sttp

In turned based mode the performance is the same. But everything is calculated in advance. In other words, there are zero calculations going on and performance is still abysmal.
No, calculations are not the reason.

Try playing Graviteam games. Smooth performance, insanely complicated calculations. More realistic ballistics than CM. (but worse interface and gameplay)
Please stop propagating the myth that the CM performance problems are due to simulation calculations. Those calculations are not going on while the game is paused, but still the performance is the same, whether you pause or not.
 
The honest answer is that CM is based on an ancient engine that does not take advantage of modern CPUs and graphics hardware. And no, that's not an attack on BattleFront. It's just how things are.
The only thing you can really do to improve performance is going for a computer with very high single-thread performance. Usually this means going for as many GHz as possible, rather than multiple cores.

Given the fact that BFC can't even fix Normandy should you be loading more on their plate?

I've got permission from BFCElvis to post about something a little to the side of this content.
Fixing the Hedgerow Bug
It's perhaps most prevalent in CMBN given the abundance of hedgerow maps/scenarios but applies across all titles for infantry behind hard cover. You may have noticed my Green troops in this battle have not been running away or into the streets towards the enemy during these firefights with the Soviet infantry.
This whole DAR has been using a version of the F&R beta that includes some tweaks to the TacAI to address infantry bolting from cover when coming under small arms fire. Infantry that come under small arms fire are more likely to seek cover and 'cower' rather than displace, even when pinned/rattled. Infantry are more likely to bolt when under attack from high explosives... (which let's face it makes sense. )
The changes I've noticed:
- It becomes very hard to dislodge infantry already set up in a building or behind a wall. Even when you lose LOS/LOF there's a good chance your opponent is still there. (I've joked it's going to take naval shells to dislodge Veteran troops).
- Getting the jump on the enemy while they are moving / before they are set up and ready to seek cover still causes morale to collapse very quickly. Case in point: like when most of my Pioneer platoon evaporated under SMG fire within 30 seconds.
- Infantry taking persistent casualties will still suffer morale damage over the long term. Like my Volkssturm surrendering after a solid five minutes of constant rifle fire back and forth.
- Expect longer drawn out firefights in urban and hedgerow maps. That also means watching those ammo counters more closely.
- High explosive and flame options just became a lot more valuable in urban combat. Close quarter AVRE or M12 GMC anyone?
 
Still being tested and subject to change but there are positive signs among the beta testers so far.
All for now.

Yeah this is going to end well...

There are many photos as well.  I posted one above, but I see on my other device it is not displaying for some reason.  I will try again:


Some more:


My conclusion would be that neither position is "correct."  Both were used in various circumstances.

We Say Goodbye to Another YouTuber
Good night @Josey Wales, you did not see the third guy with the AT Rifle. Josey raced forward to try and save more members of @benpark's KG being gunned down many Soviet SMG soldiers. He was partially successful and engaged Soviet AT Rifles that responded but there were simply too many. One shot through the side took out the loader and the crew bailed from the vehicle to be quickly gunned down in the street.

The remants of KG Josey Wales is helping @DoubleD hold the north while going after the lone T34 guarding the approach to OBJ Jaegermeister. This will hopefully cause him to take stock of the situation and stop the steady stream of Soviet reinforcements he is flooding south to tackle OBJ Beer. These are running the gauntlet of DoubleD's panzers.
The south has been bloody. Since my last update two full squads of @mjkerner's fallschirmjaeger have been wiped out. The remaining Soviet tanks are poking forward and blasting any spot they get with HE, bullets and flame. There's still enough troops to hold the position but it's starting to get a little dicey in terms of numbers of front line riefleman.
Directly after the last little teaser the whole squad of fallschirmjaeger were wiped out except for two pixeltruppen who are holding bravely among the flames to look after their injured.

Soviet soldiers streaming south still run into the wall of steel holding OBJ Beer.

