Homo_Ferricus

Simple post, to hopefully keep your spirits up going into the Christmas season and dealing with all the post-launch issues
Thank you
Have a good day

You too huh? 
Goddam myopic piece of electronic junk! 

Since this is where the eyeballs are are right now and the topic is relevant to some of the buildings in the CMSF2 demo, I thought I'd post here. I'm working on a map for CMRT that has a number of very large multi-section modular buildings and have a question/suggestion about how the Engine currently handles the remaining sections and their walls after a modular section collapses. As things stand, the Engine will maintain whatever original wall choices were made for the remaining connected sections. Meaning, if you had say, 13 levels of single doors, you will see a column of 13 levels of single doors. Here is an example from the CMSF2 demo (the top two levels had their walls knocked out by post-section collapse arty):

Obviously, this is very unnatural - both visually and tactically.
With large buildings like this, internal connecting section walls are sometimes removed by designers. This has a number of benefits, but in regards to section collapse, it creates a more realistic tactical situation in that remaining modular sections now have an open wall against incoming fire. Thus, for example a defending unit might have full protection from fire coming across intact outer walls, but much less protection from fire coming through sections with removed "internal" walls that were connected to the collapsed modular section. See the example below:

From the front, this building offers full protection, but much less from the rear. Thus, a realistic and juicy tactical situation is created in that the attacker could try to flank the strong point and take it from the rear. I've tested this on my map and it works a treat.
However, the downside is that the visual aspect is still not ideal. Sometimes it looks okay (like in the above pic, IMO). Others, very unnatural, depending on the building design and damage results. Like these magically floating buildings for example:

 
It seems to me that an obvious, low-investment solution would be for the Engine to simply swap out the wall sections on any remaining formerly-connected sections with the graphic and functionality of the current knocked-out wall section, whenever a connected modular section collapses. So, instead of a column of single doors or nothing, you get a column of knocked-out walls. That would both solve the visual issue and provide a realistic tactical situation (less protection and easier spotting, but still more than a removed wall). Here's a quickie graphic summing things up:

 
Anyhoo, would love to see this addressed in an update/patch. Until then, I think case B is best for tall/very large multi-part buildings and I'm favoring that mostly on my map.

Video 1 looks like the Indirect Fire bug that @HerrTomhas alluded to. The unit takes 1 casualty and suffers about 70% suppression and  drops to the morale state of 'Nervous'. The unit leader is the casualty, but the assistant takes over who also has +1 Leadership. Can a hand grenade cause the Indirect Fire bug?
Video 2  looks like a typical auto evade when troops in the 'Rattled' morale state become Pinned.
I cannot comment on video 3 as I don't have any information on the unit status.
When I see my troops in CM behave in a way different to what I expect, I can typically 'roleplay out' the situation so as to be less dissatisfied with the result. 
It is hard to make that case here in either of the first 2 vids.
In vid 1, the unit does not panic, nor does it suffer from being led by an incompetent. The unit is merely dropped to 'Nervous' and still has a capable leader fronting it up. The unit is also aware of 2 enemy contacts to the north. I would therefore find it difficult to roleplay out the situation that developed and would come to the conclusion that something was wrong with the TacAI.
In vid 2, the unit is Rattled and (probably) Pinned whilst moving. The auto evade kicks in but again, I find it difficult to roleplay out that they would run back into the fire that was coming at them. Again I have to conclude that something here is wrong.
Having said that I have never witnessed a situation in any of my own games that I have not been able to roleplay out, but I've also never witnessed the Indirect Fire bug demonstrated by @IICptMillerII. That's not to deny it exists, just that I've not seen it in a game I've played. I do not have the Shock Force 2 demo.
 
 

Ahh the elusive Siamese Abrams. Didn’t realize these ever made it into production, let alone combat testing

WeGo, PBEM head to head, the contrast between control and no control and the ebb and flow of a game.
Playing CM against a human opponent is like a slow game of chess where you're trying to out think each other. Once everything's settled at home for the evening, I love opening up CM Helper to see my opponent has sent me a turn. Then the nail biting tension as I watch the replay file to see if my attack has worked, or if I've been a dumbass and got my elite pixeltruppen wiped out to a man.
CM is a brilliant, amazing, fantastic game. Is it the best game I've ever played? .....Probably!

