Cameroon

Too bad we didn't get one of those this time 'round

I don't find it unbelievable at all, I far and away play more games by myself than against/with other people. While I do enjoy playing with/against other people, because I work with people all day long there's a strong (strong) entertainment value derived from NOT dealing with other people - even in a game.

I assume that it means they were captured. </font>

Almighty: lol Well, hopefully this time they used a texture for the tracers so maybe you can make them smaller or gone completely if not less frequent ...

You make that sound so close

The 27th is coming fast, gentlemen, hang in there.</font>

I'd also like to get a reviewer who differentiated between the TacAI and the Strat AI. The TacAI is the brains of each unit, and if it's got some rough edges then it will impact everyone even if they never play single-player. The Strat AI, though, will determine how viable the computer opponent is. It also seems, to me, that the reviews so far have not taken into account asymmetric objectives. For instance, the comment about the AI not advancing - well, was that because it had a "spot Unit X" that it achieved, so of course it wouldn't press? If that was the case, then it did exactly what it was supposed to do and the conclusion that it behaved badly would be wrong. And I can't help but question some of the "strengths" mentioned of the CMx1 AI. For instance, I never felt I was playing a human because if there was one forested route I knew the AI would send every single unit it had available through that spot. I could rain artillery down on it all day, and they AI just kept using that spot. So this review definitely raises some questions, but I wish there was some more meat that illustrated from where the conclusions came. I'm inclined to trust in BFC as Joe is, to either have done it right or to make it right if there are areas that need work.

I don't recall it being capped for the ToW download. As i recall, they contract out for "unlimited" bandwidth.

Well they'd said that the download will only be about 350 MB. The download for Theater of War went quickly enough, and that was 1+ GB if I recall correctly. Should definitely be done when you get home from work. I don't know how accurate this calculator is, but you can probably get a decent estimate from it: http://www.martindalecenter.com/AATimeCalc.html Of course, I think it assumes you're downloading at your full available bandwidth. I'd look at that chart and add at least 50% more time.

Fortunately I can start the download on my home machines while I'm at work. Refresh monkey-ing will commence at midnight for a bit, and then resume as soon as I walk into work

This isn't about faith but manpower, they don't have the resources without pushing the release date back. Which do you want more? </font>

This isn't about faith but manpower, they don't have the resources without pushing the release date back. Which do you want more?

Oh please, I'm no fanboy :-p I wouldn't listen to a reviewer who gave bad marks to a manual transmission automobile if he didn't know how to drive a manual, either! That doesn't make me a "fanboy" of manual transmission cars any more than weighting a game review by how much the reviewer knows about the subject matter does.

I think there's a difference, though, when it comes to a game like CM. I think there would be great value in a series of missions that introduce concepts that a new player may not have. Unless the manual has a "basic tactics" section, just knowing that the commands do and what units are available won't point you in a successful direction, really. The heavily scripted nature is both a great strength and a great weakness. It does allow for providing the appearance of a smart opponent, unfortunately that means that you only have so many ways to approach the situation. Until someone can develop a competent, freeform AI opponent (and, uh, then hello Skynet) there's a place for both I think. It always amazes me how many people think that most gamers play online when it's exactly the opposite. Most people play against - and prefer to play against - the AI opponents, so there's definitely value in having an opponent who can provide heavily scripted, but intense challenges as well as those that don't feel as "creative" but can handle more situations. I think it'd be easier to convince "other" gamers that a wargame can be fun if there were some scenarios that let them get acclimated without being overloaded. Basic training for wargaming. And not just "Do this and you win" type of scenarios, but also short scenarios that illustrate being on the receiving end. Anyway, guess I've rambled in this thread long enough. Time to go to sleep

