Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JSj

  1. Ok, thanks, I see now. I thought the links was just for downloading of a single file.
  2. Thanks. It was quite smooth though, I just ran the installers one after the other. Where can I find the latest full game installer? When I look under "My Orders" on the site, the base game seem to have a file called "CM Final Blitzkrieg Engine 3 CMFB-BGV3". Then there is the file "CMFB Upgrade 4 CMFB-UPV4" listed under my order for the upgrade to engine 4. But this order has the 10$ price listed, so this seems to just be the upgrade, not a full installer? Both are links to files at battlefront.sharefile.com.
  3. I did a new install, and it went smoothly. Everything works now. By the way, when doing a new install, do you need to install all patches again, or can you skip some? I installed the CMFB base game, then 1.02, then the 2.00 upgrade, and finally the current 2.01. Could I have skipped some of these installs? Could I have gone from the base game directly to 2.00, for instance? Also, are there newer, updated install files for the base game available with some patches integrated, or is the base game installer the same as when the game was released? I did this from an old install file for the base game that I had saved on my computer.
  4. My God, installing patches manually is so... decades old. I installed the patch, everything seemed fine, CMFB updated from v2.00 to v2.01. But now the list of battles and campaigns are both empty when I go there... sigh. I guess I will just have to reinstall the whole game again.
  5. Yeah, giving an ETA that can not be followed would be awkward. It's not like someone has already talked about a before March 2019 ETA, right? 🙂
  6. I don't expect BF to have the resources to hire someone to answer questions here on the forum full time, but as I wrote before, surely they could spend a few minutes once in a while so we could get just a few lines of information to find out what is going on, instead of Months and Months of nothing.
  7. Definitely. That they don't even bother to take a few minutes to write a few lines about why the "before March" release did not happen is really bad.
  8. Actually, Steve did: "At the moment we're doing some last minute TO&E fixes. While making Rome to Victory I got into some retro revisions which had a ripple effect. Almost done with it. These last minute fixes do delay things, but worth it IMHO. I'm still thinking that we can have them out before March (yes, of 2019). "
  9. But, can you guys imagine how many times we have experienced mischief just like that? It must be dozens of times! So it was you all along causing this to happen deliberately!!! Oh, those thousands and thousands of times when this did not happen? Meh, those must have been just coincidences. 🙂
  10. I think you misspoke there, what you really meant was: "Give it a couple of months."
  11. I didn't think it was going to be a long wait either, in the fall of 2015, when it was said that the release of Final Blitzkrieg was close. Then, as time went on, I thought there was going to be a release at the anniversary of the start of the Battle of the Bulge, in December... but no, it was not released until in April 2016. So, I am not holding my breath for CMSF 2 or an Engine 4 patch anytime soon. Like I said, we're on Battlefront time here.
  12. We're on Battlefront time here. This means, check back in 6 months, and if you're lucky, you'll see a message about the patch now finally being almost ready, and it will be released "soon".
  13. Yes, here is an article about the new USMC squad organisation. The SAW is being dropped, and the more accurate M27 is being adopted more widely. https://www.overtdefense.com/2018/05/05/usmc-transition-12-man-rifle-squads/
  14. Yes, very true. Also, I think that more than 90% of all bugs and problems that gamers have are because of mods that break the game.
  15. If only Combat Mission was available on Steam, we wouldn't have to worry about patches and all the different versions. On Steam, the latest version is always available for easy downloading.
  16. Agreed, I much prefer games that are on Steam. The purchasing, downloading, and everything else is so much easier than having to search for download links on a game developer's home page. And as you said, of all the millions of Steam users, there must be quite a few that are potential Combat Mission customers.
  17. Agreed, it's clear on the splash screen, it clearly states game version and engine version. I was more thinking of other situations. There's been many threads here on the forum with people being confused about the difference between the engine version and the game version of a specific module.
  18. It gets confusing when there are two different versions given, one for the game, and one for the game engine. I wish this could be simplified somehow, maybe using the format of the first number being the game engine, and then the game version? So, if you'd update your game version 3.01, for instance, to game engine 4, it would be changed to 4.01.
  19. Sure, I get your point. :-) But still, is really, for instance, the effect of being in Command and Control or not a "little detail"? This seems like a major game feature, and still there is no information on what this effect is. If I have troops in the front line engaging the enemy, and my HQ is out of contact, how important is it really to reestablish C&C? Should I risk moving my HQ unit over that open ground to regain contact with the troops? If the not-being in C&C combat penalty is, let's say 2% (and, also 2% for what? Accuracy when firing? Morale? Both? Or something else?), then of course not. But, if it is 500%, then hell yes! The real number is probably somewhere in between these extremes, but without knowing, how do you make the decision?
  20. Why am I not surprised? As always, if you want correct information about CM game mechanics, you have to spend the time testing to find out yourself. Forget about getting it from the manual or the developers.
  21. Agreed, finding the enemy is one of the greatest challenges of combat. But if you don't even know where the enemy is, spraying down a random area with a belt fed MG is unlikely to supress anyone. You're just making noise and wasting ammo.
  22. It's a very short article, of course there was not space for all the details. But there are notes of the references used, and I am sure all the details can be found there. Also, I think the main point of the article is that sustained full auto fire is not necessary to achieve supression. Would you stick your head up to shoot back if a very accurate bullet passed just by your head every 3 seconds?
  23. This is actually incorrect. You do not need fully automatic fire for supression. Did you read the PDF I attached in my previous message? (It's only 3 pages.) Here is the relvant quote for what the studies have found: "We can consider three cases: the need to suppress an enemy; the need to keep him suppressed; and the need to re-establish suppression once lost. In general, small arms fire has to pass within roughly a metre from the outline of the target to be effective. A small number of rounds passing through that area in a few seconds (perhaps 3 to 5 rounds in as many seconds) will suppress the target, or re-suppress him if required; whilst just one round every three seconds will keep him suppressed." The article also mentions that full auto suppression, for instance from a Minimi LMG, is often ineffective because of the poor accuracy: "Machine Guns in Suppression Perhaps the most damning findings, however, relate to differences between weapons. The British L86 magazinefed SA 80 Light Support Weapon (LSW), with its bipod, is extremely good at suppressing targets out to 500m or more and, in conjunction with L85 rifles, keeping them suppressed. That is principally because it is accurate enough for almost every shot fired to contribute to suppression. The L110 (Minimi) Light Machine Gun (LMG) performs far worse in such trials. At best, only the first shot of a short burst passes close enough to suppress. However, subsequent shots in that burst go anything up to 6m wide of the mark at battlefield ranges. Since perhaps 3 to 5 rounds in 3 to 5 seconds are required to suppress, a typical LMG gunner will rarely achieve suppression." Anyway, I am absolutely not against that the problem with Brens and the other weapons are fixed, as they were historically not often used with single shots, as far as I know. I just want to point out what the latest studies are showing. There is a good reason why the USMC is replacing the Minimi/SAW in their squads with the M27 IAR. Also, I would really recommend that you read the short PDF article, it is very interresting, and it lists all the relevant references, it's not an opinion piece. The real role of small arms in combat.pdf
  • Create New...