markh

I have TOW 1 and have enjoyed it. I have two queries regards TOW 2 before I purchase it: 1. How many ready made or pre-made maps are there in TOW2? 2. I am aware that there is a mission editor in TOW2 - but is there a MAP EDITOR as is the case in TOW1? Thanks

It does help. Moon, thanks for taking the time.

BillyR Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I am in the site and my login seems to work for the purpose of posting threads. I decide to take the plunge and buy TOW2. Great, on to the "Checkout". The site asks me if I am a repeat customer, or to register as a new customer. I input my user name and password - the site says that my input is either a wrong user name or wrong password (I find this strange because I am successfully logged in under my user name and password). Never mind I just want to buy and play the game so I try to do a new registration. NO good either - seems that I am already registered, which is correct because as you guessed I am logged in under my registered user name and password. The site suggest I use the "forgot password" facility. I do that and an email is sent to me by BF. I click on the link of that first email to confirm that I sent the request and it tells me that a second email with a password has been sent. The second email arrives with a numeric password. Well - lets try to buy that game again. I get to " Checkout" and I am required to register. I input the new user name and the new password - and guess what - it tells me that I have either a wrong user name or password. And around and around we go again!! By the way, during all this time I am still successfully logged in using my old user name and old password. If this posting works it means that the old details still seem to work. So gentlemen, what am I doing wrong? How hard can it be to buy the product? Any thoughts are welcome.

Patrocles Interesting observations about your changing support for Israel. I too, like you, am a strong supporter of Israel - and remain so. With regard to your comment about many "here" (presumably Americans) having second thoughts about their support for Israel - by implication because of the disproportionate casualty figures, could I draw your attention to Operation Phantom Fury (Second battle of Fallujah) April 2004? Consider the following estimates: On the one hand US service personnel KIA - 94, versus - 1,350 KIA insurgents. "Collateral" damage - estimated 6,000 civliian deaths and 200,000 internally displaced persons (presumably homeless immediately after the fighting). Allegations about the use of white phosporus in built up civilian areas. Now, do you believe that those same people are also reconsidering their support for the US Marines?

SgtMuhammed I agree with your analysis 100%. It is also interesting to contrast with the Western/Israeli responses how some of the Arab powers in the area have dealt with similar attacks against their regimes by irregular forces, and to also consider how successful those responses have been in achieving the prevention of further attacks against their regimes. An insurgency by Islamic groups, particularly the Muslim brotherhood, culminated in an uprising against the Assad regime in Syria in 1982 in Syria's 5th largest city - Hama. Syrian army forces led by the current President Assad's uncle (Rifaat al-Assad) quelled the revolt by brute force, and nothing of a similar nature has occurred in Syria in the past 27 years - which from the Baath regime's perspective would seem to be a success. Prior to the Syrian military attack on the city (Hama) it was subject to an intense shelling which destroyed much of the city. The military action is estimated to have killed 20,000 people (it is reported that a significant portion of whom were women and childern). Some accounts of the incident cite a figure of 40,000 deaths. It is worth contrasting this with the current level of casualties in Gaza. The Syrian response in relation to Hama was clearly a shameful incident, from a human rights perspective. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, it did not generate anywhere near the level of condemnation or hostility from the usual suspects in either the West or the Arab world (or even the UN at the time). The Hama incident in 1982 does serve as an interesting (and I might add personally undesirable) example of how middle eastern regimes can control attacks and uprisings by finatical fundamentalist groups if they put the "Western Approach" to one side.

