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 DerKommissar

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. Squads breaking cover for no reason?

    Like I said, it doesn't ruin my suspension of disbelief, just disrupts my plans and offers a slight annoyance. That being said, I wouldn't mind Darkest Dungeon-type modifiers to your troops.
  2. Who's winning the tank war?

    Aye, I absolutely agree. This being said, Russia has plenty of natural resources and had a world-class aero-space industry. Even if they may be limited from importing expensive manufacturing equipment due to sanctions, they certainly had the capability do develop their own. Their problem is bad management. Their entire system is built on short-term profits and no one is interested in long-term investment. But, that's getting a little bit too political. Nice link, though. Those are surely some rather hot prototypes.
  3. Rad article, very well written. I have never seen anyone say "more dakka" in such a persuasive and elegant way.
  4. Who's winning the tank war?

    There's a little thing we call Moore's Law. Which has stayed valid from its inception to right now. Semiconductors become smaller, cheaper and more power efficient fairly quickly, compared to AFVs. As such, the Soviets were wise in their assessment. Both the M1 and the T72 have went a long way from the 80s, in terms of electronics. Electronics will constantly get better, and older toys will become more obsolete faster than any cannon, armour package and drivetrain. If I was buying a tank, I would expect to upgrade its electronics frequently over its life-span. What's high resolution now, will be low resolution in a matter of years. As such, spending too much money on cutting-edge systems is not price-efficient and potentially dangerous, if they have not been well tested. Early Russian attempts to integrated LCD displays and cameras into AFVs was a disaster, yet as their semiconductor industry improves -- more and more electronics are seen.
  5. Iranian Fighting Vehicles

    Oh, when you put them side by side, I have little doubt. The cannon, MG and mantlet are the only thing that looks different to me. Is that an earlier 125mm smoothbore cannon? Do you see that long barrel sleeve-mantlet thing? What is that?
  6. Who's winning the tank war?

    That's the idea, bud. Nobody has even mentioned NBC warfare up until IMHO jumped in. That's the scenario, in which the tank thread (tread) is most relevant. Prior to the fall, the Soviet Army had T-80s, T-72s, T-64s, T-62s and T-55s in active service. Russia has T-90s, T-72s and T-80s in active service? I would argue that the T-62s, and especially T-55s had even more variants, as a result of being deployed in Afghanistan (an area of operations they were not designed for). I completely agree that it's a massive waste of resources. Yet, unlike North America or Great Britain, they do not have secure land borders and cannot rely on any allies. It's a tight situation, and they have to make due.
  7. Squads breaking cover for no reason?

    I had a platoon of 101st clear out a trench line without taking any casualties. After a few overhead bursts of MG fire and what looked like a stray rifle grenade, squad after squad lost their cool and decided to leave the trench. They sprinted in various directions and hid in small bushes. I've also had airborne retreat from trench systems while a single mortar bombarded them with a hopelessly large spread. Both of these scenarios resulted in injury or death of either the troops or the those they were supposed to be covering. I hope they patch it, eventually. I guess I can imagine people going absolutely mad in mortal danger. It's a minor issue and I love the excellent new tracers (a pet peeve of mine), in 4.0.
  8. Fury Movie Discussion.

    Is it possible to boil down the largest airborne operation in history to a couple of hours and consider it to be perfectly historical? As a piece of fiction, and as an epic -- B2F explained the story of the operation, instead of a specific protagonist. We got to see the planning, the execution and the results. Lots of fake German tanks, an excellent take-off scene and a great big bridge skirmish. That is what I meant by "too historical." A film that focused on the history (regardless of how flawed), rather than a tight unit. Yes, saw Darkest Hour recently. Good film, I especially enjoyed the tasty stakes. Aye, Darkest Hour was hardly his best work. That being said, I think he did a good enough job.
  9. Who's winning the tank war?

    Sherman was also great because it was a once-size-fits-all solution. Yet, Germans had an entire menagerie of old and new tanks. The RF military, currently, uses 2 or 3 MBTs (depending if you want to call the T-90 a T-72 variant). The Soviet Union had an even greater variety of MBTs in service concurrently. Having the largest borders in the world, and having the worst neighbors puts a serious demand on MBTs and manpower (hence, conscription). As of late, their MBTs have rusted and manpower declined -- but the number of angry neighbors has increased. I would say it would be more fair to compare their strategic requirements and assets to mid-late-war Reich. The T-72/90 always struck me as an effective StuG. They are stuck between NATO and China. While one could argue which piece of kit is more effective, but with today's readiness and strategic mobility -- they would soon be outnumbered in any theatre.
  10. Iranian Fighting Vehicles

    Indeed. They are thinking ahead. That black scheme will be needed when Earth gets invaded by Monoliths.
  11. Fury Movie Discussion.

