ASL Veteran

It's hard to understand what you are asking because there aren't enough details in your description about what you are doing exactly.  It should be obvious what artillery is doing if you are running the artillery yourself.  Are you just assigning artillery to one side or another and waiting to see what the AI does with it or something?  If you are doing stuff in the editor you can always place a bunch of enemy soldiers out in some open ground, assign yourself a forward observer, give the forward observer twenty batteries of 105mm howitzers and have at it.

Incidentally, I would just add that there isn't necessarily any correlation between sales on Steam and sales by BFC.  If BFC were on Steam and had the ability to opt out of the various sales held by Steam then it is entirely probable that you would still not see any of BFC's products on sale even if they were on Steam.  So linking Steam and BFC to make a point about pricing discounts isn't necessarily a relevant point.

Exactly!  That's why Battlefront went out of business last year ... oh wait  . 
 
I was going to type more but it would be pointless and a waste of my time.

Exactly!  That's why Battlefront went out of business last year ... oh wait  . 
 
I was going to type more but it would be pointless and a waste of my time.

What I can't understand is why someone would post that CMBB is superior to CMRT on the CMRT forum.  Wouldn't it be more useful to post something like that in the CMBB forum where like minded individuals can discuss their favorite game and where they can all agree that CMBB is superior?  What is amusing to me is that people come onto the CMx2 forums with stuff like this and then they complain bitterly if they get any pushback.  They complain that they can't discuss "important topics" like this on the CMRT forum because everyone dog piles on them.  Mostly they complain about beta testers, but anyone who responds that they like the game the way it is becomes part of the Fanboi mafia because they just can't see how flawed and imperfect the game is compared to CMBB or whatever they happen to be comparing the game to or complaining about.  Well what do you expect if you post something on the CMx2 forum?  If everyone agreed that BFC made a mistake when they made CMx2 there wouldn't be a CMx2 forum.  There wouldn't be a BFC because they wouldn't  be able to sell any games so it should be pretty obvious that a lot of people seem to be at least satisfied with what they are purchasing.  We all know that BFC isn't going to release a game that covers the entire Barbarossa Campaign from beginning to end for $40.  We also know that BFC isn't going to switch away from one to one representation.  Most of the people who are reading this thread probably also played CMx1 and those who didn't probably aren't going to pick up a game as old as CMx1 if they already have CMx2.  So really, what is the point of this thread?

What he meant by the two engine upgrades is that older versions of the same title will not be sold in perpetuity.  In other words, if you own CMBN 1.0 and we are now on CMBN 3.0 (of engine x2) and you all of a sudden want to upgrade your game you are out of luck because you missed the window.  You would now have to purchase a new game rather than upgrade the old game.  That's what he meant by not supporting older titles into perpetuity.  CMBN 3.0 will still be available for purchase and when the 4.0 engine upgrade (of engine x2) becomes available everyone will still have the option of upgrading their games. 
 
As far as the Battlefront Store goes I think they were still selling CMBN 1.0 in the store up until 3.0 came out (of engine x2).  Once 3.0 was completed they then took down the CMBN 1.0 from the store and now they probably only offer new sales as 3.0.  The original plan, I think, was to continue selling CMBN 2.0 until CMBN 4.0 upgrade came out, but I think they realized that wasn't going to be very efficient and now I think everything is sold at 3.0 (although I'm not positive about that since I don't visit the store page ... well ever). 
 
