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

Pete Wenman

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Pete Wenman

  • Rank
    Pete W

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Battle of Britain country
  • Interests
    Aviation art & military history


  • Location
  • Interests
    Aviation Art & Military History

Recent Profile Visitors

1,613 profile views
  1. Who's winning the tank war?

    Because that would never happen
  2. Who's winning the tank war?

    You can picture the scene where several T-90s are racing up the M20 from Dover to London, when an unexpected knocking noise causes them to halt. At which point two dozen Somalis from the Jungle jump out of the ammo bins and disappear into the undergrowth p
  3. A revised version replacing the PzIII with Char B-2 (f) has been up on the repository pretty much since the vehicle pack came out. As you say the vehicle pack is required in order for this version to work http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=3382 and here's the file MG Borderland_vp.btt P
  4. Sounds like Borderland. Germans attack from west (left map edge) P
  5. Finally I have completed An August Morning..

    @dark helix Glad you enjoyed it, and finally got to beat it This is the training film from my recruit days that was the inspiration for the mission. It obviously made a strong impression on me back in 1984 that I was able to remember it and then find it online. An August Morning was an attempt to recreate the situation shown and how hard it can be to find and overcome even quite a small force. It's a just a shame I was not able to make the mission using British troops ! P
  6. How to use Pioneer bridge ramps on SPW 251/7?

    The two ford closest to the bridges are "shallow fords" and can be crossed by both vehicles and infantry, the two outer fords are "deep fords" and so only infantry can use them. P
  7. Unofficial Screenshots & Videos Thread

    ^^^ This Thanks. Interesting fact is that this map is a reworking of a CMSF map I did (not a game release map, but it was available on the repository) and while being a very close match in the editor the look is totally different due to the terrain tiles and game enhancements of BS over SF. P
  8. Unofficial Screenshots & Videos Thread

    @Rinaldi Great AAR and I love all the low down with the infantry views.That's how I play the game and how I like to see it. When making this scenario I weighted the balance in favour of the Russians attacking as AI which does mean in H2H that the defender has a very tough job and is unlikely to win. Regardless it looks like you both made the best use of the assets available, and as you say it does show how much of a meat grinder modern warfare is. P
  9. Sulomon vs Sid: A Quick Battle AAR

    Great to see this map featuring in an AAR. It's one of those that is really subtle to fight on with interesting LOS P
  10. BTR-4E Armament

    That's interesting as I'm testing things here also. I'm targeting trees and empty buildings (3 storey modular) and no APDS rounds have been used even when the cannon has expended all its HE. It's also interesting that the cannon has to pause firing when its own smoke blocks LOS, while the AGS does not create any smoke and so not have this problem. The AGS however has a massive beaten zone. More control over multiple weapons would be nice, but I suspect no time soon. P
  11. BTR-4E Armament

    In that case they all have the AGS, but getting it to fire is more tricky. It looks like the 30mm cannon fires 30mm HE-1 and the AGS (30mm HE) will not be used until the cannon has used its HE-1 up. HTH P
  12. BTR-4E Armament

    @markus544 Just to check are you unable to find the BTR-4E or do you mean that those you can find don't have the AGS-17 ? P
  13. Preplanned smoke not appearing

    Just to check but smoke is turned on (alt K) ? If so a bit more detail would help re the scenario, arty mission type, and what happens when smoke shells land etc P
  14. FRAPS, win10

    Yep - use it all the time P
  15. This is pretty much where I got to, and the reason I went for individual scenarios. The campaign option allows for easy use of the core force file, which automatically deals with casualties and re-suppy between missions, but in order to provide any kind of natural feel to the subsequent missions also requires a high number of possible missions, most of which won't actually be used. Given that campaigns can only be against the AI this is a lot of work for not much return. Going down the route of using scenarios does require a 3rd party umpire, who will control the map damage, and hopefully be able to match that from previous battles to the current. He will also need to impose the casualty reductions on both sides forces. This can be done either by using the % reduction options in the editor and/or deleting sub units. (3rd platoon is deleted, reflecting the losses and that the remaining troops have been re-organised etc). I always thought this option for H2H would not involve too much work once the map is created, with the main work being the addition of the compounding map damage and determining the available troops for both side and setting set up zones. Playing against the AI would require a lot more work to craft AI plans and so I discarded that option. Looking at my notes I made the following observations. KIV this is based on Op Jupiter with the operation lasting about 16 hours in total - 05.00 - 21.00 hrs Overall operation timescale either imposed by the ref or agreed by both players, but must also account for the time compression seen within the game. To assist with the above each pause between battles to be at least 30 minutes of game time or longer at attackers request, but with the defender being able to utilise additional defences if a longer pause taken. (Foxholes, Trenches, Wire, MG Bunkers ?). Arty support and re-supply would increase with the length of pause. An element of RP perhaps being required here by the players and ref. Defender has the ability to withdraw some or all forces from any given location unless surrounded (subjective and down to the ref for border line case) This could result in a battle where the attacker has a walk over against a very light defence, but this is the nature of this style of play. I felt that the overall mission time and objectives should be set for each battle by the attacker, but the ref could overrule and amend these if not deemed appropriate. Likewise each player could determine the force level to be used for each mission, but again with concessions given to how close reserve forces are deemed to be to the frontline. Given the operational nature of this style of play I did not see the need for any VP to be allocated, and in my case no real concession to balance other than the determination of each sides core force and ability to resupply. My notes suggest I was then going to reduce experience, motivation and fitness to varying degrees for units where losses of 10%+ were seen for each battle. I'll carry this on a little later P