c3k

TCP/IP allowed you to plot your turns on your computer and your opponent does the same on his. His could be in the same room as yours, the same house, or further (depending on your TCP/IP links). Then, you hit "GO". There can be a time limit for the orders phase to keep you both moving. Then you watch the fun... The AI is replaced by your opponent, but it is not the clickfest that RT can become. As well, the reduced control of WeGo forces you to watch and not be able to intervene as your opponent unleashes a surprise move on your forces. A lot of fun. The replay allows you to watch the action from different angles, etc., during your orders phase. The MAIN benefit of TCP/IP play is the increase in speed of play without losing the WeGo aspect. Ken

First, I think many of us will be VERY glad to hear about the tree draw distance. Very glad indeed. The 'crop circles' is indeed a very "non" non-bug. It is so minute as to barely warrant mention. My crop circle comments should not imply a fixation, merely an observation. Individual blades of grass? Very cool idea. Imagine the grain being mowed down my MG42 fire. Dynamically clear LOS due to firelanes? I like where you're going... Sunflower fields in the Ukraine in the summer, say, around late June... Obviously that would be a tremendous CPU hit, or so I presume. No, the reason I even mentioned crop circles was because it is often associated with the LOD draw distance issue. The most jarring aspect of the crop circle phenomenom is the MOTION of the doodads as they continuously rotate whenever the camera is moving. As I mentioned earlier, I certainly hope a discussion about this would not take away from the positive aspects of all the beautifully rendered models and terrain. (Just compare it to the screenshot from CMBO in another thread to see the differences!) Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, I've done that with jpg's I've uploaded to photobucket, but how do I do that with the images in BF.C's Normandy Gallery? (The right click options in the images do not allow 'open in new tab'.) Thanks, Ken

My apologies for posting links instead of embedded pictures. It's my lack of computer skill. (If you'd like to tell me how to embed a linked picture, feel free to do so!) Now, let's recognize I'm only posting this to support my statement upstream. THIS IS MINOR!!! There is a lot of criticism on these forums: some is constructive, a lot is, um, not. Please don't take this as a springboard to decry the graphics as being ruined. They are not. Everything I can see and read about CM:BN is fabulous. Anyway, here are the links, as promised. Gallery 12 of 39: The PzIV coming out of the courtyard: notice that all the taller grass "doodads" are perpendicular to the viewpoint? That, to me, indicates the presence of crop circles. Gallery 13 of 39: Notice the grain in the mid-distance. Again, all the grain "sheafs" are at a right angle to the viewer. Gallery 26 of 39: This is the one which really shows it. Notice the grass around the (beautiful) mortar. Again, this is only to show support for my contention that the released screenshots show evidence of crop circles. It does not mean it will be like that in the final release, or if it is, that it is a problem. Ken

That would be great. Often, in CMSF, I will look at a hill and base some fire and maneuver plan on the appearance of the hill. Then, when I go closer, a forest springs up on it... No more bare hill. No more plan. Now I zoom and boom all over the map constantly before and during a game so I have a constant view of the vegetation. The screenies released show some very nice leafies. It's looking very nice. One niggle: it seems that crop circles are still with us. That's a very preliminary impression based on the screenshots. It's minor, but I would love to see that affect get dropped. Ken

Errrr, I was thinking about the Germans. I think their TO&E would be similar and a LOT of equipment and models could carry over. Of course, all the Brit stuff could carry over to the desert. Let's not forget about Sealion. The hypothetical battle in England could then be fought. Ken

flammenwerfer, Someone far more qualified than I am can answer in more detail. All I know is that I have two machines, roughly equivalent, and one runs Vista64 the other Windows7/64. I can not tell any performance difference between them. If, however, you have the choice, I'd go with W7: It is newer, more supported, and the designated successor to Vista. Hmmm, if BF.C sends me a demo, I'll give you a more detailed answer. Ken

With tongue now OUT of cheek, I do think the obvious issue would be sales versus the commitment required to create the game. I, for one, would LOVE early war CM. I would purchase a Poland game in a heartbeat. However, creating one game obviously takes time away from any OTHER project. What would have to be delayed while early war was being worked on? On the other hand, would there be enough similarities of TO&E between '39 and '40 such that it would make sense? If '39 and '40 are done, '41 would have a lot of groundwork completed already. (My "what if" and "if only" comments referred to the Polish campaign and the what possibilities existed if the Poles had not been committed to a defense of the border. I can also see that my comment about sales in Poland could be, and was, misconstrued to imply a lack of sales. On the contrary, I would think a great game highlighting the Poles in a fair manner would sell very highly in Poland.) Regards, Ken

I thought it meant we could have up to TWO of them in a scenario...

What about '39? Think about the sales in Poland! What if... If only...

Huh, I never knew there was any kind of debate about these two POST Normandy weapons. Is there any difference between their recoil, ballistics, accuracy, ruggedness, production cost, target effects, penetration, weight, or maintenance requirements? If so, please post! Oh, but let's NOT post here... CMSF's forum would seem marginally more appropriate. Regards, Ken

Wounded soldiers get the red cross icon over them. Routed soldiers get the orange "!" icon over them. Will surrendering soldiers get a waving white flag?

