kgsan

Zemke, hope your experience varies, but you may find that CMBB and CMAK don't run on your new rig either. At least that was my experience when I purchased a new computer with an Intel Core 2 Duo Processor, GeForce 8600 GTS, running Windows Home Premium Vista 32bit. Also, I think Feltan makes a fair point above.

Steve, It's not just Nvidia 8800 with AMDs. As I posted in the CMx1 tech forum a month ago the CMx1 games are virtually unplayable on my new desktop with Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with 2 Gig of RAM, a 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS, and running Windows Home Premium Vista 32bit. The games ran fine on my 5 year old rig with a Pentium IV and 128MB NVIDIA 4??? Video card on XP. So please cast the net a bit wide when looking at these new problems.

I'm also stuck at work and would greatly appreciate a copy of the manual as well, if anyone would not mind. I'm a bit concerned as it sounds like there are some compatibility issues with the game. Anybody running Shockforce on an Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with 2 Gig of RAM, a 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS, and running Windows Home Premium Vista 32bit? If so how does it run? It doesn't run the previous titles well at all but hoping there won't be any problems with Shockforce.

That's pretty much the opposite of what I've seen here over the years. BFC IMO have made it pretty clear that we'll never again see a (eastern front) game of the scope that CMBB provided. A "Battle for Kharkov" or "Bagration" modules for a WW2-game are IMO far more likely. </font>

Looks like we have the same driver version. Hopefully NVIDIA will be coming out with a fix before too long.

Thanks Schrullenhaft I'll give it a try.

I recently purchased a new desktop with Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with 2 Gig of RAM, a 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS, and running Windows Home Premium Vista 32bit. CMAK ran fine on my 5 year old rig with a Pentium IV and 128MB NVIDIA 4??? Video card on XP. However, on the new computer the game now runs exceedingly clunky, although it does run. From some of the other comments on the board regarding problems with NVIDIA GeForce 8800 video cards it sounds like it might be a driver issue. (Is anyone using the 8600 GTS without problems?) However, I was wondering if some or all of my problems might be caused by settings for the video card. It defaults to letting the program set the criteria, which I thought was always problematic. I’ve played around with adjusting the settings a bit without any noticeable change in performance. Does anyone have any suggestions on what settings for the video card (for someone who is not very technically adept), or is the consensus that this is a driver issue for the newer Nvidia cards and just to sit tight until new drivers are released?

Steve, Thanks for the info. I'm still trying to get my brain around the new QB concept. One thing that still isn't clear to me is the degree of precision involved with the scripting. I would have thought that scripting would pretty much limit a QB map to one type of engagement type and, as a practical matter, also limited to specific classes of forces for it to be playable against the AI. However, some of the posters above seem to be saying that a map with scripting can be played with any engagement and force type the player chooses. Is that so, it seems a bit counter-intuitive, but one can always hope. [ July 06, 2007, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: kgsan ]

How many of those are attack maps? Defend maps? ME maps? Ofcos, it also depends on how fast there will be new maps available, the quality of those and how easy they are to get. In the end, I think the auto gen maps will be missed no matter what, its just a question of how much they will be missed. </font>

Well, I certainly don't wish to prod Mr. Rune past the point of endurance, but can somebody confirm what he has said. Must the map have AI plans already scripted? If so, how can the AI follow scripted battle plans if the human player can pick or randomize the AI force? If the above is correct, and I hope I have it wrong, then it sounds like QBs are now just way to randomly pick a game from pre-existing scenarios on your HD rather than a way to generate a scenario according to player chosen parameters. [ July 03, 2007, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: kgsan ]

If it's horses you want, take a look at the Napoleonic game BFC will publish, presumably later this year, Histwar: Les Grognards.

Steve, Thanks for the info. Glad to hear that full battle replay is something ya'll will try to get in at some point. One thing I'm not quite clear on from your response: even for CM:Shockforce will there be individual turn replay files which we can save from we-go solo play, or will that functionality be limited to PBEM files (assuming PBEM is in) as in the original CM series? Thanks, kgsan [ November 20, 2006, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: kgsan ]

Thanks gibsonm, but I'm wondering/hoping that CMx2 is going to internally store the data so we can playback the entire battle if we want. If I recall correctly, I think the game Myth had that capability uqite a few years back. (and I believe that Histwar; Les Grognards which BFC will be publishing sometime soon will also have this feature). With CM you could view individual turn files by reloading the PBEM movie files(although only from one side's perspective), but I'm hoping that the new game might permit us to view back the whole game, whether played PBEM, Solo, or otherwise.

