AlexUK

I had an extremely dear friend of mine pass away many years ago totally unexpectedly.  So I am at the funeral which was really really hard being an open casket and she passing way too young.  I walk up to pay my respects and I had this nearly uncontrollable urge to just laugh hysterically.  The cause of death was a blood clot that cause an embolism. The blood clot was caused several days prior when she was at a telecom conference and inadvertently twisted her ankle while flagging a cab. The reason I wanted to laugh so hard was I could hear her in my head saying no freakin way did I die from a twisted ankle, no freakin way.  Who dies from a twisted ankle?  She would have been so pissed off and annoyed.  I could see the expression on her face, the disgust and yes even a hint of laughter that she could go in such a ridiculous manner.  
Humor around death is not an abnormal reaction.  It is a coping mechanism.  In this case I didn't take the comment at all in the context of the OP and the accident but rather the visuals from the JU 52 vid.  *shrug*    So no Ironcat, you don't get a free trip to Antarctica.  If all the rest is true about your PTSD, sorry man.  I seriously doubt that you'd go truly un-mourned.  Most of us do not appreciate the folks around us and how much they really do care.

Good eye. I am a big fan of "drop shadow", so yes, there is some shading beneath the soldiers, the shields and small flags. That was a very painful lesson I learned in the middle of making version three or four of the BN mod. Before, I'd just put the pics on top of each other and they'd lay flat, then I discovered how much volume and flare a little bit of shadow added to the entire pic. A thousand or so portraits into that mod and I had to start all over. It's taken many a mistake to get here, let me tell ya.
 
Mord.

Congratulations Ian, and thanks for the updates MikeyD - it's clear that there is a lot of work going into the update! I'm quite happy that the release is delayed if it means more new stuff.

First off nice try, but we don't get to dictate.  Why?  Because the above statement for example reflects an assumption- patently false that only one game can be worked on at a time.  There is a division of labor which means if Charles is waiting on something from someone else he should do nothing basically wasting time he could spend on another title.  That is something you should understand if you are going to make suggestions and if you don't understand it you should refrain.

It would be nice if the purple line that comes up when you select "Pop Smoke" extended out the distance the smoke would go. As it stands it extends (and says) 20m, which I guess is accurate for defensive smoke launchers but not for these. It could go out the full 150+m to show what'll really happen.

Like I mentioned, the performance for Nordwind could be described as uneven and the descriptions I mentioned were for the initial attacks on New Year's Day with specific Volksgrenadier units.  You also can't draw much of a conclusion from total casualty figures since those would include a lot of non combat related casualties and there were phases of the operation where both sides were attacking and defending at different times.  Hatten, for example, was an intense city fight for more than a week before the Americans elected to voluntarily withdraw several miles behind a river to shorten their lines.  The Germans were so battered and bruised from that battle that they didn't even follow up the American withdrawal for something like twelve hours if I remember right (scenario Hot Time in Hatten and Breaking the Line).  The US twelfth armored division also launched a division level counterattack on the German bridgehead over the Rhine and was annihilated (scenario: A War Without Mercy and Last Man Out).  On the approach march to Wingen sur Moder the Nord battalions almost wiped out an entire American company in prepared defensive positions and followed that up by capturing or killing several HQ and supply units in the town itself without suffering very many casualties in the process (scenario Wax Museum and Drive them Out).  Troops out in winter conditions with WW2 era equipment for extended lengths of time would also suffer a lot of frostbite and sickness related losses.  So basically quoting Operation level casualty figures tells you nothing of value with regard to how the units fought tactically.  In order to know what happened tactically at the squad and platoon level you have to read first hand accounts.

Just wondering why the designers of the various scenarios are so hesistant to give the Germans any kind of real artillery support, even in the largest battles.
Finished KG Peiper and found no Nebelwerfers there, but with the level of detail evident in that campaign, I think it's safe to assume that it was because he didn't have any in reality.
Then I started looking at the other huge scenarios that come with the game.
In "Day of Attrition", you command most of an entire regiment of Volksgrenadiers, but your fire support is a medium mortar platoon and two 75mm infantry guns.
In "Hot time in Hatten", you have a battalion of Panzergrenadiers, and about 25 tanks, but your fire support is.. two 81mm mortars.
Now, I understand arty might be held back for balance reasons, but when tasked to take an entire town, a module or two of heavy artillery would hardly be an "I-win-button".
Actually I did some tests of the various sizes of Nebelwerfers, and while they are powerful, they don't fight the battle for you. Even firing a whole module of the biggest rockets as a point mission (against infantry in a small village), I'd still find a couple of survivors in the beaten zone afterwards.
But, as I understand it, they were quite often used, especially before assaults. So it would have been nice to see them used more in CMFB.

