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

  • Days Won


slysniper last won the day on November 19

slysniper had the most liked content!

About slysniper

  • Rank
    Who Needs Titles

Profile Information

  • Gender


  • Location
    Louisville, Ky USA
  • Occupation
    Structural Eng.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,326 profile views
  1. I like them all. but as pointed out , the larger maps generally allow for aspects you cannot do on smaller maps. The secret is, what are you trying to portray. you do not need a huge map for city street fighting, actually a large city fight on a map too big becomes less enjoyable to me. a infantry only battle generally does not need a very large map to depict what is needed. but a battle where recon or maneuvering is a focus, then of course that map has to be large enough for that to be allowed. The secret is not what the size of the map is, but the right size for what type of battle it is. I recall designing a scenario where the offence needed to select one of three avenue's of approach. the terrain was such that once committed to a choice, there was no time to change or shift to the other options. the map was very large due to this, the tournament round started and many players just quit when they opened the scenario because the size intimidated them. but in truth, the map had about the same number of units as any medium battle and was focused on one or two battles the size most players were accustomed to. Many that played it praised it as one of the best they ever played. But I had to smile how many just did not even try to experience something they were not accustomed to. So in the end what I am saying, they all have their place. Just depends on the mood I am in.
  2. Stryker vs Bradley

    Amphibious Combat Vehicle under Wikipedia gives a basic understanding as to where the marine corp wants to go with their vision of needs. and if you do a search for "The Commandant's posture of the United States Marine corps presidents budget 2017" you will find more information than you want as to the present standing of our corp. and some of their requested needs note page 11 gives a little reference to getting certain programs up to needed status. The f-35 program (Of course this is listed since the corp is in terrible shape as to how many fighters they presently can actually use and how the funding for the f-35's have been a nightmare - but it is listed as to what they have coming for sure and their hopes for the rest of the funding needed.) And the ACV units - well I am glad to see it appears that funding has finally been made but the precise direction of the program still seems questionable. but it is stated 204 ACV's in the 4th quarter of the year 2020 as phase one and 490 in phase two. So there is some improvement to the Amphibious needs I have been referring to, I must admit the last I knew, they had not approved these. So only 3 years away from something they have been asking for roughly for 15 years. Most of the prototypes were along these lines
  3. Stryker vs Bradley

    Did I stir the sand in your sand box. First, I have not ever said anything about the stryker not doing or being the correct machine for its present mission. I think it does what it is intended to do. So you are getting me confused with others comments here. I do not think they should be changed in any manner other than I see no problem with adding 30 mm to the system. Second , I did get confused that I thought someone had mentioned, they would lose infantry transport ability. but that appears to be incorrect. So even better as not having a issue as to the 30mm being a part of the force make up. As for amphibious units, you don't like my point of view, that is so clear. As for generals seeing the lack we have and wanting that fixed. Since the only force that really ever is given that type of task is our marine corp, there is plenty of comments and needs that they presently have. But as is always the case, they do not get the funding to get those wish list made. So, as has always been the case, the marines are generally at the mercy of the other branches to somehow get them updated with equipment more suitable for the job at hand. In recent history, Iraq war, Marines tank corp was still in M60's until they manage to purchase none used M1's from the army . (no where to go for amphibious stuff - thus the issue) so just as you said, use them old aav's - remind me to have you be in one of those when they get used Oh, since some of you out there hate the thought that I would ever suggest that the M1 would have a Diesel engine. That fine and should be expected. look, when that tank came out, it was like one of the few times America managed to get it so right, by far the best tank in the world at the time. Even to this day, its design concepts has helped to hold it as one of the best platforms out there. but as to present design needs, does a tank truly need a turbine engine, does it impact it capabilities enough to justify it added requirements. (that is the question I really am posing) So if you cannot handle that, its ok. - who wouldn't want the best available thing if they can have it. The turbine engine is that, what I am pointing out is maybe, just maybe, its added benefits are not really needed. My point of view, you might not like it, but don't get all worked up about it if you don't agree
  4. Stryker vs Bradley

    that is back to the original discussion of stryker getting 30 mm cannons. So the point being , if a stryker cannot carry infantry as a payload, it does not make sense for that to be added as a option. My reply was , that if some stryker with 30 mm are part of a units , forces, they do not have to be infantry carriers also. They can just be attached support units, is that clear enough for you.
  5. Stryker vs Bradley

    Look, the point was, how outdated is the US forces in being able to make any inland waterway (rivers, lakes) amphibious crossing. My answer is, totally not prepared. ( what little we have is as you mentioned in the hands of the marine corp.) it is not enough, not designed well and not up to date to handle the task. So in that area the words you typed for me are fine - I do claim here that the US military amphibious units is an outdated, antiquated force so sure, I appreciate those 20 year old Russian platforms for that type of situations. But hey, look we have not needed them for the last 60 years as you mentioned, so why should we worry about having it now - you come back with the perfect American answer, don't prepare for every situation, lets just plan for the ones we think we can dictate will happen.
  6. Stryker vs Bradley

    Oops, my mistake, I was meaning the challenger which was the tank that was referenced , then analyzed how do we make something better than this. yes, you are totally correct as to 105 rounds being capable at the time to do the job. ( but the more likely real reason for not starting with the 120, was how to make more money on the equipment being sold to the government. Knowing that the 120 upgrade was almost a locked in guarantee to get the new contracts for the upgrades that was sure to be coming ) but hey, military contractors doing such things in this country, no, never been heard of. Diesel engines are used primarily because they're less fuel thirsty, not because they're better engines in any particular way. ( And this is about the only reason I question the gas turbine engines, not saying they are not the best possible thing to put in the tank.) But when it comes to design decisions, one must ask, what is gained, what is lost. So as we do in our military so often any more in this country, we don't prepare for all situations , we prepare for the ones which we think we can dictate to happen. simple example, we plan for air superiority, we really do not have our forces designed for anything but this situation. As for what I am discussing here, we again treat the logistics of running M1s with gas turbine engines as not a problem, again because we expect our logistics to be there , to work and that supplying them will not be a problem, its a mind set. I am just not sure that mind set is true, that is all I am saying ( And most other designers for other countries see it a little different, or those turbine engines would not just be in our tanks, that is all I am saying)
  7. Hard Choice!