It is obviously a lot of work to put together the upgrades for each title or family because we are now up to ... what ... four active families with one more on the way?  So it only makes sense to make the upgrades more feature intensive and be released less frequently in order to cut down on the work of upgrading multiple titles.  If you upgrade with each release of every family you will end up with almost constant engine upgrades, but once you separate the families from the upgrades then you can continue to release content for the different families as before while making the workload of upgrading every title a little more manageable since the upgrades are less frequent.  The coders can spend more time on creating new stuff rather than spending most of their time upgrading old stuff.  You can also pack more new features into each upgrade because the coders can spend more time working on each upgrade before releasing it.  So while the gamer will get new features less often, when the gamer does get an upgrade they will get more new features for each upgrade and they will have to pay for these upgrades less often across all titles.  So while some may complain that the new features aren't coming fast enough I think most people should realize that it is much better to separate the families from the upgrades so that both the developer and the customer can benefit by that separation.  The customer gets more bang per upgrade and pays for fewer upgrades that have more features in them while the developer makes the workload more manageable by making the upgrades less frequently.
 
edited to add that this is my personal interpretation of the way forward on the upgrades and only Steve or Chris themselves can make an official statement on the situation. 

Exactly!  That's why Battlefront went out of business last year ... oh wait  . 
 
I was going to type more but it would be pointless and a waste of my time.

I can't recall Battlefront ever doing a sale on any of their titles so sales are not something they typically do. 

I can't recall Battlefront ever doing a sale on any of their titles so sales are not something they typically do. 

What he meant by the two engine upgrades is that older versions of the same title will not be sold in perpetuity.  In other words, if you own CMBN 1.0 and we are now on CMBN 3.0 (of engine x2) and you all of a sudden want to upgrade your game you are out of luck because you missed the window.  You would now have to purchase a new game rather than upgrade the old game.  That's what he meant by not supporting older titles into perpetuity.  CMBN 3.0 will still be available for purchase and when the 4.0 engine upgrade (of engine x2) becomes available everyone will still have the option of upgrading their games. 
 
As far as the Battlefront Store goes I think they were still selling CMBN 1.0 in the store up until 3.0 came out (of engine x2).  Once 3.0 was completed they then took down the CMBN 1.0 from the store and now they probably only offer new sales as 3.0.  The original plan, I think, was to continue selling CMBN 2.0 until CMBN 4.0 upgrade came out, but I think they realized that wasn't going to be very efficient and now I think everything is sold at 3.0 (although I'm not positive about that since I don't visit the store page ... well ever). 
 
It is obviously a lot of work to put together the upgrades for each title or family because we are now up to ... what ... four active families with one more on the way?  So it only makes sense to make the upgrades more feature intensive and be released less frequently in order to cut down on the work of upgrading multiple titles.  If you upgrade with each release of every family you will end up with almost constant engine upgrades, but once you separate the families from the upgrades then you can continue to release content for the different families as before while making the workload of upgrading every title a little more manageable since the upgrades are less frequent.  The coders can spend more time on creating new stuff rather than spending most of their time upgrading old stuff.  You can also pack more new features into each upgrade because the coders can spend more time working on each upgrade before releasing it.  So while the gamer will get new features less often, when the gamer does get an upgrade they will get more new features for each upgrade and they will have to pay for these upgrades less often across all titles.  So while some may complain that the new features aren't coming fast enough I think most people should realize that it is much better to separate the families from the upgrades so that both the developer and the customer can benefit by that separation.  The customer gets more bang per upgrade and pays for fewer upgrades that have more features in them while the developer makes the workload more manageable by making the upgrades less frequently.
 
edited to add that this is my personal interpretation of the way forward on the upgrades and only Steve or Chris themselves can make an official statement on the situation. 

I get what you are saying, but at the same time you should understand that with CMx2 an opponent can use your ability to area fire and react to spots against you.  For example, if you are someone who area fires a lot at spots, then if your opponent uses a lot of dexterity in repositioning his units you could spend a lot of time wasting ammunition blasting nothing but empty space all the while making incorrect assumptions about the intentions of your opponent.  In CMx1 deliberately repositioning forces in an effort to create uncertainty and confusion in your opponent is something that couldn't be done. 

Hmm, the only thing I can think of at the moment is to go into the editor and take screen shots of the map for a particular scenario or QB map.

