Vanir Ausf B

BTW, it's not true that there are no games that use quad core processors, although they are rare presently. Supreme Commander does (although it only uses 3 of the 4) as does Unreal Tournament 3 (any game using the Unreal 3 engine will use all 4 cores.) Upcoming games that will use quad core include Alan Wake and all Valve games.

Link

But those statements were made when WEGO was totally broken. RT was the only way to play.</font>

I don't know that it was a deliberate decision, but when the lead designer plays RT almost exclusively, and reportedly so do most of the beta testers, it was probably inevitable.

I think they're playing Call of Duty 4.

WiC does have a few things CMSF does not. Like, oh, water.

There are three other sponsors than Lieberman. MikeyD is a bit over-excited. The wording is far more limited in scope than he's suggesting. that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq Like I said, it's what we're already doing. In any event it's a "Sense of” resolution and therefore not legally binding. Basically it's just an official way of stating an opinion.

Uh, seems rather pointless to me as that is exactly what our policy already is. Lieberman is a tool, but this isn't a big deal, IMO.

That's because it's CPU-bound at those resolutions with that card. Upon what do you base your expectation that WiC should run "double"? WiC performance scales across various graphics cards pretty much as expected, with 8800 GTX and Ultra the fastest. How is this supposed to parallel the problem with CMSF, where some people with 8800 get good performance and others get very bad?

QBs were better than user made scenarios because you could taylor them to your preference, whereas you were otherwise at the mercy of the scenario designer. It's better to pick your own units than have someone else do it for you. No one to blame but yourself, then. They could've shipped the CM games without any scenarios at all, as far as I'm concerned. Don't need 'em.

:eek: That's all I ever played. Random units did suck, though. Seems that's one thing that hasn't changed in CMx2.

Good news on the one hand. Too bad CMSF won't get the treatment. Oh well, looks like I will be back. Eventually.

It may be a better engine, but that doesn't make it a better design. The absence of anything resembling cmx1 QBs is a deal-breaker for me. Steve says they ain't coming back, so neither am I.

I actually like modern warfare. If developement hadn't been split between RT and WEGO I doubt some of the issues we see would be present, e.g. inability to modify waypoints, conduct ambushes in WEGO, no LOS tool. This is very basic stuff that was present in CMBO v1.0. It's nothing that could not be fixed in patches but I have not seen BFC commit to doing so. But my comment was more to the point that I don't see CMx2 making headway in the crowded RTS market. It's a wargame. I could be wrong, but Panther Games' Airborne Assault series is realtime and I don't see it topping the sales charts.

Yeah, I don't understand the move to RT. I assume they must be expecting to pick up a lot of customers who would not look at a turn-based game, but from all the comments CMSF is apparently not easily accessable even for CM vets. CM is too hardcore to ever be more than a niche product.

I would have lost interest as soon as I saw Real Time on the feature list.

Yep, this game is such a leap forward from cmx1...

What will it take to get me to buy the Marine module? A QB feature that hasn't been gutted to near-uselessness.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the story behind CMSF involve a UN authorized intervention? If so French participation would be almost certain as they are a permanant member of the UNSC and have many historical ties to Syria.

No

It's not worth your effort yet you have now devoted 17 posts to the subject, discussing every aspect of the review except what it actually says. I do give you credit for admitting you have nothing to contribute, and you did make me chuckle when you wonder aloud about the reviewer seeking attention for his blog, then state you will wait for the review from PC Gamer, a for-profit enterprise with a direct financial interest in attracting as much attention as possible to itself

I'm going to start carrying a Javelin around with me on the weekends.

And yet Steve says they will probably implement a random map generator at some point. I would think that would be harder than letting people buy their own units.

I don't own the game. And even if I did the unit stats are hidden in CMSF.

No one but you is asking for a perfect system. If every feature that some people whine about was removed from the game the CMSF disk would be blank.