Matchstick Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 There's a new preview up here http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=44381&mode=thread&order=0 It's quite brief and short on any new details but it is pretty complementary: "Combat Mission: Shock Force appears to be a worthy successor to the previous World War II incarnations of the game and is shaping up to be the best title in the series" & "With the game shaping up to be one of the year's better war games, both fans of the Combat Mission series and gamers looking for a realistic and challenging simulation of modern warfare will want to take a closer look at Combat Mission: Shock Force when it's released later this month." There are also a few screenshots that might be new though the majority I think have been seen before. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 And the not so complementary: Calculating movement waypoints, lines of sight, command and control linkages and not to mention keeping track of every bullet fired within a markedly superior graphical environment is a resource-intensive task, and slow frame rates are likely even on higher-end machines. I can just see all the bitching and moaning about the performance already. But hey, nothing is perfect! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matchstick Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 I'm puzzled why they put "likely" in there ? Did they actually encounter frame rate problems themselves ? Do any of the beta tester have any comments (allowing for any NDAs of course) ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Originally posted by Matchstick: Do any of the beta tester have any comments (allowing for any NDAs of course) ? My 3 year old PC had no difficulty with the CMSF beta, bearing in mind the graphic settings I use are set to mid-range. However even at mid-range it's a nice looking wargame. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George MC Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Hi Also we were using a version that had de-bug stuff running in the background which I reckon slowed it down a bit. Otherwise my PC played all the scenarios with no problems - again on mid-range settings. As Mace says even with mid-range settings it's still a fine looking game - especially when you get down to level 1 Cheers fur noo George 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 The performance stuff is quite frustrating for us. Some hardware configurations look fantastic on paper, but have less FPS than slower systems. Four major considerations: 1. Card/Driver combo. Some cards simply are more prone to problems than others, mostly due to crappy drivers. Sometimes this gets fixed with new drivers, sometimes it doesn't. 2. Settings on the video card. We had one reviewer complain that he was getting single digit frames on his steroid muscle machine. We were using the same sceanrio and weren't have problems. He turned off one feature of his card and got 10+fps added. Yup! 3. Settings within the game. There are settings for tweaking the model detail and the texture quality (independent of each other). These are critically important, as they are for all 3D games. If you try to run with all the bells and whistles on, and your system isn't up for the challenge, then yeah... FPS can be very low. 4. The specific scenario. The bigger, more detailed a scenario it is, the more strain it puts on all the systems. Rune or George can make a map that will take 2 weeks to load and you'll get 0.5 fps. Trust me... they are very tallented people The WORST case is having a little bit of each bitting your bum. Makes it harder to see performance increases when there are multiple reasons for the problems. In other words, each one of the above might only rob you of 1fps, but combined they remove 10fps from 30fps. That's a noticable drop (though 15+ is adequate to play the game fairly smoothly). This makes troubleshooting for everybody rather difficult. Lastly... note that everything I just said was true for CMx1 games as well. What some people don't understand is that as technology has improved to make things go faster, games have used up the new power so they can look better. If we simply rereleased CMBO's engine with modern stuff I think EVERYBODY would get 30fps even on the largest scenario with all bells and whistles on. 60fps would be the norm. Conversely, if you tried to run CM:SF on a system from 7 years ago it probably wouldn't even be able to load. If it didn, fractional FPS would be expected. The lesson here is that users have to keep in mind that we stressed the hardware in 2000 and we're stressing it again in 2007. That's just the nature of what we do ;D Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salkin Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 This month is just going way too slow . I want this game yesterday !! *whiney fanboy mode off* //Salkin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Oh god nooooo. I had problems with TOW's fps (at least the patch sorted them a bit), I dont want to see the same happening to my most wanted game ever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf66 Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 And will Frame rates only be ( more of ) an issue with real time play or also with the good ole WEGO ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 "...one of the better wargames..."??? CM and one of the better and not "one of the best" or "maybe the best" wargame this year?! And the preview also reflects not at all the greatness and unreached realism, fun and thrill of the CM-concept. If i wouldn't know CM, this review would not make me take a second look at CMSF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyTH Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Originally posted by Steiner14: "...one of the better wargames..."