LongLeftFlank

Of course not, how silly of me.

EDIT:  Post deleted. BFC gonna do what they gonna do and at the end I will support them. They iz us. 

No worries, BG. Every participant in this discussion has made great contributions and is worthy of respect. And we know nobody is working harder right now than the beta testers.
"I have a lot of faults, Brad, but ingratitude isn't one of them."

The wish listing aside, I think some of the frustration may stem from finding out some of the 4.0 engine isn't making it into SF2 (and it spilled out here) Independent buildings being a major one.  Any terrain features, buildings, etc. left out are more things that will hobble and limit designers. Other than that it's just a normal day of b****ing on the forums that could've been more tactful in its delivery.
It's very much appreciated. I personally would've hated it. Just look how long RT and BS have been without any new forces. That wasn't meant as a jab, just a statement. All us SF1 guy have already been down that road once, so it's nice to know we won't be walking it again. That's one of the reasons I don't look as forward to CM3 as I should, is knowing how long it took us to get here with all the games and modules at 4.0.
 
Mord.

For what it's worth Steve, I think that's absolutely the right commercial decision. A piecemeal release won't get the results you need, and have richly earned.

No worries, BG. Every participant in this discussion has made great contributions and is worthy of respect. And we know nobody is working harder right now than the beta testers.
"I have a lot of faults, Brad, but ingratitude isn't one of them."

A lot of people strawmanning and talking past each other here, and then the usual dismissive hand waving pile-on. And as a special bonus,  longstanding community contributors become dogs pooping on the carpet.  Nice. [Slow clap]  OK, I think this has run its course.
Best of luck with the release, BFC.

Sorry man... ha kidding!  For once I can say yes. That is in. 
I’d forgotten that CMSF was so limited for that

Do you do that per chance? In any case, if you felt somehow identified, here are my excuses - it was a humorous remark not a handwave or a pile on.
Have a good day there in Manila.

No worries, BG. Every participant in this discussion has made great contributions and is worthy of respect. And we know nobody is working harder right now than the beta testers.
"I have a lot of faults, Brad, but ingratitude isn't one of them."

No worries, Steve.

I'm sure its fairly easy to avoid, especially because the Sherman only travels at 5mph with the flail in operation

Sorry, trying not to troll here, but in RL can't men scramble out of the way of those devices pretty easily? I mean, a 280mm AVRE spigot mortar, sure, concussion alone would cause lethal hemorrhaging. But death by steamroller?
 

Sorry, trying not to troll here, but in RL can't men scramble out of the way of those devices pretty easily? I mean, a 280mm AVRE spigot mortar, sure, concussion alone would cause lethal hemorrhaging. But death by steamroller?
 

On a Project Management timeline, the final 10% of effort will always consume 90% of your time, money, and resources.  😲
The Project Management axiom is, "In scope, in time, in budget", I can give you two out of three! 

It's nobody's business but the Turks.... 
(well that'll bring the Greek gamers out of the woodwork. Or the They Might Be Giants fans)

That is a superb mod.....Totally agree with the sentiments so eloquently expressed above. 

Checking this thread at 3:30 in the morning. Maybe you've got a point.

I'm using it in all versions of the game. Those explosions sure add to the immersion!

In the wild.

Caught this today while testing some stuff. Thought it looked cool. Shrek's are nasty!
 

 
Mord.

Breaking away for a moment from the "Canadians who made it onto US cultural radar" banter, is this map new or a reboot (with water) of a CMSF1 map?

