ASL Veteran

You would be surprised.  There are numerous WW2 era accounts of tank crews bailing out of perfectly functional tanks after hits by weaponry that was incapable of destroying it.  The thing to keep in mind is that all a tank crew knows is that something exploded or impacted their vehicle.  The crew isn't going to know exactly what type of weapon just fired at them necessarily and if the crew fears a fiery death then yeah - they might jump out rather than retreat.  Sometimes a crew doesn't even know if the vehicle has been penetrated or not and there are even cases where a tank commander will tell the gunner to fire at a target only to find out that the gunner is splattered all over the inside of the turret.  The situational awareness that you have while playing the game is orders of magnitude greater than a crew has while engaged in actual combat.

If you mean you have a new scenario file or you have created a new scenario file all you have to do is move the file into the Scenario sub folder which can be found in the Game Files folder.
 
If you have done that and the scenario doesn't show up on your list of available battles then you should make sure that the scenario is appropriate for the specific game family you are playing because a CMFI scenario probably won't show up in the CMBN folder.

Umm, that's a bit of a misinformed statement because it really does depend on the product.  I really don't want to dig out my old finance, marketing, and economics textbooks (yeah, I kept them for some reason) but such things as Gasoline for example have a different demand curve than other products because people who must drive must buy it regardless of whether they want to or not.  Oil companies mostly advertise in order to improve public image.  Heck, British Petroleum was running ads calling themselves 'Beyond Petroleum', an ad campaign that downplayed their primary product.  They also try to add special stuff to their gasoline to try and build some sort of brand loyalty, but nobody is going to go out and say 'I think I'll buy some gas today' because they watched a Chevron ad.  People go out and get gasoline because their fuel tank is empty.   

At set up AI troops will always face in the direction they were deployed in the editor when the designer placed the troops on the map.  Friendly edge has nothing to do with initial facing of troops deployed on the map.  Once they move somewhere they will then face in the direction of their next waypoint.  Once again, friendly edge has nothing to do with it.  Friendly edge only affects what side of a wall the troops choose to align themselves on and which direction troops will route when under heavy fire.
 
edited to add - in case this isn't known when you place troops in the editor with the move command you then face them in the direction you want to face them by using the face command just like you would if you were playing the game normally.  These troops will then retain their facing until they move to a new location.  Once at the new location they will then face their next waypoint.

AI tank crews are automatically set to open by the AI.  You have no control over the buttoned status of AI vehicle crews.

I think he means 'made a few sales' in that they have sold a few games.  Sale being used in the transactional sense not the discount sense of the word.

Perhaps.  However, he really needs to understand that he is now effectively saying that the entire model that the game uses for armor penetration is in error.  If the expectation is that someone is going to come onto this forum, start a thread, toss out a few things and have an expectation that Charles is going to discount everything that he has done for the last fifteen years and suddenly say 'You're right, I need to re do the entire penetration model for the game' is probably not dealing with reality as it currently is.  If anyone wants the entire way the game is calculating armor penetration to change they are probably going to need to provide some very compelling evidence, up to and perhaps including various tables and calculations that are the equivalent of what Rexford has published.  Shift8 has already discounted the expertise of apparently well regarded individuals on a forum dedicated to armor penetration.  Why would Charles feel compelled to put any credence into what Shift8 says on this forum.  Is Shift8 published?  Does Shift8 work for the defense department?  Does Shift8 do any original research on this topic?  What are Shift8's credentials exactly or does he just read a few books and count himself an expert?  I don't know the answer to that - maybe he is a renowned expert in the field.
 
I'm not trying to be hard on the guy.  I'm just trying to spell out reality.  Charles relies on research conducted by recognized experts in the field - which includes Rexford.  Shift8 seems to have a dim view of Rexford's work, but really, what is Shift8's qualifications to pontificate on Rexford's work in the first place?  Unless Shift8 can point to his published work and show where all of CM's mistakes are then he's really just tilting at windmills here since Charles is just going to say 'Shift8?  Who is he and why should I care what he thinks?'  Reading a book somewhere doesn't make someone an expert because it should be obvious that what Charles has put into the game is much more complicated than a simple penetration table.  That is, unless Shift8 stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!
 