I'm not sure a game forum is the right place for these.

I began in war gaming with Avalon Hill's Squad Leader, progressed to Advanced Squad Leader, and finally online with CMBB. I must admit that I have a major character flaw. I don't pay any attention to the warts in the game or what I think it should be able to do, but can't. I accept the game as is, because for all it's bugs, problems, and limitations, IMHO, it's the best game set in the industry. The only thing that really gets my hackles up and causes me to bare my teeth is when someone complains that the BF support service is bad. I've had a number of issues that support helped me resolve, and if they couldn't help me, the next e-mail was from Steve, who once worked late into Christmas Eve to help me resolve a licensing issue, and finished by thanking me for my support of BF.
I respect and appreciate the help and guidance of the many grognards in the Forums (even if I don't always agree with their answers), who for the most part have the patience of Saints. If you've ever answered the telephone and had someone immediately launch into a tirade because they were transferred from one number to another until they get back to where they started, and then was then disconnected, you know what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, the Forums are anonymous and too many feel that they can be insulting jerks because they are hidden. If you are one who doesn't treat others with courtesy and respect just because you don't agree with them, then YOU are the problem! (Occasional lapses due to illness, bad days, extreme frustration excepted.)
Bottom line of this rant is my advice to realize that NOTHING IS EVER PERFECT, and to just enjoy playing the most amazing game set out there.

as long as we understand we.re completely at odds on politics.
And youre kidding about confronting China right? What because of the tariffs?
1st - helping the deplorables. LOL look at the last tax cut and the new one he.s talking about. ESPECIALLY the new one. Hes on tape bragging to his buddies at Mar A Lago 'I made you guys a lot richer'.
2nd - Trump isnt confronting anyone let alone China. Nice how you didnt adress any specific points I made. 
What I have heard Trump talk about was how clever Xi Jingping was to make himself leader for life and of course his infamous statement on tape that ' we ought to try that here sometime'.
Honestly I was gonna write a big thing. But this gets tiresome. At this point I really feel like we.re at the point where if anyone still thinks anything Trump says is credible (not because he never says anything true, but because he.s literally up to telling 16 on air public lies a day in June, and his whole presidency has averaged 8-12 a day) or that he.s out for anyone but his own family and the elite is frankly naive and/or living in a universe so far removed from mine thst I see no point in discussing this topic at all, and question if there.s really anything to discuss at all anyways with such willfully blind people..
Honestly the entire situation makes me sick, especiwlly the venom and vitriol thats gotten to the point where its not just politics anymore it becomes personal and theres a lot of it on both sides. Im not innocent, I find myself disgusted utterly with Trumpists. I wish I could suddenly not care about the news or world events and stick my head in the sand, but I consider it very irresponsible to be so ill informed by choice.

I don't mind that things are delayed, I mind that the customer base is often left in the dark, often for months on end.
This has admittedly gotten much better in the last few weeks, but it has been months of waiting for the 4.0 patch.
 
I can't say for sure how this is effecting the player base but look at how posting has died off for CMFI and CMRT -  titles I personally really enjoy. There are threads detailing bugs and TOE/OOB errors and omissions from 2014 that have still not been commented on. Are they being fixed in the next patch? Who knows?
If BF is aware that for example FJ gun transports in CMFI carry 50mm ammo regardless of the gun in the platoon, and it's being fixed in the next patch, then that's something I don't have to worry about, if they let the customers know and then I don't have to resurrect dead threads from 2014 in the hopes that it will be noticed, only for there to be no response because nobody is posting in the CMRT forum, lest of all devs.
 
