Myles Keogh

I'm seeing this too.  Fallschirmjaegers are not using their own uniform skins in any scenario or campaign.  How did that get by the testers?
It's not a game-killing bug, but it is an immersion killing one.  I really hope we don't have to wait 2.5 years for it to be corrected.
 

I'm seeing this too.  Fallschirmjaegers are not using their own uniform skins in any scenario or campaign.  How did that get by the testers?
It's not a game-killing bug, but it is an immersion killing one.  I really hope we don't have to wait 2.5 years for it to be corrected.
 

I should have added it is also the reason I play WeGo only. I watched that little section of the battle, over and over and over again. As the player, when you bring the camera down to its lowest level and get right in and watch the battle playout as if you were the fourth man in this team, I am always impressed by all the little details the game models.

Nor should we think that this game would ever really be attractive to the average gamer. because it will not.
If nothing else can prove that, just look at war gaming throughout its history. It shows that it has a appeal to only a certain part of society.
 
I think the likeliest exception to that would be the close combat series. it would be interesting to see the numbers on it as to sells.
 
But for sure, BF is not having to cater to the general public. Most of its market does and would appreciate any period they sell to. But there still has to be a difference in sells or they would not care at all.

Well, that's the difference from being a player screwing around in the game at one's leisure and being a tiny developer dealing with a couple hundred thousand lines of code across six titles, with multiple nations, during multiple time spans, in multiple settings, while keeping track of hundreds of uniform, weapons, vehicle and troop formation variations along with a thousand other things, while trying to run a business. Try doing all that without making some mistakes. It's all perspective. A handful of TO&E, texture and model mistakes over 8 years across six games doesn't make Steve any less obsessive and dedicated to accuracy, it just shows he's human, like the rest of us and can **** up like the rest of us. The fact that BFC fixes these things when they are pointed out proves that obsessive dedication. I've seen textures corrected because a friggin' bolt was incorrect on a rifle. So, there ya go.
 
Mord.
 

@Agusto: That map is my creation.  There was absolutely no reference to swastikas implied.  In fact it is actually a push to infer it IS a swastika.  But that is my own opinion.  Do know that I am personally offended by your post.
 

I've loaded up a few huge maps recently just to check if my system can handle it.
I've a relatively mediocre i5-2400, with 8GB RAM & a 1050 Ti Graphics card.
With 1080p resolution, all AA off (on both in game options & your graphics card profile), Vsync off & a Balanced 3d Model Quality I can move around a huge map at ~45fps. It rarely dips below 30 fps even when I'm right down at eye level with tanks everywhere.
If I turn shadows & shaders off I get ~10 fps onto that.
I didn't bother changing the 3d Model quality to fast but I imagine that too would gain me another ~10fps.
With so much fps to play around with, it's then usually not an issue to turn on a bit of cheap AA with reshade (might cost you ~1fps).
Huge maps (and in CMSF2 giant urban sprawls) are intimidating but if you adjust your settings correctly you should be able to play all but the most absurdly massive/complex maps.

Soon - of course it has been "soon" for over a year now.

You are confusing 'hunt' with the (in my opinion) superior "move to contact" order of CMx1.
The Dev's advice was misguided. For most house clearing situations, "quick" is recommended by veteran players (there was a recent thread about this in the CMSF2 forums).
I agree the 'hunt' command is dodgy in CQB situations & perhaps the Devs did not originally intend it to be such (in which case we can agree the behaviour is "bugged").
However it's also been like this for a long time... hence why I only use it when I'm expecting distant small arms fire (so, for me, it's a "move to contact" order NOT a "move to grenade range" order).
 
PS
Interestingly, I think the old "move to contact" order from CMx1 should more properly have been called a "Hunt" order & the newer CMx2 "Hunt" command renamed "move to contact".
 

