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


RepsolCBR last won the day on January 12

RepsolCBR had the most liked content!

About RepsolCBR

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Kristinehamn, SWEDEN
  1. Combat Mission AI

    No ! they do not... I did a scenario in CMRT in wich i used T34s and tankriders (different AI-Groups)...The tanks where their own AI Group and the tankriders...also their own... The tanks could be help back ones the tankriders had jumped of to provide support when the infantry moved forward... I'd be suprised it doesn't work the same way with trucks, halftracks etc...
  2. That caught my eye also...I have Always had the impression that the russians deployed artillery on a level 'unheard' of anywhere else... also.. I'm not even close to having the historical knowledge of many of you other guys here...but a small detail that i think have been somewhat missed in the discussion on what the russians would or would not be able to do in a follow up war...compared to how they faired against the germans... The russian readines for war ! During the first few years the russians survived in a large degree because of the western lend-lease...this is probably true...But in 1945, 46 the russian situation did not look anything near what it did in 1941. When the germans attack the russians pretty much lacked even half decent leaders at every level because of the purges. At the start of the war the majority of the russian equipment where already obsolete (and broken). They lacked radios. The organisation and tactics of their armed forces where not 'the best' and needed fixing...during the war. All these shortcommings lead to the ridiculous russian losses in the first few years. These catastrophic losses required lend-lease to fill out the ranks...by 1945, 46 most of these shortcommings had been addressed...The russian Equipment where not obsolete, the russian leaders (and Soldiers) had experience and knowledge of how to fight a war. This combined with the fact that the russian industry where 'in place' and working at full speed...( something that was not the case in 41,42 i Think) could perhaps result in the russians not being all that dependant on wester lend-lease in 1945... The russians might still have lost to allied air power in 1945 but comparing the russian situation in 45 to how it looked during the war against the germans seems quite limited...
  3. Combat Mission AI

    Me too...many of the times. It gives far better controll of how tha AI behaves when it comes to maintaining formation, leap frogging, timing and choosing god fighting possitions etc... Sure...the AI will do a somewhat decent job controlling a platoon sized AI Group consisting of a few tanks...It is no disaster by any means but it is 'that Little extra' that may not work as the designer wants it to...sometimes the right flank tank in a formation decides to move over to the left flank of the formation when moving through a number of waypoints for example...This usually is not the best of ideas...If the AI is left in controll of the entire platoon the leap frogging might not be conducted in the way the designer want it to...the fighting possitions enroute might not be choosen according to the designers wishes etc... Being able to controll each tank individually pretty much removes these problems...The designer will be able to get the tank platoon to perform as he intends them to... even the finer details
  4. Combat Mission AI

    Here we have to disagree... A good way to solv the very problem you mention above would be to give the desiger more AI Groups. I'm pretty sure that this would be far easier to program compared to getting the AI units to act in a more belivable way by their own...To get a more human-like AI the computer controlled units would need to have a better understanding of what each unit does...how to do it...when to do it...why to do it...The AI would need to be able to interpret the terrain to a far greater degree in order to be able to use it to its advantage...both the terrain 'under its feet' as well as the over all terrain situation...What kind of impact will that hill 150m of to the west have on the movement across this field...for example. The AI would need to have a better understanding of both what other friendly and enemy units are doing right now and might be doing soon... Getting the AI to have this kind of awareness would be a massive undertaking to program...It would be far easier to program additional AI Groups... Let us scenario desigers HELP the AI a bit more ...It needs it... Having more AI Groups would not neccesarely complicate scenario designing imo. It would require more work to program...yes...but it would most likely cut down on the playtesting and subsequent tweaking quite a bit...The designer will have a far greater chans of getting the AI Groups to perform as he wish first time out if he can keep them smaller. A small example...An infantry platoon with a machinegun attached advances down a street... Have them in one AI-Group...the designer would have very limited controll of wich team moves where, when they move, what they do when they reach their next waypoint etc... Splitting this platoon up into maybe 3 or even 4 AI Groups would give the scenario designer the ability to make sure that the advance up the street is well timed and coordinated...The machinegun could be placed to suppress (area fire) suspected targets up ahead and provide direct fire against any enemy that shows itself. The squads could be ordered to advance up the street on both sides (without zig-zagging across the open street to get to the next waypoint) at a pace and intervall that the scenario designer seems fit. The squads could also be ordered to area fire at certain objects as they go along if desired. The HQ team could be held back at a sutable distance to be able to maintain C2. At the right time the machinegun team could be brought forward to their next supporting possition... Things like these ... More AI Groups would help imo
  5. Combat Mission AI

