Jock Tamson

Hi Blimey (thanks for your efforts on various uniform mods over the years BTW) - yeah this is in CMBS. I added the same 70 faces to UKR, US and Russia. They are pulling through to the game ok, however I have not played enough to determine if there is only a limited number pulling through. Your test above is perhaps not good news

GTX 680 has 50% more cores than the 960. I just sold my 4GB GTX 680 on eBay for 130 GBP - less than I would have liked, someone has got a bargain.

A good example of this is Company of Heroes. Good performance on high end systems under DX9, cripplingly bad performance on the same systems using DX10, due to a very poor implementation of the API

I have added about 70 faces to all sides from various mods for the other CM titles. Seems to work ok.

Well, "the community" wouldn't fix it would they? So I don't know why you think it is the community he is talking about.

In that case I agree with c3k, GTX 970 is best bang for buck at the moment, and overclocks well and safely should you feel inclined. Some brands offer out-of-the-box overclocked cards that will bring performance not far short of a 980. Having said all that, a 970 performs barely differently to a 680, maybe just a bit more future proofed if any developers start using the new anti aliasing technique [MFAA]. There are lots of good, used, 680s on eBay (including mine )

The CM series is unchallenging to video cards. I have had a GTX 580 1.5GB, a GTX 680 4GB and currently a GTX 980 4GB, and frame rates have not changed one iota in CM. So if you want to save a bit of cash and CM is your main game playing, get a mid-range card.

If you watch footage from helmet cams etc in Afghanistan, there is a heck of a lot of hunkering down in wadis when rounds are incoming while everyone tries to work out where the hell it is coming from (no laser like tracers here). I wonder if "cowering" is an unfortunate expression in game? Is it possible for a squad to become pinned by volume of incoming fire without there being an associated morale drop? Or does a drop in morale precede the cowering?

Actively target floors with one team, pause the other team to allow suppression to take effect then move them up.

This is nice. I have now stopped using the game's Anti Aliasing and am using SMAA via the injector instead. Am also using (after testing all effects) HDR, Bloom, Luma Sharpen and Vibrance. I'll post some screenies tonight, but essentially this combination seems to add a lot more depth to scenes. I left all the shaders on their default settings. I particularly like how easy it is to test changes. For those who like the Alt M movie mode, you can use the SMAA in this injector to get your Anti Aliasing back.

Hmmm, micro managing every unit is the core of the game. I generally let the AI choose its own targets but if you want to suppress a building, area fire, split a team, mount a vehicle, acquire ammo, use Hunt....you get the picture. Most posters in these forms would argue that in CM you are playing every leader down to the individual squad leader, particularly in WEGO. The mere fact that the AI has been modified to be more conservative with its javelins generally should tell you that perceived armour threats are not part of the conservation decision making process.

I really wish the Force Selection process could be exposed as xml or something which could be imported into QBs. There are a lot of talented people out there who could come up with a Force Picker if we had access to the underlying TOE and unit costs. I also think it could create a bit of community interest if we could "trade" forces to battle against. For example a user could create a 1000 point force and other players could import it into QBs to play against. This could actually create a really useful resource for single players, producing a repository of sensible combined arms opposing forces.

Also hinders the AI quite dramatically if their AI Plan gives them Assault waypoints. Mind you there are other issues with that too, if the unit size becomes too small to use Assault

You have yet to address how the player is supposed to deal with units that spawn on top of him. Until you do that, your posts are just so much trolling.

Lucas, I don't think you are getting this. No one is complaining about enemy reinforcements per se, but if they spawn in on top of the player it is a flaw in the scenario. They should either be spawned into an area that the player won't have reached yet, or they should start the game in dead ground and be triggered by player movement on the battlefield.

Let's say in the real world you have a ridge line on your left flank where you could place your reserve tanks hull down to deal with anything that came from that direction. Can you tell me how you can use them to protect your flanks in the game version of that scenario, when they can't see off the map edge and enemy reinforcements spawn right on top of them? Of course you can't, so it seems pointlessly bone headed to argue that a design flaw in a scenario is somehow replicating real world circumstances.

RT with pauses (lots of them) is perfectly playable, but I tend to think it makes it too easy against the AI.

It is much easier to control the camera if the boundaries of movement are set for you by the game. Additionally, when your camera is knocking up against the boundary and you can't see over the hill properly to plot moves or fire missions, suddenly the game has given you a reason for a bit of recon (beyond finding out where the enemy is). In short, being constrained by the game and not having to think about your own self imposed rules is a lot more immersive.

I think this is a good idea. Maybe a variation would be a template is posted containing the map and both sets of forces, then everyone downloads and does the AI plans and deployment.

This type of play would draw me into multiplayer if it was a game option. I would modify the camera restriction to allow movement in a 100metre radius from a selected unit, to make plotting moves a bit more do-able

If after a breach your guys are "quicking" into a room and you don't want them to, you aren't breaching properly. A breach waypoint does not have to be set on the other side of the wall, if you do a search on the CMSF forum you will find lots of good examples of how to breach without then running to your death.

Surely it should just be a modifier, applied at unit level, that determines unit stance. So a unit modified for "concealment" has a prone stance when not moving. A unit modified for "observation", or whatever you want to call it, doesn't. This modifier could also be used for editor AI moves, similar to dismounted etc. Player units could me modified wholesale through the C2 change, which would reduce the micro to 2 or 3 clicks to cover anything from one to all units.

Did they spot any targets to fire at? Or did you, the god like player, discern that that was where the fire was coming from?

The OP may find this useful - http://community.battlefront.com/topic/82077-assaulting-a-building-fierce-and-agille/

Shan Hackett, among other things commanded 4th Para Brigade at Arnhem