Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:


      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/30/2015 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I understand that getting negative feedback on your work is not something that you want but it might not be all together a bad thing either. If everybody who commented on these pictures said "WOW ! thanks, Battlefront...These pictures looks great" then mayby BFC would considder them to be 'good enough'... "let's release this..." I don't think that any of us that have voiced concern about these pictures takes any pleasure in...COMPLAINING...We just want's the game to be as good as possible and that we would rather see BFC holding off on the release for a while longer to get some improvements in... After all..The BULGE GAME is expected to set the future standard for winter conditions...Not only in this game but also in the comming expansions to RT and CMFI... I'm for one is hoping for something simular to Kohlenklaus last picture so seeing those pictures and hearing statements from battlefront that the game is pretty far along in its development got me concerned... But you are absolutely right ! If we don't like it we don't have to buy it....(the problem is... i want to buy it )
  2. 2 points
    It is not in terms of the politics, but it is essential to understanding the "why" of Russian defense planning. Clauswitz was pretty clear on the link between the politics-military affairs relations, and that is still quite valid. Russian force posture will continue to reflect is political beliefs and orientation, just as much as a nation who's defense priorities include "brain slug defense" will invest heavily in hats made of salt. Which is really why asking me to array Russian forces is silly. I know there's no conventional threats to Russia, and that much of the thousands and thousands of T-72 and BMP-2 type stuff is simply underutilized scrap metal at this point. Into the smelter with all of them, buy the six or seven Armatas with the proceeds. Nuclear modernization is honestly the only "defense" project Russia needs at this point because it is, and remains, a defense to which there's no effective counter (the current generations of ABMs being great for ensuring the three missiles or so Iran/DPRK has get shot down, but doing about zero against anything more than a handful of missiles). There is also a total and abject lack of countries with a reasonable intent to invade Russian soil, legitimately Russian or otherwise. But if I believe Merkle is about a very small mustache away from releasing the "real" German military which is hiding in the cellars of Berlin to come and eat all our babushka wearing grandmas and to rape the soil itself in a physical sense (the soil was asking for it, dirty whore soil!), then simply waves of obsolete, wastes of money, time, and soldier equipment will be essential in the forthcoming struggling of patriotic fervor! I must keep all the tanks! Or else! Something! Really! Which paradoxically makes Russia less secure in the long run, because this narrative of constant threat against the Russian people is equally met by the historical narrative of Russians coming west with equal terror and rapey nature to the eastward invasions. And to that end it ensures the only way to really make a threat to Russia is for Russia to give the west a reason to suspect it which by god Russia has been just great at that from about 1946 on with tanking a short break circa 1991-2002 or so. Anyway. Acting like defense exists purely in some sort of apolitical vacuum is simply not enough analysis to be worthy of the name. Russia needs conventional defenses like we need more reality TV shows at this point. And it's already a poor return on investment if it's tromping around in outdated hardware "just in case!" nuclear deterrence fails. I imagine you could get away with 500-600 and not feel less safe. There's simply no realistic mission for any of them (troops coming in being doubtful in the extreme, and an offensive into NATO is already pointless, with the "forces" arrayed in the East China could likely take what it wanted already if it was simply a matter of force imbalance). The realistic mission for Russian ground forces is limited warfare conducted against neighbors, and being the extreme end of internal security matters (as there's already more than a few internal security agencies). Simple as that. The US military has something like 700,000 active "ground" branch personnel but that is with global commitments and a logistical branch to match. With no global reach outside of what is done with nuclear weapons, and no realistic missions that do not share a land border with Russia, 700,000-1 million is having a suitcase full of parkas in the Sahara. Wasteful, pointless, and a burden to the person who has to carry it. Smartass answer: I'm going to scrap it all, build the biggest dacha I can, and sleep comfortably under a nuclear umbrella. Less smartass answer: I'm going to seriously assess what parts of Russia are essential to Russia being able to exist as a functional country. I'll align assets against those first. Then I'm going to assess what routes from the proverbial hinterlands to the heartlands are most able to support military operations. A simple reality is that while tanks can go all over, the logistics train cannot, there's going to be something that a potential invader will tie his logistics to (or potentially a network of lesser routes). From that, I'll build a comprehensive asset denial plan to make transiting those hinterlands difficult (demolition, flooding etc etc) that can be carried out by local security forces or even civil servants. Then I'll allocate some manner of forces to cover these approaches. Basically mirroring the old American type ACR, armor heavy but all arms under the same BDE/REG structure, their job would be to keep the enemy from being able to advance rapidly, or threatening flanks and rear areas. The only realistic way to defend Russia is a mobile type defense. Right now in so many words you have the "good" stuff concentrated regionally but not against threats. Then you have lots of stuff that still costs money that is of minimal value against a force that can actually invade Russia. This is dumb. If in a few years the western thing settles down, but by god China is getting uppity it requires a much more pronounced realignment. Having forces that may be garrisoned centrally, but that are capable of rapid movement is by far more optimal, and instead of simply wasting region's forces away, instead having a smaller Cavalry style organization who's job is to die gallantly while giving time for mobile forces to mass in theater (as again, this is not 1941 and there are simply not the forces to have more than one primary theater) for the counter attack is a better use of money, and resources. Anyway it's a moot point as the whole nuclear weapons thing makes this about as likely as discussing the Mexican invasion of Texas. But right now it's forces spread thin, often protecting "space" vs "things." A smaller, mobile force with more cutting edge equipment that can be massed while screening forces buy time is the best solution. I don't. It's just marginal utility without more wheeled assets in terms of AT or direct fire support. I think there's like 50 Nona-SVKs for the entire Russian military? There really needs to be something that can fill some tanklike roles in the BTR formations without being a tank. Or else you can move rapidly all over and get your teeth kicked in by Type 98s or whatever. We have been invaded through Canada, and Russian Imperialist claims are still voiced by members of the Russian government! It is at least as serious of a threat as NATO is to Russia. Also Sarah Palin can totally see you guys and that stuff you're doing.
  3. 2 points
    It looks like the tanks were shown as an example of how they will come with the game...snow camouflaged. If I were BFC, i wouldn't even bother showing or telling anything until release day. They just get incessant whining and baseless speculation when they throw bones. Don't like it, don't buy it. What's so difficult about that concept?
  4. 1 point
    George MC

