Sgt Joch

depends, the 6300 FX is in the third tier, so it is still decent: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html up until last summer when I rebuilt my system, I was using a Core 2 Quad Q9550 which is in tier 4. It was perfectly fine, but I played mostly with Balanced/Balanced settings to have fluid FPS. You only really need a tier 1 CPU if you want to play CM at Best/Best with decent FPS on a large map. In addition, BFC is always tweaking the engine, performance increased from CMSF to CMBN, there was another boost with CMRT and CMBS is even better.

The problem with these "what if" scenarios is they assume the Allies would remain static and not react. The Allies had their own jet program, the RAF had the Gloster Meteor which entered service in july 44 and the USAAF, the P-80 which was deployed in Europe beginning in late 44. Both had similar performance to the ME-262. -Meteor flying over England, summer 44: -USAAF P-80s: If the 262 had entered service earlier and in larger number, the Allies would just have accelerated their own jet program to counter the threat.

well actually it does, we ran internal FPS tets during Black Sea testing and the CPU is the biggest limiting factor. Whether you have a NVIDIA or ATI card has little impact on FPS. I have a i5-4670K and do not have any issues with performance drop in heavy winds. If your system is not able to run at Best/Best, you could drop down to a lower level, even Balanced/Balanced, both use the same LODs, the only difference is how far it draws them out. That is why the "Fastest" to "Best" setttings are there, so players can find the sweet spot between performance and visual quality. Even on my system, I run with Excellent/Best, there is no difference in visual quality, except how far the high quality tree LODs get drawn and even that is only noticeable in 4-5 level view, but it gives me a 5-10+ bump in FPS.

"Ambush", new game, excellent/best, Blue side, 2 min. 40 secs.

that is basically what I see with my card, AMD R9 290. ATI cards have various issues, but they are generally known to have good image quality.

go on the AMD site, they have an archive of older drivers.

Tooze in "Wages of Destruction" describes in detail the German "Hunger plan" which was fed in part by a worry of a Grain shortfall. This led to an acceleration of the "Final solution " against Jews and Russian POWs. Of course, there were also ideological reasons behind the Genocide. As it turns out, there were record harvests in the early 40s so there was enough food to go around.

I think the point JasonC is making is that given the shortage of manpower and raw materials, developing a strategic bomber force would have been a useless distraction for Germany and one that would not help to win the war. Developing a large and technically superior U-Boat force would have been a better investment IMHO. The Allies had the excess production capability to build a heavy bomber force, but it really only started to show results after mid-44 when the Luftwaffe was defeated and the Allies could mount daily 1,000 bomber raids.

so I retested with the 1.01 patch to make sure that it was not the problem , but no, I do not have the "green hue" problem and I have been using the 14.12 "Omega" drivers since mid-December.

never seen that before, what is your system setup? remember that CM's graphics are not particularly demanding, from internal testing we have done, it is the CPU which is the biggest chokepoint. All you really need to play CM is a decent mid-range card.

Have you tried the 14.4 drivers?

I have a AMD R9 290. Works perfectly fine here. Fast and perfect graphics. No issues in any of the game I play. Whenever the time comes to upgrade, I usually wind up buying a AMD card because they give you the most bang for the buck. Driver issues come and go, NVIDIA drivers have had as many as ATI drivers. Part of the problem comes from the fact CM uses Open gl while most games use Direct X.

Its been a long time since I played this one, but as I recall there is an IED, not sure if on the bridge or the immediate approaches.

yes, either way works. To clarify what Splinty posted, you do not need a "Z" folder if using the MODS folder.

There are always outliers in any game. I am pretty involved in a CMRT v1.03 PBEM and have not seen anything unusual. Infantry/AT guns spot enemy AFVs well across a fair distance as long as they have LOS and they are in view for some time, usually less than 30 seconds moving. I have a bunch of AT rifle teams which have spotted many AFVs, some quite far away. OTOH, I have one team which has failed to spot an AFV motionless for a whole turn about 20 meters away. They are prone and in a forest, the AFV is in a clearing. What should I focus on, the 99% of cases where it sems to work fine or the 1% of cases where they may be a question mark?

I have not done any testing, but from personal observations in scenarios, the T72s seem to spot better when unbuttoned.

Longer term, the M1 may not be a good choice since no one else in Europe uses them, so you get into issues like maintenance, parts delivery, etc., German built Leopards would IMHO be a better choice. Many NATO members use them, including Canada.

they have many late model T72s. These are from the latest fighting around Debaltseve. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVX0OCkfeYI#t=15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSRRyM4sSQ0

Javelin ATGMs would seem to be the most effective short term. They require little training so they can be deployed quickly and would be effective against both Russian AFVs and infantry targets.

that is the best part, I love how he "chants" the missile onto the target. I may start using that in my PBEMs.

bit late, but yes there is a lack of detailed tactical info on Bagration. its difficult to make strict historical scenarios, but there is enough info to make semi-historical or "representative" scenarios of tactical fighting in that period. Dunn's "Soviet Blitzkrieg" is very useful. It has good detailed TO&E for both sides; lots of useful info on force levels, troop density, troop disposition, weather, good general description of the campaign. It has enough info to get the bare bones of a scenario. The only drawback is that it only covers about the first two weeks, i.e. from june 22 to mid-july; Dunn's "Hitler's Nemesis: the Red Army" covers the whole war, 41-45, but it gives you a good idea of how Russian units were organised in practice, ie. experience/leadership level, attached artillery/SPG/Tank units, force levels. Very useful to figure out what a typical infantry or mobile unit would look like at any time of the war; Jentz "Panzertruppen", vol 1 and 2, does the same for German Panzer and PanzerGrenadier units from 1939 to 1945. A bit pricey, but if you want to know the TO&E and actual strength of any division in any month, you will either get the exact number and type of tanks or a good approximation;

from the Guardian as to what you may see as military aid: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/04/ukraine-military-financial-support-imf-kerry Klimkin is Ukraine's foreign minister. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/02/ukraine-us-considers-miltary-help-kiev-separatists-plan-mobilise-army

I playtested this one, great scenario. I agree with George, better to keep the time shorter so the UKR player has more pressure.

I really like the Russians. of course they were always my favorite in CMBB or CMRT, but now they have up to date equipment.