WillLight

My neck's hurting, can I get a carrier pigeon instead?

Moore's law hasn't been true for quite a while now, at least not in the classic sense. Rather than faster CPUs we are getting more of them (aka cores). If a program doesn't take advantage of the parallelism then it isn't gaining the benefits of having multiple cores. And a game (as opposed to say a web server) is not a problem that lends itself very well to parallelism. Typical games follow an endless loop of render-input-decision-render-input-decision-etc. Without knowing a single thing about how CM is implemented, but being a know-it-all IT consultant I would venture that changing the design to parallelise some parts of the loop isn't as easy as some might think it is. As usual I'm probably talking out of my arse, but then what else is new?

I know it wouldn't be the same as one from BFC, but you could get the printer friendly one printed and bound for you for a reasonable amount of money.

Actually, I read your post carefully, here is what you wrote: I won't go as far as calling it fraud, but it definitely was misleading advertising. It's like having one microgram of gold in a coin,and calling it a "gold coin". Who had the brilliant idea of putting tiny tan letters on tan pages? The game itself is fine, but this sort of stuff will keep me away from future preorders and taking their word for anything. So, you say you won't call it fraud and then go on to compare it to an example of fraudulent behaviour and conclude that you will keep from taking their word for anything. Nice semantics there but not really convincing...

vonRocco: fraud? Really? You paid 5$ extra for this over the ddownload, 5$! BFC must be rolling around in all the extra cash they made from the gullible pre-orderers. Pull your head in mate. When it rains it rains, it doesn't mean the world is out to get you.

ATI or nVidia? Did you try the latest drivers? CMBN uses OpenGL so game performance from other games is not necessarily an indication, as most games use DirectX (and don't run on the Mac). Hope that helps!

Mine turned up yesterday. A little bit bent, but no biggie

I think BFC should concentrate all their effort on correctly modelling ammo vs trees, after all the next module is in even more forested areas I would love to watch trees splintering under fire. Maybe it can be called CM:MT (Combat Mission, Man vs Tree) On a more serious note, glad you're looking at it, and hopefully a compromise between dev time and realism is found. Your rest time should be almost over and us non-americans are waiting for the Commonwealth module!

I'm pretty sure that's moddable, JonS posted screenies of his AAR with the compass directions in the skyline. Whether or not it's worth the trouble just for a few scens is another question...

Great first post R-T, and welcome to the forums. BFC - what a great first sticky in a new tactics forum for CMBN *nudges*

Here's a great idea, if I may say so myself BFC implement an interface to read QB prices and report QB selections. Someone in the community implements a QB force selection "stock exchange". Now, the more people buy of something in QBs the more it gets expensive, and thus the true price, as valued by the players will emerge. You would only (optionally) connect to the exchange for head to head play so it would have no bearing (or additional complexity) for AI or for those who don't care. I know it's never going to happen, but to try and lure Steve into it anyway, at least it will end the headache of QB prices

Don't forget to eat and drink. "One more turn" can be detrimental to your health.

Unless you're a paratrooper

He he... if you remember Ubisoft's Brothers in Arms game, Fix and Flank was the one and only game mechanism in there

Even if the round didn't detonate on the light contact with branches, twigs and leaves it would surely have its trajectory affected. Maybe some actual ex or current infantry could chime in, would you in RL fire a mortar under a tree?

Agreed, we've all seen that US Army "how awesome are your weapons" video where they shoot .30 cal from a Garand right through a fairly thick tree. Tank AP should go through almost unperturbed, at most a deflection but definitely no stoppage.

That would be awesome, I'd buy it even though I'm only 36 or maybe I am old already and just aren't facing up to the facts...

Hi Steve, see a couple of threads down a discussion about Mixed versus the old "Balanced" resulting in getting even large-ish forces with only armour or only infantry.

As to the original question of the post, I suspect that it is doable even with the new realistic TOE constraints to achieve the same "balanced" force type as was available in CMx1. Basically as I understand it, what we have now are CONSTRAINTS, so mix basically doesn't constrain you in any way, while inf only or arm only constrains the picking. So the easiest way to hit the target (and good computer search algorithms usually find the easy way) is to whittle down a large formation until it is within the constraints (of points, rarity and force mix). In order to achieve "balanced" the QB AI picker needs a GOAL rather than a constraint so that it whittles down an infantry battalion (for example) until it has "room" under the constraints to then add, say, an armoured platoon to the infantry company left from the whittling. Of course, although I'm a computer programmer, I'm not THE computer programmer so I could be talking out of my arse, so take it all with a grain of salt, but I believe there is nothing here that is fundamentally unachievable with the new force structures, just maybe requiring some more programming.

Just wanted to point out that you CAN get rid of the highest HQ as long as it doesn't have any units under it. For example, pick an inf battalion, then get rid of EVERYTHING except for one infantry platoon, say Pl 1 of Company A. As soon as there is nothing left besides that company, you can get rid of Btn HQ and as soon as there is nothing left but that platoon, you can get rid of Coy HQ. However, if for whatever reason you keep Btn HQ you can't get rid of Coy HQ even if you only have the one platoon there as Coy HQ is the link between Pl HQ and Btn HQ. Hope I've made sense...

I've noticed in the third Raff Campaign mission that some tank crews that abandon a destroyed tank seem to be more tenacious under fire than most of the infantry (the germans). If a tank has high motivation, does that carry over even once the tank is destroyed and the crew is on foot? It seems to me that they should have far lower motivation now, otherwise there is this absurd situation where the tank crews are more motivated as infantry men than the infantry.

Don't you go all Oxfam on us now...

Thanks for clarifying that Elmar!

The campaigns probably have about 50 more missions in them anyway. Also, given how campaign development delayed the Marine and British forces modules in CMSF, I'm all for modules/games being released without too much content and the rest being filled in by the community.

How else can you be sure you're having fun? But seriously the numbers don't matter. What IMO the OP has a point about is that some things can be cheaper but overall provide less value, and even if CMx2 was $200 bucks but you ended up playing and enjoying it for 5 years (hell there are CMx1 players who are STILL playing, just look at the boards for CMx2 ), then you've more than gotten your money's worth.