dutchman55555

My first QB. BMPs were the first casualties:
 

 
Russian MBTs soon evened the score:
 

A few years ago I purchased a CM game for a friend in the UK (I'm in Canada), I think they gave me a key to send him. Or maybe a link?

Or, there is this wording in the Help system ...
 
Occasionally, if you have a crash of your computer, it will leave CMH in a state where it can't run anymore.
 
To recover from this, you need to do one of two things.  Either:
 
a.  Run CMH from a command prompt with the reset-state option
 
 DOS>  cmh.exe reset-state
 
 OSX>  ./cmh.app reset-state
 
or
 
b. Delete CMH's AppState.txt file
 
At the top of the log window (Options->Show Log Window) CMH tells you where the log file is stored - the AppState.txt file is in the same place.   If you can't access the log file, you will need to search your disk for AppState.txt.
 
Under Windows it is usually in a place like:  
 
C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\GreenAsJade\CMHelper\
 
Under OSX it is usually in a place like:  
 
/Users/username/Library/Application Support/GreenAsJade/CMHelper/

Or, this is the link to the place to report bugs / issues, from CMH's Help / report a bug menu entry  ...
 
https://h2hh.fogbugz.com/default.asp?pg=pgPublicEdit
 
Paste in your error text and describe the problem ...

Thanks PhilM ... by sheer chance I stumbled over this thread just now, and the quote you have given from Help is exactly what I would have said

If problems persist after that, Help->BugReport is best, failing that a PM here at BFC can get my attention.
 
Cheers,
 
GaJ

Please note the top announcement was posted roughly 11pm on a Friday night (west coast time). Three cheers for ChrisND's unstinting dedication to the cause!  

1) choose the 'Your CM insallations' tab
2) Menu - Installs - Add Installs
3) point it to the App
4) finished
 
There - wasn't complicated
CMBS has no icon - everything else works.

No...they're not afraid of the laser...they're afraid of what will FOLLOW the laser!
 
You need to imbue your men with a more martial spirit. A pre-battle speech is my technique. Barring that...pop smoke and reverse. Remember that location and try to find who/where has LOS to it. Then hammer that spot. Or, more cheaply, try to get eyes on it. Ground troops with binos are an option. UAVs are a BETTER option.
 
A lot of times, no, there's nothing you can do. Precision munitions are bad that way.

This would be morning wood for this cat.

We really need a north africa title! Big plains and tank battles CMx2

I'm getting a real Fulda Gap feel from this game sometimes.
 

 
 

My first QB. BMPs were the first casualties:
 

 
Russian MBTs soon evened the score:
 

This is a CMx2 thing and I had hoped it would get better over time, but sometime the Infantry Tac AI is so frustrating it pulls my hair out.
 
I been a player and holder of CM games from CMx1 to now my latest Black Sea.
 
I absolutely love the vehicle TAC AI even when I do not like what the crew does, it still makes sense, the vehicle become endangered and throws itself into reverse only to get hit from a previous spotted At weapon, still perfectly understandable.
 
But close combat Infantry Tac AI is what I feel lets the game down in the biggest way, I will explain some scenario and what I see and what i would prefer to see.
 
----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE:Running, I am not sure if it is the animation or they are so very slow but when guys a running they seem to be doing it on ICE, as in lots of movement but very little forward progress, 9 time out of ten they are all on top of each other so it easy for the enemy to get multiple kills. Now the speed may be due to the amount of weight they are carrying but the speed is exactly the same in WW2 where the in very little weight factor.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: What I rather see, is they move in pairs and individuals, with a more open gap between the soldiers, this way they all do not get slaughter like sheep. This could be an extra command like sprint, to get across streets, without loosing a whole 4 man team, because they are all snails without a care when moving.
 
-------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: Assaulting from a breached corner into a house. To do this you need your 8 man squad to Quick to the breech and then the other team to runs forward into the house, this normal exposed the first team to a hail of fire as the moving into an open area (rubbled wall) which gets them killed then the team racing in like lemming charge in without fire support, goo by 8 man to to a single person with an 8 AK or SMG.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: You can have a number of the team stack on the corner of the wall and support by fire, this has them less exposed, the assault team then breeches.
 
---------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: The Breaching team in a house assault get slaughtered come in the front door, The 4 man team act stupidly regardless the distance the team is away from the door, they pile in to there death like lemmings. The enemy just needs to be a single automatic weapon guy to take down a full team. The assault team does not halt its attack, does not toss a grenade in, does not do anything but run and die. I would just like to say I hate every stuid the tac Ai does, but I am giving one example above.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION:
The assault team stacks at the door, so we do not have 4 separate entries spread over 10 secs. If the team suspects enemy it toss in a grenade before entry, it enters in the door the first few metres in a rush then halts and frees at the enemy it does not run all the way to the end of the house to turn around and come back to first at the enemy at the front door. It the sweeps as a team through the house and stops an fire as a team at contact.
 
