LJFHutch

I second the make your own option; rivals playing them for enjoyment in my book

I find the GUI is usually pretty good. The only thing that bothers me is the camera controls which aren't very smooth; moving the view with arrow keys or using the mouse to rotate the camera.

I like the idea of WEGO but I find it's easier for me [in company or so] engagements to play in RT because I have a better feel for the flow of battle. Aside from potentially suicidal AI as Placebo said I am a bit impatient at times (especially the slow parts of battles) and can't stand sitting there planning orders and then waiting for a whole minute where nothing happens. Speaking of which, would it be possible to have slow-motion and fast forward buttons for RT? Sometimes it takes forever for something to happen.

Only real time; turn based means the flow of the battle is lost. RT gives you a better understanding of the battle imo, and turn based takes far too long when time is an issue.

Hopefully it's not set too far in the future; you can blur it by one or two years but much more than that and it gets a bit murky and the authenticity takes a hit.

Yeah you can go through them last I checked.

What about a simple 3D plane with a texture similar to the map/hills that sits under the map itself? Or around it. It's a tricky problem to fix.

I get: Best quality shaders on/off - 12/13 Balanced quality shaders on/off - 20/20 "Good" FPS depends a lot on what type of game you're playing. For an RTS I'd say 30 or higher, first person shooter you absolutely need 40 or higher but you'll notice significantly better results with ~60. Under 30 is what I would consider laggy under "game" circumstances (obviously movies are alright).

How do you turn on shaders? I have no option for it. I'm kind of underwhelmed by 2.0 at the moment.

He made good points in my opinion, personally the floating map and incredibly clunky camera controls have always annoyed me. It's still a great game though. I like the camera, but the way it moves and how you control it are really annoying. It's jerky and slow, like he says, it's really not nice to use after playing something like wargame (though wargame has a few annoying camera issues as well). It seems he didn't really know how to use it though.

I seriously doubt maps won't work in the new version.

It would be cool if one player could join another player before choosing the settings. That way the players could talk in-game about the settings but also you could then only display content owned by both players to streamline the selection process

437 modules? How did you get that number? Wouldn't that be 4 modules and 9 packs in my example? I don't really expect there to be 9 packs for a game (probably 4?), but it's not really that extreme. What would be extreme is trying to find a multiplayer match in that train sim with like 100+ DLC!

The reason I prefer the larger expansions or modules is that as said, they tend to be more universal and reasonably easy to figure out. Purely hypothetical and just to illustrate the point, can you imagine trying to organize a game with someone and you said "oh I have the base game, DLC 1, 3, 7, 9 and modules 3 and 1" and your opponent said "I have base game, DLC 1, 2, 5 and 6 and only module 3". I remember considering buying the Bad Company 2 Vietnam expansion as it looked like a good chunk of content at only $15, that was until I played it on a friend's computer and found out how difficult it was to find populated servers, and even they dropped off fairly rapidly after launch it seemed. Choosing a mission without resorting to "lets only play base" would be more tactically challenging than any mission you could pick

"Other forces, such as Allied Italians, will likely work their way into the game in Packs (more unit focused than Modules)." BF is going into DLC now? I preferred the module/expansion pack method more myself.

When you ask yourself "how did they get the fences to stop properly on either side of what must be a one and a half grid house?"

I still can't help but think the bump mapping would be more effectively applied to the terrain though, are there any plans for that?

Yeah that's a good point, Sgt, the higher the points awarded for VLs the more gamey the play becomes in my opinion. You can't raise the value of VLs without lowering the value of your troops.

Sarcasm? Or did I miss something.

I'd buy the CMSF bundle with the base game and the modules (same price I think) and give your old serial to a friend who hasn't got it Also, CMSF is rather current with what's going on in certain parts of the world right now ...

Having more victory locations doesn't really solve anything, in fact it may even make it worse because your troops are more spread out and less able to put up a defense against a last minute rush (1 tank crew rushing a town defended by 4 riflemen is much more likely to succeed than 10 tank crew rushing a town defended by 40 riflemen). And then there is the confusion caused by multiple rushes at a time (more in RT than wego of course).

I don't like all those extra restrictions at all (prefer the all hats approach, especially since it is necessary given the AI restrictions), but I certainly want the most realistic experience I can get.

Thanks for the info I'll load up the halfway save I made and see if I can salvage the battle.

In the CM 2.0 announcement they said something about being able to group units together with hotkeys for quick selection and then went on to say that you could only group HQs in Iron mode, I fail to see the reasoning behind this, it doesn't make it more realistic or authentic (even if it was an attempt at making the player feel more like they're only the commander) and in my eyes is a deliberately lost opportunity to enhance the control that is already there by reducing micro management.

Hmm, so there are realism differences between them, looks like I'll continue playing Iron then See, this is the sort of thing that needs to be made a lot clearer.