zinzan

It is also not a beta tester job per se either.  BF has enlisted folks to test the game and look for stuff, but that doesn't make us the go to guy for anything anyone finds.  We are players just like anyone else and our time is no different than anyone else's  We don't get to charge by the hour to run huge numbers of tests looking for something that may be an extreme outlier. Any player is just as capable of doing verification as we are.  The request for saves is a requirement for BF to even consider looking at it.  So if you see something and don't save it, might as well not bother posting about it.  Kind of like trying to tell people you saw a UFO but you didn't bother trying to take a pic with that smart phone you were texting everyone to tell them about the UFO you just saw.  Beta testers are more than happy to help bring an issue to BF's attention, but it really makes a difference if we have something to start with other than "I saw a UFO".

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.)
 

This just happened to me in a pbem I am playing where I am trying to play with all icons off. I lost two AFV's in one turn due to missing some critical information. When I reloaded the previous turn and had icons on.... yeah I wouldn't have given the orders I did. 
I agree it won't make the game any easier or less frustrating.  We have three options right now and if it is easy to add a fourth, and I am not saying it would be, but if it was, it would be fun to have the option.

Interesting idea, but as others noted it really limits your ability to play the game as units can't share info with you.  You'd have to first of all eyeball the entire battlespace every turn to figure out what you might have seen and if your units become aware of enemy movement you'll have no way to know.  The effect would be you moving units into position where they know something is likely there and you don't.  You are better off just imposing your own rules and moving units without utilizing knowledge they don't have.

Yes but if they don't receive the spotting info on time, they will arrive and be sitting ducks for a long time before they spot anything... especially since a moving tank is nearly guaranteed to get spotted.
In real life, there's a commanding officer to coordinate these things. He knows there are enemy tanks out there somewhere. But he also knows whether or not they have been spotted yet, and whether or not his TDs have been made aware of their position. He can hold them back until he is positive that they got the necessary info to move in and strike.
True, but the graphics of CM are extremely limited compared to real life, and in the end you are only one player with one brain and one set of eyes. In real life, each soldier spots individually, and the combined info flows to the commander. In CM, we play different levels of command simultaneously, and the icons are an abstraction of the way situational awareness flows in a real combat situation.
But I agree with you that in many ways, we get too much info. And me posting here is not trying to say your wish is stupid, on the contrary I think it's interesting thinking about game modes that limit the situational awareness further. Just trying to add a couple of other perspectives on it.

Oh I totally get what you are trying to do. Just teasing.

I would like to have the option to make it more difficult for me to remember where the enemy is at all times. With icons off, I find I miss the flashing notice of when my men are taking losses to much. With spotting contacts on, it can still feel like I am getting access to more information about the enemy than I should and can react in ways that may be considered unrealistic.  I feel my icons on and enemy icons off completely would be a happy balance.

Oh crap! I think I've splintered my Pininsual!!

lol!

The main Fortress Italy page (with the short description and three game choices) has a bad typo.
"Combat Mission Fortress Italy (CMFI) allows you to experience the "soft underbelly" of the Third Reich.  The initial release details the Sicilian campaign in the summer of 1943, with expansions portraying the tough fighting up the Italian pininsual through to the end of the war.  Click on the Base Game option to see the full range of information about Fortress Italy."
I am not sure what a "pininsual" is exactly but it sounds oddly anatomical, like a gland or something. Along with the "soft underbelly" phrase it makes for a very engaging paragraph. Did I say "typo?" On second thought, forget I mentioned it.
 
Mord.

have FUN! BN has a ton of awesome content! You won't regret your purchase.
 
Mord.

Still nothing...its been 24 hrs and I cant download or play a game I spent 132 bux on, really bummed.
**UPDATE***...I put a ticket in about this and litterally withen 5 minutes, got it resolved...THANK YOU BATTLEFRONT...amazing.

Not unless they are the airborne 2 inch mortars that airborne sections are equipped with. Those can shoot from buildings. However the sections are only provided smoke rounds as standard. However the ammunition between the two mortar types is the same. So get that airborne 2 inch mortar some high explosive through acquiring from an vehicle, sharing from an adjacent standard 2 inch mortar team, or buddying aiding an incapacitated team, and then you can have an airborne 2 inch mortar firing high explosive rounds from buildings. It's only able to do direct fire however so basically becomes a grenade launcher rather than an mortar.
There's an video in the thread linked below.
CMBN rather than CMFI but probably still stands true.

