So I backed PP and I don’t have a machine that can run it. 
I need to upgrade my computer to manage Adobe CS and some statistics programs for my work anyway. Portability is a must. With those things in mind, I’m considering grabbing a Microsoft Surface Book 2 (i7 8650u, 16gb ddr5 RAM, and Nvidia Geforce 1060).
Could a Surface Book 2 run PP just fine? Any recommendations on something that would be better for PP?
Depends on your budget and overall preferences I suppose. I cannot say for sure, as even profiling the current PP build will not make much sense due to it being a(likely unoptimized) pre-alpha. My best guess is, take FXcom’s system requirements and use it as a starting point.
Edit: Surface2 seems ok on paper but I have no idea how it performs as an actual gaming machine.
With those specs it should be ok
I have a an ASUS ROG with a 970m and it runs it just fine. While I can’t comment on your specific build, I would expect yours to handle it reasonably well. The downside is that currently the pre-alpha builds aren’t graphically optimized and the graphics can’t be changed. This in turn means that even if you can handle the final game you “might” not be able to handle the pre-alpha builds due to it not being optimized.
Without a doubt. Gtx 1060 6gb is a very powerful videocard capable of handling all modern games on “High” graphics settings.
Thanks everyone! If I end up getting it, I’ll post on here how it goes.
Mine Laptop has a GTX970m it is running very smooth under Linux, sure this is true for other Systems, too
I have a i5, 2.5Ghz with a NVIDIA GTX 950M. 8GB Ram.
Runs smoothly!!
I am interested to hear what kind of machine you have tested it and decided its too low performing or not performing at all. BB1 was way more luggish, BB2 has improved. Maybe by the finale, you could play it on current H/W with low gfx settings.
Surely, nothing against your well picked HW.
I am saying all this because Julian said they will try to target “all hardware”.
In my book, I hope some laptops will dual core, 4GB RAM and integrated Intel/AMD gfx will be able to run it.
Turn based strategies should not be much demanding by design, if optimized.
Also, until you get new HW you could try Linux. If Linux gfx etc. drivers are bad, it will be worse. If everything *game/drivers is well, I have seen a very nice incerase in performance by playing game on same HW on Linux.
Do keep in mind that modern gaming uses far more sophisticated graphics. This includes higher resolution textures and particle effects. Add onto that the need for CPU/GPU power for things like rubble and the destructible terrain. Also, the simulated ballistics system is heavier on CPU load than the dice rolling system of XCOM.
Do keep in mind that modern gaming uses far more sophisticated graphics. This includes higher resolution textures and particle effects. Add onto that the need for CPU/GPU power for things like rubble and the destructible terrain. Also, the simulated ballistics system is heavier on CPU load than the dice rolling system of XCOM.
As of high-res textures and effects, well resolution/effect settings could be lowered making half of those requirements down.
Fully aware of eyecandy revolution. However since this is more “static” then “dynamic” I hope DX9 GPUs can do that 
I have some inner belief 2x2Ghz on i3 level is not that little CPU power if code is done right. I dont expect games to run super smooth, non-laggy or look incredible. I expect it to be playable on lowest settings.
This is generally all for people who want to play it on nettops, laptops and other cheap devices that revolve around dual core Atoms to i5 even today, often do come with 4GB RAM and Intel/AMD integrated gfx.
Surely, hope that desktops (and laptops) that have 4 cores, 8GB RAM and DX10+ gfx will run it more then smootly.
My best guess is, take FXcom’s system requirements and use it as a starting point.
Original FXcom/Enemy Within was able to run on PS3 (2Ghz CPU with 512MB RAM, DX9 level gfx card) or 2Ghz/4GB/DX9 laps and desktops. Surely, PP has some additional levels of complexity, as mentioned.
This is an illusion that it is “static”. If everything doesn’t move too much it doesn’t mean the game is “static” and thus must have lower sys.reqs. If it is full 3D (and new Xcoms and PP are full 3D), your system must be advanced enough to run modern 3D games.
I highly doubt you will be able to run it on old i3 with 4gb ram and poor videocard. Well, maybe you’ll launch it, but FPS will be terrible, everything, especially camera movements and explosions, will be slow as hell.
As of high-res textures and effects, well resolution/effect settings could be lowered making half of those requirements down.
In modern games this doesn’t help much. And there is hardly any noticable difference between “very low” and “high” settings. So, even on “very low” modern games are quite demanding. Here: https://youtu.be/zCG9Mh_mVWM?t=3m11s
The current specs we’re looking at are:
Windows
Minimum spec
Recommended spec
Control
Mac
Minimum spec
Recommended spec
These are tentative specifications as we are still in development.
Windows 7 SP1 and 8 having been added to the list, good to know.
Yaaaaay, that should be good 
Quick question, pardon my ignorance but Windows 7 SP1+ means Windows 7 with Service Pack 1 and onwards, right? So as long as I download that Service Pack I should be good?
That is correct. Windows 7 had a lot of issues which were fixed in SP1. If you’re using Windows 7 and you don’t have SP1, you’re doing yourself a disservice.
Umm, so the current (BB2) controller support is more like a finished state or still work in progress? I’m asking because of some issues: BB2 - Problems with gamepad controls - #3 by kompan and I’m not sure if I need to experiment with other drivers/emulators/mappings/gamepads, or just wait for the next BB to get things sorted out 
The current level of controller support isn’t yet finalised.
My system runs in the middle of the minimum VS the recommended, so I think it’s good to go 