Derfel

Actually there is a discussion on these very questions going on at the site. At the moment it's leaning toward having a few separate types of BBs, 2player only, single player only and perhaps single player blue/red only. We gladly accept contributions for any and all types. The criteria are difficult, as you say it's a tug of war between the desire not to drown the players in info (few units, small map etc) and the fact that modern weapons are so much more efficient at long distances the the WWII ones. Paradoxically it seems that the single player maps can be larger and contain more units as there is the turn based option there. (Sadly missed from the 2 player modes of play) We're groping towards some sort of general recommendation, but we're not quite there yet, drop by the page for the latest thoughts and scenarios.

OY!!! Here we spend time and... er... well just time actually... to inform you of the hugely cool new addition to the Byte Battler website and what happens? We get railroaded by some silly T-90 nonsense and instantly pushed back to page two. Well, we're not the sort to give in to subtle hints. BUMP!!!!!! Oh, and there will be T-90s aplenty in the coming Byte Battles, so there. -Derfel

That's right folks, we've finally expanded the old Byte Battler site to include CMSF byte battles. Youll find the new site at: http://www.kretsen.nu/bytebattler/cmsf/index.htm Comments and contributions are more than welcome! -Derfel

Thanks for all the help guys, I've tried all available suggestions and it's nogo. I guess I'll give this one amiss. Pax Vobiscum,

Thanks a lot guys! I guess I'll start with a single license and see if we can get a LAN game going, and then take it from there. I'll let you know how we get on. Pax,

Sorry, mate. As I said I've tried all the little tweaks and tips I could find here, still nogo. (Including the weird one where you flip back and forth to set the core settings while the game is active). Am I really the only one who can't get the danged thing to behave?

Just tried the new Uberpatched demo of TOW, it runs like a duck with both legs in plaster! Surely my system can't be that unusual: intel Core2duo 6700 @ 2.66 ghz Nvidia 8800 GTS 2 Gb RAM Lots of HD space Just for fun I updated graphics drivers and tried all the little hints and tips on this site. Result: Nada, nichts, nothing. Don't know the fps count (is there any way of checking without actually installing FRAPS or somesuch), but it looks like something like 12-14 fps, almost slideshow. Sure glad I tried the demo before buying, but still... Any tips/hints? Pax Vobiscum,

Quick service! Thanks a bunch! So how do I get my mitts on this Creature Zoo you speak so highly of? (Sorry, been reading Wodehouse again).

Good. I remember this place as very friendly, though it used to be a lot more crowded, didn't it? Anyho; on occasion I run small LAN wargame tournaments for a bunch of old coots like myself, and having played CM into the ground and beyond I was thinking that DT might be the stuff to give the troops the next few times. I've tried the demo and it seems to run fine on our hardware. However before I fork out the enormus sum of 20 bucks or so I thought I'd put out these few questions: 1. How many installations can I make from one purchased copy (license or whatever you want to call it)? There's usually six or eight of us playing so its obviously of interest if I have to buy one or eight copies. 2. There used to be alot of talk about the enormous modding capabilities of DT, but a quick google doesn't exactly burst with modding sites or material. Are there good mods out there? 3. Anybody else run DT as a LAN game? If so I'd be delighted for any tips. Pax Vobiscum,

IGN Review of CMSF

Metalbrew: Nah, aren't you forgetting the rumble at (scratches head) uh... some German place with bridges... also I seem to recall some company/brigade size armor engagements being depicted too... anyway I was more into the era than actually copiyng stuff from the book. John: Were the TOW of mid-eighties really incapable against ERA? I always figured the ERA was a sort of useful in low intensity conflicts (=low tech)but not so great in actual out and out war since once you've been hit that area is down to the armour of the vehicle. Which wasn't always great, especially on the older models. Also, I was under the impression that the NATO 105 mm was up to killing at least T-72's and downwards... propaganda perhaps?

Yay! I want a "Red Storm Rising" mod too! Anybody play "Assault" series of boardgames? Great fun... or at least they were fun.... back in the stone age...

