Howler

Wouldn't we be better off simply adding a replay/rewind function to RT mode? The only reason I haven't bothered with RT play single player is the lack of re-watching the action. It would be nice to pause and skip back a minute or two to see the action... This playback buffer wouldn't need to hold more than a few minutes of elapsed play.

My apologies. I wasn't implying that I was not able to draw way points of 100's of meters in distance. I was responding to a post where the various movement commands where listed and the poster seemed to want some way for units to fire on the move. I've had some success by using a combination of shorter way points and pauses.

I'm likely playing it wrong but I have a hard time issuing movement way points longer than 30m (2-3 AS) without a pause of 10-20s. I make the teams Quick 2-3 AS... Pause 20s...Quick another 2-3AS. The Pause allows for a reasonable exchange of fire before moving closer to a known contact. When things get particularly nasty - the way points are Fast 1 AS (~8m) followed by a pause to shoot stuff up. Again, I might not be using Pause in the intended manner...

Searching results in an annual thread on TAs. A TA defines a firing lane. That's all it has ever done. To verify - setup a firing range and go to town. I find it worthwhile with scouts in that a short 100m limit allows them to hunt to within 100m of a spot. No magic involved... Firing lanes/areas serve to ensure that not every support/heavy weapon on the map is firing at the same target. Granted, this may be better appreciated in the modern titles. Why do you feel it should convey an advantage in spotting? I hope not as it means that my guys aren't shooting in one place while observing everywhere.

It didn't think TAs did much other than limit the range. For turreted vehicles, a pie shaped wedge on either side of the current facing would ensure the turret is rotated there, which could possibly make all the difference, while keeping the hull pointed in the facing direction. But otherwise, it's best to think of them as a limiter. They should spot all around while only firing inside the TA. I put a 360 TA on a scout team at 100m because I want them not to engage anything past 100m. I may put a 300m pie wedge on a squad because I don't want them engaging anything outside that 300m area. I assume they spot normally in either case.

I can't believe I've never picked up on that. My focus has always been on the binoculars... blinded to anything else I guess.

Play the US side progressing from smallest to largest. Once you have a good feel for the capabilities then play the UKR/RUS. No side spots as well as the US and this will flatten the curve as you come up to speed...

Close terrain is the opposite of open terrain. Anything that would force you to send troops into nooks and crannies for spotting purposes (ie shorter sight/fire lines). Specifically, for this discussion, anything that causes the path finding to work a little harder... tall walls, structures, streets, alleys, woods, bocage, etc... anything man made or natural that would cause a barrier. I have no idea what is verified. It's been near three years and counting that one needs to carefully choose which scenarios are playable in BN. I've had troops run head long into enemy positions in all such terrain in CMBN. All too often to make it playable for me. Thankfully, the modern titles are there to play instead. The patches for BS/SF2 are good. As I play WEGO, path finding will always be a 'sensitive' issue. I simply answered a post regarding the fitness of CMBN. Of all of the titles - it remains the most broken one for me.

At night yes. Otherwise, even coalition forces benefit from being unbuttoned. The difference just doesn't warrant them exposing themselves once the shooting starts. Everyone spots better in the day by eyeball. Period. Again, Abrams are the only vehicle I don't bother with. The others get buttoned once there's the slightest chance of mayhem. The RUS, UKR and SF2 forces benefit more from it. The Javelin CLU is an awesome spotting tool and no unit should ever leave home without it. The OP was inquiring about the MGS. It's worth popping the hatch for - at least until the lead flies.

It's across all titles while evading in close terrain. It's not apparent in BS/SF2 because things die fast. It's more apparent in BN. We tend to excuse troops rushing towards known enemy position in built-up areas. It's more flagrant in bocage and occurs too often to chalk it up to a "war story" . FI has such diverse content that you could overlook it there (aka good war story). I don't have FB or RT so YMWV.

True but, I try to keep my non Abrams vehicles unbuttoned until contact is made. With the MGS, spotting is better unbuttoned. The Russians need all the help they can get with spotting so, I'll even dismount the tank HQ unit to help the platoon... YMMV. Abrams are scary...

Specifically, the issue is OpenGL. I'm hoping BF will go Vulkan in CM3 when/if they opt to modernize the engine.

It remains a HTTP and not a HTTPS connection.

No.