In my opinion, it's not the big things like delays with the website or CMSF2 being a little later than expected, and certainly not major additions like France and Italy being added to CMSF2 at launch, it's the lack of patches and dev blogs on the existing titles. Little things like the graphics issues with the BMP-2M in CMBS, generated many, many community posts and were met with silence. Would it be so much to say "We're aware of that, we're fixing it, it will be in the upcoming patch for the 4.0 engine".
The responses to the question about CMBS bugs persisting into CMSF2 and asking if they will be addressed in a patch for CMBS is a ray of hope, I can only hope that there is a more organized way of doing that going forward.
Maybe have pinned threads in each of the titles' boards and one day a week (if possible) have someone a dev or beta tester come in and give a little update on what's being done on the title, what the known issues are, maybe even solicit help from the community if there is uncertainty about a TOE or OOB. So on Tuesday say, go into the Development Thread in CMFI and say "You know, we looked at that Italian infantry handbook you guys posted back in 2013 (and was reposted in 2018!) that mentions the squad breaking down into 3 man teams, but we think that was just for running in bounds and the Italian rifle squad was fundamentally a LMG section and a rifle section and couldn't maneuver as smaller elements than that." and then on Friday post on the CMFB board and say "Yeah, we're aware that the availability dates for HVAP for the 76mm gun might be off, we'll address that" (No more specifics needed, 10 seconds to post!). The following Tuesday, if there's less going on in the development of CMFI maybe just check in and say "We didn't really take the time to go back to look at the Italians after the engine updates, since they were in the initial release of CMFI and we couldn't just port over assets from other titles when we added AAA. We'd like to add stationary Breda 20mm guns to give Italians the ability to have AA units, and luckily we already have this modeled in game on the AS. 42. We'll hopefully have time to add this as a small patch to CMFI between CMSF2 shipping and Rome to Victory"
I know people like to say customers ask for too much. I disagree. We're not asking for detailed weekly dev diaries, just some indication of what is being done.
I know people say that posting on the forum takes away from development time. I disagree. Just say something like: "Not only will Module 1 for CMRT bring the timeline to the end of the war and add German formations and equipment, but the Soviets got a second looks too. So now Cavalry Uniforms are a selection as appearance in the unit purchase screen instead of a mod tag. Oh and since we already had Polish voice files from other titles, we're adding the First Polish Army to the Russian side". That took about 30 seconds and covered questions raised in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts dating from 2014.
 
 

I've been quietly hoping for MORE UNCONS GODDAMMIT for some time now. 
A full price module that covered all the games would be a pack full of awesomeness in my opinion.....
FFI and various resistance organisations etc. for CM:BN & CM:FB
Assorted Partisans for CM:FI & CM:RT
Militants & Militias for CB:BS & CM:SF 2
The unique capabilities of these units would vastly expand the scope of the game. 
You could always do this.....In the editor go into preview mode and CTRL+Click on the face of the building you want to modify, with cunning use of ALT+CTRL+Click you can make some pretty cool looking modular buildings, even in the older games (& even if I do say it myself): 



PS - These pictures don't have any 'Flavour Objects' yet.....These can add a lot of, well, flavour to a map, and they offer the scenario designer the chance to script his scenarios in a slightly more involved fashion.
See @MOS:96B2P's epic CM:BS Tactical Operations Centre for a fine example of this technique:
Make sure you read the briefing very, very carefully. 
Please god.....No! 
The Uncons in CM:SF don't have a unit structure beyond the 'Group' (Platoon) and we've learnt in the intervening years that these groups are a lot better organised than that.....The CM:A 'Islamic Battalion' or 'Tribal Militia Command' would make an infinitely better starting point.
There is actually a valid reason for my still liking CM:A you know.....Barring a few odd quirks it's massively better than CM:SF, especially if you like Uncons.
I just hope that BF have given the Uncons a better command structure in CM:SF 2, otherwise CM:A will still be the best game in the series for Uncon warfare (especially HTH).

Inability to select main weapons has same issue with the Ukrainian BTR4.  It has 30mm plus AGL and in the many times I have played with a BTR4, it always exhausts its 30mm HE (at 10 rounds/sec it takes only about 40-50 seconds) regardless of the suitability of the target before it uses the AGL.  
Maybe not economical/practical to address for CM2, but hope this is on the list for CM3.
Incidentally. a major problem with fast firing weapons like the BTR4's 30mm is that it only requires maybe 5 seconds of fire to be effective.  If one uses the 15 second fire command it uses way too much ammo (approx 25% of its entire HE load-out).  Currently, one has to revert to the old work around of having waypoints with a 5 second pause and TARGET command followed by a fast move to another waypoint a few meters way with a covered arc or facing command to stop the firing.
How practical would it be to reduce the firing time span command to 5 second increments?  For modern weapons that is often all one needs.  

I was in real life (a cannon cocker - FIST Chief, Btry Fire Direction Officer, Bde Fire Support Officer, and Arty Bn Fire Direction Officer). Although it's been a while, for preplanned fires your comment about delay times, from my experience, is the case. The fires would be timed toward expected movements. Having things in 5, 10, 15 minute intervals is about as close as you could think of for someone arriving at a specific location, or be ready to jump off from a LD while the fires are underway.  I get the point about "gaminess" thinking that it's 5 minutes into the game so take cover, but I never timed anything to the minute.  
For on-call fires of course, we would calculate and get rounds downrange ASAP.  That is UNLESS the call for fire requested some particular time on target. That would be a very unusual situation though. Normally on-call CFF is someone in need of assistance NOW!!

