H.W. Guderian

Steve, BF, et al. This comment really concerns me - but given my ignorance of the details maybe I'm off the mark (no pun intended). I play CMX1 games because of their "realism" - the ballistics, the hull down positions, the implications of using a certain ammo on a given target with given, historically accurate defensive characteristics. This gaming philosophy is what drew me to Squad Leader and ASL as a kid and then brought me to spend my valuable time on your awesome CMX1 games. Abstractions are a fact of life in computer simulations - whether that is a war-sim or a massive computer model of world climate run on a supercomputer - but it seems that you are saying that one of the things abstracted in CMX2, that wasn't abstracted in CMX1, is LOS / LOF? Further is seems that this was somehow the price to pay to get nice looking groundcover? Perhaps this is an ignorant comment but the apparent loss of "precise" LOS/LOF - and the apparent results (shooting through walls, inability to put "area fire" in one corner of a building) - causes me to really question if I'd like to be in a CMX2 world, or rather just be back in CMX1? What does this mean for "hull down" units? In CMX1 finding clever, and "precise", hull down positions were / are key to a good armored defense IMVHO. If the above is true what is the point of having a beautifully rendered building if you can't place covering fire with the same level of detail - in fact it appears less detail than in CMX1? Don't confuse this post here as a complaint that ignores all the good and hard work you and the team have done. Cheers

Thanks for that historical insight into BF and CM / CM:SF. I never knew that there was a direct and conscious link between CM & SL / ASL - but no real surprise I suppose. As someone who spent a fair bit of my early youth engrossed in SL / ASL (and trying to understand the rules as well) it is now clear why BF / CM "games" are the only ones I'll spend my valuable time on. A great lineage for CM / CM:SF. No wonder I couldn't seem to get Lt. Stahler (or a variant) as a screen name! Although I'd imagine that Col Rosenberger is available?

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: The current plan is that after a few months post CM:SF release he'll start experimenting with movnig the code over to OSX. The post release demands on us are always huge, which means effectively nothing else gets done for a period of time (probably 1-2 months). He wants to program on the Mac as his primary machine, like the old days, so it's worth investigating at least. If it seems to be too much of a hassle, we'll probably try to find someone to do the port for us. That's an iffy thing for many reasons, but theoretically viable. If everything goes right there should be a native MacOS X (universal binary) within 4 months of CM:SF's release. So for those of you who G5s or Intel Macs without Windows will likely (not assured) eventually have a universal binary CM:SF. Lower end machines, almost certainly G4s and absolutely G3s, are going to be out of luck no matter what. That's the plan as we see it now! Steve from here </font>

Dear OS X "army", Now that CM:SF is "open for business", but apparently without a transparent OS X policy or roadmap, there are significant issues to consider. I have done some basic recon to try to clear the fog surrounding the future of native OS X CM:SF and indeed all CMX2 titles. Thanks to BF for their efforts on CM:SF and swift reply to my email. Intel follows: ----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas To: sales@battlefront.com Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:31 PM Subject: CM:SF G'day B.F., Congrats on the soon to be reached milestone. Now that CM:SF is open for business . . . Is it possible to get some final clarity on the availability (or not) of a native Mac OS X version and the time-frame so Mac Intel based customers can make informed purchase decisions? Apologies in advance if I've somehow missed something in your pre-order announcement in regards to a Mac OS X road-map. Cheers . . . -------------------------------- On 04/07/2007, at 8:59 AM, Madmatt wrote: This is something which we still do not know yet. Sorry, but for now, we are still focussed on the Windows version. Matt *************************************************** www.battlefront.com Battlefront.com, Inc. Home of Superior War and Strategy Games -------------------------------------- From: thomas Subject: Re: CM:SF Date: 4 July 2007 9:45:28 AM To: matt@battlefront.com Cc: sales@battlefront.com Matt, Thanks for your swift reply. You guys must be flat out! I understand your focus and likely your fatigue - your desire to simply get this product over the line. Hopefully you understand that, now that you have CM:SF "XP" on sale, Mac Intel users are well and truly stuck - unless of course they are happy to risk spending nearly double the price of all other users (~$115). Additionally the Catch-22 appears to be that, for customers who wish to play "CMX2" titles natively on OS X, if we are forced into "XP" versions now due to a lack of a transparent BF policy, that very action may harm chances of future "CMX2" native OS X versions? I appreciate the efforts of the BF team as well the limitations and business realities you work under. BF creates the only kind of "games" that I'll spend my valued time and funds to "play". However, for Mac Intel based customers the current situation - being left in the dark - is more than mildly frustrating and unsavory. Now that CM:SF is open for business I hope BF will clarify the OS X policy for their customers as soon as is practical. Cheers for all your efforts,

Maj, Thanks for that personal perspective on the OS X issue. Of course the core issue is just to know that "priority 3" will happen, "sometime". Thanks for your continued efforts on our behalf. Thanks also for your efforts to organize an OZ demo - I'm traveling up to Sydney the weekend before and unfortunately unable to make it back off the Apple Isle the next. Best of luck mate. Pzman, I understand your impulse to buy . . . however the risk of extra cost (~$115?) is just one of the unsavory issues. What impact will this have on the future of native OS X CM:SF, indeed all CMX2 titles? ---> I've just done some OS X recon and I'll post the intel in a new, dedicated thread. EDIT - Here is the intel: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001592 [ July 03, 2007, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: H.W. Guderian ]

Thanks for that insight Major Gibson. Are you able to shed any light on what you might understand is the state of play with a NATIVE Mac OS X version of CM:SF? (1) Will such a version ever be available. (2) within what timeframe. My possibly ignorant understanding is that you can't speak for BF in a business sense but given your previous comments on Native OS X versions I hoped you might have some intel that you could pass on. I'm sure many Mac OS X Intel based customers would like to be informed before they choose to sink funding into the XP version. Apologies in advance if I've missed something obvious in the pre-order announcement on OS X. Many thanks from Tasmania.

