• 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



About sburke

  • Rank
    CM Junkie
  • Birthday 07/04/1959

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    : Here..... obviously


  • Location
    San Jose, CA
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

2,234 profile views
  1. Heh - LLF you are risking a major tangent on your thread. Some things to consider regarding insurgencies - at Khe Sanh the US identified some movement of major NVA units prior to the battle by the use of sound mics. Now with drones and thermal imaging, a rural insurgency becomes a lot more difficult. Between that and rapid global urbanization, any insurgency is forced to move into an urban environment in order to stay hidden. The next big issue is supply and rear areas. The Taliban has Pakistan. The NVA had N Vietnam and Laos. The Syrian resistance has to some degree Turkey.
  2. To get the cm4.0 engine. You don't ever have to buy anything, but moving CMSF to cm 4 is a huge undertaking. It isn't going to happen on the cheap. Personally it is at the top of my to buy list, but I can understand why others might not be so inclined. As to how BF plans on doing it none of us really know. Until we hear something concrete from BF I wouldn't assume anything.
  3. Wow credit to Mace. He didn't settle for just throwing rocks.
  4. Maybe you should read your own posts The situation should be difficult. It shouldn't be difficult cos one is given inadequate resources. As to Carl's response. He is apparently uninterested in a discussion or alternate ideas so f**k it, I have other things I can do than this.
  5. Here is a thought. Create a bare bones scenario/campaign of what you think you would like to see, doesn't even have to be playable, but just to get a feel for options. Then start the discussion. The first thing to understand is what can you create in CM before critiquing what is created. For example you are looking to create something extremely variable in terms of force size and somehow have victory conditions out of it to determine what happens next. The victory conditions however may not be flexible enough to allow for the amount of variance you hope to see. Where I am going with this is CM has a couple options for points that then determine victory levels to be able to create a win/loss result for branching options. You can't have a potential small versus large force on a map and tie victory conditions very well for branching to the next scenario in the battle. It might be doable, but it would likely have to be very creative as to what are the victory conditions that would work regardless of the enemy force size. I believe you could alter the enemy reaction by just having a portion of the force have no orders in some AI plans and in others the whole force be moving. However again what are the victory conditions in that battle that determine a successful recon phase and are the achievable given drastically different AI plans and force levels? honestly regardless of the answer I don't think you will see much of this. It would take a pretty extensive amount of work from what is really a small pool of contributors and that is assuming it can be done in a way that fits the suggested criteria you have listed.
  6. I did do a scenario where the objective was to find a unit that had strayed into Venafro and to ID survivors. My only issue was I couldn't move those locations so replay value was tough. One of the reasons I am looking forward to an upgraded CMSF is to use supply units as hidden enemy weapons caches. There is I believe at least one scenario I have played in a campaign where your objective is to spot enemy units. The victory points you get for that determine your standing in the next battle of the campaign. If I am remembering correctly at least one example of that was in a German campaign for CMBN
  7. I could make a scenario that had no one there, but I am pretty sure there would be a s**tstorm from the user community about how they wasted 60 minutes of their day doing recon on a map only to find nothing there. Let's review some responses from folks on this forum The Normandy campaign with it's notorious battle that raised a fuss cause player couldn't figure out one that it might not be winnable and found it unacceptable to just ceasefire and accept a draw. Erwin (sorry Erwin, not trying to be a d**k, but I just found it striking that he is complaining about the very thing that you were asking for) commenting on the CMSF forum about a scenario that was being created and asking for assurance he'd have the resources to complete the mission. The constant complaints when folks feel a scenario is too hard or they run out of resources or time in a scenario/campaign. No offense @CarlWAW, but the things you are pointing out as ruining the game for you are the very things time and again players have made clear they want. I realize you did not apportion blame in your post, but in reality, it is your fellow players who have helped drive the nature of scenario construction. Stuff that gets created that doesn't meet those criteria likely never makes it to being posted as the creator doesn't want to deal with the complaints. What you are looking for can be done, but it takes something different - a managed op layer campaign. Even then you will still have some predictability. No one is gonna go through the trouble of creating a map with no battle. I can relate to your feelings. I personally have no issue with a battle having bad intel and the battle that I expected not looking anything at all like the battle I end up fighting. Most players though aren't into that and I have seen more than one complaint by folks feeling that the scenario briefing failed as it did not prepare them for the battle they fought.
  8. Okay gotta admit I had to google neckbeard. Still freakin laughing my ass off.
  9. I'll pm you as soon as I am back.
  10. Yeah figured it'd be something completely going elsewhere. Anyone who starts with the premise that Russia is anywhere near capable of a Cold War Fulda gap type attack on the west has completely missed the boat at how really limited Russia's ability to wage a large conventional attack on the west is now. The logistical piece alone is likely gonna fall apart on its own without NATO intervention.
  11. I am out of town til mid next week, but I would love a link to those saves. It would help a lot. Thanks in advance.
  12. Err. That is pretty rude. You just leveled an insult at just about every beta tester here. And no all you can do is not complain. In fact if that is all you do it will never contribute anything. You can just like anyone else here post a save, a test scenario etc demonstrating what it is you think is off. There are a couple beta testers in this thread as well so acting like if Steve personally doesn't post or Charles doesn't gurgle from his fishbowl that it is utterly pointless reveals a level of ignorance as to how any issue has ever been brought to BFs attention. you've been around long enough to know better, c'mon man.
  13. Dude you should really ratchet it down. You are talking to someone actually experienced in the field and as far as anyone knows here your entire experience is playing board and computer games. To think you are showing a far superior awareness of what may or may not be needed is.. well kind of embarrassing. The rest of us are just kind of sitting here gritting our teeth and not making eye contact with anyone. It is like bringing your drunk friend along to the wedding and listening to him tell the bride how hot she is and she could do so much better (whlie he is so drunk he doesn't realize he is talking to the bride's mom). Your ignorance of these matters is matched only by your own self assured view that your views are brilliant. They aren't. Please do us all a favor and continue to argue your view if you want, but don't do so with this tone that you know far more than some ignorant experienced armor officer. It is just really painful to listen to. And then to link to a statement from McMasters which I don't even have to read to know you are likely completely changing the context on...... sigh Please just a little more humility. Or any for that matter
  14. Maybe, but did you provide any test material? 😉BF never responds to just complaints or anecdotal info. You can either help with a data set to prove your point or you decide you just want to grumble and not see any changes. It is all a matter of choice. As to small arms fire, I can't vouch for that and that is not a component of this test. Sooooooooo 🔨
  15. Thanks @slysniper that is really interesting. I am back in town mid next week and will do a comparison save of both and pass the results up the ladder to get some attention.