LOL. 
FWIW, I'm looking at some of the behaviors listed in the OP a bit more closely. And, yes, I'm doing copious savegaming.

Back in the 1980s, the US Army did a study of the effects of sleep deprivation on an infantry platoon defending in place. The performance of the PBI in their combat tasks was 80% of that for normal rest, but that of the LT was 20% of normal when it came to making combat decisions. Recent civilian studies, verified on MythBusters, have shown 24 hours sans sleep is the same as DUI. Granted that Fatigue in the game generally isn't that severe, am still of the opinion that fatigued troops should experience at least some performance degradation on the Spotting/Reacting/Shooting effectively end of things. Further, I would generally expect the effects to be reduced as troop quality improves. Of course, if your hardened Veterans are so war weary and spent...
Regards,
John Kettler
 

I'm going to cut and paste your comments a bit.
 
 
^^^
This and the below seem to related.
 
 
Honestly, I've never noticed either of these behaviors. I'd have to set up a test and see what's up. It may be a simple user error of not unbuttoning, or not being stopped long enough, for the weapon to fire. Or it may be a bug. Or it may be something else. More information (not that you should feel responsible for providing it) would help.
 
M1 behavior comments: I've bolded part of what you wrote. Yeah, pretty cool that the game shows how much the men want to survive, yes? IRL, tankers will not sit there thinking they're invulnerable. If they get a laser warning, they'll pull back. If something is hitting the tank, and it's hard, they'll pull back. If men are swarming about, they'll pull back. Just the way it is...and that's fine. To me. If you think the uber-M1 is nerfed in the game, please give a SPECIFIC savegame. That'd do wonders for finding/fixing or explaining the behavior.
As to the "spending whole game panicked", well, savegame or it didn't happen. Seriously. I've never seen any behavior like this...unless the GLOBAL morale has these guys shaken to the core. Meaning, that particular unit has not been engaged or attacked, but they've heard/seen everyone else in their battalion get slaughtered. In that case, the game models the fragility of their morale. So, the particulars DO matter.
 
 
 
 
This is a pretty straightforward TOE question. Proof that the equipment was issued (in some verifiable quantity), fielded, and used, would be beneficial to getting new gear in the game. It is not simple to change the game TOE, but Steve/BFC/et alia take great pride in how accurately this game portrays TOE. (Heck, it's the linchpin for how units behave at the tactical level.)
 
 
Modern vehicles do have jammers. Obscurants, inability to acquire and then guide missiles does happen, sometimes a random lemon, but, overall, if your AT missiles are flying off as if they are spoofed, maybe they're being spoofed? Again, a savegame would be worth it's weight in gold.
 
Hmm. I know the Russian AGL has, in-game, caused many a casualty, so I know they can move, deploy, and fire. A single man? Maybe he has no ammo, just the AGL? Or vice versa? I hate to get repetitive, but savegame would be awesome. Or else, if I can find a few hours to set this up by randomly whittling down the AGL teams to one man, I may never see the behavior you say you've seen.
 
Sometimes the in-game spotting seems oddly poor...and other times very good. Overall, with a few exceptions about men who cannot see a tank 10m away, it works very well. I'd like to see the savegame. I know. I'm not disbelieving, I just have to point out that the incredible complexity of this game means that outliers (like you've described) are hard to replicate unless you can see the screenshot (and that's not a very good substitute), or a get the actual save.
Back to the M Shmel and RPO-A. The flames in-game are small, because most fires are not such big conflagrations that you'd be forced to flee. A bit of boot-stomping, blanket smothering, or pushing the flammables aside, and you're probably okay. For the most part. Would I like to see expanding and spreading fire? Oh yes. I think that'd be a bit nice. Heck, I'd make a 4km x 4km very dry pine forest and set it alight and use it as a screensaver in winter.
Overpressure/blast effects were nerfed to make up for the infantry bunching. These both are gradually getting adjusted. Yeah, I'd boost up the in-game effect due to blast for these two weapons. However, a counter-argument is that the smallest obstacle makes a huge difference in the amount of blast an individual feels. The building interiors are modeled to be quite complex (hence the spotting behavior when a unit enters a room). Visually, the game does not show any interior; it is abstracted. Imagine dividing walls, furniture, etc., are present to mitigate some of the blast. That, at least, is one explanation. Another would be that it is not modelling the blast well enough. I lean on the "give it more blast" side.
Recognize that any desire to CHANGE the game (you say "fix"), puts the burden of proof on the petitioner. The game is created in the state it is because that's what BFC thinks is how it should be (blatant bugs excepted). If you/we want a change, you/we have to show what is, what should be, and why or where the evidence it. Once that's done, BFC is pretty open to adjusting the code if it is possible and after it's been thoroughly tested.
As you can see from my long-winded answer a savegame is critically important. I know...that's not your job. For a beta-tester to try to replicate something based on a few words of description is a pretty hard thing to do, unless it's a blatant problem. In that case, it's more than likely already been noted. (But not all the time...so don't be shy about posting.)
 

