benpark

I'm leaning toward Stalingrad. Any major urban combat of WWII would be fine by me (Berlin and Stalingrad at top of the list).

I have the ATS version on pre-order. Time to clear off my office desk.

Thanks for the reply, imported_Windle_Poons. I tried as you suggested and attempted to guess where the buttons were. After a handful of tries, I got into a game and it ran perfectly. It was impossible to see what I was selection however. The problem lies in the scenario selection screen, and the screen after(the rt/turn based selection IIRC). There is a selection of only 2 different drivers for the x1600 card for Bootcamp as it stands now. I tried installing regular drivers ATI drivers, and was unable. Hopefully there will be a tweak from ATI or BFC to get me back in business on the laptop.

I just installed 1.1 on my 15" MacBookPro (ATI x1600), and I am getting a black screen after the initial CMSF screen where I select "Battle", "Campaign", etc. If I hover my mouse cursor around where I suspect the buttons are, the screen will flicker and I can see the next screen for brief glimpses. I suspect that the ATI/Apple Bootcamp drivers are at fault here, as my MacPro with a 3870 card was working fine on my CMSF Marines install prior to me leaving for my Christmas dream vacation at my in-laws. The drivers are the 8.430.0.0 version (the latest I could find at ATI for my computer). Any help appreciated so that I can see this fantastic new patch in action.

I've just realized that my 32bit XP install (on my Bootcamp partition on my MacPro) doesn't recognize the 6gigs of RAM I have. It thinks I have 2 installed. I'd dearly like to use those for my gaming affliction. What have people done to upgrade XP from 32bit to 64? I'm wary of wiping everything and doing a clean install- all of those re-installations from Steam, serial numbers to dig out etc etc. If that's what it takes, I'll have to let it slide. Is there a way to install the 64bit XP "in place", without wiping everything?

The game is fantastic. The improvements have made it jump from an A- to an A+. Graphic changes like showing the hot-spot where the movement will be are huge improvements that enable the player to tell with some certainty what he can expect when the little geezers get to their destination. The huge improvement in the AI movement routines makes this a done deal. The audio cues are also a massive help. To actually not have to open the artillery dialogue to check the status of fire missions, and instead to hear that they are prepped etc is GREAT GAME-MAKING. The new sounds for over-flight , infantry movement etc are really great stuff as well. Modern combat isn't my cup of tea. I bought CMSF because I was sure BFC would do something interesting, and I wanted to support the company for the WW2 titles- and because I just like 'em as good folks. I'm now really going to be counting the days until CMx2WWII after seeing these great changes in the engine. A lot of thought obviously went into this addition and patch, and a lot of testing. Thanks to all for what is now a G-damn jewel.

Turn this mutha out.

Gryphon's mock up looks good to me.

Bagration is good by me, in fact the most awaited of all of the new titles. Please reconsider the Hungarian and Romanian forces, at least infantry and a few support vehicles. Any chance that all of the WWII titles can be interchanged as far as forces go- ie. Brits and US forces vs. Soviet?

Is he related to Foghorn Leghorn?

I've just read a complaint about island fighting issues brought up by the lack of stacking (ie. a one game tile island defended by an artillery, air unit or AA unit). This does seem to raise some issues about how accurate the game can simulate an infantry fighting presence of good fighting ability defending a small space with a good deal of staying power. Since the code is now in for aircraft carriers with a fighter component, which is effectively a "stacked" unit- why not allow other land based units to be hybridized? An infantry corps with an AA or artillery component, etc. That way a small island could be able to effectively be defended by two units.

But does it allow you to do http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uAcmrUEp2U?

I agree that a patch release that would allow ToW owners to at least mod enter-able buildings would be greatly appreciated. The desert isn't my thing, but I did like ToW despite a few frustrations. It also seems like an odd choice for featuring new infantry mechanics with the bare open areas we see in the screen shots. I'll probably pick it up after hearing some initial reactions, though.

Darkest Hour seems to be running quite a bit better now. Some of the brand new maps included with the new patch seem buggy, but the original ones are much better. As for RO:Ost, people seem to want to keep playing the same old maps. There are some great custom ones (the Berlin ones fer example), but every time I look it's Danzig again on most servers.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=80452&highlight=screen+upside+down In file ww.ini change state "true" on state "false". It’s in line - "changeScreenRes". The thing is, that game will run in resolution used by your desktop.

Nice map. I've stayed just down the street from there for a decent amount of time, and could probably find my way around with this.

My MacPro running Bootcamp with the ATI 2600XT will not run CMBB or CMAK. My MacBookPro will however (video card escapes me at the moment). Any one know if any of the new Mac video card will run these two games I can't do without?

The old ones were driving me nuts. Up at CMMODS... http://www.cmmods.com

Will ToW be retrofitted (pay or otherwise)to include building entry?

Times are tight for the Warlord. See those two? Their squad was issued experimental hemp hijabs! They are now floating off for a third helping of hummus! (insert Scooby-Doo "odor trail" in graphic post production) I hope this peyote AK-47 stock doesn't seep through my shirt...

"Capa-esque" would be more appropriate. It would be "Capra-esque" to have the dying guy in the screen shot rescued by his guardian angel to show him what life would have been without him and his AK47.

The "!" symbol represents units broken beyond rally or surrendering. This may work for some cases. In others, it would be best to have some retreat logic for the the little geezers. The player can attempt to exert some semblance of this, but that seems like too much micromanagement, and when playing against the AI it would only strengthen the game play to have a better retreat system. For infantry, something like a reverse "Assault" (some troops covering the enemy with suppressive fire the retreat of the rest of the friendly squad) would be nice for trained troops. Less trained might just bug out en mass using the most covered route directly away from enemy fire. If these two systems fail as well as their morale, and the enemy is "x" distance away- "!" ensues.

I'm on a MacBookPro. Use the fix above, and it will run perfectly.

Agreed on all points below about improving the infantry side of the game in a realistic manner below. Mostly, the infantry gameplay needs attention. In addition- morale should have a greater effect on whether a unit advances or retreats, and units should pin down more often. This should apply to AFV's as well. Tanks are far too willing to drive right up to trench lines as is. Also-LOS must be fixed in a way that "feels realistic". All seeing tanks with radar gun sights make for frustrating game play when infantry is involved. I know this has been on this list for the add-on, but I will reiterate it.

Great stuff. This new quick mission option is a huge shot in the arm for ToW. The map editor looks great as well. Well done.