FutbolHead

If you want to see customer support as good or better, as well as an awesome game, check out www.galciv.com, by Stardock, another indy company. Excellent 4X turn based game getting rave reviews.

Automatically receive the 2nd edition free... now that is awesome! Thanks Battlefront!

Thanks for the more constructive reply. He has XP and the latest GF4 drivers. They reduced the problem, but did not fix it entirely. We shall see what the patch does. Thanks again.

Well, considering he's using XP, which hasn't been out for years, that's not the problem. He has recently updated his Nvidia GF4 drivers to latest, and the reduced the problem, but did not fix it. And fixing the game, may well fix his problems.

Is there an ETA on the first patch? My friend and I can't play because the game keeps crashing on his end during orders phase just before or when he presses go button.

Anyone had this problem? BF aware of something like this? The game runs fine on my machine, no problems that I can detect. However, on my friends machine (AMD xp2000+, 512 ram, GF4 TI4600, SB Audigy) the game crashes after every few turns or so during the orders phase, usually right around the time he presses the GO button. He updated to newest GF drivers and it still happened. It happens in MP and SP. ?????

I have a Toshiba Satellite 5105-S901. I can handle ANYTHING I throw at it so far, including CMBB. With a 2.0 ghz P4M, 512 PC2100 ram, and a GF4 440 GO chip with 64 megs onboard, it's a great gaming laptop. Granted, it came at a pretty penny though, but I highly recommend considering the Toshiba Satellite line. Additional: The one downside to this laptop is battery staying power. I can get about 1.5 to 2 hours out of it max. If you looking for something Truly mobile (i.e. battery life important), you may consider other models. I have a car adapter and the AC adapter, so I can really use it anywhere I need to, but other may prefer more "on the battery" usage. This is essentially a mobile desktop. [ October 02, 2002, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: FutbolHead ]

Mine's simple enough. I like to watch soccer. Teams I like: DC United (MLS), Real Madrid, Holland National Team, and of course, the kick-ass/take-names US Women's National Team!

I always love it when people hope that someone's project will fail. Rather than hoping for another enjoyable war game, something to give competition and drive the market to improve, let's hope it sucks so we can in some perverse way get some negative satisfaction. Makes real sense to me. Does this line of thinking seem backwards to anyone else other than me?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ciks: Does anybody have a proof that tanks (even fast-turreted ones) in WWII rotated their hulls to face every pesky infantry unit, that appeared in LOS??? [This message has been edited by ciks (edited 01-12-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, since that isn't represented in the game, it hardly matters. I haven't observed tanks change facing to every infantry unit which appears in it's LOS. . <----- That's the point that you missed. The point I was making, is that while one camp was offering that decisions were made based on historical training information, the other camp was saying, but we disagree, we don't like it, without offering contradicting evidence or source material.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Henri wrote: (snip I would disagree with your summation for the following reasons: (snip) © A thousand pictures of German and Allied armor in the midst of combat can be shown with vehicles firing on targets with their turrets aimed at the target, and their hulls aimed substantially in a different direction. To me it would seem then that I must conclude in all of these many many cases, unless the photographer happened by coincidence to catch the picture at the moment just "prior" to the vehicle turning its hull toward the target, that the voluminous photographic evidence would seem to repudiate the logical presumptions being made that "German Training doctrine", equated to a commonality of scope of sufficient magnitude to presume it was something that was automatically subscribed to. So much so, and to the extent then that it would also automatically apply to that of American, British, and Commonwealth armored tactical theory and training, as well as commonly applied battlefield practice. It would seem to me then, that the reasons for the new change are based upon the idea that this may be the right and proper thing to do, possibly of a presumed logical extention, and possibly because it provides a fix to a game problem, and possibly for a good many other reasons including the popularity of the idea. But not because of historical evidence of a commonality of scope that it was applicable to all Nationalities, and all turreted vehicles, in battlefield practice as an automatic tactical reaction. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only thing that invalidates my summation at this particular point in the thread is that you have finally offered up evidence to support your view, evidence that you suggest opposes the other side's opinion. The problem with your photographic evidence is this. While it may be "voluminous", that only means something when put into perspective of the whole. How much combat is actually represented by ratio in pictures? How many photos are propaganda (See our great war machine in action)? These are nit-picky points, granted, but they have some validity. Additionally, I disagree with you reduction of the significance of training doctrine. Yes, quite often in stressful situations, human beings don't do what they are supposed to do. This is represented quite nicely by the AI. However, when people aren't "freaking out", when they are acting on instinct or are reacting without thinking, that is heavily influenced by training. Generally, it's training that keeps people alive. Acting in contradiction to sound training gets people killed in combat. You do seem to have valid concerns when you suggest the American tactics as well as other nations could or should be represented differently in terms of this AI feature. But my main point was this, at least this time you have offered some evidence to support your view / contradict the other view rather than just saying you don't agree with it.

What I have gathered reading through this thread is this; The side in agreement with tanks changing their facing and not just rotating the turret have based this on historical information that they have read. The side that disagrees with the "new" way tanks work admits that they have no data to support their view, they just think or feel it's wrong. This thread is on 7 pages now with this kind of argument?

Well, after buying Squad Leader, playing it, and returning it, I must say I'm dissappointed as well. I did not have the high expectations that others had because of the name association, but I did hope it would be at least a better version "Soldiers at War". It's not even that in my opinion. I know I staunchly defended Hasbro's right to produce what they wished with the name they legally purchased, and I still stand by that principle. But as many of you predicted, they failed miserably with this product and will no doubt take an economic hit for it as is how the market is supposed to work. Bombs away on me if you like, but I'm straight up enough to come in here and own up to what I said. Later....

Alas, with the TCPIP update, we see a time drawing close at hand when I will be able to properly submerse into the 'pool in earnest. Then we shall see which of the squires and which of the knights shall hand me humiliation or manicure the nails of my hamsters. Mind you, my hamsters were trained by the best of shrews, and their nails are long. A manicure was never so dangerous.

Thanks for the update. Can't wait for MP CM.