Thewood1

All I can think of is Lee looking for Stuart at Gettysburg.  There is a point when a game becomes more like work than fun.  Friendly FOW to the extreme that the entire playing experience is about getting info from your peer and subordinate units starts to feel like work.

The development of the games is a disaster.  HPS has stiffed a number of people in taking $90 for a game (POA2) that really never worked.  Its been under development for at least 12 years and still only releases beta updates that break more than fix.  My comment has nothing to do with comparing it to CM.  It has everything to do with a white knight showing up every 3-4 years to try and lure the masses into buying into POA2 again.
I have seen several prominent wargamers, including a a couple former frequent posters to these boards,  step and talk about how they had a personal conversation with the Scott Hamilton and got his personal commitment to finally fix the game(s).  And there is activity for a couple months and then the white knight gets frustrated and starts berating HPS and it cycles all over again.  And its always a different forum that the cycle plays out on...wargamer, gamesquad, dogsofwar, etc.  No one ever goes back and looks at the history of broken promises.  For some reason, each of those white knights thinks HPS should get a fresh start.

/Rant mode on
I will support any company that produces good games, communicates to its customers, and is honest.  HPS, for POA2, is none of those.  I have managed multiple large and small programming projects in the industrial space.  If HPS was treating a business customer like they have treated their POA2 customers, they would have been sued out of existence.
I suspect you didn't even look at those links did you?  Take a look.  In development since 2003.  Then take a look at 2018 posts on dogsofwar.  Their new white knight is complaining about the same stuff from 2005.  Tell me what us customers should do?  Should we just let someone like you come in and start this all over again?  Won't happen.  
I can't believe you of all people, who nitpicks BFC to death, would give HPS a pass on this.  Lets look at what BFC has accomplished since 2003 with CM.  Released CMAK, all CMBN modules, CMFI, CMSF (twice), CMBS, CMRT, and all the numerous upgrades and feature adds.  HPS released dozens of beta updates and it still doesn't work right.  
So, I am going over to the HPS forums and see if you are over there nitpicking.  Oh wait...they don't have forums because they don't communicate with customers.  So why don't you stick around here, nitpick BFC some more and try to convince everyone here to buy a 16-year old broken game with no future.
/Rant mode off
One thing I will do from now on is every time you have a complaint about a CM game, I'll ask how it works in POA2.  I'll ask what kind of response you got from the devs.
 
/Rant mode really off

Yeah, it probably should be in the General Discussion forum.  But let's face it, it is probably a good advertisement for them.  The only games getting significant mention are:
A game that has been rehashed and relaunched a dozen time (Close Combat)
A game that, at its heart is a military tank procedural trainer (Steel Beasts)
A game that ended up being a rip off after 16 years of development (POA2)
A game built by a Ukrainian team that could have the potential if they put their mind to it, but most likely won't. (Graviteam)
and a few odds and ends.
And none of them really compare directly, feature for feature.

You could say the same thing about Norm Kroger and Jim Rose.  They made some great games for their rimes.  But after Distant Guns and Jutland, no one will touch them.  And just like them, Scott will be remembered for POA2.
btw, The Tigers on the Prowl and Panthers in the Shadows engine has as much to do with POA2 as CM1 did with CM2.  It was completely rebuilt and only some of the most basic concepts carried over.

btw, no one is denying his right to do anything.  The lowest form of weak debating skills is saying that complaining about something is denying someone their rights.  Scott Hamilton has every right to sell anything he wants within the bounds of a legal contract.  I have every right to point out people that some how feel they need to be Scott's white knight.  There are plenty of things to take a stand on in the world, but saying we can't call out Scott Hamilton and his unfinished and 16 year in development game is just north of ridiculous.
You have every right to your opinion that we are somehow being unfair to Scott Hamilton, but my expectation is that you give BFC the same level of consideration.  You've said some pretty harsh things about BFC's commitment to fixing things.  Do you think they have the right to do it their way?  These comments are going to follow you around on the BFC forum as you try to show how unfair BFC is.  I sure would love to see the emails you must be send Scott Hamilton about all the broken things and C++ errors.
 I also think, based on your own comments, you really don't know much about POA2 and HPS's history with it.  I think you have painted yourself into a corner in your staunch and uninformed debate about POA2.  The biggest sign of that is the desperate, "I'm not going to talk about this any more."  

