Kinophile

Y'all just had to feed him, lmfao.
 

It is not a "bug" it is attention to how the AI may react in a given set of circumstances.  They can't program a "correct" response for everything the game may have as a result.

I would prefer if moving ONTO  balconies could be made to work the way moving from room to room does now. That is...in order to get the troops to enter the balconies the player would need to place a waypoint on the balcony itself...as if the balconies where treated as seperate rooms.
With the 'facing option' you could not set up your defenders to face in the direction of the balconies but still remain inside the building.
Unfortunatelly this 'seperate room' version of the balconies is probably not so easy to do either...when it comes to programing...
 
 
 
 

Funnily enough, during Beta testing I can't recall any testers actually complained about balconies. I don't think there have been any changes. Perhaps we've simply grown used to the 'tactical difficulties' inherent in throwing troops onto a balconied floor. I recall a couple months ago quipping (half-joking) that if a scenario designer has put a balcony on a building in a scenario you should assume he's deliberately messing with you.

I am disappointed by the fact that the biggest thread on the CMSF2 forum is named "disappointed"

Well, in my experience in development, it's important to focus on critical and, yet, attainable goals. Much like how any offensive/defensive has to focus its resources and efforts at the "right" points. So it is with games.
Could CM have much-requested features like dynamic campaigns, co-op and MULTI-player? Hypothetically, sure. Yet, in development -- everything is a trade-off. When you focus on one aspect, others become weaker. This is just as true for small developers, as well as large developers. I would even argue that this chaotic changing of focus, in order to meet forecasted demand, is why the video game industry is in the state it is now.
I think the most shining, and current, example would be this Battle Royale phase that plagued this year's E3. There are plenty of developers of big game franchises that bit the dust after they lost focus of what made them popular and profitable. Great many of these failures also came from putting too much money into titles that catered to a specific audience.
BFC knows what CM does, and knows their audience intimately. They know their focus and how many resources are required. I respect that -- it's rare, these days. All I am saying is be careful what you wish for. You could get Mass Effect: Andromeda.

I am really grateful that your responses have been courteous and informative. My initial post is obviously a strong sentiment. Some see it as 'trolling', but I've been a player since CMAK, I'm passionate about gaming and the CM line, and the Shock Force series touches on a personal interest of mine. 

Game engine developed in the 1990s? Huh? If you're going to post ad hominem attacks get your facts right at least.

Excellent you got him to use up a valuable TOW missile!

This is a very interesting gif. I've watched it a few times now to confirm what I think I am seeing. It appears, based on this gif, that the 4.0 infantry bug is not present. Granted, there are no indirect fires here, but that was not the only trigger of the bug. There is a lot of fire at close range with casualties sustained on both sides of the fight, some of the casualties being caused by RPG/HE rounds, and none of the units seem to be displacing willy-nilly. 
I know it is early in the fight, but have you noticed any changes to the infantry behavior that confirm or dispute my observations here?
This BMP-2 model looks fantastic. Props to whoever skinned it. 

We often talk about the game in terms of the reality on the ground today but don't forget that BFC have created a fictitious back story that includes a non trivial effort to modernize the Ukrainian army before the conflict starts. So, we can feel free to try to simulate on the ground now scenarios but the game design defaults are *not* simulating that.

It could be a real case of high speed blind retarded monkey fisticuffs... 

The monitor isn't doing the redraw, thats the GFX card. 
Fast monitor is fine, but for graphics results the monitors hardware  technology is essentially irrelevant ref CM. It comes down to, I believe, GFX and chip. 

I'm toiling through a mini-campaign about a UKR battalion trying to escape kettle & destruction by RUS/Rebel forces. It's based across a single giant map, each battle directly and geographically adjacent to the next and previous ones.
It's fundamentally designed for Real Time play. Although perfectly capable of TB style, RT is where it shines. And by "shines" I mean lit by the burning hulks of BTRs bogged down in 2 feet of mud and bracketed by unceasing RUS artillery.
Fun times!
I'm going less for narrative and more for in-media-res style - ie you don't get setup time or to repo units much, you need to roll with each battle as it happens to you. Several maps have different firefights going on at the same time, making full control (in RT)  nigh on impossible - you literally, must pick what fight to win at any given time. This is where RT might give a far better and more accurate feel to the simultaneous chaos of combat (not that I really know).
Its a slog, but I'm enjoying it..ish.
Only about 2 months left...

