Streety

JoMc67, you have to be aware that when you state your setup it could be hiding all sorts of things. For example, are you talking a vanilla setup, or a very modified one? From what I have to guess at, you have an older machine on which you've upgraded to Win7? If so, you could be one of the few who had a Dell Vista Business setup (which comes with the in-built capacity and software options to run either Vista or XP, depending on the user's, or the seller's, setup wishes), and probably running DirectX9c. And some other Vista-ATI setups could also emulate fog (probably also running DirectX9c). And so you might have been running Vista and then upgraded to Win7? Now, although new Win7 machines will ship with DirectX10 or 11 (and new graphics cards of course), from what I understand, Win7 can run in a basic mode on DirectX9c so long as your old graphics card can support pixel shader 2 and has WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model) architecture. Or maybe you now have DirectX10 but still have the 9c elements also (but I start getting lost at that point). And furthermore, not sure if it's relevant, but DELL computers can be a bit unusual in other ways (virtual drivers etc) compared to other machines of the same period. And it sounds like your graphics card is not the original on-board, but a PCIe add-on? I've read that in PCIe setups if you add a graphics card then the original in-built graphics can still handle some of the basic functions, so your machine could be doing something odd there to provide all the game's functions. I can at least explain why your fog looks odd! A few years ago, ATI and NVIDIA cards stopped providing 16bit dithering. Most older games don't play in 32bit colour (CM1 is either 16bit or 24bit). So 32bit graphics cards would "dither" (or smoothe-out) 8, 16 and 24bit colours. But newer cards/drivers don't bother anymore and so you see the banding. As a long-shot, you could dig into the Monitor's and/or the card's own colour-display options just in case there's some 16bit options or fog table options there, but I doubt that'd work. If you've updated your graphics driver, you could try re-installing your original ATI graphics driver, but again, I doubt it'd work and it may cause other problems. Hope some parts of my ramblings are relevant to your case. Just be glad you still got fog! But be aware that if you buy a newer machine, you almost certainly won't get fog. And underneath the headline, this thread (I assumed) is primarilly about newer machines when they talk about "Win7".

Tech Support - you probably ought to at least ask them to clarify whether they mean some or ALL their destroyed vehicles, EVER, just to make sure. Although I don't know how legitimate others' claims have been in the past, some have posted about smoke etc with some ATI cards/setups. And if it isn't related to those issues, and they never see smoke and fire, then erinandmicheal2002 might still have some other problem. Hi Erinandmicheal2002. It isn't the same as the fog issue, and not all destroyed vehicles burn and/or smoke. But are you saying none of them at all, ever? Because obviously if some are on fire/smoking then it isn't a graphics/system problem. But if it none of them ever do after playing a few games, then you MIGHT have an ATI graphics card issue - at least, according to other previous posts/threads. If so, then for you (and anyone else coming after who have a similar problem): FIRST - just at least make sure you have smoke turned on (the SHIFT and I keys together, during the game). And if so, as with most problems, always try re-installing the game. And if that don't work, try updating the graphics driver. Still no joy? THEN, at least according to those other threads' messages: 1) Try changing your game's screen resolution (delete the prefs file in the game's folder and restart the game, and set the resolution to a different size than what you had before). 2) If that don't work, try changing your overall graphics properties in the ATI menu by a single notch (you know, from like "quality" to "balanced" or vice versa). 3) Some have said that even though they have Win7, that updating from v1.03 to v1.04 (the Vista patch which some, but not all, Vista users need for the game to work fully) also cleared up various Win7 graphics problems (including smoke - according to at least one poster). This, according to some, is because Win7 is essentially "Vista 2.0". However, I wouldn't be 100% confident of this, and seeing as Battlefront have the cheek to charge for this basic functional patch, I'd consider it a last resort. So before doing that I'd post your graphics card's exact name here and hope someone else has overcome the same issue, just in case it's some other problem.

