DaveDash

Not im my experience, and I've used them a lot in the Canadian campaign. Weakened? Yes. Need a tweak back in the other direction? Yes. Pretty much useless? No. JDAMS are the biggest "WTF" at the moment.

Cheers bud, it's 100% video card related though and not CPU/HDD/RAM. GTX 295 is better than my card I think, that's a very good card. Could also be CMSF just doesn't run as well on ATI's. Some games are like that.

This won't save you against AT-14's, so pay special attention to the briefing. I haven't found an adequite way of dealing with AT-14's that doesnt have luck as a factor. You are either going to risk losing vehicles, or risk losing a higher number of infantry due to minimal vehicle support. It's a call you have to make. BLUEFOR tanks in hull down positions have a good chance of surviving (or the AT-14 missing) them. However, I'd be very careful of this with the Leo2 since based on my testing, it is a lot weaker on the front armour than the other BLUEFOR tanks. Again though this relies on luck. Some figures for you based on my testing: Attrition Rates (Chance of being destroyed by AT-14 hitting the front in hull down) M1A2 ~0%, M1A1 varients and Challey 2: ~10%, Leo 2: 33% If you have air support such as Helos, they are also pretty good at taking out AT-14s. During the setup phase, put area fire CAS targets over likely ATGM spots. Still luck is involved. Unfortunately they also don't tell you WHAT they are engaging, so you have no idea if it's an ATGM or regular infantry. And finally calling down a ton of artillery and moving from cover to cover is a good way of advancing and closing the distance between you and them, so you have a better chance of spotting and engaging them. You also really need to do your maths. Special Forces usually have 4 AT-14 sections, regular Syrian infantry usually have 2 AT-4s and 2 SPGs, etc etc. So pay attention to likely spots based on what the briefing tells you is there, and then count how many ATGM teams you have identified and destroyed. All the other REDFOR ATGM's don't really stand a chance if you have Tanks as long as you keep your tanks in hull down facing the ATGM's, but if you only have IFV's the same logic applies as Tanks vs AT-14s. Here is a youtube channel of my playing "Milk Run", the USMC campaign when you have to deal with ATGM's (not AT-14s) The action is slow to start in the beginning due to a recon phase, so skip to video PART 4 or so when my tanks show up. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=987B6129550CAD46

Are you ATI or nvidia? Also do you play on best / best? EDIT: Further tests indicate that one of my mods is slowing the game down a bit too (I suspect it's the NATO icons, but will verify in a minute). Removing my entire Z folder gives me an extra 5-10 or so FPS. Still can't play it with satisfactory FPS on BEST 3D Models though, but still it doesnt look to shabby: BEFORE(old computer): AFTER (new computer):

Ah my backup I thought was on the BFC website I managed to recover my files using some data recovery guys at work. Check your PM.

I think we can get bogged down in details until the cows come home, but the fact is for me and many other dedicated CMx2 players, many of us are very happy with the outcomes the game produces now. This is in no small part due to guys like c3k's constant bug finding, the BETA testers dedication, and BFC's dedication to the engine. The game now does not ruin the suspension of disbelief, and acts in a predictable and believable manner. The immersion factor blows away anything CMx1 can provide, and the ability to use and apply real life tactics, as demonstrated by a few of our military posters, is higher than CMx1 due to the nature of better fidelity and the new C2 and spotting systems. The big "gotcha" moment for me is that CMx2 taught me to use significantly better tactics that CMx1 because the higher fidelity makes it far less forgiving to error. Yes modern weapon lethality plays a part in this, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The game -can- be far more lethal if YOU the PLAYER, do stupid things, and that has taught me overall to be a much better tactician, especially when it comes to terrain (which is much better modelled in CMx2), squad level tactics, and Command and Control. I went and read up on real life tactics, applied them to the game, and those real life tactics worked. So somehow it can't be that bad of a simulation. Looking forward to the improvments Normandy brings. Steve: One note about the assault command - I'd love to see the fireteam providing securty and/or support NOT be suppressed when the assault team is. That's a bit of a big bug for me at the moment, and I believe you guys know about it?

