• 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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About Apocal

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  • Location
  • Interests
    Military History, Wargames, First Person Shooters, Simulations

Recent Profile Visitors

491 profile views
  1. Strip a platoon from both leading companies or use the engineers, recon troops, etc. as a fourth maneuver company. You have to fight your companies flatter, without their own reserves, but generally it is hard to have a trailing platoon commit to the action in a meaningful manner without getting blasted in the same way as the first two, at least in my experience. So I'm not losing much doing that. The downside is that I usually don't care enough to run battalion-level scenarios.
  2. Eh, it isn't just scale. You really don't get the full gist of armored warfare because in pretty much every scenario, that attackers running into an intact, prepared defense capable of repelling armor. That certainly happens, but after a breakthrough, it was the exception rather than the rule. If that weren't the case, none of those bold, grandiose advances would have happened because the first village armor rolled through guns a-blazin' they would have gotten blown the hell up. In the real deal, there were a very great number of very hasty attacks made against scattered remnants of fought-out units that could hardly have mustered a trio of panzerfausts between them. Even so, their small arms (particularly machine guns) represented a very credible threat to things other than AFVs. So those sort of holdouts might be able to delay dismounts and force them to expend time, effort and ammunition rooting them out but against tanks there was, in essence, sweet f***-all they could do. Frequently they didn't even try -- preferring life over a glorious death, natch -- and instead slithered away in darkness or surrendered , either outright or to follow-on forces. I thought there was one scenario depicting the above in CMRT, but it turns out the briefing was misleading and the Germans had nearly as much armor as the attacking Russians, and an arguably superior mix as well. I understand why, certainly, but it sort of takes away another dimension to tactics, battle command and decision-making. It isn't a perfect analogy but you're holding a straight and working the entire table, figuring the odds are against anyone holding anything better and seeing how much you can take from them. Most fold, but some don't and it is up to you to decide whether to back down or call their bluff. That's kind of why I wish there was an operational layer because you could see this sort of thing crop-up organically and give a feeling for what is typically doable for an unsupported infantry force against meaningful amounts of attacking armor. There are ways for the infantry to win that fight, but they are exceptions to the times when the defenders simply make sure the juice isn't worth the squeeze for marauding armor, such as intelligently prepared defenses that leverages poor terrain against the tanks, channelizes them with obstacles and mines, takes away the attacker's combined arms by separating tanks from dismount protection and the dismounts from the firepower of the tanks, mortars/artillery and mines to deny movement foot mobility, etc. A lot of times, an "operational win" can be had just by delaying the armor or giving them a "pop to the mouth" and making them gun-shy about brazenly assaulting your positions. Other times you might present them with a "soft spot" for easy penetration that is actually your chosen killing ground with plenty of defenders backed by anti-tank firepower that results in the typical CMx2-style blowout losses that a hasty, highly aggressive attack with armor endures. That being said, I agree with most of the rest of what you wrote.
  3. Nobody else had armored formations, with AFVs numbering in the triple digits, fall apart inside of a weak with only minimal enemy contact. For all their failures, I don't think any French armored formation had over ninety percent of its tanks lost while just moving around on the map like the Soviet 15th Mech Corps.
  4. Alright, but waiting years for DLC is a bit unusual. It seems like porting over a vehicle pack would be quicker and easier than an actual full module.
  5. I remember the plan was for another DLC that would take CMRT to the end of the war but it has been years waiting at this point. So now I'm just asking if there will be something like the vehicle pack, where we can finally get the Lend-Lease equipment, even without scenarios or campaigns to match.
  6. My reason for getting it.
  7. I used an old installer, downloaded in 2012, then added the patches.
  8. A totally fresh install, although years back I had the game on this computer. Licensing went fine, no problems there, but out of the three games, CMBN has some weird issue with uniform skins being mostly gone (American packs and shovels still appear textured and present), there being no helmets and some unit icons being black squares of nothing. Has anyone else seen this issue?
  9. The armies wouldn't get one TOS, the guy with however many BTGs currently busting open a fortified city or thick belt of defenses would get all twelve. But they can't really concentrate fires in the way tube and rocket artillery can, due to short range. So they are essentially forced to babysit the launchers during employment. At any rate, there probably isn't any problem with the system beyond limited range, since the Russians actually bothered developing an upgrade about ten or so years back, the TOS-1A, which extended the range to six kilometers.
  10. It has a maximum range of only six kilometers and how many massive urban battles or fortified strongholds do you expect your army to face simultaneously?
  11. I don't really use off-board artillery, so I didn't notice the issue you pointed out.
  12. I know. I have made scenarios. I also played through a pair of mini-campaigns that did the trick in CMSF.
  13. SD is substantially more realistic than Panzer General was in its day, and we all considered that a wargame, right? CMx2 can't really throw too many stones regarding unrealistic behavior though. I still remember when MG teams were basically toothless and couldn't fulfill their real life doctrinal role in CMBN or CMFI, even when placed on a pool-table flat map against rifle-armed infantry walking upright and not firing back. More importantly, SD gets the important bits of reading the battle, command decision-making and application of combined arms correct. If you go for symmetrical matchups (i.e. tanks on tanks, infantry on infantry, etc.) you wind up taking outsized losses. What the game (and other players pointing out) teaches is the idea that for every tactical problem, there is a counter. ATGs stop tank rushes. Infantry provide defensive "staying power" in close terrain. Machine guns deny movement to dismounts and soft-skinned vehicles. Tanks give fire support as long as they are protected. The application of combined arms isn't about gathering all the constituent elements into a ball of combat power and throwing them wholesale into whatever the enemy puts in front of you but rather looking at the enemy in the same way a mechanic would an engine to be disassembled; carefully picking out each tool, as needed in turn. If the existing problem is insurmountable, the correct solution isn't to try to pull a tactical rabbit out of your combined arms bag, but instead either back off or escalate. It is kinda cool to see that in action, particular when playing on a large 10v10 (player) map. I think CMx2 offers something a bit different, more detailed and such as far as modeling goes, but less realistic in some aspects, such as tanks being better able to spot infantry (for the WW2 games) than real history suggests is the case, thereby harming the historical balance of combined arms. Overall I would say CMx2 is a better simulation if only the morale model was a bit more brittle and units more inclined to flee than fight after casualties, while missions were re-jiggered to make losses hurt more than taking objectives helped.
  14. The fun is being presented with plausible military challenges a modern commander might face and his likely options, regardless of the sexiness -- or lack thereof. Think of it as a boxing game and the clinch. Clinching is pretty unexciting and arguably unimaginative. Certainly no one wants to watch twelve rounds of it. But it represents a valid counter to certain moves and can be integrated into a wider strategy for winning matches, so pretty much every boxing game that goes beyond the most ridiculously cartoonish depiction includes the clinch. Most any wargame with a persistent force mechanic can offer the same dilemma facing a real commander, who does have to make command decisions such as when to break off a fight going bad or when pushing harder through a tough defense is desirable, rather than simply having to reach deeper and deeper into his bag of tactical tricks until he's expected to pull a rabbit out.