So has BFC told us yet whether Full Movie Playback is in for Shock Force? (Yes, I have tried searching and my apologies to the search grogs if this has already been answered, but while I did find a number of threads asking about this feature, I didn't see where BFC had issued the "word from the mountain top" one way or the other.)

Steve, thanks for the response. I think a concern of a lot of us old CM fans is that the game/module approach will only give us coverage of a few narrow pockets of WWII before y'all move on to space lobsters, etc. I think most of us certainly understand BFC's desire to release the games in smaller increments which will allow for a well-earned recoupment of your time and effort. The hope is that if even if you just produce a West-front and maybe East-front WWII game/series, the succesive modules for each would, over time, fill in a lot of the front's equipment and units, at least for the major combatants. However, if the scope of the modules is very narrow, and y'all only plan one or two WWII game/series, then obviously that hope is off the table. I think we are just trying to gauge where BFC envisions going. We'd love to keep throwing money at y'all for more comprehensive WWII coverage if you'll let us. [ October 08, 2006, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: kgsan ]

Steve, assuming the focus of CMx2 WWII stays Americans and Germans in Normandy, if BFC makes a Bulge and/or Market-garden game would this likely be a module or another "Game/series"? I know the scope of each release will be much smaller this time around but I'm hoping that one game/series would cover most of the 1944-45 Western Front (well, not including Italy) over the course of several modules. Or does BFC envision one game/series on Normandy with very narrow modules providing additional nationalities or vehicles?

OK, so let me understand; having a much narrower focus for their games and much more limited replayability, without random maps, is going to increase sales?

Well, my vote would be for "Fictional with Minimal Story." It seems the safest way to avoid problems (or at least to role with the punches) from unpredictable future events, would arguably increase the longevity of the title's marketability, and would allow inclusion of some additional units that many would probably want to play with. Heaven forbid that a near-term future conflagration with some country other than Syria further delay release of CM:Shockforce. We need BFC to get working on its most importent project, CMx2 WWII, as soon as possible.

Absolutely, any alien civilization which reaches earth will inevitably be more advanced than our own. From that it inevitably follows that they will be more enlightened, less militaristic, kinder & gentler, and more understanding and nurturing of alien cultures than our own society.. That's why my favorite alien movie is "Mars Attacks"

I think BFC has said that CMx2 will be playable both real-time and wego. [ August 04, 2006, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: kgsan ]

Thanks for the response Moon, glad to hear it.

Well Theatre of War looks very interesting and it will likely be on my Xmas list at the end of the year. However its raised one concern for me. I hope the addition of this game to BFC'sline-up isn't indicative of a change in strategy for their CMx2 games. Can anyone at BFC reassure their WWII loving CM customers that CMx2 WWII is still planned as the follow on to Shock Force? Please, . . .

Full movie play back with the option to toggle off fog of war (including play against AI as well as a human opponent) sounds fantastic. This is one piece of 'chrome' I've longed for since CMBO.

One question which might clear up, or at least focus, some of the concerns (if y’all are ready to get into this type of detail . . .) is whether BFC is envisioning: 1) a series of modules which together would equal a single uber-front game in the CMx1 series (i.e. have most the units and terrain from the whole front), or 2) a series of modules, from perhaps different fronts, covering situations that the company thinks would make interesting (if smaller scaled) games, but which would not attempt to provide, even over the course of several modules, a “complete” front. From the comments so far, I am inclined to suspect the latter.

Steve's comments are reassuring. My biggest concern with the module approach has been with them slicing the salami too thin. His previous reference to the possibly releasing a US v. Germany in Normandy game with a subsequent module coevring the Brits (which in all fairness may have been an off the top of the head, just to give us an idea, kind of illustration) did not sound very attractive to me. Like many of the other posters in this thread, I found one of the great things about CMx1 was its scope and almost endless replayability. BFC has good reasons not to want to take such big bites again. A reluctance to tackle the whole east front again in one go, along with all the minors, certainly makes sense, but I hope they don't go too far the other extreme. Being stuck with Americans v. Germans at the Bulge for 6 to 8 months doesn't sound too alluring to this customer, even at a lower price; however, I'll trust BFC to find the sweet spot. [ May 31, 2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: kgsan ]