for the foreseeable future. Oh..and for political reasons, we also need you to win it as fast as possible,alright now? Good luck chaps..." I could almost SEE it :-P 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 We can call them NATO "Defense cutbacks" :-) "Sorry lads, we couldn't get the defense budget passed, you will need to make do with what you have for the foreseeable future. Oh..and for political reasons, we also need you to win it as fast as possible,alright now? Good luck chaps..." I could almost SEE it :-P Wouldnt be surprised either! jaja 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Well maybe you could use this to push a “collect weapons from the enemy” request. “Why do you want to collect RPGs?” “Well because we have no panzerfausts!” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhantom Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 It's just a joke to you all! My panzer grenadiers were embarrassed in front of a single BMP -3. I was furious. In fact, I forced each platoon to quick time back to the far corner of the map. They sat there, exhausted, for the duration of the scenario. I can't even look at them anymore! They're not panzer grenadiers, they're just panzer "guys" to me.... without their panzerfausts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Well they are still quite capable of everything except attacking armor...what I use mine for is to advance ahead of the Leos and Marders to clear out the sneaky vermin with RPGs and ATGMs. Team tactics with the armor can take care of enemy armor, as long as my grenadiers can take out the more sneaky enemy infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
average Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Bump. It's beyond frustrating to be at the point of attempting to play "Fields of Fire" knowing full well that a company of Panzergrenadiers are essentially defenceless passangers, unable to engage enemy armour despite having sensible positions to attempt that, and ample opportunity as it turns out. It's just a little bit on the hard side to see why its taking so long, and why there has, apparently, been no update on progress towards a further patch for CMSF. Similiarly, when are the Canadians getting a supply of 84mm commenserate with their supply of CGs ? What about even some HEDP rounds ? They are basically ideal for most uses other than trying to defeat MBTS. Can we ever expect to see a supply of HEAT rounds (basic, tandem, RAP or however issued to the CDF) ? Given that at least with certain rounds, the CG can engage static targets beyond the range of the Eryx it would seem reasonable to expect that a decent number of rounds would be issued. Alternatively, why do they have 2 CG's per section but 1 round per rifle ? Is that some wierd CDF thing ? Put into context, it seems a relatively simply fix that has now been left for considerably more than a month. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Bump. It's just a little bit on the hard side to see why its taking so long, and why there has, apparently, been no update on progress towards a further patch for CMSF. That‘s easy. Because 99% of their effort and resources is going into CM:BN. How long did you wait when CM:SF was the only thing they had to work on and its been all of what 17 days since the initial post? Put into context, it seems a relatively simply fix that has now been left for considerably more than a month. How do you know its a simple fix? Especially as you post wants what four fixes - not just the single panzerfaust one. Then add the UK rank issue Then add ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
average Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Gibsonm, I appreciate that CM:BN is the main effort for BFC. Part of the reason for my post is that you can only reach the conclusion CM:BN is prioritised ahead of CM:SF is by inference and the inference is drawn from the delay experienced to date. I note your suggestion that I am being impatient. The question of how long I waited when CM:SF was the only product in development (although, this perhaps isn't the decisive issue given that CM:BN has been under development in parallel with CM:SF almost since the outset) is irrelevant. I waited as long as it took. Am I suggesting that as the product becomes more mature, it should be that less and less content will require remediation - yes. As to whether that is actually the case, I don't know. In support of the suggestion I am being impatient you raised the delay since the original post to the time of my post. The bug pre-dates the original post. Patch 1.31 was released on 26 November 2010. Give or take that is near enough to 55 day. My recollection is that the initial report of the problem was perhaps the following day. I don't accept that the operative period of delay with respect to the PZF 3s is 17 days. As to the issue with 84mm ammunition - that issue dates from the first day of release. It has never been officially addressed. Other patches have adjusted ammunition levels without a delay of many months. So it may well not be a question of getting around to it, it may instead be a question of whether they will get around to it. As to whether it is a simple fix, and what exactly BFC intends to include in the next patch, I don't know. You could guess that since the content was originally in game, it could be re-inserted (just like other similiar bugs have been fixed with regularity in the past). You would obviously be in a better position to judge the complexity than I am. Given your NDA obligations I doubt we can explore that in depth. Regardless, the only point of my original post was to try and illicit a response. I think we can both agree it would be nice to have PZF 3 launchers back in game and that it would be nice if the CDF 84mms could be employed. I'd expect you would be more excited than a lot of us about the potential for 84mm fire. Given the above perhaps we can avoid the accusatory “???” going forward. Regards 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Well the part that's witihn my power to influence and fix has been addressed - surplus ? removed. As to the rest of it, you, I and everyone else will just have to wait. There is also the propspect of mission creep as what is contained in the patch may well expand as people decide to lobby for "one final thing". In any event, we don't have it yet to test and normally we get it some time before it goes "public". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I have taken to adding some Fenneks and deleting their crews. I then have the PzGs go into the Fennek and acquire the launchers. However, can't edit scenarios that are part of campaigns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
average Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Gibsonm, Fingers crossed. Incidentally, thanks for all the work you put into Beta testing the product. I'm sure it helps keep it grounded. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhantom Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 Abneo3sierra, thanks! That Fennek idea works great. They do have the launchers. It looks funny with six of them parked but it works. I like them over the wolf vehicle too. OK, no more panzer faust problem here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.