/Rant mode on
I will support any company that produces good games, communicates to its customers, and is honest.  HPS, for POA2, is none of those.  I have managed multiple large and small programming projects in the industrial space.  If HPS was treating a business customer like they have treated their POA2 customers, they would have been sued out of existence.
I suspect you didn't even look at those links did you?  Take a look.  In development since 2003.  Then take a look at 2018 posts on dogsofwar.  Their new white knight is complaining about the same stuff from 2005.  Tell me what us customers should do?  Should we just let someone like you come in and start this all over again?  Won't happen.  
I can't believe you of all people, who nitpicks BFC to death, would give HPS a pass on this.  Lets look at what BFC has accomplished since 2003 with CM.  Released CMAK, all CMBN modules, CMFI, CMSF (twice), CMBS, CMRT, and all the numerous upgrades and feature adds.  HPS released dozens of beta updates and it still doesn't work right.  
So, I am going over to the HPS forums and see if you are over there nitpicking.  Oh wait...they don't have forums because they don't communicate with customers.  So why don't you stick around here, nitpick BFC some more and try to convince everyone here to buy a 16-year old broken game with no future.
/Rant mode off
One thing I will do from now on is every time you have a complaint about a CM game, I'll ask how it works in POA2.  I'll ask what kind of response you got from the devs.
 
/Rant mode really off

/Rant mode on
I will support any company that produces good games, communicates to its customers, and is honest.  HPS, for POA2, is none of those.  I have managed multiple large and small programming projects in the industrial space.  If HPS was treating a business customer like they have treated their POA2 customers, they would have been sued out of existence.
I suspect you didn't even look at those links did you?  Take a look.  In development since 2003.  Then take a look at 2018 posts on dogsofwar.  Their new white knight is complaining about the same stuff from 2005.  Tell me what us customers should do?  Should we just let someone like you come in and start this all over again?  Won't happen.  
I can't believe you of all people, who nitpicks BFC to death, would give HPS a pass on this.  Lets look at what BFC has accomplished since 2003 with CM.  Released CMAK, all CMBN modules, CMFI, CMSF (twice), CMBS, CMRT, and all the numerous upgrades and feature adds.  HPS released dozens of beta updates and it still doesn't work right.  
So, I am going over to the HPS forums and see if you are over there nitpicking.  Oh wait...they don't have forums because they don't communicate with customers.  So why don't you stick around here, nitpick BFC some more and try to convince everyone here to buy a 16-year old broken game with no future.
/Rant mode off
One thing I will do from now on is every time you have a complaint about a CM game, I'll ask how it works in POA2.  I'll ask what kind of response you got from the devs.
 
/Rant mode really off

You could say the same thing about Norm Kroger and Jim Rose.  They made some great games for their rimes.  But after Distant Guns and Jutland, no one will touch them.  And just like them, Scott will be remembered for POA2.
btw, The Tigers on the Prowl and Panthers in the Shadows engine has as much to do with POA2 as CM1 did with CM2.  It was completely rebuilt and only some of the most basic concepts carried over.

Yeah, it probably should be in the General Discussion forum.  But let's face it, it is probably a good advertisement for them.  The only games getting significant mention are:
A game that has been rehashed and relaunched a dozen time (Close Combat)
A game that, at its heart is a military tank procedural trainer (Steel Beasts)
A game that ended up being a rip off after 16 years of development (POA2)
A game built by a Ukrainian team that could have the potential if they put their mind to it, but most likely won't. (Graviteam)
and a few odds and ends.
And none of them really compare directly, feature for feature.

