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 IICptMillerII

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,200 profile views
  1. What you stated is essentially the case; the US Army had to learn its own lessons. While there were urban fights before the invasion of France, all that were encountered were not on the same scale and ferocity of the city fights that occurred in Western Europe. So the US Army didn't really have a "proper" urban fight until France.
  2. I'm a big fan of both the Armchair General videos and Josey Wales. If I could add another video in it would be this one by @PanzerPajamas: I think it shows off some good combined arms with some varied and fun equipment. It also shows off an often ignored theater of the war.
  3. Smoke as a Force Field

    If your opponent is dumb enough to blind himself by popping smoke directly in front of his defensive position, I would argue that he is making your job easier, not harder. One of the biggest issues with modern "realistic" games is the over reliance on smoke. The second a bullet flies overhead, everyone starts chucking smoke grenades everywhere. Not only is this unrealistic, its completely stupid. Maybe the problem here isn't how the game handles smoke, but with players misusing an asset then wondering why things aren't going well for them.
  4. Campaign editing

    Sounds very interesting! I would very much like to test it out for you if you are looking for testers. You can send it via PM here on the forum.
  5. Stryker vs Bradley

    Ahh ok, I know both 'Red Thrust' and "The Bear Went Over the Mountain.' "Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics' looks like a very interesting read. Unfortunately I don't read/speak German so the last book is beyond my grasp. Exactly. To the nuclear deterrence stuff, I know a big reason why the Soviets shifted to a larger nuclear-based deterrence philosophy on the strategic scale was because their ICBM capability only became capable in the 70s-80s. Before that, they still relied overwhelmingly on more conventional delivery methods (ie bombers and such) The Marines used the M60A3 Patton tank in the First Gulf War, but by OIF all of their deployed armor was Abrams. The Abrams does, yes. Every branch claims that it is on the verge of technological obsolescence in order to attempt to gain more funding. This is nothing new. Being able to understand the reality is rather important. The fact is, there is no other military in the world that is as well equipped, on such a large scale, as the US. Arguing against this is asinine.
  6. Campaign editing

    Is your tool able to repack the campaign? Do you have a working prototype?
  7. Stryker vs Bradley

    I've only read the Field Manuals on Soviet Operations (FM 100-2-1) which gives a decent overview behind the philosophy and the practical applications in my opinion. Five books is impressive though. Any you would recommend? I couldn't tell you when the word "defense" was purged from tactical schools/doctrine, but that is indeed the case. So much so to the point where the Army and Marines don't even teach defensive operations. They obviously still teach things such as security postures, that if attacked are essentially planned defenses, but they aren't meant to be permanent. The idea is basically to always be on the attack, but on the off chance the enemy catches you while you are "paused" (so to speak) you are properly prepared to repel said attack. I'm probably confusing more than I am helping at this point though. Just know that on the war fighting level (that is, the tactical and operational levels) the idea is to always have the initiative, which is an offensive posture by nature. Its important to remember that while the strategic objective of NATO in Europe was one of defense, that does not translate to always being on the defense on the tactical and operational level. Essentially yes. To make things more confusing, the idea was not to wait for the Soviets to come at you through the Fulda Gap and defend in place, but to in fact attack the enemy who is trying to attack you. Not head on mind you. The entire idea is elasticity. Independent units (Brigade level) being able to act autonomously. This both helps during a conventional war, and in the event of the use of nuclear weapons. The entire army isnt wiped out in one strike because everyone is spread out, and all the smaller groups have enough firepower/logistics to operate by themselves. Again, this is an oversimplification, but I think you'll understand what I'm getting at. Yes, new weapon systems are constantly being developed and added, and generally speaking it does not "break" the logistics of the army. The point is, adding the 30mm cannon to the stryker defeats the point of the stryker. Why do you need a stryker armed with a 30mm when you can have a bradley armed with a 25mm (literally just as good, with more ammo) and TOW missiles? It becomes redundant. Even this is irrelevant to the main point however. If you turn the stryker to a landship, you can no longer rapidly deploy it. If you can no longer rapidly deploy the stryker, then it has no purpose. Too bad it never gets to the battlefield. Wewlad.
  8. Stryker vs Bradley

    The WHOLE POINT of the stryker is to give the US Army a modern, quick, flexible vehicle that can respond to anticipated and unanticipated situations. Just because the stryker can't swim, or fly, does NOT mean it is a useless antiquated vehicle. You are the only one here trying to claim that the US refuses to prepare for anything. What task, pray tell? We don't need amphibious vehicles in Europe. If we did, there are plenty of "old, antiquated" LAVs and AAVs lying around that could be rushed into theater to fill this glaring hole in strategic doctrine. Funny though, I haven't heard any Generals or otherwise losing their minds because their vehicles can't cross a river. Its a good thing you've managed to find the one massive glaring hole in US doctrine that all of those so called "experts" and "military leaders" overlooked. Ok, I'm going to call you out on this one to prove a point. Post your source. Where, in any official doctrine, does it say that if air superiority is not gained then all hope is lost? Back up you claim with a source. Again, not the case. But keep going with these absurd and false generalizations. I understand where you are coming from. At face value it would appear that US doctrine during the Cold War should be defensive in nature. After all, NATO wasn't planning on attacking the Eastern Bloc. However, US doctrine is actually the opposite of this. So much so that the doctrine doesn't even plan for defense. The entire goal is to always be attacking or counter attacking. This is for a lot of reasons, but primarily it has to do with initiative and the positive effects of keeping and maintaining the initiative in combat. This is an extremely simplified glossing over mind you. If you want to read more, I would recommend reading up on AirLand Battle. That is the doctrine the US Army developed during the 70s (as a result of what was seen during the 1973 Yom Kippur War in Israel) on how they planned to fight a mechanized war against the Soviets in Europe.
  9. Stryker vs Bradley

