Hister

Yeah, being born in the places where battles took place and interested in these things..., the two together amplify each other. I was born in North-Western part of Slovenia where "Isonzo battelfield" took place in the first world war. We still have an unexploded Italian granade under our doorstep for example and the area is full of trenches and metal. I even found remains of a dead Austro-Hungarian soldier in the collapsed cavern high up in the Alps as a kid. Happy for you that the game reignited your vanning passion.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/11/24/best-pc-games/24/

CM games do not work on Macs with emulated Windows. Just a reminder in case this is what you meant to do.

Avoid AMD CPU's! Especially the FX generation ones. I have it and it sucks big time. Get yourself a higher frequency core i5, 7th (i5 7600K) or current 8th generation (i5 8600K->low availability at the moment) . I don't know about AMD Ryzen cpu's (seen no feedback from any players sporting them) but I know their 1 core tasks churn out less then intel cpus so it is reasonable to assume they would perform worse then intel ones. As for GPU's, since summer the price of GPU's was rising a lot due to mining activities (much bigger demand for middle GPU performers, GTX 1060, AMD 580 but also very noticable with 1070 series). Same story with RAM. Bottom line is I would wait until the prices drop for GPU's, RAM (crazy 40 to 50% overpaying for some models at the moment) and when the newest 8th generation i5's become more available. Their single core performance is awesome and they deliver a much smoother gaming experience as per (non CM) user reports. First signs of prices starting to fall are already here. I think the prime time to buy a new rig will be in February. I personally am awaiting until then to get me a new rig that will be used the following 5 to 6 years. If you can't wait and you find a good deal now then by all means go for it. All that said since I don't personally sport Intel core i5 8600K I can't say for sure how the CM games will run on it. This CPU is the hottest new thing in their CPU line when it comes to money to performance ratio but only when you get it for up to 270 EUR, pay more and the deal is not so sweet - prices are rising for it due to biiig demand. I personally have it eyed myself. Good luck with your purchase.

I agree. From my initial fails I would churn it up to 60-70% meets the point after your arguments. Good job. Oh, I personally have no qualms with the way it is done in the game. I was just basing my observation according to what the Austrian pointed out were the main fails in war games and me merely observing what fails and what doesn't in CM according to how he set the "game rules" up. It would be ok if there wold be a plausible delay in conveying to the player what subsystems were damaged as soon as tank crew would understand what works and what doesn't but it is by no means necessary. OK at least on paper, actual gameplay experience could annoy many. Aaaaaawww, thank you Mord.

Ha, you are right Mord, mostly. I don't fully agree with you. When the vehicle is hit the systems damaged or destroyed are shown almost immidiately while the crew is still reeling from the impact and couldn't have possibly tested all the systems. I would fix this point to "partially right" as per your argumentation. Do you agree? I don't dislike him. I know how I am when I am overloaded with work - not very disposable.

I have never created any youtube video myself. I give you the licence to kill..., erm to shoot the video containing this information Josey.

Ha ha, if he is stubborn and annoyed enough due to his lack of time then it could only make it worse and block him for ever wanting to have anything to do with CM games. According to his previous reaction that is a far more plausible result then him finally realizing what a schmuck he was avoiding the game under the pretense he has no time for all this time. That said I will post my findings as a comment below the video in question, maybe a couple of people who previously were not aware of CM games would direct their radar towards them.

Ha, this is so cool.

That most certainly is, no qualms there.

