H.W. Guderian
-
Posts
93 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by H.W. Guderian
-
-
from zero to $60 in 37 milliseconds . . .
Never has $60 flown out of my credit-card faster!
-
When the BF website loaded and the title of the latest post hit my eyes there was an involuntary "Whoop" and spontaneous applause here in Tasmania that might have been heard all the way over in the BF bunker?
Been waiting since 2002 to press the order button on this game . . .
Almost silly how overjoyed a man can be about a computer game on a specific computer platform . . . but this is no ordinary game and [put your flammenwerfers away please] IMHO this is no ordinary OS.
Thank you Team BF.
...... now about that CM:BN version for the iPad?
-
Normandy will likely ship for the Mac on the same day as the PC.
Steve
OMG \0/
How many years have we been waiting to read these words?
FINALLY, I can be rid of my Bootcamp partition and enjoy CM natively in OS X so I can dupe myself, and others, that I'm actually working on / multitasking on real jobs.
Hopefully it will scream on my new 3.33GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” powered MacPro with ATI Radeon HD 5870. Hmmm, wondering how / if CM:N will make use of multiple CPU cores?
May have to get 2 x 27" LED flat panels so I can be completely immersed as all the M72 AP shells bounce of the Tiger I front glacis plates.
Now . . . about that CM:N iPad / iPhone App?
-
The Families can not work together. That's because each Family is "frozen" so we can move onto the next one.
Steve
Does that mean I should stop working on my "One platoon of Abrams takes on Kampfgruppe Peiper in open desert" OS X native scenario? Really???
=(
-
CMx2 Tigers!!!!!!!!! Yeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaa!
*** AND ***
If you look closely at the pixels you can clearly see this screen capture is from a Mac OSX native version of CMx2!
-
Go Cog!
Thanks for the feedback.
I'm really curious if with that extra RAM you can tweak the P4.0 settings high enough to get a better result . . .Hmmmm?
God . . . if that worked my credit card would likely leap out of my wallet and run all the way to the Apple store and buy a new MB pro.
All you moaning about how crappy the AAV's are consider those who CAN'T EVEN RUN CMSF . . . I'd happily play an AAV vs T-90 scenario for the next month if I could just get CMSF to run on my puter.
-
Not sure how many of you are Mac users looking for a cheap way to run CMSF . . . but out of curiosity . . . if one were to buy a "cheap" PC computer JUST to run CMSF . . . which would it be?
-
Cabal-two-three,
Here are my test results with a 3yo macbook pro 2.0 core duo, 2GB RAM
(1) Dual-boot "boot-camp" XP runs CMSF "ok" / "fine" / "enjoyable play" - my problem is that for reasons I won't go into here I can no longer have bootcamp on my mac =( =(
(2) Have tested with Parallels 2.2 (old) and no luck at all getting CMSF to run
(3) Have tested with the "new" Parallels 4.0 w/ XP and can ALMOST get CMSF to work . . . but not quite - Video issues. I believe - BUT DON'T KNOW FOR SURE - if I had more RAM, and could increase the settings under the emulator, then P4.0 could run CMSF? My problem is my Macbook pro is rev 1 and can't take more RAM =( =(
So, if you have an intel OS X box with 4GB RAM or so I'd download the FREE P4.0 trial version and test out CMSF after you have setup the virtual-machine with maximum RAM and Video RAM.
Me . . . I'm stuck in this foxhole without CMSF . . . dreaming of future victories that smell like Native OS X CMX2 in the morning.
-
I had a dream last night . . . I was able to play all the CMX2 titles natively on all my Intel Mac OS boxes. . . . it was wonderful.
-
Our expectation is that Normandy will have a Mac version for sure, but chances are that sooner rather than later so will CM:SF.
Steve
=) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) . . . .
Thank you for the effort on this Steve . . . BTW does sooner = 2009 while later = 2010?
-
Parallels Frustration
Juanjo . . . your post got me hoping I could get Parallels 4.0 & CMSF working on my Intel Mac Book Pro (Early 2006 - 2.0Ghz - 256VRAM - 2GB RAM)
After alot of work - install Parallels Desktop 4.0 14 day trial, install XP SP3, install CMSF 1.08, and alot of mucking with settings (both CMSF and Parallels) I've ended up close but out of luck . . . graphics just don't work right - the world is all funny, transparent, and the UI goes blankish . . .
Can you post more details on your machine specs and your Parallels settings? I assume you have more than 2GB of RAM and more than 256MB of VRAM?
I can't install bootcamp due to my disk configuration and not being able to play CMSF is really PISSING ME OFF! =)
Thanks in advance
-
Steve . . . thanks for your swift and candid reply.
and thanks for a great game system . . .
Cheers mate,
Thomas
BTW - any chance ever getting ( even some / few / select units ) Aussies in CMSF?
-
I would've thought that Mac users would have gotten used to paying more then they should.
Now, now Elmar . . . lets not start that kinda thread my friend . . .
I run / sys admin Windows boxes, Linux / Unix boxes, and OS X boxes . . . it's a question of the best tool for the job at hand.
My personal platform of choice is OS X . . . and OS X users that are devoted to CM X 2 games would simply like to know what the playing field is before we buy . . . no complaints . . . just information so that we can choose to buy now or wait.