Bunp

Paradox pressrelease on IGN Perhaps they're waiting for another patch... [ August 01, 2007, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Derfel ]

Since I used to be in the artillery I'll put in my two eurocents as well: The new model is a great improvement, not really sure about the GUI yet, have to get more used to it. The ability to adjust a fire mission is rather important though, at least in my day (back in the Jurassic)FO used the adjust-commands to react to enemy movement. i.e if the target decided to withdraw the FO would adjust the fire to follow them. Perhaps procedures have changed since then... but I do remember american artillerymen describing similar techniques.

Before I make an ass of myself and buy a game I can't play I'd like to check this. My rig is pretty much smack in the middle of the danger zone (core 2 duo, Geforce 8800GTS). However, the demo runs smooth as silk, should I take this as an indication that the full game will to?

Just to keep this one alive a bit longer: My impressions of the thoughts expressed in this thread. (leaving out the stupid "realism" debate) 1. There are a number of people who are disappointed that TCP WeGo is not available. 2. Most of us feel that BF didn't exactly make this clear beforehand, thus there is an extra bit of annoyance. (In contrast to the PBEM issue where Steve and others told people loud and clear that the filesizes would be large) 3. The main problem seems to be the large file sizes to be transferred, for this reason the designers assumed it wouldn't be a desirable feature to spend time on. 4. Several people have made the point that they play via LAN, which presumably could handle the filetransfers without trouble. I haven't seen BF adress this yet. 5. BF has not completely shut the door on some form of TCP WeGo in future patches or releases. I guess the question to be resolved really is how many people do play via LAN or high speed internet connections. If there is a significant number who do, it might be worth the effort to re-instate TCP WeGo. Alternatively Charles might have a brainwave and solve the entire thing so the the file size shrinks to less than 50 kb... but somehow I doubt it... I am pleased the the door isn't completely shut on this issue, looking forward to developements.

I must say I agree with Exel on this point. The lack of TCP WeGo is pretty much a dealbreaker for me. I still play CMx1 quite a lot and always via LAN; perhaps there's to few of us who do that to matter, but over a LAN the filesize wouldn't matter much (Well, within reason, if the filesize gets upwards of 500 mb it might slow things down a bit.) I truly hope Battlefront reconsiders this issue. WeGo via LAN or high speed Internet connnection does seem doable.

Bah! I wave my front hoofs at ye! I trot off because I choose to, not because I happened to spontenously combust... well... it did speed up things a little but still... aaaaiiioooowww... the flames... the flames... In any case I've been evicted from better Peng threads... in fact... I was the first to reply to the moron who named this hallowed ground "Cesspool". As I recall, my reply was the immortal words; "Sod Off, Baldrick." I mean, it just goes to shoe doesn't.... what... oh,.... alright, I'm going, I'm going....

Hey, Yeknod! The call has come; all battle-donkeys to sign up for Bren-tripod duty. Go to the Bren-Tripod thread and ask for the Ass-at-arms (Dorosh) and he'll equip you with the proper Bren-tail... or whatever... Nows the time for all good quadropeds to come to the aid of... what? Yeah, yeah, I'm going....

Yeah, yeah, Dorosh. But where's the horse?

OK, just for the sake of balance, and to show that there are other opinions on this issue; Personally I never play PBEM and wouldn't miss it if it didn't show up in CMX and since I don't use this feature I would prefer the designers focus their energy on all the other things that could do with a little improvement. -Derfel

OK, that one went down like the proverbial lead balloon... let's see if this one does better: Personally I would like to have the possibility of going to "Full Screen" i.e. the option of switching between having the UI visible and just viewing the battlefield and working with hotkeys. Possible? -Derfel

Things I'd like to see: 1. Vastly expanded Victory Conditions / Scenario Editor. Example: VC should be able to include and combine things like secure, hold or arrive at location for (at) certain period of time, maximum number of casulties, certain units intact etc. For inspiration look at VCs for the old Harpoon game. 2. More players than 1 per side in multiplayer games. 3. WYSIWG Map editor, to flip back and forth between editor and map modes gets old very fast. 4. More detailed model of buildings, more floors, several rooms per floor and above all a more complex/detailed destruction sequence. 5. Reserved for something I will think of when I've posted this. Don't change: WEGO Bias towards realism/extreme fog of war etc. (Thks Andreas) -Derfel

Now I know why you have the death sentence in 12 Peng threads... P.S Good link, nice to see a new generation of Geekoids D.S