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

About gkizziah

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. hello.... I have been running an AoD tournament the last couple of years. Last time we had 12 players. We have a 'new' modification that we are planning on playing on the next tournament round...starting mid-October 2017. (called "Allies Stronger")... and some of us are playing it now... after a little more play, I will probably be tweaking the victory conditions. If you are interested, I could send the mod file for your review. We will be handicapping play for participants that aren't quite as experienced as our top players... hopefully, with the handicaps play becomes roughly balanced. my direct contact: gkizziah@aol.com Hope you are still playing AoD !! Regards Gary
  2. tournament over.... John Helm (Fritz) is the winner .... new tournament with new mod hopefully coming in October-2018... let me know if you want rules and/or info... gkizziah@aol.com
  3. hello to all.... we have just finished a 2-year tournament. Fritz (John Helm) is the final winner in tight battle with Pacestick (Peter Zima). Congrats to both. we had 12 players. we have designed a new mod to 'balance' play (called Allies Stronger) ... and have begun play, with hopes to start a new HANDICAP tournament around October (+/-). With the handicap system, even lesser experienced players will be competitive. Hope to have a couple of new players to beat up on this fall!! The mod is NOT avail on Battlefront...but if you would be interested in seeing the rules and/or getting the mod, please contact gkizziah@aol.com. Regards to all AoD players! Gary
  4. Hello All. the AoD tournament that I started July 2014 is nearing an end... with Peter (pacestick) v Falk (isnogud) for the final. I have a new league that we are trying to form. There is a formula for HANDICAPPING so that players with less experience get some advantages over less-experienced AoD players..... So please join in the fun!!! let me know at gkizziah@aol.com if you want the rules emailed to you. We are planning on starting soon...(Feb 2016).... but will try to let late joiners in... so that we don't let this great game die!!!! ....
  5. The first Bracket of 8 players has already just started!! (These came thru invites). I've decided to try and create another bracket and open up the field a bit... including to newbies... by announcing on the forum! General Info... game is 1939 World@ War Scenario. All matches are mirrored (play both sides against same opponent). Minimum playing pace is 1 turn a day (on just one of the sides you are playing). Tournament is double-elimination. Victory Conditions have been significantly modified for the tournament... space does not allow here to provide. If you are interested, please send email to gkizziah@aol.com, and state whether you are newbie (never played a live opponent) ... intermediate (played and finished at least one game)... or experienced. I will send an email with the rules and victory-conditions formula (plus a play-by-play description of how a match might go.) I will try to set up the new bracket so that players will at least play their first game against a similarly-experienced player. Need at least 4 players to set up a new bracket (hope for 8).... and hope to get you shooting at your first opponent within a few days... Latest start date to get into this tournament (I think) is going to be Oct 1 2014. Hope to see some new players! Gary
  6. I just sent Al an email to take him up on the challege
  7. Aod 1.04?

    ideas... Fix bug that allows Germany to assign Norways mines to Sweden, even if Allies occupy the mines and are in supply. Agree with Scott on Diplomacy to Majors...maybe double costs or cut effectiveness in half, might be enough. Would like to see surface naval units have a recon mode... if in recon, movement cut if half, but detection of enemy surface ships increased to 3 tiles.... maybe increased to 5-6 tiles if the intel R&D reaches level 1. (seems unrealistic for a naval unit to sit in one position for 4 weeks (one turn), without some sort of recon operations. Airlift option by Strategic bombers... important historical airlifts are ignored by our game... still subject to weather, escorts, etc. Italian surrender seems suspect...even if conquering the world...they still surrender with Rome falling. Consider making Allied control of Rome a large per turn decrease in Italian NM.... so that Italy surrenders if Allies can hold for 4-5 turns, etc. Lastly, for now, would like to see option to fortify coastal hexes, at a MPP cost and time to complete etc. Currently the one DE to fortify the west wall is funky. ... would be a realistic decision that all countries faced to spend resources to build elaborate defenses. Just having 1 or 2 engineers running around seems unrealistic. Love game... just looking for more to challenge each play of the game. thanks.
  8. Assault on Democracy Ladder

