1.35.13 Major bugs and issues

[stankyus]

Mac client The CHURCHILL V no range settings available. You cannot even fake it by running the range setting anyway using the page up/page down function. I tried to change the key mapper in that section and that did not fix the issue.

 

Also, the CH7 has only 29 AP rounds.  Its the BEFs main battle tank.. seriously it gonna need some AP and less HE.  Same with the Sherman 75. The 4G has 72 AP rounds and a better gun. The S75 and 4G will be going head to head... UNLESS the Axis get half the 4G numbers or we get twice the amount of Shermans. The Sherman AP count has been nearly cut in half.  HE is cool but HE does not win the battle space in this game.  Machineguns and AP rounds do.

[Scotsman]

On 6/2/2018 at 11:01 AM, stankyus said:

Mac client The CHURCHILL V no range settings available. You cannot even fake it by running the range setting anyway using the page up/page down function. I tried to change the key mapper in that section and that did not fix the issue.

 

Also, the CH7 has only 29 AP rounds.  Its the BEFs main battle tank.. seriously it gonna need some AP and less HE.  Same with the Sherman 75. The 4G has 72 AP rounds and a better gun. The S75 and 4G will be going head to head... UNLESS the Axis get half the 4G numbers or we get twice the amount of Shermans. The Sherman AP count has been nearly cut in half.  HE is cool but HE does not win the battle space in this game.  Machineguns and AP rounds do.

Changes coming in spawn Q so stay tuned... 

[pfmosquito]

Don't know if this counts, but since it sounds like others MAY be experiencing the same thing... but I noticed that I have been auto-despawned a LOT more since the HE audit patch.  I would get auto-despawned every now and then, but now it is 3-5 times an hour.  Its almost unplayable for me now, whereas before it was only occasionally very annoying.  I have gone through the full list of things to do to try to fix auto-despawned, save for filing a support ticket.

[PITTPETE]

send me a ticket PFM

[derfflingr]

Churchill's were Infantry tanks, designed to support the infantry. Therefore they would have more HE then AP ammo. Cruiser's were more designed to duel with other tanks. Us armor policy was such that Tanks (Sherman 75's) were not to directly engage other tanks unless absolutely necessary, that was the Tank Destroyer arm's area of responsability. Sherman's were to act as a Breakthrough force and support the infantry, so they would have a somewhat higher level of HE over AP ammo as well.

Edited June 8, 2018 by derfflingr

[goreblimey]

Historical loadouts, are meaningless.

In game supply does not reflect the quantitative advantage  the allies had.

Game loadouts should be adjusted to meet in game conditions. Its bloody ridiculous to give so much HE to allied tanks when their main role in game is killing tanks. So providing it survives a panzer 4 is now the equivalent of 2 or 3 allied tanks.  

[jwilly]

2 hours ago, goreblimey said:

Game loadouts should be adjusted to meet in game conditions. Its bloody ridiculous to give so much HE to allied tanks when their main role in game is killing tanks. 

Or, adjust the game design to be more historical, with tanks and SPGs often supporting infantry fights and only rarely shooting at other tanks.

Because, if we're going to throw out the history of why Shermans had the anti-infantry loadouts they did, we also should throw out the history of why Shermans were designed as anti-infantry tanks in the first place, and instead replace them with would-have-been anti-tank tanks.

Edited June 9, 2018 by jwilly

[goreblimey]

I,ll be more than happy if the game is redesigned that way, in the meantime it's far easier to change the load out to reflect the "reality" of the current game situation.

[PITTPETE]

Too many tanks in game as it is.

Die in game, just respawn rinse and repeat.

[xanthus]

1 hour ago, Pittpete said:

Too many tanks in game as it is.

Die in game, just respawn rinse and repeat.

 

This. SO this.

[delems]

Absolutely.

Everything in lists with a motor needs to be cut in half.  And that may still be too much.

 

You can kill a tank every 3 minutes for 15 hours.... and not even destroy ONE divisions worth of tanks...... it's that bad.

Even if you killed a tank every 30 seconds for 15 hours straight, you wouldn't attrit a sides tanks.....

Way way way way too much motorized supply in game.

 

[jwilly]

It's always been the case that players advocate for the game being focused on the type of gameplay they prefer, because obviously other forms of gameplay are over-emphasized, or unbalanced, or aren't compatible with their prefered gameplay type.

That perspective isn't practical from a marketing perspective. This must be a commercially viable product at least as much as it's a simulation, and CRS needs all the customers they can attract. As such, CRS has to try to offer each customer the type of gameplay that customer prefers, 

[delems]

***  focused on the type of gameplay they prefer,

Or maybe they want the game within at least maybe 25% of historical norms?  It is a 'simulation', isn't it?
 