-----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: Move and then in contact. I prefer to use move sometimes instead of hunt cause I find hunt they stopping all the time on non valid threats that not firing at them, but using move in woods is a pain. If they get ambushed in the wood, the player continues to run and get slaughtered even if it running into the fire.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: If the fire is come from the front, then the move is cancelled and the TAC AI stops and returns fire, before they have to lose a man in the process and start cowering.
 
----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUES: Cowering, I understand cowering makes sense, but I see cowering out in the open, I seen a whole team cower in the woods, and continually get suppress and eventually killed cause they will not even attempt to return fire. This frustrates me more then anything.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: Blind firing, not to hit the enemy but to suppress back to gain a little morale back, throwing grenades, throwing smoke if they have them. crawling away out of range. I rather this then see each individual solider die one after the other cause they will not do anything but cower.
 
 
---------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUES: Hunt in single file, move in single file. All movement is is single file. This allows  for longer time to get set for contact and normally means all you guys end up cowering and picked off one by one.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: Hunt when moving through woods should be in arrowhead or line formation, this would allow return fire on contact, right now it contact and then cower cause they need to run forward and the firing at the pint guy suppresses the rear guys, the time that my guys normally do better is when i am shot from the side, which they happen to be in a line formation.
 
--------------------------
 
 
 
 
 
There is many more bugbears I have of the Infantry TAC AI, but these are my major ones, and the reason I find this game frustrating. I know there is certain things I could be doing better and I am sure a lot of people will come to the defence I the TAC AI . I am not saying it is super bad, just these things could be improved on. Right now infantry without a huge amount of micro management on building assaults or any assault in general take what I would consider unnecessary losses due to it stupidity, where a normal human would do something different. I would love to see BF spend so more time on this front, rather then more vehicles etc. 

Here you go, hope it helps: 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/96330-some-performance-and-quality-tips-for-nvidia-users/

Everything dies faster.

Here are my initial impressions. The load screen's armed MTLB was stunning, leading me to hope for better graphics (have only 256 MB VRAM on Intel 3.06 Core 2 Duo iMac w/4 GB HD, OS X 10.7.5) than I have in CMBN. Was I ever right. Tremendous difference verging on miraculous. Thank you, BFC! The rendering, considering, say, what Barkmann's Panther looks like, even CMBN 3.11, is almost jaw dropping. Before that happened, though, I ran into repeated sound glitches, interruptions and hangs while loading, which made me wonder what was going on, together with what seemed to be abrupt jumps in the score. Loading was much faster than full on CMBN lacking only the Vehicle Pack, but this may be from interactions involving coding, file size and other matters, alone or in combination. In-game sound was bell like in clarity, thunderous, reverberating. And I was listening to it through my internal speakers. Am going to have to really be careful when wearing headphones and encourage everyone here to do the same. 
 
Selected QB and picked Armor on Armor--Auto Select. Hit button and waited several seconds to be taken to Briefing. Same thing when going from Briefing to game. With very few forces on the board, there was a significant delay before the turn began. But when it did...Let's just say the Americans got the drop on me, raining 25 mm fire on the rears of several BMD-3s pointing the wrong direction. Boom! Boom! Boom! M1A3SEPs went racing up the hill (and I do mean racing), knocking out one T-90 frontally while running and gunning, but at least it didn't explode. The AMP round did, though, right over the crew which had gotten out. Nasty business, war. But it wasn't all in favor of the Americans, for my other T-90s lased two Abrams perpedicular to and in front of them and hit and penetrated at least one. Was very hard to tell because of two tanks' worth of broadband obscurants in the way. With the tanks all behind the smoke, the presumptive Bradleys had another go at my BMD-3s, which had had no time to react, so were still mainly headed for the village while executing Move orders. More explosions. In one minute of combat, half my force was destroyed. Those used to WW II gunnery, movement and OpTempo are in for quite a terrible shock from this game. It was blazingly fast, but having analyzed such modern combat dynamics for many years, I was prepared for the speed and the carnage, at least to some degree.
 
BFC, you guys have outdone yourselves! Even with my anemic video card, the game looks great. The vehicles are spectacular, and the men (was too busy to do anything with them, so spared only a glance) looked good. Terrain's very nice, particularly after being stuck in the bocage. What I especially loved is that the UI is now crisp, clear and easily readable--a huge contrast to the bitmapped awful eye test of yore. Bravo Zulu. Well done. I would suggest, though, you return the Go button to bright red. I almost missed it because my brain's programmed to look for that. While I do know the basic UI and controls, I still find it impressive I was able to bang out commands and be in battle in under two minutes. This has huge implications for people who wish to play but are time constrained, for CMBS is a near instant game when played with QBs and force Auto Select once core parameters are decided. I had the forces set faster than the time it took to get to the Briefing after that.
 
All in all, I'm hugely impressed, and will, of course, share my excitement with my brother and others who may be interested (or whom I waylay). I believe you have not merely a real winner, but more like a, if not the (my bet), top computer wargame for 2015. As far as I'm concerned, this game is a category killer at minimum and ought to win a Charles Roberts Award. I almost feel sorry for your so-called competition. I hope you've got room there for all the awards--I expect a slew to come. This is how I'm responding with a total of less than ten minutes spent, beginning with loading the game. You know I'm no sycophant. I call them as I see them, and as they say in comedy, this game kills! 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettker

I told you guys not to include a scenario to kill Kim Jong.

