Heirloom_Tomato

I acquired Fortress Italy and I share with you my first impression.

Maniac CMBN player, it's almost with disdain that I watched this battlefront game on the forgotten front.

It was on the enthusiastic advice of some and the next arrival of the module containing exotic troops like the French of the General Juin that I decided to make the purchase.

I used to fighting in hedgerow, trained to face the panzer with thick skin and fanatical troops of the Waffen SS, it's confident that I engaged my Gi and Tommy face Italian troops under equipped and their ridiculous R35 and Semovente

My research on strategy and tactics led me to read Zun Tsu, Carl Guderian, von Clausewitz and Bil Hardenberger whose entire work was read and re-read and all of whose tutti were played and replayed until keyboard wear.

So it's very confident that I started the game

  I, who, a few days ago, contemplated with a knowing smile, the bust of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, imagining me as a digital alter ego, the return to reality was violent ... especially for my pixeltruppen.

It's painful that I learn the war in 3D

The pronounced relief, long and complicated LOS and LOF loses all my knowledge and my certainties

I, who thought I had learned a tactical logic, discovered with bitterness that I was just replicating reaction routines with relatively identical patterns,

In the hedges, the game consists of solving a succession of tactical problems one after the other, each problem generally corresponding to the field facing your troop so having a limited resolution key number.

With the opening of the LOS and LOF and the relief, the number of combination increases enormously.

The, the serious things really start

  It's exciting and totally new, which does not spoil anything I find the game rather successful visually

W italia

I end up in similar conversations with a close friend with whom I play all of these games. He wants to know exactly how to explain every result that he did not anticipate. It can become frustrating, because there seems to be an assumption made that if the result is not what is expected that it is a bug or flaw in the game.
By no means am I saying that the unexpected cannot be a bug. But it is not automatically one either. I like that nine times out of ten (for the sake of argument) the results are within the realm of what seems normal. What seems like a sure shot misses, but we accept ( well most of us do) that hitting one's target is not guaranteed. 
When things go weird, like a partial penetration that somehow wrecked my opponent’s tank, is not something I overanalyze. Is it happening a lot? Is it impossible within the laws of physics? Could human behaviour never result in what happens?
If the answer to that is all “no” then I may grumble that I was unlucky, but I move on. I don’t need a guide to justify everything that happens in the game. Nor do I expect a chess-like sureness of what is and isn’t possible. 
I will repeat, I am not dismissing bug reports. But just because something happens that one doesn’t have a user-manual explanation for is not a cause for a crisis of confidence that the game works by and large as intended. 
 

They are exclusive of each other, so no you do not need Commonwealth module for Market Garden. 

I have been looking at this one and trying to get the same results, it doesn't always happen when I play the same battle. I hope to have some time tonight to look deeper at it.

If I understand you correctly, the Germans have the focus of taking the town back at any cost, while the Americans are to inflict as many casualties as possible while taking the least themselves. The town itself is less important to the Americans than slowing down the Germans and making them pay is. If I have your overall plan correct, here is how I would consider setting up the scoring.
For the Germans: 1000 total points
No friendly casualty points.
Set terrain objective point values at 800 of the total points.
Set Enemy casualty points at 200.
For the terrain objectives, if using four objectives, set the values as 40, 80, 160 and 520 points each. The 520 point objective will be the one furthest from the start point. 
This should give the German player a great desire to push into the town as over 50% of their total points is tied up in the one objective. 
For the Americans: 1000 total points.
Friendly casualties set at 400 points
Enemy casualties set at 500 points
Terrian objectives set at 100 points. Using the same ratio as for the Germans, you would objectives worth 5, 10, 15, and 70 points each. The 70 point objective will be the rally point before exiting the map. 
Give the Americans an exit zone but no must exit units. This will allow them to leave the map, preserving friendly casualty points and denying the Germans points for causing casualties.
To encourage the American player to stay on the map and fight it out as long as possible, set the Germans to arrive on the map in waves of reinforcements. The player would either need to decimate the first troops or make sure to hang around long enough to engage as many enemy as possible. 
Playtesting will determine what the threshold levels should be for the casualties. 

