Howler

By complexity, I mean the effort required to maintain the code base. I'm not implying that CM is more feature/model rich, or "realistic", than any similar product on the market. I also don't think partnering with Steam is the 'silver bullet' that will miraculously resolve all issues. I view Steam as a distribution platform. As such, I'm not convinced it gets us much closer. In other words, I'm willing to grant that Steam could simplify a release (patching) process. I'm not sure Steam helps significantly to the construction effort leading to a release which seems to be where we are at. One thing that we should expect is better management of expectations. The rest is woulda, coulda, shoulda. Hopefully we all take away lessons learned...

I understand the point that you're trying to make. It has some validity when the design lends itself to rapid alterations. I just happen to be one of these "if it's not broke" Luddites and would rather not see any patches to a design this "complex". Sure, "content" tweaks are one thing. The current "mods" attest to how benign such alterations can be as the likelihood of impacting engine behavior is minimal. Altering unit responses under certain conditions and path finding are more fundamental and apt to cause a lot of problems with perceived 'fitness'. Some caution is warranted even if it means years... I suspect we are dealing with an older code base that is straining. There seems to be a lot of effort lately to consolidate core features after the fact. Perhaps to be better positioned for CM3... dunno. I'm an optimist that way. You get to point where your process and discipline was excellent 20 years ago, good at 15, fine at 10, doable at 5 but, then very rapidly breaks as the years of Christmas's past all come home to bite you. It's always something that is at first perceived to be 'minor' that kills such a host. I do understand your point. I would rather we deal with expectations and transparency as it's better to always be 6 months away over the course of 22 months than it is to always be 3 months late, or imminent, over the same period.

If I may - there's nothing wrong with loose ETAs as long as they are in the future. Push the ETA out further before you slip past it. The worst that happens is that you deliver "early" as in something intended for a month(s) down the road is out next week instead. It's easier to be forgiven for delivering sooner. Sure, you'll have someone bitch that you said June but actually released it April 30th. But most will forgive. The reverse isn't true as these, now, 23 pages of posts attest to. All the best. Always.

Whining has more to do with no information, let alone a simple revised ETA, being provided. It's not rocket science - revise a slipped March deadline by providing a *timely* update of... July or October or early-2020 [pick a date]. Posting every other month that we're almost there isn't an effective way of communicating with your customers. It's not that complicated. What you want to avoid is the mishandling of expectations. Said expectations being set initially, not by the customer, but by the developer. It's not difficult... post an an update before you blow past the last one. Otherwise, you mangle expectations. Anyhow, it is what it is. It's obviously more effective to be reactive rather than to be proactive with deliverables. Plus, it's lot more fun to be wading through 22 pages of my useless posts than it would be to reference a locked thread of *timely* updates from the developer. Now let's back to eating our young...

@BFCElvis was kind enough to say that no ETA can be given for BS. I'm good with that as it acknowledges that a patch is forthcoming. As for the SF2 campaigns, I'm only looking for something only the lines of July or October or whenever. No ETA for the campaigns is fine. At least now, I can stop thinking it's imminent. I realize that there are only 24 hours in a day and that stuff happens. I'm sure you testers are doing your best and that priorities are dictated to you. It's often a thankless job but I nonetheless thank you and your fellow brethren for your good efforts.

How does this impact CMBS? It shares more with SF2 than with any of the WWII titles. I understand the German TOE would have tendrils in all the WWII titles. What I'm not getting is why the SF2 campaigns are months late and the BS patch seems to be tied into the WWII stuff. We still have no ETA for any of the outstanding modern releases (BS & SF2 campaigns).

Again... beating a dead horse.... Roadmap deliverable A date X deliverable B date Y deliverable C date Z Don't need to know details. Absolutely prefer periodic updates that are better than quarterly. We seem to be no farther ahead than we were when SF2 was released in December... This wouldn't be a problem if this was known months ago. I'm not sure what to make of an update that is even less informative than the previous one issued last Jan/Feb.

I'm not sure what could be further delaying the CMBS patch in that case. It should've been fairly straightforward from a TOE perspective... Anyhow, it's good to know a patch for CMBS is also incoming.

Appreciate the update. Doesn't sound like we should be expecting a patch to CMBS. Is this so? Also, can you provide an ETA for the outstanding campaigns (CA/UK/etc) in CMSF2?

