com-intern

I took an initial swing at it this evening https://imgur.com/a/ETHyvC1 The inset/detail view is a small section of the front held right now by ~14 men. I'm going to extend it over to the right past the houses up to the main road and fill out the wire and mines. Probably adding a few more riflemen to stretch it a bit. I've essentially converted a platoon into a series of small teams using the various purchasable teams and immobilized Opel Blitz drivers. The scale in CM is such that you can't really do proper keyholed firing slots unless you might rather obvious molehills around the fortifications. But IMO its worth giving up some concealment for added protection.

Thank you both for these links they have been helpful. What I am missing now is any good overview of how a Battalion would deploy its defenses. I've found some early-war documentation but I've done some reading and it appears that by '43/'44 (in the East at least) the Germans have gone from a strong-point system to continuous trench lines with strong-points being built directly into the line. Which would make the early war docs obviously obsolete.

@George MC Is this using engine 4?

I've done this several times and Freyberg is overestimating the amount of work it is. Flavor objects: Are not something you generally need to worry about. Each game has them 0-indexed so the most common issue is the flavor object changing type. Its not usually an issue because they tend to be relatively similar between games. I've yet to run into an out of range error. Unique Buildings: These need to be removed. On most maps it will take less than five minutes to index these buildings and then remove them. Unique Terrain: This can be significantly more time consuming and is the only real stopper. But primarily occurs when dealing with games that are very far apart. E.G. CM:SF and CM:RT or CM:BN and CM:RT. But again you can usually fix maps up within an hour if they have unique terrain problems. If nothing else you could easily export the map as a height map with residential areas and forests intact which will save you significant time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think the AI had any advanced capability like what you are describing? My understanding is that contact markers are only used by the AI to increase the chance to spot targets (and sometimes to fire on) but they have no sense of how they fit within the environment at all. The AI would never know if they are entering a kill zone because the AI has no ability to understand what a kill zone is. That is exclusively the domain of the player.

I'm looking at dabbling with a proof of concept map where I focus on defensive battle using the best sources I can find as exemplars of how to do AI plans and setups. A Soviet attack versus German defense. I've found some decent description of Soviet assault practices in my Glantz books, but can't really find much in regards to German defenses. Would anyone here have either links to good sources or books that they would recommend?

The question this raises is how is % chance of bogging calculated. E.G. If there is a test every X seconds of whether you will be bogged then it would behoove you to move FAST at all times to minimize the number of checks against the vehicle.

I understand the request. I play turn-based and after reviewing a turn I run it back through at the highest elevation so that I can pick up any spotted items or changes on the field. It isn't a tun of effort, but after playing AB a bit during this lockdown I've come to appreciate the text ticker.

I never had issues with older games on Win10 (I played Rome Total War: Alexander recently) until I upgraded to a more modern video card. Then I started to have huge issues and really dig into the work around bucket. Luckily GOG forums are pretty good resources for finding fixes. That is the only thing I could think of. Is that enough to put towards any other upgrade (monitor, audio, keyboard?) I recently got a mechanical keyboard which I didn't think would make a huge deal but I like a ton. Maybe a chair or nice headset? There is a lot of extraneous stuff you might not normally consider but would improve your ability to enjoy your new PC more than faster transfer speeds when doing backups. https://mechanicalkeyboards.com/shop/index.php?l=product_list&c=140

I have a Ryzen 5, but I suspect it would work fine. CM is a very old code base and you are going to be really limited on how much you can get out of the game even with new hardware. The code just isn't setup to take advantage of all the additional power now available.

No problem, glad I could be of help. I think your build is pretty solid. I would warn against getting your hopes up for 60+FPS at 4k on Ultra graphics with DCS though. We currently just don't have access to the equipment needed to make the feasible within a sane consumer context. 4k is definitely one of the newest frontiers. You will have a fantastic time at 1440p though and medium/low at 4k seems very doable. Also if you are at all interested in VR this build would do great with a VR set for playing flight sim in.

The CM games are simply not popular enough to have cracks released for them. To even pirate a game you need a certain number of seeders to actually share the game and CM would be hard pressed to actually have enough seeders to do that. If Battlefront had unbreakable DRM they would not be in the niche wargame business. Edit: Essentially its security through obfuscation.

