Chops

Here is the link to the original thread about this bug; read down a few posts in the thread (December 2016) - I actually sent a saved game to you sburke at the time.

Why do you need a saved game? This behavior was introduced after the Engine 4.0 upgrade was released. I remember there was a lot of discussion about it at the time, and I even remember uploading a saved game back then. I think the Engine 4.0 upgrade was released around December 2016. I thought that this would be one of the bugs fixed in the Engine 4.0 patch.

Thanks guys - 1. Is there any supporting documentation that describes exactly what was changed in the Engine 4.0 patch for CMSF2? When a patch is released it is common practice to include documentation describing what was included in the patch. So I would simply like to know specifically what was changed, as it took over a year for this patch to be released. My understanding is that in the original Engine 4.0 update, the behavior of troops under High Explosive (HE) fire was changed, in order to make their behavior more realistic. However, it actually caused them to leave good cover, and run into the open. So, was their behavior changed back to what it was originally in the Engine 4.0 update, or were additional changes made in the new Engine 4.0 patch? 2. Additionally, where is the documentation for the CMSF2 v2.01 patch? As I mentioned previously, no file was included with the CMSF2 installation.

I recently purchased and installed CMSF2 v2.01, and have not found any documents in the installation directory that refer to the Engine 4.0 long-awaited patch, or for that matter any information about what is included in the v2.01 patch. The installation directory does contain the Engine 4.0 manual, however it is not dated, and it looks to be the original Engine 4.0 manual. I scanned the Forums but did not find much information on a 4.0 patch. One thread in the General Forum states that the Engine 4.0 patch will be released after CMSF2. Was the Engine 4.0 patch included in CMSF2? If so, is there any documentation describing what was changed?

Thanks for listening to customer feedback, and making changes to the Patches > Download link for CMSF2. I hope it helps future customers. In order to show my appreciation I just purchased the game.

Exactly, and it doesn't seem like a good idea for a company to send a customer on a surprise-filled adventure when trying to purchase products or download patches for products. When I recently saw the new thread "CMSF2 v2.01 Released!" I went to the Battlefront > Patches download page to see if it was posted. This page only showed a CMSF2 v2.0 patch link, so I obviously assumed that it was the 2.0 patch. Initially after looking at the forum and website, it seemed that two patches had been released , v2.0 and v2.01. As a result, I started this thread in order to locate the 2.01 patch. The first person to respond to this thread, stated that the patch was named incorrectly on the website, and it was actually the 2.01 patch. Since then, I have seen other posts from customers in different threads, also stating that the patch was named incorrectly. A simple solution to this unnecessary confusion, would be to name the patch download link the same as the actual patch name. For example - patch v2.01 is released, and the download link is also named patch v2.01. This seems like a normal, logical, and rational approach. Putting the dates next to the patches will really help reduce confusion as well. I noticed that the patch download link was just renamed to "for v2.0" I have no idea what this means. Why can't the patch download link just be called v2.01, or better yet v1.01 since it is the first patch for CMSF2? This whole thing may seem like no big deal to people that frequent the forums and website on a daily basis, but for someone that does not, this is the end result...confusion and frustration.

I have not purchased CMSF2 yet, as I was waiting until the game was patched. So in my case, there was no reason for me to click on the patch link. I went to the patch page several times hoping that the patch had been released, only to find that 2.01 was not posted based on what I saw on the website.

The 2.01 Patch was released 9 days ago, however, it still is not named correctly on the Battlefront > Patches website. How is it that Battlefront releases a patch and does not give it the correct name on their own website? Could we please have some attention to detail and professionalism on this issue? This is has caused unnecessary aggravation and frustration for this customer, and I am sure others as well. Additionally, it would be helpful to have the date that the patch was posted listed next to the patch download link.

I am unable to locate the new 2.01 CMSF2 patch. As you can see from the screenshot below, only a 2.0 patch is listed on the Battlefront > Patches website. Is this another one of those "soft releases" where BFC keeps the patch link buried in another thread? This is really quite annoying and frustrating.

