A Canadian Cat

On the store page click on the game of interest then select the base game on the page with all the content links for that game and on the left is a "Demo" entry. It is there for each game. For CMRT the demo page is here https://www.battlefront.com/red-thunder/cmrt-base-game/?tab=demo with the download links at the bottom of the page.

Indeed. How do you like "unsoon" or "not close in the future"?

I find it humours when people assert that idea X or Y will make them bundles of more money with nothing at all to support such a position.

As will continuing on their current path They just get to the place where they can make the new game families later - that is all. LOL my added bold. Not only would that mean people could create all kinds of unrealistic equipment the only thing I can see it doing to profit is reducing it. I think BFC will have to see a detailed business plan for how sales will go up with customers having to do more work.

Well that's not good. The log file with the additional info should be in C:\Users\B..p\Application Data\LeslieSoftware\WhoseTurnIsIt\wtii.log The about box should show the path. There should be an error in there that will help diagnose the problem.

A subtle hint at "soviet canuckistan" perhaps More likely a mod that changes strings that is designed for 2.01 version is still in your mod folder. Or an incorrect .brz file has made into your data folder.

Or my favourite, turning off smoke with <alt>k and the wondering why some of you guys cannot see that enemy team right in front of the damn it.

That is above my pay grade to implement. Would be a good idea but highly unlikely to actually make everyone happy. So, since the current system is working I predict that nothing will change on that front. Yes, internally there is such a bug list. We are talking here about how things get on that list. A direct pipe from customer to devs is absolutely not the right way to go. We need Charles, Steve and the artists to be working verified bugs and features not digging around trying to figure out if X or Y is really a bug or not. They absolutely can - go for it. Yeah, no. Random thoughts on things that might or might not be a problem are a complete waste of time for developers to deal with. Ideas go through the Steve design filter and turned into feature plans and bugs go through the tester filter to create reproducible test cases for developers to take action on. It is a system that works pretty well in the software industry. Well we are all still alive using that process anyway

Full time QA people would need to do the same work wade through the same files. Given we are *not* lacking any tools I don't see that as making a huge difference. I mean I suppose if they hired three or four full time QA staff they could totally smoke the amount of work squad of volunteer testers. I feel no frustration with BFC around this issue. Having saves attached to threads here or send or shared with testers means that the saves have context and can be acted upon. Having users just push saves to some server would not help make things clearer.

Are you kidding? Sigh, clearly you are not. Do you have any idea how poor the quality of bug reports are? We have people claiming all kinds of stuff as broken. And BTW I understand that and do not object. It is a fact of life. In the end testers need to firm them up and get a solid report written. Eventually Charles needs to make a code change to fix a big or one of the modelers needs to change a model or Mike D needs to tweak a texture. In the end one or all of these things needs to be done to fix a bug. So like your doctor thier time is valuable and we want them working on actionable work items all day long. Post that say "a missile when through my tank" or "artillery shell blew up inside x" do not give them actionable work. Someone needs to identify a problem specifically and identify a solution that needs to happen. Even for directly obvious stuff they need specifics that don't appear in a bug report as a sentence. Heck even a screen shot may not be enough - which exact varant of a vehicle is that? Then there are the more nuanced behavior things where there is disagreement on what the right action really is or how prevalent it is. Someone needs to do some statistical work and then have a discussion of what should be happening. So, as one of those testers that's my job. One that I both take seriously and quite like. Having said that my time is valuable to me too so I need a leg up. You guys are the ones seeing something odd so hit the save button. It's not hard. Get a Dropbox account it's easy. So, BFC doesn't have a repository for saves whaaa. That would be one more thing to maintain. Heck use email - I will and have shared my email with members to report stuff. You guys are right none of this is hard and it is pretty petty to be complaining about not having a way to push saves to BFC when it is so easy to do so. And while we are on the subject of saves here is a real example of why it matters. Someone on the forum stated that missiles sometimes go through tanks without doing any damage. That concerned me so I asked for a save - actually I think they might have offered one I cannot remember. Without a save I would have had to spend hours creating and running a test. I would never have seen it happen. With the save I was able to see that the missile actually went under the tank. No bug here at all. With a save half an hour of my time. Without a save multiple hours and no resolution. I am pleased that players of this game are happy to help us by giving us game saves. A big thank you to all of you. The few here whining - just stop and go play. Any one of the testers will happily help you report a bug you find and find a way to get your game save to us to look at.

Keep those 203mm shells coming

True, I think my main thought is that a tweek to the grenade throwing decision might be better.

