Deputy

Okay, I will hack the scenario and replace Jagtigers with either regular Tigers or King Tigers. That should make a major difference.

I'll try it again. It was at long and close range. Didn't matter. They were mainly T34/76. And it didn't matter if it was frontal or side shots. Although most were frontal. Plus the 128mm gun seemed as worthless as a 50mm gun. One shot kills at a moving tank. I'm sorry, that's just plain BS. NONE of those tanks had gun stabilization systems back then. Something is definitely WRONG here. Just curious....was this sim also produced in Russia? I have seen WW2 sims produced from there that tended to give extreme advantages to their own equipment. IL-76 from Ubisoft is a good example. I can see the JSII and JSIII tanks giiving Tigers a good fight. But T34s...I don't think so. Those tanks should be easy pickings for a Tiger of any type.

I just played a scenario where a bunch of Jagdtigers went up against some T34 tanks. I figured the Jagdtiger would knock them out fairly easily and be immune to their guns. Instead, I was presented with a bunch of smoking hulks for the Jagdtigers. Something definitely seems to be wrong here. I don't think even the T34/85 should be able to get one shot kills so easily. Am I wrong?

It worked great. They had the right file names on them. Looks MUCH better now.

Found it!!! Thanks!! Is it named the proper file name so that I can just drop it in and overwrite the old file?

I hope people working on the fix aren't the same ones that worked on this forum. I've had to ask for a new password 3 times to sign in.

One of the few things I find slightly irritating is the objective flags in the Combat Misson series. Especially the German ones. The flag displayed doesn't model ANYTHING the Germans used. It is actually a German naval flag. Only they removed the center swastika and put in a maltese cross. No such flag has ever existed. And a German naval flag in a land-based game is pretty silly. So has anyone made a mod that installs the standard German swastika flag for objectives? Dep

Drat! I was hoping you were the exception to the rule and we could discover the cure/cause. Sorry to hear that.

Actually, mine is a dual processor, not dual core CPU...two 3.4 GIG Xeon processors. This is the fastest 7100 series "Tulsa" processor released in August 2006. It has 1 meg of cache per core (2 meg total) and 16 meg of L3 cache. It also has hyperthreading capability. This comp ran Crysis at almost full settings for every option with no stutter or framerate problems.

Nope. Not background programs running. I use SmartClose and it still doesn't help. Your system is what I would call an "average" system. Not too weak and not overwhelmingly powerful. I don't get it. Why do "killer" high power systems have problems and relatively normal systems suffer framerate hits? Very odd.

Nope. I ALWAYS play with armor as my choice for ANY mission. If what you say is true I should be playing armor missions over and over again. But I'm not. I am getting infantry missions over and over again. I never ever chose infantry to play. It's the game choosing it and not me.

WOW!!! I totally missed this post!!!! Well that certainly lays to rest any possibilities of it being a problem with the computers. If you can't run it without a slideshow, then that means it's DEFINITELY the game and not our comps that's the problem.

Please post your system specs...processor, RAM, video card with onboard RAM, operating system, etc. It might help us figure out what is going on. And you are talking about the CAMPAIGN, correct? Not the mission generator. The framerate problems don't seem to happen in the mission generator. That has it's own set of problems.

This is the "fix" that Sneaksie posted in the bugs area. Didn't make any sense to me when I read it. I don't save generated missions, I play them to completion. I tried changing the parameters and that didn't help either. And I don't think it has anything to do with the "campaign" comments. The mission generator works all by itself with no realtionship to any campaigns. Make sure that you can save anything... maybe it's the same old mission with all parameters set to random gets loaded again and again. You don't need to create the new campaign, just select 'single missions' campaign and enter a new name for the scenario.

Whew! Was worried it was just me!!!

Phil: I chose armor and got ALL infantry. Someone said it was because of what was chosen on the previous mission generated. That shouldn't have anything to do with the current mission being generated. The first time I used the mission generator I chose armor and got all tanks. It was very cool. After that I chose armor again and kept getting infantry and no tanks. No arty either. I exited the game and went back in and got an armor selection. But that trick only worked once. After that it was back to all infantry. Heck, if I could have gotten a mix of armor-infantry (aka Panzergrenadiers) I would have been a happy camper. But the generator insisted on giving me all infantry.

Yep...I and others had the same problem. I kept choosing armor and got stuck with infantry.

Yes, it's a workstation comp that I use for games. But I have had NO problem running more processor and RAM intensive games than TOW Kursk. Dual core and two processors is the same thing. You can believe what you want. Until TOW Kursk I NEVER had a problem running any sim no matter how much power it needed. The fact is most software, even the newest game software, rarely uses the second processor to run with. It's the heavier numbers-crunching programs that require two processors. My computer was MADE to use Win XP 64 bit. It is optimized from HP to use it. I wonder if there ever WERE beta testers for this game. People with more modern and more advanced dual core processors with more RAM than mine are having the exact same problems. Face it...it's the game, not the computers that are the problem. If a motherboard says it is optimized for games, that is just advertising hype. If you pay extra for it, you are being ripped off. How would the motherboard maker know which games people play?

