Exel

Considering WeGo is not an option for TCP/IP play, I think you are right in that. It's not just very hard, it's impossible. To handle more troops effectively in real time you need a lot more from the TacAI. It has to be able to autonomously control individual units to the point where you only give movement orders to platoons or sections, and detailed commands to individual units only on special occasions (AT Squad: Destroy That Bunker). As long as you have to micromanage every individual unit to their own firing positions and set their waypoints by hand, RealTime is pretty much out of the question for any greater number of troops. For that you need WeGo. If you want to omit WeGo or pausing, you need a vastly improved TacAI, much slower game pace (like in Close Combat), or both.

From what I've heard from real-life M1 tankers, the custom was to stuff the hull storage full of food rations, beer and whatnot. Basically anything but ammo.

From what I've heard from real-life M1 tankers, the custom was to stuff the hull storage full of food rations, beer and whatnot. Basically anything but ammo.

From what I've heard from real-life M1 tankers, the custom was to stuff the hull storage full of food rations, beer and whatnot. Basically anything but ammo.

Glad to hear that. How about releasing a list of features you plan to implement, so we know not to request the same ones over and over? I can only speak for myself, but I'm not. For I haven't played CMx1 in years. So I have no "burden" over from the CMBO UI for instance - but I have a lot of that burden from all the other games in existence. If I complain about some aspects of UI or controls (camera), it's not because of the way things were or weren't in CMx1, but because of the way things are naturally. Sure, some things you can learn anew, sometimes a new approach to things can be vastly better than anything before, but sometimes new is just worse. The right-click camera pan function for instance is something one gets used to pretty quick, and it starts to feel "right" after getting used to. The left-click push-around camera on the other hand is just totally unnatural, contrary to every other system where you drag what you click, not invert-push* it. * feels just as akward as it sounds.

Well I gotta say I feel ripped off for no WeGo in TCP/IP play. The game was marketed as WeGo, and no matter how cool the single player, the multiplayer WeGo is by far the most hooking aspect in all CM games. So given that the game promised WeGo, I expected WeGo in multiplayer as well. I think that expectation was and still is justified. I can only hope it will be added to the game via a patch. Heck, even an auto-paused RealTime would do. Come to think of it, why not execute the TCP "WeGo" as RealTime where the game is paused every 60 seconds and where the command interface is disabled when the game is not paused? You wouldn't have replays, but at least you would have a WeGo system - as advertised.

I love how the tank battles especially play out. Things happen a lot faster than they did in the WW2 setting, at longer ranges, and a lot more violently. Just like they should. And what's best, utilizing real-world tactics WORKS! This is the most realistic tank combat simulation I've seen since Steel Beasts.

This is a bad one. Not because of eye candy, but because it makes it very difficult - if not impossible - to make out height differences from any distance. All the terrain shapes are blurred out beyond 50 meters. If there's a small defilade or a knoll somewhere, you wont see it before you're on top of it. Makes it a bitch to try and position units into proper firing positions or to utilize terrain for cover. As far as eye candy goes, it's not just the blurryness that bothers. The 'softening' of the land mass makes vehicles look like they levitate or sink into the ground when viewed from a distance.

Make the left-click drag the map instead of pushing the camera. In other words, invert the mouse axis. When you click the map and drag it right, the map should move to the right, not to the left. That's the standard interface everywhere, from your Acrobat Reader to military C3 applications. The way it works now is just counter-intuitive.

Right click command menu. I miss it sooo bad.

The resolution is by default set to 'Desktop'. For what I could tell it enforced the 1680x1050 on the game.

Nope. That's what intuition would tell you, but nope. I hope it's just a missing feature - annoying to cancel a whole chain of commands just because you placed the last waypoint three meters amiss.

Works fine most of the time for me. Though a couple of times my units responded to the 'Reverse' order by making a 180º and speeding to the waypoint with their rears to the enemy.

Two crashes so far, both seemingly caused by the camera, occurred when rapidly dropping the camera from high altitude to ground level - the game just hangs.

Probably. But it would REALLY help if the left-click drag camera control had at least an option to invert the mouse axis (both of them). Invert mouse is that something that you get or you don't - forcing to do against one's nature is like trying to force a lefty to become a righty. Seriously though I do believe it would be a lot more intuitive that way. You click on the map to drag the map, you push the edges of the screen to push the camera. Now they both push the camera.

Impressions after first battle (Allah's Fist): Controls - To be honest, really counter-intuitive. The four different command menus are slow to use. Left-click mouse menu would have been nice, but oh well. They are versatile. The camera controls need some urgent fixing though. The keyboard camera controls have really erratic behaviour; the camera halts, lags, doesn't respond, etc. With mouse the camera works fine, but again the controls are somewhat counter-intuitive. During the first battle I spent most of my time working the camera, not playing the game. I hope it's something one gets used to, but it sure isn't made easy. Suggestion: Make the left-click camera move function have invert axis, so as to 'drag the map' instead of 'push the camera'. Graphics - After fixing the initial glitches, works fine except for the shadows. The units look real great! However at times the vehicles seem to sink into the terrain, and when viewed from a distance they often look as if they are floating in the air. Making out height differences is really hard on the terrain, at least when graphics set to 'Balanced'. Really big of an issue - can't make out line-of-sight, can't position tanks to hull-down. Suggestion: Add a line-of-sight command. The animations are neat but in some cases really overdone. The Abrams rocks from recoil as if it was a Stryker... Gameplay - The tanks behave very realistically - way better than I dared to hope for! Tank battles are fast and violent - and short. Great job there! :cool: ---------- And hey, I found myself in the game! How neat is that?! [ July 27, 2007, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

So this is then the ONLY one without any complaints?

You must have a really ****ty AVG if it blocks something without informing you about it.

Got the same flickering, units shouting, camera controls behaving erratically, and crash after 2 minutes into the game. BF download version. Running 7600GT so will have to see if updating the drivers fix some of the issues. But am I getting this right: No customizable controls whatsoever? Not for command keys, not for camera, not for anything?

Uh, I really hope you will bring back custom armies at some point. Picking your unit mix by hand was part of the excitement and strategy in HvH games before - realistic or not.

What started out as full bandwidth dl is now down to 50%, as was to be expected. But at least I got most of mine at full speed.

Given that your wild guess is correct, that would still make it a 30min to 1 hour dl tops - I'm sure I could handle that.

That should make it an hour of a download, assuming 80-90% bandwidth. Which I doubt if you dl it as soon as you can, so better make it two hours. So 350MB/s? Yea that'd be cool - except a harddrive that writes that fast hasn't been invented yet. I also seriously doubt if a LAN adapter capable of handling such speeds exist.

What is your "average broadband connection"? That could be anything from 512 to 8M, and there's a pretty big difference in dl times there. I don't know how big the CMSF installer will be, but a 700meg download with a 2M broadband would take about an hour at full bandwidth. Work it from there.

Please no. That sucked. Has to be more intuitive than going through a unit properties window, if implemented at all.