Hukka

I was wondering before when the CMBN would get some RPS love. Good to see it there. The game definitely needs some more publicity.

Great story! Now, could we make some pre-orders of the next masterpiece?

I have understood that the CM:A is developed by different company, but it is published by Battlefront, so that shouldn't affect too much CM:N development. If they would just open the Normandy forums and throw us some juice bones to chew on for starters... That could help me to live through the next few months. There's far too much sand in my boots, pants, mouth, ears and eyes after CMSF and the modules. As much as I appreciate their effort and brave choise in the modern warfare theater, I am not enjoying CMSF anywhere near as much as I enjoyed CMx1 and especially CMBB. I continue my support and buy all those modern modules too in the hope to enjoy something as amazing as CMx1 was once more. Before you say "why don't you just play the old games?" Well, time really flies in the 3d technology and I am a 3d graphic artist myself. The CMx1 titles just look a tad too ugly nowadays. It's funny that I played Close Combat CoI just few days ago and it sill looked quite ok. Secondly, I really like the new engine and it's possibilities. I just wish the WEGO-system would be they way it was in CMx1. It was very very VERY important part of the CMx1 success. For me at least.

True! Actually realistic Finnish module map would be all forest. So full that your troops could see enemies only from 10 meters away. How cool that would be! Maybe one of the most diverse maps would have a lake and propably a road going through the map. In the forest.

They speak more in the ground level? Well that's not really the solution I was looking for.

I think one of the coolest features in CMSF is the radio chatter when you order arty and air missions. It's very immersive. I wish there were more radio communication. I wish that the ordinary troops would communicate too like "taking fire!", "enemy tank detected" etc... And it would also be very informative too. As it stands now, it sometimes a bit hard to follow what's happening.

I was talking about WWII Finnish module.

It seems I made it sound more harsh than I meant. I guess my problem is the game's setting more than anything else. I am really much waiting for the Normandy ((and the jungles of Brazil) could you please please make a Finnish module?). And I think BF and the design team has made as good work as they've could possibly make from the subject (modern warfare). And I really appreciate the work of the scenario designers. I actually really like the asymmetrical aspect of the warfare. This was a bit suprise for me. So I really would like to see more use of it. Like when I have this very much superior force I had to think more about preserving my own troops and the buildings (or something) than just wiping the enemy out. But here I am just repeating myself. Sorry. Yeah, I know there's scenario editor, but I really don't have the time to make my own scenarios and I really like the suprise element of other's work. So Combatintman, thanks for the third mission. Let's see what we have next. And thanks to Battlefront for making these very unsexy (from market point) and daring games for us. I keep buying the modules as they pop up. Nato module sounds actually pretty cool.

Ok, so I gave wego another chance and you are right, it was much more enjoyable. I could sip coffee, think all my plans through and watch the action flow. Wait! Something blew up out of the screen. No problem. Rewind and see what happened. I still have some problems with the camera, but in wego mode it's not so big deal. But I am not done through griping yet. I am now through the third mission in British campaign and I have to wonder, why do the mission designers make maps that are full of desert. It might be realistic, but the setting alone is quite dull, no need to make it worse by making full desert maps. I would also like to see more challenge by adding more points to the Syrians when they destroy valuable targets like tanks. I took total victory in the 3rd mission and they bounded one of my tanks so the crew abandoned it. The poor Syrians got only like 20 points of that. The end score was something like 1000 - 21. I think one tank should cost me at least 100 points. One another thing I'd like to see. I would like to see points reduction when you destroy too much buildings. You know, it's bad press to destroy the whole city when hunting the poor reds. It would make nice new strategic element: should I really use that much force to smoke out those evil-doers from that building. It would be very cool. As it stands now, you usually wipe out the reds eventually, but they should add a question "at which price?"

Ok, it seems I should definetely try WEGO again. It is just usually that the developers design a game in certain way (turn-based/wego/realtime) and then try to force the other method in and it most of the times fail, like in Blood Bowl. IIRC CM:SF was designed primarly as a realtime game. And about spotting and difficulty levels... I like the other things in the more difficuly settings, but I'd like to see where everyone has spotted something. Maybe they should introduce "custom difficulty" where you could pick different elements of different difficulty levels.