What I can't understand is why someone would post that CMBB is superior to CMRT on the CMRT forum.  Wouldn't it be more useful to post something like that in the CMBB forum where like minded individuals can discuss their favorite game and where they can all agree that CMBB is superior?  What is amusing to me is that people come onto the CMx2 forums with stuff like this and then they complain bitterly if they get any pushback.  They complain that they can't discuss "important topics" like this on the CMRT forum because everyone dog piles on them.  Mostly they complain about beta testers, but anyone who responds that they like the game the way it is becomes part of the Fanboi mafia because they just can't see how flawed and imperfect the game is compared to CMBB or whatever they happen to be comparing the game to or complaining about.  Well what do you expect if you post something on the CMx2 forum?  If everyone agreed that BFC made a mistake when they made CMx2 there wouldn't be a CMx2 forum.  There wouldn't be a BFC because they wouldn't  be able to sell any games so it should be pretty obvious that a lot of people seem to be at least satisfied with what they are purchasing.  We all know that BFC isn't going to release a game that covers the entire Barbarossa Campaign from beginning to end for $40.  We also know that BFC isn't going to switch away from one to one representation.  Most of the people who are reading this thread probably also played CMx1 and those who didn't probably aren't going to pick up a game as old as CMx1 if they already have CMx2.  So really, what is the point of this thread?

What I can't understand is why someone would post that CMBB is superior to CMRT on the CMRT forum.  Wouldn't it be more useful to post something like that in the CMBB forum where like minded individuals can discuss their favorite game and where they can all agree that CMBB is superior?  What is amusing to me is that people come onto the CMx2 forums with stuff like this and then they complain bitterly if they get any pushback.  They complain that they can't discuss "important topics" like this on the CMRT forum because everyone dog piles on them.  Mostly they complain about beta testers, but anyone who responds that they like the game the way it is becomes part of the Fanboi mafia because they just can't see how flawed and imperfect the game is compared to CMBB or whatever they happen to be comparing the game to or complaining about.  Well what do you expect if you post something on the CMx2 forum?  If everyone agreed that BFC made a mistake when they made CMx2 there wouldn't be a CMx2 forum.  There wouldn't be a BFC because they wouldn't  be able to sell any games so it should be pretty obvious that a lot of people seem to be at least satisfied with what they are purchasing.  We all know that BFC isn't going to release a game that covers the entire Barbarossa Campaign from beginning to end for $40.  We also know that BFC isn't going to switch away from one to one representation.  Most of the people who are reading this thread probably also played CMx1 and those who didn't probably aren't going to pick up a game as old as CMx1 if they already have CMx2.  So really, what is the point of this thread?

What I can't understand is why someone would post that CMBB is superior to CMRT on the CMRT forum.  Wouldn't it be more useful to post something like that in the CMBB forum where like minded individuals can discuss their favorite game and where they can all agree that CMBB is superior?  What is amusing to me is that people come onto the CMx2 forums with stuff like this and then they complain bitterly if they get any pushback.  They complain that they can't discuss "important topics" like this on the CMRT forum because everyone dog piles on them.  Mostly they complain about beta testers, but anyone who responds that they like the game the way it is becomes part of the Fanboi mafia because they just can't see how flawed and imperfect the game is compared to CMBB or whatever they happen to be comparing the game to or complaining about.  Well what do you expect if you post something on the CMx2 forum?  If everyone agreed that BFC made a mistake when they made CMx2 there wouldn't be a CMx2 forum.  There wouldn't be a BFC because they wouldn't  be able to sell any games so it should be pretty obvious that a lot of people seem to be at least satisfied with what they are purchasing.  We all know that BFC isn't going to release a game that covers the entire Barbarossa Campaign from beginning to end for $40.  We also know that BFC isn't going to switch away from one to one representation.  Most of the people who are reading this thread probably also played CMx1 and those who didn't probably aren't going to pick up a game as old as CMx1 if they already have CMx2.  So really, what is the point of this thread?