    Rolling Thunder (demo scenario)

    This is one of the scenarios contained in the recently released demo. The version appearing at the repository will only work with the 1.03 patch. However I have uploaded a version of the scenario that is 1.01 compatible at the following dropbox LINK If you struggle downloading the file from Dropbox feel free to PM me via the forum and I'll email you the file. You can grab the version (ONLY compatible with 1.03 patch) at the repository About the scenario This scenario recreates a US company team attack against a Russian Forward Security Element or FSE. A Russian FSE is a usually a reinforced company sent forward of the regimental axis when the threat is weak but more commonly sent ahead of a first echelon battalion or battalion operating away from the main body. Motorized rifle companies are often used in this role, even in tank units. Both sides have a fairly ‘typical’ OOB (organisation, units and vehicles) plus supporting arms (air assets, anti-aircraft assets and artillery) for the missions they have been tasked with. As such this scenario serves as a useful introduction to commanding a modern combined arms unit at the company level. This scenario was originally designed to be played first and foremost from the perspective of the US side against the Russian AI. It is playable head to head (H2H) but has not been playtested for balance in this regard. It is playable as Russian vs US AI, although in the attack the AI can't dismount and remount infantry, so that can hamper it a wee bit. Still the US AI plans should give you a tactical workout. There are three distinct Russian AI plans and two distinct US AI plans – thus allowing some level of re-playability. How difficult is the scenario? As stated this scenario is really designed to be played as US attacking Russian AI (or possible H2H). The designers intent is that a ‘good’ player i.e. a player used to the Combat Mission game engine and practiced in using modern core combined arms tactics would find this fun but not over the top challenging. A new player i.e. unpractised in either modern or Combat Mission should be able to play this (TOP TIP – make liberal use of the ‘save game’ option – so you can rewind if things go horribly wrong) – and most likely at least pull a draw. So bottom line is experienced players will most likely find it fun but straightforward, less experienced might find it challenging initially but soon becoming easier. Once the US side make it over the reverse slope position they have a very good chance of winning as the fire-power of a US mech company team is pretty immense!
  5. 1 point
    I am putting the finishing touches on a campaign for CM Black Sea. It is a narrative driven campaign similar to my CMBN In the Fields Where the Poppies Grow and CMRT The Cross of Iron. I am looking for a few playtesters to check it out and report any bugs or make suggestions to improve it before publishing it. It is a infantry driven campaign that dipicts actions by the Ukrainian 79th Air Mobile Brigade under the command of Captain Demitry Koval. Though armor plays a role in the campaign it is centered around 3 companies of this brigade and their actions against pro-russian separatists. As with my previous campaigns it is important to read all the briefs and designer notes as these drive the story. Also there are modtags and a folder with the needed mods in it in the download. I need a few fellow players to give it a spin and let me know: Is the difficulty level and balance ok Are there any bugs such as out of place units or units doing idiotic stuff. Is the immersion level satisfactory to the campaign. And any other things that need improving. If anyone is interested let me know and I will PM you a drpbox link with the campaign and mods Thanks Mike
  6. 1 point
    Rinaldi Some comments on your earlier post The 79. Volks-Grenadier-Division wasn't in the initial attack echelon on the Dec 16. It was held in reserve by 7. Armee so it's true what you write that the division never got off their start line (if you mean on the first day of the offensive), but it was never meant to. The division went in to action on Dec 22 near Heiderscheid against the US 80th Infantry. It is true that they didn't make much progress but they successfully repulsed several American counterattacks. The division suffered heavy casualties during Wacht am Rhein but wasn't "destroyed" . It fought on till late spring 1945. The same must be said about the 2. Panzer-Division. True, it lost a majority of its combat strenght when fighting the US 2nd Armored Division but still managed to pull back enough units to take active part during the remainder of the war. Words like "destroyed" related to larger units should IMO be used sparingly as they seldom match the historic facts. Heavy casualties and material destruction could surely lower combat efficiency but that's quite different from being fully destroyed.
  7. 1 point

    Black Sea or older CM game

    Take your rant somewhere else, he can decide what he wants to spend his money on.
  8. 1 point

    PC and MAC Compatibility.

