John Kettler Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 In looking at the Russian BYO display for QBs, I see the above number range and start looking at the shopping list. Only to practically gag when I realize this amounts to roughly 6 MR battalions, making a regiment minus. I was under the impression that many here find a reinforced company more than enough to deal with, that some can do the same with a BTG (tried it once vs AI with MT-LM based BTG and almost no inf; wasn't pretty), and I have read of a few who, as far as I'm concerned, live on Olympus and blithely talk of regimental actions. Have people gotten so comfortable with and/or are assisted by new features under 3.0 and the patch, to the point that regimental actions are now feasible? Did I miss an important memo? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Only to practically gag when I realize this amounts to roughly 6 MR battalions, making a regiment minus. Dismounted. Add in the vehicles and it's less than 2 MRBs. You can just barely buy one battalion tactical group if you choose lower quality options. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 2, 2015 Author Share Posted August 2, 2015 Vanir Ausf B, What was I thinking? 6 MRB would be more like 2 regiments. To be clear, and right now I'm quite befogged mentally, are you saying that 13K points buys one so-so MR based BTG with all the men, their IFVs/APCs, FS, FACs and such? Certainly, that seems much less daunting, but for me, we're merely talking about degrees of overwhelm. I had my hands quite full recently running a company minus of AFVs and the odd infantry team vs BadgerDog in our first PMEM, which was a QB . And as you may know, I threw in the towel in a vs AI QB when I got something of the order of a battalion, maybe more, of dismounted Russian troops, plus a platoon or so of APCs--on Tiny setting. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Up to Reinforced Company Size Engagements in CMBN, CMFI, and CMRT for me...Ops, I Just realized this is one of those Modern Forums. Joe Edited August 3, 2015 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 i realy liket that QB points are now biger in black sea. im played several battles again frend whit max points and worket wery well. lots of carnage on field 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Rage Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 How do you guys deal with 8-12 fps slideshow even on very respectable hardware during all this carnage? Reaches a point where you don't even need to pause to see the rounds flying. Company + armor seems to be about the limit of what the game can handle while remaining a semi-smooth and aesthetically enjoyable experience at all zoom levels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) all mather of camera angel to battlefield , sou dont try to ower looking too big area same time. hard to explain but sure frame drop litlebit and we play only email game, sou that help to frame rate all sou. Edited August 3, 2015 by snarre 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 How do you guys deal with 8-12 fps slideshow even on very respectable hardware during all this carnage? Reaches a point where you don't even need to pause to see the rounds flying. Company + armor seems to be about the limit of what the game can handle while remaining a semi-smooth and aesthetically enjoyable experience at all zoom levels. Hyperbole much? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) How do you guys deal with 8-12 fps slideshow even on very respectable hardware during all this carnage? Reaches a point where you don't even need to pause to see the rounds flying. Company + armor seems to be about the limit of what the game can handle while remaining a semi-smooth and aesthetically enjoyable experience at all zoom levels. Hmmm.... I have a 3 year old Apple MacBook Pro notebook computer with a small 15" screen and I regularly play large (14,000 pt) and huge (20,000 pt) CMBS matches on very large complex maps. My matches are very smooth during game-play and I don't see a lot of hesitation or jerkiness. I used to get that when I owned a Windows based PC, so I don't know if hardware etc., is a factor in your case... To be honest, I don't load up the game with a bunch of 3rd party graphic enhancement add-ons, but I do use the settings as shown in the attachment .. John, as I told you in a private messaging, you have to stop overthinking everything and just wade into playing the game. It's the only way to learn. Maybe use the opponents forum to find a new player and start with small matches if you're more comfortable, but after almost 15 years of playing BFC products, I particularly only enjoy 14,000 pt large and 20,000 pt huge maps. CMBS really shines and is a lot of fun in the latter environment. When you load up infantry into APC's to get them to a "fight", it consumes pts really quickly, so you need that many points on larger battlefields, or you'd spend you life hoofing it around big maps ... It's not that difficult to manage if your organize your virtual troops into organized fighting units at the time of setup... Regards, Doug Edited August 3, 2015 by BadgerDog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 plus John you forget tank units are VERY point consuming. If you want Ill play smaller qbs for you and we can do an ongoing discussion about whats up to help you. just pm me dude and listen to BDs advice. After all he has actually served in Shermans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Rage Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Hyperbole much? I wish I was. i5-2500k@5ghz, gtx970, 16 gb ram, ssd and according to fraps i'm barely getting stable 18-25 fps on medium-sized city battles with medium/close zooms with action. Not even maxed out graphically, running improved/improved, on a PC that should eat this game