I don't know Shift8 and I'm not trying to bust the guy's balls, but if you want to change the entire way armored combat is done in the game it will require extraordinary evidence.  Saying 'something is wrong but I don't know what' isn't going to change a thing.  That's reality.

That and how is the AI going to designate and place a CCP?  Someone has to design AI plans and a designer trying to designate a CCP would probably have to place it somewhere several hundred meters from the areas of conflict or risk placing it somewhere that the enemy occupies since the scenario designer has no idea where the player will be at any given time.  If the AI is to designate the CCP on it's own then who knows what the result would be.  The reason all of this coding effort is being expended?  In order to have medics physically evacuate casualties from the battlefield and that doesn't actually have any impact on the outcome of the battle itself.    Yeah, I don't see any value in altering the way casualties are handled right now. 

Perhaps.  However, he really needs to understand that he is now effectively saying that the entire model that the game uses for armor penetration is in error.  If the expectation is that someone is going to come onto this forum, start a thread, toss out a few things and have an expectation that Charles is going to discount everything that he has done for the last fifteen years and suddenly say 'You're right, I need to re do the entire penetration model for the game' is probably not dealing with reality as it currently is.  If anyone wants the entire way the game is calculating armor penetration to change they are probably going to need to provide some very compelling evidence, up to and perhaps including various tables and calculations that are the equivalent of what Rexford has published.  Shift8 has already discounted the expertise of apparently well regarded individuals on a forum dedicated to armor penetration.  Why would Charles feel compelled to put any credence into what Shift8 says on this forum.  Is Shift8 published?  Does Shift8 work for the defense department?  Does Shift8 do any original research on this topic?  What are Shift8's credentials exactly or does he just read a few books and count himself an expert?  I don't know the answer to that - maybe he is a renowned expert in the field.
 
I'm not trying to be hard on the guy.  I'm just trying to spell out reality.  Charles relies on research conducted by recognized experts in the field - which includes Rexford.  Shift8 seems to have a dim view of Rexford's work, but really, what is Shift8's qualifications to pontificate on Rexford's work in the first place?  Unless Shift8 can point to his published work and show where all of CM's mistakes are then he's really just tilting at windmills here since Charles is just going to say 'Shift8?  Who is he and why should I care what he thinks?'  Reading a book somewhere doesn't make someone an expert because it should be obvious that what Charles has put into the game is much more complicated than a simple penetration table.  That is, unless Shift8 stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!
 
I don't know Shift8 and I'm not trying to bust the guy's balls, but if you want to change the entire way armored combat is done in the game it will require extraordinary evidence.  Saying 'something is wrong but I don't know what' isn't going to change a thing.  That's reality.

Perhaps.  However, he really needs to understand that he is now effectively saying that the entire model that the game uses for armor penetration is in error.  If the expectation is that someone is going to come onto this forum, start a thread, toss out a few things and have an expectation that Charles is going to discount everything that he has done for the last fifteen years and suddenly say 'You're right, I need to re do the entire penetration model for the game' is probably not dealing with reality as it currently is.  If anyone wants the entire way the game is calculating armor penetration to change they are probably going to need to provide some very compelling evidence, up to and perhaps including various tables and calculations that are the equivalent of what Rexford has published.  Shift8 has already discounted the expertise of apparently well regarded individuals on a forum dedicated to armor penetration.  Why would Charles feel compelled to put any credence into what Shift8 says on this forum.  Is Shift8 published?  Does Shift8 work for the defense department?  Does Shift8 do any original research on this topic?  What are Shift8's credentials exactly or does he just read a few books and count himself an expert?  I don't know the answer to that - maybe he is a renowned expert in the field.
 
