Tank Hunter
-
Posts
277 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tank Hunter
-
-
That is soo 20th century.
Why on earth would you do that with the newer versions of Windows?
Anyway, you know now that that will have a price.
You could consider using a virtual machine for your experimental and dangerous work.
That's not really the point. It is the paying customers that suffer due to stupid DRM rules and regulations. No matter what protection you throw out today it will be cracked sooner or later. If I buy the software I must be able to install it on my PC at any time or? Now BF dictates how I must threat my machine.. It is still my machine right?? If I want to change hard drive every three months shouldn't I be able to do so? To you it may seem stupid but I might have a good reason and why should anyone decide on how I should threat my machine??
Much bigger companies than BF have been trying to deal with protection and yet most have failed miserably. The only thing it does is to make life miserable for paying customers. Look around on some sim forums and you'll see. I believe most of the BF's customers are serious wargamers that more than gladly support BF and their games. I sure bought all my CM games. Restrictions should apply to pirates and NOT PAYING CUSTOMERS!!! Pirates will still play the game while we may not be able to....
E-licensing was a good option since it allowed for deregistration.. That's the only thing we are asking for. The ability to return our license back to a server. If BF feels that such an option would be expensive to them then please reconsider the whole license thing.
-
I do at least a Windows reinstall every 3 months. So for me it's 4 reinstalls for laptop and 4 for desktop per year.
-
I do agree that protection is needed but limiting it to one additional activation per year is a huge let down. We must have a possibility to unregister on our own.
-
I'm actually thinking about designing and writing a stand alone utillity for the operational part. It would be a top down 2D view, company level simulation. Each player would move his companies and resolve battles in CM when wanted. Each Player moves at operational level and then decide if they want to resolve battles in CM or simulate battles.
After the battles forces are updated, reinforcements (if any) arrive and new turn starts.
6 hours turns, weather, reinforcement & air superiority would be simulated.
The negative part is that updating forces after a CM battle would have to be done manually based on casulties recorded.
-
When was that interview made?? 10 years ago?
I wouldn't mind seeing 1940 appear but I wouldn't hold my breath.
-
Hi
I'm using ATI 6970 card and shadows are just awful in CMSF while on a a laptop with Nvidia card shadows are fine. I don't have any shadow problem with any other game on ATI just CMSF.
Is this a known bug? Does this have to do with drivers or something else?
Which driver is recommended? I have the latest one available.
Thanks
-
There seems to be a lot of Nvidia Fans in here even though lightning bug was unresolved for a long time. I always make up my mind on the day that I'm buying graphic cards. First how much am I willing to pay and how do cards in that range perform.
I look at ATI vs NVIDIA and then decide. I just built a new PC (Sandy Bridge) and ended up with ATI 6970.It performed much better that Nvidias in same price range and it also included twice as much Video memory.
I've tried maximized several games and all of them run perfectly on max settings.
These include Bad Company 2 Vietnam, ARMA 2 OA. Call of Duty Black Ops, CIV 5.
Funny thing is that CMx2 SF is still laggy on max settings, especially while scrolling around on battlefield. Using slightly less than max settings works fine. This leaves me to believe that there is a lot of work to be done on graphics engine if game that is almost 4 years old is not able to perform on max on high end gaming PC built a week ago.
-
Got this too yestarday on my brand new rig.. Was like WTF??
Then I took a deep breath thought for a minute and went just Naaaah BF wouldn't infect us now would they?? Why would they???
Clicked on OK and went to sleep.. =) -
I like it, it was my first CMx2 title. Definitely a different feeling but still good.
After playing it I bought CMSF and have enjoyed it ever since.
-
I don't mind the moduels but I would definitely like to see them combined within the same exe file. So instead of having to run one file if you want to run CMBN, one file for Bulge one file for Eastern Front and so on I'd like to see them eventually combined into one WWII package.
-
I would like to express my gratitude to Battlefront and everyone else involved in making CMx1 and CMx2 games. They have truly changed the way of war gaming for me and many others. I was always interested in WWII and modern military history but my gaming background began with original Steel Panthers. My interest increased with other Steel Panther games and I eventually ended up in designing and testing SP scenarios and games.
While I was involved in SP games I tried numerous other war games that were released at the same time but I never really got into any other, not until I came in touch with CMBB for the first time. From the first time I started the game I was hooked, I just could not get enough and I kept coming back for more. My favorites were QBs where I could pick my forces and get it on. Eventually I found the Battlefronts web site and realized that there was CMBO as well. It took me a while to find the game but I eventually did and boy was I thrilled to be in Normandy especially after downloading couple of mods which made the whole experience so much better. Then came CMAK and I didn’t miss on that one either even tough desert battles didn’t feel like that much fun due to the vast free landscape which limited sneaking tactics.
