HerrTom

I'm sure dealing with us is a pain, but from my perspective you guys might have a little communication problem. From the 2022 prospective, only the CMCW patch released, and in July (and again in November!). And that was aimed at early February. I certainly appreciate the September update but it was radio silence until then. Then radio silence until now.
CMBS just got a patch that fixed one major bug in the game, which is pretty great too. I haven't had a chance to test it yet but the patch notes haven't mentioned the at least year old AT6 bug (also in CW which patched twice this year with no dice) and armored vehicles and their subsystems are still immune to artillery save for direct hits, which we've known about since at least 2014. I know these are maybe my big bugbears but you can't argue that having such long lasting bugs is a good look? We also have no idea if you even know about them. We post on the forum and occasionally get a volunteer tester to ask about it and then it gets forgotten about until maybe next year it gets fixed.
Finally, and I don't mean to be rude, but you say you spent recent time on content: what content? I guess you mean CMCW (the best game you've released, and I'm genuinely grateful you you guys!) But that was in 2021.
Overall I think we might be less cantankerous if instead of getting official word when the deadlines go whooshing by months later, a word sooner might make us happier than otherwise.
Anyway, I finally caught COVID and am grumpy so I apologize if I come across the wrong way! I wish everyone here the best and am looking forward to 2023! 🙂

I'm sure dealing with us is a pain, but from my perspective you guys might have a little communication problem. From the 2022 prospective, only the CMCW patch released, and in July (and again in November!). And that was aimed at early February. I certainly appreciate the September update but it was radio silence until then. Then radio silence until now.
CMBS just got a patch that fixed one major bug in the game, which is pretty great too. I haven't had a chance to test it yet but the patch notes haven't mentioned the at least year old AT6 bug (also in CW which patched twice this year with no dice) and armored vehicles and their subsystems are still immune to artillery save for direct hits, which we've known about since at least 2014. I know these are maybe my big bugbears but you can't argue that having such long lasting bugs is a good look? We also have no idea if you even know about them. We post on the forum and occasionally get a volunteer tester to ask about it and then it gets forgotten about until maybe next year it gets fixed.
Finally, and I don't mean to be rude, but you say you spent recent time on content: what content? I guess you mean CMCW (the best game you've released, and I'm genuinely grateful you you guys!) But that was in 2021.
Overall I think we might be less cantankerous if instead of getting official word when the deadlines go whooshing by months later, a word sooner might make us happier than otherwise.
Anyway, I finally caught COVID and am grumpy so I apologize if I come across the wrong way! I wish everyone here the best and am looking forward to 2023! 🙂

I'm sure dealing with us is a pain, but from my perspective you guys might have a little communication problem. From the 2022 prospective, only the CMCW patch released, and in July (and again in November!). And that was aimed at early February. I certainly appreciate the September update but it was radio silence until then. Then radio silence until now.
CMBS just got a patch that fixed one major bug in the game, which is pretty great too. I haven't had a chance to test it yet but the patch notes haven't mentioned the at least year old AT6 bug (also in CW which patched twice this year with no dice) and armored vehicles and their subsystems are still immune to artillery save for direct hits, which we've known about since at least 2014. I know these are maybe my big bugbears but you can't argue that having such long lasting bugs is a good look? We also have no idea if you even know about them. We post on the forum and occasionally get a volunteer tester to ask about it and then it gets forgotten about until maybe next year it gets fixed.
Finally, and I don't mean to be rude, but you say you spent recent time on content: what content? I guess you mean CMCW (the best game you've released, and I'm genuinely grateful you you guys!) But that was in 2021.
Overall I think we might be less cantankerous if instead of getting official word when the deadlines go whooshing by months later, a word sooner might make us happier than otherwise.
Anyway, I finally caught COVID and am grumpy so I apologize if I come across the wrong way! I wish everyone here the best and am looking forward to 2023! 🙂

I can help: I was around 12 in the 80s when my father was serving near Frankfurt, so I have expertise in the French army. Also remember the Canadians because we did our food shopping in their stores. I propose myself as artistic director with my in-depth knowledge as shown by this drawing drawn from my childhood memories:

With talk of a patch coming for CMBS for the past month I thought I'd revive some year old bug reports that aren't in this thread:
CMBS and CMCW - 9M114 missiles on Mi-24s are incapable of entering the map and miss by huge margins 100% of the time
 
 