I'm not trying to be hard on the guy.  I'm just trying to spell out reality.  Charles relies on research conducted by recognized experts in the field - which includes Rexford.  Shift8 seems to have a dim view of Rexford's work, but really, what is Shift8's qualifications to pontificate on Rexford's work in the first place?  Unless Shift8 can point to his published work and show where all of CM's mistakes are then he's really just tilting at windmills here since Charles is just going to say 'Shift8?  Who is he and why should I care what he thinks?'  Reading a book somewhere doesn't make someone an expert because it should be obvious that what Charles has put into the game is much more complicated than a simple penetration table.  That is, unless Shift8 stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!
 
I don't know Shift8 and I'm not trying to bust the guy's balls, but if you want to change the entire way armored combat is done in the game it will require extraordinary evidence.  Saying 'something is wrong but I don't know what' isn't going to change a thing.  That's reality.

That and how is the AI going to designate and place a CCP?  Someone has to design AI plans and a designer trying to designate a CCP would probably have to place it somewhere several hundred meters from the areas of conflict or risk placing it somewhere that the enemy occupies since the scenario designer has no idea where the player will be at any given time.  If the AI is to designate the CCP on it's own then who knows what the result would be.  The reason all of this coding effort is being expended?  In order to have medics physically evacuate casualties from the battlefield and that doesn't actually have any impact on the outcome of the battle itself.    Yeah, I don't see any value in altering the way casualties are handled right now. 

The number of people required for providing aid would, no doubt, depend upon the severity of the injuries.  There is no reason that a single individual couldn't dress or stabilize a fellow soldier's wounds until a fully trained medic can take over.  Buddy Aid in the US military is something that is administered by only one soldier, at least that is how it is taught from what I remember.  Since there aren't any medic units in game there doesn't seem to be a need for multiple soldiers providing aid to a single wounded soldier.  Perhaps if actual medic units were included?  As it is now if someone is so badly wounded that they require more than one soldier to administer immediate aid then it is probably safe to just assume that the soldier is either counted amongst the dead already or that the soldier providing aid is simply stabilizing the wounded soldier until trained medical personnel arrive and evacuate the soldier (he disappears in game terms).

The number of people required for providing aid would, no doubt, depend upon the severity of the injuries.  There is no reason that a single individual couldn't dress or stabilize a fellow soldier's wounds until a fully trained medic can take over.  Buddy Aid in the US military is something that is administered by only one soldier, at least that is how it is taught from what I remember.  Since there aren't any medic units in game there doesn't seem to be a need for multiple soldiers providing aid to a single wounded soldier.  Perhaps if actual medic units were included?  As it is now if someone is so badly wounded that they require more than one soldier to administer immediate aid then it is probably safe to just assume that the soldier is either counted amongst the dead already or that the soldier providing aid is simply stabilizing the wounded soldier until trained medical personnel arrive and evacuate the soldier (he disappears in game terms).

A test file would simply be the scenario you set up to get your results before you hit the go button.  You just upload your scenario somewhere so someone else can run your scenario and check your results - or perhaps recommend a better test setup if necessary.  If you want something like this changed it simply isn't going to happen unless you can show that something absolutely definitive is in error and the basis for why you believe that an error is present.  Nobody is trying to give you a hard time.  We just know how difficult it is to get something like this altered. 

Nobody needs to worry about defending the people who provide content for the games or the content itself for that matter.  I've had some of my stuff given high marks in online articles and in various Youtube videos and I've also had to field complaints about perceived shortcomings of some stuff.  I have a pretty good idea of where most people are at with the stuff I create and the fact is that you simply can't please everyone.  That's why it is important to have a variety of people providing content.  No single individual is going to create something that everyone likes all the time.  It is an impossible goal.  So realistically if you are creating content you have to have a bit of a thick skin and whether someone enjoys it or not is entirely up to them.  If some feel that the overall content is always lacking then that's their opinion.  I do monitor comments on the forums and watch the Youtube videos to get a feel for how others use the content because I am always trying to improve my product.  However, If people think they can do better there is an editor that comes with the game and with The Few Good Men resurrecting the Scenario Depot those individuals are free to upload the content that they feel is superior.  So here is a unique opportunity for some to put their money where their mouth is and see how they stack up against what is provided since I can guarantee that those who try your stuff will be merciless.  Maybe if they are good enough at creating something then BFC may ask them to contribute something in the future.

