Tactical Wargamer

The old site is closing and the new one is not fully up yet so I do not believe that author registration is available yet.
Here are some: https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/?s=grid
This hex / grid thing is something I don't understand. Not trying to pick on you it's just that your post reminded me . We have computers now - I don't want to see another hex or grid ever again. Even if the underlying engine has some thing in the background there is no need for us to see it. IMHO. I see a lot of games with hexes in the UI and wonder - why? There is nothing good about hexes they were just necessary when we humans had to move stuff around. On a computer screen we can just see a realistic rendering showing hexes just breaks the immersion.

Cool I did not realize he was accepting those yet. Did you get your status granted?

Yeah I got confused - @Bootie did clear it up with his previous post.

Some further for anyone else having difficulty.............From Elvis (John)
 
 
Also, if you are sure that you have installed the 4.0 Upgrade (and I can see the utility is not where it should be) here is how you can manually create one:
"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:
-showui
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."
John
 
 

No. The new licensing system used by everything other than the original shock force does not need un-licensing. The new system has some number of activations allowed stored in the license server. Once you hit that you will not be allowed to license it but you can contact support and get more. Way back I remember that the initial number was 4. Bottom line is that most likely you will license the games on the new machine and all will be well. If not then open a support ticket and they will sort things out.
New support link is here: https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/ click on the blue new ticket button

I feel such Canadian pride!
Really love the force mixes and tech level in CMSF. Who needs APS anyways?

Ahh, CM1 operations are not at all like a true operational layer that people actually want. CM1 operations are like a series of quick battles where the front like moves as battles are win and lost.
I see no point in looking to CM1 for inspiration.

You mean like CM1 featured?     Maybe CM3 could be a remake of CM1 with better graphics.   

My hope for implementing an operational layer lies in multiplayer. There could be a real time operational map that would move as players win battles. Lets get the Hearts of Iron team onboard! 

Yep, and the ability to import the state of the map after a battle (including wrecked vehicles if possible) would be great. I'm thinking like the CMBB days.

Yikes indeed. I could see a few of my regular opponents singing up for a multi battle two year game. But not everyone - that's for sure. Where this could work though is with a group of people. There are a couple of operational level games going on at The Few Good Men site. These games have an umpire running the whole thing, a command structure for making the operational decisions and field commanders who actually play the CM games under the orders of the force commander. I quite like this way of going. A field commander can be involved in multiple battles or only a few.
Battle of the Bluge
Highway to Hell
Cracking the Nut
So this can be done NOW even without any feature from CM. I am certain that detailed battle results and TO&E import export features would really help and make the umpire's job much much easier though and would be appreciated.
 
Yes, this. I think this would be great too. I can see myself switching to this way of playing for over half my games if that were available. Please, please pretty please make this happen one day @Battlefront.com
 
True. I personally don't see BFC actually doing this themselves. It would be good to see some features to help those that are running operational level games but that's about as far as they might go. But hey who know what cool ideas Steve might surprise us with.

By any measure the expansion of option in the Campaign script can hardly be described as an operational layer. The latter type of simulation must encompass considerations such as supply, logistics, R&R, the management of many different types of units not just combat units and how all these components effectively interact with each other. Combat Ops (albeit with its flaws) is perhaps the best example of a such a simulation of ww2 operational warfare.
it's easy to appreciate how remote CM is from something accurately reflecting combat at the operational level, and why Bf steer well clear of developing it for CM; i mean why consider doing it unless you can ensure you can do it well! Anything less thorough than Combat Ops would only prove to be a massive disappointment!

The current CM campaign mode is nothing more than providing a broader context and tracking of player progress over a series of battles. It is not an operational layer and it's clear it never will develop into this.   

To my mind there are only two realistic possibilities for the future:

1) Campaigns could very easily be activated for 2 player H2H email play. I'm confident this will happen at some point and Steve did acknowledge once upon a time that it would be at least be considered at some point in the future. I think the more people indicate they would like this feature, the more likely it will happen because if Bf don't think there is the demand for it, then they won't invest time to do it. 

2) The tracking data from battle results could be dumped as an .xml file which players could then use to set up or load into another game that plays out operational tasks and actions. I think this was the hope with the community led development of a game  - as stickied on the forums - but has clearly now fallen on stony ground. Because no one could make use of such a feature straight out of the traps, I cannot see this feature coming to pass... like ever.

The proposition to add more than a binary direction to the single player campaigns is not going to significantly add anything to CM in this regard. The proposal merely adds multiple possible narratives to a set narrative  - rather like one of those RPG story books where the reader navigates a path through the narrative by a series of choices. Whilst novel at first, it would soon lose appeal because it wouldn't add anything significantly different or immersive to the current gaming experience. and that's assuming that campaign designers wanted to make use of such a feature in any case, which is questionable.  