Either (pronounced "eye-ther") way, a little constructive criticism of this village.
It's presumably a bunch of structures dropped into an actual Google earth footprint. Fair enough for a start, but it looks more like something you'd see in the treeless deep desert, which is clearly not the dominant terrain on this map.
All structures except shops (mostly open fronted) should have some kind of compound wall surrounding them; low stone walls for farmhouses, high walls for more modern residences. Houses should also have a fair number of palms and mature shade trees, maybe an orchard. And outbuildings. I was hoping the little shed would make it in from CMBN, but alas no joy.  Where's the mosque? (a village this size will have one, even if there isn't a dome or minaret)
This is *not* just eye candy; it has very real implications for the battle. A 'dense' village squarely in the centre of the map provides a ready made fortress, with robust and varied concealment and cover for units, especially infantry AT teams who can keyhole and break contact at will.
I'd expect this benighted hamlet to be leveled by artillery or air in due course, but the rubble, walls and ditches would still provide plentiful and stubborn tactical cover. In its current barren state, AT teams can't so easily flit from building to building to keyhole, and can be readily pinned and killed off by ranged tank/IFV guns. Uber armour uber alles again, yawn.
Settlements are one of the only features that counter the overwhelming superiority of (usually) NATO ranged weapons. If you want a fair fight and a more fun game (IMHO), give these features more of their real life tactical properties! 
Here endeth my catechism. Exit Falstaff.

Couple of interesting bits in this piece on urban sieges in the Syria and Iraqi civil wars.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n14/patrick-cockburn/the-war-in-five-sieges
In every case, ground troops have only been able to win with the backing of airpower, artillery and advisers most usually supplied by the US-led coalition or Russia. Whether the fighting was in Ramadi and Mosul in Iraq or Aleppo and Damascus in Syria, the way the sieges were conducted was similar.
Few combat troops were used: no side could afford heavy losses in street battles with a well-trained enemy. The attackers relied heavily on shelling and bombing to clear the way or to batter the defenders into submission. It was a strategy that always succeeded in the end, but it had the inevitable cost... of causing great destruction and civilian loss of life.
 In the final months of the sieges of Mosul and Raqqa the coalition bombing, and the Syrian and Iraqi shelling, became considerably more intense.... They had always been less capable than they claimed of locating the right target, and now they faced another problem: IS and other jihadi groups were showing great tactical ingenuity in fighting guerrilla war in the streets, inflicting heavy casualties on Iraqi army and SDF ground troops.
IS fighters moved swiftly on foot or by motorbike from house to house, cutting holes in walls and tunnels underground, making surprise attacks and avoiding surveillance from the air. Their sniper, mortar and mine-laying teams never stayed in one place for long: they would move on quickly from a house they had used as a base, leaving the civilian inhabitants to face coalition retaliation. Such tactics went a long way towards negating the advantages of the high-precision airstrikes.... In the end, maximum firepower was used to obliterate the last stubbornly defended IS enclaves, with no regard for the number of civilians killed. 
 
 

Breaking away for a moment from the "Canadians who made it onto US cultural radar" banter, is this map new or a reboot (with water) of a CMSF1 map?

Either (pronounced "eye-ther") way, a little constructive criticism of this village.
It's presumably a bunch of structures dropped into an actual Google earth footprint. Fair enough for a start, but it looks more like something you'd see in the treeless deep desert, which is clearly not the dominant terrain on this map.
All structures except shops (mostly open fronted) should have some kind of compound wall surrounding them; low stone walls for farmhouses, high walls for more modern residences. Houses should also have a fair number of palms and mature shade trees, maybe an orchard. And outbuildings. I was hoping the little shed would make it in from CMBN, but alas no joy.  Where's the mosque? (a village this size will have one, even if there isn't a dome or minaret)
This is *not* just eye candy; it has very real implications for the battle. A 'dense' village squarely in the centre of the map provides a ready made fortress, with robust and varied concealment and cover for units, especially infantry AT teams who can keyhole and break contact at will.
I'd expect this benighted hamlet to be leveled by artillery or air in due course, but the rubble, walls and ditches would still provide plentiful and stubborn tactical cover. In its current barren state, AT teams can't so easily flit from building to building to keyhole, and can be readily pinned and killed off by ranged tank/IFV guns. Uber armour uber alles again, yawn.
Settlements are one of the only features that counter the overwhelming superiority of (usually) NATO ranged weapons. If you want a fair fight and a more fun game (IMHO), give these features more of their real life tactical properties! 
Here endeth my catechism. Exit Falstaff.