/Rant mode on
I will support any company that produces good games, communicates to its customers, and is honest.  HPS, for POA2, is none of those.  I have managed multiple large and small programming projects in the industrial space.  If HPS was treating a business customer like they have treated their POA2 customers, they would have been sued out of existence.
I suspect you didn't even look at those links did you?  Take a look.  In development since 2003.  Then take a look at 2018 posts on dogsofwar.  Their new white knight is complaining about the same stuff from 2005.  Tell me what us customers should do?  Should we just let someone like you come in and start this all over again?  Won't happen.  
I can't believe you of all people, who nitpicks BFC to death, would give HPS a pass on this.  Lets look at what BFC has accomplished since 2003 with CM.  Released CMAK, all CMBN modules, CMFI, CMSF (twice), CMBS, CMRT, and all the numerous upgrades and feature adds.  HPS released dozens of beta updates and it still doesn't work right.  
So, I am going over to the HPS forums and see if you are over there nitpicking.  Oh wait...they don't have forums because they don't communicate with customers.  So why don't you stick around here, nitpick BFC some more and try to convince everyone here to buy a 16-year old broken game with no future.
/Rant mode off
One thing I will do from now on is every time you have a complaint about a CM game, I'll ask how it works in POA2.  I'll ask what kind of response you got from the devs.
 
/Rant mode really off

Yeah, it probably should be in the General Discussion forum.  But let's face it, it is probably a good advertisement for them.  The only games getting significant mention are:
A game that has been rehashed and relaunched a dozen time (Close Combat)
A game that, at its heart is a military tank procedural trainer (Steel Beasts)
A game that ended up being a rip off after 16 years of development (POA2)
A game built by a Ukrainian team that could have the potential if they put their mind to it, but most likely won't. (Graviteam)
and a few odds and ends.
And none of them really compare directly, feature for feature.

I would say from a scale standpoint, the Graviteam games.  They are different approach to the exact same tactical problems.   Steel Beasts come close, especially recently.  The biggest differences is that Garviteam's tactical battle are real-time, as well as Steel Beasts being built as a combined arms simulator and modern time frame only.
But if you only look at WEGO, there isn't much out there.
 
Edit:  The reason I pick those two is the commitment to simulation-level realism.  With lot of work and configuring, you could throw ARAM 2 or 3 in here.  But to get it to work, you have to really know it well.  Other games like Men of War and Company of Heroes are fun to play, but have some significant realism issues.

All I can think of is Lee looking for Stuart at Gettysburg.  There is a point when a game becomes more like work than fun.  Friendly FOW to the extreme that the entire playing experience is about getting info from your peer and subordinate units starts to feel like work.

One thing I should point out is that the devs of Command on the Matrix site are engaged daily in sorting through tech and app issues.  And that is a team of 3-4 people,  including one developer.  I bet the devs, combined, post a dozen times a day, with the actual coder posting daily.

Simply take a look at Matrix Games.  You can upload any saves for review and its done constantly on a bunch of their games.  Look at Command.  Every tech issue is requested to post a save file of the issue.  I spent several years in HMI development at GE and the first thing the QA  and service engineers were shown was the FTP site where customers loaded files for analysis.  That was in the mid-90s.
So I am not sure what kind of software company you work for, but everyone had an FTP site.  A number of them have transitioned to dropbox.
Edit:  Also pointing out the reasoning behind FTP sites was so that the customers didn't all have different methods and paths for the service and QA engineers to get at customer files.  It allowed the creation of a very simple and secure way to move customer files from the field around.  That FTP site was the critical point of customer and engineer interaction.

That is a scenario design issue.  Nothing stops you, or anyone else, from building a highly motivated, fit, and high morale red army that can kick blue ass.  And CM2's scoring flexibility is one of best around in wargames.  If you can't take advantage of that, you're doing something wrong.
The main issue is that people are stuck in the story line in Iraq and Syria (in the game) where most scenarios are blue-based shoot em ups.  If you want a challenge, jump in and adjust the score, unit motivation, experience, and morale.  You're blue soldiers will regret it.
As stated above, why do you need them included?  You can build them yourself.