Actually it is.
You are not very familiar with how the 'Hunt' command works.
The team spotted enemy troops, which causes the string of orders attached to the Hunt command to self-cancel.
Which means the team won't hide or face, so they open fire instead.
Hunt is used as a "move until you see something" command. It's not a "move slowly this way then hide" command. Attaching other commands to a "Hunt" order only works properly if they don't see anything.

Stupid comments aside, the bug about the stretched necks has been reported as a bug.

Well, there are a large number of factors at play.
The skill of the battery crews, the skill of the spotter, the wind factor, wether you called an Emergency mission, etc... WW2 fire missions are never going to be really accurate. 
Since your mission-call delay was so large, I assumed you called some rather heavy guns, and those are never going to be as accurate as your friendly neighborhood mortars as they are probably situated quite far away from the game map.

It already is. 

Ya know, the game is more fun if you actually play it instead of spending years nitpicking every tiny little thing

Yeah, I love it when things are blowed up real good!

It's very evident in CMBN too.  The first scenario I played with the 4.0 engine was a CMBN one and that bug was noticeable almost immediately.  I ordered an harassment artillery barrage on a group of buildings which I suspected harbored hidden German forces.  As my forces neared those buildings, I came across German teams just sitting in the open.  (They had fled the buildings for the "safety" of open terrain.)  Needless to say, it made things easier for my attacking troops.  And I played that scenario in January 2017!
Almost as insidious is that the 4.0 engine caused the Bren/BAR (and I believe the Breda as well) to be reduced to single shot weapons when fired past a certain range.  This really limits their effectiveness as automatic weapons.  It especially hurts the already anemic firepower of the Commonwealth forces.
Some people claim the above make these games "unplayable."  I don't entirely agree.  While I have avoided playing Commonwealth scenarios/campaigns due to the issue with the Bren gun, I have continued to play CMx2 4.0.  It's still a great game, but I've played mostly CMRT because it doesn't have the Bren/BAR issue.  However, it has been REALLY disappointing that BF allowed these issues to exist as long as they have.  Two years!  Yes, they're not "game-killing" bugs like that saved-game crash that was introduced by a CMRT patch which BF quickly fixed within a week or two, but they do make the CMx2 gaming experience feel less than optimal. 
I keep checking these forums daily hoping to see the announcement of the patches' release.  Hopefully, it'll be soon.

This drives me crazy too, so I now only play the Commonwealth on v3.0. But then I miss the better infantry spacing and recombining squads and corner peeking from v4. So I also end up mostly playing CMRT. It helps too that attacking Russians tend not to have much off-map artillery.

It's very evident in CMBN too.  The first scenario I played with the 4.0 engine was a CMBN one and that bug was noticeable almost immediately.  I ordered an harassment artillery barrage on a group of buildings which I suspected harbored hidden German forces.  As my forces neared those buildings, I came across German teams just sitting in the open.  (They had fled the buildings for the "safety" of open terrain.)  Needless to say, it made things easier for my attacking troops.  And I played that scenario in January 2017!
Almost as insidious is that the 4.0 engine caused the Bren/BAR (and I believe the Breda as well) to be reduced to single shot weapons when fired past a certain range.  This really limits their effectiveness as automatic weapons.  It especially hurts the already anemic firepower of the Commonwealth forces.
Some people claim the above make these games "unplayable."  I don't entirely agree.  While I have avoided playing Commonwealth scenarios/campaigns due to the issue with the Bren gun, I have continued to play CMx2 4.0.  It's still a great game, but I've played mostly CMRT because it doesn't have the Bren/BAR issue.  However, it has been REALLY disappointing that BF allowed these issues to exist as long as they have.  Two years!  Yes, they're not "game-killing" bugs like that saved-game crash that was introduced by a CMRT patch which BF quickly fixed within a week or two, but they do make the CMx2 gaming experience feel less than optimal. 
I keep checking these forums daily hoping to see the announcement of the patches' release.  Hopefully, it'll be soon.