Hi Steve I understand your points - but I suggest that there can be two ways of looking at the same facts. I think that the pragramatic amongst the Israeli establishment are not looking for an outbreak of mutual respect and compassion between them and their Arab neighbours either now or in the near future. Isrealis know that they exist in the area under collective Arab sufferance and because of their relative military capabilities only. The issue of whether a significant group of Palestinian Arabs "hate" Israel is essentially a given (they view Israel, including within its pre 1948 borders, as an illegitimate "Western" invention, and they dream of replacing Israel with an Islamic State). The issue of whether Israel is liked or hated as a general principle is currently less relevant than the more immediate question of stopping the attacks on Israel. I imagine that Israel would hope for a variety of desirable goals in relation to co-existence with their neighbours - but no nation can live on an ongoing basis with continuing attacks on its citizens. By this I mean daily or weekly, attacks. Israel appears to have learned to live with, accept and prepare for the concept of hostile truces broken by extermely violent confrontations such as the 2006 war in Lebanon. After the 1967 war Israel was subject to a war of attrition not just by Arab regular forces but also by Palestinian irregular forces (the current Fatah) located and operating from foreign soil (particularly Jordan). Israel responded with military force, including cross-border raids in sovereign Jordanian territory. Four decades later, that nation is typically not used as a base for such cross-border military attacks on Israel. The military solution obtained positive results. During the late 1970s, Fatah operated out of Lebanon and conducted cross-border attacks against Israel. Israel responded with the 1982 invasion which ended in the essential removal of Fatah infrastructure from Lebanon and an end to attacks on Israeli soil for a period of time. Unfortunately for Israel, it also caused the formation of Israel's next enemy - Hizbullah, but the most immediate issue being the then (1970s - 1980s) continuous attacks on Israeli soil ceased. On the topic of Hizbullah, we all recall the 2006 confrontation. A poor military result for Israel - but the Hizbullah rockets stopped and have not started up in sympathy with Hamas in the current crises. In fact Hizbullah was at great pains to ensure that Isreal understood that the recent attacks from Lebanon were not its actions. Argaubly the Israeli military response in 2006, irrespective of its technical merits, has purchased a continuing temporary ongoing truce - one which may end at any time, but is currently holding, which is the most that Israel can hope to expect from a group that denies its right to exist. In the 10 years to 2006, over 800 Israelis died as a result of terrorist attacks - typically suicide bombings. Israel responded militarily in places like Jenin, and Israel built the much maligned "wall". The Israeli response has resulted in a significantly improved situation as compared with the prior period when it was not taking any decisive action and largely relying on negotiations with the PA, and hoping that the "better angels" of amongst the Palestinians somehow brought the bombers under some type of control. In all these cases, the military response obtained a favourable outcome - but not the "ideal" outcome of a guaranteed peace. The fact is that a guarantted peace is simply not achieveable until both sides recognise the rights of the other side to (firstly) exist and (secondly) to be the legitimate representatives of their people. We are a long way from that - so currently there is only a military solution to bring about all that can be hoped for, an armed truce. That is what I would offer as support for my proposition. Since you have been requesting evidence to support certain propositions, please allow me to ask you to point out what historic evidence you have to support your proposition that restraint will result in a better outcome? When has appeasement to violence in the middle east by States and non-State entities resulted in a better outcomes. I confine the evidence to the middle east due to peculiar cultural and social issues that influence the players in this matter. Your comments about post-WW2 Germany and Japan seem strange. The main reason for the peace obtained was not because of benelovent or friendly occupiers - it was that the will of the Germans and Japanese to fight was utterly destroyed in the context of obvious military defeat, 24/7 bombing of Germany by the US and UK which resuled in over 500,000 German dead and the creation of an urban/ industrial wasteland in Germany. Incidentially, this was more indiscriminate bombing than what is currently occuring in Gaza - remember Dresden? There were obviously similar actions in Japan - including two nuclear strikes. I am not sure whether you would also classify this as murder, plunder and terror? I guess it boils down to the fact that it takes two sides to make actual peace. But, in the absence of such goodwill, one side may make ongoing confrontation so unpalatable and costly that the other side simply stops fighting (which seems to be the middle east experience). Regretablly, as with all war, there tends to be death and destruction and it is rarely the decision makers who are the victims.

