Gkenny

What's changed in this updated version?

Disregard

Also, in the briefing for mission 10 (Kameshli Airfield) it states the entire Dutch battlegroup is present at the start for the final mission, but I don't see the engineer platoon anywhere on map. Would be incredibly useful to have from the start.

Minor spoilers again, but for mission 10 - Are the building objectives preserve objectives or just simply occupy? It says to control the building objectives, but I'm not sure if I'll be penalized for damaging them.

I can send you a save file if you want, I think it was one of the rear ones (with the trenchline at the top right corner) and possibly one of the ones near a building with a BTR near the center of the map. I can send you a savefile if you want?

Awesome, thanks for the advice. Another thing I noticed was in mission 8 (Unexpected Resistance) at least 2 bmps seemed to have been given the wrong face direction - when I encountered them in their positions they were facing away from my side of the map.

Spoilers I guess, but in mission 9 of this campaign ("Over the Hill"), it states that there is a minefield present but we know the safe passage lanes, however I'm not seeing anything in either the tactical map or in game reference marks to indicate these safe lanes. I don't think this is intentional, right?

For example, this thread :CM Shock Force2 v2.03 patch has been released. Has 3 (Though one could be argued intentional) bugs that have not been acknowledged by anyone in those three pages (I'll let you guys dig through the post to find them, since you guys seem to think that's the most efficient way of doing things ) . Have they been logged by the team? Who knows? There are many other threads just like this one which have reported bugs that no one has responded to throughout the forums. People think somehow that suggesting just some sort of more centralized public bug reporting is somehow worse than the current system, which is complete chaos. I am only suggesting this because I simply just want to see the game improve with time, and having a centralized place to report issues would only serve to make this process faster.

Pointless drivel. While I agree that there are some issues with duplication of reports on bugs, the same thing already happens on the forums at this point, except everything is much more disorganized and hard to find. This also fails to address the fact that if you post about a bug on the forums here, you essentially just have to hope that someone with access to the internal bug tracker not only sees but decides to submit a ticket with what you report, adding an extra level of unneeded separation that likely causes several bugs to fall through the cracks. By letting people report bugs on a centralized system, this is eliminated. And furthermore, community bug trackers are really not too difficult to manage, considering even unpaid mod teams can manage to keep track of them. As for your suggestion, that could also work, or perhaps a BF pinned post in the subforum of each game called "BUG REPORTS" or something to that effect, so that the bugs for each game are at least centralized to a single thread here on the forums. The way it is currently is horribly inefficient. I just want to see that bugs and problems are being reported and acknowledged in some non-convoluted fashion.

And this precisely is the issue I'm trying to address. By keeping an internal bug tracking software, no one besides the internal testers know what has already been reported/acknowledged barring a forum reply hidden in a thread somewhere. Unless someone stumbles upon the same intial post/thread that was reporting the bug, chances are no additional evidence will be posted, etc.

As I have played combat mission over a few years now, one thing that I have constantly seen is how disorganized the process of bug tracking/fixing appears to be. People post multiple topics for each game, other bugs simply get lost in existing topics, and unless a beta tester or one of the devs happens to see the post chances are it won't be recognized, whether it be campaign issues, Tac AI issues, or model issues. As such, I feel both Battlefront and the community would greatly benefit from a bug tracking site that allows users to post issues with descriptions and evidence, which can be viewed by all such that people can identify what has already been reported and acknowledged by the team. This would also allow others to contribute additional evidence/discussion to any specific bugs reported. For example, take sites like these from the game Arma : https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/ And from some mod teams: https://dev.cup-arma3.org/ http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php Thoughts?

I'm assuming it is similar to steam remote play in that both players share the same keyboard and mouse control? Such that you both cannot select units/issue orders simultaneously?

Wow thanks for spotting this, I just tested this out with a friend ... You can do realtime COOP kind of. Only one person at a time can be moving the mouse/keyboard around and giving orders, but its a lot faster than swapping save files around.

This honestly just showcases how weak artillery rounds/HE are to vehicles when exploding nearby, and that a shot like that would likely cause severe damage to the tank while in game vehicles are usually just fine unless its essentially a direct hit. I think HerrTom had some great simulations done for CMBS showcasing the real effect of near misses on armored vehicles, which showed many penetrations from shrapnel.

Marine LAV AT vehicles no longer have a commander in the MEU formation, this is also noticeable in the marine campaign.

Unfortunately it seems that in the The Khabour Trail Campaign the non mechanized Canadian infantry sections are still missing a man (7 man sections vs 8 as they are supposed to be). Just confirmed by checking the first mission.

Does this include a fix for the tendency for units to break towards the enemy in hedgerows in CMBN?

Wow this looks great.

Gotcha, seems interesting. Looking forward to seeing it.

Huh, is the rear turret MG actually able to be used by the commander? Also interesting that there's an IS-1 in a FR mission, considering there were only ~100 of them built in late 43 to early 44 and many that survived till later were later retrofitted with the soviet 122 (effectively turning them into IS-2's). Is this one of the earlier missions chronologically in the module?

Yeah if I recall they made like 1 or 2 prototypes with the 100mm gun on the T-34 near the end of the war. And yeah the T54/55 tanks had 100mm cannons.

Gun looks a bit long for a T-34/85, is that a T-34/100 Prototype?

I just got a new SSD, and would like to transfer all of my CM games onto it from my mechanical one. Would I be able to copy the game files/folders over without issue, or would the best way be to re download the games (I would like to avoid this if possible)?

Nice, looking forward to seeing these in game!

Will we be seeing any more lend lease equipment? Like the soviet armored formations with shermans?