FInally in the centre it's become pretty quiet. KG @Bootie and KG benpark are holding form after seeing off their infantry opposition (for now). And for a rare site, the Volkssturm decided to not surrender after all once the SS Troops arrived on scene and took care of the opposition.

Here is the map of the situation and the next few planned movements. Not a lot. I hold two objectives, it's up to Elvis to make the serious move now. I think a human wave of some description is coming in the south very soon though.

(Yes I do realise that I've somehow killed all three prominent Combat Mission YouTubers... honestly not on purpose).

I, personally, would be very careful about assuming the bug will be fixed anytime soon. It took the company almost 2 years to fix the HE bug from 3.0, and all that fix did was introduce this new (now too old) hedgerow bug. Or maybe both bugs are different manifestations of some singular root cause. Who knows. The point is, over the last 4-5 years BFC has been in no apparent hurry to fix what are often times game-breaking bugs.
The HE bug... the hedgerow bug... the bridge bug... the team-members-staying-behind bug... the halftrack-gunner / tank commander 'issue' (which I don't think can properly be called a bug, but is still pretty immersion-wrecking)... unbelievably stupid spotting anomalies (like the one discussed in rocketman's current thread)... and there are other issues I'm forgetting, too, I'm sure. Most of them, sadly, still exist, and that's despite literal years of discussion about them on this form.
I've been playing CM a little more lately, after a much needed hiatus, and all I can say is... yeah, I'm remembering why I needed to put the game down for awhile. It's very disappointing. Hopefully BFC can either get it together and fix these kinds of things, or just call it a day with CMx2 and move on to CMx3.

I, personally, would be very careful about assuming the bug will be fixed anytime soon. It took the company almost 2 years to fix the HE bug from 3.0, and all that fix did was introduce this new (now too old) hedgerow bug. Or maybe both bugs are different manifestations of some singular root cause. Who knows. The point is, over the last 4-5 years BFC has been in no apparent hurry to fix what are often times game-breaking bugs.
The HE bug... the hedgerow bug... the bridge bug... the team-members-staying-behind bug... the halftrack-gunner / tank commander 'issue' (which I don't think can properly be called a bug, but is still pretty immersion-wrecking)... unbelievably stupid spotting anomalies (like the one discussed in rocketman's current thread)... and there are other issues I'm forgetting, too, I'm sure. Most of them, sadly, still exist, and that's despite literal years of discussion about them on this form.
I've been playing CM a little more lately, after a much needed hiatus, and all I can say is... yeah, I'm remembering why I needed to put the game down for awhile. It's very disappointing. Hopefully BFC can either get it together and fix these kinds of things, or just call it a day with CMx2 and move on to CMx3.

Strangely, the tank had no trouble spotting the infantry in this fog.

I have witnessed several times how spotting in CM can be a bit off what one could expect. But most of the time there is some kind of rationale for what occurs, like terrain, trees, buildings etc that makes it understandable, given that it is a game after all. But this one is just too much. Granted the scenario is in foggy/rain conditions but still.
I had a HQ with a panzerfaust waiting behind a building for a Stuart to pass it, knowing it was around for several turns and having sound contact with it. Finally the Stuart moved forward at a slow pace at a distance of about 20 m and yet my HQ just sat there, not even moving around to spot something they at least must have heard. But no. The Stuart slowly turned toward my men and gradually swung its turret around. This whole process took about 25 sec in which my guys just sat there. Finally, they pulled out their panzerfaust and at that exact moment got gunned down. It was as if the Stuart spotted them only when they became an apparent threat.

View from the Stuart.

My blind and deaf men. Note that they are not rattled. Veteran....

I will hang on to a save if anyone wants to have a peek at it.

And yet, in the same battle, infantry spot infantry that hasn't fired at distances of +200 m. So if the fog in this battle is as bad as not spotting that Stuart, no fighting would have taken place at all so far. And it would be an unplayable and boring scenario. It isn't. Quite fun, despite this oddity.