Ali-Baba The point I was making was to address Steve's query about anyone providing examples of what benefits military action has achieved for Israel. I believe that this is the lesson that the Israeli establishment derives from its "transactions" with hostile entities. Israel has not achieved a comprehensive and universal peace with Syria, Hizbullah or Hamas - but them neither of those parties accepts Israel's right to exist, hence it is somewhat more difficult to achieve anything other than an armed truce. Each day without an armed exchange with any of those parties is a positive. You are correct that asymetric threats are harder to deal with, but even here, the lessons for Israel seem to indicate that the harder line stances are preferable. The intrusive much-maligned "wall" has indeed dramitically reduced the incidence and level of casualties from suicide bombers. Israel was surprised and greatly disappointed with the performance of the IDF during the 2006 Lebanon incident. Nothwithstanding Hizbullah's self-promotion about an outstanding victory at that time, it does not seem to wish to repeat that wonderful "2006" victory - I wonder why? Your comments about IDF "hurt-ego" is consistent with your commentary in this thread. The simple fact is that a modern economy and democratic society simply cannot function with nearly 500,000 people having to move in and out of bomb-shelters on a continuous ongoing basis. The people and leaders in Gaza can simply look to the West Bank to see what life can be like where there is mutual recognition of each other's regimes and where rockets are not fired into Israel.

Steve You asked about what military action had achieved for Israel, and asked for examples. Egypt fought and lost four short wars with Israel (1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973) as well as the long 1960's so-called war of attrition. Israel's military response allowed Egypt to concluded that seeking to destroy Israel was not in its best interests and Egypt entered into an arrangement where it recognised Israel (hence its right to exist) and settled for peace in exchange for the return of the Sinai. Jordan fought and lost two wars against Israel. As a consequence of Israel's previous military actions Jordan wisely decided not to join in the action in 1973, even when it initially appeared that the Arabs had the upper-hand. It now recognises Israel and a "cold-peace" exists. Syria fought and lost four wars against Israel. As a consequence of Israeli military actions it concluded that direct military confrontation was not in its best interests despite arguably significant justification from a military perspective - e.g. the Israeli invasion of Lebanon 1982 and the significant Syrian military losses, and also considering the recent Israeli attack on its N. Korea joint venture military plant in 2008. As a consequence of Israeli military actions Syria does not see that it is in its interest to seek military confrontation with Israel. A "cold-war" now exists. Hizbullah appears to have decided that - despite its claims of solidarity with Hamas, it will not resort to a military response to Israel in the current circumstances and was at pains to distance itself from the recent missile attacks. Even those who score its confrontation with Israel in 2006 as a victory agree that its reluctance to become involved is due in large part to the ferocity of the Israeli response in 2006 and its concern not to repeat that experience at this stage. The above are example of what can be achieved by Israel by forceful military action. In some cases peace (Egypt, Jordan) in other cases a tense and cold armed truce with the potential for war at any time (Syria and Hizbullah). No one should honestly expect a peaceful solution in relation to Hamas. Hamas wants a one-state solution, not a two state solution. Its charter calls for the removal of the state of Israel, return of refugees to their pre-1948 homes and the new nation ruled under Islamic law. In that context there can never be true peaceful relations. There can only be a set of circumstances where it, like the other Arab players referred to above, conclude that military action against Israel is not in its best interest.

Douglas Thanks for your reply - that was exactly what I was looking for. Regards Mark

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone is able to tell me what the RHA eqivalent (in mm) is of the frontal armours of the M1A1 and M1A2 respectively - and the reference source if you knows that. I appreciate that both tanks have composite armour so the actual thickness is irrelevant - that is why I am looking for an "RHA equivalent" thickness. My " web research" skills are not that good and I have not been able to find that information on the web. Thanks in advance.