If a regime was faced with otherwise certain defeat then they may feel they had nothing to lose in trying to take out masses of American troops, and raise it as a "holy war". The current warnings to Syria from the UN and the US is not backed up by any realistic "liberation force" threat - especially nuclear! A nuclear strike on Damascus would kill or maim hundreds of thousands of civilians. No, the only likely US-NATO retaliation would be conventional cruise and bomber strikes against any Syrian air-defence, then a no-fly zone while launching air-attacks against military complexes and transports. But attacking NBC weapons on the front line themselves would be considered too dangerous (spreading the contents). I like the ideas given in this thread for trying to mimic MOPP (yes, definitely unfit!), but they probably don't come anywhere near close enough. In NBC gloves you'll have difficulty operating anything that requires nimble fingers (adjusting sights, operating comms or sophisticated equipment - if it still works), and of course the mask reduces your field of vision making even just looking through sights difficult. You can't eat while suited, and you have to piss and poo in your suit. Even at rest, expect to last up to 6hrs max (the suit's ability to withstand ingress of agents). And expect to lose 2 pints of water per hour (and that's in northern Europe). Overall, running around on a Middle East summer's day 100+degree battlefield I'd give you half an hour of usefulness, or less if your mask fogs up too much. In a modern NBC scenario in the mid-east, I'd imagine the only reasons for infantry ever being issued NBC gear is for morale/reassurance - and if it hits then to survive long enough to get the hell out of there rather than fight through it. Hence no real need to model it in CMSF. Though it'd would have been cool if they did....

I really appreciate your effort, John Kettler, but - FOR THE FOURTH TIME - I am not trying to equate a wargame computer AI *TODAY* with a chess game. I was making an analogy with chess computers of 30yrs ago and the advances in computer opponent AI since then. Please reread all my posts. And to prove the concept that such advances are at least plausible, CM1 did not provide too unreasonable an AI opponent, though it still had some weaknesses. And I'm saying that for the solo gamer its a shame that for CM2 the priority was to go to 1:1 scale and new graphics etc, rather than to improve on those remaining weaknesses of the AI-opponent of CM1 gameplay. And if they only have, as you say, two guys to do it, then my point persists in that they got their staffing priorities wrong. Yes the tac-AI in CMBN attempts to be far more complex and I've not disputed that. What I'm saying is that for the solo gamer all these benefits are more than outweighed by the disadvantages of CM2 having a less independent enemy AI and (perhaps even more importantly for solo-gamer replayability) the doing away with truly random maps. And its a shame more couldn't have been done regards solo-campaigns. And even though they straight-jacket the CM2 computer enemy in this way, as an opponent it acts little better (or no better at all) than it did in CM1. And others on this thread have found the same issue. Which is why I posted on this thread to say the same. And this is why, along with all my previously posted reasons, I've said that on-balance, for the large-battle WW2 solo-gamer, CM2 is a backward step. I've said all that I'm going to say, and I'm not going to rephrase them all yet again for the many who have not read my argument fully/properly. So I'm now done on this thread. But thanks to the few who have read it all and understood my thrust.

Thanks for feeling my pain Slysniper. Yes, the problem with manually manipulating the AI is that it takes away the fun, and much of the point, of having a computer opponent for the solo-gamer. And to those in this thread who are essentially saying "well, get yourself a human opponent if you don't like the AI", I say that's fine if that's what you want, but I don't want, and I'm talking here about the solo-game and afterall, THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE SOLO GAME! And no Womble, I'm not neglecting those other CM2 advances, and you are (as always on this forum) taking me out of context and yourself neglecting the overall thrust of my argument, which is about the impact for the solo-gamer. The thrust of what I'm saying is, that for the solo-gamer playing WW2 battles and coming to CM2 from CM1 and hoping for an improved solo-game, those CM2 advances are more than off-set by a combination of the drawbacks in needing to manipulate the AI and most importantly losing truly random maps. Furthermore, the smaller 1:1 infantry scale may work well for modern combat or WW2 skirmishes, but many CM1 WW2 gamers would have preferred keeping the same scale and with an added option of going up in scale for very large battles. There are other naff things too about CM2 - like those floating icons when keeping bases would have been better (except making the bases muted, semi-transparent). Yes, I know, once they commited to 1:1 visual representation they'd have to switch to icons, but I was hoping that CM2 would merely calculate on the 1:1 scale in the way that CM1 did not, and not waste the graphics capacity of showing lots of individual guys running through eachother when that graphics juice could have instead gone towards making bigger battles more manageable on our machines. And then there are the camera controls and lack of better mouse integration, and the detached horizon/sky, which are not much improved on CM1. But whereas that was OK with the more table-top wargame feel of CM1, it's much less OK with the more simulator feel of CM2. And when added to things like icons instead of bases, it overall makes CM2 less tactile for the wargame general than CM1. So for me, as a solo-gamer playing big WW2 battles, overall, CM2 has so far proved to be a backward step.

