Thewood1

Also, you can put controls in place for the saves. Or maybe do what a lot of other companies do and let them add them to the forum. As the frontline QA, delete saves on ones you think aren't effective, load the good ones in the bug tracking system. As was said above, this isn't rocket science. A simple place for when you need a save from a customer, send them the link. I have about a gig available on OneDrive that is free and fast. I would imagine someone from BFC's unofficial employees has access to something similar.

And this is why you need a more formal process. You need dedicated people doing QA. You can't have betatesters doing sorting of issues and filtering of this stuff. Look at the issues that have kept creeping into patches. I'm not saying betatesters are completely ineffective, but they are less effective than someone with the tools and dedication to a formal process. A sure sign of that is not a single place to put saves for real feedback. Your frustration should be with BFC for not providing you the tools that a real QA tester would have. Like a single repository for saves. The universal opinion seems to be that it would be easy to set up a dropbox or drive folder. So maybe someone from BFC should do it. Again, instead of a couple dozen links from "customers".

Obviously

I'm not saying its difficult. Why is the onus on the customer. There is a website and forum right here where saves could be posted. Instead of a formal QA process, we have unpaid volunteers gathering files from 3rd party sites to help BFC. Why can't BFC just step up and take the saves directly. Instead of 30 people all creating links, have one place to do it.

So its not much effort. We agree. So why doesn't BFC do it. Are you asking BFC staff the same questions? They could set something up once instead of each of their customers doing it individually.

Yes you can. Again the point is, why doesn't BFC do that? Why have their customers all go through the effort. It is relatively simple. I don't hand out file links as a matter of principle. But BFC is a business. Why wouldn't they want to provide that level of support?

I have dropbox, drive, onedrive, etc. But I don't hand out access to many people and then only people I know and trust personally. So I can understand completely not wanting bother creating an account just because a commercial enterprise wants a save to help fix their product. My expectation is if a company insists on saves to resolve issues, they would provide their own mechanism for it. Even Matrix Games, with one of the most backward forum infrastructures around, lets you post compressed saves.

"I have much more serious matters to concern myself with." I hope you recover from your medical issues quickly and completely, but as you said in the other thread above, I would prioritize resting and recovering over posting on the forum. Again, hope everything comes out OK, but try to rest.

Saw this posted on ARMA3's boards. Checked it out and thought it was cool, mostly interesting, and possibly helpful. https://www.battleorder.org/

As I said, how about a little context. Just odd that the OP has a sig line commenting on the "newest" patch yet reporting on an old one.

Have you tried it in 4.02? And how about just a little bit of context.

I completely feel your pain. It seems like as CM2 has developed, scenario builders have built larger and larger scenarios. There is very little command and control of formations larger than a platoon. If you want to play the game the way scenarios are being built, you'll have to learn to break it down into phases and spend a lot of time planning routes for small scout teams all the way up to IS-2 tanks. The selection of games by size helps a little, but its dependent on the scenario builder to assess the size. People who build massive scenarios will look at a game with 100 units per side as a mid-sized scenario. So you do have to be careful. I solved this for myself by playing a lot of QBs and building my own scenarios.

Wow, that bone thread was 3.5 years ago. So that means the CMFI module has been in development for over 3.5 years, and looks like it will be 4 years to deliver. That's a long time. The patriots have been in three Super Bowls since that thread.

Think about this statement and then apply the knowledge of how long its taking to get a single module out. We are back to a pace of a module every couple years. I have a hard time believing we will be getting even half of what is listed here in three to four years. Frankly, I would love for BFC to switch emphasis to Vehicle Packs and Battle Packs. And to put them out more frequently. But alas, it'll be years of visiting the forum once every couple weeks to see if anything has moved. The forlorn hope.

But that has nothing to do with the argument that was presented. I agree with you, but in breadth, and at the pace of development we currently see, it might be another 10 years to match CM1 for WW2's scope.

"CMx2 has been far more fruitful than CMx1" I do agree that CM2 is a better game, but this is an odd argument. While CM1 had only three games, from a coverage standpoint, each game covered a heck of a lot more than CM2 game and module equivalents. It took maybe a two full games and 4 modules, and eight years to get the scope of CMBO out of CM2. And even then, CMBN and CMFB only go to early 1945. ANd CMAK covered from 1940 to 1945. CMFI right now covers about a year. Its no contest on how much broader CMBB was than CMRT, even in CMRT's final plan that is probably a couple years from now. So granted that CM2 is a better game in general and has had a couple modern warfare versions, its taking a decade to get where we are, and even then, it hasn't managed to match the scope of CM1 in WW2. I would still take CM2 over CM1, but the scope isn't really that close.

And sometimes they are just wrong.

Just take a look at a game like Matrix's CMNAO if as an example of a bug thread gone wrong. Yes some bugs show up there, but I bet over half are from people who've played the game for an hour declaring "bug" every time the encounter something they don't know. It has the devs chasing their tails.

Here is exactly the issue, no one reads the threads, even the ones they start. UltraDave already answered that.

This has been known for a long time and discussed multiple times. Someone somewhere in time did fairly detailed study on settings relationship to load times.

If you are going to go through all of that, just play the Graviteam games. In hardcore mode, radios, wired telephones, and hand signal ranges are accounted for. If you don't have comms or are in range of troops, you can't issue orders or get reports. Its a frustrating and fascinating way to play. There are all kinds of factors at play, including range, random radio drops, cut wires, experience, morale, casualties, visibility, etc.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2019/04/11/logbook-part-i-the-uaes-bmp-3-ifv-in-yemen/ I had seen this a few months ago. Mentioned that BMP-3s were involved in early battles, but after that, the vehicles vulnerability might have been the reason a large number were dedicated to rear area security and garrison duties. There is speculation that a number have been transferred to local unconventional forces. You have to read the whole thing and kind of put 2+2 together yourself, but UAE's BMP-3s seem to have been less active in front line combat than people thought.

Just to put numbers on the BMP discussion, for Russia: Active BMP-1 - 500 Active BMP-2 - 3,000 Active BMP-3 - 510 Storage BMP-1 - 7,000 Storage BMP-2 - 1,500 Active BTR-80A - 100 Active BTR-82 - 1,000 Source: Military Balance 2018 Its going to take a while to work through all of those BMP-2s.

I would put it on the patch page at the very top. Most games I play won't let you install from the Windows 10 Downloads area, and I think the Windows 10 standard is limit exe execution from downloads. I am very curious what CM is doing that cause that problem.

Yeah, that is the problem. That is super weird that becomes an issue. Never had ANY game do that before. Is that documented anywhere. I have never noted it before.