G'day B.F., Congrats on the soon to be reached milestone. Now that CM:SF is open for business . . . Is it possible to get some final clarity on the availability of a native Mac OS X version and the time-frame so Mac Intel based customers can make informed purchase decisions? Apologies in advance if I've somehow missed something in your pre-order announcement in regards to a Mac OS X road-map. Cheers.

X + P = XP. X. Wait for Mac OS X version. P. Pray that a WW2 version soon follows.

John, Thanks for your comment. The "list" isn't "mine" . . . it's a "media" report (of sorts - it really just represents the reprinting of the media release from the companies involved) and posted as information - with the reference. There has been much said in this forum and others about the future (or lack-there-of) for Mac OS X native gaming and indeed the viability and/or need for a Mac OS X port of CM:SF. A forum is a place to share information and this referenced info was posted as it relates to the general market (gaming - and specifically strategy gaming, albeit not at the elite and truly authentic level of BF games) and the apparent moves and choices of a big house such as EA. EA apparently isn't giving up on supporting native Mac OS X titles and is calling on CIDER and TransGaming to do the heavy lifting. IMPIO it relates directly to previous opinions expressed here and also possibly decisions that may or may not be made by BF now and in the future on CM:SF and other titles. I have no comment on whatever adverts might be on the website referenced? BTW - It is sad to see, although not surprising, that others feel compelled to post replies that appear puerile and designed only to mock and put others down. Cheers, Thomas in Tasmania

Ref: TransGaming to develop EA titles for Mac OS X June 11, 2007 - 16:18 EDT Electronic Arts has announced plans to bring top-tier games to MAC OS X this summer powered by TransGaming's Cider engine, including: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Madden NFL 08, Tiger Woods PGA TOUR 08, Need for Speed Carbon, Command & Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars, and Battlefield 2142. TransGaming, a Canadian-based leader in software portability, has opened up new playing fields for Mac users. "Traditionally Mac users had to wait to play the latest blockbuster games," says TransGaming CEO Vikas Gupta. "We're thrilled that TransGaming's Cider engine will dramatically decrease the time it will take to bring EA's hit portfolio of games to a thirsty Mac market."

As a gas? </font>

Methinks that rather than upping your post count from 5 to 6 with this statement, you would have been better off searching the forum for the numerous OSX threads, including those by the developers. </font>

As does Bootcamp . . . Good onya mate. For what it is worth I'd rather just play CM and CM2 natively in OS X but seems few care about that opinion.

Bootcamp is great. Bootcamp sucks. While it is certainly great that OS X users can now play CM games in Bootcamp - who likes the disconnect and HD-hit of "dual-boot" life? Will the upgrade of Parallels to 3.0 solve this problem? Will CM run on this new virtual machine? Will CM X 2 run on this new virtual machine? Hopefully someone "offical" can test these and other questions once it comes out in a few weeks? ------------ insert edited Parallel's fodder ----- After months of intensive development, Parallels is just weeks away from releasing its latest version of the hottest Mac software. Voted Reader's Choice by MacWorld and ranked #6 on PC World's Top 100 List, Parallels Desktop for Mac continues to drive innovation and take the Mac community by storm, now with 50+ brand new features. Like the UI integration with Coherence? You'll love application and file integration with SmartSelect Want to run the hottest games and graphics applications? Enjoy 3D with support for graphics software Run today's most popular games & applications on a Mac Browse through Windows folders, without launching Windows --------------------------------------- Lead from the front. -Guderian

I was REALLY looking forward to ToW. Sorry to say I have to agree with both Loaf and Chazman on most of their points. Sure, it would be VERY nice to have ToW graphics on CM but under the hood and behind the pretty face ToW doesn't deliver anything like the authentic battle simulations available in CM. So while I'm sure it will appeal to some section of the market, IMHO it will leave hardcore digital CO's, ones looking for realistic simulations, disapointed and frustrated. Looks nice though . . . kudos to the graphic artists! I think the worst thing is that this game looks so good - and that makes the core flaws all that more frustrating and hard to take? Hope others enjoy it more than I did and I hope that BattleFront get out of it what they need to to keep on developing REAL wargames. [Hits button to delete ToW Demo off the HD] How long will we have to wait for WW2 CM:SF? :confused:

Demo will be crucial . . .as I assume it will allow those with systems such as Mac-Intel (Bootcamp) 2GHZ Core Duo, 2 GB RAM, & RadeonX1600 to test if the game will run? "There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people."

Is the BF team aware of this? Cheers ------------ LINK "Windows games coming to Intel Macs Gamer Scan has an article about "Cider," a portability engine just released by TransGaming. The software promises to relieve developers of the delay usually associated with porting Windows games to the Mac. Where such ports normally require total code conversion, Cider should eliminate that by using a shell that wraps around an existing Windows code base. It operates by first loading the app into memory (on an Intel-based Mac), and from there connecting to an optimized set of Win32 APIs. No further work is necessary. TransGaming says it expects titles using Cider to ship within the next few months."

Is the BF team aware of this? LINK Windows games coming to Intel Macs Gamer Scan has an article about "Cider," a portability engine just released by TransGaming. The software promises to relieve developers of the delay usually associated with porting Windows games to the Mac. Where such ports normally require total code conversion, Cider should eliminate that by using a shell that wraps around an existing Windows code base. It operates by first loading the app into memory (on an Intel-based Mac), and from there connecting to an optimized set of Win32 APIs. No further work is necessary. TransGaming says it expects titles using Cider to ship within the next few months.