List of Known Issues

[Gryphonne]

Sniper team assistant firing his weapon away at over 100m, revealing the position of both him and the sniper. Even if it's an MP40, he will pepper away nevertheless.

Oh, and the JPzIV texture bug:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97797

Tanks spotting small infantry teams, and infantry in general WAY WAY WAY TOO FAST.

[Blackcat]

It seems a pretty simple problem, and normally I err on the side of appreciation for the complexities of the system in play.

As I see it, the logic is basic - you take a normal cover arc order, and include a test on any appearing targets - armour or infantry? If not the object of the arc, then hold fire - else, open fire. Endif.

I suspect most people would settle for this, and leave the inevitable desired exceptions of the rule for those times when not covering an ObjectX-only arc.

I'm open to any and all enlightenment as to the nature of the game's algorithms for covered arcs

The logic would seem to be as you suggest, but I think we have to assume that the people who designed and coded the game know more about what is involved than we mere mortals who just play it.

I don't suppose there is a hope of finding aout about the algorithms used. BF have never yet released any such detail and I don't suppose they ever will.

[gunnergoz]

Steve and his team have put 12 years of their lives into this game and its predecessors. If they tell me that something is hard to code, I believe them. Their posting code online to prove it so would not do me any good, since codes all greek to me. What matters to me is that they persist in trying to make this the best possible simulation that is still fun to play and they have not sold out to some mainstream corporation that would have dumped it or turned it into "Sexy Shooting Lobsters from Mars do Normandy." They are geeks about the topic and the period and I trust them to be doing their level best to replicate history as much as is humanly and technologically feasible. I don't mind people pointing out flaws they perceive but it rankles me when people say that something should be easy to fix when they really have no idea.

[Blackcat]

Winecape has just posted on another thread that BF have said that Armoured Cover Arcs are definitely out for the Normandy series. So, I think it would be a sensible idea to forget about this issue for the next 18 months or so.

[LemuelG]

Steve and his team have put 12 years of their lives into this game and its predecessors. If they tell me that something is hard to code, I believe them. Their posting code online to prove it so would not do me any good, since codes all greek to me. What matters to me is that they persist in trying to make this the best possible simulation that is still fun to play and they have not sold out to some mainstream corporation that would have dumped it or turned it into "Sexy Shooting Lobsters from Mars do Normandy." They are geeks about the topic and the period and I trust them to be doing their level best to replicate history as much as is humanly and technologically feasible. I don't mind people pointing out flaws they perceive but it rankles me when people say that something should be easy to fix when they really have no idea.

What on Earth are you on about? -1

It's not about 'posting code', or 'fixing' anything, I don't have the time to pore through line after line of endless code - it's about the logic behind the processes; specifically cover arcs. I am curious as to how they approach these problems, and why very simple decision-making logic is not applicable in this scenario.

It's as easy as someone saying.. for example: 'well covered arcs are more of a restriction or focusing of the area within which a unit makes spotting checks, the spotting and targeting-decisions are part of a separate process'. With that done, I (and others who have expressed interest in the matter) have my answer and will rest assured that yes, it is not so easy after all; I honestly don't see any need to upset the apple cart over it; fine - you don't speak Greek and aren't inclined to learn - must you be 'rankled' because others are making an attempt to better understand it?

[Baneman]

Winecape has just posted on another thread that BF have said that Armoured Cover Arcs are definitely out for the Normandy series. So, I think it would be a sensible idea to forget about this issue for the next 18 months or so.

Armour Covered Arcs may be out, but perhaps there's still hope that the TacAI behaviour of AT assets could be tweaked so that they only fire on Armour unless specifically ordered to fire on Infantry by the player.

That would be a decent workaround, surely ?

[Childress]

Armour Covered Arcs may be out, but perhaps there's still hope that the TacAI behaviour of AT assets could be tweaked so that they only fire on Armour unless specifically ordered to fire on Infantry by the player.

That would be a decent workaround, surely ?

Seconded. I hid a 'Regular' faust team in C2 behind bocage facing a road with a tight cover arc. They opened up on a passing enemy squad with their small arms, killing or wounding nine of them (hmm, seems a bit much...). The enemy HTs which were following promptly backed up out of range.

