Lurker765

Really? I have to be connected to the internet to read the current manual for my game? Can I do a search in the online manual? Is this just a temporary thing or is it policy to not have the PDF available for download? Thanks

I didn't see where I could download the PDF to read offline? Is there a link for that? Thanks!

I believe this thread started because someone had to print out the manual because they purchased the Paradox version. It does not have a full manual and you cannot purchase a full manual separately. Thus, they either have the choice of printing out the manual or buying the game through Paradox without a full manual (which does not disclose that it is not a full printed manual). Once they have already bought the game once paying for a much pricier copy of the downloads and hardgoods option is not very appealing. Or if you bought the download version and then decide you want the manual as well it is difficult to do. Your reply mentions why print yourself when you can buy the printed manual -- can you purchase it separately?

this was discussed in: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003074;p=1

One of the links that I gave in that thread included the final statement by Steve saying: "It would appear to be not related to CM's code. Plenty of people are having no problems, which means the choke point is probably not the code itself. It is possible that there is something in the code that is more/less friendly to some configurations than others, but on the whole it appears to work fine. But yes, it is pushing a lot of data so the tolerance for problematic connections may be lower than for some other applications. Steve"

I think the developers are happy with the multiplayer situation. I posted quite a while ago that MP did not seem to work very well and got the response: "me:I want to play this game head to head against a human opponent and can't. WEGO TCP/IP doesn't exist. RT TCP/IP exists, but seems unstable for medium sized battles. Steve: Not aware of it being unstable. Do tell. me: Well...since you don't believe me about the TCP/IP still having some problems maybe you can check the links: (listed several links in tech support forum) Steve: I did and saw nothing about stability problems like you claimed. In fact, I saw the opposite. Pleased with performance, pleased with the overall experience (though there are some issues we're looking into). me:This last link you replied to claiming that since it works for the majority of people it isn't the CMSF code. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Who knows? Steve: Well, there is ONE PERSON saying he is having some problems. So yeah, who knows? Maybe all the other people that are saying it's working great are really the minority? BTW, check out Half Life or any other tech support Forum for online games and you'll see more than one post about networking problems." From this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003883;p=2 So it appears that the developers lay the blame on user setup/connections for this problem.

Thanks for the quick reply.

How would this be double the load time? If the second file is half the size since it doesn't contain the already known map data it would not increase load time significantly. It would have to load information from two files, but if both of them are half the size then you get the same load time. In addition PBEM file sizes would be half the size for the 100 exchanges after the initial turn. The time saved downloading plus the ability to use normal email accounts rather than dealing with files twice the size seems to be a great payoff.

try the demo. Only you can tell if you like it.

Thanks for the answer Steve. Being able to place my own fortifications for a defense was a big deal for me and it will be very sad if it cannot make it back into CMSF. Would foxholes be the same deal? ie: if I play a Normandy scenario and move my defending troops their foxholes would remain where the scenario designer placed them? I realize this might be implemented at some point in the future, but I am just curious if foxholes cause the same problem as trenches. Thanks

Bump for: Does this mean that trenches, etc will always be part of the initial map and the player will not be able to move them around in the setup to where they would like them instead of where the scenario design placed them? Also to add: What would this mean for fortifications in quick battles? Can they be allocated to either the player or AI to place somewhere?

Does this mean that trenches, etc will always be part of the initial map and the player will not be able to move them around in the setup to where they would like them instead of where the scenario design placed them?

Dima, It is good to see you and others like you being so helpful on bug reports. Thanks for being a positive person and willing to assist.

My laptop is above the minimum and recommended specs and can't run the game at an acceptable frame rate. I haven't tried playing it since v1.05 and just tried again on v1.08 but no luck. It is better than the slideshow it used to be, but still more frustrating than fun once the action starts. Oh well. I will wait for more patches since it seems to be improving speed on each release.

Huh. Maybe the requirements are OK and it just varies based on the video card itself?

I don't think removing "Vista is supported" is a commercially viable option. I'm just looking for a realistic minimum/recom specs, not trying to stop all tech support calls.