H2H campaigns however is a game changer. By exercising a little imagination the community (even Bf scenario designers) will be able to build campaigns that combine single player battles against the AI with H2H battles. Suddenly, the one-sided steam roller attack against the AI has context alongside the knife-edge tactical fight with a human opponent.  This would get away from the balance that's required in scenario battles to keep 2 players interested and introduce an immersive quality that you are fighting in something much bigger and more meaningful. It means every kind of scenario arising from operational level decisions could all have critical game play value; the players engaging with the narratives by connecting more tangibly with their own successes or shortcomings. I suspect the possibilities would be prised open such that H2H scenario designers would be incentivised to go a step further and become H2H campaign designers. Net result more campaigns created than scenarios for the community. A big big win - this is surely the way forward to add value to CM gameplay and it requires little investment effort on the part of Bf. Please make it happen Bf!! 
 

Hi steve and devs. its been a while to visit this forum. I was surprised that CMSF3 forum appears. I reallly enjoying AARs of BRAND NEW CMSF game. 
But at the same time im also looking for operational map of CMSF like one of graviteam tactics. is it planned for future CM series?

These slight elevation changes is one thing that COMBAT MISSION does very well imo. They actually do matter  !! (most of the time 😎)..
Other games might look better but very few have a simular level of detail when it comes to these kind of things.

The post on the mod site says that grids are optional. It is very likely that to get the grid you would have to rename or delete the non grid folder. He usually includes a text file with instructions.

Well, this is a bit off topic but a first post so let's not fuss too much. There is the FAQ thread here:
 
Check out the New To Multiplayer section for tools that help with turn management and sources of opponents.

Agreed. I've just given up on trying to reinstall the game(s). I've lost a few of my key codes and the ones I do have don't seem to work.

It's a major bummer because I've been playing this game since the very first incarnation and I've purchased every single WW2 game and module they've put out.

I would be willing to spend even more money for an all-in-one install. As it is, I really have no idea where to begin with a reinstall and I honestly don't have the patience.

It is such a great game . . . but I really have to weigh the fun of playing with the frustration of TRYING to play.

I have it installed right at this moment. A great time waster

OMG, so I’m not alone in loving Flight Commander II! I can’t believe how long ago that was...

hehe your age is showing there.  I have visions of my father threatening to toss his Christmas present VCR out onto the lawn when he couldn't figure out the instructions.   
I reload and relicense CM as much if not more than most here.  Between beta testing, upgrading my PC, doing new hard drive configurations etc and CM has gotten pretty darn easy.You download the full installer and you use the activate short cuts for the modules you have purchased.  If you are having to change things on your machine to get it working, you are likely f**king up your machine independently of the game.  As one who is getting close to retirement I sympathize.  I am sure I'll be there soon enough...

skates close to the edge, but not sure if it crosses - you'll know if you get your wrist slapped in a PM. Been there

I googled it and found a view videos on steam. I loved WSIM from Avalon Hill. My first impression was this looked really cool, then I watched the video for a bit longer and I am suspecting this is gonna be more like World of Tanks with ships.

It uses the old Soviet Army manuals, then extrapolates them into the present. I found it useful.
 
Russian doctrine hasnt really changed tactically since the Soviet times. The tactical principles are still the same, just the quality and type of equipment to apply to them has changed ,as has the reliance upon lower level leaders to use these principles instead of being directed to do so.
 
The soviet military considered a "tactical" unit in 1989 to be a battallion, now the AFRF considers it is a company. The introduction of battalion tactical groups as building blocks for creating task forces instead of using a battallion to attack along a 500m axis indicates this more flexible approach and the new reliance upon intuitive lower level leaders and NCOs that the west has been doing for some time. However in fighting the tactical battle and at levels CMBS is concerned with, the TTPs are still the same.

Id reccomend reading the Close Combat Marine Workbook, which can be found here http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/dm/CCMWorkbookMcBreen2002.pdf. Excelent resource i've used for many other games.

I'm going to run an "open to all comers" operation on the CMBN forum. I will create two threads, one Allied, and one Axis. Each thread will show screenshots of each sides starting deployment in a small semi historical PzC scenario i have made. Once the participants have decided which side to play, i want them to put forward plans of attack that i will translate to the PzC game. If there are conflicting plans of attack team will have to vote on which to implement, if a decision cannot be made, i will decide which plan is used. I will then post updated screenshots of the new positions after each operational turn. When a CM battle is created, i want players that have high turn rates to fight them, and post the AAR's on their sides thread. I will post an introduction thread in the next few days, describing the scenario, and showing the operational hex map.

I and noob talked this over and I will halt this AAR until he has got his big show case started. I never intended to offend noob and I’m happy we worked it out. In fact noob have been watching our progress in this campaign from the sideline to see how it all works since the start. I just started this AAR after a request here on the forum.



I agree when it comes to playing PzC on its own, then its nice to reduce the amount of emails sent. When doing the combination and such a large focus is on CM I don’t mind it. Both because the scenario we are playing is so small, the amount of turns isn’t that big anyway but mainly because I think the different phases in PzC works so well with the allocation of artillery assets for the defending and attacking player in a CM action.




Thanks . You might want to check this out, even though it’s out dated it’s a good read: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105008&highlight=CMPzC