Pak40

Your game should be running fine with your specs. I have a slower laptop and 6800 Nvidia card and don't have bad FPS. There was some info about using AMD processors in the Tech Formum, you might want to check it out.

Or you could leave it on hard and win the first mission on the second try. That's what I did. Try different strategies and different setups. Don't buy into the default setup that they give you. For example, the first mission of the Polish Campaign has all your troops and two of your guns in the forward trenches. This is a horrible choice because it leaves your AT guns vulerable at long range. The gunners are so bad they can't hit the tanks well at long range. Try moving everyone back behind the hill and into the town and see what happens. The German tanks can't engage until they crest the hill, less than 100m from your positions. AT guns will be deadly at that range.

Have any of you tried to set your Nvidia Video card options to the factory defaults? I remember reading that some Silent Hunter 4 players had to do this to get it to run properly. Possilby there is similar problem in ToW.

I don't think their specifications are unreasonable. I have a two year old laptop and I run the game just fine under most "High" video options. However, you might have hit something on the head about the "optimization on today's variety of patforms".

This is getting absurd. These random freezes are killing the game. It's pretty much unplayable for me. It now has frozen twice in the first Polish Campaign mission. Luckily I saved halfway through the battle before it froze. I reloaded the battle and within a minute it froze again. Specs: Inspiron 9300 2 ghtz Pentium M 2 GB RAM Nvidia 6800go with 256RAM Audigy 2 sound card I have the latest Direct X and Nvidia drivers The game runs fine framerate wise with most of the Graphics options set on High.

Had two freezes in the full version: Freeze 1: In setup mode in the 3rd tutorial mission while placing an AT gun in the trench, which doesn't seem possible to do. I was able to 3 finger salute and get back to desktop. Freeze 2: Tutorial #5 while navigating on the screen to find my tank. Could not 3 finger salute so I had to power down and reboot. I will try to disable EAX and see if it makes a difference. Sucks because I have Audigy 2 soundcard, fully EAX compliable.

I've seen posts speculate that since this game is developed on the IL2 engine that maps could possibly be made through that route. I don't know if that's accurate or not but it gives me hope.

It works in the first training mission. Like they said, you have to doubleclick the "hat" icon.

I guess hedgerows fall in the same category, i.e. a lot additional effort would be required to get them into the game; because I have yet to see anything that looks like a hedgerow in any of the screenshots that are supposed to be Normandy.

Yes, don't listen to Michael. His brain is either fried or he just likes to dish out false information.

Really? That sucks. Man, little things here and there keep chipping away at the credibility of this being a realistic combat game. How can you NOT have unbuttoned tanks in a game like this???

My guess is that binoculars will be abstracted in to the LOS/spotting AI. It seems any tank where the commander is out of the hatch should get a spotting bonus. The tank should have to be stopped or going very slow for the bonus to kick in. Just my guess and opinion.

Umm, do you mean this page? It looks like it's there to me.

Just use an IM or some voice chat program. Besides, most will be playing by email.

How much would you pay for my number?

Isn't there a limit to the number of units in CMBB? Maybe they will patch it so there will be more units per side but my guess is that there will still be a limit. Seems like this has been discussed before.

Sounds good at first but ultimately is just as gamey as scaling down the map size. If the attacker commits a battallion's worth of troops to a map only to have a company show up on the battlefield then immediately he knows the opposing force is smaller than him. Fog of war is largely blown out of the mix. I and probably most other people like the fact of NOT knowing the size of the forces that I'm up against(except maybe an intel report from my commander). It adds to the realism of not knowing what to expect. And another problem: which units get cut out of the attack if the larger force is "pared down"? Does the computer decide or the player get to pick? If the computer decides then we run the risk of key units being left out of the attack. It just opens up a whole can of worms that they would have to recode. I agree that a battalion vs a platoon does not seem like a very fun battle, but in my eyes it's part of war. Not all battles were fair, challenging or fun. Fog of war is of paramount importance to me. Actually, the idea of defending a large map with a small force is appealing to me. If my goal is to recon and gather data on the enemy's size and composition then I would consider it a challenge to recon a large force AND get my units out of the battle alive. I certainly wont need 55 turns to do that. This would obviously be a short battle (10-20 turns tops) depending on the terrain, so it may not be as drawn out or boring as you think.