I really like the idea of the first two. Thumbs up. Trying to figure out the timing of a shoot and scoot order is hard. Too often even good guesses fail to get what you want. Love the fall back point idea too. I am sure BFC could design something that would work well. Perhaps not exactly like you describe but same idea. I am not convinced about this on though. I get that some times we wish that more grenades would be throw but when in a real situation would you really only want grenades? Keeping in mind that in the game the troops try to do exactly what they are ordered. So as an example let's say you want a team to throw grenades over a hill crest. With a grenade only order bad things will happen if the enemy comes over the hill top at the wrong moment. Or if you give a team a grenade only order into the first floor and they then come under fire from the second floor. I would recommend advocating for more grenade use in certain situations instead.

I did some playing around. Started with @Bulletpoint's scenario and then created a QB with US and German HT mounted mortars. I didn't look for German docs but I found these about US ones: US Half track could fire up to 30-35 rounds per minute with a "normal" rate of 18 rounds per minute https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM17-27.PDF Wikipedia has the same numbers for the dismounted 81mm mortar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_mortar However this more recent document is also interesting (section 2-24 says that the maximum of 20-30 could only be done for 1 or 2 minutes while the sustained rate of fire was 4 - 15): https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-91/ch2.htm#p24 Here is what I found from playing the turns (indirect call mission Heavy Maximum): 1 2 3 4 US 81 20 5 4 5 US 81 4 4 5 4 in HT Ger 81 19 4 29 12 (empty before the minute was up) Ger 81 4 4 4 5 in HT So the numbers for the HT mounted stays at the sustained rate while the round mounted seem to fire full bore and then slow down. I think there will need to be some more research but the in HT numbers seem low for the high rate of fire.

OK I reviewed your files and created my own tests... Bug logged. This does seem to be a bit different than the fixed bug I found. In that case rounds were penetrating through the roof and going off inside. That was back in v1. Now these rounds are going off inside the walls and the shrapnel radius is extending into the inside. At any rate not good. I agree that the mesh deformation seems to be contributing but it is not necessary. My tests showed the issue with flat no mesh deformation scenarios. But none of my tests resulted in KIA even in the ones with some mesh deformation. While your tests with significant mesh deformation actually did result in some KIA. Hti text does not seem to be working either. I mentioned that too. I do not agree that the building rubble is related to this but I have not investigated that yet.

Missions that are specified with in ~50m around a TRP. So you can call a point mission anywhere inside that circle or create an area mission with a radius of up to 100m or a short line mission. If you have two TRPs then you can create a line between them or an area mission that centres near one and has a radius out near the other.

This comes up from time to time because it is confusing. It does not appear on the FAQ post and it should. I did some digging and found two useful threads that answers the way the game works question:

I would recommend against adding branching just for testing. Either test the individual scenarios or the fully compiled campaign - with branching as designed.

My understanding is that the Mac version has always been 64bit. It's the windows version that is 32bit - but it now has the large address aware flag turned on so it can actually use the full 4Gb on a 64bit OS.

I would suggest having some helpers test the individual battles for the first pass. That lets you avoid the issue of becoming blocked by a mission that is too difficult. The flip side of that is some battles might be too easy because core units will be full strength instead of depleted by casualties. To compensate for that you could just take that into account when reviewing or have testers hold back some of those forces and not fight with them. For example, if your core company lost a third of its strength when you tested the first battle then have a platoon just stay out of the fight.

Nah I'll get there. Someday.

There are two ways that you can see OpFor icons right from the beginning. One is by playing on Scenario author test mode. This video starts with the skill level set to Elite so unless there is video slight of hand that's not it. The other way is first turn intel. Scenarios can be designed so that one side or the other can have early intelligence on the enemy positions. When that happens the intel is displayed using the contact icons ?. Watching a little of the second video it really does look like scenario author mode but it is also possible to swap out the ? icons for other ones. So the mod could be responsible. For example there is an icon for unknown infantry which is a ? with a solider figure. If you use a mode to swap that for a standard X icon for infantry very similar or the same as the one for fully spotted infantry then that would also explain the appearance of number of fully spotted X icons on the battlefield. Icons can be modded. I don't know which mod those icons are from but for example here are the ones I created for CMSF: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=2684

Sort of you want to run the Activate Module short cut that should have been installed. Run it once and enter one key and then run it again and enter another key. If that doesn't work I recommend contacting support - they are the licensing experts: Battlefront Help desk

LOL aren't I lucky. I should warn you I have a back log of stuff I am supposed to be looking at. You might get board waiting for me and cry uncle first

I was specifically referring to bridge related bugs. I should have been more clear. There are lots of bugs reported here. Some actually are bugs. Many of them those get fixed. It is true that some do not. I am unaware of a bridge bug that was reproduced (with a save or by a tester following the report) that was not fixed.