That's a pretty comprehensive list. 
My role (as I see it) is not to try to defend buggy behavior, but I will defend behavior which you -think- is a bug, but is not. (Or, may not be a bug.)
If something is wrong, bring it up (as you have here). Now, since time is limited, there is no way I'd be able to create tests for the general behaviorisms you see as problematic. That does not mean I'm not interested in chasing down bugs, but this list is too long and too generic. But, hey, that's fine: you're a customer, and in no way are you obligated to provide specifics. I'm fine with that.
Having said that, a few savegames, or even a screenshot, would go a long way towards helping. A very long way.
Browsing your list, the only thing I can outright think I agree with you on is the lack of overpressure modeling for the Shmel and other thermobaric weapons, ESPECIALLY when the explosion is confined.
More, later.

METT-T: Enemy

Enemy Intentions

The enemy will attempting to control the road network in this area to undermine the NATO advance happing to the south and West of here. By controlling this area they can threaten supply routes and routes for reinforcements.

Enemy Force Capabilities

The enemy tanks can range from vastly inferior T55s to pretty much equal to the C2s T90 while their IFVs are not as capable as our LAVs the BMP3s are no slouch when it comes to firepower.

Possible Order of Battle

For the attacking force in a Medium probe I expect to see two companies plus some support. Bil should be able to purchase a tank company and a mechanized infantry company.

Enemy Strengths

Depending on which tanks Bil choose we could be looking at a large numerical advantage with inferior tanks – which can still deal with a LAV and still pose a real threat to the C2s or they could still bring a numerical advantage with an equivalent tank.

Enemy Weakness

None of the enemy AFVs can match the spotting ability of ours.

Enemy Equipment

There is no intelligence on what level of equipment the enemy force may possess. I would not be surprised if we face an elite guard force but second tier force is also possible.

Enemy Course of Action

·         AA1 Has good low areas to move through and it clears the first objective naturally. The enemy would not likely try this without securing KT1 and KT3first.

·         AA2 The least likely avenue of approach since this is under easy observation from KT7 and KT8. Again there is a need to secure KT1 and KT3.

·         AA3 Offers ways of moving without being constantly under observation. Again need to secure KT1 and KT3 but this avenue is already going towards KT1.

·         AA4 Also offers ways of moving without being constantly under observation. Again need to secure KT1 and KT3 but this avenue is already going towards KT3 and past KT1.

There is a good chance the enemy may recon all four routes. I expect he will favour AA3 and AA4 but we will have to see how the battle plays out.


 

I found out recently that you can throw grenades over a wall (I think from a forum post). You need to be careful of squad placement if I recall. If I remember correctly, the grenades can also take down the wall itself after a time.

I really like the narrative style Ian - it’s nice to have some context. Good luck!

A bit of a heads-up. I'm giving the Leopard 2s an eleventh hour reworkimg. I'll try to get it into the AAR players' hands.

Great that the new home for Battlefront has been built. Looks good so far given that it is WIP.
One thing that carried over from the old one that I would like changed if possible and that is the list of previous purchases/orders. I can't for the world remember which game I purchased when, so if possible have products listed so I immediately know which one to click on.
I like the header with screenshots. Very inviting for new customers  

Come on Baneman, saddle up! Go down swinging and take as many of the SOB's with you! It's just a game. Hope all is well with you in real life.

Hi Bil
I was wondering why you did not have more of your Javelin teams online? Are you concerned that an artillery strike may take them out, or are you not wanting to waste Javelins on low-priority targets? In general you seem to currently be using only a relatively small amount of your combat force.
Also, you gave some examples above about how you would deal with Javelins. At this stage, what is your preferred option? I guess even a couple of concealed Javelin positions could wreak havoc on a charge of IFVs.