Nobody needs to worry about defending the people who provide content for the games or the content itself for that matter.  I've had some of my stuff given high marks in online articles and in various Youtube videos and I've also had to field complaints about perceived shortcomings of some stuff.  I have a pretty good idea of where most people are at with the stuff I create and the fact is that you simply can't please everyone.  That's why it is important to have a variety of people providing content.  No single individual is going to create something that everyone likes all the time.  It is an impossible goal.  So realistically if you are creating content you have to have a bit of a thick skin and whether someone enjoys it or not is entirely up to them.  If some feel that the overall content is always lacking then that's their opinion.  I do monitor comments on the forums and watch the Youtube videos to get a feel for how others use the content because I am always trying to improve my product.  However, If people think they can do better there is an editor that comes with the game and with The Few Good Men resurrecting the Scenario Depot those individuals are free to upload the content that they feel is superior.  So here is a unique opportunity for some to put their money where their mouth is and see how they stack up against what is provided since I can guarantee that those who try your stuff will be merciless.  Maybe if they are good enough at creating something then BFC may ask them to contribute something in the future.

Nobody needs to worry about defending the people who provide content for the games or the content itself for that matter.  I've had some of my stuff given high marks in online articles and in various Youtube videos and I've also had to field complaints about perceived shortcomings of some stuff.  I have a pretty good idea of where most people are at with the stuff I create and the fact is that you simply can't please everyone.  That's why it is important to have a variety of people providing content.  No single individual is going to create something that everyone likes all the time.  It is an impossible goal.  So realistically if you are creating content you have to have a bit of a thick skin and whether someone enjoys it or not is entirely up to them.  If some feel that the overall content is always lacking then that's their opinion.  I do monitor comments on the forums and watch the Youtube videos to get a feel for how others use the content because I am always trying to improve my product.  However, If people think they can do better there is an editor that comes with the game and with The Few Good Men resurrecting the Scenario Depot those individuals are free to upload the content that they feel is superior.  So here is a unique opportunity for some to put their money where their mouth is and see how they stack up against what is provided since I can guarantee that those who try your stuff will be merciless.  Maybe if they are good enough at creating something then BFC may ask them to contribute something in the future.

The only 'official' voices of BFC who would post in this forum would be Steve himself, Chris ND, Phil, and or any of the other actual BFC employees.  I'm not sure what relevance that has to the discussion though.  Just because we aren't speaking on behalf of BFC in an official capacity doesn't mean that our responses to your posts are invalid.  I already mentioned in my post to you that I was referencing previous posts that Steve has made in the past (and which you can locate using the search function), so the fact that I'm referencing past posts by Steve should be treated in the same manner that you would treat a new post by Steve in this thread because nothing that he discussed in the past has changed in any way since he made those posts.
 
I am aware of the attitude that people have about 'Beta Testers' and 'Fanbois' and as far as Beta testers go people get a very skewed view based upon their perceptions of how individuals act in the public forums.  Keep in mind that Beta Testers interact directly with the official staff of BFC and with each other in special beta forums that are not accessible to the public at large.  Why is that important?  That is important to understand because there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a Beta Tester to come onto the public forums and put forth their complaints about the game and how it is not working the way they want it to.  Why would any Beta Tester do that?  It would be pointless because a Beta Tester can discuss various issues directly with the official BFC staff if they want to.  Coming to the public forum to complain about something the game does or doesn't do is almost disrespectful to BFC as well as being pointless because individuals who don't have access to the Beta Forums (in other words, people like you) aren't going to solve or fix an issue with the game.  All you can do is say 'yes I agree' and if BFC can't or won't fix it that hasn't accomplished anything but stir up a storm on the forums and annoy the BFC staff. 
 
