Howler

So lets take a step back and look at this...
I was told that it was easy to create a link for a file to shared with betatesters looking at issues.  So I said that BFC should just create a link for a folder where those files can just be uploaded.  So instead of multiple people loading up files and and creating links, one entity, BFC, creates a public folder where saves can be uploaded to.  You can have all the control at BFC that you want on who can upload and who can't.  As a couple people have already said about this, its not rocket science.
So tell me how having multiple people having to upload files and create links individually is better for everyone than a single shared folder that betatesters can send links to for upload?

I am more than willing to pay more for faster patches and releases.  I have said this for many years.  CM1 and CM2 are teals at what is charged for them.  So mark me down for paying more for a commitment to better communications, more organized patching, and faster releases.
btw, about the free account.  Can you ask the same question of betatesters and BFC?  Isn't that where the question should be asked?  Why ask every individual customer to have an acocunt so they can load a save file for someone they don't really know can download it into some mysterious QA process?  I just can't fathom not seeing that that responsibility should be on the developer.  And its so easy.  Its not rocket science.

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.

Exactly, and especially when the presentation of a save game is used as a sort of gatekeeping method for bug reporting. The whole forum, at times, has had a kind of "save game or it didn't happen" sort of feel to it.
It's great that we, as customers, can help the developers isolate their software's bugs, but if a potential bug report isn't going to be taken 100% seriously until save-game evidence is presented, then there really should be some kind of simple, official, and centralized method for uploading those saved games.

I'm not saying its difficult.  Why is the onus on the customer.  There is a website and forum right here where saves could be posted.  Instead of a formal QA process, we have unpaid volunteers gathering files from 3rd party sites to help BFC.  Why can't BFC just step up and take the saves directly.  Instead of 30 people all creating links, have one place to do it.

So its not much effort.  We agree.  So why doesn't BFC do it.  Are you asking BFC staff the same questions?  They could set something up once instead of each of their customers doing it individually.

I have dropbox, drive, onedrive, etc.  But I don't hand out access to many people and then only people I know and trust personally.  So I can understand completely not wanting bother creating an account just because a commercial enterprise wants a save to help fix their product.  My expectation is if a company insists on saves to resolve issues, they would provide their own mechanism for it.  Even Matrix Games, with one of the most backward forum infrastructures around, lets you post compressed saves.

Here are 10 tests done one after another on Roadblock in 4.02
10 times there was "gap charges"
the game starts at 45 minutes, the troops arrives at the hedgerow at 43 minutes
3 times the "gap charges" took place from the 1st minute !!
I let you look at the pictures and the time or the leak took place.
there  or the troop has resisted longer, corresponding to the random or the attichar gun is located near the crossroads, so it is under the firing of light weapon that the leak took place and the delay is longer
you can see the systematic aspect of the problem that makes the game unplayable
even if I'm happy with 4.00, keeping it behind keeps me from discovering new maps and scenarios. it is rather disabling especially as I am also part of those who fixed the update of the graphics card to December 2017 to prevent the game from crashing after about forty minutes.
at 42 minutes !

at 24 minutes !

at 25 minutes

at 36 minutes

at 38 minutes

at 39 minutes

at 42 minutes

at 36 minutes

at 42 minutes

at 28 minutes

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.

Edit, let me rewrite
Your quoted bold line seems to now agree that patch .brz data remains, which is the main point of my posts. But what do you mean "unaccessed"? The extra brz is there and alphabetically gets priority over the other data.  In case that leftover brz contains a "strings.txt" file then the game will be unplayable as such**. It will be mandatory to manually remove that brz file. The CMRT and CMBN examples that I illustrated earlier have exactly this "strings.txt" conflict.
**though the main menu will still look fine, the quick battle setup screen for example will be unusable since all words (strings) are out of place there.

As long as stationary regular units run back an AS to be out of LOS when receiving small fire from known contacts in front of them - you can call it whatever you want. 😃
Seeing them commonly do cycles of forward and backward seemed off...
Do you know which titles are getting this tweak? I'm hoping it will be made available to both BS and SF2...

just in case it  got missed by anybody. Nothing to add on that.
 

Another thread heading for a lock.  @DougPhresh as you see those types of threads developing just ping someone at BF. Easier than trying to argue with someone. Just have Steve shut it down. 

