• 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:

      -showui

      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

CarlWAW

Members
  • Content count

    183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CarlWAW

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

515 profile views
  1. Does that mean, that no 5.0 engine, but a CM3x in development?
  2. I think there were numerous occasions, where suddenly the neigbour was gone and the regiment and the division knew nothing what is happening. While I played CM I did not prefer historic scenarios over fictional ones. As long as it was fun, I was fine.
  3. Interesting. So CM is more or less "finished"? That could explain, why the less than ideal status quo is so vehemently defended by some posters...
  4. It is a fact that scenario battles do not contain pre battle recon and I think I have clearly explained with an example, why CM scenarios are not capable to do so and offered my point of view, what would be needed to solve that. I don't know, why my arguments are ignored, and it is claimed otherwise, despite the fact, that complete battles with all their phases do not exist, but I want to clarify something: I know, what scenarios are out there. And no, I will not make my own scenarios. I know the engine can't do that and the engine can't handle recon vehicles in their most basic way. I also dispise touch objectives, because it's not me, but the scenario designer determining what is important to me. Ridiculous and childish! Therefore I also do not like most other "capture the flag" scenarios. In most cases they are tactically wrong and first and foremost I always went for the enemy force. After eliminating the enemy capturing the flag is the result. So all your fantasizing that all was there what I am missing, will not turn me into a paying customer again. And I have no problem with that.
  5. Sounds to me more like a special op, not like a tactical recon task for a following up battle.
  6. I took a look at several RT, FI and BN scenarios/maps now - with the imagination of realistic recon in mind (recon vehicles plus the campain-system being able to use the same map). To me the maps begin to look quite different from a tactical point of view - without the scenario desginer's god like hand guiding everything! Try yourself: load up an impressive medium sized map and while looking at it, imagine the game would offer these two improvements and the following situation: Division has lost contact to the sparse security units in the area. The enemy could already be somewhere. Unknown. Find out what is going on. Gather as much intel as possible. Depending on your (recon) results, the division will decide what to do next. The first "battle" in such a campaign could be a kind of recon scenario - but with extremely limited knowledge about the enemy. The possibility of quickly throwing back furthest spearheads to the possibility of facing a huge force - the player could face everything and therefore he must act very different from now. Depending on the result (e.g. points for spotting units), the campaign could transparently/silently have branches for the next "battle"/phase without telling the player how he performed: Poor intel -> leads to wrong estimation of enemy's force -> player receives few own units, depending on his intel - but most importantly: contrary to single scenarios now, it would be a direct result of the player's performance - I guess not an insiginficant difference in realism and motivation for certain customers. Good intel -> player receives a stronger force (another hugely important difference: player receives his forces somewhere on the map: the force deployment gives no indication of what will happen later! (I could cry every time, when reinforcements arrive in CM, and you know, if they arrive east, and there is no enemy yet, there will happen something... Hell, even the direction of the reinforcements tell you, where to move them ). ALT-Q rescue me! Here how the player can achieve his goal, really depends on his own decisions (and his prior intel and performance).
  7. Rightly so! That's exactly my point. The current system does not allow that. If a campaign could reuse the same map and it's destruction for it's scenarios (some kind of stationary campaign), it would be no problem. Start the campaign with almost no or obsolete intel. It's up to the player to find out, what's really out there. In reality very important questions suddenly the player also has to answer: Was the recon good enough for a later attack? According to the own intel will the available forces be adequate? For which task will they be adequate?
  8. Sure. I have got a motivation problem, because I have the feeling scenarios more or less are always the same. The kind and the chronology how every battle develops is always the same. Even before I start, it's already 100% guaranteed, that an enemy will be there. And that a battle will follow. And the own forces will be adequate. Never a wrong briefing. Never wrong intel. Scenarios show more or less always only the culmination of a battle, after all recon has been done. I identified as source of that problem: 1. No real possibility to use recon vehicles for recon because there is no possibility to make them evade, if they face a threat. Which would be crucial to recon big maps and find an enemy, for example. 2. The Campaign system: only one "battle" on one map. No uncertainty. No recon phases before a battle, no mop up phases. Map destruction not preserved: no difficult attacks, which need recon, cancel of attack, additional recon, try from another direction,... - for example against heavily fortified positions. IMO each one is already a severe restriction - but both combined are emphasizing the problem to the point, where tactical variety becomes heavily reduced.
  9. @IanL I had taken a break already (didn't buy FB anymore). The graphics is good enough for me. I am first and foremost interested in improved realism and have only two problems with CM's simulation aspect.
  10. If yes: when could it be expected? I tried to get into playing the last few days again. But still CM has lost it's mojo for me. My hope is a new engine will bring what I miss.
  11. Ah, facade troops! I remember... I hate gamey scenarios where scenario designers put major efforts into creating map elevations and house positions to artificially deny LOS and create totally artificial keyhole positions, or force a player using a certain (costly) approach. Thats playing the game mechanics. With the game mechanics creating a certain problem to the player - and therefore the game mechanics determines the solution, not the tactical situation! For example: roofs of barracks being used to block LOS. Which is fine. But if the baracks are placed only to achieve that artificial blocking, while in reality the tactical situation would not be changed at all, because the roofs would be shot in pieces within seconds by HMGs, then IMO this is very bad tactical scenario design.
  12. But that's only valid for playing against the AI. Playing against humans you are forced to use all tools available.
  13. CM is already quite unattractive to most people, because of it's complexity and the necessary micromanaging. Wishes of even more control and more micromanaging will definately lead to even less customers. Reducing the 60 seconds? Are you insane? Double the turns in PBEM, even more time for micromanaging? Who wants to play that?
  14. IMO the game has already enough commands. And I didn't want to micromanage even more. I'd prefer a solution that uses what we have already and feels more "intelligent". For example: the HIDE command for a vehicle makes the vehicle "shy" during movement (quite intuitive, isn't it?). The vehicle reverses for example until it's AI determines the "threat" is gone (i.e. loses LOS). If the HIDE command is activated and the vehicle is on the move, and a PAUSE order at the next waypoint exists, the PAUSE command would not be discarded but used to determine how long the vehicle stops, before reversing. Now if this all would be combined with the already existing cover arcs, a very powerful, totally intuitively retreat with/without shooting would exist. It even could be programmed for all vehicles, so even lighly armored tanks against big ones would benefit from it. But the question is, how difficult is it for Battlefront to check if the HIDE command has been activated?
  15. @exsonic01 Good point. For example it was the reason why I stopped playing and buying new releases, because it's not possible to use recon vehicles and other lightly armored vehicles in a realistic way. If my vehicles behave like tanks and I have no possibility to make them "shy" and reverse, I had asked myself more and more often, why I should micromanage that single, much less powerful infantry unit.