This imbalance during the ever increasing attempts to sim "realism" is something that has become more obvious as time passes.  Yes, it's wonderful that every rivet on a tank or uniform items for "July 1944" are accurate.  But, we also have other longstanding issues that are quite major that BF is unable to solve eg: troops panicking in "unrealistic" directions, weird LOS phenomena, pathing issues, and other items that we're not sure are bugs or simple eccentricities of the engine. 
One gets the feeling that the CM2 game engine has gotten so complex/unwieldy that solving one issue often gives rise to some other problem.  I recall the frustration re CM1 becoming problematic which led to the development of CM2.  Am wondering if CM2 is now headed in that same direction and may be becoming too cumbersome for its own good. 
I note that after all these years of CM2 development I am unable to get any CM2 game to run on my brand new vanilla Win 10 machine.  Installation issues should have been solved many years ago.  Really hope that CM3 is on the horizon.
 

True ..😎
But this has been equally true all through the CM2 timeframe...has it not ?
 

The problem is that when you close assault a tank, your guys are already very close. When the tank crew bails out, enemies outside the tank start shooting before the crew actually bails. Wasting their ammo hitting the tank. And once the "panicked" crew exit, they immediately spot and engage enemies camping outside. Often killing several. Same problem goes for bunkers. It's one of the silliest design flaws of the game.

I just want to say that only because there are stories of this happening, it does not mean that this happened every time.

Only a few turns in & I'm enjoying it so far... I had a 'broken door' issue cost me a man but that's hardly your fault.
Most tricky aspect will be how to present the AAR, I think I'll break the battle up into segments (The Canadians battle, The Commando's battle, the post link-up* battle etc)... I suspect this will take a while.
I do like how I see bits & pieces of the ideas that would make Zawiya Uprising so great (the trickling in of reinforcements, your varied force mixtures, surprising enemy positions... oh & the mines!).
 
*Assuming we do linkup.

Fundamentally the issue is that the strategic AI does not exist. Only tactical AI and that AI is only reactive never proactive. What we all call the strategic AI is simply the designer creating from scratch a per scenario AI that is going to follow a rote path. The real limiter on scenario design is that the designer is pretty limited on their ability to build scenario specific AI. Cool things can be done with it but its still limited.
Its not abstract thinking - you just consider it abstract thinking because @RepsolCBR described it using human language. You can achieve RepsolCBR's "abstract thinking" via logic gates. The scenario designer is doing this right now its just that the options are limited. Below for example is a series of options that can be done in-game currently. #5 could be construed by some people as abstract thinking but its really just a trigger.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
3. The AI may call artillery on LOCATION November
4. After arriving the AI will delay 20 minutes
5. The AI will attack from Point Bravo to Point Delta if enemy troops detected at LOCATION NOVEMBER


Now if you had more detailed and granular options with the inclusion of SOPs and some free flow from the AI you could get more natural reactions.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
3A: If GROUP 1 sustains 50% casualties reroute GROUP 1 and GROUP 2 TO POINT CHARLIE.
3B: Once POINT CHARLIE is reached proceed to POINT BRAVO
3. The AI may call artillery on LOCATION November
4. After arriving the GROUP 1 will delay 20 minutes
4A: If GROUP 1 casulties > 40% cancel all orders proceed to DEFENSE POSITION
5. GROUP 1 will attack from Point Bravo to Point NOVEMBER if enemy troops detected at LOCATION NOVEMBER

All of the above could again be done within the bounds of the scenario designer system in the game currently. Just a bunch of triggers.


And again if you gave the AI some free hand you might not even need to do all of this.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
AI LOGIC: If GROUP 1 engaged by infantry ClOSER than 200 meters TARGET BRIEFLY 50% of buildings within 200 Meters along route of march. 100% of buildings that contain contact marker
Now you have the AI automatically reacting to a group threat. A single unit in the group has detected an infantry threat at close range and now the entire group is going to react via searching fire. If the AI suspects that a unit is there (a contact marker) it will definitely fire at the position.

