aka_tom_w

Good point and GREAT post are these the three options? i) Windoze/Intel Release (planned) (Mac's use Boot camp to play) ugh (for early adopters and Mac tech geeks this will be the only option upon the windoze only release of CM:SF, but then you may be stuck buying two releases if you want the Mac Intel release IF THERE IS one promised down the road. ) ii) Mac/Intel later release (?)% extra work (Intel Macs don't need to boot into windows to play!) (NOTE Intel Mac are currently %1.88 of users on the internet in Jan 2007 but growing daily) iii) PPC&INtel Mac Universal Binary CM:SF release, this one looks like it is prohibitively expensive to develop for what appears to be a shrinking market and very little return on investment.) (the majority of Mac users reading this would REALLY like to see the release of a Universal Binary for PPC&Mac Intel because the pie chat above indicates 2/3's of Mac users are still using NON-Intel Mac computers. Hey Steve, is possible to at least get a commitment for an Intel-Mac release for OS X so we don't have buy XP and boot into windoze in Boot Camp? Please.. -tom w [ February 17, 2007, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Here are some VERY current (last Month) actual stats: MacNN Mac intel is JUST %1.88 of the market: marketshare web site here's the pie chart for January 2007: (looks like Mac users are screwed ) [ February 17, 2007, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I would like to suggest that I would guess that #1 is not likely an issue, it "should" be no problem to make the windoze CM:SF play with no issues at all on an intel Mac in boot camp, as other folks here have mentioned that CMx1 games now play with no problems on intel macs. (this does not surprise me) However, that said, the real issue lies with statement #2 " How many of our Mac Intel customers would have an option to run the Windows version?" Why aren't we asking: "How many of your Mac customers have an Intel Mac that "could" run windoze AND how many of our mac customers have G4 and G5 computers that CANNOT run windoze?" Hard stats from Jan 2007 NON intel Mac OS %4.34 and Intel Macs are %1.88 slightly less then half of all non Intel Macs on the internet. Source here: OS market share web page Anyone with an Intel Mac can "theorectically" (or at least its technically possible) run XP in Boot Camp. However we then need to ask how many potential CM:SF customers are willing to purchase a WHOLE new operating system just to be able to play the windoze version of the game on their Intel Mac? (Also how many potential CM:SF Mac customers don't have Intel Macs and therefore don't have a choice? = %4.34 or bascially about 2/3 of all mac users on the internet. All in all, I would like to suggest only a minority of potential Mac CM:SF players have: i) an Intel Mac (%1.88) AND ii) the desire or willingness to purchase or acquire windoze to install with Boot Camp on their Intel Mac (% unknown ?) That leaves all the rest, the majority of Mac users either don't have an Intel Mac (still runnning G4s or G5s) or they don't have any desire to run XP or Vista on their Intel Mac. The other reality here is that Mac users make up less then %10 or all computer users and only BFC knows what percentage of Mac CMx1 units they shipped as opposed to Windoze units. My guess would be that that the number was higher then %10 (not much higher?) :confused: but I would be guessing. (Steve notes below in his latest post, that direct sales of Mac OS 9 CMBO (online vis BFC) acounted for about %20 of direct sales. Hey! 1/5 of all sales to Mac users back in OS 9 days is NOT bad at alk ! ) Its never been easy being a Mac user, but now that there are some users with Intel Mac's who are more then willing to run XP in Boot Camp, it has become even more difficult to find OS X only games and/or software for non Intel Macs. Less then 1 year ago the the Quad processor G5 Mac Desktop was a fast machine, as no intel processor was available. (I believe the Desktop Intel Mac only started shipping last August 2006). (I have a Quad G5 Desktop and G4 Mac Powerbook (3 years old), neither of which can run XP or Vista.) oh well -tom w [ February 16, 2007, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

VMware Fusion vs. Parallels review web page Tale of Two Beta's at Lowendmac.com

Thanks Steve! Good Luck with the testing this weekend! (I wish I could help out) -tom w

This thread was retitled yet again to clear the air. I am not sure Why but I left his name in the thread title anyway. Forgive me for I have made a new thread for this because this it the first time I have seen a anything that looks like a real commitmant to release a Mac OS X native version of CM:SF! Moon Says OS X version is planned in Paradox thread entire quote worth repeating: (buy early (online) and buy often in store retail verion says Moon:) [ February 26, 2007, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK .... Well if a brigade is 3 companies maybe that was a little over the top (maybe a Company of Strykers would have been a better suggestion, 4:1 odds sounds about right though ), but it was just a fun example of what I am hoping the the game will demonstrate with respect to Syrian Home Field Advantage and assymetrical FOW settings. (BUT I could be ALL wrong, and for the record I am not a beta tester and I really don't know anything about the game other then what I read here on these forums and I have yet to have the priveledge of being offered a Non Disclosure Agreement or anything like that. ) So its JUST idle speculation at this point. -tom w