BTW - ran into someone who knows a certain former senior MS employee very well. This former employee of MS was very central to the development of recent Windows OS. . . now that he / she is out of Redmond would you like to guess what platform this person has chosen to buy for themselves ???
Ha ha! back to my box w/ "Intel inside" . . . .
-
WoW,
The scope and power of the CMX2 system is really starting to become apparent to me.
I'm excited about all the options, time periods, and locations we are going to see over the next few years.
It seems to me the tide has turned and I hope that all the BFC staff feel as satisfied with their efforts as they should - thanks for making this boutique game system possible.
I love CMSF, can't wait for the Marines Module, and will jump for joy when I get to hunt with Panzers again . . . but as a Mac OS X devoted user / programmer I've stopped playing CMSF for a while due to the hassles of dual-boot and running Windows via boot-camp.
This is not a bitch . . . I'm happy to wait ( a bit ) . . . but with the new module about to burst on the scene - and with new purchase decisions - can Steve / BFC make any updated comment on when we will see an OS X port and what the license policies will be for those who have already bought Windows versions?
Will you let us convert our Widows licenses to Mac when the time comes?
Many thanks boys . . . heat up!
Thomas
-
Hi all,
.... snip .....
What I am asking for here are very specific, limited suggestions like "it would be nice if you could be assured of a tank on tank battle instead of Mech Infantry being chosen instead".
.... snip ....
Steve
Steve . . . yes, Yes, YES! (please)
There is nothing more frustrating than somehow getting some BMP's and RPG's to face off against M1's when you asked for "armor".
Once you give the rest of us the "90" we are gonna want to use it! =)
. . . and what about all those Syrian observers you get in QB's - and no ARTY?
Keep up the great work . . . CM X 2 is a huge success . . .
-
. . . I don't care if it's Tigers or Pz III's . . . as long as I can play it native on my MacBook.
-
Thanks Mark for sharing your observations.
Sounds like improvement.
-
Mark, thanks for your contribution.
But, what would have happened if the ATGM team had seen a few grunts within AK range first? Say at "long AK range"?
Would they have popped off a few useless rounds and given away their position when their main job is to try to hide and wait for juicy armor targets?
I'm still baffled why we don't have "cover armor" - especially for Jav teams where the other grunts seem keen to pop off rounds at Red infantry?
But I'm easily baffled =)
-
Thanks for the update Steve.
-
Ditto . . .Originally posted by Pandur:I just played my RED vs. RED "test" Tank battle, as i do in every version to see how tank battles got, but i didnt in 1.05 up to now.
[snip]
- tank-fired ATGM´s;
about 4 Tanks(62M and 55MV have some) depleated all their ATGM´s, yet i saw NO SINGLE hit. also the AI enemy, wich shot some, scored not even a close shot. distance to targets where about 2000m down to 400m. basicly they went way over the enemy tanks or into the dirt on the way there. but not really "close"
in the battle, it leaves you with the conclusion that your and enemy tank´s value is considerable reduced as long as it has ATGM´s. with normal shells, i got good results when compared to the ATGM´s wich did nothing.[snip]
my consistent experience with Red AFV "gun-fired" ATGM's is the same. They seem to be both the "preferred" ammo choice (given standard ranges of engagement) and I've also never seen them hit a thing? Frustrating when you work hard to surprise an M1, give yourself away with a useless ATGM shot, and then get smoked seconds later.
What gives? Do these systems simply suck in real life? Any feedback from BF on this?
Can I please have a UI button to tell the loader to dump all the Red, gun-fired ATGM's onto the dirt to start with? =)
-
GSX,
Sorry to repeat myself but you seem keen to keep making the same claims and comments.
This comment is ignorant and inaccurate.Originally posted by GSX:[snip]
I dont think theres much point in WEGO for single play as the pause button is there
Mate. Again. You, your mates, or other 3rd parties can simply build these small scale missions RIGHT NOW, with the tools at hand.plus a reduced scale would totally avoid what McIvan is on about as you would see all of your force.
Controlling 30-50 men and a few vehicles would be much more satisfying I think than trying to control 300 men in RT, which, if playing IP, is just not feasible to do properly.
Having an RT IP pause just wouldnt work in my opinion for the reasons others have stated. I dont see the problem that a reduced scale would take away any of the simulation aspect of the game, if anything I think it may add to it. You can focus on your force to hand and use tried and tested tactics to complate a mission without the bother of Arty or Air
Go for it.
Maybe in your world and from your POV.I know some guys like them but the majority I speak to would prefer manageable gameplay instead.
You can have your small, RT battles. Others can have large, WEGO battles. Others again can have large, RT battles if they want.
Choice.
-
damn . . . LLF, you beat me too it while I was typing!Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:I'm looking forward to the Daisy Duke mod....
-
obvious question . . . where is Daisy? =)
-
Mi dispiace, fair enough Berto, fair enough.Originally posted by Berto:[snip]
I think that when gaming a CMSF: Window in my Apple Computer is a bug!
I also would love to remove all traces of Windows from my OS X boxes.
Ciao
CMBN Steelbook lands in Tasmania
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Just found my CMBN steelbook on my doorstep here in Tasmania and enjoyed the opening and shelving experience. =0)
Overall I feel CMBN is a gorgeous product, good value, and feel lucky such a niche simulation has been crafted so meticulously and lovingly for people like me.
Nice effort Battlefront Boys.
Thanks from Tassie