Beta testers complain on our own forums, so just because you don't see a Beta out here pushing issues with how broken the game is doesn't mean that all Beta's think the game is perfect in every way.  The only difference here is that you don't get the opportunity to view and participate in the discussions on the Beta Forums.  Beta Testers have also all signed Non Disclosure Agreements and we are under a contractual obligation not to discuss publicly what is discussed on the Beta Forums.  However, that doesn't mean that we can't have an 'informed' opinion about something because we know first hand what it takes to get something into the game or fixed.  We know that because we have to interact with the BFC staff directly and we know first hand what is required to get something fixed or altered.  So when we come out to the public forum and say 'you need X' or 'that's a feature not a bug' then we are saying that through experience and first hand knowledge.  We also have general knowledge of how things work internally at BFC, although there is still a lot that is hidden even from us because the actual staff obviously communicate directly with each other. 
 
So I guess I'll wrap this rambling post up by saying this; no I don't speak for BFC but that's entirely irrelevant because the information that I am providing you with is the most recent answer to your inquiry that has been publicly outlined by Steve himself (and he speaks for BFC in an official capacity).  So while you are free to assume that fog of war will eventually be applied to fences and hedgerows if you just complain about it long enough and loud enough, all you are doing is living in a world of your own construction that is divorced from the reality of what is possible and what isn't possible in the game as it is currently structured.

Squads are currently organized into either two or three teams which a player can split off and command independently.  The most common reason those players say they do that is because they don't like how the AI positions troops within the context of the two or three action spaces that the AI currently positions them in.  These players split their teams so they can place them individually.  The only thing Vin's suggestion does is to create a platform for players to complain about how the AI is placing soldiers within the 2m mini action spots.  The reality is that no matter what you do with regard to team and soldier placement there will always be someone who is unhappy with where a soldier is being placed and who will want to place that soldier himself.  There may be merit in the suggestion but the fact is that until players can place each individual soldier there will always be someone who is unhappy with where his soldiers are being placed on the map. 

Oh, they do pay attention to suggestions to improve CMx2.  They just don't pay attention to you.  What you really seem to be saying is that they need to pay more attention to you - personally - because you think you have all the answers.

Does Germany still use conscription? 
 
So here is your list of Combat Mission Fails and why the game is broken for you

Okay, so these are primarily a graphics complaints. We'll just give that to GTOS - advantage GTOS
 

As you may or may not be aware, from both a fog of war and a player control aspect there is a code limitation that makes what you are asking for difficult if not impossible to do in CM. Does GTOS have full FOW fighting positions that are deployable by the player in it?
 
I am going to assume that you mean something that the player can deploy or influence during set up. Once again though there are code limitations that make this difficult if not impossible to do in the game. If you mean something that could be placed by a scenario designer on the map in the editor then I'm sure it could be done. If the player can't control where the reinforced buildings are located that makes it harder for the player to integrate such buildings into their defenses. So GTOS has reinforced buildings that are deployable by the player too then?

That's already in the game. It isn't 3D so it just falls on the screen but it is there. If GTOS has 3D falling snow I'll give that one to GTOS.

There are two categories of buildings in the game - modular and independent. The modular buildings will probably always be the same, but perhaps with different facades. More independent buildings would be nice, but there are staff limitations and creating stuff in 3D takes a lot of time. Most buildings in most places tend to have similar characteristics so why reinvent the wheel every game?

So GTOS has all of that does it? Pretty amazing game
 

Yes, this would be nice to have. No doubt about it.
 

Well as an "infantryman" (assuming anyone can put any credence to anything that you say) I expect you would know that the equipment is what the equipment is. If the game is set in 1944 the game will have equipment from 1944. That seems self evident to me.

Does Germany still use conscription? 
 
So here is your list of Combat Mission Fails and why the game is broken for you

Okay, so these are primarily a graphics complaints. We'll just give that to GTOS - advantage GTOS
 

As you may or may not be aware, from both a fog of war and a player control aspect there is a code limitation that makes what you are asking for difficult if not impossible to do in CM. Does GTOS have full FOW fighting positions that are deployable by the player in it?
 
I am going to assume that you mean something that the player can deploy or influence during set up. Once again though there are code limitations that make this difficult if not impossible to do in the game. If you mean something that could be placed by a scenario designer on the map in the editor then I'm sure it could be done. If the player can't control where the reinforced buildings are located that makes it harder for the player to integrate such buildings into their defenses. So GTOS has reinforced buildings that are deployable by the player too then?