It's very evident in CMBN too.  The first scenario I played with the 4.0 engine was a CMBN one and that bug was noticeable almost immediately.  I ordered an harassment artillery barrage on a group of buildings which I suspected harbored hidden German forces.  As my forces neared those buildings, I came across German teams just sitting in the open.  (They had fled the buildings for the "safety" of open terrain.)  Needless to say, it made things easier for my attacking troops.  And I played that scenario in January 2017!
Almost as insidious is that the 4.0 engine caused the Bren/BAR (and I believe the Breda as well) to be reduced to single shot weapons when fired past a certain range.  This really limits their effectiveness as automatic weapons.  It especially hurts the already anemic firepower of the Commonwealth forces.
Some people claim the above make these games "unplayable."  I don't entirely agree.  While I have avoided playing Commonwealth scenarios/campaigns due to the issue with the Bren gun, I have continued to play CMx2 4.0.  It's still a great game, but I've played mostly CMRT because it doesn't have the Bren/BAR issue.  However, it has been REALLY disappointing that BF allowed these issues to exist as long as they have.  Two years!  Yes, they're not "game-killing" bugs like that saved-game crash that was introduced by a CMRT patch which BF quickly fixed within a week or two, but they do make the CMx2 gaming experience feel less than optimal. 
I keep checking these forums daily hoping to see the announcement of the patches' release.  Hopefully, it'll be soon.

I don't know exactly about CMBN campaigns, since I haven't played through them, but it depends on whether there's a combination of lots of fortifications on one side, and lots of off-map artillery on the other. Therefore, generally any campaign that involves you making lots of set-piece attacks will be much easier. The Troina Campaign in Fortress Italy, for example, is much easier with the bug because several of the battles are big US attacks. The Germans will get out of their trenches and run around when you shell them with your copious artillery. The first battle in the Soviet campaign of Red Thunder is similar. A human defender can mitigate the effect by using "Pause" commands, but the AI can't do that--and that's the only opponent you can have in campaigns. On the other hand, the effect is much less noticeable when there isn't much artillery, or there aren't many fortifications. There are plenty of scenarios like this, where the bug would have almost no effect.
 
 

This is starting to look like a trend with some wargame/strategy makers. Not exactly the same thing, but close. Individual titles are being supported much much longer than they used to. I was completely surprised when CA added two DLCs to Rome II last year (but then you still get the crybabies whining about it). They b**** when it isn't supported and b**** when it is. Though I understand some of the game play criticism crying about getting new stuff for a game made in 2013 is moronic. But anyway, Field of Glory II, CKII, EU4, and the guys at Matrix are even gonna go the BF route and keep all the Campaign Series titles they create at the same engine version. Longevity in my games is a huge selling point. I am the kind of guy that doesn't give up on something after six months or a year. I think a lot of us here are like that. Hell, I bought Rome I back in 2016 and like it!
Anyway, what Hafer, said. Thanks for all the hard work!
 
Mord.

No, not really. Just like with Combat Mission, modern flight sim titles are not cheap to develop. If you want to see insane prices, go look at DCS.

But isn't it funny, CM2 sucks so bad that 12 years later they are still playing and b****ing about it? Some of them even create scenarios and mods. When a normal human dislikes something they usually ignore it.
The solitary dude whistling in the empty room is Lewis, he's been banned more times than a taco in Karen Carpenter's kitchen.
 
Mord.

I've only been getting back into the "Combat Mission Community" for the past year or so but it's amazing how many times I've come across this "paid patches" or "BFC screw their customers" meme.
No matter how many times I point out an engine upgrade isn't a patch & give real-world examples of companies that drop their games after a few years the unhappy individual continues with their stubborn claim.
I like the engine upgrade system but its apparently got BFC a bad rep out there on the webs.
I have no idea what BFC are planning for CMx3 but I'd recommend an upgrade/DLC policy which tries to counter this (entirely undeserved) reputation.