OK, good point. But I still think it's gamey if you force a small map in this situation. This gives the small defending(intel) group an advantage in collecting opposing force composition. Why? Because suddenly a battallion size force that was meant for a 2x2 km map is squeezed onto a 1x1km map and it's easier for the small intel group to see a larger portion of the map. Call me crazy but if you're actually using these two tactics with a small force, wouldn't you want a larger map? If you use a smaller map you increase the chances of the small hiding unit being found, hence favoring the attacker. If the map is shrunk in this case then it's a gamey tactic that favors the FO. This means that the larger attacking force is again squeezed into a smaller area than he expected. This will possibly result in better use of the artillery against them. Maybe a minor point but still unrealistic and gamey none the less. I am not thinking in terms of flags, but in terms of strategic pieces of land. Flags are only used to tell the computer AI that a certain area is strategicly important. For humans strategic areas should rest upon their interpretation of the map. And many times this will be obvious to both sides of the battle, e.g. a hill, a bridge, a town, etc.

How is that sensible? You're basically telling the battallion sized attacker that #1 he's up against a small force, and #2 that small force is located on this small map. You're basically giving the map to the attacker and giving the enemy position away. It's gamey, it's not sensible(not from a defender's standpoint), and it's not realistic. A 55 turn battle is a little rediculous, a platoon size defender will always have the option of surrendering the map if he doesn't want to wait the full number of turns. Therefore ensuring that all battles are of like sized forces. Battles like what c3k describe where a couple of AT guns take a few pop shots at a few tanks wont be played. Or how about a battle where a small group of engineers with AT guns defend a bridge against a vastly larger force? All those small delaying actions that happened in the first few days of the Ardennes offensive wont be played either. (yea, I know that is West Front) Actually your point is well taken. I just think it's a bad idea for the reasons that I mentioned. No offence taken, it's just where you and I differ.

You're kidding right? You don't see the dangers of a platoon holding a 2km front line? Obviously the other side will eventually find them. Why? Because most likely the lone defending platoon will be defending the most strategically important piece of land on that map. i.e, high ground or a village or a crossroads. You call a lone platoon on a 2km front a line? More like a tiny pocket that will be flanked and most likely surrounded by a vastly larger force. Flags or no flags, that platoon will be easily found and crushed in due time if it faces a much larger force.

I personally think the map size should stay the same based on the campaign defaults. If one player decides to defend a 2x2 km map with only a platoon then he should suffer the consequences. Also, map cropping will automatically let your opponent know appoximately how large your force is at the start of a battle. For example, if both sides only commit a platoon each, then the map will be cropped to a smallish size and both parties will know that they are not up against a large force. Kind of a gamey way to figure out your opponent's force size. Another possible problem with map cropping is that it will be impossible or at least very difficult to code the program so that the crop will be in the interesting part of the map. For example, a 2x2 km map may have a small village in it which would normally be the strategic focal point of the area. If the map is cropped because of small forces, then how can one gaurentee that the village will be included in the cropped version? It seems very likely that the computer may crop the village itself. Victory flags will not always ensure a propper cropping because a 2x2 km map usually has multiple victory flags scattered across the map.

Perhaps if you actually explained it better. Jason says I take this to mean that he thinks maps should contract based on the force size. I think this makes some sense so long as the size of the map still leaves room for some tactical flanking during the battles. You said in support of his idea and in response to c3k's question about on map flanking: This is kind of vague but I took it to mean that you think flanking should be done on the strategic level, i.e. in CMC, not in CMBB. Therefore when the CMBB battle takes place the attacking units come from the side of the map, not the top of the map where the defender is expecting. Is this not what you meant? BTW, I wasn't deliberately mis-representing what you said. So if you feel that I am incorrectly interpreting what you said, then you should have explained it better rather than give that snide remark.

You do the slipping off map, and only model the collision - enter from another direction, for example. </font>

Guys, if you just take the time to click on the "View entire product list" link on the main page then you'll see that CMC is still there. Now stop freaking me out by posting threads like this :mad:

The US had the 75mm AT gun but I think it was only in towed Tank Destroyer Battalions attached to Infantry Divisions, and these were pretty rare since most Tank Destroyer battalions were self propelled. I didn't see the 17lb British AT gun in there either. Nor did I see the US M18 Hellcat, one of my favorite tank destroyers. Oh well can't have everything.