Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,391 profile views

CarlWAW's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)



  1. I have a much better suggestion: maybe you should do your job? For example you could start by taking care of the AFV-bug which reveals all enemy infantry?
  2. That's strange. No tactical improvements, nobody asking for improved realism and all are raving about some new textures... Almost feels like simulated discussions in stockhouse forums...
  3. Oh, and I somehow thought there was a group, neither interested in slamming things together, nor interested, if rifles were exchanged with automatic weapons for a bataillon in May 1943 in Nothern Sicily if it didn't rain, but interested in units running torwards enemy lines to commit suicide, or crews to the last man opening up hatches to be greeted with a shower of super sniped bullets... I would call that group wargamers interested in tactical realism. But what do I know about circular logic...
  4. Somehow the priorities look very wrong, if huge delays occur because of artificially restricting options. Just include historical force selections in your stock scenarios and campaigns, but give the customer the freedom torwards "historic" optionality. Leave it to the customer which units he wants to play in which region, time and wheather, if he has bought the content! I somehow have the slight suspicion that customers would be very happy to get rid of bugs much much quicker and have full freedom of unit selection, at the cost of only a few stock scenarios showing a historic force selection. It should be up to scenario designers, if they want to make a "historic" or fictional battle. In many cases it would be more interesting to try "unhistoric" WHAT-IF combinations of timeframe, forces and regions.
  5. Yeah, huge improvements to tactical realism!
  6. I'm interested in tactical realism not in new textures. Have the running from cover bug, open hatches to be killed bug been solved?
  7. Once people experience how superior it is for scenario selection with scenarios sorted for size, then there's no going back. If Battlefront would do it, it quickly would become standard. But it's no big deal to do it for oneself.
  8. So I guess that's 100 points for me and zero for the fanboys. One really has to be as wise as a rock for having believed the lies about the delays...
  9. Do you guys also believe in Santa Claus still? IMO it's very naive to believe, that a game release has been delayed for years because of a few new formations. Nobody is interessted in 4 instead of 8 carabines per squad, a few new textures with a different unit name if the game was all about simulation and depth in its glory days. Either they have sold out long time ago or they are making their money elsewhere - for example developing cheap ****ty apps for smartphones. IMO they are just milking the tiny fanbase and keep it somewhat on life support with empty promises and when the shop turns permanently cashflow negative, the shop will be closed and you will hear: sorry folks, after such a long time it's time to move on. And the fanboys will believe that, too and say "THANK YOU!" for betraying and lying to us for years.
  10. You are correct, the other games show that difference here, too! The error was that only in CMFI the setting for AA Mode in the Nvidia control panel was switched OFF.
  11. Interesting that you guys still notice a difference. Will check it with other CM games, too.
  12. Adding the module-name as prefix gives a MUCH better overview over scenarios and campaigns. No need to click through the list, to find one for a certain module.
  • Create New...