    Which is why using a turn manager like CMHelper or Whose Turn Is It? can really help.
  9. 1 point

    time between lasing and shooting

    In Steel Beasts (which had opinion of being a very realistic simulation) and western tanks (M1, Leo2) the time between lasing and shooting could be be just a fraction of second. After lasing the gun tube elevation was automatically and almost instantaneously adjusted by FCS - so lasing & shooting were almost simultaneous actions - IIRC it usually it took about 0.5s between lasing and shooting. The target would have absolutely no time to react, it could manage to launch it's smoke grenades but the APFSDS would be on it's way (and it's not guided, doesn't care for smoke). At least when shooting at stationary targets it was that fast. It could be a little longer if the gynner after lasing had to correct in azimuth against moving targets. Is it the same in real tanks ? Is it the same in Russian tanks like T-72B, T-72B3, T-90 ? Never played Steel Bests 2 or SB Pro unfortunately. IIRC in T-72M (which really didn't have a true FCS) after lasing only the aiming mark moved, so the gunner has to correct gun elevation manually - that could take a while, let's say 2-3 seconds.
  10. 1 point
  11. 1 point
    If I have to be puzzled about something which has been talked about on this thread, I would say that the antipersonnel warheads on RPGs/RPOs are a little weak. Specifically, the thermobaric ones, I would expect to cause horrible casualties, in situation where the rocket actually manages to penetrate the building (I would imagine that such rockets will explode inside only if they passed through a window, a door or another opening - if they hit a wall their load would splatter against a wall). Basically, the in-game effects imho should be that if you have a squad holed up on a floor, and a RPO explodes inside that floor, no member of that squad would be able to keep fighting - think about the pressure effects the warhead has on a man's lungs, without considering the incendiary effect. Also, I was expecting the thermo warheads to have some sort of effect of their own; in WW2 CM titles we got the flamethrower effects, but in BS thermos seems to go up just like normal HE/frag to me. Are they planning to add some proper explosions or are we gonna make up with the current effects?
  12. 1 point

    Black Sea or older CM game

    Okay, here she is--hot off the press (I left icons on for this one--from a current QB against the AI): This one I did for CMBS moves quite quickly (a very fast effort and real gameplay from a turn), but shows some of the current mods in action: And here's one I did for CMRT (very staged for cinematic effect): (I can't get the blasted embed to work on this one, even though it's formatted exactly as the others. Aargh.)
  13. 1 point