That is because the v2.0.0 patch does not delete "data\red thunder v201.brz". Meaning you are running a v2.0.0 game executable with a v2.0.1 strings file in "data\red thunder v201.brz". Then you get the usual mismatching strings. You need to remove "red thunder v201.brz" manually. Patches can not backdate properly in case a .brz file needs to be removed, since patches doe not remove .brz files. (I just tested this myself to be sure)
@BFC Elvis, I read in several places that you suggest that older patches can backdate to an earlier version. But I am afraid that is not generally true. For that to work patches need to delete .brz files "from the future", which of course they don't.

Excellent, thank you and defenitely a route to follow - hotfixes have been dearly missed with Battlefront in the past.

Hi 3J2m, the best is to test, me I have 4.00 and 4.02 now on my computer
Roadblock test or any scenario that you know well

hello Heirloom_Tomato
on Roadblock you reproduce it immediately. if the gun is next to the bridge, place a squad on either side of the hole in the hedge
if the gun shoot the hedge, immediately the squad will rush into the field towards the Germans
to tell the truth, it works as soon as there is a hedge
when you progress from hedge to hedge on the right of the road, this also happens with even laughable situation when German and American rush towards each other in the same field

Not wanting to shoot the messenger but I would have thought the more than a single test case would be used to verify fitness. Were any of the save games provided not used for verification?
No one has stated that this issue should be completely eliminated. We just want it to be uncommon if not rare. War stories are made of such rare occurrences and something we all appreciate of the game.
Being able to see teams cycling to and fro towards danger more often than not - does not make for a good game experience IMHO.
I don't see the point of applying this patch until the overarching 'evade' issue is addressed.
While I am appointed,  I'm encouraged by the timely response.

Adding to what @IanL said, there is a small circle in the bottom right hand corner of every artillery or air asset representing the C2 level between the unit calling for the support and the artillery. The darker green the circle is, the shorter the call time will be. If the little circle is yellow, orange or red, expect very long call times. 

What @General Liederkranz said. I'll just add a couple more thoughts. One is the call time will vary based on who is making the call. The Platoon Lt could have a longer call than the Company CO who's call will be longer than a dedicated FO. For battalion mortars often the mortar platoon HQ has the best call time. Just mentioning this on the off chance you don't already know this.
Also some people advocate for calling maximum duration missions and then adjusting them. This results in more responsive changes but has the draw back of using all your ammo so you would need to cancel the mission if you don't have a secondary target.

Unfortunately you can’t. In the game, offmap artillery/mortar call time isn’t affected by previous missions. There’s no “memory” of previous targets, and there’s no benefit to repeating a previous mission. Each fire mission starts from scratch. That may not be realistic but it is the way the game is built.
Placing a TRP before the game will speed up call time, but again that’s independent of whether you’ve fired at that spot during the game previously. It just speeds up all shots at that target. 
You can of course adjust the target of a fire mission BEFORE it’s finished, and that will be quicker than calling a new mission. But there are limits to what you can change by adjusting. Most notably, you can’t change the length of an ongoing mission. 

Hello,
is strange a.i. behavior after last patch for game engine 4 (V12_black sea) manifested in running of few squad members around buildings, or positioning half of the squad on wrong (enemy) side of walls and buildings well documented now, or should i make videos and fill report for support? Im new to the forums and dont want to duplicate info about something which is wll known to others.
My personal and technicaly un-educated quess is that new a.i. behavior trying to use corner peek mechanics is not able to properly react on some type of architecture or its combinations (buildings with adjacent walls etc) and properly positioning itself relative to enemy. This is mabye magified with grid style map and new more spreading unit mechanic.
Manipulating with units is now more unpredictable and in cqb often ends with unnecessary losses. And because Combat Mission is based on micromanaging units, unexpected unit behavior is from gameplay perspective counterproductive and gamebreaking element. This is of course just my opinion.

anyone who might need this in future:
FOR BN
http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cmbn-scenery/kiemes-ploughed-fields-without-distortion/
FOR FB
 

