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

  1. No offense but this is "old news". They made this announcement months ago. What is frustrating isn't your post...it's that their "urgent upgrade" isn't going to get deployed till 2020! So much wasted time already on this. For the cost of 1 or 2 F-35's we could have paid the Israelis to "rush" installation on 1 or 2 actual units and had them in service NOW! Just venting...
  2. Question about Javelin use...

    It's a PBEM game. The problem is...I would have to also send you my password for you to open it.
  3. Question about Javelin use...

    @Sgt.Squarehead@c3k @John Kettler @MikeyD It finally happened a 2nd time...and this time I remembered to take a screenshot! This is a radio operator from a 3 man FO team who performed "medic" and recovered the Laser Designator(even though he still cannot call in fire!). Any clue as to why the game program does this, even though he is not permitted to use that equipment??
  4. Question about Javelin use...

    Thanks John That would be my expectation too. I understand that the TO& E of the Stryker scout teams doesn't give them Javelins so I "stole them" from the other vehicles. It was just weird to me that, in addition to being unable to get the scouts to actually USE them, visually examining the soldiers up close, didn't even show them being carried! But any carried AT-4s showed up on their backs just fine. I am of the opinion that it was a random glitch. Maybe some byte of data just got "misplaced" during the loading of the game.
  5. Now it was used in combat too? What combat was it deployed in?? You chose the word "combat"...and since it was only used by the Soviet Naval Infantry...what conflict were they involved in?? The picture you provided only showed 1 vehicle...in a "clean" motor pool configuration...with no indication that it was "in theater" or any signs of "combat". No gear hanging off it. Not even a single crew member standing nearby! You ARE correct that it was "operational". You have yet to show that it was "deployed in combat". Words...they "cut" both ways. I know what you meant...just as you knew what I meant when I said "plausible"
  6. Yes...I only have CM:BS. Had to google CM:A. I stand corrected that there IS a version of the game where that equipment was definitely plausible. And "technically" you are correct that an APS system was operational...for a very short time. My statement was too far reaching. I should have said..."Show me another army that CURRENTLY has deployed APS..." I concede the point to you even if you knew what I was trying to get across.
  7. Yup! I hope you understood that I am in no way faulting you guys in my statement above. I am agreeing 100%.
  8. Bahahaha!! You did read the whole article didn't you?? Look... "The project was abandoned by the Army, but completed by the Soviet Naval Infantry to increase protection for about 250 older T-55 tanks in 1981–82 " Last time I checked...there are NETHER T-55s or Russian Naval Infantry in this game...not to mention that the game isn't called "Height of the Cold War: Soviets vs NATO 1980's"! Lol "Drozd APS was later replaced by the simpler non-APS Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour."..."AND... It was subsequently discontinued." Thanks for doing the research to support my argument for me... But hey...I would actually prefer that the Russians HAD deployed some sort of APS system in their Army, because I want to feel the game is justified in giving that side the option to "buy" APS if wanted. Why (and not the US side?)? Because the US already has a weapon that defeats it...the Javelin. And pretty much every squad has one.
  9. Ahhhh...you going to have to show me some proof for that. I have been "arguing" on here for awhile that until CM:BS adds a module that brings the Israelis into the mix, all arguments about APS being realistically deployed by the vehicles in the game are worthless. Show me ANY other military that has operationally DEPLOYED APS on their combat vehicles? NOT "in testing" or "soon to be added". The US Army has been "promising" to buy a system for years...and yet we still aren't any closer than "in testing"! Here is my proof..."The service made a decision to buy Trophy for Abrams on Sept. 29, Dean said, and now the Army is moving out to deploy the systems to Europe by 2020." https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2017/10/09/europe-bound-army-to-urgently-field-abrams-tanks-with-trophy-active-protection-system/ "...deploy the system...by 2020" ...is NOT a valid argument that the US(or any side) should have it available in the game that we have been playing for the past couple of years. It is also why you won't ever see me "buy" APS for my vehicles during QB. I am not faulting the game designers for including it when they created the game(~2015 I think) because it probably seemed like the sort of development that the US military(and the Russians) would have recognized as needed. But people keep forgetting that military procurement is "glacially SLOW!!" So...just like the back-n-forth on whether the Armata should be included next...until someone shows me pics of an operational unit (say company size or up) in the US military that has APS installed...I'm going to say "NO WAY!" P.S. I double checked on the US Marine Corps b/c I know sometimes they "cut through red tape" quicker, but "no" they haven't purchased it operationally yet either. http://defense-update.com/20160415_army-marine-corps-want-to-test-israels-trophy-aps-again.html
  10. Discussing ONLY the BMPT.... Totally agree with you on all those points. Is it just me or does it seem like someone is trying too hard to cram every single weapon they can think of on here? Is this the "age of the Mechwarrior"?? How often are you going to have a target that cannot be dealt with by the twin 30's (which I like) or a single co-ax 7.62 MG? Why 2 co-ax MG's... AND a 30mm AGL? The missiles make perfect sense for dealing with tanks, etc. But there has to be a better way to mount/protect them! They look slapped on as an afterthought. This is NOT a "spacious" vehicle so....having 4 DIFFERENT weapons types HAS to come at the expense of ammo storage. Better to use the interior space set aside for the AGL ammo, to carry more for the autocannons. Honestly...WHAT besides an MBT...cannot be dealt with by those twin autocannons??? If that odd looking square box is the sighting system...then it looks poorly designed for anything other than straight ahead. No traverse. Not even any ability to elevate so the auto-cannons can be used against upper story buildings or helicopters. The vehicle has blind spots in every direction NOT directly in front of the turret facing. And...the sight stands out too much as an inviting target. All this being said....I am highly supportive of any and all improvements to the Ukrainian military and it's defense industries! There is some real potential in the equipment they are displaying at this expo. But as for this PARTICULAR vehicle...they need to totally re-think it's design before going any further. Just my opinion...
  11. Russian / Ukrainian Breaching kits

    I'm not so sure about this. Either I read it somewhere in the manual...or on this forum...but I am thinking that the demo blast also "stuns" the soldiers occupying that floor, and that gives the advantage to the attackers during their assault. IRL at least, that is how it works...
  12. 4.0 AI Withdraw Orders

  13. Question about Javelin use...

    Exactly my understanding also. But...why let the assistant recover the laser designator? It's not like I even "instructed him" to! How nice would it be if we could instruct each "medic" soldier to..."grab those grenades...and that AT-4...but leave this and that..." Regular infantry cannot "recover" blasting charges from fallen engineers when they give "medic" function. Nor can they pick up a laser designator from a dead FO. I am guessing the game is coded so that troops can only "recover" items they have the ability to use(assuming those items are not damaged). Just seems strange that in that one case, the assistant DID recover the designator.
  14. Question about Javelin use...

    @c3k Unfortunately game is finished and I've moved on to a new battle...