Thewood1

Why is the Matrix/Slitherine logo shown, but not BFC's?  I know the dstl have worked with the Command devs at Matrix for a while now.  Just seems weird they show all CM clips, but no mention of BFC.

That is a myth from years ago.  DoDs and MoDs are much more sophisticated, in general.  There are different types of training systems needed and trying to lump them together in some mythical defense organizational buying conspiracy belittles both the developers of the simulations and a large number of military personnel involved in getting them into the process.  There are procedural simulators, ergonomic simulators, operational simulators, etc.  They all have a place in the training chain.  None of the "off-the-shelf" and PC-based systems  I know of are blind  procedural simulators.  Games like Steel Beasts and CMO are built on providing as real of an environment as possible for what they do.  In fact, CMO is used more as a sandbox by some navies to test weapon usage, operational theories, and strategic options.
I also want to point out that Matrix and BFC started out around the same time.  I think BFC might have been a little bigger than Matrix at one time.  They aren't some giant conglomerate, even considering Slitherine.  They are most likely less than 10 people.  But through connections they made with Close Combat, Harpoon, and now CMO, they have managed to carve out a space for themselves and established a beachhead in some MoDs and DoDs.  They partnered with a couple defense contractors to get a foot in the door.  Its something BFC could have done if they had the mind.  There is nothing special Matrix/Slitherine did other just put their head down and do it.  Companies like eSim and Matrix have put the effort into doing this and are now in the drivers seat for companies like BFC.
..

Why is the Matrix/Slitherine logo shown, but not BFC's?  I know the dstl have worked with the Command devs at Matrix for a while now.  Just seems weird they show all CM clips, but no mention of BFC.

Why is the Matrix/Slitherine logo shown, but not BFC's?  I know the dstl have worked with the Command devs at Matrix for a while now.  Just seems weird they show all CM clips, but no mention of BFC.

That is a myth from years ago.  DoDs and MoDs are much more sophisticated, in general.  There are different types of training systems needed and trying to lump them together in some mythical defense organizational buying conspiracy belittles both the developers of the simulations and a large number of military personnel involved in getting them into the process.  There are procedural simulators, ergonomic simulators, operational simulators, etc.  They all have a place in the training chain.  None of the "off-the-shelf" and PC-based systems  I know of are blind  procedural simulators.  Games like Steel Beasts and CMO are built on providing as real of an environment as possible for what they do.  In fact, CMO is used more as a sandbox by some navies to test weapon usage, operational theories, and strategic options.
I also want to point out that Matrix and BFC started out around the same time.  I think BFC might have been a little bigger than Matrix at one time.  They aren't some giant conglomerate, even considering Slitherine.  They are most likely less than 10 people.  But through connections they made with Close Combat, Harpoon, and now CMO, they have managed to carve out a space for themselves and established a beachhead in some MoDs and DoDs.  They partnered with a couple defense contractors to get a foot in the door.  Its something BFC could have done if they had the mind.  There is nothing special Matrix/Slitherine did other just put their head down and do it.  Companies like eSim and Matrix have put the effort into doing this and are now in the drivers seat for companies like BFC.
..

Why is the Matrix/Slitherine logo shown, but not BFC's?  I know the dstl have worked with the Command devs at Matrix for a while now.  Just seems weird they show all CM clips, but no mention of BFC.

Not particular to this scenario, but...
Vehicles like the Puma and its brethren are not scouts.  They are long range recon units built to feel out larger scale enemy locations and report to higher level HQ for more operational decision-making.  In CM, they are typically not used at the right scale.  Not to say they can't be useful as a base of fire for infantry units.  But sending them down the road as scouts is a very quick way to end their little virtual lives.
Where the Puma shines is on long range recon patrols supporting other more lightly armed ACs and HTs.  The best scenarios for the Puma is as part of a larger recon force tasked with penetrating an enemy's recon screen or creating a screen against enemy recon units.   Again, not saying they were never used in a pinch in a desperate straight up fight, but units like that are too valuable to throw away unless absolutely needed.
Also, IIRC, the Puma and the 234 family had a special muffler system that dropped its engine noise to barely a whisper.  Not sure if CM models that.

And they will pay the price for your lack of concern for their well being.

I am a little skeptical that its all related to the calculations on the fly.  For one, it seems to make no difference in realtime or wego play.  Most of the calcs should have already done for a replay, but I see no difference in fps.  For the second, in wego, I run tests where I have not moved a single unit just to see what happens.  No perceptible impact on FPS.  
I am sure the calcs plays some role, but I am not sure how significant it is  

Maybe take a look at how Graviteam games do it.  The explicitly model cable and signal people in defensive setups.  And they use colored smoke as a signaling method also, especially for offensive operations.  The games have a pretty tight C2 representation, that might be a little too detailed, but they have various options you can turn off.

