Jock Tamson

Anyone who is on Steam and has a Steam history of interest in strategy games will have seen it.

Oh dear, I stand corrected George!

George Mc's Highland Games campaign in CMSF is still the only one I have played to completion, despite owning all the titles. There was something about the relevance of that title that really grabbed me and makes it my favourite. Possibly helps that I am Scottish too.

For years I played the CM series on an i5 2500k , overclocked to 4.7Ghz., 16GB RAM. I have had a GTX 580, a GTX 680, a GTX 980, and a GTX 1080. Changing the GPU has never made a jot of difference to frame rates. No surprise there, to me, but it is worth spelling out - if your GPU is reasonably modern, CPU core speed is everything for CM frame rates. Latterly my test scenario was CMBS Ambush, playing as Ukraine, graphics on Best. On the GTX 1080, scrolling around at ground level or slightly higher, I would get around 20FPS at worst. It would be lower than this if I turned on shadows, which are a killer for FPS. I recently migrated to a i5 8600k , overclocked to 5.0 Ghz, 16GB RAM, still using the GTX 1080. FPS in that scenario, scrolling around the scenery beside the Ukrainian convoy, graphics at Best, no shadows, FPS are about 35 at worst. So if you are swithering about a new CPU, now might be the time. For the first time I am finding performance to be basically ok. Unfortunately, I am getting the crash after 40 mins issue that others are experiencing.

I wouldn't agree. If I downclock the CPU, the frame rate will drop. I cannot run my CPU higher than 4.7Ghz so I have never been able to "throw anything more at it", however I imagine I would see a bit of an improvement @5Ghz. But what won't improve it is very powerful GPUs, which was the OP's question.

Combat Mission is CPU limited. Over the years I have played it on GTX 580, GTX 680, GTX 980 and now GTX 1080. There has been no positive improvement in frame rate across all those GPUs.

I would prefer forces to be something that could be exported and imported as a separate file. Eg you could have a bunch of saved XML forces created by yourself and third parties, that could be loaded into QBs. These could be hosted on one of the repositories as eg "6,000 point, 1944, mixed force, US Army".

I'd like to see some way to export / import forces into Quick Battles. One of the biggest frustrations of single player is the lack of surprise at AI forces (because if you want a decent battle you have to tailor the AI force). It would be great if you could import other user's AI forces eg via xml file or similar. Could get a bit of community engagement around creating opponents for people (as some people would take pleasure in crafting a challenging opposing force within given points/timescale/etc constraints). Force files could be hosted as "3000 point 1944 Heer defensive force", "3000 point 1944 US probe force" , etc.

You could explode your original BRZs and have a look ?

I used to love browsing the 1:72 packs of Airfix infantry, with the beautiful box art. In my part of Scotland, or maybe just among my friends, we used to call 1:72 soldiers "midgies". I built dozens of Airfix models, but never painted any of them, it was all about the building for me. Although the AFVs had a part to play in my various solo wargames, usually with copies of a couple of Donald Featherstone's books lying open which I had out on repeat loans from our local library - maybe "Solo Wargaming" and "Wargaming Airborne Operations". I was 8, and I thought Featherstone was a god. My battlefield was a reversed Subbuteo pitch laid over chipboard, with books underneath to form hills.

...which is quite clearly for a product called "Easy PDF Combine". I agree that they hope that people who don't read what the screen is saying will accidentally click on the wrong link.

Yes, much the same as assaulting vehicles, the crew - who had no idea you were there - will come piling out and kill your assaulters once you have blown up their vehicle. Meanwhile your assaulters will allow themselves to be shot up by the egressing crew as if they had no idea there might have been anyone in the vehicle.

No it is not hard to install, but it does not encourage casual purchase. S***m on the other hand enables casual product discovery and purchase - search by genre.

Absolute bunk. By your logic, Battlefront start selling their products via Steam, and then somehow Steve stops being Steve and succumbs to the deluge of feedback. "New people", my God, the mere thought of it!

Fan tears a strip off fan, because first fan wants more people to find and play game they both love. Nuts! Meanwhile outside the CM bubble a generation of gamers spends billions of dollars on Steam, GoG.com etc and is barely aware that software is available anywhere else. When I built my gaming PC back in 2011, after being away from games for a decade or so, I was suspicious of Steam and bought Rise of Flight and Arma 2 on CD. That lasted about 6 weeks before I realised that things had moved on. I now have I guess 100 or so titles, many of a type that I probably wouldn't have considered back in the day when I purchased CDs. As any Steam user will tell you, the shop is always open . Buy a game, go and get another beer, come back and it's installed.