    US delivers armor to baltics

    Call it what you will sir. This (i.e. your “debate” style) is absolutely the last thing that I want to digest at this point. No sir, a pm (or rather public) correspondence allows both parties to address the other side’s arguments and beliefs at their own time and leisure. For instance, I have had a lazy Sunday today and I have enjoyed browsing and contributing to this board. I can also tell you that next week this board would be the absolute last thing on my mind due to my hectic work schedule. If you and I were to exchange messages at each other’s leisure, I would be much more inclined to stay consistent and to address your points in an orderly matter. Right now (or rather 8 hours from now), I simply would not be able to afford such luxury due to my other commitments. Now I do understand that you don’t like PMs and that is your prerogative, but please understand that this (and most other) forum format benefits those that have the most time to dedicate to thme, and unfortunately that ain’t me… Right, I see that break down as the opposite (i.e. 70% local and volunteer/ 30% Russian regulars) but I think that we will both agree that these numbers are highly speculative based on our understating of the situation on the ground - that is something that we could discuss at our leisure, but again – I simply cannot commit to 24 hour (or even 7 day) turnaround time. By the time that I will have another lazy Sunday to post here, our old discussion would be completely outdated… I understand your point, but I will counter this by saying that I do not see this forum as some kind of catalyst for foreign affairs discussion, the format and content here is simply not suited for that (as opposed to a quick and factual BMP-3 vs. M2A3 debate). I try to offer my knowledge and my (however subjective) understanding of the situation on the ground in these threads. I also try real hard to only speak about things that I have a pretty decent understanding of. Unfortunately I cannot always follow up on my statements or go into more detail due to more important (to me) time commitments and priorities. Somehow, I have a feeling that I am not the only one in that predicament. Personally, I feel good about my (however limited) contribution to this forum (with an exception of my last couple of posts in the Debaltsevo thread last week that were unnecessarily rude to you). I am human and I am man enough to say that I regret those. However, this is your board sir – so if you do find my style to be counter-productive; I will gladly respect your wishes and avoid posting here. It’s your board and your rules sir.
  14. 1 point
    I agree with Kohlenklau. It WILL be great. These guys NEVER let us down so far. Screenshots are Alpha, so let's be realistic about them. Rejoice about all the units and vehicles included. This year it's really going to be a great Christmas with very little peace on earth.
  15. 1 point
    Let us think positively. It will be great. Give it time. They should set up the forum and let the ideas flow in. Maybe 1000 ideas and 5 could work. 5 they may not have thought of. Free ideas. Like snow drift flavor objects. 3D objects that can tuck into the lower edge of a building to make snow look more intense and deep. Same thing around the base of trees and poles, etc. Rocking Harry had some really great stuff. I sure hope they filter through this and jot down some that they should seriously consider. No harm if it goes in the round file, at least they took 5 seconds to read it.
  16. 1 point
    ...that said, I like kohlenklau's ideas, he is always thinking, and for the good of the game with an understanding of its limits.
  17. 1 point
    My personal CMBS testing has shown both RPOs and OG-7/TBG-7 to be quite underwhelming both in the open field and particularly in closed spaces where they should be quite deadly. I also find in-game RPG/RPO accuracy to be much lower than in real life (even when used by crack troops with no wind or other limitations). At the same time, I find US anti-personel infantry munitions (i.e. M25) to be much deadlier which would seem a bit questionable given their much smaller caliber. Those are just my personal observations, but I have heard others voice the same concearns here as well. Again, I don't blame BattleFront devs for any kind of biass; but perhaps more play/balance testing can be done with those before the next patch comes out..
  18. 1 point
    Some people can't be pleased Womble. Ever. Perish the thought that its the very first screenshots we've seen of something that is so clearly a work in progress.
  19. 1 point
    The communications is pretty killer, as it can be paired with very precision fires. It also helps with spotting I think in that neighboring squads will alert each other better to targets. Also a lot more high end optics. If you're put either unit in a fog or other degraded spotting situations, the US squad will still be marginally effective, while the Russians can go pretty Helen Keller. While Russian squads do not lack for the ability to fight at night, the passive type systems they use are not as effective at basic spotting, or as mentioned working at all in foggy/rainy conditions as the thermal type optics employed by the US. These are really your decisive elements. The ability to better spot targets, and engage them first is pretty much the definition of how to win any engagement (basically the first person to get a round broadly on target tends to win engagements more often by a level of several magnitudes). The communications piece means that your idiot dismount squad can drop some serious artillery hurt in a pretty timely manner, and at the least feed your situation awareness piece pretty well. In terms of weapons, I'd say the only real meaningful difference is the availability of the Javelin to US squads. The small arms offer no meaningful difference outside of optics, same deal with grenade launchers (M-25 is not "bad" but it is not quite the infantry eraser it is against unarmored troops). Light AT RPG type weapons are all equally marginally useful (Russians get more to shoot, but I have not seen many situations were I've slapped the desk and cursed the ability to feet another AT4/RPG into an APS system, or watched it just go "nope!" after striking armor, it's either a situation where it is enough to get the job done with 1-2 rockets, or not worth doing at all). Armor is also again, about the same, both survive and die from about the same sort of weapons.
  20. 1 point

    More Bulge Info! (and a few screenshots...)

    ...and a lifetime supply of...wait for it...SPAM !
  21. 1 point
    I also add my vote to several others on here that I sure would like to see it as a module rather than a stand alone. That way I can still play on maps I already made, plus, hopefully it would add a bit of content to the Normandy/ Market Garden scenarios. (Plus, I hate to keep installing the same program over and over, simply wastes space on the hard drive.) They were talking about a NEW CMSF instead of a 3.0 upgrade. Probably easier, but that city map I spent 200 or so hours on.... all wasted. I loved how CMBB went from, well Barbarossa to Berlin. I could build scenarios to mix and match whatever equipment I wanted. (I also love the early war stuff.) Once again, MODULE PLEASE, even if it's still $55. (I know that throws a wrench into their "CMBN Master Installer" theory though.) Mike
  22. 1 point
    I'll be stepping through a platoon attack (or attack variants) in part 2. I will cover attempting to analyze the enemy force size and how to carryout the attack with that knowledge in mind. Also, the supporting Tactical Problem (Platoon Attack scenario) is practically finished, and will follow the part 2 post (probably up next weekend) very closely.
  23. 1 point

    Kieme's modding corner

    Kieme CMBS Tunguska Special thanks to BTR for providing the ideal green base textures. Comes in green and 3-tone camo versions, please make sure you choose only one to use. Green version download: https://app.box.com/s/y40xg7xlincl3jjsh0qi2w2ma7u7cums Green version preview: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-tone camo download: https://app.box.com/s/19z7fuib25jo1muct7yzx5fgznl8fx1d 3-tone camo preview:
  24. 1 point
    "Anyone know if it is true about Top U.S. Commander Heather Cole under arrest for choosing not to comply with orders to fire nukes at Russia?" What on earth are you talking about? She was relieved for a bad command climate. That article said nothing about any sort of Nuclear first strike. She probably just ran a ****ty shop. She isn't the first and won't be the last. Also the (branch) Times newspapers have had shoddy reporting in the past, so grain of salt. And is there a translation problem, or are you implying those guys were Chevron Oil Corporation Commandos? Because lol.
  25. 1 point

    Combat training ground near Luhansk?

