phil stanbridge

I adore CMSF - especially the latest NATO module which is so diverse. The campaigns are much more of a challenge. I will be keeping this on my hard drive along with the new Normandy title. Although I'm sure Normandy will become my favourite, I will probably pine for modern warfare at some point. I've also got Afghanistan which is completely different once again.

I suppose what we really need to think about is how the engine will handle such maps - the engagements on a 4x4 would be huge. Reinforced battalions et al all in 1:1. Imagine it. Amazing stuff. But imagine the computer you'd need to play it?

ha! I wish there was a 'like' button! I wont comment until I see for myself, but I'd tend to agree that the maps that we have seen so far seem a touch on the small side, bocage covered or not. I remember a couple of campaign battles I had in CMBO and the maps were sprawling and it opened up a vast diversity in game play styles. It also allowed for great flanking ambushes which were pretty much unseen until it was too late. Of course, there were the small village skirmishes too. In the much smaller maps it's pretty much down to a head-on engagement. But I hope that there will be some massive maps in CMBN - isn't that what the new SF engine allows for anyway?

Oh yes please.

That was fantabulous! Did that bazooka really knock out the Tiger though, or just incapacitate one of the crew?

Hi Dita, SF is really quite good and a lot of people have dismissed it purely because of the theatre which is a shame. All the campaigns play differently which is great, it really feels like you are getting good value for money. I've got a training campaign listed which is part of the base module is it not? I'm also running BFC's version of the game which is 1.31 however rather than the Paradox 1.30. I don't know if that has anything to do with your problem. As for missions, I guess it depends on your style - I prefer WEGO over RT myself as I like to peruse the map and check out the action in my own time. I always feel a bit rushed otherwise. But there are missions which complement both styles. I would pick a nice small battle for starters - a couple of good small ones for you - Al Huqf Engagement and ATGM Ambush.

I was being overly cautious with the artillery I guess, which I have a lot of I admit - but the lack of infantry keeps rearing its ugly head. I don't like exposing the flanks of my armour - and I prefer the combined effort of recon/infantry in forward positions with the armour supporting in the rear. I guess I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to tactics.

So how many missions are in the Canadian campaign? Is this Road to Dinas part of it? I keep hearing good things about this.

This mission is Suburban Hell. I've got quite a large force at my disposal, but my infantry has been totally decimated in the battles beforehand. My armour is in relatively good condition however, but I find that using AFV's as 'bait' never works well in SF I'm left with using single or two man teams as recon (as best as possible) and then having to inch my AFV's forward as slowly as I can. It's a bit of a nightmare really. I have got a few larger squads at my disposal but I really value these dudes now and don't like to expose them! I have been doing exactly as you used to! Emptying the vehicles as early as practical, and using the armour as bait. But I've not had much choice. Most of my men are injured anyway I'll try changing tactics, or maybe just start again.

I see! I did wonder if this was the case. But there is a certain lack of cohesion in the campaign with regards the infantry - they become unfit to fight at a certain stage even though the campaign deems you fit to continue. I'm on the 9th mission at the mo and although it looks like a gooden' there are too many variables getting in the way to prevent me from enjoying the campaign at this stage. I've got very small teams scattered all over the place due to heavy infantry losses. I wish you could reassign infantry teams on the fly - at least this way I could stick all these men into one platoon and feel like I've got a little more control and firepower available. I've got single man infantry units running around trying to recon the dense urban areas without any binoculars/radio or any AT weaponry. I've got machine gun squads without a machine gun, AT teams with no AT capability and sniper teams with no sniper rifle. All these guys are hanging around because I can't use them as designed. I've obviously been doing the best job I can, as I have got to this stage, but it just seems a bit odd. I feel like restarting but the campaign has been a bitch! I would like to play the German one but the lack of Panzerfaust launchers will be too much to bare!

I'm on about mission 8 or 9 of the campaign. It plays totally differently to the British and US campaigns which is no bad thing but I've found it pretty tough in places. But one thing that bugs me - in about mission 6 I think it was I was informed that my losses would be replenished - this isn't the case however. Armour has been repaired to a degree, but my infantry losses remain. To be fair I didn't really play it as conservatively as I should have, but even so I am now seriously low on infantry! It will be interesting to replay it in due course. In some cases I am down to one or two men per squad - these are next to useless as they have no binoculars and no AT weapons of any sort, so I end up using them the only way I can; for recce purposes and more often than not they end up as fodder. I've even got a sniper team without a sniper rifle! It's just a bit crazy really. How are reinforcements handled in the NATO campaigns? Are they replenished or do you have to go through the entire campaign without any?

Combat Mission Shock Force.

Thanks! Looks great. The QB's along with the campaign is probably what I'm looking forward to mostly - few questions for you if you don't mind, firstly, in the QB can you have unbalanced sides ie can the US have 5000 points versus a much smaller German force? Can you specify these points or is it much the same as it was before, ie Assault will give you a specific point difference and that's all there is. Secondly, I heard it mentioned that artillery would be handled differently in this game, but apart from the different loadouts obviously, you still get the same linear/area fire plans - I presume this is an accurate representation?