I foresee a brawl test: two opposing (fanatic) squads who TARGET empty ground until they are totally out of ammo. Then they advance into a high walled courtyard (the arena). Each TARGETS the other. Then we watch.

My suggestion is to download the CMSF demo and really work with the menu. At first I found it a jarringly different approach from CMBO, however, after having used it for these last few years it is SO much more powerful that I don't think a return to CMBO's menu is a request which will even be entertained. The flexibility it gives you, the player, is phenomenal. Of course, all the above assumes you have not either downloaded and used the demo or actually purchased CMSF. If you have, and you've tried the menu for several weeks, well, then you've obviously found it not to your liking. Best of luck! Ken

Steve, WHAT are you doing over here? Get back to CM:BN and get cracking! You've got to get it up on order status so we can flood your bank account with money! But, if you're still browsing the CM:SF side of the tracks, is there any chance of a modified UI for weapons issues like we're discussing here? (Even if it won't be retrofitted into CM:SF; is it on a "to do" list somewhere at BF.C?) Thanks, Ken

Just my .02 on your video card choices. If you go with the GTX 460, get the 1Gb version. The HD6850 and the GTX 460 are pretty much equivalent cards. (HD6850 was just released a month ago - or so - whereas the GTX 460 has been around a lot longer. Newer may have some room for driver upgrades improving performance, older may benefit from greater stability. Pick whichever manufacturer you like better.) The upgrade to a 6870 is not necessary for CM series. However, if you use other games, you may think about the cost of 80 quid and how much you may or may not see out of it. Good luck!

Sign me up for the above. I, too, sometimes lose track of which "?" was "?". Separating them out for infantry and vehicles would be great. (Place the infantry or tank icon behind the "?" on the icon?) I play on elite in CMSF, yet it is still a little disconcerting to see a unit hundreds of meters away and identify it as "3rd platoon HQ" after just few seconds. Thanks, Ken

Wow. Just think about this: you guys have created a game with such attention to detail, that we are periliously close to arguing over button styles on uniforms. That is a testament to BF.C. (Well, also a testament to the insane attention we focus on the game, but that's a different, and not altogether pretty, thing. ) Another observation: I just opened up the thumbnail jpg that Vein has, just upstream of this post. The MG34's tripod is casting a beautiful shadow on the gunner's thigh. Seriously. That is an example showing how much care and detail is going into this game. Finally, Vein, those uniforms in your JPG look great. Thanks, Ken

Excellent point. Let me tell you why that is not a good option. If I select CMSF.exe in either my nvidia control panel or the CCC (AMD's equivalent), I can, indeed, brighten up CMSF significantly. That would help for NIGHT missions; what about any other mission? So, if I know before I open the exe (e.g. play the game) that I will play a night battle which is too dark, then I can implement the adjustment at the graphic card level. However, I usually don't know which battle I'll play, or the environmental conditions/time of day, until after I'm already running CMSF. Step by step, here is what would happen: 1. Double click on CMSF icon, browse through battles, select one. 2. Ooops, it's a night mission. Well, I'll start it and see how dark it is. 3. Crap, it's really dark - cloudy, no moon. 4. Savegame, exit, shutdown CMSF. 5. Open video control panel, find CMSF.exe profile, adjust settings. 6. Restart CMSF, find savegame, check to see if settings are appropriate. If not, return to step 4. Instead, I'd love a HOTBUTTON. Oooh, that would be sweet. In game, step adjustable, so I could tweak the screen brightness then and there. So, can it be worked around? Yes. Gamebreaker as it is? Of course not. Thanks, Ken

HEY!! Where did that picture come from???

Did I just hear "flares"? It must be Christmas...

And if sidecars don't tip, the motorcycle grogs will let us know!

With no game knowledge whatsoever, as soon as I saw the water I thought how the invasion could be simulated. Set water (as wide as possible) along one map edge. Create the Normandy coastline on the other. For landing craft, piers, docks, or bridges could be placed along the shore. In my imagination the piers would be open ground rectangles (put a wall around it if you'd like) placed along the beach. They would simulate landing craft. Each would be a reinforcement zone. During the battle, the reinforcements appear in the zones. It's not perfect, but it would be VERY doable. Ken

Two teen boys at home and you KNOW it'll be pronounced "see 'em BM". Steve didn't help this by his upstream mentioning of a colon.

Cool. Thanks for clarifying that. A quick question: if the troops are in a foxhole which is represented as an aboveground fortification/parapet, what happens to LOS/LOF =beyond= the foxhole? Allow me to draw a picture: 1. X------F-----T Or 2. X------------T ........F In figure 1, the firer, X, would have his LOF to target T interrupted by unit in foxhole F. If the foxhole is underground, it would act like figure 2 which (hopefully) shows LOF from X to T as going above F. I'm sure you and the betas went through this, and I'm sure once I have my sweaty, shaky hands on the disk-o-goodness it'll all be clear, but for now, I'm trying to get my head around how this works. Maybe some more screenshots would help? Thanks, Ken