handihoc

Yep, so far seems like a huge improvement. Really intense fighting - loving it after missing it these last few weeks, but too early to give a full impression.

Webwing, just started the campaign under 1.06. First battle, not yet completed, but boy, it's a good one so far! Intense, well-planned, some nice/nasty surprises, great map, very determined enemy. Really love it. Runs very smoothly, too, though as it's a relatively small one it's probably not going to put too much pressure on my pc. 1.06 sure makes a difference. First impressions, this is what SF was meant to be.

You were a bit slow there, Louch! LLF's comment just made me bust my gut with laughter. I still get the giggles at inappropriate moments when I think about it - but that's my sick, adolescent humour, I guess. But no, we were definitely not laughing at the skins themselves - they are great. Good work, and thanks.

Yep, the slowdown problem is being discussed currently in another thread, and seems to be due to dual core/Core 2 Duo machines for some reason being unable to handle things that in theory they should have no trouble with. I have the same problem with an E6600 system - and not only on BF games. Just have to hope that Battlefront can address the issue at some not too distant point. There's no real reason for it to happen, far as I can tell, except that the code isn't yet properly optimized for multi-core systems. How difficult it is to fix is something I'm not qualified to answer, but presumably it's not easy or it would have been done already.

Another issue (I think) is that while I'm saying I'm getting lower performance than I should on my system, someone with a very similar system may be getting perfect play. I'm not sure on this, but that's the impression I get. And yes, Other Means, your pic shows pretty much what I get on my task manager.

That is hugely impressive. Epic. Stunning. Don't know how you did it, but amazing work!

Heh-heh-heh!!

Don't know about the 8000 series Nvidia cards, other than what I've heard, which is that there are still alot of problems. Vista - I have it but have not installed, stayed with XP. Again, so many people have incompatibility problems with Vista, even now, a year on. I bought an E6600 Core 2 Duo (2 x 2.4 gig processors) system with 2 Gig Ram last year, in large part for games like SF and ToW, and to be honest, I'm not that impressed. It's definitely a heavy duty system, but I still get slowdowns and/or graphics degradation in big scenarios that really shouldn't be happening. Can't quite fathom the reason. On paper it can eat these games for breakfast, but there's something in the architecture vs coding (my assumption) that doesn't quite gel. So my advice would be, take the time to research the matter very carefully before purchasing. There are some really powerful rigs around at pretty good prices, but finding the right one that is fully compatible with your needs can be difficult.

How cool are all those!! 'Little' elements like that just add so much reality. Fantastic! All we need now is a couple of Banksy's. [ February 01, 2008, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: handihoc ]

Interesting. My main grouch with CMx1, apart from the inf graphics, was WEGO. I was always a RT player, and found WEGO a bit odd, all that enforced pausing.. . HOWEVER, after rejoicing over the fact that SF has RT, even with the ability to pause, after a few games I found myself reverting to WEGO, mainly for the ability to review events. Dunno which I prefer now (I guess the ideal is instantly replayable RT), but hey, as things currently stand we got the best of both worlds right now, so how come so many are complaining?

Adam, are you saying that because you are party to inside knowledge?

I do love the look of this campaign, but just one word of caution. The size of maps/battles, even on a powerful machine, can really slow things down to an unplayable level. Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I'm wondering what spec machine you're playing and testing on? These are great maps, and I do have a powerful machine and am very much looking forward to playing them, but even so I have found some scenarios with large maps and multiple units do still stretch my pc beyond what I would have hoped or expected.

OK, I've em'd you the briefings, Bardosy. Hope you like.

Pandur, what are you on?

Thank you. And yes, I was thinking along the lines Plugger mentions ie that if civilians are caught on the battlefield they'll likely be holed up indoors and not moving, hence no great burden on AI tracking. It seems like a very simple modification to me, but the simple knowledge that they are there would nevertheless greatly impact on the tactics we use. [ January 27, 2008, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: handihoc ]

Wow. Those are beautiful maps, PT. Really something to look forward to. I've always been something of a campaign junkie so it's great to see so many campaigns turning up, with such diverse and imaginative approaches from individual designers. Excellent!

More of a tactical combat sim, from what I've seen of the briefings. Resembles TF Thunder in many ways - in fact, it's designed as a secondary, diversionary attack in support of TF Thunder, heading to Hims, but from Turkey in the north. Haven't viewed any maps yet, but the scenario descriptions are pretty varied in size and scope, with some interesting terrain settings, including dense urban, military and open desert/countryside, and operations ranging from recon/scouting missions to full-on battalion assaults. Could be a very good one if bardosy has the balance right - only playtesting will tell. Really love the effort designers are putting into bringing out the best in CMSF. Itching for 1.06 so I can get properly back in to the fray!

I've started working on your briefings, bardosy. Smartened them up a bit for English readers, I think, but it's difficult to be absolutely precise in a couple of places as your exact meaning is not always clear. Anyway, I'll send you more detailed comments by email when I return them. If you have any queries on changes I've made, feel free to get back to me. Sounds like an interesting campaign.

Totally cool. Thanks for that. Really impressed by how speedy and manouevreable modern battle tanks are. Gotta ask you military bods, when travelling at high speed over rough terrain, don't you get a touch seasick? Are you provided with nice comfy padded seats inside the tank? (And maybe waitress service?)

Low wall bug: with the release of 1.05, it became impossible for a unit to see over a low wall. ie, you can move up to take position behind the wall with inf or vehicles, but not actually be able to target units that are or should be plainly visible on the other side of the wall. Apparently fixed for 1.06. Waiting, waiting, waiting . . .

I'll try to check your briefings over the weekend, bardosy. I work part-time both as an editor/proofreader and a lecturer in English language studies, so I ought to be able to do something with them. It's just a matter of finding time. Great that you're building a campaign. Keep it going!

Still on the civilian thread, how about a simplified version whereby the player gets an icon, either at game start or discovered in the course of the battle, that lets us know civs are in a particular building/area, which may or may not also contain hostiles? Any attempt to simply blast that building would result in severe penalties for the attacker. This would leave two alternatives: a) cautious infantry ingress to take out the hostiles (if present), which would carry the risk of possible civilian casualties (translating as penalties) or ignore the building/area entirely, which could also provide the enemy with a (maybe limited) victory. I'm just putting this forward as a suggestion for increasing realism. At the moment the gung-ho approach of blasting almost any building to smithereens does seem a touch unrealistic. I know it's been said that civilians tend to evacuate any threatened area, but from what I've seen that ain't necessarily so. There are plenty of examples of the enemy using civilians as cover in the hope/belief that it will stall a full-on coalition attack. I'd certainly not want to see anything that in any way enables or encourages players to indulge in a civporn bloodbath, but the current Preserve designation, from what I've experienced as a player, doesn't serve as much of a deterrent. eg I have returned concerted fire on a mosque from which hostiles are attacking my troops, and not suffered any significant penalty. Perhaps the designer had simply not designated it as Preserve. I don't know. If so, then perhaps the answer is that simple: designers could put more emphasis on Preserved buildings or areas to discourage mass destruction. Whatever, I'd like to see something that makes me think more carefully about simply blitzing any building that cocks a snook my way, and obliges me to consider the consequences of doing so. OK, time to hit my cosy civilian bed now.

Yeah, I've really set myself up here, but would somebody do me a big favour and assume that I am dumb beyond belief, and explain in the simplest terms how to install mods (but without actually resorting to personal insults as I'm a very sensitive English chap). So many great looking mods being created by players, and much appreciated, but though I install them into a Z folder, none have shown up in-game. Never had a prob with CMx1.