Well the trick is with an active transmitting radar on the target you may not need your own radar to pick up its position, just a passive radar receiver, that is exactly how anti radiation missiles these days work which are designed to knock out AA radars. The missile´s sensor head picks up the radar´s emission, at best the pilot invests further time to allow for a better target solution, next you launch the missile and it homes onto the enemy radar source, going fire-and-forget at some point, and hits without the target noticing in most cases. AA radars have also Radar-Warning-Receivers but these don´t react to these passive emission-guided weapons.  Although newer ARM´s often have an additional radar which is often used to pinpoint its terminal guidance. This also makes it possible to hit the target even when it goes dark i. e. switches of its active radar.
To get back to topic, if it is really an effective way to combat tanks on basis of their APS emissions I can´t tell for sure but for now it looks like this has no priority. Sure it brings the huge possible advantage of engaging ground vehicles un-assisted beyond visible or IR range but at the moment combat aircraft nevertheless have complete superiority over tanks (when enemy SAM and Air threats are covered of course). A conventional optical/infared AGM (like Maverick or KH-29) needs a closer distance but can do the same job, probably cost less then an ARM, and can engage a bigger variety of targets with or without APS.
However the ability to pick up these enemy APS emissions with passive radar receivers could come with a huge tactical advantage alone already for ground and air forces.
But never say never when it comes to military technology, who knows, as this systems become continuous proliferated somebody may one day see reason to design specific weapons to exploit the radar emission of APS systems.

Re AI editor - I agree/disagree... 
AGREE: Yes, its actually pretty adaptable, and with careful triggers can "react" to human activity. My best AI results have been from playing a map multiple times against humans, noting and copying their actions (in whole/part) and building subsequent AI plans upon that historical record.
I've used one human oppo's ambush against me as an AI plan and it worked perfectly against him when He playtested for me. Revenge by proxy :). 
DISAGREE: Boy, does that UI, wording and implementation approach need a massive update. My personal preference would be to be able to extract every single order, as a log file, from a faction in a particular battle and simply paste in as a pre-made AI plan into another map. Open it up in the editor and tweak each order as you like it. 
Essentially, take a replay, change the map and be able to scrub through the turns, adjusting orders per faction turn to account for the differences. 
Oh if wishes were fishes.... 

CM community is one of the few places on the Internet where you can expect the honor rule to actually work out

Actually, that lack of total control is fundamentally what appeals to me. 
Versus AI it makes life that bit harder, and thus a more interesting game. The AI essentially gets an advantage over me, but only as much as I let it through lack of planning, foresight and reaction. Thus majesty fight trickier, without artificially buffing the AI (I only play Iron anyway). 
Versus Humans, the above 3 mental requirements are even more important, adding in the random elements of human deviousness, incompetence and bad luck.

At first I thought it was Photoshopped, honestly :). 
But you've explained very clearly and succinctly, thank you! Appreciated. 

Chapter VI, Chapter VII or Chapter 6.5 operation? What is the mandate for UNFUK (United Nations Force in the Ukraine). Would a pre-emptive UN deployment to head off a Russian invasion be achievable? It is certainly doable under Article 42 but Russia is a member of UNSC so it is unlikely that it will sign up to it.

Ambush!!

That's kind of the direction I took it too.   If you looked at my old Company at a few weeks into a gunnery/training exercise, we'd only be slightly better shaved (because the US Army is still pretty serious about that, although tanker mustaches wouldn't be uncommon), a lot of our gear would look pretty trashed (well worn, but also knocked around/we'd wear our most torn up stuff to the field).

Simply a lot of dirt, lowered hygiene, some unbuttoned pouches doesn't make for a non-functional unit.  The German solider has a highly inflated opinion of his own capabilities from my experience, but it's in the way they're within the realm of being "very capable" just they look around the room and believe themselves to be a few dozen steps above their peers because Deutsche! * but I'd still put good money on them in a fight if it came down to it.

