Swant

Well i know, i was trying to be sarcastic  I wanted to start peiper campaign again but with updated game and I'm checking forum almost on daily basis and I'm kinda tired after few months 😕

I've not touched Normandy for over 18 months now because of a broken game in a stock campaign = broken campaign.

Got to be honest I would never have purchased the rest of the Normandy family if I'd known it would take this long to get the issues fixed. I've played half a campaign of the CF and MG modules as a consequence. Considering the cost of these games it begs some serious questions about value! 

Another view is to flip this around and ask why wouldn't they have been working on the patch this whole time?
It's been 2 years and 3 months now since they broke some pretty fundamental parts of their own game -- broken to the point that many people can barely enjoy the typical stock scenario. And not just one title broken, but all of them.
When the issues with v4 were first brought to light, I would have never believed that it'd still be almost literally years before we saw them fixed.
Perhaps Battlefront needs to start actually paying more testers and content creators, in order to get things moving along, instead of relying on the generosity of so many volunteers?
I've defended Battlefront and heaped praise on the game many times over the past 4 to 5 years, but at some point a customer's patience and good will just gets used up.
"Niche market" is no excuse for a fix to the underlying game engine to have taken this long.

When a patch is 2 years in the making I start to question their ability to deliver, regardless of how long they take.

This is a bit ironic since we're waiting for a patch to fix problems introduced in a patch...
There's a middle ground between not testing things at all and then on the other hand testing things for more than two years.
Also, nobody is demanding they release a flawed patch.  But maybe releasing the patch that's has been done for a while and already is in CMSF2 would be nice.

I wonder what's going on in the Battlefront headquarters...
 
 

During the two years we have waited for this patch, Europe and North America have physically moved about 5 cm (2 inches) further apart due to continental drift.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/continental-drift/
 

How much longer do we have to wait for the patch? This is ridiculous!!

Contains invisible floating unit icons for standard CMBN + CW forces. Unpack into data/z folder.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bqq3xoi2p8rr6hs/Z_CMBN No Icons.rar?dl=0
This is not really a full mod. I consider this as experimental toolset for selectively replacing any existing FLOATING UNIT ICONS with invisible ones in CMBN (incl. CW forces). The main idea was to make enemy floating unit icons invisible, while the same time preserving the friendly ones (for quick access and overview), but also to add additional FOW while removing the possible distraction from enemy floating unit icons possibly covering larger parts of the game map. ALT+I does the same, but it´s all or nothing.
ALL floating unit icons for german, US and CW can be replaced with invisible substitute icons. To achieve invisibility, alpha layers were made opaque by filling in all black with Photoshop and saved in 32Bit BMP alpha layer format (the standard).
The folders contain all the invisible floating unit icons unpacked by default and a RAR packed file contains these as backup additionally. So if the mod rar file (Z_CMBN No Icons.rar) is unpacked straight into your data/z folder, EVERY floating unit icon in the game is replaced by invisible ones. Now the purpose is to selectively remove those icons you don´t want to be seen in the game from the sub folders. In example if you play as the US player vs. a german opponent, just delete those files from the friendly "USA" folder and leave the (invisible) "german" opponent ones in, if you don´t want to see german floating unit icons. This leaves any original or modded USA unit icons visible, while making german ones invisible. Also delete the files labeled "icon blue..." (used for US and CW) from the "shared" folder and leave the german ones (icon red...) as is.
The two files from the "contacts" folder should be deleted, as these are needed for friendly FOW purposes. A packed backup file is always present in every sub folder. The backups contain the invisible floating unit icons. Original floating unit icons, as well as modded ones remain untouched off course.
Note: Off course you need to switch floating unit icons ingame to ON (ALT+I). While the floating unit icon graphics are invisible, the actual icon objects are still physically present and if needed you can click/activate them as usual if clicking slightly above a unit in 3D space. Game manual: "Over the center mass of the units they represent"
Another interesting use would be to just delete the files containing "fow" (fog of war) in filename, while preserving every other file in a subfolder. The "fow" files are contained in "british", "german" and "usa" folders. What happens in game is that just the "generic silhouette + question mark" icons pop up occasionally, indicating something has changed among the enemy force. Game manual: "Unknown or previously spotted but now out of sight units, as well as pure sound contacts, are shown with a generic silhouette and a question mark."
I haven´t tested all SKILL LEVEL modes, so it might be possible that some of the above mentioned procedures need to be adapted or changed in order for the particular SKILL MODES handling of floating unit icons works the way you want. I usually play in IRON.
RockinHarry
Edit: Also works fine with CMFB. Ignore British folder or delete it.

In case you haven't been checking, the patch is not yet out... 

I have a weird issue with half refresh rate. It only works if I restart my laptop from windows using the restart option. If I turn it off and then on it wont work.  So everytime I play a CM title I restart.

Source? I've never seen anyone complain about that, and I've been a regular here for years  I remember pretty much every thing players have been clamouring for - MGs to be more deadly - done. The Stug bug - fixed. Tank commanders to duck down faster - fixed. Troops running in long lines and sitting on top of each other - fixed. Etc. The game has improved. But I can't remember ever hearing anyone ask for troops to get up and run away when under a barrage. 
 