    okay..... I see all my 'regular' opponents will be on the ladder... so count me in.... looks pretty easy so far!! (just kidding)
  9. hi... okay, agreed that the 'victory cities' from the campaign should be used FIRST. However, there is still the possibility of an Axis-v-Axis Tie...meaning both players would have finished the game with all 6 victory cities in Axis control....so some protocol must be developed for that possibility...meaning adding additional victory objectives. If we are coming up with a victory & tie-breaker formula, it should cover as many possibilities as we can to prevent having to re-think all of this again. So as I suggested previously in the thread... there are 3 possibilities... 1)Both players win as Axis 2)Both players win as Allies 3) in a round robin, all 3 players win 1 side...1 player has an allied win...other 2 players have an axis win (this cannot happen in heads up, as it is a mutually-exclusive event) I do not see an 'easy' way to resolve all these possibilities without adding other 'minor' objectives... getting us back to the scoring issue... and I agree that the original 6 victory objectives should be valued in such a way, that they are heavily and equally weighted in the formula. The hardest thing to compare will be an Axis win ...compared to an Allied win. Since the final round (I think) is still planned to be round-robin...it is possible, so should be addressed beforehand. So... back to the scoring issue... I'll work on my suggestions & respond to Amadeus' request soon. If anyone else is to make a proposal, don't forget to figure out how to compare scores of an allied win vrs an axis win.
  10. hi guys... agree with analysis regarding allied winning formula... in mirror-match I have going, however, I have captured and hold Moscow (so it is possible)... but not sure it is going to do much good, relative to the game-victory criteria!? ...and holding it will leave Paris more vulnerable! Maybe we shouldn't give away so much info. (PS btw...Pacestick (Peter) has won as AXIS, but he is a superior player, having been playing him a lot in last 2 years, + he won the SC WW1 tournament). So... here is what I am thinking for now.... 1) Since Round-1 is on-going, I don't think we should change victory conditions for this round (just let everyone figure out the strategy); 2) There is still a very large question as to tie-break formulas, which have not been determined...and I have some thoughts on this (below)... however, (I am backing way off the idea of having NM be the sole determining factor.)* 3) If we are correct, that the allies can "easily" win by getting Paris by the maximum game length, then there should be a lot of "tie-results"...with 80-90% Allied wins (?)... I think you would all agree, that as a game goes later...particularly into and past 1946, a good player should certainly be able to get a least one of the objectives (again Paris being the easiest). 4) To make things a little more dicey, if a game only goes the minimum 105 turns, it makes the allied win not so automatic....hopefully an axis player who still holds all 6 objectives doesn't then begin to drag his feet on additional moves...but based on tournament outline, there would be no reason for him to continue (??)... unless Amadeus calls a foul. Additionally, at turn 105, an Allied player having already met victory conditions, has little reason to go forward either? (or am I missing something here?) 5) Accordingly, we should see a lot of matches where both players have achieved an Allied win in a mirrored match. Also, in a 3-way round robin played without mirrored matches... it is very conceivable (likely) that all 3 players would win their allied game. (if we are correct, then a player who cannot take the allies to victory, apparently doesn't deserve to play on in the tournament...hope that's not me!) 6) I think the best solution is to come up with a good tie-break protocol for round one. Then, after analyzing the play-balance aspects of the scenario (obviously with changes due to patch 1.02), possibly determine a new winning description for round 2... and as someone has recommended above...set the game as a specific game length, to avoid problems (see #4 above). 7) The sooner the better as developing a tie-break protocol, so that players will not feel cheated out of a win by last-minute and possibly arbitrary determinations. 8) So what would make a good tie-break formula??? ... well the scenarios to determine are: a) both players win as allies; both players win as axis; c) in a mirrored match where 1 player wins as axis and the other as allies; d) in round robin where all 3 players go 1 win-1 loss. As mentioned by others above, looks like we would need an EASY scoring system to rate the win. I propose that the 6 objectives of our current victory conditions be given a value of 2 points. Additional objectives be given a value of 1 point.... (There are probably at least a dozen valuable objectives....so I will make an attempt at them here... London, Moscow, Chungking, Delhi, Canberra, Washington DC, Stalingrad, Cairo, Honolulu, Singapore, Vladivostok & Ploesti. With this system as AXIS win would always be at least a 'score' of 12, because (by definition) the player must have control of the main 6 objectives.... if he also holds Chungking(+1), Cairo(+1), Singapore(+1) & Ploesti(+1), he would have a score of 16. So How to Score the Allies Win? .... my idea is that the FIRST of any of the 6 primary objectives be given a score of 12. Then additional cities from the remaining list be scored with the remaining 5 objectives worth 2 each and the 12 added objectives be given a value of 1 each. ...so, if the allied player holds Paris (value of win = 12) + also holds Seoul (+2), Manila (+2), plus Moscow (+1), WashDC (+1), London (+1) = 19 points. This method gives an option to compare an ALLIED win versus an AXIS win... in my example an Axis win rated as a 16 score vrs an Allied score @ 19. (Again, if we are right, it will usually be Allied wins...but we need a system that addresses an allied-vrs-axis possibility!) *Using NM is just too complicated. (I have tried to work out an analysis...but any formula that I came up with is WAY more complicated than the above. Additionally, NM was not used by the game designers to determine victory conditions...and not really even mentioned in the game manual...so I think NM is probably not the best tool to use for the tie-break) As Clausewitz has suggested, any similar list would do...it's just that we should firm this up as soon as possible. Anyway...that's what I am thinking. Again thanks to Amadeus, for all his work... I am really enjoying the tournament and both my mirror-matches are too-close-to-call.
  11. Big Tournament

    What I had recommended to Amadeus was also on the National Morale line.... except using it for a 'tie-break' when, for instance, players decide to go with a mirrored match... and both sides manage a win... now what?... so I was thinking the same thing... they add up their remaining NM at the end of their 2games (or some other point as in Amadeus minimum game point at 105th move)....surrendered nations are given zero with this approach. Highest total wins. Also applicable, I think, in the event that all 3 players in a group of 3 manage to go 1 win & 1 tie...so now a 3-way tie (yikes) ... if players kept a record of the NM at the predetermined point ... then highest 2 go forward... lowest total left scratching head and waiting for the next event. And I further agree that a lot of 'little' objectives and battles could now become very critical... particularly, as you note, naval battles. ps: use the actual NM numbers, not the %, so that Italy is not over valued. Having said all that, I still think that the simplistic approach of the key strategic/political targets as Amadeus has set up would probably be easier to follow for most players ...only using the National Morale to decide the tie games