I figured this would be a good place to hang impressions of some of the new for CMBS hardware for folks who are playing now (or like me, have stopped playing to eat/let fingers depart from mouse operating position).
 
 
1. Vehicle Air Burst is brutal.
 
Russia definitely has an advantage in the sheer proliferation of airbursting rounds.  It makes facing down BMP3s potentially messy with infantry, and tanks just as perilous.
 
On the other hand the US airburst capable platform is Odin level optics and sees all.  Seems well suited to killing ATGM teams and the like
 
2. ATGMs have been shaken up a bit.  
 
ERA is much more common, and APS makes what used to be a lot of sure-shot dead tank shots into total whiffs.  This seems to hurt RU/UKR more than the US.  Javelins are still something to hide under the bed from though.  
 
3. BMP3s are pretty much rolling JDAMs
 
Seriously.  They almost always wind up at the bottom of self generated craters if struck by large weapons.  It's rare to see one merely knocked out, the default hit is total vehicle, crew, and passenger loss.  From my experience so far the APS is the only protective package worth the effort.   On the other hand, the 100 MM is an awesome tool, and the ATGMs are as good as any of the other standard vehicle ATGMs in the game.  Might be better if you keep them back, feel forward with tanks and dismounted infantry, and then call them forward to deal with threats.
 
4. Precision fires is kind of cool
 
Haven't quite achieved the lethality I'd hoped for.  Mostly called for the US stuff, think part of it has just been a matter of how I employ fires.
 
5. Ukrainian tanks are a mixed bag.
 
They're both the bottom of the pecking order, and if you're playing as Russia, still capable of delivering very nasty surprises.  If I had to tier them against CMSF, they're comparable to the high end Syrian T-72s, with the Russian tank falling into the less capable NATO platform range.  The T-90 models especially are definitely superior, but it isn't the M1A2 SEP vs T-55 sort of superior.  
 
6. M1A2 SEP is still a monster.  
 
With the APS it certainly needs effort to KO.  On the other hand, I've had more than a few knocked out frontally from T-90s and the like, or badly damaged by 30 MM fire, or lesser tank rounds.  It's advantage is usually it gets the first shot in most engagements, hits in the 80-90% range (conservatively, I've certainly seen them miss at least!), and has almost universal lethality against what it hits.  Best I've seen a T-90 get off with was having surviving crewmen after it was knocked out.
 
7. ADA Is a pain.  Even MANPADs
 
Seriously.  If you're a CMSF NATO person used to having your way with airstrikes, prepare for sadface.  If you're expecting the Russian Air Force to nimbly pave your way to victory, again, expect some sadface.  
 
Best tool so far is if you know about where the enemy MANPADs are, dropping an artillery barrage to suppress them during your strike.  This requires some good optics, situation awareness, or really good guessing though.  

Present.  What do you want me to say?  You don't want your tanks to back up?  Don't get lased!  
 
US Army has no relevant doctrine for this yet, as we don't currently have LWRs on our vehicles.  Like the APS, the LWR is a postulated add-on that is commercially available and we can reasonably assume would be added to front line US units if we had say six months of warning to spool up prior to actual hostilities.  If it was 'come as you are, right *** now!' we would not (currently) have this kit.  At current defense budget levels we will likely field an APS sometime in mid 20s and a new tank long after I am dead <sad face!>  
 
Though our acquaintances in the IDF do have LWRs (I think I recall) on their systems, their threat is vastly different and so any doctrine they have hashed out against Hez/Ham threats would not apply to an adversary with MBTs and numerous different precision anti-armor threats.  In the absence of extensive use at our combat training centers (which would require a very substantial overhaul of our training equipment, as well as the LWRs applied) we must assume that we would be determining tactics/techniques/procedures through combat Darwinism/evolution.  If I was on a tank and the LWR so much as twitched, I would take immediate action.  While that might not include launching smoke, it would almost certainly include seeking cover.  Only difference is that I think running for cover forwards would be more frequent, as the crew is usually oriented that way on the offense, and it would be easier than trying to stop then reverse.  However, would be tougher on the TAC AI to get this behavior, so we've got what we've got.  My advice is...
 
Low ground is your friend.  Just because your Abrams is a rolling deathwagon does not mean you are invulnerable.  Move tactically.
If you cannot avoid it, consider using indirect-delivered smoke.  It doesn't stop thermals, but does a job on lasers.  Lack of direct-fire emplaced obscuration is a major gap in US capabilities.  One that I am literally hoping to rectify. 
Use overwatching vehicles.  Don't move if you don't have a friend covering you.  Keep bounds short enough for mutual support, but don't become overly robotic.  Flow like water over the terrain.
On the defense, look to array forces in depth, but focused into a defined killing zone (engagement area) with overlapping coverage.  Try to not allow the temporary withdrawal of a single platform unhinge your whole plan.  
 
Just my $0.02  Enjoy the game.