[jwilly]

4 minutes ago, delems said:

It is a 'simulation', isn't it?

Not unless it's also a commercially viable product.

If it's not commercially viable, it's a discontinued game that was operated by an out-of-business game company. 

(Totally hypothetical, CRS, that'll never happen.   )

[PITTPETE]

Last night at Euskirchen it was a joke how may tanks were spawned.

Thats not gameplay preference.

[pbveteran]

On 5/31/2018 at 3:11 PM, SCKING said:

We will investigate some of these. Just remember that all ammunition was audited (for better or worse) to historical data, so some of your favorite weapons may act differently than it was in previous versions. Turret rotation and Reload times were also audited (for better or worse). My team has been informed of this post.

I hope this is a pursuit of realism.

Warthunder damage and ballistic seem to work fine and they do a lot of research on them, you guys should aim to mimic their weapon vs tank performance since it's seems correctly model there.

[jwilly]

23 minutes ago, pbveteran said:

I hope this is a pursuit of realism.

Warthunder damage and ballistic seem to work fine and they do a lot of research on them, you guys should aim to mimic their weapon vs tank performance since it's seems correctly model there.

Heh. I think Scotsman's credentials (i.e. career military weapons developer) likely are as good as those of whoever is architecting WT's weapons physics code.

Follow his posts here, and you'll see a lot of focus on accurate weapon-performance simulation.

[Nick]

20 hours ago, jwilly said:

It's always been the case that players advocate for the game being focused on the type of gameplay they prefer, because obviously other forms of gameplay are over-emphasized, or unbalanced, or aren't compatible with their prefered gameplay type.

That perspective isn't practical from a marketing perspective. This must be a commercially viable product at least as much as it's a simulation, and CRS needs all the customers they can attract. As such, CRS has to try to offer each customer the type of gameplay that customer prefers, 

This.

What we really need is things that are capturable by tanks only, something to create tank Vs tank battles without the infantry getting in the way. Some people only like tanking.

[jwilly]

Historically, tanks don't "capture". Tanks only defeat other tanks, and/or kill infantry.

There was some mostly-tanks-vs-tanks fighting in North Africa, 1941-42. Everywhere else, not so much.

The fighting in North Africa was to eliminate the other side's tank force so that their supply lines would be unprotected.

So if you want pure tank battles, you should want CRS to add North Africa as the next campaign.

[PITTPETE]

19 hours ago, pbveteran said:

I hope this is a pursuit of realism.

Warthunder damage and ballistic seem to work fine and they do a lot of research on them, you guys should aim to mimic their weapon vs tank performance since it's seems correctly model there.

[Merlin51]

23 hours ago, pbveteran said:

you guys should aim to mimic their weapon vs tank performance since it's seems correctly model there.

Except the part where the PZII penetrates the B1 S35 and R35 frontally at 900m?

[delems]

unable to shoot m10 crew member when he is CE ( crew exposed)

unable to lob grenade in m10

unable to shoot and kill crew from above in m10

unable to lob grenade into back of 251

 

These are so old, need to be fixed.

 

[stankyus]

14 hours ago, delems said:

unable to shoot m10 crew member when he is CE ( crew exposed)

unable to lob grenade in m10

unable to shoot and kill crew from above in m10

unable to lob grenade into back of 251

 

These are so old, need to be fixed.

 

A collider needs to be added to the bottom of the floor for that to happen.  My M10 crew die very often to ei. Lost 2 M10s to straffing EA last night and every once in a while I lose my gunner to elevated infantry. IIRC last map I got so pissed to a grenadier that got one in my turret.. might have been the map prior but it does not really matter - had to have been 100m shot. I was just pissed about the contact fuse that allowed it to do that.. old hat I know, but it still makes my blood boil.

[Hardlead]

18 hours ago, delems said:

unable to shoot m10 crew member when he is CE ( crew exposed)

unable to lob grenade in m10

unable to shoot and kill crew from above in m10

unable to lob grenade into back of 251

 

These are so old, need to be fixed.

 

Got my M10s turret lifted (as in exploded) by a 232 firing at close range. Wonder how that happened? (pre HE/KE audit)

A lot of corrections need to be done on the realism.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Hardlead

[Merlin51]

19 minutes ago, Hardlead said:

Got my M10s turret lifted (as in exploded) by a 232 firing at close range.

some possibilities... (that may not match your situation)
turret sides are very thin, could have penerated there.
could have hit a crew position, like crew 4, with HE round, and caught the ammo with frags setting it off.
Even not deployed the MG sticks up, and it has a collider to impact.

And if pre audits, misbehaving HE is also a possibility i suppose