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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I have a scenario designed which needs playtesting. It is the German naval raid on Granville, France, 8 March 1945 and is semi-historical. From the general briefing: By March 1945, the war had moved on from Normandy, on, into the Reich itself. German forces though, were still near by, on the Channel Islands. Blockaded and isolated, they were, as far as the Allies concerned, a self-contained POW camp holding roughly the equivalent of 2 full divisions of infantry and their supporting arms. Hitler had decreed that they were never to be allowed to fall back into British hands and had turned them into a fortress, mounting huge guns, honeycombed by tunnels and defensive works. They were to become, "anchored battleships", posted in the Channel. However, by March 1945, the situation for the garrison in the islands was grim. Fuel, of all kinds, including coal, food and other staples of life were growing short. If it was grim for the occupiers, it was even grimmer for the occupied. So, the garrison commander, Rear-Admiral Huffmeier (although its more likely to have been his immediate predecesser, Count von Schmettow, Field-Marshal von Runstedt's nephew) hatched an audacious plan. Just across the channel on the coast of France, within sight almost of the islands lay the port of Granville. The Allies had occupied it and it was being used as a minor port, to supply the local troops in the area. On 7 March, 1945 several small coasters were observed in the port of Granville, including the small British freighters Kyle Castle, Nephrite, and Parkwood, and Norwegian merchantman Heien. Most importantly, one, the Eskwood a collier was present. Now was their chance, they could mount a quick raid on the garrison, capture the coal ship and give the Allies a bloody nose. So, on the night of 8 March, a small force of infantry mounted an equally small fleet composed of minesweepers and R-boats and sailed for Granville to attack the largest Army on the continent. Their initial landing was almost completely unopposed. The outer harbour was quickly secured, along with several small coasters, including the precious collier. The American response was swift though. Although only a small affair, it reminded the world, with the Ardennes counter-attack, how much fighting spirit the German war-machine still held. Any takers? Post your name and email address and I'll email the scenario to you.
  2. Interesting. A good contrast with the Australian experience in Korea, where no such episodes occurred. As there is no death penalty under our military law, any NCO who did that would have to be tried for murder. Is there a similar situation under American military law? I've only ever heard of one incidence of "fragging" in the AMF which occurred during the Vietnam war, just before the end of the tour of one of our infantry battalions. As a consequence, the entire battalion was held back a month, in South Vietnam while the court-martial progressed. Apparently the defendent was placed in close confinement more for his own protection than anything else. One has to wonder about the discipline of a force where shooting one's own soldiers is apparently commonly accepted and where the soldiers murder their own officers on whim.
  3. Perhaps one of the best war autobiographies to ever appear. The information in these books should be treated with considerable caution, as has been pointed out many times on the Yahoo mailing list devoted to the study of Japanese Armour, "Senshagun". They are basicly reprints of US Army intelligence reports are often wildly inaccurate and racially biased as well. I'd recommend looking at Akira Taki's web page, if you want accurate information on Japanese AFV's. Another good webpage to look at is this page. [ February 18, 2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Ogadai ]
  4. Combat Mission Gold

    First Irish Voice: "Ssssh! Be quiet Jimmy! I tell you, its around here somewhere, a huge warehouse of the most amazing guns and tanks and everything!" Second Irish Voice: "Are yer sure, Sean? Will the Provos be willing to pay?" First Irish Voice: "Of course! Have you ever heard of them knocking back a chance to get their grubby hands on a gun?" Second Irish Voice: "To be sure, to be sure, yer right there, lad. So, where is this huge warehouse then?" First Irish Voice: "Just down this laneway, around the corner. Here yer go! Quick, with the Jemmy and will get that lock off! Sssh! Whats that?" [sounds of gunfire, screams, armoured vehicles, artillery rounds exploding] Second Irish Voice: "Bugger! Thats torn it! Sounds like they're practicing with them weapons! Lets scarper!" [sound of running boots disappearing in the distance] American Voice: "And you can see, the game has been improved markedly, gentlemen. Yes, in our new Irish Warehouse we have several thousand copies of Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin" available. Yes, our phones are open right now..."
  5. Gun accuracy...just an idea