    You've been spending too much time around Kettler.
  26. 1 point

    Total beginner - first tips?

    Playing the demo now, most of my men have died pointless deaths. Not sure if I've killed a single enemy. I can't figure out how to fire the mortars. This is the game I was looking for. It is magnificent. Is their pvp? Not for today, but once I've got the basics, in 2020 or so.
  27. 1 point

    Total beginner - first tips?

    The game has a very steep learning curve. Once you get past that, it is very intuitive. The best tactical approach to use would be to try to be as realistic as possible. If you wouldn't risk crossing an open field in real life, don't order your pixeltruppen to do so. (Unless they beg you to allow them to prove their bravery. Then a simple nod of assent should suffice.) Find one SMALL battle (demo is fine, or the first "Training" battle in the CMBN game), and play it REPEATEDLY. Focus on fundementals; unit orders, coordination, stacked orders, etc. Good luck!
  28. 1 point
    Yes, to pinpoint unspotted ATGs to the exact action spot. Really great... Chess vs checkers. Trying to attract checkers players to play chess can only result in losing both in the long term. CM is WAAAY to complex to be attractive for the masses EVER. It will always be a niche product. Chess will also NEVER appeal to the masses. NEVER. One could pump up the graphics of chess and make it look like a FPS, but after the initial spike of shallow interest, it will again only be played by chess players who are not interested in explosions and action, but like the challenge of the mind. The same is with CM. I think the core CM-player was interested in realism above all. Now what will have the bigger impact on sales: those that like CM more because of hit decals, and therefore will buy the next game, or those disappointed customers who no longer perceive guns as threat after the first shot because of hit decals? I believe each of a disappointed core customer is a customer who bought all their products - contrary to those who are quickly attracted by shallow visual effects like hit decals and other gimmicks at the cost of degrading realism. Graphical effects attract quickly but the same crowd is also moving on to the next shallow effect in the next game. But beneath everything the core of the problem seems to be something completely different: The main game designer plays the game not in the mode the vast majority of wargamers play his products. That's never good, if you develop something and don't know, what your core customers need. There are no ladders, no campaigns, nothing played realtime. One could say: realtime does not exist among the wrgaming community. The result of this dramatic discrepancy could be observed since CMSF was released. The spotting problems as a result of keeping the calculation affordances as low as possible to make realtime play possible. Spotting works good enough for realtime but often not good enough for turn based. And I think this has dramatic consequences for potential new turnbased customers: they try the demo, recognize a strange spotting behaviour and lose interest. The 1:1 representation makes things even worse, since it leaves much less room for imagination than a symbolic representation. So again: 1:1 is attracting the visual oriented player, but if there are discrepances between presented action and results, itdegrades the experience of the customer who is interested in realism. The majority of realtime customers cannot be attracted, because FPS games offer them the much better quick action and cooler graphics. Additionally the game concept is so extremely different, that 99% will only shake their head. So the core group is lost and the big part of the massese cannot be attracted because it is chess and not checkers. I will never forget the disastrous relative hotkeys-concept when I tried CMSF the first time. What a punch into the face of WEGO-players that was. Or the water-effects since CMRT breaking FOW. Sounds from unspotted units? A problem since CMSF. But in combination with hit-decals since engine v3 this problem has been even increased instead to become solved. How easily foxholes can be spotted. Bunkers and trenches breaking FOW. And much more. I believe all these are results of a design process done from a realtime-player's perspective and therefore many of the problems are only discovered very late in the design process, or even too late after implementation. Instead that Battlefront had followed their former clear path torwards realism and protected and taken care of their brilliant WEGO-child, they lost this focus and now, with an ageing engine, they are sitting between the chairs, trying to keep new shallow action-customers somehow interested while they lose more and more of realism-focused wargamers which one after the other slowly give up, because the problems persist year after year and game after game and sometimes even become worse.
  29. 1 point

    throwing grenades

    While this is true, the range at which they can "close assault" from cover is very short. Frankly, if a tank is that close, it deserves a good kicking from the infantry that its owner couldn't be bothered to screen for. Sure, sometimes there might be an MG42 that would, if every motion of every pTruppe was explicitly modelled, provide overwatch and scratch the fleas off the back of the armour, but 30m is too damn close to cover, and it only takes one bit of covered approach the MG can't reach for the grunts to ruin the tankers' day. As an incentive to keep your arms combined, it works real good.
  30. 1 point

    throwing grenades

    The grenade throwing is an abstraction for the sorts of placebo-effect weapons that infantry had too, like the S.T. bomb, Hawkins mine, Tellermine, etc. These weapons were all of varying effectiveness and never guaranteed a kill but hey were better than nothing. They don't really warrant specific modeling effort because any way you cut it close assaulting tanks was a really crappy job. I remember in CMFI I lost most of a platoon of riflemen to a Tiger who succeeded in immobilizing the vehicle, but failed to knock it out. They *all* expended every grenade they had, this result while frustrating, is what keeps the game exciting to me. Because just the previous scenario one grenade from a team of 4 guys knocked out a Panzer IV. The game is all about hedging bets and working with what you've got. Not demanding and expecting specific results according to what you read in a Jane's guide 20 years ago.
  31. 1 point
    John Kettler