No, I'm not neglecting all the changes - many here are mistaking improvements in tac-AI to work with the more complex terrain and in AI-plans for editors, rather than what I'm talking about which is improvements to the overall benefit of the solo-gamer in having an independent computer opponent which can generate truly random maps to fight you over them forever more without needing any further input from you. Which is what CM1 gave us and what I hoped CM2 would still give us - only more of and better. And no I'm not talking about instead "simply" having CMAK with an improved AI (though for the solo-gamer that would have been better than what CM2 provides). But rather I'm saying that the balance of priorities for CM2 would have been better served by taking CM1 and putting AI improvements first, randon map improvements second, campaigns third, and graphics/animations improvements fourth. Instead we got a massive graphics engine overhaul, and although there was some AI work, much of it was obviated by doing away with truly random maps and a fully independent AI mind. So for the solo-gamer, despite more complex terrain-matching and tac-AI modelling etc, the downsides more than outweigh any benefits with the new system. But I hope you are right that one day the CM2 AI will be radically overhauled. In the meantime, I'm stuck with CM1.

Argh! This will have to be brief too Michael. For the THIRD TIME, I am not equating a wargame AI TODAY with a chess AI. And I am fully aware (and previously stated each time) that a battlefield AI is a far more complex creature. But what I AM saying is, if we could create challenging chess computers 30 YEARS AGO, then surely today, with all the advances in tech and programming in 30 years, we can surely cope with creating a more complex AI to deal with a CM battle. And this was PROVED by the AI in CM1, which despite some flaws still presented a challenging opponent for the solo-gamer, and its a great pity that most of the effort into CM2 was put into graphics - when putting it into further improving the weakest areas of CM1's AI, even if (after much effort) it was only a modest gain - would (along with not getting rid of truly random maps) have been of much better benefit to solo-gamers and replayability than CM2 provided.

Hi again guys. And thanks for your support altipueri. Just to respond/pick-up on a few comments after my last post: To Eltorrente - I wish I could write code! And I'm not against H2H on the computer but merely pointing out that H2H was possible with old-fashioned table-top wargames. Yes, the computer can also do all those calculations for you so you don't need your old rulebook, and you don't have to find space and lug all your miniatures around, you don't need an umpire or a third table if you want to include the fog of war, and so on. But you lose something too - the game no longer feels tactile, and whilst you can "mod" images, the enjoyment and skill (and most of the purpose) of military modelling is gone. But my point was that you could do all those things before computers and so the main advantage of the computer for wargaming (the main thing that pre-computer age wargames could not do) is provide an enemy AI. To Womble, Erwin et al - Yes, a wargame enemy AI is a lot more complicated than a chess game, which is why I said there are a lot more variables and permutations. But my point is, as proved by people having quickly started listing them in this thread (dead ground, morale, etc) they can all be accounted for and every good wargamer (and rulebook) considers these points and their impact. So, given that computing power has come on leaps and bounds since the 1980s, we should nowadays be at the point of having a great enemy AI that can compute all those factors (and more) in the same fashion, only with the benefit of being a lot faster (and thus playable) of course. All it takes is the time to build all those variables and permutations into the AI and test them. And no, I'm not confusing tac-AI with strategic-AI (or AI-plan), but talking about both overall. I guess another way of putting it is this: early computer wargames were mostly for the solo-gamer, and because the graphics weren't great and few people had internet, a huge proportion of the developers' efforts went into making the computer AI your opponent. But over the years, with improved graphics and internet, an increasing portion of the developers' efforts goes into making games look good, and making good multiplayer games, but at the cost of the proportion of effort spent on developing the enemy AI (and other replayability aspects) for the solo-gamer. So graphics have come on leaps and bounds but AI has not. CM is a prime case in point: I had hoped that CM2 would be more like taking CM1 and putting most of all their new efforts put into improving some of the AI weaknesses, then some effort into improving random maps (to include rivers & bridges, more building types etc). And then maybe adding more of a campaign-mode if possible. And maybe even an option for large-scale battles (with platoons the smallest unit rather than squads). And then just a little time spent on making the graphics and animations less blocky. Instead, what do we get? A great new graphics engine on which most of the time has spent (and going down to the 1:1 scale - great for modern warfare, but a step back for CM1 WW2 battles), but also the abandonment of truly random maps, and a little AI tweaking as a relatively low priority (partly dealt with by removing the truly random maps). Yippe. It "looks" great guys.