Hi Cadmium77 Like most of the other people posting I too have both games and enjoy them both. However, I would disagree with some of the comments in some of the posts. Steel Beasts Pro PE is BOTH a tank sim as well as a good tactical strategy game. I mainly use Steel Beasts Pro PE as a third person tactical strategy game, and in that sense it has strengths and weaknesses as compared with CMSF. In terms of weakness, Steel Beasts Pro PE does not present infantry nearly as well as CMSF (the video presentation of the infantry is poor - and building entry is quite abstract). However, the AI is very capable, as are the weapons that are modelled. If you do not respect the infantry capabilities you will soon find yourself surrounded by your disabled tanks and AFVs. On the strength side, I find the game editor much easier to use (I prefer producing my own scenarios so this is important to me). There is a much greater variety of equipment (tanks, AFV, AT systems such as Javelins, Milans and Russions systems etc ...) to use. A much wider variety of national equipment - US, Russian, German, Australian, Swedish etc.... There are playable US, Euro and Russian helicopters (4 varieties I think). There is an infinite variety of terrain and the terrain graphics are actually quite good - in many ways I prefer the presentation to CMSF. The terrain variety includes European theatre as well as desert. You can even create tropical and sub-tropical terrains (including palm plantations and jungles). You can create European winter scenarios - snow, winter camo on vehicles and white cammo on infantry. There is water as part of the terrain - you can create lakes and rivers type scenarios. Finally, there is a very active modding community that not only seems to re-skin vehicles, they are busy modding vehicles specs. SB's publishers recently released a free beta version of the game (effectively a full new game with new features and vehicles)and they plan to do the same this summer. In summary, I support and regularly play both CMSF and SB Pro PE and recommend you get both.

I agree with both "MD82" and "abneo3sierra" - with only one minor point of difference. It really is not a question of " ... either spend the money or spend lives..." with regard to the example provided by MD82 of attacking a potentially insurgent infested building. To put it bluntly, a human casualty (whether KIA or disabled) is a very major expense to a modern western army, and to society as a whole in terms of veterans affairs type benefits. The provision and use of sophisticated smart arms in such cases probably represents a significant savings versus what may be the alternative costs. When we as a society decide to place our servicemen and servicewomen at the ultimate risk we should not quibble about allowing them to use the tools that reduce those risks.

Australia's main Pacific zone treaty obligations are to the USA, under the ANZUS Treaty. I understand the obligations to mean mutual assistance if the sovereign territory of any of the treaty members is attacked. Taiwan is not a member. Australia's current prosperity is in large part due to Australia selling raw materials to the booming Chinese economy. I think that China has now become our leading trading partner. Australia supports a one-China policy, and is on record as saying it would not support Taiwan declaring itself independent of China. In summary, I could not see Australia sending troops unless very unusual circumstances intervened.

It is 1:30 am on 1 January 2008 in Western Australia - happy new year to all.

Happy New Year from Australia - It is 1:30 am on January 1st 2008.

Hi everyone It is 12:30 am Christmas Day in Australia - so a very happy Christmas from the other side of the world. Hope you have a good one. It is going to be over 100 degrees F and we are subject to bushfire warnings in Perth - Western Australia. To all of the guys at 1C and BF that have worked so hard to bring us TOW, thanks guys there are many of us that really appreciate your efforts. I wish all of you and your families a merry Christmas and I wish 1C and BF a happy and prosperous new year. I am REALLY looking forward to the New Patch in early Jan 08 (fingers crossed). As well as the add on.

Hi everyone We have just brought in Christmas with our family and friends, and people are drifting off home it is 12:30 am Christmas Day in Australia - so a very happy Christmas from the other side of the world. Hope you have a good one. For the record it is going to be over 100 degrees F and we are subject to bushfire warnings in Perth - Western Australia. To all of the guys at Battlefront that have worked so hard to bring us CMSF and its patches, thanks guys there are many of us that really appreciate your efforts. I wish all of you and your families a merry Christmas and I wish BF a happy and prosperous new year.

