Jump to content

lcm1947

Members
  • Posts

    2,473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lcm1947

  1. 4 hours ago, Brille said:

    As far as I know it was officially addressed and fixed in the latest patch 2.18. 

    Though I don't know if the patch is out for the steam version too. 

    Good to hear as I was waiting on that particular patch before buying and playing BS.  Didn't care for the fact that the T-90 had that problem, and I couldn't see myself

    playing a game with a critical problem as that.  As far as Steam I have CW on it and very disappointed in how the game is extremely slow in several areas.  All my future purchases for any of BF's games will be from this site.  

  2. 2 hours ago, Kevin2k said:

    I made two test maps, putting like eight .50 cal HMG teams in front of a single immobilized T-90.

    CMSF2 version 2.04 (without latest patch): T-90SA, I see no unrealistic behavior. External systems broken. Crew stays alive. Tank cannot degrade any further. .50cal ammo ran out.

    CMBS version 2.16 (without latest patch): T-90A, Broken as described, "Hit: opening". Tank blows up after around 15 seconds of .50 cal fire.

    Just to say: CMSF2 did not have that T-90 armor bug.

     

     

    2 hours ago, Kevin2k said:

    I made two test maps, putting like eight .50 cal HMG teams in front of a single immobilized T-90.

    CMSF2 version 2.04 (without latest patch): T-90SA, I see no unrealistic behavior. External systems broken. Crew stays alive. Tank cannot degrade any further. .50cal ammo ran out.

    CMBS version 2.16 (without latest patch): T-90A, Broken as described, "Hit: opening". Tank blows up after around 15 seconds of .50 cal fire.

    Just to say: CMSF2 did not have that T-90 armor bug.

     

    I myself am waiting for BS to be fixed in regard to this bug but glad to hear it never was the problem with SF.   

  3. On 1/25/2023 at 4:33 AM, Artkin said:

    Steam workshop sucks. I've searched for items that never showed up despite having the same exact keywords. 

    With the amount of content that is available for CM, you will spend an hour just trying to find files. The workshop's organization is pretty crap. If they made a browser that wasn't so bad I would dig it. But ffs, there are better options. IanL's website does it perfect, but there isnt a massive collection on there. 

    Valve went with a childish redesign a couple years back and it recessed in functionality. 

    Went " WOKE " did it.  😕

  4. On 1/20/2023 at 12:03 PM, Redwolf said:

    My Steam version of CW loads fast. I can't see any differences to the BFC or Matrix versions.

    Speaking of it, there are 3 versions, not 2:
    - battlefront's (which has activation count DRM and gives you the other 2)
    - Steam build (steam DRM)
    - Matrix build (serial number based DRM)

    The Matrix one is attractive from a DRM and management standpoint, but only the battlefront version is available for Mac.

    Thanks for the reply particularly in regard to the game loading speed.  I now am noticing although it could have been going on ever since getting the game that even saving is taking more time than ever plus the game will freeze and I have to manually terminate the game and of course that save didn't save.  I especially hate that when it's been lots of action and not having saved in some time.  I will be buying CW but it'll be from BF for sure so guess I'll find out if it's my machine or not but everything I test shows the PC is running properly.  

  5. I purchased my CMCW game on Steam back in December and while at first, I didn't notice how slow it loaded up for some reason about 1 1/2 weeks ago I noticed that it now takes 1.10 minutes to load.  Not too happy about that as that is the longest 1.10 minutes ever.  Like waiting for an egg to boil.  Anyway, I may decide not to buy CMBS from Steam after all but straight from BF when I do buy one once the next patch comes out to fix that T-90 bug.  I have tons of games on Steam, but CW was the first BF game bought from them.  

  6. 8 hours ago, Sunbather said:

    Only the price, yes. Steam has regional prices so for me it is 50 euro on Steam instead of almost 60 euro (Paypal conversion rates) buying it from here. Of course, you support the developers a bit more when you buy it from their website. Then again, in addition to the regional pricing, Steam also has sales on the Combat Mission titles.

    You might also want to consider that you can complete bundles on Steam, and bundles give you an additional sale. For example, there is a bundle for all modern war CM base games. I already owned Shock Force 2 and Black Sea, so I was able - by purchasing the bundle - to buy Cold War for 40 euro instead of 50 euro. The same is true for the Shock Force 2 DLCs. I already owned 2 of them and completed the bundle at a double sale (regular sale and bundle additional sale), so the last DLC was 14 euro for me instead of the sale 21 euro. Do note, that Battlefront has the same bundles here on the website but you have to buy them at once and you are not able to complete it peu à peu.