X2. Steam is just like the PC version of Xbox live or what have you. Its never spams you and I don't really care if it collects data on what games I play. Avoiding such things in life today is almost impossible. The ONLY problem I have with it, is it locks you into playing games through the client for most games. This can be troublesome sometimes, and downloads are not 700-800kb/s here for me in Australia at least. But yes a big bonus is never losing your game collection, unlike BFC who have the downloads expire after a year, which caused me a bit of grief when one of my hard drives died.

Well, it doesn't run slow any more after fiddling around with CCC and the in game settings. I get about 30-40fps @ 1920x1200 on "Improved" and "best", with CCC controlled AA (2x) on large maps, which is good enough. But still, it's the only game that I cannot run on a comfortable framerate at max settings. I think it is because on "Best" 3d Modelling (as opposed to improved) the draw distance is a lot higher and there are A LOT of objects to render. Would be interesting to know if anyone can run it on full settings getting 50+ FPS, and what their specs are.

You really have absolutely no means to critize CMx2 games based on factors such as disobeying orders and such. Those factors are up to the PLAYER to dictate as he sees fit. Im also getting the idea from you post you haven't touched CMSF in a while. CMSF isn't "Super Lethal". Are you even aware some of us are griping over on the CMSF forums because certain aspects of the game (HE) are not lethal enough? Have you even witnessed the TacAI retreat when overwhelmed? Refused to take your orders when shaken? Anything beyond that is entirely in the hands of the player, you can make the game as realistic or as unrealistic as you like by issuing the orders you like. Are you even reading any of the comments presented so far in this thread about TacAI behaviour? Human behaviour? Look at the tactics and tutorials thread in the strategy forum, where a US army officer goes through various missions applying real life tactics in game - and they work. Can you do that with your boardgame? . Im glad you're into your boardgames, but they have one huge striking disadvantage that they will never overcome; You can't play boardgames against yourself. And its inevitable that computer games will eventually get far far far closer to reality as time, technology, and experience goes on than boardgames will ever achieve with their abstraction. CMSF isn't there yet, it can feel a little robotic at times. But thank god we have guys like BTS pushing the boundries, and more importantly, listening to their fans and supporting/improving the games well beyond what other developers would do.

This is true. Ive found some obsqure games on Steam from one/two man bands, that I never would have known about otherwise.

Yeah actually releasing the game through Steam will almost certainly increase your customer base, but god it can be a nightmare. I am extremely anti the fact that I have to install the game through steam, then steam has to update itself, then apply patches, etc, all before I can play it. Sometimes, when your net connection is slow or steam is slow, it can take all fricken night just to play a game you just purchased (even via DVD).

Well the other reason I found it amusing is because Vinyl has a more "1:1" representation of music (being analog) ie, CMx2.

HoI3 you can put various parts of your country under AI control for this very reason (trade, research, production, etc), and your can put formations under AI control to, from the Theatre level down to the Corp level. In fact, if you wanted to, which you dont, the AI could control pretty much everything. Illustrates the point, I think. I find CMx2 is pretty much at the limit of how much micromanagement I want to do. I'd like to see more intelligent behaviour around certain things, to take away some "area target" micromanagement, but adding any more level of player control would just bog it down. Having full individual squad control would be a nightmare in micromanagement, because I doubt the AI would get itself right. Have a look at how retarded the AI is in games like OFP/ArmA etc. So basically IMO CMx2 is in the sweet spot of fidelity. The CD/Vinyl record analogy is rather amusing (being a part time DJ and dealing with oldschool elitists). Fact of the matter in my opinion is that CMx2 in its current state is a FAR superior combat simulation to CMx1, so much so I cannot be bothered with CMx1 now due to its flaws. CMx1 has a old "wargamers" feel to it though, that like an old Vinyl record, has a lot of nostalga attached.

If you give the guys a FACE command at the end of the waypoint, they all get into a good position. And as mentioned, they move around to get good firing positions on their own accord. Examples: Move infantry to a berm, give them a face command, they will all line up on the crest of the berm. Same with a wall. In forests and other terrain features, they will automatically find the points of best cover in the action spot. I have very rarely seen units not being able to get LOS due to positioning these days. The ATGM team examples just don't happen in the game much anymore. Your guys move around by themselves in an intelligent manner to get LOS based on their weapon system. The only major problem I have witnessed is vehicles not having LOS to infantry units inside buildings (at the corners) because the vehicle cannot see the centre of the building. Also AFAIK units share C2 in a limited radius.

