Sulomon

I wouldn't say he does all that LOL 😂, I find his videos to be less entertaining to other notable video AARers like @IICptMillerII and @Sulomon but his videos are pretty good.

This is a really good summary, and has always been my understanding of what Combat Mission is trying to simulate. CM does not simulate the road march, or even the assembly area. CM starts at the line of departure. 
Yes, its true that some battles "spill over" from their initial battlespace and develop into larger battles. For example, the Battle of Mogadishu went from an operation centered around a building with 4 secured corners (essentially a city block) to a sizable chunk of the city itself. CM can simulate this. Instead of having the entire Battle of Mogadishu in one massive map, it is simply broken up into the phases of the battle. The first battle would be centered around the target building. The second would be centered around the Rangers moving from the target building to the first crash site. The third battle would center around securing the first crash site, so on and so forth. Would it be more fun if you could just do everything on one massive map with unlimited time? Arguably. The fact remains, that whether or not this would be fun, it is beyond the scope of Combat Mission. 
Steel Beasts is a fantastic tank sim, and one that I personally enjoy very much. However it is very important to keep in mind what the purpose of that sim is. Most casual players of the sim only fight battles, however this is far from the actual purpose of the sim. Steel Beasts is designed to teach tankers and tank formations how to conduct all possible operations, which includes road marches, how to drive in formation, etc. In fact, the combat in Steel Beasts is secondary to the 'learn to maneuver' element. Steel Beasts has large maps because it wants to simulate both moving to the assembly area, then the attack position, then the line of departure, as well as simulating the actual combat that occurs. Combat Mission is NOT designed to teach the player how to road march a battalion, or how to establish a forward command post, etc. Combat Mission is only designed to simulate the actual fighting. 
The fact is, the vast majority of armored warfare from its first battle to most recently, all happens within an average distance of 1.5km. The average armored engagement in the Gulf War was roughly 1.5km, despite the misconception that much of the tank fighting happened at 4km+. This simply isn't the case. Combat Mission can currently simulate a map that is 4km x 4km. That is more that double the average armored engagement range. Can battles in CM get a little close for space? Of course, especially when you are dealing with modern vehicle heavy formations and you have more than a BN on either side. CM can still do it though, and I have had more than a few battles in modern CM titles at this scale where everything behaved realistically. It's also worth mentioning that CM is not designed to simulate warfare past the BN level. You can do it of course, but you are going beyond what the simulation has been designed to do. You can do the same in Steel Beasts by simulating a division level action. Can you do it? Yes. Is that what the sim was designed for? No. (For the record, I have never tried to simulate a division level action in Steel Beasts, and I'm not even sure it would run on a modern computer)
There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver. There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver that apply exclusively to a specific level of warfare. There are numerous definitions for the specific levels of warfare, and most military forces in the world have different definitions for the same terms based on their own perspective and doctrines of warfare. None of these definitions have agreed upon hard stopping points. Where does the tactical level of combat end and the operational level begin? Someone from the US and Russian military would give you a different answer. Further, someone from the Soviet and Russian military would give you yet another different answer. All of this is irrelevant sauce that DoD analysts and S-2's alike love to get lost in, rarely yielding any results. 
The fact is this: at the level of warfare that CM simulates, there is maneuver. On a 4km x 4km map(or any sized map for that matter), any sized combat element on the battlefield can maneuver to a completely new location on the map. That for all intents and purposes is maneuver at the scale of warfare present in CM. 
Finally, if what CM provides is simply not enough for you, then just don't play it. I personally think CM is the finest tactical combined arms simulator out there, with no other sims/competition coming even slightly close. This does not mean I am not critical. I am no fanboy. There are more than a few posts and threads by me here on the forum to prove this. I wish that everyone who was interested in warfare at this level could appreciate CM for what it is. I wish that everyone who is in the profession of arms could appreciate CM as a valuable conceptual tool of understanding tactical warfare. This isn't the case, and never will be. If CM was perfect in every possible, there would still be people out there who would dislike it. Human nature I suppose. The point is, I hope you can learn to understand what CM offers and appreciate it for what it is. If you can't then that's too bad, but that is due to your own subjectivity, and not a fault of CM.
With that, another Miller essay is in the books, here for everyone to ignore! 😄

Not just about graphics. 
 