Can you spot those responsible for this major defeat?

I totally agree with the OP's messages. While CMx2 is a technological marvel and BFC has done an incredible job, it is definitely time to progress and move on. CMx3 is well overdue and I certainly hope BFC is in an advanced phase of development behind the scenes on CMx3. The flaws/limitations of CMx2 are readily apparent to me, and I would think anyone, that has been playing the games for an extended period of time. -spotting, whether a tank spotting hidden infantry instantaneously, or troops not spotting a tank an action spot away, etc.... -pathfinding issues, TacAI troops and vehicles doing ridiculous things -the lack of mouseover pop-ups and basic information for the player in a large section of the GUI -ongoing weird or ugly graphical issues, shadows, water, fog, foxholes, trenches, etc..... While playing CMx2 scenarios, I have multiple WTF moments every game now, where it just blows immersion and creates frustration.

If you read further up in this thread, my idea of "Rout Zones" may help. However, in Pericles' second Bug 2 video there are also other issues with the TacAI for troops negotiating areas with walls, doors/gates, buildings. In the second video, real troops would have obviously gone around the side of the building, while staying covered by the compounds walls, and through the side gate toward the south.

There was nothing passive aggressive about what Pericles said. So stop abusing Battlefront's customers, and stop your troll-like behavior. You are not a representative of BFC, and you are not a forum administrator. You are just a guy with to much time on your hands, based on your number of forum posts. So cut this sh*t out! The behavior that Pericles describes is nothing new. I have been seeing this type of thing for a long time, across all of the CMx2 engine 4.0 games.

Thank you for your post and I agree that these improvements are long overdue. It is definitely way past time for CMx3 as well.

Maybe "rout zones" could be set by the scenario designer, similar to the way setup zones are painted on the map during the scenario design process. So, when units are shaken or panicked they will retreat toward the nearest rout zone. I have seen the path finding behavior that you describe across all of the CM games. It is not exclusive to the CMSF 2 demo. This brings up another point, which is the original CMSF 1 had routing instead of surrender. Troops would rout, and an icon would be shown, and then they would disappear from the map. I think that routing should be brought back to the game, without the disappearing act until they get to a rout zone (which could be a map edge). The game should have both surrender and routing.

I was playing the scenario as Red Team and the AA would not fire on aircraft. I don't know if it is a bug or just bad luck. They seem to work when Red Team is AI controlled based on another post. Regarding the spotting issue: this is obviously ridiculous that 6 vehicles can't spot a tank rolling through their area within a 100 m. I am sure quite a few folks will rush to this thread to make excuses and rationalize this absurd behavior. This unrealistic spotting behavior is something that I see in every scenario I play throughout all of the CMx2 games,, since it is inherent to the game engine. It really has become so tiresome that I just stop playing the game. I keep hoping that with each engine upgrade and new release they will make improvements in this area. I understand that the spotting cycle is what it is, due to computing limitations i.e. hardware. A related problem which directly impacts CMSF 2 is the inability of mast-mounted and top-mounted sensors to work as designed. These sensors have no "eyes" and therefore are useless. Once again they are not modeled due to computational limitations. To me these spotting issues in CMx2 are a major flaw in my opinion, that really ruin gameplay. It is way past time for CMx3, and I certainly hope BFC is well on their way with this project.

In the Alamo scenario, the Anti-Aircraft tracks (ZSU-23-4 Shilka) won't fire at incoming aircraft.

Thank you Steve, will do. Game crashes are certainly not something that have been an issue for me in the past with Battlefront products.

Demo crashed on me twice while playing the training mission. Installed on updated Windows 10, with demo installation in a non-standard directory. However, it was installed in the same way as other CM games and they do not crash. Game locked up while watching the action, and then completely closed after a few minutes.