*Take his all with a grain of salt, but working with other countries:

French: The most frustrating mix of very component and very relaxed you will encounter.  Like I imagine a French pilot in a crashing plane would do everything reasonable to keep it from crashing, once that had happened mutter "merde" to themselves, shrug and have a smoke waiting for the plane to explode while the American would die trying to fashion a new engine from the gum wrappers in his pocket and some duct tape up to the point of impact.

British: They're very tired.  Like they're professional but they're really quite sick of whatever nonsense you colonials/continentals are rousted up about.  It doesn't matter if the field itself was invented last week, somehow they'll act as if Wellington himself had an Electronic Warfare Company at Waterloo, and the British have been doing it forever.  In the event they are incorrect this will rarely be acknowledged.  Whatever kit you have is also entirely too much for the job.  You have two radio nets available in your tanks?  We get by with one.  You have only one radio?  Our tanks are connected by no 4 wire and a Lance Corporal or something.  

Poles:  Less exposure, but they seem constantly a little amused.  Americans have tanks?  Who knew?  These computers you have, they turn on when you want them on?  Magic!  Your food, has it caused anyone to explode.  No, I don't mean in the bathrooms I mean literally, do not ask.  Fascinating!  May I have?  You're never sure if they're taking the piss or actually impressed.  Generally good dudes though, if absolute murder to get their names right.

German: Thinks they're the legacy of the Prussian military machine that made Europe quake, is the legacy of social welfare state that has money for post kindergarten's omni-sex bathroom and masseuse for teachers, not for fuel for tanks.

Japanese: Everyone is in total agreement with this plan we made two weeks ago for the operation we are committing to in two hours.  The movements of the enemy are inconsequential to this fact, we are all in agreement, this is where we are going to go because we are in agreement (this is where I had to add in one caveat.  The Japanese are aware of this, and getting a lot better at working on the fly, it's just when they're not a "good" unit they default a lot to "this is the plan we follow because it's the plan we agreed on" vs "this best meets the intention")

Russian: I'm a spy.  You know I'm a spy, I know I'm a spy, I'm going to pretend to be sneaky about this because we are playing a game about it, but we all know why I'm here.  Yep, I just took out my camera and took some shots.  Oh bother the Chinese guy is in the way again.

Chinese: YOU STUPID AMERICANS DO NOT KNOW I AM SPY.  I AM CLEARLY NOT AN INTELLIGENCE AGENT I AM JUST A CHINESE PERSON MYSTERIOUSLY APPEARING IN A PLACE WITH NO CHINESE PEOPLE.  I AM SNEAKILY TAKING A MILLION PICTURES OF EVERYTHING YOU HAVE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO ME.  I AM SO SNEAKY.  I AM THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS ****TY AFRICAN VILLAGE IN PERFECTLY CLEAN KHAKIS, MY SHOES ARE NOT DUSTY, AND HAVE THREE THOUSAND DIFFERENT SENSORS HANGING OUT OF MY BACKPACK BUT YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO SEE ME BECAUSE I AM A SPY.  HAHA DUMB AMERICANS WHY ARE THEY ALL LOOKING AT ME SO MUCH?
Thai: WE ARE ALL GENERALS PLEASE DIRECT US TO THE ONE PRIVATE IN THE THAI ARMY SO HE CAN CARRY OUR BAGS.

Korean: It's a lot of solid, squared away soldiers with a generous helping of weird people hiding out in weird corners (the ROKA captain showing up with a Gucci tote and an umbrella to a field exercise was a major wtf) and a dose of semi-subversive conscripts ("Hai, Mr American Captain Man, please allow me to tell you how terrible my chain of Command is and are you in needing of a KATUSA by chance?")

Americans: WE ARE HERE TO HELP BY IGNORING WHATEVER WISDOM YOU MAY HAVE AND ATTEMPTING TO AMERICAN OUR WAY OUT OF ALL PROBLEMS WITH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, EXPLOSIVES, OR BOTH WHICH WE WILL FLAGRANTLY LORD OVER YOU WITHOUT REALIZING IT ON ALL OCCASIONS.  