Hi Placebo, How do you find the CM2 AI compares to the CM1 games? And oh, I didn't meant to suggest that the AI is terrible, just that it's mediocre or hit-and-miss at best (which is sort of how you describe it too), and seemingly not much better than CM1 games. And that minor improvement in CM2 seems in part (or entirely) due to scrapping truly random maps for a very large number of scripted maps. But that limits the replayability that random maps gave to the solo-gamer and so the pros don't outweigh the cons. And if you find you need to pick the AI's troops to massage it to act better, then once more it reduces the enjoyability for the solo-gamer in knowing what you're going to face. My main point is that after nearly 30 years of computer wargames, we should now be at the stage of having a great AI. Yes, a CM battle today has a lot more variables and permutations than a reasonably good computer chess program had to deal with in the early 1908s, but then computer power and technology has come on a very long way since then too. So if a computer wargame can't now provide a great enemy AI (which was the main thing that table-top wargames could not provide), then compared to those old table-top wargames the main remaining advantage of the computer game is that it just has pretty graphics (i.e. animations). I fear that generally computer wargaming has been slowly hijacked by the arcade-game mentality. We see this shallowness in a lot of other media too these days (hollywood films, music video, magazines etc) that style has increasingly supplanted substance in this attention-defecit disorder age.... God I sound so old! But if anyone can list some other great AI games with random maps for the solo-gamer, please let me know.

That's a real shame that the AI doesn't seem much better than CM1. After a long CM1 career I've recently tried CM2 but yet to buy, and not having a great quality computer enemy is a huge put-off. I hear what you guys say about H2H, but for me, as an old-time table-top wargamer for the past 40 years, what I always expect from any computer game, and what I always thought computers could bring to the genre that pre-computer-age wargmes could not, indeed the very raison d'être of the computer wargame, should be to provide an enemy AI. Without that, all you're left with is essentially pretty graphics. I wonder if other old-timers would agree that it seems games companies have seen the internet-connected human opponent as a way of avoiding working on the AI, or at least that better graphics cards (and the race to look as good as Call of Duty shooters) has diluted the developers' efforts. That and the fact that for the developer its style that sells a game. But for the gamer it's substance that makes it replayable and thus worth the money. I'd pay $100+ for a CM game if it had a really good AI. And a good enemy AI should not be that difficult (chess computers have done it for 3 decades, and essentially you could treat a QB like a chess game, especially when you keep rivers and bridges out of the QB and represent the buildings as simple blocks!). The AI these days should be pretty much perfect when defending and still good at all other times. However, it requires time and effort (and some highly experienced, top tactical wargmer minds) to develop an AI, and these days it seems style beats substance and computer "games designers" are mostly just 3D modellers with 2D minds. Ok, I'll go quietly now - at least until my next rant...