Too late 😄
But seriously. The simple fact is that the guys who are making this happen are mainly Americans, Brits and Canadians (I think) and of course they chose their own countries first. I'd do the same. How many Germans, Dutch or Danes are involved in the development of CM? Not many, I bet.
Easter egg or not, the other NATO countries will follow sooner or later. For the moment that's enough for me. Had to swallow my disappointment (a glass of good red wine helped a lot), I must admit that, but beggars can't be chosers. BF has it's own way of doing things, because they are individuals with their own preference and business instinct. Not always what I like to see (missing Ghurkas and Maroccans in CMFI is a good example), but there it is.
For those magnificent modders at this forum a winter mod for CW won't be that difficult. i hope they will be prepared to make it, if not, I also respect that.  
It won't be long before the Dutch ground forces are integrated into the Bundeswehr (it's already happening) so that's one worry less for the future. 😉
Btw @Lethaface, I've ordered my new CM tailor made PC. Thanks again for all your advice!

Oh, I want to point out a bug with the lighting. The shadows within the countryside is inversed. Hills and mountains are light up on their shadowy sides in the morning and evening, while the sides facing the sun are dark.

We wanted to concentrate on the British Army of the Rhine and Canadians first, mainly for selfish reasons and also because we have a couple people on the team who are experts on the British Army so it was the obvious choice for us.
We do have plans for the German Army too, but that will unfortunately have to wait.
Bil

I was expecting German forces, as the war is mainly fought in German lands and I think they are a must have, but I have to admit, I also want to see the Brits in the game, and getting the Canadians as well is a great bonus. Looking forward to it, many were requesting it.

With talk of a patch coming for CMBS for the past month I thought I'd revive some year old bug reports that aren't in this thread:
CMBS and CMCW - 9M114 missiles on Mi-24s are incapable of entering the map and miss by huge margins 100% of the time
 
 

I don't know the technical workings behind it, but having used the replay feature and being a video editor myself while maintaining an active presence in the discord community of over 200+ people who have bought at least one of your titles throughout the years you've been in business I have to disagree with your assessment. 

Regardless of all the miniscule little complaints that are petty themself, the community as a whole would appreciate this one specific feature more than anything else. Enough to probably pay an additional fee (albeit small, $10-$15) to have this. It's not only useful for your marketing, but the community itself to bring people closer together / create content. 

Not a single user of Combat Mission: Professional that obtained their license through UK: Fight Club has complained about anything regarding the replay feature. Sure, it's not all sunshine and rainbows and the feature is surely not polished to the standard that you would like to release a finished product in, but as it stands it is more than useable. 

If there is a contract stipulation on deliverable features that cannot be released to the public, that's one thing. Telling the community on multiple occasions that we think we know what we want, but we really don't is a little rash in my opinion and I mean this with all due respect. 

My final point, is that if the community is going to find things to complain about year after year, regardless of what you do sir, then why not give them this one thing that they've been asking for so you can either; 1) Prove your point that we don't know what we want, or 2) Throw the community a bone that is appreciated. 

Either way, I respect your judgement but as a user of both the Pro and Commercial titles I do not think your assessment of the usage in regards to Replay Feature is accurate. 

I guess I must go win the powerball and then give you a call. CMEW is a fantasy within a fantasy.

BOAR
Wild boar - Wikipedia
BAOR
British Army of the Rhine - Wikipedia
Not sure whether people are asking for a flavour object that is not a dead cow or horse or the Brits for the Cold War module.

By what was posted above I assumed there wouldn't really be room for bones besides the typical DAR's that we get pre-release. I think people were expecting to see screenies as was I, but not an issue.
It's appreciated. We're starving over here (Though we have an insatiable appetite).
Perfect. It doesn't seem like too much has changed since 2017 anyway. This is great news. 👍
Understood, it's actually the reason why I went with my new space heater (3060ti) over something more practical and efficient by AMD. No doubt OpenGL is supported by shoestrings nowadays.
Ah, duh. I replied without reading the original post thoroughly enough.
Meh, whatever I've asked for has generally been delivered. PBEM++ was a let down but an effort was made. I understand the code was not designed with this originally in mind but I still believe a flourishing multiplayer experience would have other features trickle in as sales would go up. This is the best wargame on the market or else I wouldn't be here to bicker and ask for more.
Thanks for the response.

Not yet. I don't think they have very much to say though, and given how comical the last 2 updates are in hindsight, I understand why they are hesitant.
 
Hell, we are almost a month from "very soon" on a patch, if that gives you an idea on how fast things move around here.

Hahahaha, the idea that this place is any different from any other gaming forum is pretty funny. mil professionals indeed.