Hi, I was in a thread in the Tech Support and thought of a question. I bought CMSF based on the requirements listing. It was pretty sluggish and not much fun and my machine exceeded the 'suggested' system. Currently the specs for SUGGESTED are: Operating System: Windows XP (Vista is supported) Processor: Pentium IV 2.8 GHz or equivalent speed AMD processor or better Video Card: GeForce 6800 or Radeon x850 (256 Megabyte VRAM or better and must support 1024x768 or higher resolution) in OpenGL System Memory: 1 Gigabyte or more RAM The specs for MINIMUM are: Processor: Pentium IV 1.8 GHz or equivalent speed AMD processor Video Card: GeForce 5200 or Radeon 9200 (32 Megabyte VRAM or better and must support 1024x768 or higher resolution) in OpenGL Sound Card: DirectX 9 compatible Sound Card System Memory: 256 Megabytes RAM Is anyone able to play the game with a 32 MB video card or 256 MB of RAM? I was a bit annoyed when I bought the game and the performance was less than optimal and it would be nice to make it so that future buyers know what the requirements are. Any opinions on what the minimum/suggested specs should be? It should be simple to update and will prevent a few threads from starting in the tech support forum.

Woot! I posted in a thread that didn't devolve into a flamefest! Is anyone out there playing it on a 32 MB video card or 256 MB RAM and having fun?

What's ironic is that originally the game ran much, much, much worse on my machine than it does now with the ELOS addition. Whatever speed loss that change put in was more than compensated by the improvements in code efficiency compared to the v1.01 release. It's still annoying that my machine is probably way below the true required specs since it impacts my enjoyment of the game. I would like it if new buyers were aware of what they needed to properly run the game so they don't have the same frustrations I did.

I'm confused? If the page that lists the 'suggested' system has a setup that is too ugly to run the game (as per the OP and your reply) then that should really be the 'minimum' spec (or perhaps a better PC?) while the 'recommended' one should be a much better system. Are we saying the same thing?

Pzman, The first specs I listed are the 'suggested' or 'recomended'. My second post listed the minimum specs. The OP had problems with a machine that exceeds the suggested specs.

I guess that is my point. The page listing requirements shows a minimum spec: Processor: Pentium IV 1.8 GHz or equivalent speed AMD processor Video Card: GeForce 5200 or Radeon 9200 (32 Megabyte VRAM or better and must support 1024x768 or higher resolution) in OpenGL Sound Card: DirectX 9 compatible Sound Card System Memory: 256 Megabytes RAM Can you even play it on that? If the recommended spec is below the one this gentleman is playing with and having problems I wonder what the 'minimum' official one is like? Edit to add: this might explain some of my problems as well. I checked the specs and my machine qualified for 'suggested system', but it is a two and a half year old laptop and everything is sluggish. If I had known what the real minimum specs were it might have changed my mind on purchasing back in July. It was tough to have fun when the game was sluggish and jerky. [ April 04, 2008, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Lurker765 ]

Is there a new minimum/recommended requirements? The current page for CMSF requirements shows his 'old' system as above the recommended level: http://www.battlefront-store.com:8080//index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage_bfc&product_id=30&category_id=9&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26 Operating System: Windows XP (Vista is supported) Processor: Pentium IV 2.8 GHz or equivalent speed AMD processor or better Video Card: GeForce 6800 or Radeon x850 (256 Megabyte VRAM or better and must support 1024x768 or higher resolution) in OpenGL Sound Card: DirectX 9 compatible Sound Card System Memory: 1 Gigabyte or more RAM It would be nice to let buyers know what is needed to run the game properly now that ELOS is implemented.

A minor niggle...CMBO did not have 12 updates. It had eight total patches starting on 06/14/2000 and ending on 02/06/2001. See: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/CombatMission/Combatmissionpatches.html On this thread's topic, my immersion in the game disappeared due to all the bugs for the first four months. I then decided to just wait it out for a stable version that did not frustrate me and that also allows me to play against another human via PBEM without crashing. I am hoping that v1.08 fixes the remaining multiplayer bugs and I can try it again and see if I have fun playing it. My expectations for this game were just too high. Once I heard it was the new Combat Mission brand I pre-ordered thinking I would be able to set fortifications, use arty smoke, have targetting lines, etc. It was tough to get immersed in the game when WEGO replays show tanks floating in craters that don't get created until the end of the turn. The bugs just sucked all the joy from the game for me and now I am just waiting to see what happens to the game.

area fire and explosives (artillery, HE shells, etc) will damage your own units. As far as I know small arms fire will never hurt your own units even if your units have to fire through friendly units to hit the enemy. I believe it has been that way since the beginning of the game.