alive. Sure, frame rate is ok at bird's eye view (35-45 fps), but who wants to stay there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 hym you should run game smoot whit that pc, ewen on huge battles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Red Rage, your experience is not what others are getting with similar or even worse rigs. My rig is pushing 5 years old, has a 32bit opsys and manages Battalions just fine unless I just line them all up and start blazing away and the opposing Battalion starts blazing back; then it starts to struggle with the amount of flying lead it has to track. Maybe there are some optimisations you can make for your game to bring your experience up to what others are getting? Simply asserting that the game won't handle large engagements isn't very constructive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 hym you should run game smoot whit that pc, ewen on huge battles. I concur... something else is going on ... Regards, Doug 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 haha 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Guys, I very much appreciate the feedback. BadgerDog, Compared to what I have, your rig is brand new! Mine is a late 2009 3.06 Intel Core 2 Duo iMac with 4 GB RAM and a 256 MB ATI Radeon 4670 video card. In our last QB, I repeatedly experienced frame stuttering issues, likely as a result of map size, trees and an ever growing collection of smoke pillars and such. As you know, that was with very small forces in play. I have a regular battle going in which my force is all leg, roughly a company of dismounted paratroopers, and that's working better and on a smaller map. But neither is anything burning, there aren't many trees, and there's been only brief smoke, too. I guess you could say I have two interrelated issues: technical capabilities of my rig and functional capabilities of my brain. I'm not at all sure my machine can handle anything bigger than a BTG, and I don't mean with a battalion's worth of dismounts. There is, IMO, a strong likelihood of so overloading the iMac that the game becomes almost completely unplayable. As it is, loading isn't fast, stalls aren't unheard of, and panning and such can be very jittery. Nor does it help that my rig is almost certainly nearing the end of its service life, making it difficult to determine what's the real cause of seemingly intermittent problems. The other, and likely more limiting factor, is simply what my brain can handle. Pushing a company or more of grunts around isn't trivial for me, and I've made some bad mistakes in consequence, so the thought of dealing with more than a battalion fills me with dread. Maybe, though, if I buy a bunch of, say, T-90AM, the seemingly huge points will turn out to be not much in the way of actual tanks at all. Frankly, I'm amazed I can run any fight with as many moving parts as my leg attack has. Am going to do some playing around with CMBS QB force buys so I can get some sense of what I'm dealing with, rather than simply being overwhelmed by what I believe to be the case. As for over thinking things, that has been known to occur with me! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 BadgerDog, Compared to what I have, your rig is brand new! Mine is a late 2009 3.06 Intel Core 2 Duo iMac with 4 GB RAM and a 256 MB ATI Radeon 4670 video card. In our last QB, I repeatedly experienced frame stuttering issues, likely as a result of map size, trees and an ever growing collection of smoke pillars and such.John, I used to play regularly on the same rig you have, until I upgraded my machine. It played satisfactory for me as long as I had the graphics options under controls turned down to its lowest setting.Regards,Doug 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Rage Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Red Rage, your experience is not what others are getting with similar or even worse rigs. My rig is pushing 5 years old, has a 32bit opsys and manages Battalions just fine unless I just line them all up and start blazing away and the opposing Battalion starts blazing back; then it starts to struggle with the amount of flying lead it has to track. Maybe there are some optimisations you can make for your game to bring your experience up to what others are getting? Simply asserting that the game won't handle large engagements isn't very constructive. Care to point these optimizations? Every other game, including resource hogs like Arma3, GTA5 and Witcher 3, run just fine at near max or max settings, rarely dipping below 45fps (Arma 3 does dip lower with busy scenarios, but the game looks jaw dropping). Maybe we have different defenitions of what is "smooth" or more likely this game is not optimized to use even 10% of new hardware's and drivers' features. BS performs and looks only marginally better than Shock Force, which gave me the same 18-45 fps on OCed q9800 with two gtx260s in sli (a very respectable setup at the time). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Care to point these optimizations? Every other game, including resource hogs like Arma3, GTA5 and Witcher 3, run just fine at near max or max settings, rarely dipping below 45fps (Arma 3 does dip lower with busy scenarios, but the game looks jaw dropping). Maybe we have different defenitions of what is "smooth" or more likely this game is not optimized to use even 10% of new hardware's and drivers' features. BS performs and looks only marginally better than Shock Force, which gave me the same 18-45 fps on OCed q9800 with two gtx260s in sli (a very respectable setup at the time). Have a look round the Tech Support forum, for people more knowledgeable than me. There are certainly the occasional issue with graphics cards that have been resolved on there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 How do you guys deal with 8-12 fps i'm barely getting