The Steppenwulf

I agree with Childress - I think there are worse war movies than Enemy at the Gates. Whilst the performances aren't special and being in American English - not Russian and German - it lacks that dash of authenticism that could carry it better. But, it's still got an interesting back-story, the plot develops well enough and there are one or two interesting scenes, which the love scene is certainly not one. The likes of Pearl Harbour is in a far, lower league than this.

Can one even call oneself a tabletop wargamer if one hasn't heard of Donald Featherstone? I suppose we could excuse the Warhammer players - but they are slightly detached from reality anyhow.

Players have to be on the same version and patch to play each other. That means that players without version 2 can only play those with version 1 also, and those with version 2 can only play against version 2's (although creating a second install of version 1 is a way to remain backward compatible). Regarding the modules; MG is version 2 only so that is a prequisite upgrade for using the module. The 'modular' limitations experienced by the player is through the scenarios which require the same modules to access the OOB that the scenario was created with.

What did you think I mean't when I originally referred to a 'bundle for CW and MG'? I mean you can call it whatever you wish -buyer's club, time depreciated value or a BUNDLE - but it still amounts to the same thing; it's still a discount for the purchaser that functions as an incentive to actually spend more. And I am clearly not the only one who wants to give you my money. I'd suggest that you will get this customer request recurring in your later CM titles in any case so... sfhand - yes I have also read a number of reviews and you are quite right about this. Thanks for the heads-up! So the ball is back in BF's court. I will happily hold my spending money back till January, if I merely heard that a CW/MG bundle will be forthcoming.

Thanks for the response and clarity of your reasoning. I can see where you are coming from but I still think it's something you might want to think about and reconsider. Perhaps I'm comparing your pricing structure to wider games pricing and discounting but then most gamers will do that also. Happily for me this is unlikely to affect my future CM purchases because I have the means now to purchase all future products on release. Unfortunately, it just means I will have to give the BN modules a miss altogether. X Rebirth beckons!

Believe me I'm the one who is depressed Steve; I purchased the base game pretty much after release at full cost, I paid for the v2.0 upgrade on release at full cost. I willingly paid that full cost because the products were new and felt that the products were fairly priced for what they are. However, I held off on CW because of my tight budget (at that time) but having waited for 9 months after release, am willing to buy it now for a small discount on that basis. I'm even accepting (in return) that you can insist that my only eligibility to that discount is by purchasing MG with it (yes at full cost). But without you attaching a small discount to such a bargain, I don't think that's good value for my money. It has nothing to do with bad math or faulty logic Steve, it's a personal decision based on my sense of value. This is not just my calculation of a wise purchase, it's a matter of principle of fair pricing.

In light of the well made points above; I suppose another way of doing it and simplifying the marketing of the products in the process - if that is an additional consideration - is to remove the bundle feature entirely altogether and just offer all the products that are more than six months post-release, with a small discount to reflect that fact. This way all complication would be removed and all purchasing options are catered for. And I will spend my $60 on the CMBN modules this christmas, instead of on another title altogether, merely because I don't feel I'm getting value for money on one of those modules.

I get that completely. But I am in the same position as the OP (on which your response has not actually addressed - though naturally, that is your prerogative) only I would like to purchase from you, CW and MG bundled for a fair $60 -as, it seems the op plans also - that's a discount in respect to CW not MG - on account that it's 9 months old. And you know in order to benefit from such a purchase, one must have previously purchased version 2.00 anyhow. Come on BF, quid pro quo!!

But which would push greater demands onto memory - a precious resource in any 32 bit game, but least of all one which is handling a large number of different game objects/entities.

I don't see that being BF's general policy on their products?! Like any other game dev/retailer, most items are discounted when bundled and/or have been released after a period of time. But if this policy has little marketing value (because the products are so superior and req no incentive) why do they continue with the strategy?! In any case, I think you've misunderstood that we are highlighting an anomoly in "the store" not attacking the current policy.

The texture resolutiion of stock files has been replaced in modded terrain files with a broad selection of HD textures. Thus, ignorance of the repository and the huge enhancements provided by modded files but requesting better visuals is an odd stance to take. Just go see first before making the argument. Anyway, compared with CoH my CM visuals compare at least as well - with a certain authentic aesthetic that carries a charm all of its own. Besides that it should be considered that there are other game features that come before prettiness; with high res graphics we must accept smaller battles with smaller forces. That's not my preference. I'd prefer to see the capacity for 4 x 4 miultiplayer battles beng fully realised, way before DirectX 11 style graphical quality.