Steve Thanks for the feedback on patch 1.04. I appreciate that you guys have also been working hard on graphics fixes so I thought I would try to pick your brains. I am not that "clued-up" on computers so excuse me if my comments or questions seem overly simplistic. Firstly, I currently have an AMD x2 dual core 3800+ (2.0 GHz) Processor. 2.048 GB of DDR RAM. nVidia Geforce 6600 3D 256MB graphics card. As a consequence I am rather limited to the size of game I can play with CMSF, as well as the quality of the graphics settings. I am about the spend some of my quarterly bonus on treating myself to a new or upgraded computer. CMSF seems to be the most demanding/problematic game I have so far as graphics are concerned. However, I am reading in these forums that obtaining the highest end machines may not necessarily be a solution. So I am looking for some ideas. Please note that I am not making a complaint, and so I am not looking for the reasons that the problems exist - I probably would not understand the reasons anyway. I am simply looking for some workable views on the subject. For example, what sort of specifications and components should I be looking for based on the research and diagnostics that you guys have been conducting over the past weeks? I would also welcome any thoughts from anyone who feels they can assist a non-technical enthusiast. Thanks.

Sneaksie I, like many of the other posters, thank you for the progress report. For my part, I am an active user of the Mission Editor and Map Editor because I prefer to make my own scenarios. My request - if it is possible - is to have some ADDITIONAL SUMMER MAPS in the new addon, in the same way that the first update contained many new winter maps (Moscow Campaign). I am aware that the current summer maps can be modified by the Map Editor - but the overall lay-out is still essentially the same, and these maps have become too familiar after the hours of playing I have devoted to the game. Additional Summer maps will enhance the replay value. I appreciate what you have said about how time consuming creating such maps can be - but I for one would not be seeking a faithful recreation of a particular part of France, Germany of Poland, merely a series of generic new rural (and hopefully small town) maps on which to create future missions. Regards

I agree with ParaBellum, the new textures are a substantial improvement and are adding to the pleasure of playing CMSF. Well done BFC. I was pleasantly surprised. I did not expect such an improvement in graphics in patch 1.03! There is only one extra thing that I really NEED (as opposed to want) now, and that is a fix for the nVidia issues. Look forward to your help in this matter BFC, and thanks again for the content of 1.03! _____________________________________________

What can I say - Dick by name, Dick by nature

I am hoping that patch 1.03 converts my NO (not yet) to a YES. I still have some faith in the guys at BF - here's hoping that the faith is not misplaced. I fully support the direction that BF have taken the game design and the engine. My concern is all about the implementation (specifically graphics issues). I think that I understand about the limitations of being a small development company, but I am frankly staggered that apparently no testing appears to have been done on the latest 8000 series nVidia cards BEFORE release. I say that because, as of a few days ago, the devs do not seem to have obtained a machine with those nVidia cards and hence have not been able to address the problems. I am shaken by the fact that it has taken weeks - rather than days - to get the card installed into a machine to allow for diagnostics and remediation of what has been well recorded problems which were noted since the product launch. If my expectations about such things are unrealistic (I am not very computer literate) then I apologies. If my expectations are realistic then the BF guys need to give some thought to the development process and launch of similar such products in future.

Ditto Brent Pollock

I have just posted the following message to Steve from Battlefront in the "Discussion Forum" in response to a thread called "Any Information on the patch" (see the quote from Steve at the bottom of this post. I am concerned that Steve's summary outlining the fixes in proposed patch 1.03 do not seem to mention dealing with the nVidia 8800 issues. Does anyone have a direct statement from Battlefront (not just guesses) the nVidia issue is definitely being addressed in the next patch? I need some reassurance that we are not going to have to wait for patch 1.04 - please! _______________________________________ Steve Thanks for the feedback on patch 1.03. You have said that patch 1.03 is going to be " ...the end of all major outstanding issues ...", however, missing from your summary of the 1.03 fixes (copy quoted below) was any references to a fix for the nVidia 8800 issues. This is a MAJOR issue for a significant number of purchasers including me. Could you please give me some comfort that 1.03 is going to address the nVidia 8800 card issues? ________________________________________________ quote: At present we're still testing PBEM but early results look promising that all the problems have been fixed. Several LOS issues have been cleared up, a remaining ATGM bug was finally nailed down (having to do with elevation differences), a bunch of smaller things fixed, a few new things added, and we're still going. v1.03 should be the end of all major outstanding issues. That is still looking quite good since we've only been working on v1.03 for week. Steve ________