Jock Tamson
-
Posts
443 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Jock Tamson
-
-
Wow. they still want a lot for a used GTX 680...almost as much as a new GTX 960, which doesn't make much sense to me. Benchmarks for the GTX 960 are very good, equivalent to the GTX 770/R9 285. It's running an avg. of 56fps on Ultra/1920 in BF4. That's plenty for my needs, and I would think is way beyond what CM needs. Is this series not largely CPU-limited?
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.
-
No, it does not.
Dont talk about "low end" systems all the time as if someone with a "high end" system will not have any problems with the performance of CMx2 games.
The CMx2 engine is just a very old and awkward one.
Low performance and graphic glitches are nearly always the fault of the engine <-> hardware/drivers interaction.
Especially AMD/ATI cards are known to have driver and performance issues with the engine.
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.
-
Sorry, but assuming that everyone else who's been playing the games for years is too stupid, unobservant or passive as to not have noticed or not have brought up the issue is hardly a great way to approach a community, is it?
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.
-
Hi jock, thanks for your reply. Whilst my OP was about getting the right card for CM shaders to work, I actually have diverse interests in gaming, notibly the Remastered Homeworld series (when released), as well as DCS.
For this reason I was aiming a tad higher that I imagined was necessary, but am still aiming to get the shaders working properly.
Cheers,
Marc
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.
-
In my experence, sometimes it can be the other way around. I want to fire Javelins but the unit has other ideas.
We have stepped ino the combat boots of a Combat Team or Task Force commander. Our job is to make tactical decisions regading how we fight the overall battle. We cannot be micromanaging every squad or vehicle all the time although we can make certain decisions. Uness we specify certain restrictions such as arcs of fire our subordinates, who (hopefully) know their jobs are quite capable of performing their tasks.
Your squad commander percieves an armoured unit threatening his command and his perception is quite probably different from your perspectie at Combat Team Commander level. So my advce to you is don't try to micromanage everything. Concentrae on doing your job of managing your command and let yur subordiates do their jobs,
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.
-
Suppression is tracked per solider (as your observations on splitting / merging squads shows). But the problem womble is talking about is that with the assault command, the soldiers in the overwatch portion gain suppression from fire directed at the maneouver portion. I've seen it myself, with the maneouver portion taking fire, and the 'overwatch' portion out of sight behind a high wall and a few buildings, and absolutely 100% not taking any fire themselves, is pinned and starts crawling for cover.
This remains true when the maneouver portion gets wiped out, so there is no-one who has actually taken fire contributing to the squad 'average' status - the guys who didn't take fire are still heavily suppressed and crawling for the nearest house.
Forget realism questions for the moment, this is simply a mechanics question. If you had split the squads instead, the overwatch squad would be 100% unsuppressed. That seriously hurts the utility of the assault command.
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
-
Ok so you feel hard done by that the scenario designer didnitwarn you about the arrial of enemy reinforcements. Lookng at what has been said by those close to the scenario designer that they did not expect what happened to you when they designed and ested the scenario. And it may be that off map there was some concealing terrain like a wood or a balka (ravine) So as the battle developed the combination of circumstances resulted in you being the victim of a surprise attack. These things happen in combat. Take the Battle of Chacellorsville May 1863 for instance. Or the Battle of the Bulge.
The point is anyone can make a mistake. The point I was making regarding neglect of my air defences and the consequences of that error (being caught in a Hind killing zone which had effects of similar seriousness (I lost te or eleven tanks anf IFVs in that.
Why can't you be honest, even if only with yourself and admit, if only to yourself, that you fouled up. I am happy to admit I fouled up in my battle which means I may learn from my mistake. Can you not do the same if only to be honest with honest with yourself? You don't even have to admit to a mistake here. So for Pete's sake will you just quit moaning!
For the rest of it pretty much everybody, myself included, agree that scenario designers should consider giving more warnings about pssible arrival of enemy forces. particularly when their arrival might be in an unexpected location. Or maybe you just advanced to the position where the reinforcements arrived far more quickly than the scenario designer expected. And how do you know that there isn't some cncealing terrain (a dense wood or a balka) just off the edge of the map? Maybe there is! I suggest you take it up with the scenario designer!
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 like the idea of a theme week, everyone to create a tiny battle x vs y and make it a bit of a competition for best in class.
As long as it started small scale and re-using existing maps as an option (as mapmaking can take some time might) it might get some interest going.
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.
-
I recall awhile ago (a LONG time ago) I was playing battles where I did not ascend to 'eye of God' observation height and I never moved the camera beyond my own troops front line. I kept the camera a ground level as much as I humanly could. And of course no tree toggle. The game turned exponentially more challenging. Being in a copse of trees where you can't see three feet in front of you, hearing unseen rifle fire and suddenly an artillery barrage shakes the ground beneath you is pretty terrifying, especially when there's no fleeing skyward with the tap of a key.
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
-
one man got shot pretty quickly but because the entry after breach command is 'quick'
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.
-
Anyway they never fire back at the building which fire is coming from, they just lay there for 40 seconds and get chewed at taking casualties. It is not until I get a new turn that I set the building on target so they fire back.
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?
-
-
I seem to recall this. Written by a UK AF General. The 3rd World War.
Additionally, Harold Coyle took that book and wrote a novel about a single tank battalions action in the fictional war.
Shan Hackett, among other things commanded 4th Para Brigade at Arnhem
)
Is there a cap on the number of faces
in CM Black Sea Maps and Mods
Posted · Edited by 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