sburke

It may be old data but on their site it talks about the updates and modules. If the core game is updated you have to pay to get your modules updated. They were talking about possibly doing 2 updates a year so if you want your dlc to take advantage of the core update you have to pay. How that works out financially in real life terms isn’t clear to me but one thing I did see is they did not get acct info when moving to lock and load so I’d have to start from scratch. Interestingly when they presented it they talked about the alternative of having to maintain separate games. BF has gone in a different direction but you can still see they have both faced similar challenges. This is also a path that has been discussed for BF on this forum i.e. doing a base engine install and then having all the modules applied to that engine. It will be interesting to see if this pans out for command ops. Hope so for them as it is a unique game that is worth keeping around. I am not much interested in real time stuff but theirs is an exception.

Sadr city getting some much needed infrastructure repair.

LOL Nope I have never done that... nope.. never..... urrr Yeah I avoid those like the plague. Even foot movement can get wonky

The thing about surrendering is you need to know when it might just be too late.

So make one. Yeah I get it that you feel it should be in the manual. It isn't though and not sure if BF will decide to add or not. They might, but in the meantime...... Kind of like the PDFs that people have done for flavor items. That one is a bitch I'd have loved to see in the manual, but considering the mods that have been done to add more flavor items it likely wouldn't be as much use now.

yeah but who doesn't like melted cheese?

Too late, I just got the email of your original post. You are now permanently on record. I am surprised though. When I came up with that new alphabetizing scheme most people loved it though a few I had to win over....well not really I just spread a bunch of lousy rumors about them around the water cooler and got them fired. Anti progress jerks...ouch stop Mord, I was kidding, ouch!

They won’t be nerfed by mission, it would be all or nothing so if you only saw a few incidents in one mission I’d consider it a lucky moment for someone. If you have a save it would help to look at.

you would be recalling correctly. They are great but should be used sparingly. Those traffic barriers become a heckuva lot less immersive when you watch your Humvee drive through it.

do not email, open a helpdesk ticket https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/

As a map designer I can tell you that it may not be as useful as you think. Why you ask? I can't speak for anyone else but in laying out fields I don't do it with a single terrain type. I'll scatter mud around and additional types as it gives 1 a more realistic look and 2 variability. So when you go to drive that Stryker across 600 meters of terrain are you going to look at each terrain tile on that route? You might need to in order to avoid some possible scattered items. Hell I have even considered changing out some files to make mud look like something else so I can create bogging opportunities in urban maps specifically so the player can't just see the tiles and decide not to drive that route. Yeah I am a little evil, but no worse than Sgt Squarehead But like you said- you can do that now. Open the editor, take some screen shots, add some text information and voila! - you have what you think you want.

yeah this is a more complex discussion that has a lot of dependencies. Automating as many functions as possible without creating simply another burden is a balancing act. It's great when it works, but as lethaface noted it doesn't come for free. If a process that is designed to for example catch stuff in QBs you'd need to set it up to run a multitude of force selection options that are unique to each title. Then you have to decide how granular it gets. For CMSF2 that also means having it run against a rapidly evolving ToE. Mortars for example were a pain in the butt in this title as on board didn't even exist in CMSF1. Force selection options for WW2 titles don't mean the same as modern. Infantry only for example is a questionable selection in an era where mechanized/motorized resources are everywhere. TOE alone is a huge overhead and there are a few individuals who live and breathe that stuff (I am most definitely not one of them). That isn't something you can automate as it is mostly a research effort. Undoubtedly there may be some areas that this kind of effort could produce results, but finding where those areas are where the effort is worth the result is tough. Even something that might be considered relatively easy like taking the map and unit data to create the basics for the tactical maps for scenarios is probably not worth the effort involved. I don't think the delay for the 4.0 patch would be helped by this type of thing. That is behavioral testing and no AI program is gonna tell you whether or not you've reached some magical state to make everyone happy. There is simply no way around that being a compromise discussion with BF about what type of behavior would be considered optimal and what kind of behavior can actually be programmed and then testing it repeatedly to see if the result is acceptable. Unfortunately there are limitations to the possible and I suspect we will never reach a state where everyone is happy. Lastly the process of creating scenarios runs parallel to game development. Occasionally items get baked into a scenario that is created early in the development process. This has come up a few times relative to CMBN with some very specific building and bridge issues in scenarios. While I agree that smaller patches a bit more often is a good plan, it also has it's weaknesses as each patch still requires testing effort and depending on what is being patched (AI behavior) small patches don't mean small effort. What may be a better plan is bucketizing the items by effort and testing involved and then allocating them based on how much testing is required. Size then becomes a variable that is determined by effort.

I'd like to avoid this becoming too many issues. I'll focus on the ammo loadout and not weapons equipping. I have noticed a fair amount of pistol use in CMSF that might be something else entirely. I am sure as things get delved into there will be more issues found. It is easier to handle them though if broken down as opposed to a lump sum of issues. Okay ammo loadout issue posted. If you want to compile info on weapons possession I can post that as a new item. I did link to this thread so additional items might be caught, but I would not count on that if the thread get too long.

Got it. Will likely just copy info from this thread and include a link.

Because there is an extreme discount for owners of cmsf1 for CMSF2. It is possible BF could set a standard that any purchase of cmsf1 after CMSF2 was released would be ineligible but that would require tracking which they aren’t likely prepared to do right now. Possible that could change in the future but I am not sure I would bet on it.

Sounds more like a ToE issue that somehow only shows in qbs. Not sure mark is the right guy for this and will see about getting this into ticket process. I’ll blame you

You’d have to ask Pete that alternatively you could just get an acct as hopefully we’ll see more work from you going forward.

Happy f’n new year! Thanks Pete!

The blast command frequently defaults to a quick command. Current “fix” is simply to click on that movement leg and select blast. As such it is low priority. You can make it work you just have to be aware. Not sure when a fix would be applied for the behavior. FYI this item has been officially submitted.

Question here and no agenda. Just curious from a personal standpoint and happy to continue this in PM if you prefer. Do you work in software development in any capacity?

@JoMc67 is on target. Certain sound programs seem to have basic conflicts with the game. Search the forum and you'll likely find multiple threads.

again - just because somebody does something wrong doesn't make it a bug. this sounds more like someone overzealous about removing interior doors. The original has them and it had them when it was migrated. I know because at one point I aligned doors on interior walls in that complex.

no more like a designer item for whatever reason. A bug is something that happens in software unexpectedly. If you are referring to the buildings by Bridge Eric, it looks like someone went a little crazy on eliminating interior doors that were an intended part of the map layout.

Agreed, but it sounds like your system specific. I have not heard a general complaint. odds are you security went through an update. It is the usual suspect. As to your password no idea. Not a BF issue. They don't control your password, it is a 3rd party site. I did hear of someone recently who was having repeated password issues, but am not sure what the finding was on that. Pretty certain it was something on their PC. Incidentally you said you came back to get your keys and check your post. Your keys are on a separate site than the forum, they are different systems. Are you assuming they are the same? Not sure from your post if that is what you meant.

The mortar issue when using off map is a compromise for the ToE. As Ian noted off map would likely only have the 120mm anyway but in addition it is hard to code the ToE to use both the vehicle mortar and the dismount mortar. As you've probably noticed in some of the QB selection the ToE can be difficult to shoehorn into the options presented.