If I understand you correctly, the Germans have the focus of taking the town back at any cost, while the Americans are to inflict as many casualties as possible while taking the least themselves. The town itself is less important to the Americans than slowing down the Germans and making them pay is. If I have your overall plan correct, here is how I would consider setting up the scoring.
For the Germans: 1000 total points
No friendly casualty points.
Set terrain objective point values at 800 of the total points.
Set Enemy casualty points at 200.
For the terrain objectives, if using four objectives, set the values as 40, 80, 160 and 520 points each. The 520 point objective will be the one furthest from the start point. 
This should give the German player a great desire to push into the town as over 50% of their total points is tied up in the one objective. 
For the Americans: 1000 total points.
Friendly casualties set at 400 points
Enemy casualties set at 500 points
Terrian objectives set at 100 points. Using the same ratio as for the Germans, you would objectives worth 5, 10, 15, and 70 points each. The 70 point objective will be the rally point before exiting the map. 
Give the Americans an exit zone but no must exit units. This will allow them to leave the map, preserving friendly casualty points and denying the Germans points for causing casualties.
To encourage the American player to stay on the map and fight it out as long as possible, set the Germans to arrive on the map in waves of reinforcements. The player would either need to decimate the first troops or make sure to hang around long enough to engage as many enemy as possible. 
Playtesting will determine what the threshold levels should be for the casualties. 

@user1000 to say it just one more time - Got Save?  Worth a 1000 words.   

I have been looking at this one and trying to get the same results, it doesn't always happen when I play the same battle. I hope to have some time tonight to look deeper at it.

I can't speak about every company out there but I've been doing software testing both professionally and for hobbies like CM for decades. Yes, decades. Have yet to see any of said companies set up a place for the end user to upload files. The onus has always been that the user does so. And surprisingly, it works very well indeed from small businesses to companies with thousands of employees working for them, as I've had experience from one extreme to the other. I'm sure there are those out there that do it differently and it works for them. Good for them. 
Good grief.

The onus is on the customer because the customer is reporting WHAT THEY PERCEIVE to be a bug.  Sure BF could open an account and allow anyone in the world to post files to it, but I think you can guess how that would work if you'd take a moment to think about it... mayhem.  Lots of files, no standard naming, no idea what they are in reference to etc.  The real alternative would be to post to a ticketing system...which they do have and it is reserved for the beta testers as we actually comply with what the standards that BF sets versus whatever standard forumite X wants to use.
That you can't bothered to have a free account to post a file and send a link makes it very clear about the amount of effort you are willing to commit to the process.  If you can't be bothered to do that why would anyone think you'd put anymore effort into a different solution? And I am pretty certain you actually can post a save to the forum.  I know I have done it.  So what are you going on about again?
As to your opinion about what BF needs to do for QA and beta testers etc, you are certainly entitled to an opinion, but unless that is backed with a willingness to pay more for the game so BF could consider additional staff…… well it is highly unlikely that it is going to happen.
my dumbass save.btt

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.

HUGE MAP attached. Here I have uploaded the western half of my Panzer Lehr at Pont-Hebert map project. This map is 8 square kilometres (4x2) and is in low detail, meaning that all flavour objects have been stripped off, all ground tiles converted to grass only (with a few exceptions) and crops are limited to four types. If your computer will not load the 3D map then load it in the Scenario Editor and crop it as you please.
To use this map properly you must also install Falaise's 22.5 degree paved roads or my modification of it. When using 22.5 degree paved roads you must also be using the stock paved roads and not any road mod that alters these. This map looks best (i.e. historically correct) only with my many new building skins. I tried (unsuccessfully so far) to load these to Green as Jade's site. Will try again later.
Les Hauts Vents LD MM.zip

This issue is one that has been very hard to nail down. While some people have been able to spot it every time they play a battle, the next player never has a problem. I was able to build a test map showing the problem and a fix was made. Since 4.02 came out, the test map I made has seen zero incidents of this bug showing up. So my comment of the issue being fixed was in relation to the 4.02 patch. 
It appears the issue has not been solved in all circumstances. I have loaded the Scottish Corridor campaign and have seen the issue happen once in 5 attempts.
The training scenario Roadblock has also been posted by @Falaise and @domfluffas a battle where the issue shows up. I have loaded this battle and so far have been able to make the men flee into fire, BUT not every time. In my opinion, there is an issue but nailing down the specifics of what causes it to happen will be difficult. 
Last night I built a new test map, 12 German HMG 42's versus a single green American squad placed at a gap in bocage. I tested with them in and out of C2. NOT once did they break and run into oncoming fire, even when their status was broken. I added some 81mm mortar fire to see if that would do anything to make them flee and they still stayed put or crawled safely to the rear.
I am about to head out to my parents for Father's Day so I won't be doing any further testing until later tonight. If anyone is seeing this issue show up in different scenarios or maps please post them here. If it is a specific combination of elements causing the problem, the more examples available will help to increase the odds of finding the problem.

@domfluff and @Falaisecan you please send me your turn or let me know the scenario you are seeing this happen in? @PIATpunk I loaded your turns and am seeing what you see. I loaded the same campaign, and while it took me a few tries, 4 attempts actually, I was able to replicate it.