    All that being said, you will get a Steam key for all of the CM games (the WW2 games will come out on Steam some time in the future) when you buy them from the Battlefront website. When you buy the games on Steam, however, you won't get a key for the games outside of Steam.

    Thanks so much for taking the time to explain all that.  I did understand it except for one thing.  You state that if you purchase a game from this site, you get a Steam key.  If you purchase a game from this site as I have done in the past, why would I want a Steam key anyhow your onsite purchase already allows you to download the game and play it so why would you even care if they give you a Steam key?  

  7. On 1/12/2023 at 11:41 AM, domfluff said:

    As with many engineering questions, there's no best solution, otherwise everything would be that solution.

    I do think it's interesting to consider what armour is actually for. Especially in any kind of modern period, any tank can and will die to a single hit from a suitable anti-tank weapon... so why armour?

    Well, the US company team in CMCW is a good example of what armour is useful for. The variant of that in the NTC campaign is: 1x M60A1 platoon, 2x M113 platoons, 2x M150 TOW vehicles and supporting mortars and HQ elements. The M150s are your most important killing power. These have the accuracy, the range and the bunch to take on the heaviest Soviet armour.

    So why have tanks? Well, aside from basic concerns like rate of fire, the main reason is that the tanks are mobile, armoured, and have enough of a punch to compete. Ultimately, someone sometimes has to roll the dice - something has to go over the hill first, or rush into contact. Sometimes that can be done with dismounts, but often the pace and size of a battle are too much for dismounted infantry to cope with. You certainly don't want to lead with your TOW vehicles - they'll die to a stiff breeze, and you desperately need them to stay alive.

    So tanks give you mobile firepower, and the armour allows you a little more leeway in your actions. If someone has to go first, then it should be the element that stands a chance of not immediately being blown up. This means that for the US, the M60 needs to be heavily protected, it needs to be fairly mobile, and it needs to have some degree of firepower - in the case of the M60, the armour might be the most important concern.

    This is in contrast to the BAOR Chieftain, which was central to the British defensive doctrine, which was a lot more static and in depth than the US doctrine of the 1970s. Because of this, firepower was the most important of the triangle for the BAOR. The West Germans instead created depth through counter-attack, and so mobility was their primary concern. The side that can move faster (operationally or tactically) can dictate the shape of the engagement, taking or denying key terrain and being proactive about where and when to fight.

    So... no, insofar as the firepower/mobility/protection triangle is useful, I don't think you can rank protection as the most important in all cases. There are going to be situations where this is appropriate, but equipment and doctrine go hand in hand, and one of the really fascinating things about the Cold War was how many different ways there were to achieve the same goal.

     

  8. 5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    And we were a Charles S Roberts PC Wargame of the Year nominee as well, tell your friends!

    Very glad you are enjoying the game.  It is remarkable to me our little baby is still gaining followers almost two years after it debuted.

    I am very much enjoying it and not shocked to hear that the game was a nominee.  A really interesting period of time and this game places you right there.  Neat!

  9. 5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    And we were a Charles S Roberts PC Wargame of the Year nominee as well, tell your friends!

    Very glad you are enjoying the game.  It is remarkable to me our little baby is still gaining followers almost two years after it debuted.

    A PC game of the year is indeed impressive, but I can see why it was.  An extremely interesting time period for sure.   

  10. 14 hours ago, Dr.Fusselpulli said:

    Cold War is not really modern. CMBS and Shock force both play differently again from Cold War, which stands more in between the eras.
    On top of that, Cold War has quite a balanced force selection, as the time frame from 1979 to 1982 is choosen quite wisely, when the advantage tips from the Soviets to NATO.

    I had often wondered about when we started gaining and passing the Soviets but never really bothered to determine it myself but interesting to learn, nevertheless.  Thank you.  

  11. 4 minutes ago, Artkin said:

    I'd much rather face the late war Soviets against the US B)

    I see you did not deny that you would try that though.  😏 Wouldn't the current CMBS be that " late war soviets against the US " you mentioned though?  

     

    4 minutes ago, Artkin said:

    I'd much rather face the late war Soviets against the US B)

     

×
×
  • Create New...