ASL Veteran

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.

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.

No.  The triggers didn't come around until Red Thunder so any stock scenarios made prior to that will not have triggers in them.

Pre planned artillery is mapped out in the editor the same way you map out waypoints for AI groups.  You paint the area on the map that you want the artillery to land in.  It will always hit at the beginning of the game and there is no way to delay it and no AI forces need to have LOS to the location in order for the artillery to begin firing. 
 
Your plan could work, but the AI would have to decide to use the artillery on its own without any intervention on your part via pre planned artillery strikes.  You could possibly help the AI decide to use the artillery by placing TRPs (target reference points) but ultimately the AI needs to do it on its own.

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.

If someone ever decides to play against another human opponent then taking casualties is going to be a fact of life.  I don't think anyone can get through an entire battle without taking a casualty.  In all the games I've played since CMx1 was initially released I can only recall one game where I defeated my opponent without taking a casualty and the deck was probably stacked in my favor.
 
The problem is that if you don't like to take casualties and you play another player in a game then that leads to unfinished games.  It is very disrespectful of your opponent to just disappear because you take a casualty or two and if a player can't take a casualty or two when playing against the AI then chances are that player will have a hard time playing against other people without building up the reputation of being a quitter.  If someone ever wants to take their game to the next level and play against other gamers then not reloading when playing against the AI is the only way that player will be able to build up a tolerance for making it through a tough battle.
 
So charge into battle and take your lumps.  It will improve your game by forcing you to overcome adversity and it will also improve your gamesmanship if you ever decide to take it to the next level.