ReShade preset used: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sr3sk2rtoonstxv/CM Shock Force 2 2020-02-10 11-35-14.ini?dl=0

New system build...copied installs from older drive to new one. Activated as required. Couldn't be more pleased with the result. All (CMBN, CMBS, CMSF2, CMFI) apps pause for 10 sec before starting (Battlefront splash window). Only CMFI throws the error in the event log (shown below). I've only played a few hours of mostly CMSF2 which has been smooth and error free. CMFI plays but an application (error) event is thrown in the background. Otherwise, the game starts, loads, and plays fine based on my limited play sessions. I downloaded the installer again despite the md5sum check passing on my original copy. Re-installed CMFI and CMBN (re-install test case) whereas the other two titles remain merely copied over and activated. ALL CM apps stall for 10s and don't crash allowing for normal play. I only discovered the CMFI issue while auditing the events log a day later. The strange thing I'll add is that the install size shows 16.5 GB. While the CMBN test case installed size shows a more reasonable 4.5 GB. Anyhow, thought I'd mention it in case it's helpful to battlefront. Log Name: Application Source: Application Error Date: 2020-02-09 9:03:10 AM Event ID: 1000 Task Category: (100) Level: Error Keywords: Classic User: N/A Computer: ##### (edit) Description: Faulting application name: CM Fortress Italy.exe, version: 0.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x5dddccc2 Faulting module name: CM Fortress Italy.exe, version: 0.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x5dddccc2 Exception code: 0xc0000005 Fault offset: 0x00001fa8 Faulting process id: 0x2190 Faulting application start time: 0x01d5df51a925b467 Faulting application path: C:\Games\Battlefront\Combat Mission Fortress Italy\CM Fortress Italy.exe Faulting module path: C:\Games\Battlefront\Combat Mission Fortress Italy\CM Fortress Italy.exe

Is there an ETA for CMBN on a fix for this issue?

No unit should EVER rush forward and towards known contacts when a simple movement back, away, and down slope from their position (hedges) is but 5 feet away. How is choosing to leave cover to run 20m forward fully exposed to a small rise in the open - EVER a good decision? Speaking for myself only - I still have no idea what factors are evaluated to produce an evasion way point. Until that changes - I can't show a failure. Ergo, there's no fault to correct. Perhaps your response to my question will help me better understand what to look for other than nearby HE, small rises in elevation, and small arms fire...

Load times will improve if you leave 3D Textures to balanced (the default).

I think the OP is observing that 150 rounds don't go very far and doesn't add much to the MG. While, I'm assuming their rate of fire falls in line with the general behavior of a lower rate of fire when engaged beyond effective range - it would be nice to somehow be able to explicitly control fire of the bearers. At the moment - it hurts to see them add their fire to the MG and results in their expending all rounds while the MG still has several hundred left. I believe the OP understands that it is what it is and doesn't expect a fix (it's not a bug - more a limitation of the engine).

I fear too many have done exactly that already. It'd be a shame to loose @RockinHarry and I know you feel that way also... sometimes that darn keyboard is too close in the heat of the moment.

Is anyone able to provide an update to the issue reported by @Falaise concerning a reproducible evade in the CMBN Roadblock scenario? He's able to show US troops rushing forward through a hedgerow gap 10 out of 10 times in patch 4.02. His post ... Is it considered a fault? Of so, what corrective action should be expected?

You're from the UK where reading comprehension is optional. I'll restate - if I want a dropbox/host/etc... to document an issue with BFC --- I'd have one. I'm not opening an account simply to send a savegame to a vendor. I don't even like my first born that much! In any event, I'll spam @IanL with saves until he cries uncle. I maintain that asking every customer to buddy-up with the chosen few is not an efficient means of capturing issues. But, it is what it is and I'll deal with it.

I was fortunate to have @IanL arrange an email exchange for a savegame illustrating the issue. Yes, in this day and age - I don't have a dropbox or whatever else is used by folks these days for moving files. Most people would think a save isn't a priority given that there is no formal way to provide one to this vendor. If saves are so important - could some official means of providing them be established by BFC? We all have accounts on this board and care enough to report which would seem to me that some secure mechanism could be setup to allow it. It could always be shutdown if it becomes abused. There is no sticky anywhere on this board detailing how users should provide these saves. I'm tired of people telling me that saves are required but not telling me how this can be done. Now, that is interesting. I'm my case, the one save sent to @IanL involving the CW 18 Platoon scenario, is fixed. It was always broken (rush forward and back) and is now never forward, sometimes stay in place, or otherwise backwards. So, 4.02 is an improvement.

FWIW, having patched CMBN and played my goto save game many times - the green team (my test case) no longer rushes forward and towards known contacts. Previously, all I needed to do was hit the red button, sometimes repeatedly upwards of four minutes, to see them rush forward. They now, invariably evade back. I'll try replicating other situations in different scenarios. Dunno if it's been fixed but it has improved.