TaktiX

...I think the word we're all looking for is "Whooops!" lol

Well how about that, my nVidia 9600 GS with 768MB DOES seem to be able to cut it. I have it at 1024x768 with low/med settings and it's smooth without any jerking. I gotta say, I think BI have done a good job at coding this baby so far, if this is anything to go by. I had a GTS 250 /1GB awhile ago, which is more than twice as powerful, and it couldn't handle BF3 on the lowest settings! Also, I'm glad they have made this work with WinXP, not Vista and up only. Right, back to testing out a few more settings and see if we can crash/find bugs. (Test rig: Quad 2.33GHz (Q8200), 4GB RAM, 500GB HDD)

I was thinking along similar lines maturin. What's the point in having a "point and click" kind of battle/war...where's the skill? But there is some validity to having Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM) or Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) weapon types in the game. You could have a very long reload time, and/or high manufacture time/cost so they wouldn't be used like candy, and use these missiles from a distant, stand-off location to take out a "tough nut" target. You could also have them show up on ship or land based radar, and make your SAM or AAA able to target them to potentially shoot them down. This adds another layer of tactics in their use, in that you would stand a better chance of success if you recon the target before you find the best way/route to attack it with SLCM/TLAMs. IMO you're wrong about a "scripted explosion at a grid reference" however. Even though real life missiles use GPS and Digital Scene Matching and Area Correlation (DSMAC) to find their targets, during Gulf War 1, a few Tomahawks were shot down enroute to their target, and this could also be the case in CC:GM.

Hi Guys, Just interested in what card/s people are using, or considering using, to play this demo? I'm currently down to a nVidia 9600 GS with 768MB, which is really not gonna cut it, so will be upgrading to a nVidia GTX 275 or GTX 460 shortly, but I'd be interested to see what you're using, and what your experiences of it are. Like if you were using an 8800GTX, is that too slow? If you had a GTX 580, does it allow you to play on dual screens at 1920? Things like that. (Sorry if someone has covered this topic before, I couldn't find it in searches.)

From memory, in the original CC, the Hammerhead was a Surface to Surface Missile (SSM) with a sub-nuclear warhead (cold war politics much?). You would fire up a probe of sorts, which would relay TV data back to you so you could select a target and fire a HH at it. It had a limited range, in that you could only fire at things that you could see in the scope of the TV image. The "probe" would fire up and arc to the rear of the Carrier (much like a flare), giving you a look down view which lasted around 20 seconds. Once you selected a target using a cross-hair, the HH would fire (again, only to the rear of the Carrier) and hit the designated target. No in-flight target modification, however, you could fire several HH's in the time the probe was active. There was a reload time for the HH, but you could get 3-4 off before the probe expired. The probe launcher and the HH launcher were sub-systems on the carrier that were susceptible to damage from enemy fire. Similarly, there was a SSM that you could have as part of a load-out package on the WALRUS called the Harbinger (I used to call it the Harm Bringer...'cos I was illiterate). This missile could be guided after launch, whereby a PiP window would open up and you could "fly" the missile, lasting around 20 seconds. In fact, you could do a complete 360 and hit your own WALRUS (or unsuspecting men up the rear-admiral, if the CC:GM video is anything to go by). Many have said it before, and I'll say it again now; this game was way, way, way ahead of it's time when it was originally released in 1988 on 48KB and 64KB RAM home computers.

It's been baffling me for ages now (well since I became aware that CC won't ship with MP), and it seemed really odd that a company, with a wealth of programming skillz (mad skillz if you will), didn't design a MP component into a game that was so obviously crying out for it (imagine, if you will, Counter Strike as a SP :eek:). So it's most probably not a techincal issue... I think the main issue with MP for CC is the scope and scale of the game. How would you coordinate start and stop times for games/battles? People have been reporting spending over a day (and I'm pretty sure they mean a literal, bleary-eyed 24hrs in the saddle) playing the 9 island SP demo! So, with potentially 30+ islands in the full game, how would you arrange for multiple people to play for such a long time? I guess one "simple" solution would be to have fewer islands, but that would have a more "arcadey" feel, reduce the strategic and tactical level of play, and generally change the game dynamics. How do "massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG)" handle this problem? Bear in mind the issues relating to a "persistent universe/world". Also, don't forget the specific issues relating to this game (tech. development, island capture and retention, resource acquisition...etc.). So folks, over to you. All thoughts and comments gratefully received and exchanged. (Sorry if someone has covered this topic before, I couldn't find it in searches.)

:hadouken-to-face: ...oh, pinch! Pretty cool times huh. Will be signing up next week myself. Watch your back...doh, no MP! :eek: OMG, that's frickin' hilarious Osric! BI, you should put this quote as a tagline somewhere in your advertising for the game. I think everyone drooling over your game feels like this...

Absolutely correct Gazzareth, I've re-worded the paragraph.

