Sgt Joch

you should test it out. Balanced/Balanced can triple your FPS in certain cases, but has little impact on visual quality. The vehicles and soldier models look the same, the terrain is impacted, but you really have to examine it in detail to make out the difference. I have started playing with that setting over the past few days. The game is very fluid and looks the same as before while playing. Some testers use Best for 3d models/Balanced for texture. If you want to compare texture quality, there also a hot key: { or } to allow you to do it on the fly in game.

true, there are RL MG tactics which are not modeled. Hopefully BFC will eventually get around to it.

yes, you can mix and match. I doubt the QB grogs will have much to complain about...not that it ever stopped them in the past.

Bear with me because I have not done this in a while so I may be remembering wrong for #2, but: 1. for the moving guys, you give them their movement orders, click on the starting waypoint and increment the "pause" order until "pause 20 seconds" appears over the 1st waypoint. Then they will wait 20 sec. at the start of the turn before moving; 2. for the covering unit, give it an "area target" order and then an order to face slightly away from the current position. Click again on pause and increment for 20 seconds. They should fire for 20 secs and then cease fire as they execute the change in facing. Someone should check with the demo. If #2 does not work, there is another way of doing by giving the covering unit a movement waypoint, i.e. area target + quick move one action spot over + pause order 20 seconds on 1st waypoint. edit - I see others beat me to a reply.

no doubt, but I have never had a situation in CMSF where I needed a infantry unit to area target more than one spot in a 60 second turn. You can limit how long it shoots an an area by using a pause + face order. This can be useful for AFVs where the number of HE shells is limited and you want to pump just a couple of shells in each area, but this already possible by combining short movement + pause + face orders. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=82036 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=82035

On this issue, please keep in mind that CMBN is very much a work in progress and we are now at v 1.0. All the basic elements of WW2 tank warfare are there and work well enough, but no doubt this as well as other aspects will be further tweaked as we go though patches/modules and on to the Bulge/late war game.

no you cant, you have to order it to cease firing, easy to do in RT. In playing WEGO, you can area fire one turn and assault the next. If you want to get fancy, you could order your unit providing covering fire to area target for, say, 20 seconds and give your maneuver unit a pause command for the same 20 seconds, so it will start to move as soon as the firing stops.

yes, pretty much standard tactic in WW2 and in CM, jump under cover as soon as you smell incoming artillery (there will usually be a first spotting round way off target) and then pop up to waste any incoming attackers. Now that the AI can also call in artillery anywhere/anytime, you are not even safe in SP games.

the other feature you will notice which was introduced in CMSF is that if you "area fire" an action spot, even though the target line points to the center, the weapon will rotate right-left and spray the entire action spot. so for example, if you order a MG to area fire on the 2nd floor of a building, even though the target line is pointing to, say, the middle window, the MG will gradually work over the entire area, including any windows to the right or left.

I always plot the return waypoint right next to the vehicle to avoid that. It basically comes back to the same spot.

Yes, you can use it to represent going into battle cold or attacking a position which has been fully reconnoitered.

Yes, but if you zoom in on it, it's easier.

good, good, stoop to personal insults, that will get you far. so much for wanting to help you guys.

15 posters repeating the same thing over and over again is not the "community", it is a "fringe group".

Neither is being unpleasant. You guys want tcp i/p wego in the game. We get it. It's just that many of us don't care if tcp i/p wego is in the game or not. Join the long list of players who also want their improvements in the game. Bfc is a small company and they have to prioritize where they put their efforts. Creating a tcp i/p wego thread once every 4 years, demanding action and antagonising other posters will give you squat. You want tcp i/p WEGO in game? follow the example of the "cherry picking" QB lobby who kept the issue alive every week for the past 4 years to the point where Bfc agreed to totally revamp the QB system. That monopolised a good chunk of resources which could have been applied elsewhere. However, you should know there are many other groups that have been pushing for their pet improvements for a lot longer than the tcp i/p wego lobby.

it's on the list. Right before tcp i/p WEGO and right after horses.

It is not fatally flawed for many, it is fatally flawed for very few. The majority of CM players play SP. the minority play MP. In the MP minority, the vast majority play WEGO PBEM, a small minority play tcp/ip. No one over the past 4 years has raised the lack of tci/ip wego has being more than a minor irritant. On the other hand, everyone agreed that the lack of "cherry picking" of units in QBs was a "national crisis" which is why CMBN will come with a brand new QB system. Everyone here, including BFC, knows the tcp/ip wego "crisis" will fade away, like snow in july, in a few weeks.

yes and it won't be for a long time, if ever, so no need to belabour the point.

plan, plan, plan, double check your plan, then expect your plan to go right out the window the minute shooting starts...plan for that too.

We have been lobbying for event triggers and other improvements to the scenario editor for some time. Hopefully, it will be in the next major release.

Oddly enough, I was just running the same tests on the latest version of the game. In CMSF I always used best/best. Since most scenarios featured no trees, it worked well. However CMBN features lovely detailed trees and forests which can devastate your FPS. Running a variety of tests, it also appears that balanced/balanced offers the best compromise or "most bang for your buck". On a large forested QB map, those settings gave me FPS of around 35 when looking straight into the forest vs 15 at best/best. Furthermore balanced/balanced gives up little in terms of noticeable graphical quality. My system: Q9550, ATI 4890, win 7 64, 1920x1200, no FSAA/AA, 27" monitor.

What? Heresy!!!! Actually, compared to some game releases I have seen, including CMSF, the negative reaction so far is very mild. You can tell this is mostly an older crowd chasing after each other in their wheelchairs...

I played a CMSF tournament PBEM game last year on a 2x2 km map with a battalion. Each turn file was 40-45 mb. But it was very playable and we finished the game (100 turns) with no technical issues.

Tcp WEGO. This issue was discussed ad nauseum when CMSF came out. Bottom line: there are many technical and commercial reasons why it is not included in CMSF and CMBN. Will it be in a future title ? Who knows, but it is pretty much at the bottom of the wish list.

Just because we dont reply to every thread does not mean we are not paying attention. :)The issue is being looked at, but no decision yet on what to do about it.