I only use Windows Defender Antivirus and have not had any issues in years. Again I would go with the Samsung 860 EVO. You are spending (at least in my area) an additional $200 for what appears to be at best 1-2 second faster load times and no in-game performance benefits. Yea, having 2 sticks is preferable. One of the weird side benefits to having multiple sticks is if one fails you can remove it and still have an operational computer until you are able to get a replacement. Whereas a single stick gives you a single point of failure. ------ Overall I like your build a lot but again would go with the standard SATA SSDs. I also suspect you will have difficulties at 4k because we don't really have the hardware available to push 4k super well right now. In the next 2-3 years that will likely change. You are absolutely set at for 1440p though.

I think you are misreading the numbers (or I am) the NVMe is writing/reading at 3.5/3.3 GBs while the SAATA SSD is in megabytes. The NVMe drive is several times faster than the SSD. From what I've seen the improvement is very small For example in this set of tests the NVMe drive loads 1 second faster in most instances. Often less than that. The initial boot up took NVMe: 11.6 seconds SSD : 11.9 seconds Load times: Fallout 4 NVMe: 27.6 seconds SSD: 28.5 seconds Watch Dogs 2 NVMe: 16.0 seconds SSD: 16.9 seconds Kingdom Come Deliverance: NVMe: 6.4 SSD: 6.7 I'm going to reiterate again that the NVMe drive does not have sufficient gains over an SSD in consumer application to make the large cost increase make sense. In this test we are looking at an average time savings of less than 1 second.

@SlowLarry Well I've been trying to find evidence of in-game FPS Improvements. Every video I've found shows loading time improvements but I haven't found a single one that shows that you get better performance once loaded in. In-game performance and loading times are things and so far it appears that an NVMe will let you load into the game two seconds or so faster, but it will not turn your 60 Frames Per Second into 65 Frames Per Second, for example. If the NVMe gave you better performance you would see videos showing % increase in FPS but instead there are just videos of better loading times. Which for the high cost makes it essentially a waste of money.

@Erwin 's guy is saying that the NVMe is explicitly going to improve in-game performance. He isn't talking about loading times. An NVMe drive will iimprove loading times, but it will not improve in-game performance. The loading time advantage is often only a handful of seconds if you view the youtube comparisons. I still stand-by that the NVMe drive is a waste of money unless you have some unique use case like CAD, video editing, or 3d rendering. Erwin isn't doing any of that and I've yet to see any definitive proof that an NVMe drive can improve in-game performance. If it could you would see FPS comparisons and not just loading time comparisons. Since you don't see FPS comparisons then it almost certainly isn't a reliable way to increase performance if it has any effect at all. Edit: Erwin, out of curiosity what video card are you going with?

I think your guy is biased here by usually building for CAD functionality. I've never seen any solid evidence that an NVMe can make a noticeable difference to in-game performance. Games load in data from the storage device but they usually load that into ram or vram for quick pulling. Which is why you see video cards with increasingly large vram caches. Most High-End action games aren't going to be streaming in a ton of data its all going to be loaded in at start of the match. Something like Skyrim might be but I've again never seen evidence that there is noticeable improvement.

Like I said most maps don't use them so players generally don't expect them. But, at least in WW2, you don't have the means to totally trash things just because you see them. Knowing there is a trench line and neutralizing it are generally separate issues and you can still use standard FOW trenches to create ambush positions nearby.

I guess the disclaimer here is that we're folks on a niche wargame forum. BUT! I would never build someone a computer with an NVME SSD. I've not see anything in any of my research that shows its worth the increase cost while I have plenty of evidence showing that having more space to store data is quite useful. My PC can support NVME drives but I did not get one and instead got two standard SSDs. The cost was about the same but I have 3 terabytes of storage instead of 1 terabyte and have two drives instead of one. This is also one of those things where comes down to personal differences.I absolutely would not spend that much on a processor. My stomach clenches at the thought of spending that much - so I'm just generally not going to be on-board with that purchase. I'm largely saying this because I want you to know my bias. But if you are actually committed to a 10 year life-span it might not be the worst purchase to make. HOWEVER if you do get it you want to have a strong video card to pair with it and the 1660 is way too weak to take advantage of the i9. It would be like if your left arm could lift 200 kilograms while your right arm could only lift 20 kilograms. This is solid - if you are committed to the i9 you might want to go one level higher even. SUPER does matter quite a bit and I would not get the 2060. ----- I've been doing some reading on DCS forums and I think you are going to be hard pressed to actual get great 4k performance even with a super high end computer. But if you are really aiming for that go with the i9 and get a 2070 Super or 2080TI if you can afford it. If you can't afford a 2070 SUPER or 2080TI do not buy the i9.

