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


Rinaldi last won the day on January 3

Rinaldi had the most liked content!


About Rinaldi

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 12/12/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Brighton, East Sussex


  • Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

5,189 profile views
  1. Who's winning the tank war?

    Yes The almighty dollar. Western MBTs are hard to maintain, require much more involved crew training at the first echelon to keep running and fight the tank well. They're also, let's be frank, designed around armies that have (in theory) the logistical capabilities to keep them in action: which our export clients do not possess on paper or in actuality. Finally: their threats aren't near-peer. Last time we danced this dance, you were shocked to discover from the Dev team and other people with experience in Western MBTs (myself, Panzersauer, among others) at the low resolution of Russian MBT FLIR, the fact commander's optics are slaved to the gunner on the most numerous chassis, the fact that Western tanks have driver's night sights, 480-1080p FLIR, etc etc. So don't take this the wrong way: but let's not argue from a position of ignorance again on the technological (qualitative) and quantitative advantages we hold. If you want to pose legitimate criticisms, you should attack the backwards-ass doctrine we're currently untangling ourselves from and the general atrophy of NATO member's armed forces - the Bundeswehr being the most demonstrative. We got the material, but the means remain a question mark.
  2. I thought the same too, I actually thought it was PnzrLdr for a while, but iirc he's retired.
  3. Do you mean proper real time or direct connect we-go? You'd hand me my ass in proper real time but I'd be down for it, I don't really care about winning or losing. Its a matter of when and how; I'm entering exams and I'll be back in GMT-5 timezone starting this summer.
  4. Iranian Fighting Vehicles

    Aren't the earlier Ch'onma-Hos essentially unmodified T-62s anyways? The Iranians have a very interesting and eclectic mix of East-West equipment. Most of the Western stuff is falling apart due to age and a lack of spare parts. Their ex-bloc style equipment was also eyebrow raising, I remember them announcing their new MBT....which was quite clearly a T-72 knock off. I remember enjoying playing the Iranian-Soviet hypothetical scenario in Graviteam; was an interesting match off.
  5. This tired fantasy truly is getting old; I'm glad you nipped it in the bud. We're hardly in a position as Canadians and Brits to wag the finger; our societies had (and still do, as one can gather from a particularly recent meltdown in another part of this forum) people who are all to willing to get behind ugly causes, including Nazism. Condemning an entire country off a handful of loonies would be silly and alarming; so why a family?
  6. Stellar, thanks! I may make my own AAR of this - after you of course. Keep it up, I've been loving it.
  7. http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2017/Fall/4Duplessis17.pdf ARMOR is always an interesting read, and this article in particular was a great one; shows how long it can take a military to shake off the cobwebs of COIN related environments.
  8. Yes, the CF Battlegroup - as interesting as it would be to play - would probably remain in the Baltics.
  9. Haha oh no its meant for H2H, but it is definitely asymmetrical to a degree (it is up to you lovely bunch to decide if objective scoring made up for that), at any rate enjoy guys!
  10. Flattered but I somehow don't think Power Hour is going to sit well with anyone who wants a competitive, ladder-like experience.
  11. Stryker vs Bradley

    Yeah, exactly. The best way to think of a BMP is an assault raft that can carry right on and attack with the infantry; the range of a MRR or MRB that has a bridgehead is no further than their current load of fuel. A river-crossing by a BMP unit is no different than a typical cross-river attack with rafts in principal: to secure the far bank for bridging. You got to get one across and keep it intact to continue any type of operational movement. American doctrine puts a lot more faith in the infantry's ability to deal with threats in a limited environment and lots of support, whereas a lot of Soviet/Russian literature (learning from Afghanistan and Chechnya) believe that Infantry suppress and mop up after the supporting vehicles do their job. Considering both approaches have been successfully borne out in conflicts I can't really slag either, its a difference in philosophy and TO&E. BTR-82As are swimmable yes. The BTR remains a remarkably light vehicle after slapping a 30mm on it. If I had to go off the top of my head it's only a 3-4 tons heavier than it was in its first configurations.
  12. Stryker vs Bradley

    More armor. LAV-III ain't swimmable either, and never has been. No idea about MOWAGs. The ability to ford rivers is secondary to the US, who's bridging abilities embarrass most other countries. In the same time it takes to prepare a BMP for a river crossing operation, we're as likely to just try and slap a few ribbons across. River crossings are deemed routine for both sides, but for different reasons.
  13. I won't say I have a hand in this discussion, but it's worth noting that 3 to 3.5 million of the Red Army's "casualties" were murdered, worked-to-death or starved-to-death POWs. Try to remember that a racially and politically charged war of annihilation was being fought. The losses were always going to be heavier, and the fatality figures almost certainly take that into account (re.: Civilians). As for lend lease, yes; I am in the party that believes it was decisive to the Soviet Union's survival. No one can convince me that a nation can re-locate and re-organize its industry under fire and have provision of non-lethal and lethal aid 'merely be a help.' That the Russians even recognize it is admirable, but the typical language ("we dont really know how helpful it was" or "it was helpful, but....") is to me, shoddy post-war revisionism.
  14. I haven't given it that much thought; to be frank the actual scenario for SF has long struck me as border-line nonsensical. My usual opponents and myself basically long ago concluded it was the dev team's way of getting "Iraq 2003" but with the new formations and equipment (re.: Stryker) that just missed the conventional phase. Everything smacked of it: straight down to the campaign's structure. One could always tip-toe around that by creating generic force on forces, which I think is where SF shines.