    Wow. I'm impressed. I never would have expected to see someone honestly try to claim here that the US military is an outdated, antiquated force. Do I even bother asking the obvious; can you name a single Russian vehicle that is currently in service that is younger than 20 years old? No. The primary British contribution to the original M1 Abrams was Chobham armor. It was newly developed by the British, with the express purpose of being able to defeat HEAT warheads. The M68A1 105mm gun used on the Abrams and Patton tanks were the British designed L7 gun. This gun was in use with the US already. I don't get what you are trying to say here. Is it a bad thing that various NATO countries worked together and shared technology/parts/designs in order to develop new vehicles? Are you seriously claiming that just because certain countries do not immediately adopt US equipment, or vice versa, that said equipment is garbage? I'm actually surprised by the levels of ridiculous this got to. Basically this. A vehicle that can cross a river and do nothing else isn't very useful. To make the stryker amphibious, you would have to strip it down a lot, and say goodbye to the newer mine resistant variants with the V hulls, as well as getting rid of all ERA. The vehicle would essentially require a complete redesign. In short, it is out of the scope of that the stryker is supposed to do.
  10. Stryker vs Bradley

    Wew ok we've really gone off the rails on this one. True. False. True. LAV-25 (and variants). AAV-7 (and variants). LCAC. (For those that do not know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion) False. (Did we "steal" the 120mm from the Germans then?) It is. False. The Abrams is no more "fuel/supply hungry" than any other MBT. And for the record, the Abrams exhaust cannot melt infantrymen crouched behind it, nor does it attract AA heat seeking missiles. All myths, long ago debunked. The History Channel lied to you. @c3k I have the perfect vehicle for you: For more designs, just search the term "Landship." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landship)
  11. Stryker vs Bradley

    The Bradley isn't amphibious, yet no one is complaining about that. Nor has anyone, because the Bradley has been more than fine at doing its job without having to swim as well. Most M113 variants since the 70s have not been amphibious. Most vehicles in the current, and former US arsenal are not amphibious, with the exception of the Marines. Clearly, the US Army has not put any emphasis on amphibious capability since the late 60s, and it has not been a detriment. Further, a case study. In 2003, the Army and Marines made seperate pushes to Baghdad. Water obstacles were present in said pushes. The Army, with no amphibious vehicles organic to their formations, reached Baghdad first, before the amphibiously equipped Marines. Clearly, not having amphibious vehicles did not hamper the Army's drive on Baghdad. There are other examples, but the point is this; the US Army is not massively disadvantaged by not having amphibious APCs. Also, just because other military's 'around the world' adopt/do things, does not mean what the US Army is doing is 'wrong' or 'behind' in capability. Different missions, requirements, budgets, etc etc. Apples to oranges. This.
  12. Campaign editing

    What does the tool do? Unless you're using it to open, modify, then re-pack campaigns and publish/sell them as your own, I don't see how it could violate the license agreement. As IanL already linked to, there is a campaign unpack tool that's been around in various versions since CMBN, and that is perfectly fine. My guess would be that you're good to go.
  13. Stryker vs Bradley

    The stryker isn't amphibious for the same reason it doesn't have VTOL capability. This is a tired line of logic. "Well, if the whole point of the stryker is to be light weight and easily/quickly deployable, then why can't it fly like a helicopter?" "Well, if the whole point of the stryker is to be light weight and easily/quickly deployable, why can't it traverse the ocean with a full compliment inside?" ""Well, if the whole point of the stryker is to be light weight and easily/quickly deployable, why can't it act like an ICBM, flying into low Earth orbit, then coming back down to Earth where it needs to be, ready to fight?"
  14. Playing Combat Mission on 55" HD tv

    A wireless mouse/keyboard on a coffee table. Mind you, I don't normally play CM on the TV, and if I did I would likely need a more proper set-up (such as a desk or something for the mouse/keyboard)
  15. My understanding is that BFC has been backlogged with stuff and simply haven't had the time to rip open the code and try to mend then test it. Bug fixing/testing requires a lot of time that takes away from other projects. As I said they have been backlogged for a while now, so taking more time to bug fix would only make the problem worse. The good news is, they are aware of the bug and have said that it will be the first thing addressed when a patch is worked on. This is my understanding as well. BFC is generally very good about releasing updates, and they are good about releasing patches that address major issues. Though they are a bit slow on releasing patches, generally major fixes aren't required. I too think that the upgrade was rushed. I don't think it was adequately tested before it was given the green light. But again, I believe this is mostly to do with them being backlogged more than anything else. I don't think this is the case. They have already said that fixing the faulty behavior is a top priority. So not only are they going to fix it, but they acknowledge that it is in fact faulty. As JoMc said, I think it mostly came down to rushed testing.