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I say this because a few folks on this forum and who have been involved in the production of this GREAT game have such respectable credentials (or should have by way of knowledge demonstrated in this forum eg. Jason Cawley) <hr></blockquote> Errr, is this the same JasonC who tried to convince us that the history books had miscounted the number of Fireflys in service with 21 Army Grp? :eek: I'd also be very carefully at believing statistical research can fully replace imperical. Not so long ago a link was posted to a picture of a US M4 Sherman which had had a Japanese 37mm AT gun fire a round down its tube. Exactly how would you quantify the likelihood of that occuring? Human experience and the sheer flukiness of the universe will often throw up that sort of unlikely event. Remember, its very easy to misuse statistics. Its even harder to understand that they can be misused for some people. That doesn't mean ignore them, rather it means that you should temper their use with some qualification, thats all.
  6. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: These three points combined are why I propose an accuracy drop for CS tanks and SP artillery. Even if not directly justifyable by velocity, we can say the wind isn't taken into account in CMBO, and -more importantly- the CS guys were not trained for moving target shooting. P.S. thanks for the new tests with other ranges. I think they are still a little unfair to the Panther, since all tanks stand. A competent Panther owner facing a Churchill will move. Either to close the range, or at least to prevent the Churchill from zeroing in. If the Churchill cannot zero in, it will misfire the few HC charges it has, and then things get down a tough road for it. I still don't get why people don't fear the Cromwell as much. At least in bigger games where you can buy a full platoon of them they can play havok with the entire Axis force, short of Tiger II and Jagdtiger, but including Jagdpanther and Tiger I and -of course- infantry, a rather unique combination. Of course, vehicle crew morale in CMBB will help here to prevent the Cromwell bunch from charging the Jagdpanther. [ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]<hr></blockquote> I'd support an accurary drop for CS weapons but not necessarily SP artillery - which was often trained to fire against tanks. To assume they weren't is going too far. Its like suggesting that Medium artillery could be used against tanks - yet Ian Hogg recounts how 5.5in gun crews were trained to do exactly that, if necessary. I'm also very worried by your last comment. It appears that while you're seeking greater "accuracy" in how accurate the 95mm CS How is, you're still not recognising that there weren't such things as "platoons" of tanks equipped with that weapon (with the notable exception of the RM Support Group). Therefore, people shouldn't, unless they are being excessively "gamey" should be creating such units. Indeed, if I found myself facing an opponent who purchased that, I'd forfeit the game, rather than allow him the pleasure of beating me with such an unhistorical force. Indeed, one has to wonder why proper historical organisations weren't forced on players for armour assets, as they were for infantry. [ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Ogadai ]</p>
  7. I've recently created a scenario and done the map and everything but I created it in error as an "operation" whereas I find I really wanted it as a "battle". Is there a way to change the game settings from one to the other without having to redo the whole map, yet again?
  8. 7) We tend to forget that CM imposes artificially short ranges on most battles...
  9. Aren't these sorts of test very artificial? The reason why I say that is because of several factors (in no particular order of importance): 1) We know that CM does not model meteoreological effects (ie windage) which means that low-velocity weapons, such as the 95mm CS How. are much more accurate at medium to long range than they should be. 2) The Churchill VIII was in reality a relatively rare vehicle, I believe there were less than 100 or so made. 3) Players for some reason who "purchase" these sorts of vehicles do so without consideration of the proper organisational constraints under which they were used (ie 2 per Squadron, part of Squadon HQ, etc). 4) CM assumes that the HEAT round for the 95mm CS How was on widespread issue when no evidence has been presented to suggest so, when the role of the vehicle was "Close Support" (ie direct fire of HE against targets which were visible), which suggests that HEAT wasn't often used. 5) Players ignore the doctrinal constraints on the use of particular weapons (this is related to 3, above), in otherwords, the weapon wasn't meant to be a tank killer so it would rarely have been employed as such. 6) The way the tests are structured in "laboratory conditions" means they ignore that no tank commander in his right mind would sit directly opposite another on a billiard table flat piece of terrain and flail away at a another. It is interesting though, that the tests, in all their artificiality confirm that the Churchill VII/VIII was the safest tank to man in the western Allied armoury (units equipped with them had the lowest casualty rates in NW Europe).
  10. M1 Undermodeled?

    I was told about the awl by an old digger, who had served in WWII, Korea, Malaya and Vietnam whom I knew, Michael. I suspect the awl was more a hangover from when the knife was originally a "sailor's knife" than anything else. My question is, why did the Swiss feel the need to put so many tools on their knife?
  11. Beach Invasion (revisited).

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky: The Ram Kangaroo might make a good representation of landing craft, but you couldn't use them unless you used fords for the water.<hr></blockquote> Unfortunately, for some strange reason, CM's fords are only fordable by foot soldiers, not by vehicles. It is perhaps one of the most bizare aspects of the game.
  12. M1 Undermodeled?

    On a slightly more serious note, the "marlin spike" as you call it Michael is actually an "awl", which is used to poke holes in canvas so it can be sewn much more easily. As to what value this is to the soldier in the field, I have no idea but I suspect it was found to be more useful for punching holes in tins, in reality...
  13. Beach Invasion (revisited).

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PawBroon: Just like this one maybe? Doing fast MODs on request to BUMP fellow MODers Sneak Previews is what I call service... Clubfoot, that one is very nice indeed. I can't see Hanks & Sizemore though. Please fix or do somefink!! [ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: PawBroon ]<hr></blockquote> Isn't that just a modded Assault Boat? I'd like to see LCA's and LCM's and LCT's. The challenge of organising a real assault landing would be very nice, indeed.
  14. M1 Undermodeled?

    I believe the, "Peeler, Potato, 6 inch, Steam Powered, Mk.II***" was tripod mounted and this obviously makes it superior to all other potato peeler, particularly at medium to long range.
  15. Some MG Questions

    I was under the impression it had already been stated that the multiple turreted/gunned tanks would not be part of CMBB because of limitations in the engine. This means no T26 (early), T28, T35 or Lee/Grant. I'm unsure how they'll handle the rear-facing MG on the KV series.