Hi Guys, Not sure if anyone else is getting confused by the wording and/or description of the different Play and Contribute options available? I have a pretty good idea, but just to clarify: Play and Contribute Supporter (£31.99) *Downloadable beta of the game *A digital copy of the full game on release (as well as a seperate "Steam" copy) *A Gaea Universe soundtrack download (6 tracks from the game) *A "star and bars" insignia next to your name in forums *Helps to further fund BIS development of this game (help with Kit Kats and coffee etc ) Play and Contribute (£15.99) *Downloadable beta of the game *A digital copy of the full game on release (but NOT a seperate "Steam" copy) *Helps to further fund BIS development of this game (help with sandwiches and bandwiches etc ) Upg. to Play and Contribute Supporter (£16.99) *Upgrades your "basic" P&C package to include the P&C Supporter package extras *Helps to further fund BIS development of this game (help with peanut butter and jelly etc ) NB: For those debating upgrading to P&C Supporter later, it will cost you a combined total of £32.98, plus as it's a limited time offer, the option (as are all the P&C options) may be withdrawn at anytime. Please let me know if you think the above is correct, incorrect, or if there is anything I've missed. Sorry if someone else has opened a similar post, I couldn't find it in my search. Also, please only contribute to this thread if you are totally sure of the info. you're typing, rather than offering an opinion of what you think, as this only serves to compound the "confusion".

Beta has a purpose, not sure opening it to all and sundry would achieve those goals? Also, don't think they've "cut" MP from launch, they simply haven't developed it for the game. I still think this is a bit weird, but I wouldn't hope to offer a possible reason why (although I have a few).

I think those that are picked for the BETA should be chosen in order of time waiting for the release to come out... ...I played this game on a rubber keyboarded ZX Spectrum 48k in the 1980's

lol BFCrusader ...so which one is the AI controlled car?

...now let's just get one thing straight cobber, I'm not advocating ANY kind of delay in the release of this game whatsoever lol. I think I heard about it in 2009 (can that be right?), and it's just constantly been delayed for one reason or another. Get it out, get it out (as the Actress said to the Vicar), I'll even volunteer for the beta hehe. If the game has progressed this far down the track without MP, then there's no choice, but my point is that it really would be super swell if you BI guys could bring it out hot on the heels of this release. I would have thought that "turning off" the AI for the enemy carrier and allowing 1v1 that way would be reasonably easy...but then what do I know about programming (outside of 1980's BASIC...10 PRINT "hello", 20 GOTO 10 lol). Personally Astrus, really, I wouldn't want anything to delay it's release now (I'm pretty sure our rants on here are not going to change the course of that anyway :) ), but if this is really a BI forum, something like a suggestions box, then yes BI guys, it'd be a really good thing for this game to have MP released at some point soon after the games release. This might be madness to you Alfitz, but for us, this is just another day at the office...

You...maybe not so much SpyderPB6, but according to above pop quiz, another 28.57% would seem to feel the same as you. If this is indicative of people that won't buy without a MP option, then yes, it's a concern. Personally, I'd even be happy with a 1 vs 1 mode (basically where a human can take over the role of the AI carrier). I'm sure that would be reasonably easy to accommodate? Is this what the aforementioned "skirmish mode" will be?

That's a fair point guys, and I'll even add to it with Donkey Kong (yes, I am THAT old) and Sonic the Hedgehog. However, let's take this deeper. How many of these games were ground breaking, spawned further developement and/or proliferated their genres (I don't mean DK or StH...they were awesome lol). Would Doom or Quake have been anywhere near as groundbreaking and/or addictive without MP? Look at the example of WoW, a game that would be mediocre without MP. Dare I say, would the Battle of Midway, I mean the ACTUAL BoM in 1942 (not a game), have been such a success as a SP? I'm joking of course... This game is just CRYING OUT for MP'ing! Don't get me wrong, I think the SP has to be great for this game to be a success, but equally, I would think that this game would need MP to give it the best chance of being a blockbuster. One of the things that let down Hostile Waters (a sort of predecessor to this game and sequel to CC 1988) was the lack of MP. Imagine that game (even revamped) with the addition of MP? I guess the real question here is: What single thing (other than a great SP experience) would give this game the BEST chance of achieving the mass market, super success that it deserves. That would help it be something that people will come back to over and over. That will build enough of a community that will practically "force" BI to release a sequel, and make other publishers sit up and take note. Really, I'm surprised that it's taken so long for ANYONE to release a remake of this game, or something like it. The last carrier based games I can think of are Janes Fleet Command and Battlestations Pacific, but neither were as satisfying as CC 1988! What's wrong with this picture?! lol PARAKAS, I agree with you, I would prefer a smaller, higher quality game than a larger, lower quality game (MS Vista anyone?). I also agree with some of what you say Astrus, however, the CC concept was SP initially as after they crammed the entire game into 48k of RAM (48k!), they thought inventing the internet and adding MP might have been too much...kidding, but you get the point. We've progressed 20+ years since the release of that game, lets up gun this bad boy. I really like the idea of modding, anything that builds a community around this game, get's people passionate about it.