Sgt Joch

It does sound more like a LOS/LOF issue. My squads are usually loaded with the same Jav/AT4 setup, but always prefer using the Jav first.

Moeburn, first check to make sure your speakers/headphones are correctly plugged in (hardware), properly configured (software) and that your sound settings in windows reflects what you actually have (i.e. haedphones, speakers). If there is a mismatch, you could wind up with certain sounds not being heard. CMSF plays differently whether you have plain headphones or 4.1/5.1 speakers/headphones. At first glance, it sounds like your problem.

the third episode was boring, after the canal, seeing an autralian soap opera is a poor choice. Hopefully, the action picks up in #4.

I saw the first episode, nicely done. I thought the battle of the Tenaru River was nicely filmed, not a head on Banzai charge, but shows the IJA troops actually maneuvering to outflank the Marines. aftermath was very close to the real thing as well: looking forward to the next episodes.

It does not have to be an either/or situation. CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and CMSF are all fine games. You can enjoy one, many or all of them. They all have their strengths and weaknesses and none is the pinnacle of wargaming (although CMx2 is clearly superior ). I play both CMBB and CMSF and enjoy them for what they are: fun, enjoyable wargames. Whether someones prefers CMx1 or CMx2 is immaterial, but these threads where posters try to prove that CMx1 is superior to CMx2 are so 2005.... Huhr, if you are looking for opponents for CMBB, there are many right here or you could also check out WeBoB http://www.webandofbrothers.de/ . Its a great club and we are always looking for new members.

I agree with Dima...

how long did you wait?, sometimes it can take 5-10 minutes or more until they notice, spot (i.e. "?"icon) and then I.D. the unit. Stationary or hiding infantry can be very hard to spot.

Little known (but true) facts: -Normandy was conquered and settled by the Vikings, also called Normans in France, around the 8th or 9th century, so technically, england would have been a Viking colony after 1066... -For many years after 1066, the official language of government in England was French and you can find many official English government documents written in French up to the 15th century, something which us Quebeckers find deliciously ironic... -Almost all of the Quebeckers of French origin can trace their ancestry to about 10,000 immigrants who came over from france in the 17th and 18th century, most of those came from Normandy, so most French Canadians are descended from the Vikings, which must be why we are so good at Hockey...

email Steve, He can fix it for you.

I tried the new 10.1 on my 32-bit XP SP3 system. CMSF and CMBB both work as well as before.

The game looks good so far. The weapons, AFVs and vehicles all look and work as they should, which is the important part. The terrain has been tweaked and overall, there is a nice '80s cold war Afghanistan feel. So far, I personally enjoy CMA more than CMN . There may be an issue with some of the uniforms, but nothing is final yet, wait until the final product comes out.

Ironically, for the same reasons people like playing as the Germans in CMBB, a superbly trained army triumphing over a numerically superior enemy with better equipment. And as a bonus, more interesting tank v tank matchups in the 67 and 73 wars. But my dream game is still CM:VIETNAM!

Squishalll has a valid point. CMA examines a conflict which is little known in the west and a nice break from the WW2/modern dichotomy. There are many players that would like to see other conflicts being modeled, such as Korea, Vietnam, 67 six day war, 73 Ramadan war, etc. or even other WW2 theaters being covered like North Africa 40-43 or the Pacific. If CMA is mildly successful outside of Russia, it may encourage other such joint ventures.

JK, Interesting report. The 2008 RAND study of the future of air combat pretty much came to the same conclusions, that the Russians or Chinese would try to use superior numbers of missiles, ground and/or air launched, to offset the western advantages of better pilots and aircraft: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

The main point is not whether the T-34 was the best tank of WW2, but the fact that the Russians have consistently shown they can design weapons which are competitive with western designs, from the Yak 9/3, La-5/7 in WW2, Mig-15 in Korea, Mig-21 in Vietnam, the SU-35 now. Historically, the main problem the Russians had was not in airplane designs/aerodynamics but in electronics where the West had a clear lead, for example the soviet ATOLL heat seeking missile was copied from the AIM-9 U.S. design. I don't know if this is still an issue, since Russia now appears to have caught up to the West, at least in software design. The other point is: who says the T-50 is a threat to the West? I would think Russia is more worried about China than about the U.S.A.