I did something similiar to BlackMoria But the key point remains, DO NOT WORRY ABOUT THE OBJECTIVES. You will lose far more points for getting your men killed than for not taking an objective. If you break the Syrians will to fight, you will win. The key to all NATO missions is slow, deliberate, with the goal of forcing him to surrender before the time limit runs out. Gamey? Maybe, but so are 1-2 hour timelimits. What I did was I used fire and manouvre at a slow cautious pace. First, I called down supporting indirect artillery on the tall buildings at the back, and the tall building on my left flank near the front of the village, as they were likely ATGM/MG spots. I then used my initial LAVs to set up a base of fire to the rear right flank of the hill so their entire left front/left side was anchored and protected against the hill, and moved some supporting dismount assets into those buildings on the right flank also to get eyes on the village. I set up two LAVs in Hull Down on the hill and suppressed all buildings they could see, then I moved the next two LAVS next to them to the right, and then they suppressed all the buildings they could see. I then took my original two LAVS and moved them to the right, etc etc. Any SPG, ATGM, or MG that was spotted was suppressed immediately with mortars and 25MM from the LAVs. When second platoon showed up, I moved them in a similiar fashion, but was far more aggressive. I moved right around to the right side of the map, behind that tall building. Two LAV's would sit and fire, the other two bound, then the previous two would take their place. I managed to get that platoon of LAVs all the way up the right flank so they were looking at right angles to the village. I then moved infantry from 1st Platoon (my supporting base of fire) up to the top of the hill into the rubble of the buildings hit by arty, and then moved the dismounts from 2nd Platoon up to the tall building, putting the MG up the top, and moved the platoon in under the covering fire of the LAVs/1st Platoon into the first village and cleared it. By this stage, I had killed most of the enemy contacts and suffered similiar casualties to BlackMoria, although I did have one LAV immobilized by a SPG. I play in RT, so such 'shoot and scoot' tactics are much more viable than in WEGO. It's worth noting in this mission the briefing says you get re-supplied next mission. So that was my queue to go nuts with firepower and supression.

Yeah I feel it's mostly graphics card related. I am wondering if the 1920x1200 resolution is killing the game. I'll change my desktop resolution lower and see if that impacts performance, but I wonder if there are any switches to change the resolution to 1680x1050 and keep my desktop at 1920x1200? It appears the draw distance is way larger on this machine than my previous one, so I am wondering if CMSF does some internal calculations to figure out draw distance that isnt related strictly to graphics settings? I mean trees and vehicles stay high resolution across the map, while grass changes after a certain distance. EDIT: Ok, I am not sure what I have done, but installing CCC, using that to control AA etc, and turning multisampling ON in CMSF (Before it was off!) has given me a huge boost to performance. The game now runs quite well on "Improved" 3D quality (draw distance basically) and Best Textures.

Hi guys, I just picked up a new computer. Basically, 12GB of RAM, Intel i7 Dual CPU Quad Core 2.93gHz, and an ATI HD 4890 video card. Now the 4890 video card isn't the newest (being about a year and a half old) but it is still probably one of the third-fourth best video cards on the market for gaming today. Every game I throw at my computer it runs at 1920x1200 on max settings fine, including newer games like Dragon Age, Farcry, and so forth. CMSF however the performance on the best settings at 1920x1200 leaves a bit to be desired. It's a bit choppy when viewing a good number of 3D models under "Best" and "Best" (terrain is smooth, but units are not). Having AA/Multisampling on/off doesn't seem to make much of a difference. It's the only game where I cannot run the game satisfactory on high settings. This is purely 3D graphics related and obviously nothing to do with RAM or CPU. Im running the latest ATI video drivers, but just the drivers, I dont have CCC installed, as I am dubious as to whether it helps or not. Happy to be corrected wrong here. Is there any 'tweaking' I can do here, or am I just going to have to suck it up? EDIT: after fiddling around a bit, the biggest cultrit seems to be towns, ie lots of buildings. The game runs best on 'balanced / balanced' which doesn't seem right for this rig. That's what I played on with my laptop which is far inferior spec wise (on 1680x1050 mind you). Downloading and fiddling with CCC doesn't seem to make a hell of a lot of difference.