Hey Lt Belenko, you sure about that origin for FOAD? I'm happy to accept it's usage as "f*** of and die" had a military origin (as so many things do), but I've read a lot of history and never seen the specific term "Forward Observer/Artillery Director" as a "unit" nomenclature (nor as kit nomenclature). I've seen other terms that are close ("Artillery Forward Observer", "Forward Observer, Artillery") and am aware of an "artillery director" as a piece of kit (like a surveyor's instrument) co-located with a battery to help orientate their guns. But whilst its possible that some forward observers might also have carried a lightweight director-kit for use when still in sight of their own guns, I've never seen this kit-name used as part of any forward observer unit's title. And there's a massive amount of WW1 and WW2 nomenclature and abbreviation origin info out there. So its a nice story, but I just can't help think that someone somewhere has retrospectively force-fitted it, following the re-popularisation of terms like FUBAR and SNAFU. (Sorry to drift off your topic Erwin).

Hmm. Well, if BFC's aim is to disappear down the simulation route with CM2 and then CM3 etc, they wouldn't really be in competition with their earlier CM1 as a sort of classic-table-top wargame. So it wouldn't really be a no-win situation for them. Yes, I wasn't thinking licensing or contracts, but done in-house through either a full-on re-commitment to a major CM1 update patch (unlikely) or just finding an old-hand within the company who likes the game to promulgate some sort of mini-updates just as a low-priority thing between other jobs (which to me seems sensible). Or the old-hand doing so with help from one or two trusted modders who have code-writing ability (though I suppose that would probably mean the resultant updates would need to be free - though frankly I think a widescreen update patch should be free anyway seeing as they still sell CM1). Anyway, let's face it guys, it ain't gonna happen......

It may not need to be "open sourced" as such. I think in the past some companies, via a senior employee who still had a fondness for the game (either working on it themselves or with a trusted programmer-modder) have put out an update (either free or that people could buy). It just seems to me that adding a widescreen compatibility alone would present enough CM1 gamer interest and thus a small financial opportunity that Battlefront are missing out on to revisit and offer an update. I'm fairly sure that some CM2 gamers would also pop back and buy a CM1 update patch too. Having now experienced CM2, it has some prettier graphics that will no doubt appeal to some, but overall I don't like the CM2 format or its lack of truly random maps (or its narrower time-spans of the war). I'd have been happier with a souped-up CM1 with just tweaked infantry movement graphics, tweaked maps and improved AI combined with a campaign option and maybe adding some game-option to switch to platoon-based instead of squad-based unit sizes for the larger battles. Oh, and adding in the Japanese and a Far-East theatre....

Hi Erwin, I fear I personally don't know enough about Windows 8 to give good advice, except to say that, from what I understand, you probably won't get fog rendering in CM1 games. As to when best to get any new OS, I'd wait until its been out for a year or two, in order to find out all the issues and give time for any niggling initial problems to be fixed. And sometimes it can take a year or so for makers of various other software and hardware you use on or with your computer to have come up with any patches that might be needed for full functionality. The reason why Windows 7 was so eagerly embraced was mainly because Vista was a bit naff. From what I understand, Windows 8 increases the touch-screen functionality and also works on ARM chips (which you find on more mobile devices like tablet PCs etc). Here's a link discussing windows 7 and 8: http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-8-vs-windows-7-8-ways-its-different-1025285