Just to update this thread - I sold on my new 6950 (yes, already!) and replaced it with an Nvidia 480 super-clocked job. What a difference!! It's so much better now. It definitely looks (and more importantly) plays significantly better under a decent Nvidia card. Now let's see if those crashes have been rectified too!

God that looks great!! One little thing - it desperately needs coloured weapon icons!

Because it's only effecting the larger scenarios with me I think it must be something to do with the texture mapping, or the way the game handles the texture memory - it's acting like a memory leak which I have seen before with games like the Total War series. I've got 2gb of ram on this 6950 so the card isn't the problem per se, neither is the physical ram in my machine. I've tried turning the details down etc and I can't say it has helped. One thing though, I changed the V-Sync setting and something else from quality to fast (can't remember what it is off hand) and I have since been able to save the game, although for how long is anyone's guess. So maybe it is the way the game is interfacing with the system. I'm no programmer however although I build/repair and develop systems, I'm just using some logic here. I must say I do prefer the way the game looks and plays with an Nvidia card - there's just something nicer about it. It runs smoother, and looks 'crisper'. I wish I had opted for a Nvidia before I bought this! Doh!

Hi mate, yes I did see your post first. I thought they were similar problems but I wanted to create a separate thread just so the powers that be are aware of a potential bug. I can't really understand it - this is a new pc that is perfectly stable (nothing overclocked etc) - the only issue might be the fact I am using an ATI card. I don't know. I've tried changing some settings in the game menu and it may have temporarily helped, but we could do with a walkthrough of which settings to use with which card for example. The 'Left-click' thing for example with the ATI cards is important, but some other things may not be. It's a shame BFC haven't released a hot-fix for the 'fausts problem! (hint hint) then I would happily play the German campaign. In fact, I have stayed away from the German single missions mostly because of this (or played as red)

I've got a bit of a problem here. I've noticed that when playing the larger scenarios whether part of the campaign or not my saves will cause the game to crash, (by hanging, white screen, or by throwing me to the desktop). So far I have tried Bier and Biezel (spelling?) and Hope Version 2 as part of the Canadian campaign. So far I have managed to get around it (to a degree but its a big fudge) by saving the scenario, waiting for a while, switching to the desktop and waiting for the 'this game has stopped responding' box to appear. I click wait for the game to respond and switch back and forth several times. I can then normally continue my game. But I have to do this EVERY time I save and it's desperately annoying. Strangely, the smaller scenarios are working fine. I'm using a new ATI 6950 with the latest 11.3 cats. I had the same problem with the 11.2 cats. I'm also using a Logitech Performance MX mouse which is brilliant but I've had a bit of an issue with button sensitivity which is only happening in game. I click once on a unit and two or three units might be highlighted. So that's a bit weird as well! But it's only apparent in CMSF. I'm also wondering if the settings for the game are best optimized with this card - I've tried changing a few things to no avail. I'll keep trying! I'm running Win 7 Pro with 8gb ram so memory isn't an issue. I should just add this is the error message :- Problem signature: Problem Event Name: AppHangB1 Application Name: CM Shock Force.exe Application Version: 0.0.0.0 Application Timestamp: 4ced00e3 Hang Signature: 041a Hang Type: 0 OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48 Locale ID: 2057 Additional Hang Signature 1: 041aedf8948f347dfae49b2a958b20e3 Additional Hang Signature 2: ab4c Additional Hang Signature 3: ab4c71db9297e57dab857d993bea8c40 Additional Hang Signature 4: 041a Additional Hang Signature 5: 041aedf8948f347dfae49b2a958b20e3 Additional Hang Signature 6: ab4c Additional Hang Signature 7: ab4c71db9297e57dab857d993bea8c40

I hate all this DRM rubbish. If people like the product enough they will purchase it regardless of whether they pirate it first, even if it's just for the printed manual. I'd offer software without any copy protection at all, thus saving money in the first instance by implementing the DRM. I'm a system designer/builder and I've run into numerous problems with DRM activations - but mostly with E-License and CMSF! It just seems so unreliable to me. I've still got a problem with one install of Nato and the British/Marines bundle on my laptop, but I've given up requesting help on it because I was fed up with it! I was expecting E-License to be replaced but time will tell how effective this new system will be. DRM is a very unpopular move either way.

Yay!!! Hmmm.

I'll sit down and press F5 on this forum to see who is complaining about it and why. Then I'll probably fire up a small single battle and find out for myself what all the fuss is about. I would like to play all the single missions before I contemplate the campaign, as that to me is 'value for money'. Then I will consider which of the three campaigns to play. Once I've finished a campaign and we're on patch 1.5B I will then open up the QB generator and editor and consider purchasing the Commonwealth module.

Great to hear there will be 3 campaigns - I particularly like picture 16, with the infantry crossing the river. Looks pretty realistic. I can imagine interesting fire fights taking place on the river banks there.

You can't edit the campaigns this way unfortunately otherwise I would have been straight into the editor.

I realise this - I'm certainly not the only one to have complained about this issue

Well it is good to know that it hasn't been forgotten, just side-lined. I'm looking forward to Normandy just as much as everyone else, (have the pre-order in) but there are a few little frustrations with NATO that need urgent addressing. It's a pity a 'hot fix' can't be applied just to sort out the panzer faust issue - that is a show stopper really.