Elmar Bijlsma

I don't know. Have you?

One note on quality which you may or may not agree with: Quality does help sometimes. While I agree that crack tends to be too much I never buy green tanks if I can help help it. Winning the armour fight is half the battle and green tanks have a serious downside. Where as green infantry can still put out lethal fire, with tanks it's really hit and miss and there is no middle ground. In a dual with tanks I generally find it worth it to buy better quality tanks tanks so I can get that first hit in. Same with ATGs. That extra quality gives you a better chance to hit and helps the gun keep up a steady fire if it itself comes under fire. Green gun crews can't be relied to hit with the first few shots and are too easily suppressed. also, attacking infantry should at least be regular so they can keep an attack going despite being fired upon. More then veteran is probably overdoing things. Green infantry attacks stall too often, thus not allowing you to press the attack. On defence however, green infantry is definitely the way to go. Ofcourse all things are reliant on the situation you find yourself in. Allied tanks shine in close in situations. With fast and fast turreted Shermans in a build up area green is the way to go. THe loss of accuracy is far outweighed by the typical firing distance being so small that green tankers too can reliably hit with the first shot or wo. In such situations the extra tank or two you can buy is a better asset then some crack crew with l33t gunnery skills. It's the reverse on wide open plains, where veteran or even crack crews shine with their ability to hit from long range. Especially the German tanks can benefit from this, certainly mid war when the Allies lack the heavy hitters to penetrate from long range. Ammo levels is, as pointed out, something you need to keep an eye on. Especially the 'better' German squads can run out of ammo quickly. However, I suggest don't overly focus on it when buying your gear. 9/10 times you'll run out of equipment before you run out of ammo. sAme with the oodles of HE green Shermans can chuck. However tempting this prospect is there is a very good chance your Shermans will die before before they get to fully utilize this big ammo advantage.

This is much ado about nothing. In my eyes Cabe clearly and deliberately set himself up for the sucking comment and JasonC obliged. Nothing wrong with that. Cabe then moaning about it provoked JasonCs unnecessary but not undeserved swipe. Cabe can protest all he likes about how he didn't want a flame war but he then proceeded to be the biggest contributor to it. And around here, you get what you ask for. So... could the two of you please, for the love of ****, chill out? Neither of you intended to give deliberate offence so shake hands, why don't you?

Watch both and spot the differences. I'm splitting hairs, I know.

The taking of enemy equipment (or retaking of friendly) is only for that particular scenario. And either the original crew or infantry or other crewmen could do so. The efficiency with which the new owners can utilize their equipment is based on their skills. So a full Sherman crew could jump into an abandoned Tiger and operate it well. Infantry that has no expertise at all with gunnery or driving would find it impossible to utilize that same tank. Infantry with a basic understanding could operate the tank but would not be very good. Typically, commanders have some useful skills, as have survivors of previous battles, due to the XP points earned that you distributed over various skills after the battle. Guns are a different matter. Dragging it into position and pointing it at a target isn't rocket science so even a crew with a big fat 0 in gunnery could use an abandoned gun. Do make allowances for them not being able to hit the broad side of a barn though. In short, things work more or less as you'd expect them to.

Ah, that's a tougher one. Not an AMD man myself, so I am not up to scratch on their performance. But IIRC the AMD clock speeds are lower then their actual performance would lead you to believe so you should be fine. These days clockspeeds don't tell you very much anyway, my E6600 runs at 2.4Ghz! At a guess I think 1280x1024 shouldn't be a problem. Higher then that and you may need to dial stuff down but not by much if at all, I reckon. Allow me to make this disclaimer: I'm no computer genius or something, I do my best so I may be wrong with my guesstimates. So you guys should TRY THE DEMO TO MAKE SURE IT RUNS ON YOUR PC. There, now, if something happens don't blame me, you have been warned.

I'd have to agree there. Some alternative to a CC really is a must and it annoys me a little that Battlefront hasn't yet been able to offer Paypal as a payment method. Or sumfink.

Playable, for sure. What resolution you can comfortably achieve is more tricky. I'm not that familiar with laptops myself but at a guess 1280x720 max everything should not be a problem. But be sure to test this with the demo when it comes.

I just checked. It isn't entirely the same as the old Wartime Command trailer. Some minor changes were made.

Also, as we now know, you have a Caps Lock key.

If you can't tell the difference between a 75mm PAK and an 88 then I'd say you aren't listening to the same sounds as me.

Yeah, I'm thinking the same as Moon here. There may be something wonky with the way your sound is set up. It's some of the best I've heard and certainly has the "oomph" needed. Obviously tastes differ, but when you describe it as very very bad then I do not believe you are getting the same sound that I'm getting.

Then you, sir, are not paying attention. There is a long long list of bugs, most fairly minor, some of them are pretty bad. Shield bonus are subtracted from armour instead of added, stuff like that. Ohwell, ignorance is bliss, eh?

Hi Gface, welcome. No sorry, you can play co-op but not versus the AI.

*gah* Avalanche! AVALANCHE!!! *falls to the ground and twitches*

How stunningly brilliant of you to so roundly condemn a game without a second of playing it. Amazing. Sure, the things you name would be nice to have but do I really miss them when playing? No, not really. Oh, and by the way: Ferrari F40

I'm playing ToW on a 7300GS with 1600x1200, max everything. Smooth as silk and looking more then a little nice. If you were going to have problems with a 7600GS (which I doubt) then you deserve it for buying the crappiest 7600GS you could possibly find. So don't worry, you should be fine!

Gatsby, I should definitely try the demo if I were you. Because once you do you'll know what you are talking about. And that's more then can be said for most other people in this thread.

Deadmarsh, you must have noticed that the way buildings were portrayed in CM was more then a little simplistic? A squad 'ghosting' through a wall might be fine(ish) but when modelling the individual soldier in such detail as ToW I'd be inclined to call bull**** on a soldier walking through a wall.

Uhm, 88s were punching holes in tanks as early as Spain. Rommels role in 88mm AA in ATG role is vastly overstated. In fact, though I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, the quote you provided is bollocks pretty much start to finish. But yeah, I'd rather see the Flak version then the PAK. Ohwell.

For resetting your resolution in CMBB you need to delete your preference file and restart the game. You'll be presented with a a suggested setting. If the one offered doesn't suit you then try the next.

Odd, no objections to "booyah!" being shouted when the US drops a JDAM on some Arabs?

*edit* Never mind, I forgot there was a page two on this thread. Reply redundant upon realization.

Does thick Woods as seen in CM even exist? My own observations says no, probably not. Trees large enough to make it impossible for a tank to pass typically need so much space on the ground that ample space is provided for a tank to maneuvre past. Whether you'd WANT to move into a wooded area with a tank is an entirely different thing.

I'd have to agree with Sergei. In such a situation infantry have bigger things to worry about.