Groan. If you don't use that "sort of" graphics chip then you won't be aware that you are wrong to say that if you can upgrade to Vista you can more easily upgrade to Win7. As to specific drivers - that's the whole problem - there aren't always the specific drivers in existence to upgrade some earlier integrated graphics cards and not all earlier integrated graphics cards are capable anyway. For example, if you otherwise have sufficient minimum specs to upgrade to Win7 but have the intel gma900 chip, you'll find after installing the upgrade that you can't alter the brightness and some other basic graphics settings, which is a pretty basic need (nor can you run Aero but that isn't a necessity). Intel could have released a driver update for the GMA900 but never did, and even if they one day do, the same problem (and worse) occurs with some other older cheap integrated graphics. And other problems can occur with some other utility and ancillary hardware-management issues, depending on whether the machine's maker (if they're still in business) bothered to continue to support the machine and provide the drivers. In my experience, its only worth even thinking about upgrading your OS if you've a relatively new machine that came out within say a couple of years of the newer OS coming out. And even then, if you've a cheap machine you'd better check out all the less-obvious-but-important issues and driver availabilities or end up regretting it. Who mentioned Windows98 and who said I prefer to use Vista?? Personaly I stick to XP when at home (though I've much 1970s-onwards experience as a data-manager from early Mac and pre-windows DOS days, and then Win3 up to 7, and I've a Linux netbook at home, and even a ZX Spectrum+). If you're a PC gamer it's easier to stick to Windows, and if you check out benchmarks you'll find that XP is hard to beat for gaming (certainly better than Vista). And though win7 now more-or-less matches XP in gaming, XP gives you full functionality for CM1 games (i.e. good fog rendering) which you usually can't display properly with Vista or win7 machines. But thanks for not manning-up and not thanking me for explaining and putting you straight on these and all the other previous reasons I gave you in answering your original question. However, whilst I might regret ever answering you, I still felt it important to write for the benefit of other Forum readers to be aware and at least look into these issues before they consider upgrading.

Well I take it by avoiding my points that you accept them. Thanks for being evasive enough not to say so. And even as to your point that people should become more computer literate, you avoid my point and the fact that not everyone wants to become more literate or has the ability to do so. And as to your previously telling me that I was wrong by saying that not all computers can be upgraded to beyond Vista, I was going to let that one slide, but will now respond to point out that the minimum requirements for Win7, according to Microscoft, states 1GB of RAM and a 1GHz processor: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows7/products/system-requirements Whilst this is the same for Vista-Premium etc, the minimum for Vista-Basic is lower at 500MB RAM and 800Mhz processor: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919183 And there are also other hardware-support issues, such as both Win7 and Vista-Premium needing pixel shader 2, and even then, some pixel shader 2 integrated graphics cards (such as the Intel GMA900) won't support Windows display driver model architecture (another requirement for Win7). However, Windows Vista-Basic doesn't need these. So you may have an older machine that (even if you have the know-how) you physically can't upgrade all the components (either due to lack of accessories or lack of realistic exspansionability) needed for Win7, but for which you could still upgrade to Vista Basic. OK, now I really am done and need to move on, because you just keep either avoiding many of my points or are being willfully selective and incorrect about others.

That may well be, but only if you are literate enough to do it. I am, but would be too wary because I've previously found that some rigs built for one OS don't always fully take to a newer OS, regardless of what the paperwork says (there was always some ancilliary functionality or compatibility issue somewhere or lack of specific enough forum experience/support for helping me work through remnant issues on a particular old machine for which too few others bothered to just upgrade the OS). And so I wouldn't bother doing just a software OS upgrade again but would wait until upgrading to a newer machine with whatever newer OS that came with (which, for me and some other poor people, is likely to be a second-hand Vista rather than a newer Win7). And some may have the money but already be familiar with Vista from other use (say at work, or on another machine) and not want to learn yet another OS. Not everyone is a techie and not everyone wants to become one, and not everyone can afford the latest stuff or want to learn yet another system. Hence the answer as to why some people might be looking at moving up to Vista rather than Win7.

Not sure about the game's chances of a kill, but in real life the question has not only been asked before but tested in 1944 on US army ranges, comparing various 17lber and 76mm rounds against the front of a panther at various ranges: http://wargaming.info/1998/us-army-1944-firing-test-no3/ The test was to determine effectiveness at penetrating the main sloped front armour plate (known as the glacis plate) in a fair hit (rather than any bit of luck like hitting an old wound, an imperfect joint or lucky glance down onto the turret ring, etc). Essentially the results showed that though the 76mm was a little more accurate than the 17lber, and the 17lber was a little more penetrative than the 76mm, neither could be expected to reliably penetrate the average quality panther glacis plate even at short range (200m). However, they discovered a wide variability in the panther armour plate quality, so a kill was still possible. This lack of success against the front of a panther matches what I've seen and read elsewhere, that frontal hits just tended to bounce off or do little damage unless a lucky deflection into the turret ring, or through to the front of the tracks etc, disabled the panther, or a round happened to hit a previously damaged and weakened spot.

