Muzzleflash1990

I agree, facts are a pain in the arse. One of the facts, that incidentally also is a pain the arse, is that is has been 17 months since 4.0 was released, and still no patch.

This is a bad argument. They keep all relevant information (sales figures, cash flow, etc.) secret ostensibly to "protect it from competition." Just pointing to longevity is ridiculous, for all you know they could have been limping along for 20 years, it's literally impossible to know how successful they are. 
I'll tell you what's not a sign of a good company, releasing an update with a game breaking bug (I consider it game breaking because it effectively makes the single player unplayable, unless you enjoy effortlessly gunning down fleeing AI troops) and charge $10 for it. Then going over a year and a half without any sign of a fix on the way. Bonus points for the fact that the update to fix 4.0 will also likely require you to pay for it because BFC loves its customers so much that they nickle and dime them for basic bug fixes. 
But hey, I gotta give some credit to BFC, they've clearly mastered the art of building up a dedicated fanbase. Paying customers are demanding some action to fix their game, and we got @IanL throwing out terms like snowflakes, because screw them for wanting to be able to play their $60 game without using janky workarounds. 
 

I agree, facts are a pain in the arse. One of the facts, that incidentally also is a pain the arse, is that is has been 17 months since 4.0 was released, and still no patch.

I agree, facts are a pain in the arse. One of the facts, that incidentally also is a pain the arse, is that is has been 17 months since 4.0 was released, and still no patch.

I agree, facts are a pain in the arse. One of the facts, that incidentally also is a pain the arse, is that is has been 17 months since 4.0 was released, and still no patch.

Actually, it is quite good reasoning. I basically abandoned/put on hold my work on Ithikial's latest project (geared towards Single player) because 'fire few rounds of 60mm and HE, slaughter battalion of rats swarming in the open' was neither challenging, fun, or rewarding as a scenario designer to see. Before you go 'but you can plan the AI now and wait on the patch...' I've been waiting on the patch for quite long enough already, when I have other ideas I want to put down (such as my H2H scenarios in Black Sea) and it makes playtesting impossible, and functionally moving ahead also.
I see no point in pumping out something that will be for all intents and purposes unplayable. Wasted effort. That's what the singleplayer and mapmaking experience is currently like in the series: un-play-able. 

This problem still exists. Beyond ~150m you get single shots from Brens and Bars. In fact you get 0 practical firepower from an American or British rifle section beyond 200m, unless you manually area fire, since then everybody, except the Bren/Bar does not fire at all. An exception is if the targets are running upright, then the rifles might fire a couple shots. I have a test range setup, and the total fire output from a British rifle squad, without manual target order, against an enemy squad not moving, is around 3-10 rounds per minute, only fired from the Bren/Bar.

What commander needs points for buddy aid? Bahh.. Isn't the current reward for saving your pixeltruppens life enough: that you get to sleep just a tiny bit better at night?

1. It is incompatible with quoting. You may end up quoting, sentences, or even, paragraphs, that have changed. A quoted 'can' was corrected to a 'cannot'.
2. Breaks continuity. You cannot continue reading a thread without missing important changes, because someone may have changed previous posts (relative to 'your latest read post'), and the forum software skips to your latest read post.
 
But I agree with you on the voting boxes - don't see the need.

Are we talking Rolling Thunder? I had the same problem.
 
Tried UAVs several times during that scenario, both with large observe circles, but also small right on top. Then AH-64s. Then futile attempts with infantry getting to within ~350-400m I recall. Nothing would give me the spot. I've also tried bradleys and abrams in concealed hull down positions, but those that didn't get the laser warning from that team, didn't see anything either. Finally, late in the scenario I had set the necessary conditions elsewhere, such that I could pound this position with artillery, and advance in direct confrontation.

I'm not involved in the game-kind of programming, but the blurred terrain in CM is one of the few, supposedly technical limitations, I do not understand. Take a terrain 4km x 4km. Thats 500 tiles x 500 tiles = 250.000 tiles. That is 500.000 triangles that have to be rendered and textured. I believe current graphics hardware process triangles in the severals millions per second. Sure comparing triangles is not a good measure, there also other 3d models, lighting, water and smoke effects particularly trees and so on to render, but it still seems like very little. Even if you need to use lower quality textures - didn't mipmapping solve this problem satisfactorily at least a decade (or two) ago?

Don't worry, I will cover for you; I will stay up 50 hours after it gets out.

I unknowingly played a mission like that. I was so mad at the game for weird LOS issues. Think I got a major victory though (maybe it was just a tactical), can't remember for sure. The thought that I did play with trees turned off occurred the next day; I looked and the map looked completely different: Oh so those trees are why my troops got slaughted in some magic ambush.