Bottom line: what good are AT teams with an armoured cover arc provision if they can't prioritise targets?

[denbushisan]

Major issue: Gun crews which abandon their guns, such as to take cover in a trench from artillary/mortar barrages, cannot remount their guns.

Lesser Issue: Also, gun crews in general seem to be excessively vulnerable to hostile fire, particularly to artillary fire. A single 1 minute mortar volley of ~6 shells usually seems to wipe out the entire entire gun crew.

This is extremely frusturating to me in scenarios where I'm relying on AT guns, especially FlaK 88's, since they can't hardly hide. Their crews are usually wiped out by hidden enemy FO's before I ever spot an enemy.

[para]

Armour Covered Arcs may be out, but perhaps there's still hope that the TacAI behaviour of AT assets could be tweaked so that they only fire on Armour unless specifically ordered to fire on Infantry by the player.

That would be a decent workaround, surely ?

+1 this would be good

[Childress]

I think the single cover arc command worked better in CMSF where there was capability overlap among the units, esp the US ones with their javelins. Not so well with the discrete teams in Normandy.

[spinkick]

You can tell what kind of enemy unit the germans are by clicking on their icon even at higher difficulty. "command" or whatever it is.

[spinkick]

Major issue: Gun crews which abandon their guns, such as to take cover in a trench from artillary/mortar barrages, cannot remount their guns.

Lesser Issue: Also, gun crews in general seem to be excessively vulnerable to hostile fire, particularly to artillary fire. A single 1 minute mortar volley of ~6 shells usually seems to wipe out the entire entire gun crew.

This is extremely frusturating to me in scenarios where I'm relying on AT guns, especially FlaK 88's, since they can't hardly hide. Their crews are usually wiped out by hidden enemy FO's before I ever spot an enemy.

Gun crews cant rejoin is by design. They also arent set up to be shielded from artillary and the like. Field guns are meant to sit way back and fire.

[spinkick]

Infantry firing at tanks is to keep them buttoned up, which is entirely valid.

[Rayak47]

ISSUE: Anyone else hit impassable doors? On scenarios 2 and 3 in the "road the to ?" campaign, I’ve maneuvered an infantry squad to stay out of the line of fire and enter a building from the back (a barn and house respectively) only to have them fail to enter that way, go around to the front door and directly into the kill zone. Both times I had the turn saved so I replayed it thinking maybe I posted the waypoints wrong or misread a window for a door. Nope, they refused to recognize that the door existed, went around and got slaughtered. I’ve started saving every turn now so I can avoid the suicidal behavior. Also had it occure on a demo charge blown walls. Right next to the breach, but they moved around and used the door when ordered into the building.

[denbushisan]

Gun crews cant rejoin is by design. They also arent set up to be shielded from artillary and the like. Field guns are meant to sit way back and fire.

Indirect fire artillary perhaps, but AT guns and short barrel "Infantry" guns are needed pretty much up with the front lines, otherwise they serve no use. AT guns can't stop tanks from overrunning your infantry if they don't have LoS. And in my experience thus far, if my AT guns have LoS to be remotely useful, then enemy FO's seem to be able to spot them and wipe them out with very short mortar volleys.

In real life, if on the defensive, one would dig their AT guns into gun pits, cover them with camoflage, etc. In the game we have neither of these options. Other than placing the guns in a wooded area, they are completely exposed. So one tactic that you might use to keep them from getting wiped out by mortars before you ever even see an enemy is to have your gun crews take cover in nearby trenches when you see the ranging shots, but since they can't remount their guns afterward, this tactic is useless. Thus, AT gun crews seem to pretty much be slaughtered within moments of enemy contact, unless you position them so far back behind LoS blocking terrain that they are useless to you.

Edit: Every firsthand account I've read of AT gun crews in calibers under 88mm were pretty much right up in the front line trenchworks with the rest of the infantry, usually engaging enemy tanks at very short range. They relied on earthworks and camoflage to keep them concealed and alive until the enemy armor closed in. In offensive engagements they followed a few hundred yards behind the first waves, moving to engage enemy armor as it was encountered by the infantry.