Don't confuse Tactical AI with Strategic AI. The tac AI carries out your orders AND the OPFOR orders, the Strat AI figures out what those orders should be (go here, go there, etc.) And, as has been brought up, it can actually a good thing if the AI on the defense doesn't simply abandon it's defensive positions. If you played the CMx1 titles then you know how stupid the strat AI could be on the defense, abandoning strong positions to try and take back one small flag that wasn't worth the cost. CM isn't a game of annihilation, which most RTS games are. If the reviewer is more of an RTS player (which it sounds like might be the case, note the lead in comment "I've never played any of the Combat Mission games before"), then the Strat AI's restraint (remember, it can't replace those troops that it loses after all) is quite likely a good thing. Even though I'm not worried about the AI - it will NEVER be as strong an opponent as even mediocre human opponent can be, just the nature of the beast - I expect it to hand me quite a few losses until I improve my tactics. </font>

None of the earlier CM games had a tutorial or tool tips. But does this one need one? Modern warfare and weapon systems are more complex along with the new interface, so does this one need one? I guess we'll find out soon enough. </font>

Don't confuse Tactical AI with Strategic AI. The tac AI carries out your orders AND the OPFOR orders, the Strat AI figures out what those orders should be (go here, go there, etc.) And, as has been brought up, it can actually a good thing if the AI on the defense doesn't simply abandon it's defensive positions. If you played the CMx1 titles then you know how stupid the strat AI could be on the defense, abandoning strong positions to try and take back one small flag that wasn't worth the cost. CM isn't a game of annihilation, which most RTS games are. If the reviewer is more of an RTS player (which it sounds like might be the case, note the lead in comment "I've never played any of the Combat Mission games before"), then the Strat AI's restraint (remember, it can't replace those troops that it loses after all) is quite likely a good thing. Even though I'm not worried about the AI - it will NEVER be as strong an opponent as even mediocre human opponent can be, just the nature of the beast - I expect it to hand me quite a few losses until I improve my tactics.

The new AI plans allow for a defender to be more mobile than in previous CM incarnations. I'd be more interested in a tactical manual that deals with how two humans might best deal with each other in an attack-defend situation, though. I started a thread on tactics a couple of weeks ago and it drew little attention. I don't think many people are all that interested, honestly, in deep analysis, at least not without the game in hand at any rate. There is a danger to knowing too much about what goes on under the hood too, at least from a suspension of disbelief perspective. </font>

If you're looking for the best CPU performance, the C2D is easily the reigning champion. [Edit] I thought about looking up all the various benchmarks, but they all say the same thing. Just check out any review of the C2D from any of the reputable review sites. C2D wins across the board basically.

My guess, going on how many people acted like children with the prerelease download date for ToW, is that they'll open up downloads on the 27th.

The difference between Quick Battles in CMSF and the previous CM titles is that it can't automatically generate the map. You have to play on a previously made map but the units you purchase. I'm sure that there will be some sort of "ease you in" type of scenario, but who knows how much of an "ease in" it will be

*shrug* I dunno, the difference after 2x AA always seemed marginal for the CMx1 games. I don't recall having the issue you're having with it sometimes not being on at all. I haven't any of the CMs in a while, though, because the camera controls just felt clunky and after seeing the shots of CMSF it's tough to look at the older gfx

Well, conceivably the CMx1 engine could be called "quite old" My experience is that the settings just don't make a huge impact, but that they are on. I think part of that is that not all the calls that CMx1 makes follow the code paths that result in anti-aliasing, etc. That is, I think the drivers don't get a chance.

In case you (or others) are unaware, you can configure per-application settings for both Nvidia and ATI cards. I do that all the time to force higher level settings for older games that don't provide the options themselves. In the NVIDIA control panel it should be under the Advanced view as "Manage 3D Settings" or something. Then there should be a tab where you can add an application and specific settings for it. I can't remember where the settings are in the ATI control panel, but there's similar options.

I think the smoothness (or lack thereof) for TOW or CMSF in the video previews is entirely the work of FRAPS. Personally I feel like the CMSF videos have looked jerky, but then I figured that was due to FRAPS only doing "ok" on the recording speed.