Nice post LongLeftFlank. I do agree that lethality in CMSF in the earlier days was the biggest killer of the suspension of disbelief for me, and let's be honest, some issues still remain. The biggest killers in CMSF I have noticed is A) movement with infantry, its quite possible to lose a man to some guy with an AK-47 at 400m when running around, and Rooftops and balconies are still death traps. Balconies in particular need some remodelling so the balcony isn't an area troops can walk onto, because moving out onto them is just asking to die. I'd also be happy with a general level of 'tweak' for the abstract amount of cover in the game to be bumped up, especially in buildings, and accuracy to be reduced for the lowest experience troops.

It's not a bug. Im 99% certain I've heard Steve or someone official mention this behaviour. Although it -is- very rare.

This is not necessarily true. When I first started playing CMSF, I got high casualties. Way higher than the US sustained in real life. As the engine improved, and as my own tactical ability improved, my casualty count became in line far more with what was expected in real life. The recent NATO campaigns basically force you to have less than 15% casualties or you get heavily penalized, force you to conserve ammo, and all your units are core, so any casualties you sustain follow on to the next missions. So they force you to adopt proper real life tactics. I use smoke like never before, I never move infantry around without suppressive fires, I never cross firing lanes without or cover, I don't drive vehicles around willy nilly without considering terrain. The AI suffers unrealistic casualties, not because of an inherent flaw in the simulation, but because it not capable of using real life tactics. However, the AI's ability to preserve itself is considerably greater than what it used to be (like I mentioned in my earlier post), and I expect it to be even better in CM:Normandy. This is actually a testament to the strength of the new engine. It can produce realistic results if you use realistic tactics, and it still produces realistic results if you use poor tactics. The two major constraints of the game are: Unrealistic Time Limits. This is a CMSF issue purely installed by scenario designers for the sole purpose of making the game challenging, since the engine supports up to 4 hours now, and the lack of strategic vision by the enemy AI. In many cases in real life the AI would just withdraw instead of fight to the death, but that is beyond the scope of the game.

I always did think the accuracy of small arms in CMSF was a little too high (or perhaps, cover not adequate enough), but on the same account, you only have 1-2 hours to finish your scenario and thus that needs to be taken into consideration. I imagine however, CMBN will have accuracy of many weapon systems much reduced. I think it is worth mentioning that many CMx1 players probably picked up and tried CMx2 in the very early days. The game is VASTLY improved, especially from an infantry stand point, these days. And I expect CMBN to be even better. Your infantry units find cover better, react to fire better, path find better. For example, there were times in the early days where units struggled for LOS on berms, or targeting infantry at the top of roofs. These days they move around into a better position to fire, and stick to cover much better. The game is truly enjoyable and believable now (as opposed to many frustrating moments in the early days), and I can't wait to see what Normandy brings. One thing I'd LOVE to see in the initial release of Normandy, or later patches, is more suppressive fire on the part of the TacAI. At the moment the game is a bit clinical with its suppressive fire (I understand improvements were introduced along the way, especially with contacts that faded out of view). I think this is especially true with MGs and such. I've never been in combat so its quite possible I'm talking out my ass, but if you look at combat videos there is a constant barrage of fire going down range. CMx2, unless you control it yourself (which can get tedious with large formations), fire tends to happen in spurts. I'd live to see the TacAI being more aggressive with its suppressive fires.

Im fairly certain you can have your icons on, and enemy icons off by going through the alt-i options. Exactly. He is either over-exaggerating the issue or playing on basic training skill level.

Well I've either read in the manual or heard BFC say it can happen, and I've seen it happen. It wasn't what you said, a squad with 1 man left went to 2 men after the red WIA got treated by his squad mate, and he ended up yellow. I specifically remember this squad going from 1 man to 2 men, and it was no where near any combat.

Also on the odd rare time I've seen a wounded guy (red) turn yellow after treating him.

I think it would be a huge PIA for your own forces. You'd have to use the mod for enemy forces only. Quite often I call down area fire on a contact and do it from the enemies PoV, and I'm buggered if I'm clicking through 30 different infantry icons to find my HQ unit or FO. Also when you actually click on a unit, doesn't it give you information as to what it is? IE "1st Squad....Rifle"