I think this is the right topic to share some thoughts about how the heavy machine gun can be used in Combat Mission. Maybe I will create a small tactical video on it once I get some adequate footage from my actual H2H games as the explanations below would certainly benefit form some form of visualisation. I think that in some circumstances, the HMG is the most misunderstood, underrated but also most difficult to employ weapon in Combat Mission. Judging from AARs, I think that many players are unaware of its great potential!*
So why do I think the heavy machine gun can be the infantry's defensive weapon number one? And how to employ the heavy machine gun for good effect?
1. Lines of fire / control of space: I can't stress enough that HMGs should make maximum use of oblique grazing fire. You always need to fire at your opponent from an angle. This way, you create a line of fire that crosses the axis of his approach, rather than running paralell to it. After all the defender's main goal is to stop the attacker's advance. Instead of locking down individual spotted enemy teams for 2 seconds with every burst, our aim is to lock down lines of 400+ meters' length permanently and (almost) blindly. For this to work, you need to find adequate fire lines in the terrain, which is admittedly extremely fiddly and requires you to make "test runs" on the map before you start the actual battle. Your "fire lines" should be as long as possible - the longer they are, the more ground your HMG can control. Also, wherever possible, the HMGs gun's bullets must travel close to the ground (--> "grazing fire"). The HMG must be positioned roughly at the same height as its intended beaten zone. So you have to consider the muzzle height** of the machine gun in and the height of the tile that you're aiming at. The line in between the muzzle and the aimpoint will determine the elevation of the fire. Even though they're conspicious and likely targets for the enemy, multi storey houses can be usefull to achieve an even line between the HMG and the intended beaten zone. 
Also be aware that shifting your aimpoint forward and backward affects the "spread" of your fire. 
2. Reliability: The good thing about HMGs is that they come with plenty of ammo. While the ordinary HMG units are still somewhat limited (2k ammo) and might require some extra supply asset (trucks, wooden bunker),  wooden HMG bunkers offer plenty of ammo (5k). This means that your HMGs can and should be firing non-stop. This way, they are really able to lock down the enemy. LMG units cannot achieve this as their volume of fire decreases very quickly with range. HMG units, by contrast, keep up a high volume of fire even at ranges of 600m+ (their "aiming" task is much shorter than that of LMGs and they fire longer bursts).
Also note that smoke screens don't help against your HMGs. That's because you're relying on area fire and the LOS between your muzzle and your aimpoint (e.g. at 80m distance) will be clear and unaffected by the smoke screen at the beaten zone (e.g. at 600m).
3. Protection: The heavy mg's best protection is distance in combination with concealment. If enemy squads can get eyes on your hmg within 300 meters, your hmg is not well positioned. At ranges under 300 meters, you risk getting suppressed by ordinary riflemen and LMGs. by contrast, if you employ the HMG at proper ranges and in some concealment, it can stay concealed for a very long time even when firing. I really had some eye-opening moments (testing in hotseat mode) when my HMGs were able to pepper the opponent who had no clue where it was coming from. Therefore, HMGs are extremely usefull to scare away a tank's infantry support. When a mixed column enters the beaten zone of HMGs, the infantry gets suppressed, bullets hit the tanks (gradually damaging tracks and optics) but neither the tanks nor the infantry can see where it's coming from (note, however, that tanks could "block" the fire lines of your HMGs to build a "bridge" over the fire line for the infantry..!). The greater distance between the HMG and the opponent also helps against artillery and speculative fire, as the number of potential positions increases with range. It will be harder for your opponent to "guess" where the HMG is. [There is still the problem of sound-locating the HMG though, which I personally consider cheating/a bug].
4. Exploitation: The lines of fire described above are very effective at suppressing and pinning enemy infantry. This alone can be extremely usefull as it disrupts and slows down enemy advances. The lines of fire will not wrap up many kills for you though. Therefore, the standard WWII procedure works very well in Combat Mission: HMGs anonymously pin the infantry, mortars and arty do the killing. 
So, with these 4 points, HMGs can be deployed for great effect iif the circumstances are right. I don't consider any of this particularly "gamey". Rather, it's just another example that you can recreate proper WWII tactics in Combat Mission (although in this particular case it is very fiddly). I've even tried to apply some indirect machine gun fire - firing from a reverse slope - , but found that the maps were not large enough for it ;).  Of course the HMG can also be applied in the attack, but just like in the defense, you'd need to test your positions before the battle in order to prevent ugly surprises (the beaten zone is not where you want it to be, or the bullets go high alltogether). 
 
----------
* Even though I might come across as a lunatic, I also want to point out that the way that many quickbattle maps are designed severely handicap HMGs (and other support weapons and tanks). In my opinion, they often cut lines of sight unrealistically short. The maps are often too "bumpy" (the slopes are not soft enough, hills are too "small", ridges too sharp) and/or they are not deep enough to position support weapons at their proper ranges (support positions are simply "cut off").
**Note that medium machine guns are usually fired from the prone position (--> difficult to achieve good angles), heavy machine guns from the "sitting" position (-->better), and HMG bunkers are fired standing (-->best). 

He Cheated!