thewood

How about a real scenario editor and an actual map editor. Now about both a real time option or WEGO I uninstalled ToW to make room for SF

Didn't CM originally have it?

I am an executive with one of the world's largest high tech companies and our email limit is 10Meg. I usually use my work email for PBEM becuase its faster. On DSL or Cable, a 50Mb file is still going to take on the order of minutes. Not saying BFC can do anything about CMSF, just stating that some people seem to think that because they have access to high systems, everyone does.

Why were foxholes left out. I thought they approximated a pretty good rough fighting position? Don't forget that the Syrians are in this game too.

What's funny is that I have the opposite problem. Key commands work more smoothly than mouse. But then again, I have a VERY low end system.

Do you mean pre-built positions that are added to the map during editing? Or do you mean holes that are dug during the scenario?

Thanks, Steve btw you still live in central Maine

You probably won't believe me: Celeron 1.8GHz WinXP SP2 512 RAM ATI Mobility Radeoan 16Mb...yes I said 16 I haven't updated the drivers in 2 years. I also have it running from a portable HD I have tried Fast, Faster, and Fastest on 5 different scenarios and it runs a little choppy, but very playable. btw, this gig ran CMAK a little slow too. So far I am incredibly impressed with the game on my IBM laptop. I am currently in YinYing, China on business and bored stiff in my hotel room. CMSF coming on line last night is keeping from going crazy watching PLA propaganda channels.

Can I install and eliscense CMSF to a high speed portable drive. I know I can run it from that HD, but wasn't sure how to get the elicense to install there. I have 4 different computers I use depending on my location and travel so I would like the flexibility to just plug in the HD. I have actually tested CMSF running on the HD and it seems to run better than my internal HD on my laptop.

Yes, poor artillerymen. I sure they toss and turn every night they don't get to kill people. Moron reporters... </font>

Bump...are the developers ignoring this issue?

I thought someone from 1C actually came on the forum and was pretty explicit about the three different data sources.

What is the impact of the encyclopedia being directly linked to the game data? does that mean all the inconsistencies we see are actual in game issues?

Are you referring to me? I said nothing about a consopiracy going on. Getting a little defensive, but can't say I blame you. I was just pointing out that a few people had already brought up that the encyclopedia stats were suspect and got a snippy reponse to ignore them.

Now that is a problem. Looking at the encyclopedia data, I think there may be issues. I know someone from BFC said several times they were completely seperate and a couple of 1C people confirmed it. It was one of the threads started by Redwolf. Here is one of the threads (sorry not started by redwolf, merely a key contriuter). http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=63;t=001092 [ July 04, 2007, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: thewood ]

For ther most part, hold does what it should. Every now and then, I have a unit wander, but not quite so frequently. I just wish that hold did just that. Hold now is stop everything you're doing and do absolutely nothing. Sometimes I want a unit to stay put and ignore tanks, but fire on infantry. Other than me staying right there with it, there is no way to do it.

I don't think anyone expects infantry to be saved by the AI, but there is a very basic expectation of core human and realistic reaction of going to cover. In a game where you have to manage individual soldires with almost no squad-level orders, the soldiers have to have some basic ability for self preservation.

That doesn't make any sense. If you made a good AI, would that stop people from micro-manageing the individual soldiers. I don't think so. If the AI were decent, you could about actually commanding, not babysitting. There should be basic orders like, ambush armor on that road area, move to contact and then hide and observe, hold your fire unless this type of unit appears, cover that house with your machine gun unless directly threatened, etc. The only reason a company makes a dumb AI on purpose, is lack of resources, money, or talent. All three I can understand, but fans rationalizing it away is a little bit of a stretch.

Now that is a constructive comment. I saw a bunch of people banned earlier for comments just like those. I think the guy asked a pretty legit question. Even if you don't agree, wouldn't it better for the overall TOW community to just ignore him instead of giving the trolls more ammunition to beat up on TOW and its community with?

I think they have every right to call it that. I personnally don't think its crap, but a game that has been hyped up for over 5 years probably has some pretty high expectations preceding it in the reviewers mind. Especially coming from BFC. That is still my major gripe. In a vacuum, its a good game. But add in the long development time, the long "beta" in Russia, BFC's marketing, and expectations from the fact its from 1C and BFC, and you do get a lot more disappointment to go along with it.

While I like TOW for many if its features, its kind of funny the way reviews are received on this board. It seems when a review comes out from a mainstream reviewer that is negative, people on this forum state that they just don't get wargames. When someone like Jim Cobb has negative things to say, he's just a wargamer and doesn't get it. I understand that it is not the same people saying these things, but someone looking to get objective info on TOW may tend to think a reviewer can't please without a 10/10. That may tend to make them discount real good info that comes out on these boards as fanboy talk. I think we need to be fair to reviewers, especially if we haven't even read the review. Also, keep in mind that BFC's premise for TOW was to open realism based wargames up to more of the masses. That means mass focused reviewers as well.

Actually, a recent study in the US and Canada showed that less than half the households had any internet connection at all. I think less than 20% had anything faster than dial up. We tend to have skewed views because, guess what, most of the people on forums probably have high speed connections.

I would also suggest going around to some of the other forums like wargamer, Armchair General, and Simhq for opinions. My main suggestion is wait for feedback on the patch if you haven't made your mind up already. I find some parts of TOW quite good, but after every game, I find myself firing up CMBB for a spin. I am hoping the patch cures that.

Does this take the place of an existing unit, or can you add completely new units?

You will be somewhat disappointed. No new maps, unless the developers take the time to build them. Supposedly, the new map editor will let you move objects around.