I have an intel Core duo 8500, no longer top of the line, but still going strong. On monitors, for a long time, I refused to upgrade from my 22" CRT, by I upgraded to a 27" DELL widescreen LCD at 1920x1200 and the image quality is amazing. Just as clear as on a CRT, but the colors are more vibrant. Once you switch to widescreen, you wont want to go back.

I upgraded a few months back from a 2 year 8800 GT. I finally settled on a ATI 4890 which I found to have the best cost-benefit ratio. It works perfectly in CMSF and CMx1 with Win XP. You can pick up the 4870 which is basically the same card for around CAN $ 150.

It's clear the German army is always a draw, whether the WW2 or modern variety. BFC would have to be blind not to notice. Even among the testers, there is much more interest in working on the German campaign.

A very important point which is often forgotten by the "WW2-only or die" crowd. Many dedicated, hard core wargamers are more interested in exploring different post-war/cold-war/modern war/future war conflicts than continually revisiting the same 70 year old war. After working on and playing with state-of-the-art virtual weapons in CMSF for the past few years, going back to the quaint, obsolete weapons of WW2 is interesting, but does not give me the same thrill that working on CMSF 2 will. p.s.- that does not mean, however, that I am willing to give up my post as CMN tester.

yes, it works the same in CMx1 (extreme FOW) and CMSF (Iron). You can get a "?" appearing in CMSF or a generic unit icon in CMx1 for a previously unspotted unit as well as for a spotted unit which becomes unspotted. If you recheck a CMBB game carefully, you will see many generic unit icons (i.e. soviet star, iron cross) showing previously unspotted units. They are much less noticeable than in CMSF, but are there.

There are no sound contacts in CMSF, that is not implemented. In CMSF, the losenge "?" icons represent unspotted or previously spotted units. I have seen them move representing unspotted/unidentified units which are moving, but not identified by your units. If you watch closely, you will see that they become a deeper shade of BLUE or RED before they are identified. I spend a lot of time on reconnaissance in my scenarios. I just rechecked some of my ongoing CMBB and CMSF scenarios and I am now convinced there is little difference between CMx1 and CMSF. If you click on a generic icon in CMBB, you find out what is probably there, even something as detailed as "Guards 44h rifle" whereas in CMSF, the generic "?" icons give you no information whatsoever. CMSF actually gives you greater fog of war since you have no idea what is there until the unit is identified. Yes, misidentification would ne nice, but it is not required for fog of war. Check it out for yourself and come back with specific examples we can look at if you disagree.

Maybe we should just step back a second and see how unit identification is handled in CMx1 and CMSF to see what issues need to be adressed or improved. In CMBB, a Soviet tank may first appear as: 1) a generic tank icon/sound contact or 2) generic Soviet icon. When you click on the Soviet icon, it will indicate the type of tank, (i.e KV-I ? T-34 ?). It may then appear as 3) a misidentified tank, (i.e. KV-1 ?) with a question mark to denote the misidentified status. It will finally become: 4) a fully identified tank, say T-34. In CMSF, all of the preliminary phases from 1) to 3) will be shown merely by a "?" icon with the deepness of the color denoting how solid or recent is the info. The tank will only appear when it is a fully identified tank in 4). So the identification system has the same effect in both, only the visual representation is different. What would appear as a misidentified tank in CMx1 will appear as a "?" icon in CMSF. Which system you prefer is really a matter of personal choice. 1) In terms of what needs to be adressed: 1.1. the amount of info shown when you click on an identified infantry unit in CMSF is too great since you can see what type of unit it is (i.e. infantry, HQ, FO). In CMx1, an infantry unit was just listed as a generic infantry unit until you were close enough to make a more accurate identification. This should be a more generic icon. I am not sure there is an issue with AFVs since the amount of info for a fully identified AFV is about the same as in CMx1; 1.2. the "Icon bug" Lanzfeld mentioned above; 2) In terms of what would be nice to have: 2.1 misidentified units as an intermediate step between the "?" icon and the fully identified icon. I presume this would replace the current latter part of the "?" icon process. I think 1.1 is more of a priority, but 1.2 and 2.1 would be nice as well.

...one more reason to stay with XP....

actually ATI cards now display fog in CMx1. What is your operating program, XP, Vista or Win 7. which drivers are you using?

Scheer, re: the black boxes. I do not get this effect in XP. I presume you have the Radeon text fix installed since text usually appears in those black boxes. Have you tried turning off "landmarks" or "objectives" to see if the boxes disappear? you might also try the workaround I posted above to see if it has any effect.