SgtHatred

Well, I guess I should have been more specific. You are using a non-admin account, so you have to supply an admin account everytime UAC gets tripped, and UAC will usually trigger when an installer is accessed because the installer is going to do things like alter the registry, so that is normal. I blasted through the install this morning so I already forget if it is an option, but if any installer prompts you for "All users" vs "this user only" you generally always want "this user only", otherwise Windows will dump user data in the c:\Users\Public other than c:\Users\You or sometimes C:\ProgramData\

If Windows is prompting you for an admin password it's because you are trying to install it to a folder that requires admin rights. I suggest making a "Games" folder or something to install it to.

How dare they play the game as designed and not pretend it is something that it is not. Besides, the least realistic thing about Combat Mission is turn-based mode. No one in WW2 had the option to halt time while they considered options.

Ah, Citrix, big and successful, not because they are good but because they were first. Even they should be able to handle a simple file delivery service.

I see Battlefront hasn't learned of bcc functionality yet. Not cool.

gimme gimme gimme

Ok boomer.

Well, the Steam release was originally set to April 15th before being set to "Coming Soon". Could have been a place holder, could have been Slitherine spilling the beans. I wouldn't hold your breath for this weekend though.

You may want to find a better distribution service if it takes more than a few minutes for your uploaded files to be generally available. It's 2021 not 2004.

Well, the pop is very loud. Someone is likely to notice it more than once as it travels to its target, meanwhile the shooter isn't really afforded much cover due to how the Dragon was designed to be set up. Cover isn't really an option with it. Depending on how much twisting you want to do, the AT-5 is a squad level weapon for mechanized formations, along with the 4 and 3. BMPs were supposed to be integrated with the infantry squad they carry right? Depends on if your target is alone or not. In the context of a Rumble in Germany, your target likely has friends. This post on the US Militaria Forum has several first hand accounts of Dragon usage and they all sound negative. According to these guys, the Dragon is awkward to use, training was lax, and the guy with the Dragon was the guy that drew the short straw. Explains some of the accuracy data posted above.

My understanding, backed up by FAS, is that it wasn't terribly accurate or reliable, and slow as hell for a missile. Combine that with the fact that firing a Dragon is an invitation to be blasted to bits (watch the video) and I think I'd rather have fewer, more effective ATGMs like the Soviet company level ones. Seriously, this slow missile is just screaming for attention as it meanders towards its target. I may have exaggerated slightly, but look at that silly thing fly.

The Dragon is comically terrible and I look forward to seeing it in large numbers, hopefully with its signature loudness.

ARMA 3. What it was originally designed to be. Task Force Admiral : Coming out soon. Detailed pacific naval battles with lots of graphics. Sea Power Naval Combat in the Missile Age : beautiful graphics, simulates what the name says. DCS : Guaranteed far more CPU intensive than CM's combat sim while being far more graphically impressive. These are just a few off the top of my head. I don't know about ARMA, but the others have tiny dev teams (<10). None of them are as old as CMx2, but in comparison CMx2 really shows its age. CM is from a time when it was common for small teams to roll their own rendering engine. It's far more difficult for BFC to upgrade their presentation than another team that has adopted Unity or Unreal. There is no technical reason why a game in 2021 doesn't run at 60fps. There is no technical reason why the game has Atari level shadows and really badly aliased fields, zig-zag roads and infantry that vibrate on action points. The game is good enough to overcome these issues for most people, but they are valid criticisms. Pretending otherwise is silly. No matter how much you want to pretend Combat Mission is a PC Game much more than it is a "tactical simulator". You can't just add personal restrictions to the way you play and then claim the game was made to play that way. If the game was meant to be played that way there would be a realism setting for it. You can play the game the way you want. Just skip the replay phase if you want. I've played probably a 1000 hours of Combat Mission in the last few years, maybe 10hours in a single player campaign, and I've never played one of the pre-made scenarios. Beating the AI holds no interest for me.

Total nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

This has nothing to do with anything I've said. This is bad. The more decoupled the visual representation of the simulation is from the actual simulation the worse it is. The game has a lot of good points, that isn't in dispute.

You missed the point of my example. Put your camera where the driver is? Bushes. Put your camera where the commander is? Bushes. Yet, the tank sees and engages the enemy, because the visible terrain we see and the terrain of the simulation does not match. If a 25foot wall is between object A and object B, I expect that A and B cannot see each other. If they can it's because the game is not being properly rendered. It's not a huge issue, but it would be better if it never happened. Acknowledging that the game could improve is not an attack against it. Pointing out issues or asking for more is not being an "unhappy customer"

No, I mean when one unit can see another unit through bush and trees, but if you move your camera to that position trees and bushes 100% cover the LOS, but the game simulation has decided that no, there is a gap units can see through. Would be nice if the graphics more reflected the simulated reality. Remember that "graphics" means more than just pretty models and fancy textures. Don't demand unwavering praise from people, and don't trust people who offer it.

It has nothing to do with technology. There are plenty of games out there with an advanced look that also have a great deal of complexity under the hood. The difference is resources. Neither BFC or the Graviteam guys had the large resources required to make a combat simulator with AA or AAA type graphics. That requires manpower. It's also important to note that graphics goes beyond just making the game look pretty in screenshots. Better rendering would also make the game feel better to play. 15-25fps depending on the map, especially larger maps with lots of buildings? It can be a drag. Also, the accuracy of the rendering could be improved, so that LOS makes more sense in certain situations where visually it looks like trees and bushes block an LOS but the game simulation has decided there is an opening. Hopefully with the new resources from the partnership with Slitherine we might see some progress on this front? I'll still be buying practically any module they put out, but I would love to see an improvement in the way the game renders.

Wow, this is radically false. Combat Mission is absolutely not the best that can be done with OpenGL. Hell, Doom 2016 runs on OpenGL, and I think any rational person would say that Doom 2016 is superior to Combat Mission graphics-wise. OpenGL's death has been expected for a decade now, so I hope BFC wasn't too blindsided by that. Still, as long as you aren't foolish enough to chain yourself into Apple's ecosystem you will be able to use your OpenGL software for years and years to come.

ehh... The art quality is fine for the kind of game it is, but there are definite rough spots, like vibrating models, severe clipping issues or just a really lackluster framerate. I've probably put 300+ hours into multiplayer Combat Mission games during coronavirus, so I say this as a big fan. Some pretty good looking "sim" type games have come out in the last few years, and Microprose is about to dump a couple more fine looking examples on us this year.

Can you point out some specific examples or are you just assuming that some sort of Hive-mind is in play?

In CMSF2 I've noticed that the AT-3 Sagger can follow terrain much like a cruise missile, able to strike targets even after they have moved behind a hill out of LOS by following over and then back down. I'm not sure if it's just a glitch in the game or simulating a crack MCLOS gunner using the force, but they are extremely dangerous on hilly terrain.

I've noticed that, at least in multiplayer games, the M4 Sherman flail tank produces a perfect invisibility screen from any angle, any distance. eg. I've used this in both CMBN and CMFI now, and as a result the flail is now banned from any game me and my friends play. You'll note that this effect only works on terrain that generates dust. My opponent in the game and in tests said that not only does the tank disappear completely, but that the dust is also invisible if the tank cannot be seen. I imagine this is not intended behaviour.

Capitalist trickery.

I'm having wildly inappropriate feelings about this game.