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 Machor

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  1. Stryker vs Bradley

    I think the TD discussion got rather too abstract without taking into account the bewildering variety of these vehicles. The heavy ATGM vehicles you mentioned fit in exactly with the employment of the Nashorn, which was so successful against the KV and T-34 when first introduced precisely because it could engage them at ranges where they couldn't shoot back. Similarly, modern ATGM vehicles can engage Western tanks at ranges where the enemy can't return fire; Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian tanks can, of course, shoot back with their own ATGM, but the 'exchange rate' in terms of materiel loss would still favor ATGM vehicles.
  2. Stryker vs Bradley

    Sorry to go OT, but I have a burning question after watching the second episode of National Geographic's The Long Road Home yesterday, and this thread seems like the best place to ask it: Two rescue convoys were sent into Sadr City to save US troops who had been ambushed and surrounded; the insurgents had also ambushed and repelled an Abrams platoon that had been sent to rescue, thus heavy resistance was expected. The commander of the first rescue convoy had a Bradley in lead, but decided to overtake it with his armoured Humvee since the dust from the Bradley's tracks was obstructing his vision; the battalion CO was apparently leading the second convoy with his armoured Humvee from the very start - even though he had at least two Bradleys in the convoy. I won't spoil the episode, but let's say the armoured Humvee has significantly lower survivability than the Bradley. Why wouldn't the officers lead their convoys in Bradleys?
  3. Russian army under equipped?

    I didn't want to create a new thread for this, and went for this one as the CMBS thread. Interesting new BBC online investigation that reveals a development I wasn't aware of: "Inside a pro-Russia propaganda machine in Ukraine" http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41915295 The purpose of my post isn't 'Russia-bashing,' but to point out a RL phenomenon that could provide a convincing backstory for CMBS scenarios/campaigns. To quote the end of the article: "The revelations point to a problem for the propaganda-makers - making their often-absurd claims believable. But Aric Toler of the investigative website Bellingcat, suspects that believability may not be the whole point. "I think that the fakes are not meant to be extremely convincing," Toler says. "All it takes is a few popular news outlets... to run a headline about a video of a Ukrainian far-right group 'reportedly' making a threat. The vast majority of people only look at headlines for stories and won't see any future retractions - so the damage is done." Toler believes that the fake Russian Liberation Movement claiming the suspected Rostov arson - despite any evidence to back up the claim at all - may also have been somewhat effective. "Perhaps the video was a smokescreen to hide the real purpose of the arson, or maybe it's just an opportunity to create this bogeyman of the anti-Putin ultranationalist.""
  4. That was exactly @HerrTom's point previously on this thread: Anyone with interest in the topic must also go through his outstanding analysis on the following thread - lots of RL evidence there from the war in Ukraine as well:
  5. To add: Because of the upcoming module that will take the Italian front to the end of the war, certain nations/forces have been added to the QB menu that will become available once the new module comes out - and we purchase it. +1 The date is also very important for equipment availability - even a single month makes a difference.
  6. Tactical Lifehack

    Are you mentioning the possibility of equipping them with thermals - of which I am aware - or are vehicles with thermals already in service with Ukraine? The latter would be a huge capability improvement. Steve did mention how they failed to foresee the speed with which Ukraine adopted drones, so I assume this issue will be resolved with the next module. My understanding is this wasn't done for the sake of playability; i.e. the effect of MLRS in the scale of the game is almost like a nuclear weapon.
  7. Tactical Lifehack