An excellent video! Quite informative and it's great to see the principles in action.
I would quibble with this definition a little bit. A meeting engagement in Soviet military science specifically refers to an engagement where both sides are on the move (though variously defined by different authors as either or both on move or on the offensive), and by the 1980s was expected to be the most common type of engagement in a real war.  An attack from the march is a different but related concept in that a meeting engagement would likely, but not necessarily, involve an attack from the march.
Edit: Some good sources on this that I think are very good if anyone is interested:
The Offensive by A. A. Sidorenko
Soviet Airland Battle Tactics by W. Baxter - don't let the title scare you, he did it on purpose!

I've said before, but the replay feature would make content creation orders of magnitude easier, as well as being incredibly useful for learning what actually happened during a game, and improving.
To take the basic example - right now, the "easiest" way to make a CM video is to record you playing the thing, mouse clicks and all. There have been some really good content made this way (@Ithikial_AU), but it does result in 10+ hours worth of videos, most of which is pretty dull. The alternative is something like one of Hapless' AARs, which requires an awful lot more time and effort to put together.

With replays, the lowest-effort video would be perhaps a 30-60 minute replay, shot in one take, with someone narrating live. That's not the best possible CM video, but it raises the bar of the lower end significantly, as well as making the high end significantly easier.

This is one of my pet requests. I would like the ability to call fire on a map coordinate, and if there is no line of sight, then it's a FFE mission and while it will hit the grid location accurately (after all, the FO and the FDC are using the same map, so the rounds should hit what he asked for), the effects will be unknown to the friendly side since there is no LOS. That's fine. It mimics reality.  No need to get fancy with entering coordinates. The current FO call line works fine, just that inside the game a different behavior is used if there is no LOS from FO to target. This would allow firing on a tentative contact, for example, you know the enemy is expected to have armor, and you get a couple of sound contact behind a treeline or just over a rise, where you can't see. 
Doesn't need to be TRPs. TRPs main advantage is faster response time. For TRPs the battery FDC will have already calculated firing data, and needs only to send it to the guns. 
Dave

You do not embrace Space Lobsters.  THEY embrace YOU!  With their oversized feeding claw, dragging you to their mouth manipulators, to be slowly pulled apart and fed into their gaping mandibles! As you are rent limb from limb, with your armored suit rendered no more a hindrance than a piece of cloth to these monsters, your only choice to scream your override code and hope your anti-matter plasma generator is able to cascade into a failure mode creating an anti-matter explosion great enough to destroy the Lobster King's flagship dreadnaught. 
Or something. 
I cannot take credit for "Space Lobsters of Doom". It very well may have been me...or not. I seriously don't remember. It's like trying to remember how you first learned to breathe. Best if we give credit to the community, writ large.

Someone needs to do a Combat Mission forum meme glossary.

An excellent video! Quite informative and it's great to see the principles in action.
I would quibble with this definition a little bit. A meeting engagement in Soviet military science specifically refers to an engagement where both sides are on the move (though variously defined by different authors as either or both on move or on the offensive), and by the 1980s was expected to be the most common type of engagement in a real war.  An attack from the march is a different but related concept in that a meeting engagement would likely, but not necessarily, involve an attack from the march.
Edit: Some good sources on this that I think are very good if anyone is interested:
The Offensive by A. A. Sidorenko
Soviet Airland Battle Tactics by W. Baxter - don't let the title scare you, he did it on purpose!

Yes, this is correct - or at least by the definitions in FM-100-2-1.

Obviously from the Soviet perspective it doesn't actually matter all that much - the column is coming into contact in echelons, and whether the enemy is in a hasty defence or on the move is mostly just texture.

The important point - or at least the point I was trying to make - is that "meeting engagements" in CM terms tend to match that of traditional tabletop wargaming (say, DBA or the WRG moderns rules), and the desire that players seem to have to have equal forces battling over even terrain, which isn't common historically at all. I get the incentive to do that, but I don't think it tends to show off CM (or any serious simulationist game) at its best.

To add a bit more to this an attack from the march is just an attack where you are not in contact with the enemy beforehand. An attack from contact means you are already in contact with the enemy. 
For example: 1st battalion is in a defensive position about 400 meters from the enemy. It will conduct an attack from contact. 2nd battalion is located 2km away and will conduct an attack from the March either flank the enemy or reinforce the breakthrough of 1st battalion.

None of this is my fault... LOL... I get back into the forum... and start a completely off topic thread... I liked the back story... Everyday guys in a national guard unit who get shipped in a hurry to the German front before hostilities break out... if I remember the book. And for the record: Not a big fan of Clancy... all male testosterone driven characters in fantastic situations. Rule 62!