Adding to what @IanL said, there is a small circle in the bottom right hand corner of every artillery or air asset representing the C2 level between the unit calling for the support and the artillery. The darker green the circle is, the shorter the call time will be. If the little circle is yellow, orange or red, expect very long call times. 

Adding to what @IanL said, there is a small circle in the bottom right hand corner of every artillery or air asset representing the C2 level between the unit calling for the support and the artillery. The darker green the circle is, the shorter the call time will be. If the little circle is yellow, orange or red, expect very long call times. 

Adding to what @IanL said, there is a small circle in the bottom right hand corner of every artillery or air asset representing the C2 level between the unit calling for the support and the artillery. The darker green the circle is, the shorter the call time will be. If the little circle is yellow, orange or red, expect very long call times. 

Adding to what @IanL said, there is a small circle in the bottom right hand corner of every artillery or air asset representing the C2 level between the unit calling for the support and the artillery. The darker green the circle is, the shorter the call time will be. If the little circle is yellow, orange or red, expect very long call times. 

Adding to what @IanL said, there is a small circle in the bottom right hand corner of every artillery or air asset representing the C2 level between the unit calling for the support and the artillery. The darker green the circle is, the shorter the call time will be. If the little circle is yellow, orange or red, expect very long call times. 

Adding to what @IanL said, there is a small circle in the bottom right hand corner of every artillery or air asset representing the C2 level between the unit calling for the support and the artillery. The darker green the circle is, the shorter the call time will be. If the little circle is yellow, orange or red, expect very long call times. 

This issue has been reported and fixed according to the post in this thread from BFCElvis. When the patch to the patch, the patchy patch, comes out, this problem should go away.

This issue has been reported and fixed according to the post in this thread from BFCElvis. When the patch to the patch, the patchy patch, comes out, this problem should go away.

I've noticed in the last couple of weeks that the 4.01 patch fixed several bugs I'd seen reported on the forums, even though they weren't listed in the patch notes. In many cases I wasn't aware that BFC had even officially acknowledged them. It's been fun to find these things, so I thought I'd start a thread to compile them. I'm grateful to the BFC staff and testers who have harvested these and fixed them, and I'm curious what others have found! 
Here's what  I've seen so far:
1) In CMFB, Volksgrenadier Sturm squads no longer have extra Assistant leaders. Reported and acknowledged after the 4.0 upgrade in 2016, now fixed:
2) In CMFI, Italian HMG teams no longer carry superfluous US 60mm mortar ammunition. Noted back in 2013, in 2017, and again in March 2019 but now fixed:
3) In the CMFI Troina campaign, US infantry company MG teams used to have M1919A4s instead of M1919A6s--but no longer. I noted that here in 2017: 
4) In CMBN, you can now buy Vickers teams in QBs without getting XO teams instead. @Oliver_88 confirmed this. 
5) Perhaps related to (4), in CMBN and CMFI, CW Vickers platoon 2IC teams no longer have erroneous MG icons, as used to be true (noted here):
6) In CMBN, the problem with acquiring mortar ammo from CW Carrier Platoon vehicles is fixed, confirmed by @domfluff here:
7) In CMBN, US MMG teams no longer fire off a rifle grenade as a "parting shot" after an area fire Target Light order is cancelled. I noticed this under 4.0 back in 2017 and I saw it again just now with my version of CMBN 3.0. But it seems to be gone in 4.01!
8 Another pet peeve of mine, in CMFI 4.0 US units with area fire orders would fire off their AT rifle grenade before their HE grenades, instead of saving it to use against armor. (At least, that's what I observed and noted). Not true in CMFI after the patch! (I also noticed that under 4.0, unlike 3.0, early US rifle squads carried two rifle grenade launchers. This hasn't been changed in 4.01, so I assume it was a deliberate TO&E update.)
Patch notes themselves here:
 
 

Nonsense.
Artillery fragmentation is absolutely modeled, how else could a GI a hundred meters from an artillery impact get killed, while dudes just 20 meters away are just fine, if the system is as simplistic as you claim it is?
Your obsessive pessimism is starting to grate.

Information you have shown for QB Maps is not accurate.  I suggest you start with the base game, open up the Quick Battle Maps Folder and note the number of maps. Depending on what you are actually after, know this:  There are always 3 types of attack maps: Assault, Attack, & Probe. So a single map will have 3 variations.  Meeting engagement maps have no variations. To best count QB Maps simply start any kind of Attack style game,  use"Human" for map selection and count the maps.  Then start a Meeting engagement and do the same.  You will then have the ACTUAL number of QB Maps. Once you have counted the Base game.  Add each module.  Do keep in mind that all QB Maps will always play for any module of the base game title.
Good luck