I think we need some meditation and spiritual healing 

Which counts as a win for Hezbollah, no? Their stated objective was to simply exist after the war, as a coherent organisation. Israel's objective was to defeat them, militarily at least. Who achieved their aims?
Whatever reasons the Israeli military might dress up their non-achievement with, in the end Hezbollah is still there, stronger than ever, despite the 2006 offense, which purpose was to degrade and defeat Hezbollah. Ergo, Hezbollah achieved their aim (keep existing) and Israel did not. Which is way more than a draw.
Similarly, I've heard/read many commentators in US media describe the 2nd US War in Iraq as a "failure". Yet, to me, the objective of that war, post-invasion, was to keep a friendly, popularly elected (in reasonably free and fair elections, pretty damn rare for that region) governmental system in existence, functional and strengthening. Despite Al Queda, the civil war,  the ISIS defeats, that political system is still very much there, and now with an arguably far better and more experienced army. AQI is gone. ISIS is hanging on by fingernails and the civil war has stopped. I'd rate that as the US achieving its aims and its opponents not doing so. Ergo, a win.
Steve @Battlefront.com has argued that Debatlsev' was actually a win for Ukraine - its objective, to him, was to keep its front line forces together, operating coherently. The army (well the LOCAL commanders) managed to extricate themselves out. A full kettling and surrender would undoubtedly have been catastrophic for UKR morale and political capital, something naturally desired by Putin (we assume). He got second prize ( a heavy local military defeat) but not first prize - a heavy strategic and political defeat. I can see Steves point, but I still call a retreat a "retreat", and a loss of a territory, badly need men and material still a loss of same.
So while UKR fox did escape the bear claws with the bear only getting to bite off the tail -the fox is still tail-less and bleeding. To me, Debaltsev is a tactical win (for RUS) but a strategic draw. Yet, to go back to Israel/Hezbollah, seeing as Russia/Putin's aim was to destabilize and erode the UKR state further, and did not achieve that, then UKR did win..sorta...kinda...

Which counts as a win for Hezbollah, no? Their stated objective was to simply exist after the war, as a coherent organisation. Israel's objective was to defeat them, militarily at least. Who achieved their aims?
Whatever reasons the Israeli military might dress up their non-achievement with, in the end Hezbollah is still there, stronger than ever, despite the 2006 offense, which purpose was to degrade and defeat Hezbollah. Ergo, Hezbollah achieved their aim (keep existing) and Israel did not. Which is way more than a draw.
Similarly, I've heard/read many commentators in US media describe the 2nd US War in Iraq as a "failure". Yet, to me, the objective of that war, post-invasion, was to keep a friendly, popularly elected (in reasonably free and fair elections, pretty damn rare for that region) governmental system in existence, functional and strengthening. Despite Al Queda, the civil war,  the ISIS defeats, that political system is still very much there, and now with an arguably far better and more experienced army. AQI is gone. ISIS is hanging on by fingernails and the civil war has stopped. I'd rate that as the US achieving its aims and its opponents not doing so. Ergo, a win.
Steve @Battlefront.com has argued that Debatlsev' was actually a win for Ukraine - its objective, to him, was to keep its front line forces together, operating coherently. The army (well the LOCAL commanders) managed to extricate themselves out. A full kettling and surrender would undoubtedly have been catastrophic for UKR morale and political capital, something naturally desired by Putin (we assume). He got second prize ( a heavy local military defeat) but not first prize - a heavy strategic and political defeat. I can see Steves point, but I still call a retreat a "retreat", and a loss of a territory, badly need men and material still a loss of same.
So while UKR fox did escape the bear claws with the bear only getting to bite off the tail -the fox is still tail-less and bleeding. To me, Debaltsev is a tactical win (for RUS) but a strategic draw. Yet, to go back to Israel/Hezbollah, seeing as Russia/Putin's aim was to destabilize and erode the UKR state further, and did not achieve that, then UKR did win..sorta...kinda...