    The movie just did not work for me. Banal rants about the human condition and the endless French civilian scene, felt like they were there to fill a quota. I was distracted by Brad Pitt's funny accent and the Transformer's kid's mustache. Wasn't a huge fan of the shots, either. Locations looked all the same and everything seemed to be purposefully desaturated. I appreciated the tanks but I think this movie over-thought its own premise. I feel like this movie was a compromise designed for no-one but everyone. Not too silly to be Kelly's Heroes. Not too existentialist to be Full Metal Jacket. Not too historical to be A Bridge Too Far. Not too dramatic to be Das Boot. Usually movies of these genres rely on creative writing, directing and acting to make the viewer care, and identify with, the crew. This movie relied on star power and tank-hype (props to Bovington, though). Mediocre film in all sense of the word. Not the worst thing you can see in the cinemas, and certainly not the best. I saw it way back when and haven't felt a need to rewatch it. Hollywood can do better, see Hacksaw Ridge (not a fan of Dunkirk, though).
  12. This guy is worth a watch

    While I do not completely agree with the guy, but he does bring up some good points. Was oil what broke the Tiger's back? I doubt it. However, it did force the Germans to spend time and resources experimenting with alternative fuels, such as wood gas. This produced some funky modifications we probably won't see in CM: Back on topic. Why did the Germans lose the war? Potentially infinite reasons. However, I think many people overlook the diplomatic work of the Allies. The Germans had dubious alliances with Japan and Italy that only got them into their wars. They tried to not share technology with their eastern European allies and generally had limited support. Yet, the Allies managed to bring men from Brazil to India, train, equip them and put them on the front line. They had, also, great success dissuading Spain from getting involved and persuading the Italian King to put Mussolini behind bars. While the German hegemony spanned from the Atlantic to Moscow, from the Arctic to Africa -- they could only rely on themselves. They either could not, or did not want to, raise many troops form their vast occupied territories both in the West and East. For some reason, they had issues coordinating with the Romanians, Italians and Vichy France and generally relegated all foreign forces to rear-echelon work. As soon push came to shove, their allies turned on them. I do not think it is necessary to mention the debacles that were Yugoslavia and Belarus. Why were the Germans not popular on the world stage? Was it too much of the stick, and too little of the carrot? Was it the lend-lease food and Hollywood? That's a discussion for a different thread.
  13. Iranian Fighting Vehicles

    One vehicle that caught my eye was T-72 "Khorramshahr". Apparently, a Ukranian upgrade that looks like a T-90a. Can it be a T-72 with a T-84 turret? After a quick google search, I didn't find much under that name except the Karrar tank. Which looks like a T-90ms, and I would guess the development of this "Khorramshahr". If we get Iran in CM -- I want this!
  14. Impressive MkVI model

    They should make to-scale Goliath firework-carriers.
  15. Can 105 MM Artillery Knock out AFV?

    It depends how good your spotter is, how accurate the artillery is and how many rounds they have. What is the propability that you'll get in a good direct hit on that StuG 3 or Mk. 4? Odds are that most of your rounds will fall around the target and shower it with shrapnel. A direct hit is a good-night to any halftracks, and shrapnel can wound passengers and damage the wheels. This being said, I usually have time to move them away. Have I had 105s and similar knock out tank type vehicles? Not really. Have I had 105s and similar render tank type vehicles combat-ineffective? Absolutely. In one scenario, I had a StuG bugger hiding in a hedgerow. It cut off my advance by suppressing infantry, and kept my Shermans behind. I got desperate and dumped all of my medium howitzer artillery where I last saw it. After 5 to 10 minutes, my troops cautiously probed toward the hedgerows. I noticed the StuG was abandoned. I had no issues moving up my Shermans and taking out any nasty infantry in there. Eventually, I had a squad sight the crew chilling in a crater and blasted them with a BAR. Was the StuG damaged, did a crew-man hit his head, did the crew just decide to desert? Could be any of them -- worked out just as well.