Then came the announcement of new CMx2 game which was supposed to be in modern environment. Many were doubtful of the setting but for me it felt like refreshment. I didn’t mind the change from WWII, I even looked forward to manage modern tanks and rockets on a battlefield. For me the only negative was the desert environment which I knew was going to resemble long duels of CMAK and prevent sneaking which I’m so fond of.
Then came 2007 and CM:SF was released, I downloaded the demo and installed it on my fairly new PC. Boy was I disappointed, it looked dull and the frame rate was awful. On top of that my pixel soldiers were dying like flies and I could not understand a thing of what was going on. The bad frame rate kept me from trying. Years went by and I did almost no war gaming at all, tried an operational type of game but never stuck to it for longer periods.
Last year I wondered what happened with Battlefront and where you were at. I visited the site and saw that CM:A was released, looked in the forums and was surprised by the positive reactions. The general impression was that it felt like CMx1 games, I quickly downloaded the demo and got immediately hooked. Besides from being fun it was also running fine on my laptop! I bought the digital download version and played until I finished both campaigns.
During my Afghan tour I started to wonder what had happened to CM:SF, I browsed the forums for a while and decided to download latest demo. Once again I was surprised to see it finally run with a decent frame rate. I quickly bought it and started with the American Campaign. When I initially heard about module thinking I was like cmon that’s not fair, I want all in one. I must admit however that with modules we get a whole new level of accuracy. Shortly after NATO was released and I’m now owner of all modules for CM:SF. I started with the British campaign yesterday Still have Marines and NATO left.
With CMx2:BN around the corner and CMx2:Barbarossa and CM:SF2 planned I have a lot of war gaming fun to look forward to. I would like to thank Steve and Charles and everyone else involved in CMx2 for everything they have done and I wish them tons of success in the future. Keep doing what you do and I’m sure existing CM fan base will just grow and grow. I know I will stick around and enjoy your art called Combat Mission. I salute you!
Fellow Combat Missionaries please join me in this thread and express your gratitude to Battlefront staff for their fine effort of bringing this game to us.
Sincerely
Tank Hunter
-
I just read that NK article and the only thing I can say is WOW, It's REALLY BAD.. The guy who wrote it has no clue what he is talking about. Comparing calibers and numbers, it just feels like KIM himself wrote the article.
-
I agree that some people would maybe find it annoying to see text messages but that could easily be fixed by allowing it to be an option that can be switched on and off. What I however mostly miss now is a way to know when your units are under attack.
You can of course play in a birds eye view but that takes away a lot from general immersion of being part of the battle. Not to talk about how ugly thing look like from above..
-
I have viewed few of the threads discussing WEGO and RT and most users agree that both systems have its positives and negatives. I have tried both and personally I prefer RT on small battles with few units and WEGO on larger scale.
One thing that has been mentioned and discussed is the lack of replay feature in RT and that one minute replay might appear in RT in future iterations of CMx2.
I would however also prefer a system where you as a commander are notified by your units of what is happening. Let’s say you are commanding a two flanking groups in RT on a fairly large map.
Your Task Force A on the left side comes in contact with the enemy and one of your AFVs gets knocked out without spotting the enemy. Meanwhile your focus is on the right side with your Task Force B. When your focus switches back to the left side you realize that one of your AFVs is knocked out and you have taken 2 casualties without actually knowing where it came from. With a small replay feature you could go back in time and see what happened but I would also like to know in RT when units get in contact so I can quickly switch focus.
This could be accomplished with a text box in UI that lists messages like radio chatter. As soon as a unit gets under fire a text line could appear saying 1st Plt 2nd Sqd under small arms fire. By clicking on the message you are automatically transferred to that unit and can take direct command if desired.
Messages can be about spotting units and coming under fire. This can also be incorporated into C3 so messages could only appear from units that are in touch with HQ. Everything else is not noted so you get a penalty for not having units in touch with HQ. (This should however be an option in preferences)
-
While playing CMA and CMSF lately an idea came to mind regarding reinforcements.
As it stands now scenario designer decides what reinforcements are to arrive and when.
What about allowing for a more dynamic approach if desired by scenario designer?