Programmers have a strict technical definition of what a bug is, but to most regular people, a bug is something that doesn't work as it should. 
Call it a bug or not, the running-away behaviour was erroneous, because it happened only with off-map artillery, always triggered immediate fleeing no matter the morale state and quality of the troops, and no matter the cover they were in. Usually, CM models these things quite nicely, but not in this case. "Some players" objected to it because they realised it was not working right.
The patch should be here any day now, and I'm looking very much forward to it. The issues haven't stopped me from playing, and they should not scare anyone away from buying the game either. But will be great to see the patch released.

It's very evident in CMBN too.  The first scenario I played with the 4.0 engine was a CMBN one and that bug was noticeable almost immediately.  I ordered an harassment artillery barrage on a group of buildings which I suspected harbored hidden German forces.  As my forces neared those buildings, I came across German teams just sitting in the open.  (They had fled the buildings for the "safety" of open terrain.)  Needless to say, it made things easier for my attacking troops.  And I played that scenario in January 2017!
Almost as insidious is that the 4.0 engine caused the Bren/BAR (and I believe the Breda as well) to be reduced to single shot weapons when fired past a certain range.  This really limits their effectiveness as automatic weapons.  It especially hurts the already anemic firepower of the Commonwealth forces.
Some people claim the above make these games "unplayable."  I don't entirely agree.  While I have avoided playing Commonwealth scenarios/campaigns due to the issue with the Bren gun, I have continued to play CMx2 4.0.  It's still a great game, but I've played mostly CMRT because it doesn't have the Bren/BAR issue.  However, it has been REALLY disappointing that BF allowed these issues to exist as long as they have.  Two years!  Yes, they're not "game-killing" bugs like that saved-game crash that was introduced by a CMRT patch which BF quickly fixed within a week or two, but they do make the CMx2 gaming experience feel less than optimal. 
I keep checking these forums daily hoping to see the announcement of the patches' release.  Hopefully, it'll be soon.

I don't know exactly about CMBN campaigns, since I haven't played through them, but it depends on whether there's a combination of lots of fortifications on one side, and lots of off-map artillery on the other. Therefore, generally any campaign that involves you making lots of set-piece attacks will be much easier. The Troina Campaign in Fortress Italy, for example, is much easier with the bug because several of the battles are big US attacks. The Germans will get out of their trenches and run around when you shell them with your copious artillery. The first battle in the Soviet campaign of Red Thunder is similar. A human defender can mitigate the effect by using "Pause" commands, but the AI can't do that--and that's the only opponent you can have in campaigns. On the other hand, the effect is much less noticeable when there isn't much artillery, or there aren't many fortifications. There are plenty of scenarios like this, where the bug would have almost no effect.
 
 

“The company commander posts himself where he can best direct and control the action. Whenever practicable he occupies an observation post from he can see all or at least the vital part of the company zone of action; observers are posted to watch the remainder of the front and flanks. His position must be able to communicate readily with the company command post, with the support, and with supporting weapons under his control. Whenever conditions make effective control of the entire company impracticable from such an observation post, he goes wherever he can best observe and control the action of that part of the company whose operations are most vital to success.”

FM 7-10 Rifle Company, Rifle Regiment date 02 June 1942 PP 20-21 refer.

Or put another way, there is no set distance, the commander needs to position themselves so that they can see the battle and influence it. That could be a tactical bound behind the lead platoon or it could be sat on a hill a couple of hundred metres behind the rifle platoons.
The stated distance for the Company Command post in the publication above is about 400m away from the front line. This is where the XO would hang out. The whole document is here:
https://archive.org/details/Fm7-10/page/n1
 

Same...

Same...

I've gone from looking for the patch weekly to monthly... soon it will be annually. No info, no nothing... this is tedious in the extreme and no way to retain customers.
 

Same...

Same...

Same...

The idea is to make a turn-based (WEGO) operational layer campaign here on the forums (or potentially a different platform like roll20). It will be on a square or hex-grid graph of a map -- depending on game and theatre. You will be able to make your own units (companies or platoons) and move them around once per turn. Whenever two units (or more) on the map bump into eachother, the GM will post parameters for a Quick Battle you can put into your game and play out. The player (s) then would report the results of their Quick Battle and the operational map would be updated accordingly. A turn can be a week, or bi-weekly, to allow everyone to declare their move, play their Quick battle and report their results on the forum.

I had this crazy idea while messing around with my roll20 RPG campaign. Instead of making a character sheet, one could make a company/platoon sheet. Recently I saw a lot of people wanting an Operational Layer and someone even mentioned a system that they came up for themselves. It's all still very much in concept phase. At first, I was thinking the campaign should be cooperative and all enemies be managed by GM and be played by AI in-game. Though, I'm sure a lot of people would like to play OPFOR and provide an opponent for those who do not enjoy sparring with AI.
I'm curious what you guys think! Interested? Not interested? Comments? Concerns? Ideas of your own?

Now it works