Saving that for my visit to the Turkish border  

It’s worth pointing out that Battlefront is a small enough company that a major emergency for any one of the employees would be enough to wreck any posted delivery windows. Sometimes those emergencies are the kind that really consume you, and it may not be possible or appropriate to publicly talk about it because, a) it would reflect poorly on the business, and b) it’s just too personal to share with customers, at least while it’s happening in the moment.
I know some would say the customer is owed a notification about this sort of event, that it’s the burden of running a business. However considering Battlefront’s size this is a good reason why they might prefer to keep dates less-than-defined. If one person becomes suddenly unavailable or OBE, it’s not like there are other teams that can have their priorities switched to ensure a certain deadline is maintained.
I say: why freak out? If you are a preorder customer and you feel like you’ve been swindled, just cancel your order.If you have difficulty with that, have your credit card company reverse the charge on grounds of unrendered service or w/e. If it doesn’t bother you so much then continue to hang out and live your life while the gamesmiths finish forging their newest title. Nuff said.

It’s worth pointing out that Battlefront is a small enough company that a major emergency for any one of the employees would be enough to wreck any posted delivery windows. Sometimes those emergencies are the kind that really consume you, and it may not be possible or appropriate to publicly talk about it because, a) it would reflect poorly on the business, and b) it’s just too personal to share with customers, at least while it’s happening in the moment.
I know some would say the customer is owed a notification about this sort of event, that it’s the burden of running a business. However considering Battlefront’s size this is a good reason why they might prefer to keep dates less-than-defined. If one person becomes suddenly unavailable or OBE, it’s not like there are other teams that can have their priorities switched to ensure a certain deadline is maintained.
I say: why freak out? If you are a preorder customer and you feel like you’ve been swindled, just cancel your order.If you have difficulty with that, have your credit card company reverse the charge on grounds of unrendered service or w/e. If it doesn’t bother you so much then continue to hang out and live your life while the gamesmiths finish forging their newest title. Nuff said.

It’s worth pointing out that Battlefront is a small enough company that a major emergency for any one of the employees would be enough to wreck any posted delivery windows. Sometimes those emergencies are the kind that really consume you, and it may not be possible or appropriate to publicly talk about it because, a) it would reflect poorly on the business, and b) it’s just too personal to share with customers, at least while it’s happening in the moment.
I know some would say the customer is owed a notification about this sort of event, that it’s the burden of running a business. However considering Battlefront’s size this is a good reason why they might prefer to keep dates less-than-defined. If one person becomes suddenly unavailable or OBE, it’s not like there are other teams that can have their priorities switched to ensure a certain deadline is maintained.
I say: why freak out? If you are a preorder customer and you feel like you’ve been swindled, just cancel your order.If you have difficulty with that, have your credit card company reverse the charge on grounds of unrendered service or w/e. If it doesn’t bother you so much then continue to hang out and live your life while the gamesmiths finish forging their newest title. Nuff said.

After spending a couple of days in the countryside just a few miles from the border with Azerbaijan, I’m saddened to report I still haven’t been shot at. Sporadic clashes my ass!

Yes I will be travelling about without a desktop or laptop and unable to play CM. I'm not starting with a King's budget so I'd rather not make the investment now, and wait to enjoy it in the not-so-near future. I'll have to survive on forum lurking, AARs and Josey Wales videos on YT until I get back in front of a decent rig.

Been playing CMSF pretty regularly for the last decade, glad to see the update coming!
I haven't found a conclusive list of which v4.0 features are in and which ones are out for this upgrade--the thing I've recently been curious about it building degradation. CMBS and the WWII titles do this well with clean, undamaged buildings slowly becoming increasingly pock-marked and stained with gunfire before giving way piece-by-piece, some walls remain partially standing alongside gratuitous 3D rubble after building collapse. CMSF building walls only have two states--the wall is perfect, or completely gone. Collapsed buildings leave no walls standing and the rubble is somehow unconvincing. This has always made for unnatural-looking urbanscapes that just don't look or feel right. If I'm contesting a town with artillery and MOUT for an hour, it'd be much more immersive and strategically informative to see buildings changing states more gradually as we see in the newer titles.
Also wondering if environmental fires are in.
Thanks,

MikeyD,
This sort of preemptive defensiveness is annoying and I've seen it often in these forums. I have always been on Battlefront's side (since 2001) and do not 'demand' anything. That said your point is taken--we can't get everything we want, Battlefront has it's limitations and it's only acceptable.
FWIW I would pay double if we could get some additional improvements... Granted the amount of hours of enjoyment I've gotten out of CMSF1, my investment would be well worth it. I think this theater/era is particularly attractive to a number of crowds--modern warfare enthusiasts, SCW followers, veterans of ME conflicts, even average gamers whose interest is piqued by the political goings-on in that country/region. I don't mean to be an armchair game dev but I wonder if doubling down on the CMSF refresh might've paid for itself. It's impossible to know but damn it get your boots off my dreams!