Thanks, I understand the desire to move on, but I do still think there might be enough interest in the CM1 community to buy an update based on widescreen and the other issues - and there is another, simpler (albeit less satisfying) way to mimic fog: tweak the horizon feature to much less than 1000m and/or display far off bitmaps in faded form, and add in foggy looking sky bitmaps. And the same issues could be solved for both CMBB and CMAK. If Battlefront won't revisit CM1, I wish they'd consider allowing modders access to the engine. I'm sure there'd be a modder out there somewhere who could tackle it, or else ask one of the CM1 team to take some of these issues on as a pet spare-time project. I appreciate the financial aspect, which is why I for one (and sure most other CM1 players) would happily pay for an update.

Sorry about tenor of last message, just getting overheated. And to add another factor I forgot to mention specifically before - which is that not all computers can be upgraded to beyond Vista. Ok, now I'm going quietly away.

Just curious, Schrullenhaft, but is there any other way to make fog? I previously asked Battlefront if they'd be interested in a v1.05 for CMAK, to address a few remaining issues (AI late-game suicidal charges; widescreen; unlocking nations so that any country's army could fight any other; and having rivers, bridges and railroads appear in Quick Battle maps, etc) but they weren't interested. But I wonder if you guys found a work-around for post-XP OSs to show fog, that along with a widescreen compatibility, there might be enough interest to offer another update, and enough interest that customers might be prepared to pay a small extra fee for it to make it worth Battlefront's while??

Yes, I'm aware - though frankly upgrading the OS can be very problematic if your rig's maker didn't make it as compatible as its supposed to be and with appropriate drivers etc (had that problem). It's not something to be done lightly. And I personally would be wary of buying any 2nd-hand machine (having done so once before, 10yrs ago, and having had to fix one my nephew bought last year). But again, whether in terms of upgrading to a better "newer" machine or just upgrading the OS, not everyone can afford the latest stuff and in those instances Vista would likely be cheaper. Hence the answer to your question of why would someone bother upgrading to a Vista environment after Win7 came out. So now, do you understand? Cos I'm getting bored and am done here.

Cost - you must have missed the very first line of my post, or perhaps it wasn't clear enough. So to clarify - i.e., not everyone can afford a new computer, some can only afford a 2nd-hand one, and a 2nd-hand vista computer is going to be cheaper.

You may know this already (and I'm not attempting to offer a definitive answer), but I always understood you take a morale hit for units that have left the field. So I pull them back but keep them on the field, hidden or out of the way where possible. Their presence at the rear might also help raise the morale of other troops routing as they reach the rear (but I'm not sure of this). However, some damaged tanks with bow machine guns sometimes can still fire their mg (at least in CMAK, been a while since I played CMBB), so I try to keep these in support. There are of course other reasons for not withdrawing a damaged tank - they can draw fire, carry infantry, and (I think) also help score/balance towards the game engine deciding who if anyone is occupying a flag at the end of a battle. However, if damaged tanks are still on the map at the end of a battle in which your side is forced to surrender (which sometimes happens in Quick Battles whether you offer to surrender or not) then these vehicles (like all your vehicles still on the map) count against you as destroyed - I just checked this on CMBB, withdrawing some tanks then surrendering and seeing that the withdrawn tanks were NOT listed as destroyed.

Well old boy, not everyone can afford to buy a brand-new "new" computer. I'm dreading the day my cheap but fabulous 7yr-old E-machines XP rig bites the dust. Heavily used and beginning to get temperamental - and my computer is the same - yet the affordable reconditioned/refurbished machines are mainly Vista. However, you can still (just about) get a new XP (at a price - eg. a few Vista Business rigs still unsold that include an XP option, or you can order a custom-rig), or get a refurbished XP. So I'd turn the question around and say why would a CM1 player look for Win7 (or 8) if they can get XP? Are you all a scaredy of the fog?