That's already in the game. It isn't 3D so it just falls on the screen but it is there. If GTOS has 3D falling snow I'll give that one to GTOS.

There are two categories of buildings in the game - modular and independent. The modular buildings will probably always be the same, but perhaps with different facades. More independent buildings would be nice, but there are staff limitations and creating stuff in 3D takes a lot of time. Most buildings in most places tend to have similar characteristics so why reinvent the wheel every game?

So GTOS has all of that does it? Pretty amazing game
 

Yes, this would be nice to have. No doubt about it.
 

Well as an "infantryman" (assuming anyone can put any credence to anything that you say) I expect you would know that the equipment is what the equipment is. If the game is set in 1944 the game will have equipment from 1944. That seems self evident to me.

Does Germany still use conscription? 
 
So here is your list of Combat Mission Fails and why the game is broken for you

Okay, so these are primarily a graphics complaints. We'll just give that to GTOS - advantage GTOS
 

As you may or may not be aware, from both a fog of war and a player control aspect there is a code limitation that makes what you are asking for difficult if not impossible to do in CM. Does GTOS have full FOW fighting positions that are deployable by the player in it?
 
I am going to assume that you mean something that the player can deploy or influence during set up. Once again though there are code limitations that make this difficult if not impossible to do in the game. If you mean something that could be placed by a scenario designer on the map in the editor then I'm sure it could be done. If the player can't control where the reinforced buildings are located that makes it harder for the player to integrate such buildings into their defenses. So GTOS has reinforced buildings that are deployable by the player too then?

That's already in the game. It isn't 3D so it just falls on the screen but it is there. If GTOS has 3D falling snow I'll give that one to GTOS.

There are two categories of buildings in the game - modular and independent. The modular buildings will probably always be the same, but perhaps with different facades. More independent buildings would be nice, but there are staff limitations and creating stuff in 3D takes a lot of time. Most buildings in most places tend to have similar characteristics so why reinvent the wheel every game?

So GTOS has all of that does it? Pretty amazing game
 

Yes, this would be nice to have. No doubt about it.
 

Well as an "infantryman" (assuming anyone can put any credence to anything that you say) I expect you would know that the equipment is what the equipment is. If the game is set in 1944 the game will have equipment from 1944. That seems self evident to me.

Human beings generally feel safer and more secure when they are near someone else.  Tight formations were a means of maintaining morale, discipline, and control over soldiers for centuries until weaponry became too deadly for such methods to remain viable.  Only the most highly trained and disciplined soldiers can maintain their fighting effectiveness when out of close contact with other soldiers.  Clumping in combat is a fact of life and artificially maintaining perfect or even expanded intervals between soldiers would be just as ... incorrect (I can't find the right word here) as how it might be in the game now.  Does anyone here think that a newly minted sixteen year old Volksgrenadier with about three weeks of substandard rushed training is going to maintain perfect field manual intervals with the other members of his squad at all times?  Even combat experienced American units with years of training would clump behind cover such as walls or in buildings and such.  Getting something like what appears to be requested in this thread into the game would be just as ridiculous as how some view the current behavior in the game.  There are numerous first hand written accounts by American veterans that describe German soldiers on patrols walking along in single file "conga lines" as some describe it.  Apparently German soldiers didn't pay that much attention to noise discipline either - from what I can tell late war German soldiers were noisy, incautious, and not very concerned about intervals.  To assume that all soldiers marched along in perfect Field Manual V formations with everyone maintaining perfect intervals is really a fantasy in my opinion.  Heck, I think we've all seen that news footage of those American soldiers in Vietnam firing blind over a wall at the enemy.  Where is that behavior located at in the Field Manual?
 
Edited to add that - I realized I'm in the Black Sea forum and not the WW2 forums, but changes in the game are typically ported back to the other titles and I'm not sure that all this complaining - at least for the WW2 titles, is justified.  I think a case could be made for modern American soldiers, but even there you should probably expect some clumping at some time.

Here is some actual in game footage of some big cats in action