??? CM and one of the better and not "one of the best" or "maybe the best" wargame this year?! And the preview also reflects not at all the greatness and unreached realism, fun and thrill of the CM-concept. If i wouldn't know CM, this review would not make me take a second look at CMSF. Bah, you don't base your choice on a preview at worthplaying. Same for everyone. They wait the professional reviews: Gamespot, IGN, Gamespy or the already made Tom's hardware preview. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Steve did not mention RAM, IMO RAM is a large factor, the min is set to 512, I would like to suggest you need as much RAM as you can possibly afford. (and a good graphics card with the best and most suitable up to date drivers.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Toleran Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 RAM was the sticking point for me on TOW -- once I went from 1 to 2 GB (apparently something long overdue), the change was immediate and dramatic. I hope I'm in the clear for CMSF, it sounds like the engine is less of a system hit than TOW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf66 Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 Originally posted by wolf66: And will Frame rates only be ( more of ) an issue with real time play or also with the good ole WEGO ? Seems like I'll have to see for myself after I downloaded the game ..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazy Gun Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 Originally posted by JaguarUSF Running the game in either WEGO or real time mode will require the same processing power, because WEGO turns are resolved in real time instead of in the background like they were in previous CM titles. I discuss this in my preview: http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2007/05/combat-mission-shock-force-preview.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf66 Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 Thanks, I missed that one! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AG Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 Originally posted by Steiner14: "...one of the better wargames..."??? CM and one of the better and not "one of the best" or "maybe the best" wargame this year?! And the preview also reflects not at all the greatness and unreached realism, fun and thrill of the CM-concept. If i wouldn't know CM, this review would not make me take a second look at CMSF. Hi guys Glad to see my preview got some attention from those who have been closely following the game's development! I just wanted to let you know that I was reluctant to describe this as the "best wargame of the year" as I feel it would a backhanded compliment to give the game that kind of accolade when only a handful of wargames have been released over the past six months. Having said that, I have really enjoyed playing the game and it is a worthy successor to the original CM games. I may be no "expert", however you define that, but I have been playing and reviewing wargames and combat simulations for many years, so I tend not to make hasty judgments about whether something's the best or not until I've seen what else is on offer. I know that there are some other great wargames coming out this year, including one from Battlefront, so it'll be interesting to see how CMSF stands up against them. As you know, the article in WorthPlaying is a preview and its intention is to give a pithy overview of what the game has to offer. I agree, I wouldn't buy a game based on a preview only. They're really only meant to pique your interest. I reserve the more extensive analysis and criticism (yes, I do have a few early reservations) for the full review, which I'll be writing after having spent more time with the game. Anyway, thanks again for reading the preview and congrats to Battlefront for making a great game Cheers Andrew 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 Andrew, the explanation makes sense. So i'm looking forward to your review... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salkin Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 Great to see you post here Andrew , you have a nice site and it's great to see that you appreciate the non main stream games that are combat mission ! These games doesn't get enough publicity in mainstream gaming media IMHO. As consoles more and more becomes the target for the big publishers, great games like combat mission will keep it's faithfull pc gaming fanbase and maybe save the PC as a gaming platform. Ok...I'm rambling here...anyways, great to see you post on these great forums! //Salkin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikoyanPT Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Nice review Andrew. Thanks. We need new stuff to keep us busy until 27 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvaderCanuck Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Curious how you guys feel my rig will run it. AMD 64 +3700 2 Gigs of Ram 9700 GTX BFG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinetree Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 If it runs ToW "smooth" as you said it, you know it should run CMSF well. Quit showing off. [ July 15, 2007, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Pinetree ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvaderCanuck Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Not sure if you were replying to me. If you were! I know my system is usually up to par for all but the most taxing games. I was more curious to hear from someone at BF. They were commenting that some chip sets seem to be a little tricky in getting solid performance. Just hoping mine isn't one of them because I've been fiending for this game for years it seems ;p 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinetree Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Okay,that's a fair comment.My apologies. I've run into too many l33t kids lately who like to show off their rig by asking if their specs are up to snuff when they know damn well it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=44744 Here is the full review from worthplaying - 9.5 out of 10. 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.