[Childress]

Gun crews cant rejoin is by design. They also arent set up to be shielded from artillary and the like. Field guns are meant to sit way back and fire.

When the team leaves the gun they're assumed to have first disabled it. Re-crewing might prove tricky to program. A more useful enhancement would be the option of backing up the gun with the Reverse command. Which I don't believe is possible now.

[Lucky_Strike]

Indirect fire artillary perhaps, but AT guns and short barrel "Infantry" guns are needed pretty much up with the front lines, otherwise they serve no use. AT guns can't stop tanks from overrunning your infantry if they don't have LoS. And in my experience thus far, if my AT guns have LoS to be remotely useful, then enemy FO's seem to be able to spot them and wipe them out with very short mortar volleys.

In real life, if on the defensive, one would dig their AT guns into gun pits, cover them with camoflage, etc. In the game we have neither of these options. Other than placing the guns in a wooded area, they are completely exposed. So one tactic that you might use to keep them from getting wiped out by mortars before you ever even see an enemy is to have your gun crews take cover in nearby trenches when you see the ranging shots, but since they can't remount their guns afterward, this tactic is useless. Thus, AT gun crews seem to pretty much be slaughtered within moments of enemy contact, unless you position them so far back behind LoS blocking terrain that they are useless to you.

Edit: Every firsthand account I've read of AT gun crews in calibers under 88mm were pretty much right up in the front line trenchworks with the rest of the infantry, usually engaging enemy tanks at very short range. They relied on earthworks and camoflage to keep them concealed and alive until the enemy armor closed in. In offensive engagements they followed a few hundred yards behind the first waves, moving to engage enemy armor as it was encountered by the infantry.

I concur with denbushisan on this point. Absolutely classic tactics for front line gun crews, especially under sustained barrage - abandon your guns and run for cover, as soon as barrage lifts go back to your guns, if they're still there, blow off the dirt and get ready for the attack ...

I recently played 'A delaying action' scenario which is heavily reliant on German use of AT assets in a relatively open battlefield. I had a battery of two 88's in earthworks at the rear covering much of one side of the battlefield. They opened up on US tanks advancing in the opposite corner as soon as they spotted them. Within minutes the 88's were pummelled with HE and most of one crew were lost (lone gunner went on to take out a couple of Shermans :eek:). Ammo was quite limited and the undamaged crew soon got through theirs, so I made the mistake of moving them back to the other single-manned 88, and making the single gunner abandon his gun - big mistake! I'm left with two abandoned 88's and two useless crews. If I'd moved the single gunner to the fully-manned 88 I guess he would have taken his ammo with him. I didn't think a single man would be able to shlep 15 rounds of 88 ammo with him in under 30 seconds!

I think that there should definitely be allowance for gun crews to move to other undamaged guns of the same type, or at least to abandon and return to their own gun, tank crews can do this after all.

My tuppence

LS

[Lucky_Strike]

When the team leaves the gun they're assumed to have first disabled it. Re-crewing might prove tricky to program. A more useful enhancement would be the option of backing up the gun with the Reverse command. Which I don't believe is possible now.

Why is that assumption made for guns but not tanks? Odd. I had a Panther in one scenario which had sustained some damage - radio and optics - which came under intense fire from some M10's. Crew panics, abandons ship and practically ran off the battlefield. Given five minutes to recover they were happy to return, drive off towards the TDs and take out two of them. Now I don't object to this behaviour, not unheard of in RL. So seems strange that a gun crew, especially a crack or veteran crew, would not seek cover during a barrage (a natural response), and if doing so they purposefully destroy their own gun despite it being some 500m behind their own front line - I don't see the rationale in this.

I agree that being able to move a gun is kind of a way round this, but an 88 takes a long time to redeploy! I guess that for smaller guns like a PaK 38 moving it would work, but you're just as likely to suffer losses moving a gun during a heavy barrage. Also is reverse not an option because for split-trail guns you'd actually be pushing it if reversing? That is one would have to rotate the gun through 180 degrees to then push it? Forward being pulling it by the trails?

LS

[SlowMotion]

Agree that it would be nice if gun crews could temporarily seek shelter and then return to see if the gun can still be used.