You can also call "heavy" artillery (155+mm) on suspected locations to blast them away. You'll know the barrage can be ended once 'green signs' start showing. One nice to have feature would be mine clearing equipment. CMBN has it (VP module?) but neither modern title have any.

This thread is 19 pages long when it could've been simply a series a monthly posts from Steve outlining a road map with a simple date associated to each entry. The closer releases could even narrow it down to a day with the farthest ones to a simple year. Like... CMSF2 Canadian Campaign --- May 15, 2019 CMSF2 UK Campaign --- July 1, 2019 Patch CMBN --- July 15, 2019 CMFI Module - Rome to Victory --- Spring 2020 CMRT Module --- 2021 Lock the thread so we don't need to parse 19+ pages of off-topic posts. Do the introduction/PR work describing products in other thread elsewhere. As someone said to me recently - it ain't rocket science and this isn't the 90's where customers are unaccustomed to the ways of computers. People nowadays appreciate a little transparency. Personally, I don't want constant monthly patches. I prefer releases that are thoroughly vetted and ready when BFC says it's ready. I just don't understand how hard it is to simply assign (a made up) date estimate to each entry in your already published product roadmap and auto-post the first of every month. Anyhow, let's get back to this constructive thread where we eat our young...

It's got nothing to do with rocket science. It's just common courtesy which, granted, seems to be not as common today. You've chosen twice in this thread to be less than welcoming or helpful. Learn... to.. let.. it...pass. I won't be responding further as I have learned the above. I also don't have any particular axe to grind with you. Be well,

I would appreciate a simple one-liner stating Product X revised to [DATE X]. Don't need to know why. Would prefer to be notified as early as possible of variances. Again, don't need details. I'm accustomed to the P500 monthly updates from GMT so, often see 3-6 month swings in schedules. I find it adequately serves to manage one's expectations. A simple CMSF2 Canadian Campaign revised to June 2019. What I have instead is February 2019 posted January 2019. What am I supposed to do with that?

Either point him to a post describing board etiquette, or assume he's still relatively new, at 12 posts, and let it pass. Or, you can do what you did which is less welcoming, helpful, or instructive.

The QB is consistent with the other v4 titles (BN, RT, FB, BS, etc.). Does this answer your question?

I'm certain there will be more than a few updates on this matter April 1st from just about anyone with a sense of humor.

On large tree filled maps in CMBS it can take 90s for me. Welcome to the club... I guess.

I can't wait for the patches to drop so we can get back to bashing the game we all love... I'm sure there will be a bren not firing to someone's liking. Meanwhile I look forward to whining about the pathfinding.

During setup, one can call artillery anywhere on the map sight unseen. It's common to play PBEM with the defender not being allowed to bombard the attackers setup zone for the first few turns. The attacker is allowed preparatory barrages from the get go. It's no fun being attacker and having your setup zone(s) bombarded before one has had a chance to move off. It's makes for a short and very boring game. Discuss/negotiate with your opponent.

I understand why it was in RT. I also understand why it might be safer to keep the TOE/engine feature in the subsequent FB release rather than try to remove it from vehicles that are common to both RT and FB. Less disruptive resulting in fewer faults being raised... What I fail to see is why some players regard it as important as it wasn't doctrine in either BN or FI to ride into battle on a tank. Would you, by any chance, remember why it was important to some players? It certainly isn't considered an exception in BS, SF, or SF2. It's not doctrine. Ergo...

@BFCElvis this link to the updated campaigns under patches doesn't either. Should it? https://battlefront.sharefile.com/share/view/s3eadf98f66a46769

Stop. Being. Rational. Apologies to George Conway...

Javelin ATGM Launcher == launcher (CLU) + missile Javelin ATGM == missile Total Launcher (CLU) + 2 missiles Hopefully this has clarified my post. I was little concerned for little girl @Vergeltungswaffe...

The army will have both the Javelin missile and launcher like this ... You need the Javelin ATGM Launcher (CLU). Once you have a CLU, you acquire reloads by choosing Javelin ATGM (missile only). The image above shows two warheads and one CLU. Acquiring the Javelin ATGM Launcher gives you both a CLU and a missile. While acquiring the Javelin ATGM gives you only a missile. The marines will have Javelin ATGM (missile only). They have dedicated Javelin teams so, an officer grabbing a missile as you mention has nothing (no CLU) to fire it.

For IanL... Different angle. All hurting. Walk in the park now... Explosions provided by @37mm... and Abrams on overwatch.