    Russian tank track skirts

    Apocal, The English language must be terribly confusing to people trying to learn it. Are we talking guards made of mud, something like China's famous clay warriors, or are they guarding mud. If the latter, why guard at all, given effectively unlimited supplies? And that's over an above the now not so obvious, if running across the term without knowing tanks or having an image to work from, guarding against mud? Weighty questions, to be sure. Now, if you want to talk mudbugs, I'm there! Shall need beer, though. Dozza, This is turning into quite an education for me. During my Hughes days one of my first assignments was to figure out how the Russians could render WASP, a brilliant swarm antitank missile which used active MMW guidance, useless. One of the things we came up with was using track guards to hide the telltale track reflections, especially when moving. Back then, the Russian tank force, as we saw it, was T-62s and T-55s, neither of which had skirts. The T-64, which did, was never seen in public back then, was never paraded. The US learned of the T-64 in the late 1970s, and there wasn't even a CIA report on the T-64B until October of 1984. In fact, we had no sighting of the T-64B until 1980. In my entire career in military aerospace I never saw a single CIA document. They had lots of control markings which kept them out of defense contractor hands. What I saw came out of DIA or Army Intelligence. This hiding the tracks concept may (note conditional) explain the embedded metal fibers in the T90 series track skirts and, presumably, the mud guards. The Russians were the world leader in MMW systems, and the US was trying desperately to catch up. The T-72 , which started with gill armor, was officially accepted as a State approved weapon in 1973. Interestingly, the Wiki has a link to BFC's T-72: Balkans on Fire. I don't know, having never seen anything on the matter at all in terms of more than cursory info, when the Russians switched from straight rubber (what we thought when we saw them), to the current material. But then, the US didn't have a single T-72 to examine until after the SU collapsed in 1989. Regards, John Kettler
  32. 1 point
    I recommend to play only in the turn-based system - in real time - we will have a slide show on the screen. Besides, very cool campaign
  33. 1 point

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    Though the worst piece of the movie, that part with the Tiger was only one small episode. I think they were trying to depict hitting the tank with smoke then covering open ground quickly and getting behind him. Their plan fizzled when the Tiger didn't cooperate and instead rolled forward through the smoke to meet them. Necessitation keeping all three Shermans in the same frame (and not widely separated dots on the horizon) for movie purposes kind'a screwed up the depiction of the tactic.
  34. 1 point

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    I went last night and enjoyed it. If you think movies should be tactical training tools used in staff colleges around the world: do not go. If you think movies should be documentaries, with every single t crossed and i dotted: do not go. If, on the other hand, think movies are a good way of telling stories and examining the human condition: go. Go see it at a theatre with comfy seats, a big screen, excellent stereo, and enjoy yourself. Even better is that afterwards you get to giggle at all the joyless dicks who'd rather count rivets than immerse themselves in a well told story for over two hours. "nothing I can't see on youtube"? FFS. Miss the point, much?
  35. 1 point


    womble - sure there was overkilling. But there was also plenty of flat out missing. Not everyone in the firing formation is an ace, some have the wrong range estimate, the targets start moving, smoke gets popped or targets brew up and obscure lines of sight, the targets try to take cover, gunners get excited... Combat fire is not firing range fire, basically, and its achieved hit rates reflect it. You can engage still at long ranges and have a quite good effect, if you just have enough shooters and enough target exposure time. But no, they don't need a TRP and they typically aren't boresighted or anything that elaborate. It is enough that one company gets the drop on the other. The operational histories are full of cases of companies or even whole battalions of tanks being engaged by enemy AT shooters and really not having much in the way of reply, certainly of effective reply. They get shot up and they pull out and lick their wounds, without having done much of anything back. As for ranges, sometimes as low as 800 yards, sometimes as long as 2.5 kilometers. At the longer ranges, often the shooters are never even located ; the targeted formation has their attention riveting on what is happening to them, very rapidly, and then on their defensive measures. In CM terms, "panic" for a tank crew does happen, but they typically continue to spot well and even shoot back effectively, when in real life that often breaks down completely. Seeing 3 friendlies brew up and being under effective heavy AT fire is often enough to make any idea of fighting back effectively the farthest thing from the tanker's mind, just like being under sustained MG fire often leads an infantryman to bury his face in the dirt, not scan the horizon for muzzle flashes and try to duel effectively with his own single shot rifle. Men are not all heroes. Combat is terrifying, and men get out of it when it is clearly going against them - if they can.
  36. 1 point
    The Translucent trees mod v2.0 doesn't work in RT. It has 5% far and near and 10% far and near, which was nice. No name in the readme and I don't recall who made this one, but I'm hating not having it. I would go as far as to say I miss this more than any other mod of the many I use, which surprised me when I put some thought into it. Show trunks only at close range is horrible, imho, and I'm not about to play with trees off. Anyway, I hope someone with the necessary skills will see this and make it happen. Much obliged, in advance!
  37. 1 point
    But I do love me some Game of Thrones. Worth taking a few minutes from the current pbems to watch.
  38. 1 point