An amateur's view...
The entire purpose of the Stryker was strategic mobility, not tactical mobility.  The Stryker was developed to give infantry something more than a truck, which has limited tactical usefulness, and marching.  And to also be able to be deployed by lighter air transport.  Then once on the ground, be faster and more mobile than a truck or foot.
The main strategic component, beyond mobility, was to be information.  The ability to integrate tactical and some strategic information for use in removing FOW for tactical commanders was supposed to be the secret sauce.  And in the game and in real life, people are trying to use Strykers like faster Bradleys.  In game, its the fault of players and scenario designers.  And of course, at design time, budgets were a factor as well.
In Steel Beasts, there are a number of Stryker-like vehicles.  There are even Stryker Dragoon-like vehicles, like DF-30s and BTR-82As.  In current modern armies, there is a wave of wheeled APC/IFVs that have come through.  SB shows that these vehicles do well in low-intensity combat and where you need to move long distances reliably and quickly.  But as soon as you hit serious enemy forces, you need to drop infantry and move back to cover.  Those wheeled APCs/IFVs get chewed up very quickly.  They are limited in how they can be successfully deployed for combat.  One thing SB also shows is that sending unsupported Stryker-like units across open fields is not good if limiting casualties is your goal.  You better make sure you recon real well.
Again, just an amateur's view from playing CM and SB.

So maybe I need to be specific...where is this mob of enraged CMBO fans in that thread.  I can't believe we have to get down to defining words.  So what is "some"?

And I think the thread helps make my main point that "certain" beta testers continue exaggerate the response of a very small number of people to make their points.  Never thinking that someone might actually check it.  MickeyD in particular.  He has a lot of memories that seem to get embellished over the years.

That's true of almost any business that has any connection to the internet or social media.  You can't be in business today in the US if you have thin skin.  You do what's good for your business.  If you are too concerned about what people think about you, your business's days are numbered.

Steel Beasts does a few things to alleviate unit overload. 
1) Individual units have some very good AI that takes care of positioning and retreat.  I don't have to tell a unit to go to that exact spot and stay hull down.  I give it a general area and an SOP.  It figures out the speed to get there, whether to use a covered route, when to expose itself to fire at the enemy, etc.  As an example, there is a thread on these boards about gun elevation on tanks and the difficulty in programming the AI.  In SB, the unit AI knows when to move out from cover to shoot and when to back into cover, considering elevation along with a number of factors.
2) The commands you use to build an AI plan in the editor are available in the game for friendly forces.  I can pretty easily script complex plans for units that branch based on what types of enemy or conditions exist.  You can build in automatic fallback positions and resupply positions.  You can tell a unit to drop infantry and when artillery starts falling, go pick them up.  An almost innumerable number of things you can do just using an options dialog.
3) SOPs are critical to AI behavior.  They combine dozens of commands and settings into 6-7 basic SOPs.  FOr example, a scout SOP will have slow move, move through road, don't fire, retreat, move is incoming artillery, dismount troops, etc. all combined into one command to your recon units.
Its fairly common in SB to command a small unit while the AI is fighting the bigger unit and your sister units around you.  Its a pretty cool experience when done right.  And again, I never play an individual unit.  I play it as a wargame with the tools that SB provides out of the box.
When compared to CM2, SB comes very close to being a command simulator.  CM2 reminds me of a 3D board game with having to be the brains of every unit during execution.

That I never knew.  Good tip.

This...every game I play, Steel Beasts, CMNAO, Jutland, etc. are all very complex simulations.  But they all have abstractions.  If there were no abstractions, you would actually be living the event.  I bet you wouldn't find much fun in that.  Its much more fun to come into a forum, misconstrue and misrepresent what someone is saying and vent in righteous indignation.

This...every game I play, Steel Beasts, CMNAO, Jutland, etc. are all very complex simulations.  But they all have abstractions.  If there were no abstractions, you would actually be living the event.  I bet you wouldn't find much fun in that.  Its much more fun to come into a forum, misconstrue and misrepresent what someone is saying and vent in righteous indignation.

Looks like someone left the gate open.

We have been hearing that for several years now.  After every release takes 2, 3 and 4 times as long as expected, we have people saying "just wait until XXX is released and that will open up the floodgates.  I think the big slow down was right after Chris left, though most of us didn't hear about that for almost a year.  Each time we go months and years between releases, the audience for CM2 stuff gets baked down to a smaller and harder core.
I'll come back to my original wish from back in the CMSF1 days.  Smaller and faster releases with more vehicle and scenario packs.  I would actually like to see more of those and fewer big releases.

Beta team, I think.  Its very hard to tell who is official who is beta team, and who is just a fan.  Beta team members also seem to contribute scenarios and other stuff, so, to me, its a very gray area.  Though Steve does come in and throw shade at customer demands now and then.  The gaming forums I visit tend to view these boards as a place not welcoming to even the slightest criticism.  I don't wholly subscribe to that, but the over-sensitivity like the above just reinforces the perception without any context.

Beta team, I think.  Its very hard to tell who is official who is beta team, and who is just a fan.  Beta team members also seem to contribute scenarios and other stuff, so, to me, its a very gray area.  Though Steve does come in and throw shade at customer demands now and then.  The gaming forums I visit tend to view these boards as a place not welcoming to even the slightest criticism.  I don't wholly subscribe to that, but the over-sensitivity like the above just reinforces the perception without any context.

Where is the criticism?  Being a little overly sensitive?  I was pointing out that at least we got the info, as opposed to going months without hearing anything. This kind of "the world is against us" approach to customer engagement sure doesn't help BFC's rep around the web.

/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

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.