AI LOGIC: If GROUP 1 Casualties > 50% reroute remainder 400 meters Left/Right to area of greater cover and attempt to move to AI POINT CHARLIE and then to POINT BRAVO

And the AI will no longer continue a suicidal attack down a single avenue of approach but attempt another route. All it does it say "where is more cover" and then add its own intermediate waypoint between ALFA and BRAVO


-----

All of these examples have something in them that you might consider "abstract thinking" but none of it actually is. Its all just a series of decision points that the AI arrives at. The difference between CM and many other games is that there are no decision points for the AI at all. Any decision is inputed by the scenario designer. You don't necessarily need the AI to make its own decisions and the CM system is fine. But as we;ve seen over the years the more power you give the designer the smarter the AI can appear.

I've done both some Arma scenario design and Combat Mission and the Arma system has no real strategic AI either and is handled by player triggers. The system is far more complex and as a result you can get far more complex results from it if you put in the time.

Edit: I will say I've done some game AI design and none of its simple. But you do not need an AI capable of abstract thinking. You just need to spend enough time working with it so that the maths behind each decision makes sense most of the time. Abstract thinking really only comes into play when you want a universal AI but no one here is talking about that. This is all just bespoke AI that exists solely to play Combat Mission - you can do that and do it quite well with the technology on hand. The issue is that building it is going to eat up time. Which is, I assume, why we have the scenario designer doing AI programming. Which again is fine, but the more options you give the designer the better the resulting AI can be. Any of the recommendations people have made could be done with a designer system there are just insufficient options for it currently.

That was my reaction when I read your post, too.. "We must be playing two different games"
I think it's like seeing faces in the clouds. Where I see random enemy placements, where one team is randomly in a good position, and another randomly placed in a bad position, you might see one position controlling the high ground, while the other team is deliberately placed too far forward as bait.. etc. We humans like to find patterns in chaos.

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. The AI has no understanding of any of those things. It does not understand how set up AT guns in good positions, make interlocking fields of fire, use bait, or anything else like that. It doesn't even keep squads from the same platoon close to each other or in contact with their HQ.
The only thing that the AI does when deciding when to place units in the painted setup zone is that it will look for positions with cover. So if you paint a whole field, including a hedgerow, infantry will always get placed along the hedge, and never out in the open.
But of course, if you have a lot of units and paint big setup zones, you'll get a good spread of enemy positions. Some of them will be in great locations, but that is completely down to chance. And especially if you set them to ambush orders, you can get a randomised setup that will pose a challenge and might even surprise you. However, you are likely to still meet AT guns in the middle of forests, etc.

That static defence custom QB-trick sounds like a nice idea 🙂...
But as for giving the AI greater freedom to act on its own...i'm  not so sure.
If BFC could make it work...yeah that would be great but i fear that features such as you describe might be a bit more complicated...
Simply having LOS/LOF to an action square might not help the AI enough...what kind of enemy unit is comming ? where are the other enemies/friendlies ? What are they doing ? Where should the AI units regroup to ? Why  ?
There are a lot of things the AI will need to considder...not only for each induvidual unit but also as a force as a whole.
I doubt it would be able to do it...
I would prefer that BFC moved in the opposit direction and gave the scenariodesigner MORE tools to 'help' the AI...providing for better scripting...
- more AI groups 
- more trigger options like AI group casualty level higher then, unit killed (friendly or enemy), unit spotted,  AI group ammo level below...etc,etc
- more options for when reinforcements arrive.
- more objective options
- a new AI artillery programing interface that would allow the designer to specify indirect firesupport for the AI mid game among other things.
 
 

From the lack of stuff on this board - a lot of people did
 

Wow, thanks.
The dev should be ashamed of himself.
Not fixed in years. Major issue.

I like the idea.  Suicidal pathing is a repeated headache and by far the main justification for a restart of the game (assuming you have a recent save).

Continuing with the "Advanced Tutorial campaign"...
... I know I should be getting back to the jungles of SE Asia, but I'm quite enjoying this foray into WW2 Italy.