    Saferight's Mods

    Thanks for testing that.
  39. 1 point
    Not Yes, but Hell Yes. And if Redwolf says it's worth the money, then you really know it is. (He hates everything)
  40. 1 point

    Air Strikes

    Your AA units will fire on anything that comes in range. CAS will find its targets by flying over, deciding what they just saw, attacking it, missing it wildly, and then go home and report complete success. You can hide and it may or may not help, but you can't avoid blue on blue. That is going to happen with air attacks on occasion.
  41. 1 point

    Mod for hedge "holes"

    As a scenario designer I always put a different terrain tile under any gaps in the bocage to make them easier to pick out.
  42. 1 point

    Mod wish #2: sparse bocage

    It'd be great to have a bocage mod that lets you see where the gaps in the bocage are. GaJ
  43. -1 points

    Graphics suck?!!?!?!

    I think that overhauling graphics might increase sales, however the real problem, in my opinion, is that Battlefront sales strategy is a little bit dated already. All the above mentioned games are distributed through many, many different online distributors, Steam, etc. Even Matrix Games is gradually moving to Steam. However, Battlefront doesn't want to share any revenues with anyone, which in turn means that they distribute on their own, they have small sales numbers, they charge high price, etc. It was ok 10 years ago, when most of the games were sold on shelves, however distribution costs have decreased a lot over the last 10 years. Yes, you have to share revenues with distributor, but market size is many times more what you currently have. And more sales means more revenues (yes, with lower margin), which in turn generates money for future projects. Like somebody said, war games are not a niche anymore. CM games stand out from other tactics games, they are really a gem. But for some reason, Battlefront cowers in the woods, does not show up in the big market with a really good product. If i was Battlefront, i would at least try for one year to go to "large waters" and see what happens. By the way, to be honest, i found about CM only by reading some blogs, while Total War series is to some extent crap, but everyone knows about it. And finally, short comment to what Steve said about 2-3 years of new engine development. They don't have to reinvent wheel and create new rendering engine. They could licence Unity 3D or any other already well established, cross-platform, rendering engine and spend time only on developing game logic. Just my 2 cents
  44. -1 points
    John Kettler