Shadows and anti aliasing still look really bad.
Performance doesn't equal graphics quality. I could do with the current graphics quality if maps were larger (we're taking moden weapons. An M1A2 can engage beyond 4k) and performance was better.
 
Also, still 1v1 MP? Come on. 

BFC have never claimed it would be anything else...pretty much a V4 version of CMSF is what they have been saying for quite some time now...

This is extremely spicy.  I understand you don't know things such as computer basics so I won't blame you for not having good reading comprehension but that couldn't be more wrong.  I'm obviously referring to the people who don't like steam running on startup, lan play etc.  I've made no hint that Steve keeps away from steam for trivial misunderstandings.

This is extremely spicy.  I understand you don't know things such as computer basics so I won't blame you for not having good reading comprehension but that couldn't be more wrong.  I'm obviously referring to the people who don't like steam running on startup, lan play etc.  I've made no hint that Steve keeps away from steam for trivial misunderstandings.

Why are players who want steam more likely to vote?  And I'm sure there is a proportionally similar number of people who support steam but also consider voting a waste of time.
These numbers don't mean much without stats for Combat Mission.  Or stats for these games on and off steam.

Do you realize only 4 people said no? And there's now 13 yes votes too. You can stop with "the silent majority supports me" and acknowledge you're in all likelihood wrong.

https://strawpoll.com/2dy52w8f
As of now the results are 12 yes, 4 no, and 3 neutral.  Erwin I think you might have been a tad off when saying most players on these forums don't think Steam would be beneficial.  Most people it seems support it.  And of the people who don't like steam it seems to be in part at least from trivial problems they have had with steam.  Such as people complaining about Steam running on startup which isn't a steam problem but a not knowing computer basics problem.

Lol I was busy trying to formulate something more diplomatic but of similar nature. How can you live with (windows) computers or the internet, when a sudden popup on your screen ruins your day? 😅
 

You realize that makes you sound comically incapable right? I mean, c'mon, you can't possibly be that computer illiterate.

Yes its incredibly difficult to check a box in the settings menu. This makes Steam one of the least user-friendly programs in the world.

This is technically possible, but is it not against the license to do so? It's not unreasonable to ask you to buy 2 copies if 2 people are playing it on 2 separate machines.

Slitherine seems to be doing very well on Steam.

This may actually be the least rational thing I've ever read on this board.
Yeah, I just checked the Steam pages for Gary Grigsby's War in the East and CMANO and neither are FPS games yet.

Squarehead what's with the uncon obsession.  You talk about them a lot.

Squarehead what's with the uncon obsession.  You talk about them a lot.

You are a sand flea with a wildly overinflated ego. But we already knew that, didn't we?
Michael

They won´t release anything soon. Too busy with not talking to customers.

He's right @IanL- until people are threatening to toss piss jugs at the dev team, you haven't seen anything. 
 

Pessimism tends to take hold when the patch is promised to become available in the coming weeks at the beginning of 2018 but then instead of the promised patch you get only silence for almost six months. It'd much easier on the developers and the community if you'd just post something along the lines "hey guys, there are some unexpected problems wee need to look at and this might take time". People understand when you communicate, when you don't they don't. And the bankruptcy wasn't a prophecy, it was a figure of speech. If you can't tell the difference I really see no point in discussing any further. 

If you guys think asking about an overdue patch is whining you haven't seen anything in the gaming industry lol. This is one of the tamest "hey guys wheres the patch" threads I've ever seen, yeah there's a few silly people but the majority of people asking for an update are being completely reasonable.

Yeah he's right.  As stated numerous times by numerous people, the infantry bug simplifies winning as the attacker into "fire arty barrage on defending enemy units."  It's not hard to see the problems with this.  

Honestly @CarlWAW I'd insult you, but I'm not quite sure you're worth the effort. You're basically self-defeating at this point.

Brave Rinaldi, Miller and others have long battled against those who think the lack of communication and fixes is acceptable!  Fortunately many others have come to their aid as more forum posters grow restless after months and months of nothing.
I didn't put anyone specific for the orcs but they represent the people who think the current situation is reasonable (of course they can believe what they wish but in this video they're shown to be wrong) and in general represent steve's lack of communication and fixes.