stable 18-25 fps on medium-sized city battles with medium/close zooms with action. So which is it? In large battles with everything on max it can dip to 18fps but mostly stays above 20 without issues. At 20 and above the game is smooth, the camera moves nicely and the view of the game play is fine. So are you actually experiencing issues with "playing" the game or watching the fps clock? That is not clear to me. I'm just trying to cut through the hyperbole. If, given the benefit of the doubt, you are seeing stuttering and choppy camera movement I agree with @Womble something else is a play here. My i5 3.4Ghz 16Gb machine with a GTX760 only stutters with the absolute largest game I have on the go right now (2+ battalions per-side on a huge map) and I am still playing it on full graphics quality. I just put up with it the few times it happens because I like the game on full quality settings. Every other game I have from small to large I have *no* issues with stuttering at all no matter what. Your machine should be doing better than mine so either we have different expectations or something is wrong for you. I suppose I could have a one off miracle machine too but since other have the same experience as me I doubt that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 ian im still pissed the shadow of the hill tournament ended up petering out with only one scenario down. especially since i had the greatest win of all the players as brit major victoey 500-0 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) After hours and hours of work I finally managed to get a force together in the 13K point range. Everything I previously wrote about the UI based on a quick foray was fully born out during the quite aggravating full-on force buy exercise. IMO it's hard to see and read the text, positioning of key info is simply awful (points on far left and buy on far right), unit subordination is bizarre (put manually bought FO, snipers in ADA!), space is wasted because display doesn't automatically remove space taken by deleted units, and the whole process is pretty counterintuitive. The amount of work I went through in order to have a MR formation to cross attach with my tanks was flat out ludicrous. Buy a BTG, then start removing everything until you get to, say, a lowly MRC! Really? I do like the way I could tailor my tank force, to include agonizing over decisions on whether, say, two full strength TCs are better than 1 full, one 2/3 and 1 remnant. And after I finally got to the MRC level stuff, I could do the tailoring there, too, but why so much work? There was also the special joy associated with the bottom screen with its in-category decisions, which I somehow muddled through. Seems to me I ought to be able to simply define the force quality, baseline unit type (tank, mech inf or inf), the AFV model, if applicable, and the size, e.g., tank. T-72M3, battalion, the cross attachment (e.g., mech inf, BMP-3, MRC), any add-ons (FS, ADA/SAM, tacair, snipers, etc.), then go from there. Once that was done, I could then fiddle a bit with the numbers, but I estimate the whole drill would be a matter of minutes, rather than hours. I freely grant my lack of familiarity, with both the UI and a lot of unfamiliar armor, didn't help, but the truth of the matter is that I found making the force buy pretty taxing. While it'll doubtless be easier doing this stuff in the future, on balance I found the overall experience most off putting. Guess I must sacrifice a lot of time in order to make sure I don't get ridiculous force structures (and not enough seats) in QBs! Regards, John Kettler Edited August 4, 2015 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Hmmm, I have played a couple of 12 000 point "QB's" in the WWII titles. Probably leads to a much longer battle than in CMBS though. The troop selection UI gets easier with practice ( and knowing what kind of troops you're dealing with, hence I kinda know what I'm doing in WWII, would be much less so in BS ) Thing is, most of us are very used to the process, having learned it in smaller battle selections. You seem to have leapt in to "very large" having had little experience with the process and not knowing what your options are/can be. This is going to exacerbate any UI unfamiliarity. ... unit subordination is bizarre (put manually bought FO, snipers in ADA!), space is wasted because display doesn't automatically remove space taken by deleted units, and the whole process is pretty counterintuitive. ... Not sure I agree with these points though. - you tell it under which HQ to place a manually bought team eg. FO. - only one line is taken up by a deleted formation if you've "closed" it with the '-' - once you're aware that all ( most ) formations are based on Battalion, stripping out sub-elements takes very little time. Tweaking the selection can take time, but can be quite enjoyable in itself - or you can go the "that's close enough" route to save time. Edited August 5, 2015 by Baneman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazing 88's Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Hmmm.... I have a 3 year old Apple MacBook Pro notebook computer with a small 15" screen and I regularly play large (14,000 pt) and huge (20,000 pt) CMBS matches on very large complex maps. My matches are very smooth during game-play and I don't see a lot of hesitation or jerkiness. I used to get that when I owned a Windows based PC, so I don't know if hardware etc., is a factor in your case... Do all this and more with my desktop specs below as well with my PC Samsung 17" gaming laptop. Has nothing to do with being a mac. Edited August 5, 2015 by Blazing 88's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazing 88's Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) EDIT: Double post. Edited August 5, 2015 by Blazing 88's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.