    John Kettler's Omnibus Thread

    Everyone, The purpose of this thread is to provide a central location into which I can put information and the like which I deem significant and worth knowing about, as well as my own observations and opinions, subject to the usual BFC rules, as well as certain request and strictures coming from BFC. In this way, there should be no further thread proliferation and "real post" ranking issues. Other members are, of course, welcome to participate in what I post, but I ask that you be respectful. Argue against the ideas I present; don't attack me. As some may have noted, I have formal requests in to the Mods to kill two separate threads. If they choose to do so, that should further alleviate matters on the CMBS Forum as a whole. Regards, John Kettler
  45. -1 points
    LukeFF, I really do wish you'd stop slamming me, both directly and indirectly. It's rude, abusive and cruel. Worse because you keep choosing to attack someone who's not only disabled but also recuperating from a serious injury. Your ongoing pattern of doing this also involves, based on my read, at least, multiple violations of the Forum Rules you agreed to as a condition of being a participant here, the same deal everyone else here made. I think you're grown up enough that you can express an opinion on your own--without having to drag me into it. Please do so. Do Right, PAL is Permissive Action Link, and it's not a program you load into a computer. The link explains what a PAL is and how it works. As for patches, at 1:07 in the vid I see what used to be the patch for KGB Spetsnaz Alpha, now FSB Spetsnaz Alpha. The patch on the man's left shoulder which, even with my nil Russian, reads ANTITERROR, appears to me to be identical to the one in the upper right at the Lost Ivan link. Here's what I don't know. Is he the real deal, or is he wearing it because he's a member of some sort of separatist Spec Ops unit and/or as some sort of martial fashion statement? Having watched footage of Alpha in action, I'd say he's not the real deal. Those guys carry themselves considerably differently and well, send out a different vibe, for want to a better word. Girkin/Strelkov is a known (cough) retired FSB GRU Colonel. Later, in a since redacted interview posted online, he admitted he was an FSB colonel. Alpha in action! Codename Duchess, Is the periodical/site you sort of named some sort of sacred cow that you didn't name it completely? Regarding Captain Heather Cole, the quote I see here refers to "loss of confidence" in her ability to command. Is that the same as a bad command climate, or is that something else? The comments make interesting reading, for some are by people who served under her at other commands. They thought she was a good CO. But directly pertinent to the issue Do Right raised about the purported refusal to launch nuclear weapons is the source of the story is evidently The European Union Times. A bit on that from the Southern Poverty Law Center which, from what I've seen, is extremist in its own way. I strongly suspect the unnamed principal is, in fact, Sorcha Faal aka David Booth. Once in three or four blue moons said "worthy" puts out a story that's actually true. But for all the flak I get here from some, I practically convulse with laughter after encountering one breathless story after another directly sourced to inside the GRU, by implication within the Aquarium. Say what you like about Suvorov/Rezun, but he was in it, and I totally believe what he said about its mania for secrecy. Were there such a source, I'd expect a very short productive period before there was no source, other than smoke from the on-site crematorium! Other commenters talk about the apparent explosion of command removals under Obama. 300 according to one. Nor does the section Relieved of Command make cheery reading. The depth and breadth of commands affected, to me, speaks to organizations under acute stress, with the Navy the hardest hit because it's the Navy as a service which is carrying, and has been carrying, the biggest load for the longest time, and it just keeps getting worse. I have no handle on what Obama's doing and why, other than that he has no respect for the military, can't be bothered to understand it, yet has no compunctions about demanding ever more from it, regardless of the costs. Moving on. General question Can anyone say, one way of the other, whether the CO in the Luhansk training ground video is a Russian officer? Whoever he is, he sure has a ramrod straight spine, feet apart bestriding his domain, total confidence and positively radiates authority. He comes across as being used to command and relishes it. Also, I thought I heard the term "komandir brigada," which I took to mean Brigade Commander. If so, I would think, given the way I understand the separatists are organized, he'd be a very big deal indeed. Regards, John Kettler
  46. -1 points
    kohlenklau, RAC is truly horrified. After comparing the masonry courses on the Mark VI Light Tank with those painted on the Universal Carrier, there is now official concern to the effect that in the event of a rumored invasion of Malta, the UC's paint job may lead it be incorrectly IDed as Italian, with likely disastrous outcome, and the already overworked Royal Engineers will, in order to make sure the UC doesn't expose itself via jarring diagonal pattern, tentatively designated "Drunken Maltese," against a horizontal series of courses common to both Maltese buildings and freestanding walls, is not at all happy about having to crash build stone facades for all stone buildings and walls in the AO of the UC. GOC is expected to have a fit over this. He thinks keeping the runway open and free of constantly the Luftwaffe supplied bomb craters is more important than making sure the UC seamlessly blends in with walls. He is, of course, wrong! The above is a bit of military whimsy to ask you why you didn't model your new camouflage job based on the exemplar you provided? I believe you've got some info bleed going from the Matilda II on Crete in a stonework pattern more nearly resembling yours. It's in SGTJKJ's June 5, 2008 post. I always thought that scheme was very cool, especially when someone built a 1:35 scale model of a Matilda II in same and set it in a diorama. http://armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=119940&page=1 Turning now to the designer's ability to ding up AFVs and such as part of the design, I think it's a shame you can't do that. I highly recommend that BFC find a way to do this, since it creates all sorts of fascinating options. Theoretically, my idea ought to be doable. As we know, though, what seems simple and doable to the idea proposer tends not to be when it meets all the attendant issues over in BFC's tiny code writing section. I think it's very cool you have Malta advisors and that you've BTDT yourself. Regards, John Kettler
  47. -1 points
    Was researching a battle near Debrecen, Hungary when I saw this in the sidebar and just had to see what it was. The encounter was very nearly fatal--because I found myself convulsing. With laughter! Having seen but brief clips from the impressive film covering that iconic battle, I'm sure most of what's here goes over my head, but even so... Regards, John Kettler
  48. -1 points
    The problem with the Bulge is that it gets over-focused on the Southern-Shoulder and Bastogne; where the Germans had all their initial scraps of success, and of course where the media ran hog-wild. The Northern-Shoulder is far more interesting, imo. Many German units never got off their start line; like the 79th VolksGren which actually got counterattacked and destroyed after repeated failure. 2nd Panzer also attacked more towards the North and was the closest to the Meuse, if memory serves, before being blunted and destroyed by the 2nd Armored. Alot of interesting stuff for the community to do between the Bulge and Nordwind, I just hope its not all tired and already-visited areas.
  49. -1 points

    Black Sea or older CM game

    The important part is that you DONT support the paid engine Updates. If they want me to pay for them then make a core version (which could also be the demo) and separate the data content from it so people dont have to pay for every game if they want the new engine. Imagine v4.0 arrives and you have CMRT, CMBN and CMFI...you would have to pay 30$ to update them all...or just spend 10$ for the update of the core version and play CMRT, CMBN and CMFI with engine v4.0.
  50. -3 points
    John Kettler

    new war movie

    Jorge MC, What a find! This looks like a great war movie, at a very intimate level, too, as well as covering aspects of the GPW to my knowledge never before seen. So nice to see the right equipment for the period, though I did catch something interesting about some of the T-34/85s. Many thanks for sharing this first rate trailer. Regards, John Kettler