What I can't understand is why someone would post that CMBB is superior to CMRT on the CMRT forum.  Wouldn't it be more useful to post something like that in the CMBB forum where like minded individuals can discuss their favorite game and where they can all agree that CMBB is superior?  What is amusing to me is that people come onto the CMx2 forums with stuff like this and then they complain bitterly if they get any pushback.  They complain that they can't discuss "important topics" like this on the CMRT forum because everyone dog piles on them.  Mostly they complain about beta testers, but anyone who responds that they like the game the way it is becomes part of the Fanboi mafia because they just can't see how flawed and imperfect the game is compared to CMBB or whatever they happen to be comparing the game to or complaining about.  Well what do you expect if you post something on the CMx2 forum?  If everyone agreed that BFC made a mistake when they made CMx2 there wouldn't be a CMx2 forum.  There wouldn't be a BFC because they wouldn't  be able to sell any games so it should be pretty obvious that a lot of people seem to be at least satisfied with what they are purchasing.  We all know that BFC isn't going to release a game that covers the entire Barbarossa Campaign from beginning to end for $40.  We also know that BFC isn't going to switch away from one to one representation.  Most of the people who are reading this thread probably also played CMx1 and those who didn't probably aren't going to pick up a game as old as CMx1 if they already have CMx2.  So really, what is the point of this thread?

What I can't understand is why someone would post that CMBB is superior to CMRT on the CMRT forum.  Wouldn't it be more useful to post something like that in the CMBB forum where like minded individuals can discuss their favorite game and where they can all agree that CMBB is superior?  What is amusing to me is that people come onto the CMx2 forums with stuff like this and then they complain bitterly if they get any pushback.  They complain that they can't discuss "important topics" like this on the CMRT forum because everyone dog piles on them.  Mostly they complain about beta testers, but anyone who responds that they like the game the way it is becomes part of the Fanboi mafia because they just can't see how flawed and imperfect the game is compared to CMBB or whatever they happen to be comparing the game to or complaining about.  Well what do you expect if you post something on the CMx2 forum?  If everyone agreed that BFC made a mistake when they made CMx2 there wouldn't be a CMx2 forum.  There wouldn't be a BFC because they wouldn't  be able to sell any games so it should be pretty obvious that a lot of people seem to be at least satisfied with what they are purchasing.  We all know that BFC isn't going to release a game that covers the entire Barbarossa Campaign from beginning to end for $40.  We also know that BFC isn't going to switch away from one to one representation.  Most of the people who are reading this thread probably also played CMx1 and those who didn't probably aren't going to pick up a game as old as CMx1 if they already have CMx2.  So really, what is the point of this thread?

The slot in the editor for the various pictures of the briefing maps has a specified maximum size and that size is not square but rather rectangular in shape, although it varies from briefing pic map to briefing pic map.  The pictures can run left to right for approximately twice as far as up and down IIRC.  With this limitation in mind, if your battle map is longer north to south than it is east to west and you don't rotate the picture for the briefing, then the briefing map will look squashed and will be less useful to the player.

That's probably a good policy because there is nothing inherently wrong with Odin's stance.  His opinion is his opinion after all.  The only relevant question is whether he will personally purchase the game or not and why he feels that starting a discussion about this is accomplishing anything of value for the community.  He is stating his opinion and he is no doubt attempting to influence someone or something - perhaps he thinks that he can get BFC to add some of the unspecified things that he thinks would make a purchase worthwhile.  Of course he would have to specify what a value purchase would be for him before he can make that case and it is much easier to simply say 'there isn't enough there for me' which makes a worthwhile discussion difficult.  Especially when he refers to 'the community' and 'customers' or perhaps even 'the collective' instead of just speaking for himself as an individual and what choice he intends to make as an individual.  He doesn't just want to say 'I don't want to buy the game because I don't think there is enough content for me to justify a purchase.  Nope, because
 
"to me (Odin) this is a fundamental issue about how BF treats its longstanding customer base"

