Gryphonne

Running a Core i5 2500K @ 3,7GHz MSI 67AGD65 8GB DDR3 @ 1333mhz SDD OCZ Vertex 2 X-Fi XtremeGamer HD5770 (to be replaced) have 8x FSAA and 16x AF, 1440x900 res, running best/best, absolutely no slowdowns in the CMBN demo. Oddly enough, CMA did feel a tiny bit sluggish at these settings. Haven't tested CMSF as I can't be arsed to reinstall it after having experienced CMBN

An application can't use what it doesn't need. If you're still experiencing a "slowness", then that's due to other bottlenecks.

Not only that, this game can only be purchased over the internet, so in that respect, every player is a potential online gamer An assumption, but still

Well, then we agree to disagree I'm just saying it's impossible to know how many online players there are. Even if you see 1% online, that doesn't tell you anything as for example, I'm not even part of that 1% having never played in a ladder of somesort. I come from a scientific background so I have a little trouble with baseless assumptions here and there I'm not saying BFC doesn't have a friggin clue about what they're doing, and they know very well what their users need and what they want and they can seperate their needs and wants just fine; but again, i'm simply disagreeing with baseless assumptions here. I for one am very glad they are around and I have no idea what else I would play if they weren't here. Staying stuck to SC would be less than ideal in any case Regardless, what I am trying to do here is make a case for pausable RT or TCPIP WeGo. And making it for a module rather than a next family title because CM: BOTB is so far away again and I'd like to play CMBN in a more enjoyable type of multiplayer. Nevertheless, I am very happy about Steve's reply that it is on the drawing table and I hope to see it sooner rather than later

Tomorrow as in today, right? since it's monday here in Yurop

I agree, I'd like my (EDIT: super detailed) StuG III now thank you very much

Assumption is the mother of all f*** ups. And the assumption here is no different to be honest. I have ten gaming buddies in my group that have played CM1 multiplayer with me for many years sometimes even on a daily basis without ever having posted on the forum or even having read the forums in the first place OR having played in ladders (additional note: they haven't touched single player at all). And in fact, how can we even assume that most online gaming is done in ladders in the first place? so trying to extrapolate things from that is moot. CM simply doesn't have an option to "guess" the number of players that play online unless you've done extensive market research in the shape of surveys/interviews; and even then.. Neither is there some sort of central server conglomerate such as battle.net where they could easily compare the number of average online players vs. the total copies sold. So with all due respect, they don't know anything remotely sure.

Experienced the same thing, basically, two players with the same tactical and game understanding are unevenly matched if one of them can pull off more APM. CMBN has way more detail over for example CMBB and lets you micro things in detail such as what ammo to pick up where, split squads and whatnot. All this stuff really isn't meant for real-time play; thus the game deteriorates into company of heroes/ starcraft but with more depth. There is no time to think through your tactics anymore and this takes away from the original concept with which I fell in love, namely: WeGo; or at the very very least, pausable RT. I know for one I myself can't be arsed playing PBEM, and my friends don't even want to hear about the idea. So, it'll boil down to playing really tiny scenarios/QBs online as to not to give me and some of the other SC II players in my gaming group an advantage over the non SC players.

small arms ricochets will cause friendly casualties

I've had a panther knock out 3 M-10s from 200m (starting range), while moving fast towards me :') I'm not complaining, but would like to ask whether such a thing would be possible in WW2? Also, I don't notice much effect from the damaged or knocked out optics?

Well, in all honesty, I consider myself to be an expert RTS player and quite tactically proficient. In fact, I think I could very well best quite a few players here. Add a competitive element, and I will be clicking on that map like you've never seen before But that is not what CM is about, I don't want it to be some spastic experience, I want a good paced, relaxed and intense experience in the sense that it is exciting, not distressing.

All discussions about coop multiplayer, high APM players and everything, while cute, is not what this is about; so, what's the beef with autopause RT? Is it feasible on a short term scale with little resources yes or no? that's what we'd like to know I think.