How about this for a rumor/speculation..... One side (lets say the Syrian player) may now be able to play at a different and more "forgiving" FOW level then the other player. he he he (JUST A GUESS MIND YOU!) So how does this work? Well the Syrian player commands a small number of uncon forces like technicals and guys running around with RPG's and machine guns, and plenty of IED's (both vehicle borne and not) thrown in for good measure, BUT this player plays with his personal FOW level set to beginner or "easy" and can see all and know all about the opposing force. (Call it "Home Field Advantage") So where does that leave the US player, well this player has ALL the technical advantages and a numerically superior force (say 4:1 - 5:1), but is playing under the hardest form of FOW conditions. (OK lets give them a fighting chance, they don't have to use the intel crippling Iron Man FOW rules, which have been variously interpreted to mean the camera can only jump or toggle, at level 1 or level 2, from the fixed perspective of your OWN units as though you could only see through their eyes or their binocs, (and again, perhaps ONLY those in radio contact.) OK so its NOT the new Iron Man FOW setting, but the next hardest FOW down with relative spotting and all that other good stuff thrown in for good measure. OK Hands up who wants to play the US side? (Ah heck we'll toss in a platoon of M1A1's (with the TUSK thing if you like) and a whole brigade of Styker's, but you still have to assault a medium to large size Syrian town at night time! Any takers? (Rune? .... I trust you are on the case to set this one up? ) -tom w [ February 15, 2007, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I can't begin to tell you how thrilled I am about this announcement! This means that players who have hard time finding time to play online or with a live opponent, can be challenged anywhere at anytime (without need for the internet) by the likes of Rune and associates! (only evil scenario designers need apply). These new "planned" (now with up to five alternative options or strategies or attack or defensive plans!) scenario's will give the solo player a REAL challenge like they are playing against at REAL human opponent (clever, gamey, and tactically challenging) without waiting for the next PBEM to arrive or even waiting for their opponent to complete the move in TCP/IP play. This is like FREEDOM 55! Free of time and internet constraints to pit your wits against a HUMAN programed AI and a now clever and deceitful opponent! This is HUGE. Not to mention the thrill of trying to program or plan one of these scenarios for other folks to enjoy. I CAN'T WAIT! -tom w

OK that sure does make sense. Thanks As mentioned an "easy" mode or FOW level at the "beginner" end of the spectrum could be called Training Mode so new comers/first timers, can pick up on the game quickly and learn and win an easy scenario with step by step instructions (training scenario) to get them started. I would like to suggest that EVERY attempt be made to design the demo and demo scenario's with ease of use and EASE of learning in mind so that the demo can be downloaded and played with no previous CMx1 experience necessary. I know BFC is a small operation, but most other demo's from most other games (any flavour, SimCity to Command and Conquer to and RTS or FPS) come with a step by step training tututorial scenario, that makes learning the game AND Quickly becoming addicted to it a virtual snap so the player will feel compelled to play it constantly. (AND of course yearn to buy it and PINE for it while waiting for it to arrive! THAT'S the key part, the pineing for it while waiting to get it!) Just a thought..... -tom w [ February 15, 2007, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I was trying to find a reference to NO AI vs AI battles, but its not in this thread.

Is there a status update on Iron Man Mode? Is that the Elite Hardness FOW level? (or a subset or option in the Elite FOW setting?) wondering -tom w

An old post from Aug 31 2005 about Strat AI

I was searching for a reference to AI vs. AI battles and found this old thread.

I am pretty sure Steve is on record somewhere (?) on this forum, as stating there will be NO AI vs. AI battles or capability supported in CM:SF (But I hope I am wrong.) -tom w

"unless he chooses to" (re: get the myriad of details) may simply mean playing the Elite level of hardness and turning on the ALL the hardest and most challenging reality and Fog of War options. I am guessing. -tom w

OH Yes That's my wish as well, (I don't expect it in the game either) but I would think it would be a BLAST to take ANY scenario and program/plan out the battle plan for one side, and challenge another player to lay out their battle plan, THEN let the AI run Vs the AI without any further player interference. Programer/planner vs Programer/planner played out as AI vs AI. NOW that sounds like a great option or alternative to play the game. (BUT I have no expectation that was a design goal for inclusion this current game, maybe next time around.) -tom w

from the morale thread

What if there is no designer configured plan for instance in a Quick Battle (if there is such at thing as a Quick Battle.) good point? How does the Strat AI make a plan? similar to CMx1 strat AI? -tom w

That ROCKS!

That ROCKS!! It sounds good, but since we can't play and take for a spin right now, to check it out we'll all just have to trust you BUT thanks that suppresion morale model sounds like JUST what the doctor ordered to fix some of the issues with retreat behaviour in CMx1! How about a little AAR of a beta build battle like the Moon vs. Fion AAR of CMBO fame? -tom w

web page

Great News OK then, thanks for the update Martin, if you are happy, (and more succe$$ful), you can be sure that will keep the rest of us happy as well. tom w

tell me more? what's this? :confused: