Howler

Rather try Scourge of War: Waterloo
 
 

There are colored dots? Kidding, but I’m with Bulletpoint. I check through my FO’s and HQ’s for LOS and quickest arrival time . That’s the extent of my arty procedure.

I was under the impression that the Jan 7 date was a joke from Elvis.  They will release when it's ready and saying it will suddenly be ready Jan 7, 3+ months from now, seemed just make believe.  I think that date was Elvis being tired of being hounded for a date that he does not have.  Perhaps I am mistaken in this assumption?
But we should all be careful about adding to Elvis' stress at this painful time in his personal life -- his Philadelphia Eagles are winless after first 3 games.

I always thought that this bug related to narrow bridges but in one of the SF2 Task Force Thunder missions I encountered it on a wide highway bridge. Tried with a number of different vehicles but just got the "rubber band effect" about halfway across. Interestingly, I moved the cursor slowly across the bridge and found that at the point where the vehicles stopped I was getting an "impassable" sign as if I was trying to move the vehicle over the river below. This may explain why the vehicles would move no further. Would be interested to know if anyone else has noticed this on any of their bridge problems

Each CM game can be set to use a different camera control mode, Standard, RTS or FTS.  It might be that in CMBN your camera control got switched from Standard to RTS or FTS.  Just taking a guess.  It is explained on pages 14 and 15 of the 4.0 Engine Manual (not to be confused with the game manual) under Camera Control Mode.    

Listening to the Podcast with the founder at a little over the one hour mark he did say that Fire and Rubble was delayed due to the pandemic and their military contract but "will definitely be out this year".
With only a little over 3 months left in the year it should be out soon.

He's asking for volunteers. I'm not sure what @rocketman has done to you in the past that warrants you sidetracking his effort.

He's asking for volunteers. I'm not sure what @rocketman has done to you in the past that warrants you sidetracking his effort.

I think the vast majority of their customers never visit this site and are instead spending time actually playing the game. What makes you think we forum visitors represent the majority?

I think the vast majority of their customers never visit this site and are instead spending time actually playing the game. What makes you think we forum visitors represent the majority?

If BFC believed more transparency was needed - they'd do that. It's not you and this isn't the first time this topic has come up. There are two decades worth of posts here that attest to this.
All we can do is assume the CM Test Team (aka beta testers) is privy to more of the inner workings then we are. It took three years to undo the damage wrought by the 'evasion' fault and many save games, denials, resistance, etc. to get us to acceptance and ultimately a correction that brought back surrendering (rather than dead) troops. 
It was all accomplished without we pleebs ever gaining insights into how evasion way points are generated when a unit decides to decamp.
We'll never know if a more transparent process would have produced a correction after patch 4.01 or 4.02.
The Javelin guidance correction was issued within weeks. So, someone has a sense of 'severity'.
Save games rule. Keep posting until someone acknowledges the issue. That's the way we roll.
Welcome to the club. Don't take it personally. Play on.

You seem to be suggesting that BFC games are some sort of 'open beta' games or something.  That's not the case.  Bug tracking is not chaos for BFC.  Actual software that is designed for bug tracking is used by the company in order to get the appropriate information to the appropriate individuals and the beta testers are charged with providing the appropriate information through the use of that bug tracking software.  While it is appreciated when players find things in the game that may need to be addressed the gaming public has no obligations of any kind in terms of bug tracking.  Customers play the games and enjoy them if they like playing them or stomp around angrily if they don't like the games.  Players can report things or not report things as they desire.  Customers will know that a bug has been addressed when a patch gets released and the patch log is published.  Bug tracking, reporting, and fixing is the obligation of BFC to the customers who buy the game.  There is no obligation by those who play the game to track, report, and fix bugs.  If something gets reported on a public forum more than once or even not at all then it really makes no difference because the public forums are not where the bug tracking is done.  Describing BFC bug tracking as chaos is wildly misinformed.  It may be different than what some are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's chaos.
Leave the bug tracking to BFC.  Perhaps if you get invited to the Beta team some day then you can participate in all the bug tracking and reporting that you would ever want, but for now just go and play the game and enjoy yourself.  

