JSj

Yeah, giving an ETA that can not be followed would be awkward. It's not like someone has already talked about a before March 2019 ETA, right? 🙂

Yeah, giving an ETA that can not be followed would be awkward. It's not like someone has already talked about a before March 2019 ETA, right? 🙂

Yeah, giving an ETA that can not be followed would be awkward. It's not like someone has already talked about a before March 2019 ETA, right? 🙂

LOL - I did not say this is easy and this is to be done for the current patches. This is just an investment going forward. The more modules or new games introduced, the more problems the beta testers will have to cover everything. And it will harder and harder to deliver patches that won't break game 1 or 3 to refer to Elvis' post.
Sure, this will impact the developers to create the API / CLI needed. But, the developers don't necessarily have to write the tests. The super individuals with the positronic memories (sorry Star Trek 🤣) may write them inside a common framework for testing automatically each changes on each games.
Based on my own experience, the time gain is prodigious and allow to concentrate on the future instead of repeating over and over the same tests of the existing.
But, yeah, you are completely right. I do not know the complexity behind TO&E database or the rest of all the CM software. You are the experts and you know what you are doing. This is just my experience and I can tell you that my testers are very happy of the automation framework we have built.
Anyhow, a big THANK YOU for all the beta testers working hard to deliver those patches.

I don't really understand how a standardized WW2 TO&E got intertwined with a fix for this bug when it's been known about for over 2 years and Engine 4 users have already had to endure the wait for CMSF2 before the fix was supposedly "just on the heels of its release".
I'm assuming this is for a future module or modules, but what about the people who already paid for Engine 4 (or SF without updated campaigns)?  Couldn't this have waited a little while?

If you have all this complicated changes, and they are trying to implement them in the game, then the logic thing is to write it down, get it approved and then implement it according to the approved document. I can't see why this isn't the logic way. It doesn't have to be a single document, you can create one per force or per year, I don't know. Then have testers check the units against those documents. Lack of knowledge by the testers can't be an excuse, you have to give them the tools to know if something is wrong. That or hire professional historians as testers.
But I'm a bit confused about what the standardization that has been thrown around means? Is it that units where created using different methods in each game and they have now decided to use a single method across the games even tough units are composed differently in terms of men?

I would have thought after 12-13 years of building and patching these games that someone at BFC would have figured out a more methodical way of doing at best, or figured out the effort to do it at worst.

I can totally appreciate and sympathise that  things do not go according to plan. Whilst we are all waiting for the patch to be released, i'm sure none of us want it released until it is thoroughly tested. My only gripe, time and again, is to do with communication, or lack of, between developer and user.
BFC Elvis has now posted above, which may have taken him about 5 minutes to do, if BFC had posted this two or three weeks ago then at least it shows some thought towards communication and transparency between the two parties, and goes a long way to keeping everyone onside i believe personally.
 
regards
 
slippy

Why didn't you hand down the TO&E with timeframe as it should be in a PDF and have the testers check against that? Someone must be using a master at some point, I can't believe you are creating the formations as you go.

😂😂 😂😂 Be funny if it was not all so disappointing and unnecessary though Michael, i can't think of another active game developer, that i follow,  that treats its loyal customers with such disdain, its really saddening and so easily solvable.

Are all the revamped campaigns out for SF 2, yet?

Your argument is less convincing when you subvert it in the sentence that follows immediately after. Artillery and somewhat realistic reactions to its fire have to be considered pretty core components of a game centered around military tactics. So there are in fact bugs that, more or less, break the game for those who are inclined towards playing it in a certain way intended by the developer. 
But as said, I don't particularly care about the bugs themselves. In part because I don't even own the games that are affected by them*. Hell, if they'd been clearly labeled on the tin, I might've bought the CMFI bundle already. Sadly they aren't and my only saving grace from unexpected frustration was stumbling into this thread and asking what ailed the game. The general lack of transparency is, simply put, very offputting to me as a prospective customer. It seems to me like the kind of aloof attitude that not even AAA developers can very well afford these days.
I eagerly await the patches and for a few months to pass after their arrival. With this thread as a reference, it seems unwise to be sinking my claw-like toenails deeper into the product catalog much sooner than that. 
 
(*Though I guess I've noticed some fairly minor wriggles in AI response to fire in CMSF:2. Like Canadians running away from the impact of their own LAW:s)

One of the things that have been grating me is the fact that there's no indication on the website of these, more or less game breaking, bugs being present. By trying the demo of CMFI for instance I could easily be led to believe that things are functioning as they ought to be in the current version. When in reality, I could be waiting for a few months to have the game I paid $80 for to take the shape of what was advertised. That's the real kicker here, lack of information, not the very long delay to see the issues addressed. I wonder what happened to the notion expressed in the sales policy that an informed customer is a happy customer. 

Seriously guys...
 

Definitely. That they don't even bother to take a few minutes to write a few lines about why the "before March" release did not happen is really bad.

I don't expect BF to have the resources to hire someone to answer questions here on the forum full time, but as I wrote before, surely they could spend a few minutes once in a while so we could get just a few lines of information to find out what is going on, instead of Months and Months of nothing.

Definitely. That they don't even bother to take a few minutes to write a few lines about why the "before March" release did not happen is really bad.

Definitely. That they don't even bother to take a few minutes to write a few lines about why the "before March" release did not happen is really bad.

Graviteam is not a huge team.  Its a few guys.  Their PR person is the main dev.  He can be a dick, but part of it is a language issue, with a little cultural issue thrown in.  Graviteam responds daily to comments in their forum on Steam.  And they do basically monthly updates to address any issues that come up.  And they are very interactive with their customers on issues with the game and suggestions for change.

I would appreciate a simple one-liner stating Product X revised to [DATE X]. Don't need to know why. Would prefer to be notified as early as possible of variances. Again, don't need details.
I'm accustomed to the P500 monthly updates from GMT so, often see 3-6 month swings in schedules. I find it adequately serves to manage one's expectations.
A simple CMSF2 Canadian Campaign revised to June 2019. What I have instead is February 2019 posted January 2019. What am I supposed to do with that?

Definitely. That they don't even bother to take a few minutes to write a few lines about why the "before March" release did not happen is really bad.

i have said it before and i understand a lot of people do not agree, but their public relations absolutely sucks 

some new info about patch status could be cool 

Actually, Steve did:
"At the moment we're doing some last minute TO&E fixes.  While making Rome to Victory I got into some retro revisions which had a ripple effect.  Almost done with it.
These last minute fixes do delay things, but worth it IMHO.  I'm still thinking that we can have them out before March (yes, of 2019). "