That's probably a good policy because there is nothing inherently wrong with Odin's stance.  His opinion is his opinion after all.  The only relevant question is whether he will personally purchase the game or not and why he feels that starting a discussion about this is accomplishing anything of value for the community.  He is stating his opinion and he is no doubt attempting to influence someone or something - perhaps he thinks that he can get BFC to add some of the unspecified things that he thinks would make a purchase worthwhile.  Of course he would have to specify what a value purchase would be for him before he can make that case and it is much easier to simply say 'there isn't enough there for me' which makes a worthwhile discussion difficult.  Especially when he refers to 'the community' and 'customers' or perhaps even 'the collective' instead of just speaking for himself as an individual and what choice he intends to make as an individual.  He doesn't just want to say 'I don't want to buy the game because I don't think there is enough content for me to justify a purchase.  Nope, because
 
"to me (Odin) this is a fundamental issue about how BF treats its longstanding customer base"

The East Front guys are killing me.  Maybe my memory is failing me, but I do believe that Red Thunder was the last WW2 era release.  The release after that was, of course, CMBS.  So Red Thunder was released after Market Garden and I don't think CMFI hasn't seen anything since before Market Garden.  We all want lots of cool East Front stuff, but I think perhaps a little perspective might be in order.     Up to this point I think the pattern has been West Front release, followed by Italy release, then comes East Front, with Modern finishing up.  We all know that Bulge is in the pipeline (west front) and the next Italy module was mentioned by Chris in the CMFI forum, so after those come out you can probably expect something else for the East Front.  Then before the next East Front module comes out you will probably have to wait until the cycle completes one more time.  
 
Nothing wrong with a little enthusiasm for one's favorite theater, but the love has to be spread around.

Perhaps, but it is probably worth noting that a Bangalore Torpedo only clears a one meter wide path.  Each torpedo section is 1.5 meters long and weighs thirteen pounds.  That's too narrow for vehicles to pass safely, but it allows infantry to pass.  If you consider a full 8 meter by 8 meter action spot it also means that it would take between five and six sections to create an 8 meter long by 1 meter wide path through a one action spot minefield.  There are ten sections in a Bangalore kit so if you used five sections you could theoretically create a two meter wide path, although I think officially 'lanes' through a minefield are considered to be either four or eight meters.  The push team is supposed to put a dummy 'stick' section at the front of assembled sections so that when the push team pushes the Bangalore into the minefield the entire torpedo won't explode if a mine is hit during the deployment process.  Naturally the pushing process would be a delicate one for those involved, aside from the fact that the torpedo has to be assembled to the appropriate length from a position near the minefield and the charge has to be prepped after the torpedo is deployed.  So I guess what I'm putting forth is that it would take several minutes, like maybe twenty to thirty minutes, to clear an infantry path through a single minefield action spot.  Doing it right in game terms would also require a bunch of new animations.  So I'm not actually sure how different it would be from the marking mines command.  The mark mines command is probably done more quickly than it would in reality as well so .... not sure anymore if it would be a net benefit from a practical standpoint.

He's still around?  Yeah, why would anyone want to dig that fossil up and ask him to comment on anything.

Reinforcements are placed on the map in the editor when you deploy the troops of each side.  Unlike forces that start on map, reinforcements do not vary their location based upon set up zones or the initial setup area for each AI group for each plan.  So the direct answer to your question is .... no, you cannot vary the location of reinforcements from the location that you set them when you are deploying each side in the editor.  When using reinforcements you don't even need to paint a 'set up' waypoint because even if you do the AI will not move the reinforcements to that location.  You simply begin an AI plan for reinforcements by painting the first order. 
 
One more thing to be aware of with reinforcements is that if you have a single AI group that consists of both reinforcements and troops that begin on map at the start of the scenario, the forces that start on map will not move to their first order until the reinforcements arrive, so it's best to have a separate AI group for each reinforcement group at a minimum.

The reason that infantry get spotted better than they would in reality is that the AI won't fire at unspotted troops.  Most firefights would probably be conducted using area fire and that would lead to the AI being unable to function properly.  I seem to recall that when the CMBB demo was first released you almost couldn't even get a solid contact if the enemy was beyond 100 meters or something like that.  Almost all infantry combat was area fire, but BFC dialed it back a bit so that the AI would auto engage troops.