    The AI in this game is perhaps one of its weakest points...Not that any other game does it better...but still...it is seriously lacking ! That is why i have been advocating for some major improvements for quite some time now...that is...MORE AI GROUPS !!!...(32 atleast)... The AI have ZERO understanding of the overall picture in a scenario. The AI have very limited understanding of the terrain concerning larger areas. The AI have very limited understanding of what the different unit does...How to use HMGs, how to use a light mortars, how to use an assultguns etc... It's been my experience that the AI pretty much only sees each unit/team as a number of men...A sniper-team is 2 men, a HMG team is 4 men, a squad is 8 men, a panzer schreck team is 2 men for example... It does not really matter what kind of team it is...The AI does not understand how to use it... If the scenario designer puts an infantry platoon, a HMG team and a light mortar-team into an AI-Group and gives them an advance orders...They will do so...They will advance... But they will not do it very visely...The machinegun team and the mortar team will NOT set up a base of fire possition to support the assulting units...They will just TAG ALONG...treated as a number of men...not taking into account their ability/limitation as heavy weapon teams... Please , please, please !!! give us 32 AI-Groups...It is absolutely neccesary to get the AI to perform somewhat intellegently... In a PLAYER attack scenario 16 AI-Groups might be enough for most circomstances...but in an AI attack scenario it most certanly is NOT !!! The AI needs HELP !!! to perform somewhat cleverly... In a well designed scenario the AI can be a challange...Yes, absolutelly !...but 95 percent of those scenarios are... PLAYER ATTACK scenarios. On the defence 16 AI-Groups might be enough in many situations...but on the attack...no, no, no !!! 16 AI-Groups will not do it...It is simply not enough... The evidence is pretty obvious...The number of AI attack scenarios avaliable is very limited....The number of GOOD/CHALLEGING attack scenarios is even fewer. please, please, please !!! give us 32 AI-Groups...The improvements to vs AI gameplay will be MASSIVE !
  6. Yepp...let's forgett about the nukes for a while... That would work for me to... I would really like to se this happen. It would be a very cool addition !
  7. I see your Point... My thinking was that the allies where far more war-tired at the end of the war compared to the russians...Especially when it comes to the political and military leadership the western nations where more concerned about the high casualties taken during the war. The russian leaders did not seem to care all that much. I guess that the civilian population of both countries where equally tired of the war and wanted no more of it... The allied leaders would have a hard time getting support for an additional war...the russian leaders didn't really care i guess... Even back then i think that the americans looked at the nukes as a last resort defensive weapon and not really as a war-winner in an offensive conflict. I think they would have used it as a desperate defensive weapon in the case of an overwhelmming russian attack...but not as an offensiv weapon. But yes...looking at it from the russian side...attacking an enemy with this kind of weapon would not be the brightest idea
  8. If you only count the stock scenarios/campaigns that comes with the game when you buy it...Then the answer is NO...They are about equal... The main difference comes when you include the comunity made stuff (wich you can download for free)...CMRT have seen a decent amount of both Campaigns and individual scenario released by other forum member...many of these are of the highest quality...well comparable to playable content included in the game purchase... CMFB have seen very Little in the form of comunity made stuff so far... You will get far more playable content if you buy CMRT (and download avaliable comunity scenarios/Campaigns)...thats what i mean...
  9. Happy New Year's Day! 2018 look ahead

    I'm sorry...but i really don't see the problem here... After all...the tread title is "2018 look ahead"...It seems to be a fairly OK place to share ideas for future Projects...even if they are not done by BFC... Many members are looking forward to some Irak/ Afghanistan...and anti Taliban/ISIS kind of scenarios using CMSFII...Good to know some are in the making It's not like he is going to charge money for his work...Simply mentioning that this is something we can expexct to see the comming year... As for this i think it simply was an answer to a forum member that found his initial annoncement intresting...
  10. I think this would be a very clever way forward. Especially if they can squeeze in VE-day and commonwealth forces into one module. Having a russo/allied continuation war as a second module for CMFB would sell like hotcake !
  11. I doubt that the allies would start a conflict with the russians in 1946 but perhaps the ruskies would be a bit more agressive ...If the russians did try to expand the communist ideas further west i'm sure they would have gotten the same treatment as the japanese...A nuke or two ! End of conflict... But if BFC decided to make this possible...I would be more then happy to 'forgett' about the american nukes...Let the conflict begin ! An east-west war in 1946 would be very cool indeed. And Fulda gap...any timeframe....yes,yes,yes...bring it on...
  12. Happy New Year's Day! 2018 look ahead

    I think that very few of the peolpe here that ask for additinal content for CMSFII does so with a negative frame of mind... I'm pretty sure that almost all of us Think that this update-idea of CMSF that BFC is currently working on is a brilliant one...and we truely are apprisiative ! What i think most people actually mean when they ask for more content is something like this... By updating CMSF BFC have done a huge amount of work and will get fairly Little in excange for it (moneyvise..) Why not expand on it ? They have a top class 'basegame' already done (almost)...Why not continue on this work by adding a few modules down the line ? adding extra formation packs...etc. Charging full price for the modules/packs to 'help' pay for all the work they have put into the basegame... Leaving it as a basegame only...they will miss out on an oppertunity to get some Money-in... The intrest is there (i'm pretty sure) for additional content to CMSFII among us 'the players'
  13. Sorry ! for not following the main theme for this thread...purely elite/special forces... I just wanted to jump in and say that maybe an option could be to not just limit it to a special forces pack... The number of such forces seems to be a bit limited (on the plus side it would obviously go faster to crank such a pack out...) But as an alternative...Maybe release a somewhat larger pack (maybe module). One that would also include some second line germans like zinzan mentioned and perhaps also partisans, french forces etc partisans could be a good addition here for example...