Having given this some more thought, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't necessarily the amount of units that creates the problem, but the amount of information that you have to process, which exponentially increases as you add more units to the fray. And as much as I hate to say it, this does cultivate the "korean-gamer-teen" phenomenon. For instance, two players with a company each. One person (A) can control a single platoon in detail before he loses view of the amount of info presented, the other person ( can control the entire company in detail. Naturally, person B is much more likely to win as he can quickly click his way through a complex battle plan involving attacks from several sides. Whereas person A will get overrun by the amount of info that he has to process all of a sudden. Here, the player with the quickest clicking/response time will win (sorry old timers, you're at a disadvantage here). This might be completely reversed in a wego environment because player A might be a far more proficient player on the defence/offense when he has time to process all the info presented to him. So here, the better player would win (like it should be IMHO). While strictly pausable RT solves only part of the problem, it does give a much better hybrid with some breathing space every minute or so

Medex, it would be nice if you had anything constructive to add to the thread instead of oil to a burning building :') Regardless, we should just all calm the frack down, take a deep breath and discuss this in a normal manner. While the tone of the first post may have been over the top. I do agree with the points made. I hope we can get some devs to add their point of view Truth is, I will find it very hard to enjoy RT MP and i really don't have the time/feel like it to play PBEM. I've played the demo scenario with the bocage from the German side, and the amount of microing you need to do on all fronts is *intense*, I simply can't see myself pulling that off against a human opponent. And this is from someone who made the top 3 in the C&C1 ranking back in the days, and is still a frantic RTS/FPS twitch crowd gamer these days. I've always played CM for it's calm yet intense environment, not for its spastic nature. And to all those people saying the AI doesn't bore you, trust me, it does. It bores the bollocks out of me after a while. It's fun, but it isn't *fun*. It's nowhere near the excitement of a battle vs humans when on the defence/meeting engagement. I could pubstomp the AI time after time again in order to achieve major victories on the defence in CM in all honesty, and this is no exaggeration. Being on the offense against the AI is harder, but not infinitely harder. And even then it boils down to how well the scenario designer placed the units for the AI in the first place.

In all honesty, it's not really a exaggeration. PBEM *does* require an additional amount of effort to keep it fast paced that really shouldn't be the necessary for those that want to play a reasonably paced good sized battle. I don't understand why autopause RT would have to be delayed even more than it already is. The engine is 3 years old, has evolved tremendously over time; surely, this can't be that much work. PBEM being less than ideal is an understatement come 2011. Also, I think this community is starting to severely show a lack of respect to people voicing their criticism lately (not necessarily related to the above post). I don't know what's up with that, but the fanboyism should be cut, period. There should be room for constructive criticism. All in all, I'd like to hear Steve's opinion on the possibility of an autopause RT mode within CMBN still.

Agreed, pausable RT, or autopause RT (even better) is the way to go.

PBEM is - by all standards - awkward; as in, i won't be able to convince my friends to use it anyway. Frankly, in 2011 more advanced multiplayer modes should be available. We aren't talking the early 2000s anymore. Also, how many games still even feature PBEM? the option is only offered in a dying niche. Not to say BFC is part of the specifically dying aspect of this niche, but you know what I mean. I've suggested the RT with forced pause after 60s a year ago. I really hope to see it in. It could even be so that you can give orders at all times, so during the action as well as during the pause so very little modification is needed. Then both players hit a "go" button and the game resumes again, this is a nice pause for some good overview and to keep track of the battle. I absolutely *love* CMBN, but as far as features go, it's still lacking some from the CMx1 era. Which is odd considering that implies a downgrade on some levels. Thankfully, contrary to CMSF there's plenty of upgrades

Sounds more like today to me

Wasn't the release: CMBN + Modules Bulge + Modules CMSF2 + modules East Front + modules?

So, this week, or next week?

Thanks for the heads-up Steve! game looks amazing already! Can't wait to play it! the beta preview seems like ages ago!

@ Steve, I didn't quite catch this from the video, but will you guys include "artillery procedures" for CMBN? What I mean specifically is the radio traffic you hear when calling in artillery? This really increased immersion while playing CMSF and I haven't heard any in the video AAR on the German side at least?

I agree, the rocking definitely needs to be toned down. Newsreel footage shows vehicles barely moving, and if they do they appear to possess more "mass" and the suspension definitely has less "spring" to it. This is a very silly history channel video, but at 1:17 you can see the Tiger firing, no rocking there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3ocpCPZBnM&feature=fvw EDIT: I just noticed Steve's reply above

Definitely

Steve, isn't 'hitting the target' mostly a factor of having acquired the correct target distance? It's unlikely a shell would hit too far left or right of the target (save for effects caused by wind and ballistics, or against moving targets). Thus with stationary targets, how does the AI gunner decide what the range to target is? Obviously, an AI gunner could have this information down to the meter and hit the target every single time. So what makes the round go either high or fall short? And how does the AI gunner then decide what to do? Because this *seems* random, isn't there some kind of "chance" of acquired the correct range to target then? Just curious about mechanics here