Well, due to the British Airborne exception I have been proven wrong  by Warts, and Oliver...Good catch guys.

There is a cost to everything. Stopping to change the engine would have meant stopping the release of new games and if there is one thing I think we can all agree on is our intake of new product from BF sometimes feels like a crash diet. 
Within that CM is still one of the most stable games I have. I get crashes quite frequently with others and it takes a lot for me to cause that with CM. I pretty much have to keep loading really big maps in the editor to 3d view over and over. 

I'm going to do what my grandma did and stay 39 years old for a few decades.

Lol, I’ve been retired for 5 years, and it’s great! Besides, thanks to various diseases and whatnot in my 50’s requiring a vigorous exercise/weight training regimen, I’m actually healthier and in hugely better shape than I was in my late 20’s through my 40’s. Life is great (he said, as he inadvertently stepped in front of a fast moving truck....)!

The only place I have seen the Northern lights was at 35,000 feet on a flight from SFO to Europe.  Freakin amazing and as I looked around the plane everyone else was dozing.  I was so tempted to tell the stewardess Wake everyone up! then figured they'd probably just get pissed at me.

Way to go!!

Yeeeey, I was usefuuuul! 

I swear if I hear that one more time I'm going to stop this car and you will walk home.

I think you originally replied to add "nuance" to sburke's "simple and practical" answer. I just wanted to add that COIN is not a new term, nor is counterinsurgency theory a "post 9/11" theory. FM3-24, which is the Army's documentation and statement of this post-9/11 COIN doctrine, is a revival of the doctrines developed in the 1950s and 1960s with updates to adapt to new technology and the differences between the current Jihadist insurgencies compared with Communist and other prior insurgencies. Gen. Patreaus and Gen. Mattis, the listed authors of FM3-24, specifically discuss how they are applying these earlier doctrines that have been neglected for 20 years, and placing them in the context of the current insurgencies. 
I see your point, though: Soldiers fighting in counterinsurgencies prior to the modern world of post 9/11 had to deal with such primitive situations as:
---Being assaulted by AK47 and RPG-equipped guerillas who blend in with the civilian population
---Dealing with restrictive ROE that prevent the use of firepower in various situations
---Being transported in helicopters on air assault missions and relying on helicopters for casualty evacuation
---Being blown up by improvised explosive devices and other booby traps (maybe there will be an initialism for this sort of thing in the modern era!)
---Setting up combat outposts and firebases and conducting ambush patrols outside of observation posts and outposts to detect and disrupt guerilla attacks on those outposts
---Relying on fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft to deliver close air support including dedicated COIN aircraft like the AC130 gunship
---Being armed only with a mix of assault rifles, precision rifles, automatic rifles, grenade launchers, hand grenades, rocket launchers, light wheeled vehicles, light armored vehicles, APCs, tanks, artillery, mortars, and radio communications
---Using elite special forces to conduct raiding, interdiction, intelligence gathering, and training indigenous personnel
My god, it was practically the bronze age. I'm surprised they didn't pay the troops with salt. 

 

COIN is the primary currency in CM:SF and on this forum. Every time you get a Bingo! you receive a COIN. COINs can be used to buy BATTLE CRATES, which contain premiums skins (for NATO, SAA an UNCONs!), as well as templates for "Deeply regret to inform you" letters for casualties' families.

COIN as a term for counter-insurgency has been around far longer than the US doctrines developed after the invasion of Iraq. I don't believe Galula or Trinquier use the term in their seminal works from 1964 and 1961, respectively, but the USAF was discussing dedicated COIN aircraft at least as early as 1963. 

*sigh* there is always one.
Well actually, (nuance nuance nuance nuance nuance... infinity)
In the context of Shock Force, which takes place in a modern setting of 2008, COIN refers to the modern doctrine and the modern application of said doctrine developed in modern COunter INsurgency conflicts. 
To avoid any confusion, the key word here is modern, and the definition of that key word is post-9/11.
I know it's fun to emulate the Pentagon and try to over complicate everything as much as possible, but seeing as we are not in fact the Pentagon I am more than happy with keeping things simple and practical.