CptMiller, thanks for your efforts in making the video and communicating with the forum members. I am sure you are a busy guy and your time is limited. As many have noted, folks are not happy with the lack of communication from BFC. With that said, as a longtime supporter of BFC and especially CM:Shock Force 1, I want to share my thoughts. This video is a good example of why BFC needs a Public Relations (PR)/Community Manager. This person needs to be artistic, creative, talented with photo and video editing software, and good with social media. BFC has turned over AAR's and video creation to Beta Testers/Volunteers rather than people with the talents to do them effectively for presentation to the general public. I know that Moon and then ChrisND tried to fill the PR role to some extent in the past. This video and the two AAR's that were attempted previously all are generally fails, in my opinion, at presenting the game in a good light. (Bil's contributions to the AAR's was quite good, however, due to his background and photoshop skills). Regarding this video here are my Pro's and Con's: Pro's - At least a video and communication with the forum community was attempted - The colored setup areas, and green objective areas were not shown - The time of day and lighting were ok - The updated vehicle, equipment, and uniform models look good Con's - Video starts off showing zig-zag roads which still look horrible. - The whole defensive setup of the Red team was ridiculous. After the 1991 and 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan by the U.S., are any countries still setting up static tank and trench defenses when attacked? - This was a turkey shoot, or like shooting fish in a barrel, or whatever analogy you want to use; not very compelling or interesting. - The same recycled sounds that were present in the 2007 CM:SF 1 release are still present. - The same dated soldier animations that look like they are moving under water or stuck in quicksand are present. Isn't it time for the animations to be updated? - The trenches and foxholes are so clunky and such an eyesore. I know it is for fog of war, however, the trenches in CM:SF 1 were much better aesthetically. They really look goofy especially with soldiers sticking half-way out. - The trenches appeared to offer very little protection from the helicopter attack, so why use them? It was stated in another post that this is realistic - really? - The town setup was not realistic and looked boring and drab. - The AA vehicles were not located in an area where they could survive long enough to fire at the incoming helicopter. - The water graphics really don't look good. Occasionally, water looks ok with the proper lighting conditions, but not in this video. Granted, a lot of my comments are due to CMx2 limitations. However, with a well-designed map, lighting, troop/vehicle selection and camera angles, a compelling and aesthetically pleasing video can be created. So in summary this video really showcases a lot of the CMx2 flaws, and did not compare/contrast the differences between CMSF 1 and 2 very well. It also seems apparent to me that it is time for CMx3. Maybe I am a bit jaded after 11 years of CMx2, however, I hope BFC will take PR more seriously in the future. Seems that it can only help improve their bottom line, although based on their lack of communication with customers and any sort of marketing, it must not be a priority.

Here you go Mikey - " Notwithstanding their political and practical importance, lethal weapons are only one among many necessary forms of U.S. assistance to Ukraine. For one thing, in the military/security area, non-lethal U.S. military assistance helped to advance Ukraine’s war-fighting efforts. It has included equipment, such as counter-artillery and counter-mortar radars, secure communications, tactical UAVs, medical equipment, logistical infrastructure and IT systems, night vision devices, thermal goggles and up-armored civilian SUVs." https://www.usukraine.org/analysis-u-s-assistance-ukraine/ Obviously, these should be added to CM:BS in the future.

If you guys look at the original CMSF map above, it shows that one of the Blue Force icons located in Turkey says "Euro". Does this mean commanded by NATO? Are there any indications from the icons that Turkish forces are included in the invasion plan?

Here is a shot of the original map.

Bill, you were setup to fail in this Scenario - The Map was poorly designed, as Blue had setup zones that were very close to the Red setup zone. Your opponent had a sniper team with line of sight observation into your setup zone on one side, and armor in close proximity on the other side of your setup zone. Additionally, your Red side was not allocated enough points in which to adequately purchase Red equipment in order to use realistic Red doctrine. Thanks for putting in the great effort in both of your CMSF2 AAR's....although both ended badly due to different reasons, neither one was your fault.

Mikey, Your Mods are great, and much appreciated. I think that you should release your Turkish and African Mods as a Pack. You should definitely get paid for your work, and if Steve is cool with it, others may develop Mod Packs as well, which would be good for everyone.