Sgt Joch

A bit less than $700 actually for the CPU, motherboard, RAM & video card, all within the past 2 months. Everything else was recycled from my existing rig. You could build the same rig from the ground up, including a 24" monitor for less than $1,500. High end hardware has become ridiculously cheap over the past year, if you choose wisely, which means buying second best which gives you 90% of the performance of the absolute top end for a fraction of the price. My rig will run any game, including the Crysis demo. It runs all of my preferred games, CMSF, CMBB, CMAK, SH4, F4AF, First Eagles fast and well, even "On to the Volga!" is smooth and playable, so I am good to go for another 12-18 months until the next upgrade.

I just got a 8800 GT 512 mb last week. It runs the game beautifully with no issues whatsoever. I think all the technical issues were linked to VISTA and earlier versions of the game, I run XP. My current rig is: intel E6750, gigabyte P35-DS3R mb, 8800 GT, 2 gig DDR2 @800, XP pro. In "Hammertime", with best/best textures, 1280x960, 4xFSAA, I get FPS between 20-50. In "Allah's Fist", my opening FPS is 25, 57 at balanced/balanced. Keep in mind though that CMSF, like CMBB and CMAK are CPU limited games. The switch from a 7900 GTX to a 8800 GT only gave me a 10-15% boost in CMSF, whereas in other games I am seeing a 50-100% improvement.

I like CMSF and it is gradually replacing CMBB and CMAK. As I spend more time with the game, it is obvious that it is an improvement over CMx1 in many areas, although there are still some rough patches. I would expect the USMC module to sell less than CMSF, since expansion packs invariably sell less copies than the core game. I will probably buy the USMC module as well as all the follow on modules. The only black cloud I see in CMSF's future is a lack of staying power. CMBO, CMBB and CMAK are still going strong because of a large and organised multiplayer community with many clubs such as Band of Brothers , of which I am a member (we are always looking for new members, by the way ). In CMSFs case however, from what I can see at the usual sites, there seems to be little interest in multiplayer CMSF games.

That is good news, I was wondering what I would play after I finished "Hammertime".

...moaning, heavy breathing, leather straps being stretched, furniture breaking.. whoops, sorry, posted in the wrong forum again.

Having a "bogged" unit becoming unbogged is common, the question is whether a "bogged" unit which becomes "immobile" can then become mobile again. In all the games I have played, when a unit is "immobile", it is stuck for the rest of the game, although in operations I have seen them come back in a subsequent game.

I have never seen that either in several hundreds CMBB and CMAK games.

buggy...bug-ridden...bugfest, always the same complaints. I have been working through GeorgeMc's "Hammertime" WEGO v AI, now at turn 45 and CMSF with patch 1.04 is actually a very decent simulation which is an improvement in many ways over CMx1. Back on topic, can we get a general timeframe on when 1.05 is expected to come out, are we talking weeks or months? I am trying to decide whether to start the campaign now or wait until 1.05 comes out.

I was never able to run with two cores with 1.03 and before, I would get overlapping voices, CTD's, lockups, but with 1.04, there is no issue. I have a Dual Core 2 6750. Did you update all the drivers? I also installed the power management hotfix which is referred to in the troubleshooting thread, have you tried that?

That is very good news, this was the biggest problem with ATI drivers and CMx1, although I am surprised ATI would finally add support for table fog now, when almost no games still use that method. What about FSAA? is that still a problem?, I remember ATI could not do FSAA in 16 bit which meant no FSAA in CMx1. Does this work with the 2900 too? The new ATI RV670 cards coming out next month look interesting, but lack of support for table fog in CMx1 was one of the biggest issue holding me back. I presume it is the same in both XP and Vista?

version 4 ?!? :eek: I am already 30+ turns into a WEGO game versus the AI, you are a cruel man George. Love the scenario, especially the 'Nam theme.

I'm impressed, I was sure no one would recognize the movie. Is there a site where we can see more of those USMC cartoons, I get a kick out of them.

"Outerboard" :eek: as in: "Denizens of the underworld, kneel before your god!" Outerboard :confused: [ October 17, 2007, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Sgt.Joch ]

Just to had more fuel to the fire, I am playing a scenario with many Bradkeys, most of which are always in stationary overwatch for at least 5 minutes at a time. 30 minutes in, there as only been one TOW fired... at a ATGM team, so far all the other Bradleys only use the 25 mm gun to engage AFVs.

I have noticed that too. In a 1.04 scenario I am playing, it took 3 javelins to take out a T72 turms. However, part of that may be due to near misses and FOW. All 3 javelins appeared to hit the tank, but I noticed a nearby building was destroyed after the second javelin hit, which would indicate it hit the building rather than the tank. I play at Elite. The general effectiveness of javelins has been reduced in 1.03 and 1.04.

...much too late for that my friend, we are way past the point of no return...

wet behind the ears punk kid... sorry, could'nt resist . I also started out with Panzerblitz and Panzer Leader in the early '70s. It's hard to believe how far this hobby has evolved in the past 30 years. I wonder if some of us will still be hanging around here 30 years from now ... a bunch of grumpy old men arguing about insignificant issues...much like now.

2P or not 2P, that is the question. Whether it is nobler in the mind not 2P and to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or 2P... (with most humble apologies to the Bard)

I agree entirely. But I've seen too many situations in the game where units covering a platoon-mate's advance start firing on the platoon-mate when it gets a couple hundred yards ahead. I'd expect the nearby coverers to know who they're covering and not mistake them for enemy. </font>

friendly fire is a fact of life in modern warfare. I have not seen that it is worse than RL in the game. some tips: 1. deconflict - keep units separate with a clean LOF to the enemy positions. This is standard in modern warfare. CMx1 was cartoonish in this aspect, you could shoot through friendly units no problem, CMx2 is much closer to RL; 2. use covered arcs - tell your units exactly what they are allowed to shoot at, establish their ROE. If you let them shoot all over the map, they will shoot first and ask questions later, as all well trained soldiers will do; 3. air strike - don't call in an air strike within 500 meters of friendly units...found this out the hard way :eek: ; If you follow these simple common sense tips, which is in fact what is done in RL, you will see friendly fire incidents go way down.

I'm 52 and can't get enough of this game. Men don't age, they just develop more expensive hobbies .

what type of cards do you have? is the problem card specific? Is it only ATI cards that have these issues? I ask because I have a 7900 GTX w. 163.71 drivers and have not noticed any issues. The icons look the same, the mid- far- terrain looks about the same or better than before, partly since I have been able to bump up texture quality and partly because grass gets drawn further out which improves the overall look.

I refuse to answer yes or.... Hmmm, déjà vu.

Getting back to the topic at hand, this sounds very much like a bug/ programming fault to me, I don't see how you can justify/rationalise shooting HE at an armored target. In general, soldiers fight as they were trained and Syrians show little initiative on the battlefield. If a Syrian tanker was trained to fire AP at U.S. tanks, that is what he would fire in battle. He would not decide to experiment with HE. On the other hand, if he was trained to fire HE because his AP cannot knockout american tanks...then they would bolt as soon as they caught sight of a U.S. AFV.

thewood, nice sig, although I would have bolded the text part so it sticks out more, i.e.: for example...