Returning to the basic premise of what CM does right and what wrong in regard to historical plausibility here is what I came up with, point by point, as the Austrian laid it out: 1. All or nothing aspect - CM portrays wounded and missing in action. - Damaged vehicles (but not a total loss) are modeled. - No soldier and vehicle "health bars". - You don't have to always completely wipe out the enemy to win like in most other games (depends on the scenario of course) -> bloodiest historical battles where 40 to 50% casualty rates were logged can be replicated in the game easily, as well as simulating lower intensity encounters (but those are harder to come by). The caveat in CM is that losses are usually higher then what real life situations would be due to us players pushing our troops harder and being less careful with our pixeltroopen lives then what real commanders would do. Plus real soldiers would probably disobey suicide tasks that we easily execute with our pixeltroopen. Notable exceptions are campaign missions which promote preserving your soldiers life (excellent CM George's Von Schroif campaign for example) 2. Only warriors allowed aspect - CM is guilty of this aspect. Non combat units are represented only minimalistically in the shape of supply units (am I forgetting any other unit?). In it's defense the scope of the game is focused mostly on tactical battles where non combat units weren't present in big numbers due to them being delegated to the rear of the front. 3. Total information aspect - CM doesn't give you total information of your enemy and this is true for scenario briefings which wildly differ in how much info about the enemy you get and also in the actual tactical battles themselves where you can not even have the enemy number and composition estimates. Having a total information on your units is present though but I find it hard how the game of this scope could tick this particular point off the list without making the game too irritable to play. -CM doesn't provide hit chances to the player. - Moral value of units is available to the player but not in percentages or other numerical numbers so this is 50/50. I personally think the way game conveys this information is optimal in the given scope of it. - Omnipresence, certainty and precision differ wildly from scenario to scenario in CM but in sum are not as in your face like in many other war games. CM is especially good when it comes to battles themselves where if played on Iron mode the game really shines with it's stellar C&C information modelling. - Losing contact with your units is partially modeled in CM (units being more brittle, easier to scoop, lose morale, no enemy positions info being passed to them, etc.) but you can never lose the ability to command those units that are out of the C&C. You can for example order your mortar team that is out of contact of C&C network to strike a specific point that you as a player know sports a MG nest but your mortar team would not be able to themselves know about. House rules need to apply here in order to be able to really simulate this aspect of the real thing. That said CM to my knowledge is THE game that comes as close as possible to it while not inhibiting the player too much in gameplay itself. - Vehicles in CM are portrayed right by them being more blind then their infantry counterpart (true for CM ww2 titles) and are more successful when supported by infantry. - Vehicle damage indicator is fully known to the player and thus CM games are the same in this aspect as other games so CM "fails" in this regard. - Vehicle repair on the active battlefield is not possible so that is a plus for CM. - CM doesn't have production lines for vehicles, etc so knowing exactly when something will come off the assembly line does not apply to it. 4. Total control aspect - Troops (foot grunts, vehicles) in CM do not always blindly follow your orders (example no control when the unit's is pinned, moral plummets, etc.) but you as a player are still able to send units in a certain death outcome situation with no soldiers complaining so this is not fully covered by CM but still comes quite close. - There is no country production efficiency modeled so the point about players having unrealistically omnipotent ability to streamline the country they play as does not apply in CM games. 5. How enjoyable to play are realistic aspects of the game - CM rocks especially because the realistic aspects discussed here in the tactical battles that you play are very enjoyable, enhance the overall gaming experience in the positive way, make the game stand out a lot from the WW2 crowd and don't hinder the gameplay in any way. Players need to learn about these plausible game mechanics and learning them is a lot of fun and mastery of different game aspects is especially rewarding. CM offers a lot of educational value without the political/religious involvement of what is portrayed and what isn't with a little caveat that atrocities like killing civilians as a punitive measure for the partisan activities and setting villages ablaze of course aren't modeled (CMRT where such historical actions were part of the retreating German army tactics). ANALYSIS OK, these are most if not all the points the channel creator points out as far as I was able to discern out of the video - there are 17 major points that he makes in total. Let's count point by point how many of these things CM games do right, partially right, how many fail to deliver and how many can't be applied to it due to the nature of the game in question: - 3 of 17 points made are not applicable to CM games due to their nature/scope. - 1 of 17 points fails entirely in CM (vehicle module damage information could be improved in the game - player should not be given immediate info on what parts of the ingame vehicle modules got damaged or destroyed, for the most part that is). - 5 of 17 points are done partially "right" (gameplay limits apply here so not much that can be improved here on most accounts). - 8 of 17 points are modeled exactly as pointed out they should be by the channel creator. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Due to the nature/scope of CM games where only tactical level of battles are portrayed there are only 14 points that pertain to them. Of these here is what the results tell us in percentages: 57% of these CM games simulate to the letter. 36% of these CM simulates partially, on at least 50/50 level if not more in the given gameplay limits of course. 7% of these CM games fail to deliver. This is why CM games are the king of those that do tactical battlefields. No other game comes as close to these numbers as CM games do to my knowledge. I'ts hard to bypass 93% done right or mostly right by other war game developers. Hope you guys enjoyed these number crounching as much as I did. Cheers, Hister

Doug said CM gets thing right in this regard so it is not that he is saying CM is not getting things right - even on the start line casualty source are portrayed right in CM according to him.

What I meant with that is he probably has his work preplanned a year in advance. They are some meticilous and methodical those pesky Austrians. Hard to adapt.

Thank you very much MOS. Like given to you multiple times for this.

He still is.That is why his answer surprised all so much. He's Austrian...

Me neither. I will now limit myself to only look every second of his awesome videos. Being more serious though I do think that by now he should have picked the idea CM games would be a perfect tool for his video creation process. Seems like a very stubborn guy with a fixed idea he has no time to play it while it could enhance his video creation quality 5 fold (but I understand it is time consuming to get the grip of the game and making something useful out of it). He shouldn't have asked for game suggestions in the first place and now he is complaining about the game being suggested to him.Guess he stumbled upon too enthusiastic viewers.

It was the "annoying fly" scenario in the end unfortunately. Mission failed. He followed with this after his thumb up: "I don't have time, please stop bugging me about combat mission, as mentioned before, I get a mail/message about this game all the time, it is just annoying." It's a loss for him and for his viewers I think but you can't push someone so if you are reading this do not send him any CM requests. The man has spoken.

Ha ha, thanx. Do not hold your breath though, thumbs up might be just in order to get rid of the annoying fly - aka me... We'll see down the pipeline if this bears fruit. Again, thank you for the youtube suggestions. Josey Wales is now my favorite CM youtuber - didn't know about him for some reason beforehand. Edit: Seeing how he asks for support while he makes his content do you think any CM guys here would be willing to gift him a CM title in order to cement the deal with him?

I contacted him again explaining you guys suggested that I present him a couple of videos. Thanx to your suggestions I've sent him Josey's Bear Claws AAR, Road to Wiltz by Usually Happless and Armchair General videos. He gave me the thumb up.

He he. CM video suggestions welcome. What would be the best way to captivate his mind in the first two minutes?

He answered me to. This time it was more ambiguous. There's still hope.

OK then., bummer. His loss (and ours too). Thank you.

I don't play with shadows due to too low frame rate with them turned on but for me when I try it shadows don't fliker but dissapear from the ground and units when I get my camera close to them. What flickers a lot are trees. Here and there a tree pops out on every map that flickers like crazy. Got used to it.

I wrote him a PM on his FB page. Will let you all know if he answers.

Yeah, Nvidia has all their old drivers listed under the Old and beta drivers tab name just below the Nvidia driver downloads page