They are ALL 64 bit processing systems. Just newer versions. The big advantage for 64 bit processing systems IS the abaility to exceed the 4 GIG RAM limit present in 32 bit systems. What I listed was the OPTIMUM, meaning maximum performance systems. Not the MINIMUM specs. And as you can see, 32 bit systems ARE supported along with Windows XP. It's NOT the OS that's the problem. It's the GAME. A dual processor is the EXACT SAME THING AS DUAL CORE. Intel just "squished" two processors into one core because it was CHEAPER to produce. Here, read this: http://desktops.consumerelectronicsnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=38547 Your PC should meet the following minimum requirements for the game to run properly: •Operating system: Windows XP or Vista •CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon64 X2 (2,4GHzor better) •RAM: 2GB •Graphics: nVidia GeForce 6600 or AMD Radeon X1900 with 256 MB RAM or better •Sound card: DirectX 9-compatible •DVD-ROM drive (for the disc version) •Free harddisk space: 3.5GB •DirectX 9.0c

Knokke: Thanks for that info about the 88s. And you are exactly right. When used to defend cities or strategic areas they were employed in batteries of several guns ringed around the area to be protected. The big advantage of the 88s in ground combat was they had outstanding optics for aiming/sighting. This, coupled with their large caliber shell, made for a deadly weapon.

I wish I would have found this thread before I bought the game. I also experienced the slideshow effect in the very first scenario of the campaign (along with CTD and freezes). I also have never had a problem running some of the most graphics-processor intensive games available. Note that the specs suggest a 64 bit operating system for recommended system requirements: Recommended system requirements: •Desktop PC with Operating system: 64-bit Windows Vista or Windows 7 •CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 or AMD Phenom II X550 •RAM: 4GB •Graphics: nVidia GF 8800 or AMD Radeon HD 4850 with 512MB RAM or better •Sound card: DirectX 9-compatible •DVD-ROM drive (for the disc version) •Free harddisk space: 3.5GB •DirectX 9.0c Most all of you exceed what the recommended requirements are. So do I. While my system isn't the newest, it does have plenty of power: 64-bit Windows XP CPU: Dual Intel Xeon 3.4Gig processors (two actual processors, not just dual core) RAM: 4 GIG Graphics: nVidia 9800GT with 1 Gig of onboard RAM I notice that the manufacturer recommends a 64-bit system. That I find odd. 64-bit systems are able to support in excess of 4 GIG of RAM. Normal Windows XP has a RAM limit of 4 GIG. You can read about it here: http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html "A 64-bit computer running a 64-bit operating system will have an enormous address space. The Microsoft document referenced above says that 64-bit Windows XP allows 128GB of RAM. That's 37 bits of address space. (a full 64-bit address space would be something like 18 quintillion (18x1015) bytes. I don't think any hardware or software manufacturer is to that point yet.) That system would have no problem accessing every bit of your 4GB of RAM." Note you have to have a computer capable of USING 64 bit of RAM in order for it to recognize it. It's a hardware/software combo that is needed. Note also that your video RAM is added into that 4 GIG number. What I am wondering is if TOW Kursk was actually written to take advantage of in excess of 4 GIG of RAM? If so, it would be contradicted by outammo's system which actually has 8+ GIG of RAM. I am also seeing comments from some folks who DON'T have "killer systems" and the sim is running fine with no framerate drops. Very strange. For me, I uninstalled it. I use all the Combat Missions series and they work fine. They don't have all the eye candy and some of the new features (which may also be new problems), but they don't suffer framerate hits and they are a blast to play. I believe TOW Kursk was released with minimal or no beta testing. Or maybe in spite of the beta testing in the rush to make some quick cash and the hopes the bugs will be worked out "some time in the future". That's being pretty unfair to customers paying $45 for a COMPLETED sim. But it seems to be SOP nowadays for many software companies. My opinion...in the long run that type of business strategy is gonna hurt them. People are gonna get tired of paying big money when money is tight for something that is obviously not even close to being playable. Ubisoft has done this exact same thing with Silent Hunter 5. Dep

On the comment about the 88 and whether it is targeting aircraft...I've played other games where the 88 could only be made to target tanks. Not sure how it's represented in this sim, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the way they designed it. I am guessing here, but I don't think the 88 that was hauled along with the ground units was a "dual purpose" gun. Maybe they only carried AP ammo or the crews weren't trained for AA defense....I dunno. I'm just guessing on all of this. Not even sure if the gun crews for 88s were Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe. I'm thinking probably Luftwaffe. Hermann was very jealous about his Luftwaffe crews and equipment. I defer to anyone who has more/better details. Then again, there are reports of tanks in this sim using their main gun to shoot down Iluyshin aircraft. That would be funny to see.

Thank you sir! I appreciate the heads-up

Patience is a virtue.

And THAT says a mouthful. Playing TOW Kursk leaves me with the impression NOBODY did beta testing. I mean the framerate thing happens immediately in the campaign during the very first turn. The campaign was a feature of this sim. Now many of us can't play it and we are told to use a mission generator or editor to create single missions. Just unacceptable. Okay, I'm gonna stop my griping. It's off my hard drive and I am gonna have to swallow the $45 loss. I dunno if it will ever be patched right or not. I do have the CM series to play. But TOW Kursk leaves a bad taste in my mouth every time I think of it. It's just not up to Battlefront standards.