Do you have any evidence that the enhance speeds from an NVME drive are even noticeable/useful at a consumer level? I went through the whole rigmarole of picking SSD drives a few months ago and I couldn't find anything that supported NVME drives being worth the cost outside of specialist use. SSDs are 10+ times faster than the average HDD (if not more) and I've been unable to find an NVME advantage over standard SSDs that makes it worth the cost.

one of the big advantages of the ditch trench is that very few scenarios actually utilize them so most players aren't going to be on the lookout. I only really know about them from some scenario design I did but can't ever recall seeing any of official scenarios/campaigns and only very rarely in user-made scenarios.

My monitor: https://www.microcenter.com/product/620997/msi-optix-mag322cqrv-315-wqhd-144hz-hdmi-dp-freesync-hdr-curved-led-gaming-monitor I got it on sale at a Microcenter. I dabble in DCS and IL-2 so I've got some experience with how they run on my system, but not a ton. I also found this thread on the DCS forums https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=225513 I would venture that you are flat out spending too much money without enough return. The i9 is in the land of diminishing returns as far as I'm concerned and you can do just as well with less. There are some built in software issues with CM that increase the load times more than needed. And for consumer level circumstances a normal speed SSD will be more transfer speed than you'll need for the foreseeable life of the drive. So again its a case of diminishing returns. ----- With both of these you can get most of what you want with far less expenditure if you don't go for these super high end options. I would get either one of the Nvidia series cards 2070 or 2060 Super or the AMD RX 5700 XT. If you want to play flight sims in 4k I think you will need that sort of power if not a bit more. My TL:DR: Either spend as much money as you are spending now and get a better video card and downgrade the processor and SSD or just downgrade the processor and SSD and save money. EDIT: My Suggestion with a disclaimer. I don't know where you live or where you are buying so I don't have a good handle on the actual price you will be paying. Your local market will determine some of this. Processor: Ryzen 5 3600 (IF you reallly want to spend money the Ryzen 5 3600x) SSD: Something 1 TB and cheaper. You don't need NVME Video Card: Nvidia 2070 SUPER or 2080 SUPER Why did I pick these? Combat Mission is essentially gimped regardless of what you buy. You will get good performance with these and spending an extra $500 isn't going to get you much better performance. Flight Sims however, will want a balance of processor power and video card power. The Ryzen 5 3600 is a solid processor that will do the job while allowing you to afford the video card to increase the LOD and run it at 1440p or 4k.

Your men have no idea how much ammo they have in their weapon and will never do a tactical reload. The best you can do is set a target command if you know they are nearly out of ammo.

What exactly are you doing with this computer? Just flight sims and CM? Both of these seem like you are paying way too much while your card is subpar. With an i9 I'm almost certain you are in the land of diminishing returns for the cost. https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-3600/p/N82E16819113569?Description=ryzen 5&cm_re=ryzen_5-_-19-113-569-_-Product&quicklink=true While the NVME drives are faster I'm not certain that is functionally important for you. https://www.newegg.com/crucial-mx500-1tb/p/N82E16820156174 Can a 1660 drive a 4k monitor? My rx5700XT sometimes struggles at 1440p with Unreal Engine 4 games on ultra.

Generally one is going to be sufficient. Drives are reliable enough that age rather than random failure is going to get you. Personally I run 2 SSDs but bought them two years apart. Partially for cost reasons, but also so that one is significantly younger. I've recently heavily upgraded my computer and while nearly every game I play loads in seconds CM still takes quite a while to load. It also doesn't run nearly as well as I would think given my performance any other games and the relative power of my PC. CM's engine is quite old at this point '06? or whenever CM:SF was first laid down and at this point I don't think it can really take advantage of hardware gains. 16gb is fine, if you want to go to 32gb for some reason sure but anymore is definitely overkill. In my experience no, but my only use case was plugging into a friends for 2-3 hours one weekend. I'm not sure where you reside but checking Microcenter I can see a 49" monitor if you want to spend $1,200 https://www.microcenter.com/product/608117/samsung-c49rg90-49-dual-qhd-120hz-hdmi-vga-dp-freesync-hdr-curved-qled-gaming-monitor