    Well, first, you need to decide for yourself if the assault command is worth using or not, the only way to decide that is to test it and try it. For me, as long as I know I have suppressive fire on the target and they are going to keep their heads down. then using assault is not a issue, its a choice. my other option is using another move command or the evade button as a move. now what is going to dictate which I choose, most of the time its other events on the map that are helping make the decision. evade will make all my men move to the target fast, not likely break or pin and get there about the same time. (thus not a joke, its a good assault option.) but if I do not want to risk a whole unit in such a move, then assault might be the best option. if I might receive fire from other directions and I have some cover in route to the target, then maybe quick is the best choice. There is never one answer for these things, and darn it sometimes I don't pick the best one, thus the reason its so fun to play.
  8. Stryker vs Bradley

    As for your other items of disagreeance, you can hove your opinion and I will have mine. except for the M1 gas turbine engine When the tank first came out, it was really needed, it was the only power horse to get the job done. But my proof of it not being the best design now with what has developed since then. just name any newer tank designs going down the path. Proof of great design is when someone copies you. That is the only evidence needed, its not the correct path. And you are crazy to not understand how the brits helped with the armor design on the M1, and look how similar the M1 is to the centurion, early design decisions were made from what the brits learned during their development. Designers do not start most projects from scratch, they take the best knowns out there and develop or try at least to develop a new and better mouse trap. (tank in this case)
  9. Stryker vs Bradley

    LAV-25 (and variants). AAV-7 (and variants). LCAC. (For those that do not know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion) Are you kidding me, thus the reason I said we have no ability. This are so outdated as to filling the needs of today, and we can do so much better. Lav-25 is ok, but that is almost a 40 year old platform. AAv-7 were never designed for land, they are truly only good in a constant water environment. (they were a piece of crap when they were new and now 50 years later, should not exist at all on the battlefield lcac is again outdated to what they have now if they would just build it. (plus we really need something that is good for land fighting and movement of troops, not just beaches. There is the next generation stuff out there, fast, mobile, more capable of multi tasking land and water situations. Your present list are knights of the round table in a world of guns
  10. Stryker vs Bradley

    Now, back to the point of the 30mm on a few attached strykers and that being added to the unit formations. In no way does that prevent them from doing any of their present missions or does it make a huge change in logistics. (they still have the same basic platform they are running on so support would not be taxed that much more). Now, there was a comment that they might not be able to be lifted in on the same planes. well, that might be true, and if so and you could not get the needed air, then I would say, they would be left behind if the mission was still needed. As for them carrying troops, simple answer, no. (just think of them as a added support unit , no troop support is mandatory to function as part of a stryker unit) See most of these issues come down to design and how to make a unit work - and as mentioned before - most Americans are real good at getting that concept screwed up.
  11. Stryker vs Bradley

    Logistics man, Logistics. To make a large organization run, it does require giving out different responsibilities to different groups and then when needed having a method to get them to work together on the same operation. If you can get around that, power to you. (So far most of the world has not figured out another way to make it work)
  12. Hard Choice!

    In the right situations, it works better than the assault command.
  13. Stryker vs Bradley

    So this topic has not gone far. So there are a few comments that point out how in Truth, American military design for its equipment has a tendency to get lost as to its purpose. And if anything can be said, that is the only thing that almost always seems to happen with our stuff and is the biggest truth spoken. From the moment armies started making armor. America has had a tendency to miss the boat as to the best designs. (And don't give me that bull about the Sherman being the best tank. crap.) But the other truth is, American Soldiers have always managed to find a way to use what they have been given and learn how to make it fit their needs. The stryker isn't amphibious (well who said it needs to be that machine that floats on water) but I do agree that America is not prepared in the least degree for certain conflicts because of our lack to cross small water bodies with any type of military formed units with that ability. Its one area I think the Russian army shines, and if as a leader of their units and I was to be fighting Americans, I would find a way to take and make that mobility advantage pay off if I could. America needs amphibious mobile fighting unis, we lack them presently. As a Old Marine, I will say, we have designs and prototypes that fill that need with amazing capabilities but without approval, equipment built and units formed. We sit in a position that we should not, but what's new with how things are going anymore. I will say, we did almost get it right when the M1's came out. but we stole much of that from the Brits and in truth, they did have the 105's, which was the incorrect choice, so no surprise that needed fixed and it did not take long for that to happen. And second, I still am not sure that the M1 gas turbine engine was or is the best choice either. I understand better than most as to why they needed it. but as for feeding them things on the battlefield. talk about a nightmare in logistics. If anything was to ever go south, m1's stranded because of lack of fuel is a very easy scenario to create.
  14. Hard Choice!

    And since I know how you love to run your men to bloody glory. Evade can also be used as a assault command. Just think of it as the button to make you a Russian commissar
  15. Hard Choice!

    actually you are almost correct, I would do as you and get them the heck out of there but I would use the evade command for my movement. Evade button is the best tool in the game. Not only will the troops run to cover, but they will resist the urge to drop and get pinned again. I have found evade to be one of the best movement commands in the game.