[StellarRat]

Agree that it would be nice if gun crews could temporarily seek shelter and then return to see if the gun can still be used.

I agree. A gun should able to be recrewed even if previously abandoned. Crews often took shelter then went back to their positions. In fact, a crew should able to operate any weapon that is the same as their assigned weapon.

[A Canadian Cat]

Infantry firing small arms on armored vehicles,with no realistic chance of success

Here is a video showing two squads beating back a StuG III with small arms - OK they had rifle grenades too but no Bazookas (they left them in the half track).

[MCB]

Forgive me, I am at work, and do not have access to specific scenario names, etc. However, I am playing the "Road to" scenario, and am on the second mission (this all I have been able to play so far, so my experience is extremely limited). There is a stream between the U.S. forces and the Jerrys on the objectives. A bridge lies between. Here is where the problem begins. My engineers blew the obstacle, and proceeded to cross the bridge. They stopped and milled about in the center. Not healthy by the way. In any event, after that any movement command passed the far end of the bridge resulted in a waypoint that appeared underneath or to the side of the bridge. Confused by this I accepted the command, and the engineers (those that were left) promptly ran across the bridge and down the bank to the middle of the stream. Satisfied that they were at least out of the line of fire I repeated the task with an infantry squad under the cover of a smoke screen. Once again, every attempt to select a waypoint beyond the bridge resulted in a spot under the bridge or to one side. Once the turn began the platoon promptly ran under the bridge. Now for the next wrinkle. I can no longer select either formation. See them - yes. Command them - no. As the form of the battle was now lost I decided to experiment. I sent a tank across the bridge. I selected a waypoint, as before, beyond the bridge. The area where the waypoint actually appeared was the center of the bridge. I watched in interest as the tank approached. Suddenly it dropped beneath the bridge, and moments later popped back up. The next turn I once again selected a point beyond the bridge, again the waypoint appeared beneath the bridge. The tank commenced its move, dropping and popping back up a couple of times on its way. At the end of the turn it had managed to get to the bottom of the stream bed, where it too now sits un-selectable. Up until this event the game has preformed wonderfully. Any ideas???

MCB

[LemuelG]

The next turn I once again selected a point beyond the bridge, again the waypoint appeared beneath the bridge. The tank commenced its move, dropping and popping back up a couple of times on its way. At the end of the turn it had managed to get to the bottom of the stream bed, where it too now sits un-selectable. Up until this event the game has preformed wonderfully. Any ideas???

MCB

Sounds like objects are getting in the way, try disappearing the trees and changing your viewing angles.

[Blackcat]

There are definitely issues with bridges.

Playing Carbide Carbide yesterday, the first vehicle I sent across the East Bridge was a half track it had a way point on the near bank and another on the far bank, both in the centre of the road and a straight path between them. Half way across it decided to drive into the bridge parapet and then do a little big of turning and shunting before finally making its way across. Once on the other side it cleared the bridge proper then hit the last bit of the parapet on the near side and stuck there. Was immoveable for the rest of the game. Other vehicles crossed OK.

Then my 105 Sherman decided it was going to hit the parapet for no known reason (a learner driver?). That was it, it never moved again, but it did later disappear. Seriously, several turns later I saw that the actual tank had disappeared; its icon was still there, but the tank wasn't. Unforunately its bridge blocking effect was still in operation.

Since the launch there have a steady numebr of players reporting problems with vehicles and infantry getting stuck on bridges. I remember, long ago, Steve saying they were tricky to code and it looks like there is still some tweaking to do. I am sure they will sort it out.

[Childress]

Case:Building provide very little cover to inf.

Status: Unknown?

I recall a great number of indoor struggles in previous BF sims, but in CMBN haven't had a single one so far. When my side enters in a contested building the defenders seem to be all dead. Or already flown the coop. Anecdotal, to be sure, but rest assured it's not my brilliant play.

One also misses the asterisks from CM1x that alerts the player the structure is about to come down about his ears. Or are there visual clues?

And, are there different grades of buildings? It's not clear. BFC seems to assume that, being in Normandy, all are massively built. Maybe they are...