If BFC believed more transparency was needed - they'd do that. It's not you and this isn't the first time this topic has come up. There are two decades worth of posts here that attest to this.
All we can do is assume the CM Test Team (aka beta testers) is privy to more of the inner workings then we are. It took three years to undo the damage wrought by the 'evasion' fault and many save games, denials, resistance, etc. to get us to acceptance and ultimately a correction that brought back surrendering (rather than dead) troops. 
It was all accomplished without we pleebs ever gaining insights into how evasion way points are generated when a unit decides to decamp.
We'll never know if a more transparent process would have produced a correction after patch 4.01 or 4.02.
The Javelin guidance correction was issued within weeks. So, someone has a sense of 'severity'.
Save games rule. Keep posting until someone acknowledges the issue. That's the way we roll.
Welcome to the club. Don't take it personally. Play on.

If BFC believed more transparency was needed - they'd do that. It's not you and this isn't the first time this topic has come up. There are two decades worth of posts here that attest to this.
All we can do is assume the CM Test Team (aka beta testers) is privy to more of the inner workings then we are. It took three years to undo the damage wrought by the 'evasion' fault and many save games, denials, resistance, etc. to get us to acceptance and ultimately a correction that brought back surrendering (rather than dead) troops. 
It was all accomplished without we pleebs ever gaining insights into how evasion way points are generated when a unit decides to decamp.
We'll never know if a more transparent process would have produced a correction after patch 4.01 or 4.02.
The Javelin guidance correction was issued within weeks. So, someone has a sense of 'severity'.
Save games rule. Keep posting until someone acknowledges the issue. That's the way we roll.
Welcome to the club. Don't take it personally. Play on.

Lol, watching CM Youtube AARs I'm constantly trying to manipulate the camera. 

I recall back in CMSF1 days I was putting together a dusk scenario. As the game progressed it would get darker and darker, then it suddenly got brighter again! I was perplexed by this until someone pointed out I had inadvertently timed the scenario to correspond with moonrise. Yes, the moon cresting the hills just after sunset made the map brighter again.

Me thinks too. 

@Erwin if what you describe is indeed not a coincidence in a particular situation, but more general I think indeed something isn't right. Haven't checked it myself or have much time to check. But a save from where someone just has to advance turns is a good way to start a case which someone can pickup from.

I think he's asking you to share a save game showing the defect you've been exposing on.

Back before this age of corporate welfare, copyright protected the creator for a reasonable period of time. Our culture didn't need permission for expression... now it serves corporate interests to lock that down.
Apologies, a pet peeve.
 
On topic: As long as it's not being sold without first securing a license from BFC - user generated content has been, and still is, tolerated if not encouraged.
 
BTW, merely attempting to contact rights holder does not mean it's OK to distribute without a formal grant. You need the copyright holder to expressly grant you the "right".
It very important to society that our culture becomes one of asking for "permission" to a particular "gatekeeper". Otherwise, we run the risk of enriching society without applying a corporate "tax" (sorry - I'll stop).

I always play aiming for zero casualties, especially single player. That obviously doesn't always work out.

The leadership bonus is supposed to affect firepower. I do recall reading that in one of the early manuals for SF1 or maybe CMBN?. In terms of what it does, my understanding is that it gets more men shooting in the right direction and at the right targets, which will of course increase how much damage they inflict.
edit: found it, under the heading  "Leaders" in your game manual: "Leaders...direct fire to be more effective". (ref: Game Engine Manual v 4.00, p. 68)

Could have swore I saw someone post the link to this, but I just checked and didn't see it. So, here it is, the link to Josey's excellent breakdown. 
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/the-relationship-between-soft-factors-morale-fatigue.26498/

My understanding, which in part comes from Josey's findings, indicate that a well led unit generally reacts better to things like suppression. They will still suffer permanent morale damage (say, most of the squad is wiped out and their platoon is shredded) but they retain more combat effectiveness after being suppressed or suffering from another significant emotional event. 

From Josey's write-up:
 

I too am a cautious player and also a scenario designer.  Sometimes there are constraints on scenario lengths and for me the main one is reinforcement slot availability related to having units that do not appear in order to create a situation in which the AI does not surrender early.  Unfortunately, the latest reinforcement slot is at the three hour point which means that the longest viable scenario length in this situation is two hours and 30 minutes.  Nevertheless, any designer worth their salt should have done a time appreciation and tested their scenario to make adjustments as necessary.  That said, time is a factor in any tactical problem and I've played quite a few scenarios where time is tight which creates a sense of tension all of its own.  Some players like this, some don't which is why I generally try and design to my play style and give the player as much leeway in time as possible.

Do modern troops yell louder?😁

The arc will always face the direction you set it, regardless of movement during the turn.