That is a scenario design issue.  Nothing stops you, or anyone else, from building a highly motivated, fit, and high morale red army that can kick blue ass.  And CM2's scoring flexibility is one of best around in wargames.  If you can't take advantage of that, you're doing something wrong.
The main issue is that people are stuck in the story line in Iraq and Syria (in the game) where most scenarios are blue-based shoot em ups.  If you want a challenge, jump in and adjust the score, unit motivation, experience, and morale.  You're blue soldiers will regret it.
As stated above, why do you need them included?  You can build them yourself.

That is a scenario design issue.  Nothing stops you, or anyone else, from building a highly motivated, fit, and high morale red army that can kick blue ass.  And CM2's scoring flexibility is one of best around in wargames.  If you can't take advantage of that, you're doing something wrong.
The main issue is that people are stuck in the story line in Iraq and Syria (in the game) where most scenarios are blue-based shoot em ups.  If you want a challenge, jump in and adjust the score, unit motivation, experience, and morale.  You're blue soldiers will regret it.
As stated above, why do you need them included?  You can build them yourself.

On this laptop, a  Lenovo  Legion Y545, the 6xx HD is not enabled.  It doesn't show up in DXDiag, Device Manager, or nVidia Control Panel.

The main reason is I have more money than time.  I am always willing to share my success with people willing to save me time.  
Just thought it would be a good model for someone not involved in BFC's volunteer brigade.  They can approach BFC and have a plan and timeline for updating by game or module.  BFC or volunteers QAs them.  They get posted on BFC and $ can be split.
If not, I'll just play what I have when I have time.  The short of it is, I want to spend my time playing, not rebuilding scenarios.

So lets take a step back and look at this...
I was told that it was easy to create a link for a file to shared with betatesters looking at issues.  So I said that BFC should just create a link for a folder where those files can just be uploaded.  So instead of multiple people loading up files and and creating links, one entity, BFC, creates a public folder where saves can be uploaded to.  You can have all the control at BFC that you want on who can upload and who can't.  As a couple people have already said about this, its not rocket science.
So tell me how having multiple people having to upload files and create links individually is better for everyone than a single shared folder that betatesters can send links to for upload?

Simply take a look at Matrix Games.  You can upload any saves for review and its done constantly on a bunch of their games.  Look at Command.  Every tech issue is requested to post a save file of the issue.  I spent several years in HMI development at GE and the first thing the QA  and service engineers were shown was the FTP site where customers loaded files for analysis.  That was in the mid-90s.
So I am not sure what kind of software company you work for, but everyone had an FTP site.  A number of them have transitioned to dropbox.
Edit:  Also pointing out the reasoning behind FTP sites was so that the customers didn't all have different methods and paths for the service and QA engineers to get at customer files.  It allowed the creation of a very simple and secure way to move customer files from the field around.  That FTP site was the critical point of customer and engineer interaction.

Simply take a look at Matrix Games.  You can upload any saves for review and its done constantly on a bunch of their games.  Look at Command.  Every tech issue is requested to post a save file of the issue.  I spent several years in HMI development at GE and the first thing the QA  and service engineers were shown was the FTP site where customers loaded files for analysis.  That was in the mid-90s.
So I am not sure what kind of software company you work for, but everyone had an FTP site.  A number of them have transitioned to dropbox.
Edit:  Also pointing out the reasoning behind FTP sites was so that the customers didn't all have different methods and paths for the service and QA engineers to get at customer files.  It allowed the creation of a very simple and secure way to move customer files from the field around.  That FTP site was the critical point of customer and engineer interaction.

So lets take a step back and look at this...
I was told that it was easy to create a link for a file to shared with betatesters looking at issues.  So I said that BFC should just create a link for a folder where those files can just be uploaded.  So instead of multiple people loading up files and and creating links, one entity, BFC, creates a public folder where saves can be uploaded to.  You can have all the control at BFC that you want on who can upload and who can't.  As a couple people have already said about this, its not rocket science.
So tell me how having multiple people having to upload files and create links individually is better for everyone than a single shared folder that betatesters can send links to for upload?