When "basting your bird" takes on an altogether stranger meaning

Agreed!!! I'm also waiting for a CW/MG bundle for exactly the same reasons as the OP. I don't care too much how much BF knock down but I just don't see why I should fork out for the original release price on a module (CW) that is now over a year old especially considering I'm willing to buy the latest module together with it. I have been patient on this bundle but now Christmas looms, I have holiday time avail and I might spend my hard earned cash elsewhere if BF don't act soon enough on a price incentive.

Which, to be fair, is what I stated Which results in a 1/4 of the card memory displacing system RAM - equating to 1GB for a 4GB card?? Leaving 3GB for system memory?!? Yes that makes sense, I understand your overall point - thanks for taking the time to clarify it.

Do you mean 4GB system RAM PLUS 4GB VRAM - I doubt that's the case. CM is a 32 bit application: game memory + used video memory must be < 4GBs regardless of OS. Thus, I'd suggest your VRAM is max at 2GB regardless of the card actual max capacity.

This is a novel idea and one I must have a play with. However, my question: Surely this demands more of your GPU memory which will, in turn, then reduce the availability of working RAM for the game. If so then that's where an issue arises. At 32 bits this game is already limiting its greater potential by its own memory ceiling. I envisage this situation only getting worse as new modules and the modding community push the memory boundaries further as time goes on.

They absolutely MUST be aware of the problem as many gamers start to hit limits with scenario design and 'super mods' -such as those incorporating multiple texture/sound material - and a general understanding by the community that nowhere near the full potential of the engine (bar the memory limit) is actually getting realised. Eg: Any 4km x 4km battles anyone? Any MP 2 vs 2 contests? Such inherent potential is currently and will be forever hampered by the limits of x86. Though I've read nothing official, I would be mighty relieved to read an announcement that such a change was in the pipeline (CM2 not CM3 that is).

The real issue with CM2 is the memory ceiling. Try playing the largest maps with plenty of buildings, flavour objects and with large number of forces on each side and with HD texture mods and community sound mods. I can guarantee you will crash your game. I have certainly found the boundaries of mine - although that is due to some deliberation on my part to push the envelope. Nevetheless, the problem is that CM is limited to 32 bit memory which is extremely restrictive. I propose that this problem will become more pronounced in the Eastern Front modules and generally as CM continues to develop/expand its content generally. My hope is that BF are already very well aware of this pressing issue and will produce a 64 bit version of the game that will circumvent the issue. Yes, a lot more work without clear profitable payback but in my view it's more important than the continuous content. 32 bit is living well beyond its shelf life generally in gaming already.

Greater firepower is a principle of warfare so this make no real sense. But anyhow cover is represented and is scaled. Additionally, there is separation between HE munitions and AP - thus the 'paper and scissors' defintion you are painting simply isn't particularly helpful in the sense that is no more a feature of CoH than any other game and that applies exactly the same to CM and in RL.

*Cough, cough* - Don't get me wrong, I'd personally take CM over CoH anyday, but there's no doubting that CoH is indeed a very heavy strategy game with deep tactical layers. Moreover as a multplayer game (which CM isn't), it's easy to make an argument that it is tactically richer than CM because cooperative play adds so many more possibilities. Thus, I think you are wrong on this count. However, the actual difference is that CM tries to present a tactically realistic computer wargame. CoH doesn't come close in that respect and naturally you would be quite correct to claim that legions of gamers out there lack a refined sense of discretion to be in any position to understand the difference. Neverthless, there are no doubt some that are aware of the difference but simply prefer the pacier and more 'exciting' gamplay that CoH offers. 'Computer wargames' do not have to be defined by the critera us 'grognards' might apply to the genre.

Back in July this year, Steve posted a brief on this: Note the last entry (on the modern theatre) which related to an earlier post in the thread:

I can't wait for the trailer

Go to the tab "Game" then "Add Game" then locate the most recent ema file and attach it. Carry out the instructions, described by the other posters above, afterwards to ensure automatic exchange between the game directory saves folders and the Dropbox folder. Hope that helps

I created my own blank icons for the fortifications, bunkers, obstacle and mines the first time I ever played. In theory I thought them all fairly unnecessary and that I would benefit more (ie visually) from reducing potential icon clutter. I've always wondered if I might be putting myself at a significant disadvantage - esp when playing H2H. Any thoughts?

yeh, save it as "special editor overlay.bmp" IOW remove the underscores Hope that helps edit: Or try Ian's advice