thewood

No on ground combat being a focus. Its still heavily abstracted. Its better, but its still secondary to air and naval. The devs will even say that. Don't buy it just for ground combat. The new ground combat model is a lot better, but its still a complement to the main focus of the game. One area that appears to be interesting is amphibious warfare. They have expended a lot of effort for support of landings and such. That part is very interesting.

From a usability standpoint, CMO is a huge leap forward. The clickable message logs, bubble pop ups, hit buttons, etc. make a big difference in situational awareness. I am less of a fan of the hi def terrain overlays, but they are optional and do help in certain areas. The radar LOS tool is a huge add for planning SEAD and strike missions. The overall user interface is much better. The fact that all content from CMNAO carries forward to CMO and CMO is only $40 if you own CMNAO makes this a no-brainer for anyone interested in naval and air operations. The 3D window is interesting, but not very useful in my opinion. Too much effort put into a small minority of players who wanted it.

Yes...the original report seemed heading in a very obsessive direction and ended up there. Your patience as devs is commendable.

This is a lot of obsessive time spent to get to that conclusion.

CM has been, but in a fairly limited way to either teach history of combined arms or some basic familiarization with platoon-level tactics. I had a friend in the Marine Corp (combat officer) who told me he didn't think the perspective CM gave was very useful. He said useful training for him and his peers was either first person tactical as a procedural trainer or more operational.

And this is exactly what I am talking about...dick

Badgered is not a strong enough word for this topic. If this is how you treat devs who go to the effort of putting in a a good piece of content, I hate to imagine how you treat devs of games you don't like. And I don't want to hear, "we're tough because we love". There are much more useful ways to provide feedback. This whole topic disgusts me. And I'll come back to my original comment. If I were the devs, I'd just pull the Armata out until they decide what to do with it. I would be fairly disillusioned.

I was talking to the other guy complaining. Grenny ninja'ed me. But you already have the pictures, so I am assuming you have the AARs to post. You guys seem to encounter this so often, it shouldn't take long.

It takes longer to write a completely un-formatted post on the forum than it does to post an AAR.

I have to ask...why don't you post the AARs?

I vote we remove the Armata to resolve this issue.

Exactly

Not sure I follow the logic. I don't think any government body asked for a Chiefton, Centurion, or AMX-13.

Not all laptops are created equally. Its mostly about the cooling. You also have to have expectations on FPS and settings. On the benchmark, it runs between 45 and 65 in all the tests. The surface runs 25 to 35. They both run 80-90C with some thermal throttling of the CPU. If you have a 1660, that's not an old card. Its one of the newest. The 1660 ti, which I have, runs about equivalent to mobile 1070. I had a mobile 1070 on my last laptop and it ran SB slower 10-15%. Of course it also has an 8750, vs a 9750.

I run SB on two laptops, a Lenovo with a 1660 ti full power and a surface book 2 with a 1050 mobile. I can run SB on the Lenovo at pretty much full settings except ground clutter. I have to crank the surface down a little. No "stutters", but does get laggy in wide views with a lot trees on the surface. Thats why its kind of important to run the benchmark. It might pinpoint where the game gives you issues.