Instead of setting reinforcements to arrive at specific time (which should of course be allowed if set by scenario designer) another two options could be available
1. Allow setting random appearance time like
10% chance reinforcements will appear x min before set time
60% chance reinforcements will appear on time
20% chance reinforcements will appear x min after set time
10% chance reinforcements will not appear at all (they got stuck in ambush, withdrawn for another priority and so on)
These settings should be available for a group of reinforcements
You could then create several groups with different settings allowing for example a platoon of Mech Inf to appear at given time and another group with 2MBTs that have 10% chance of appearing. This would give another dynamic and scenarios would play out differently each time.
2. Allow you as a player to call in reinforcements
Scenario designer could allow player to call in reinforcements if things get ugly.
By pressing a button on UI commander requests reinforcements which are then activated in game with settings above. A penalty could be applied in points like if you call in reinforcements you automatically loose a certain amount of points but it could be worth it if at the end you are able to achieve your objectives in time.
This could also be taken a step further, in order to be able to call in reinforcements your HQ unit must be alive and be in contact with its HQ so its radio equipment must be intact.
Another commanding unit with radio would be able to do call in reinforcement if HQ is killed but a penalty in time would be applied and reinforcements might not arrive in time.
For AI same rules would apply if set by scenario designer. AI could call in reinforcements if desired depending on how it "feels" the battle is evolving and these may or may not appear depending on random factors set by the designer
To give you an idea from game play perspective. I was playing a scenario in CMA where my convoy was ambushed by Mujas from surrounding mountains. Let's say that in briefing there was mentioning of a soviet Para platoon patrolling the mountains. I would then be able to call in reinforcements through radio, a random factor is applied to allow the Para platoon to arrive to simulate that they might be too far away or being pinned down themselves. If successful they would appear eventually and I could use them to suppress the attackers and move my convoy on. A point penalty could be applied to me for calling them in but since I got most of my convoy through safely I won anyway.
-
Here is the pdf
Makes for intresting reading
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA316729&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
-
Why did that not make into the game? Is it because of engine limitations?
I know that riding on top of BMPs is not something you would do when entering battle enviroment but Soviet army is well known for this and they still ride on top of their BMPs even today.
There are scenarios in the game where you are supposed to escort a convoy and in all footage I have seen from Afghanistan Soviet soldiers were escorting the convoy riding on top of their BMPs. Apparently it was better to be on top then inside in case you were attacked you could quickly jump off and use terrain as cover.
Would love to see this in the game. As a commander you could choose to have them inside or on top for faster ground deployement. It would also increase spotting of BMPs when driving around.
-
From what I have understood maps in QBs are pre-made and nothing is generated on the fly to avoid strange and uneven maps. Is it however possible to use you own custom map for QBs?
Where should I place such map and how do I make sure it is used by QB?
Do I need to do anything for the AI when creating a QB map?
Thanks
-
-
I managed to find an external map editor for Combat Mission few months ago. Unfortunately I lost it somehow recently and now I just can't find it anywhere..
Do you know what it's called or where I can find it?
Thanks..
-
Has anyone read any accounts on how Tiger tanks performed in the desert? My general knowledge of the Tigers is that they were hard to destroy but extremely unreliable and would brake down often. I wonder how these tanks coped with desert conditions, especially the sand which can cause havoc in engines and other mechanical parts.
-
Thanks for the info about the book. I'm going to order it asap. Sounds very intresting..
-
Can you please give me the ISBN number of that book? I have tried to look it up by title but I found nothing covering only WWII.
-Thanks
-TH
-
Oh forgot to mention that the German XLVI Pz Corps launched their attack from Hungary..
Clicked on OK and went to sleep.. =)
E-License
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Well the biggest reason is all the crap that Windows Accumulates over time. I work on different projects from time to time, often I look for programs that will help me do things better and faster. This involves a lot of demo and shareware installing in order to test if they do what they advertise.
Even when uninstalling these they still leave traces in Windows.
Numerous updates of programs used daily like Internet browser and their plugins. Updates of drivers and other utilities. All this leaves permanent traces in Windows. I could go on for a long time.
Did you ever try reformatting your laptop for example and feel how it feels faster and better with a fresh Windows Installation?? Why do you think that happens??
I also use my desktop as media center in my home along with a video projector and this means updating video and sound utilities from time to time. All this adds up after a while and requires a fresh restart. Another aspect is the security, you never now what you may have on the PC so reinstalling everything keeps a more secure environment.
So for people using their PC to play one or two games and surf the internet then 4 licenses might sound ok but to me who uses PC for much more than games it will not cut it in the long run... To use the car analogy would you accept buying a car and then only be able to unlock the car 4 times in one day? If you lock it 5th time then you have to wait until the next day and then you are only allowed to unlock it 1 time/day since you used up all allowed unlocks during your first day?? That is just not fair.....