Hello everyone, I am a long time fan of the series and a frequent lurker at the forums. I have not been overly happy with the CM:SF after loving the CMBB so much. But I still bought the Marines module just to support the company mostly and now I bought the British module for the same reason after I read the very nice "Thank you"-post at the top. I am not saying that CM:SF is bad. Far from it! It has many very very good features and I mostly like to play it, but sometimes the frustration is too big to continue. In my opinion gaming should be fun most of the time, even if it is a hardcore simulation like CM:SF. Now I thought it would be time for me to tell how I'd like CM to develop. First of all, I think we need more information what is happening. It is far too easy to miss some key incidents while controlling troops on the other end of the map. Some kind of message log would be nice with color coded messages (red when something really bad happens, like when your MBT blows up). Second, I would like to see all the time where the enemy has been spotted. I like the relative spotting system, but I don't want to memorize who saw what and where the enemy was. Here's an example: my forward troops sees an enemy mg, but my spotter won't see it. I want some accurate and fast arty fire from the spotter. So when I click the spotter there's no marker where the enemy was. I have to go back and forth with the forward troops and the spotter to call the arty strike. So my suggestion is this: show ALL the spotted enemy troops at least in gray markers. Maybe this is kind of cheating... I don't know. The spotter isn't seeing the target after all. But they have radios and stuff, right? And if we go the "cheating" subject, how can I fly over the battlefield like God (of war) or something? The reason I liked the wego-system so much, that I didn't miss anything and I could really enjoy the graphics and the drama. I could rewind and check if I missed something. I could watch the infantry assault on the ground level and after that the tank driving uphill to shoot the enemy far away. I think realtime game should be able to be played in ... realtime! Well of course it is possible in CM:SF, but I think I miss a lot of the great features then and the fun. The gripe is: some of the maps are too large and the camera is too "clunky". It's hard to describe, but try games like World in Conflict or Total War series (IIRC) and the battlefield camera is more enjoyable to use. I have big problems to play maps where I have to concentrate on two flanks or something. At least in realtime. So there's lots of cool things to see: Javelin fire is always a blast, it's nice to see air force assault and heavy artillery. But if you concentrate to watch these, you miss something on the other side of the field. I guess what I am trying to say is: bring back the wego as the primary method of play! I think it was one of the coolest things in CMx1 and definetely one of the greatest innovations in the strategy games genre. Not to mention that it worked awesomely in online play. Over and out.

Oh... Well, that makes sense. They could have some reinforcements though.

"Pretty easy" is kind of mild way to put it. There were really TWO(2) Syrian soldiers in my mission. They were hiding in the building at the right in the city where the attack started. I killed them and mission was over. I checked the battlefield after the total victory report and there weren't any other Syrian troops present. There must be something wrong.

It seemed like a really cool mission, but there were only like 2 Syrian soldiers... Is that how it's supposed to be? I downloaded the new campaign, but the same thing happened.

Yes, much MUCH better performance with 8800 GTS! Windows XP Intel Duo Core E6600 @ 3,4GHz nVIDIA 8800 GTS 2 Gb RAM

I get average of 40 FPS in WiC default benchmark with very high settings @ 1280 x 1024. I have: Core2Duo E6600 @ 3,4GHz Nvidia 8800GTS 2 gigs of RAM Windows XP edit: Same with 1600 x 1200 Average 32 - Min 18 - Max 68

I get very good performance in WiC with my E6600 and 8800 GTS with the highest settings. Definetely much better than CMSF.

Done!

Yes it appears that the 8800 GTS texture memory bug has a big part on this whole mess. I tried this at Allah's Fist: I moved the camera right and left until the fps dropped to around 15 when the camera was still, then I alt+tabbed and voila! fps raised to around 32. So I guess that the fps shouldn't drop to around 15 in this kind of test at all without the bug. edit: I did some more testing and now I'm quite sure about this. Altough it's kind of hard to explain... I go to the blue edge of the map. I am at the center of the map. I'm at the zoom level 4. Then I tilt the camera to the far right and far left, my fps drops to around 15 and stop my camera and look straight across the map. fps is still 15. The I alt+tab and boom! my fps raise to 32 and if I tilt the camera a bit to right and left, I still got the 32 fps. But if I tilt to the right extreme and left extreme and look straight after that, my fps is 15. [ September 11, 2007, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: Hukka ]

Well at least the GTX is A LOT more powerful card than the GTS.

By the way, I switched back to official 162.18 drivers and the performance is EXACTLY the same as with the beta drivers.

After setting the nvidia to balanced, I'm still stuck with the same 20 fps-> alttab -> 32 fps scheme. But the alttabbing definetely raises the framerate a bit.

It is just so weird, that when I adjust all kinds of image settings (outside of CMSF, like image quality, anistropic settings, MIPMAP settings etc..) they don't have ANY effect on the CMSF frame rate. Whatever I did, I got first 20 fps, then after alt+tab 32 fps @ 1280 x 1024 balanced/balanced.

Yes I did.

better/better @ 1280 x 1024 -> 5 to 7 fps improved^2 13 to 18 fps resolution doesn't seem to matter: i got exactly same fps with 1024 x 768