    Also, I'm pretty sure that Skif has a thermal sight in game, whereas Corsar doesn't - the manual isn't very clear about this. Since Russian tanks also have thermals (only the Oplot does on the Ukrainian side), this can make a crucial difference depending on visibility or if the Russian player spams smoke. The tank to watch out for is the T-90AM; its ERA seems capable of defeating Skif with at least 50% probability.
  8. From my experience of placing very similar forces on the same maps for defense with varying wind forces, I can confirm with 100% certainty that wind does significantly deteriorate sound contacts.
  9. For the record, I've been playing Iron WeGo ever since I got into CM in 2015 (thanks to CMBS), and like it just the way it is. May I venture to guess that you don't play WW2 titles? If so, you're seeing far better contact sharing in modern titles, which may explain why Iron doesn't seem to really do anything - though there's still the very important point about friendly visual contacts that @Vanir Ausf B mentioned. This is a big reason for me - to be able to capture gaming 'moments' on video. I don't know how other folks do it, but I ain't got no stack of papers anywhere around me - nothing CM related, that is. For me, it's simply putting myself in the boots of a particular unit or formation's commander and deciding what he (or she, with some Ukrainian commanders in CMBS ) would do with the given information. I wouldn't be able to do that without the Iron mode. With this, you're missing the point that Steve and others have made, that CM is not a command simulation. You play the role of not only the force commander, but of every decision maker on your OOB. You may find it informative for better understanding CM to compare it to Battlefront's TacOps or HPS Sims' Tigers Unleashed.
  10. Here's news that should cheer up some of us: "Japanese police arrest 74-year-old ninja thief suspect" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41750080 "Japanese police say they have finally caught a prolific thief who dressed as a ninja to carry out raids - and were surprised to find he was 74. After his usually covered face was caught on a security camera this year, he was put under surveillance which led to his arrest in July. Police now believe he is the so-called "Ninja of Heisei", thought to have carried out more than 250 break-ins. He has been charged with thefts worth 30m yen ($260,000; £200,000). Police had been baffled by a series of burglaries over eight years carried out by a suspect wearing black, assuming they had been carried out by someone younger. Investigators observed the suspect, whom they say seemed little different from most elderly men, during the day. But they say he then went into an abandoned building and changed clothes before waiting until it got dark to steal. "He was dressed all in black just like a ninja," a senior official in the western Japanese city of Osaka said. Police said the thief displayed great physical ability, running effortlessly on top of walls instead of taking the streets. After his arrest, the man was quoted as saying: "If I were younger, I wouldn't have been caught. I'll quit now as I'm 74 and old enough.""
  11. Steve, @Vanir Ausf B said Armata can soft-kill Javelin: Here's the thread, in case you missed it: [OK, I'm about to post this, I linked to a thread I started, and I'm seeing a still from Back to the Future. I'll hit 'Submit Reply' and hope the post comes out normal.]
  12. Tactical Lifehack

    Thank you for the reply! I'll follow BTR's example and lay off the reversing topic - I hope it was of interest to Oleksandr and others.
  13. A tip for making the AI 'fun again,' and some points that have been recently raised in another thread:
  14. Thank you for the info. Regarding the weather, let me quote one more sentence from the report to clarify what they're saying: "Some additional field measurements and sensor performance modeling remain to be completed before final conclusions are reached, but these preliminary results seem to indicate that performance would be the same in LWIR and MWIR." (p. 7). So first, they're discussing 'preliminary results' from 2006, which may have later changed, or the technology may have improved since then. Second, they're not saying that the dual-band thermals were trashed [my bad if it sounded like that], rather that they had no advantage over scanning a single band. This is, of course, independent of factors like the computational aspect you mentioned; i.e. it is a comparison between two US sights that scan both bands or a single band. Again, my bad that it sounded like a comparison between US and RUS thermals in wet weather. Thus, I shall retract the statement "minimize the advantage of Yank sights," and go with "rob the Yank sights of a unique advantage, which would be interesting to scale against the performance loss of Russkie sights."
  15. What I've found from some quick searches suggests that it's not NATO, but specifically US technological superiority. The Russian sights are supposedly based on the Thales Catherine [This article offers good information, but I've checked out a WOT thread as well: "French eyes for a Russian tiger," "Enjoyed an old T-90 vs M1A1 Topic"], which can scan in either the LWIR or the MWIR band [https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/long-range-thermal-imagers-catherine-fc-gfc-xp-mp-ez-ws ]. The Yanks had developed sights that could scan simultaneously in both bands way back in 2006, and you can check out Table 1 on page 7 to see how superior they are to scanning in a single band: "3RD GENERATION THERMAL IMAGER SENSOR PERFORMANCE" https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjljfOiy_bWAhVM_WMKHWwjChMQFghRMAs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fget-tr-doc%2Fpdf%3FAD%3DADA481411&usg=AOvVaw0YWHjpQ5ZGowvoat5Boga8 In that same document, check out Figure 1 on page 2 to see how much thermals get degraded in sandstorms and fog. Also, as indicated in Table 1, "Wet Targets" minimize the advantage of Yank sights; specifically: "Next was wet targets. Wet targets in wet backgrounds in the IR are challenging because they have low contrast and markedly different emissivity and reflectivity characteristics than when dry. The goal here was to investigate the impact of naturally occurring wetting, e.g., heavy rainfall, in the MWIR and LWIR, and so NVESD collected imagery of a variety of wet targets and backgrounds after a heavy rainfall." (p. 6). Time to experiment with weather settings.