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:

      -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
    • 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
kevinkin

Stryker vs Bradley

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

Look on BMP2 and BMP3 and on German Puma (not a correct compare but still) - elevation depends on a module itself. If you talking about killing everything what is lower then it is also adjustable. For example your turret can have an ability to elevate in certain moments and so on. 

The BMP2 and BMP3 have relatively poor depression and elevation for being able to engage air and ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

Unfortunately not, because I'm disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of your observations.

Oh ok. Well I mean never harm to ask right?) Keep on disagreeing my friend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sulomon said:

The BMP2 and BMP3 have relatively poor depression and elevation for being able to engage air and ground.

Well they are not AA guns thats true but they can make life difficult. But not the point - they are vintage stuff as well - what we need to take from them is a concept of pairing different types of weapon systems and overcome them in quality. 

Another way of making IFVs (not APCs) is to make super heavy IFVs what would provide tank level protection. Basically when you turining a tank into IFV - but those are good only for one thing - break through feild along with tanks. When im thinking about IFV I'm thinking about having a flexible thing what is deadly, fast, and not very expepensive - so that the price of casualty is not a killer. It is funny but I do consider price as a factor as well. Thats why I think that we should look for modernization options for what we have. But Ideal IFV for me would be something compared to BMP 3 but with implimentation of western technologies. And... Im aware of high profile vehicles I'll be honest with you here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Sulomon said:

The BMP2 and BMP3 have relatively poor depression and elevation for being able to engage air and ground.

Say what?

bmp-2+gun+elevation.jpg

740

Even the BMP-3 is respectable:

bmp-3_1.jpg

600 (and it'll likely throw a guided missile at your shiny & oh so expensive helicopter)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a personal point of view I would call this one a perfect one... the only thing I would like to add is a lil more firepower to it. 

B2s5T7T.jpg

icyajCF.jpg

VuPTXsF.jpg

So when I think about perfect IFV I'm thinking about something like these pumas but with bigger guns and a bit more power in its engine. 

And again - crossing rivers is important - new IFV must be a universal - it must be able to do few things well and one or two very well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that already have the Spike launcher?  If not it will soon from what I recall, but it's a pricy thing and likely not much more Kornet resistant than a Stryker unless they add an APS, which would further up the cost.....Somebody has to pay for all this and TBH Europe as a whole and Germany in particular are not very enthusiastic about things like that right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

600 (and it'll likely throw a guided missile at your shiny & oh so expensive helicopter)

...that it can easily evade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty gentlemen - I've made my point. I hope you guys will keep on talking about future vehicles - it is an important topic. 

Hope everyone was happy on their new years eve - see you in other discussions! 

PsE8riu.jpg

P.S. A lil more firepower and it might be just what we need (personal/subjective opinion). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

...that it can easily evade.

While it's evading it isn't hunting and there's always the missile that you don't see coming (likewise there's also always the helicopter you don't see coming too, but rather than enter into a futile willy-waving competition, let's just accept that the comment regarding BMP gun elevation was bollocks, because it was).  :)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

Unfortunately not, because I'm disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of your observations.

Yeah I am totally confused by the supposition. How the hell did the vehicle survive if all the infantry which is the very reason the vehicle existed are dead? If you wanted a tank why didn’t you start with a tank.  You’d have saved a few lives in infantry.  

I think i am I am starting to slip into a rabbit hole of non logic.  @MOS:96B2P can you share some of that popcorn? I actually hate the stuff but if I keep my pie hole full maybe it will save me from further confusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too late, he's already "made his point."  He stirs up just enough sh*t to revive a dead topic, then prances off. You might as well leave the popcorn on the counter with logic and reason sitting next to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sburke said:

can you share some of that popcorn? I actually hate the stuff but if I keep my pie hole full maybe it will save me from further confusion. 

:D  Sure thing.  I'll also break out the bottle of Jack Daniels.  I tag our friend @Rinaldi to buy the next round ..........:lol:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really looks like a big "what if" game. What if we run into tanks? What if the infantry are all dead,  what if we are surrounded, what if they have battle mechs, what if they have John Rambo?  There's only so far down the chain you can go before it gets ridiculous.

+1 for Pentagon Wars. It's my favourite "almost too real to be funny" movie alongside Office Space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HerrTom said:

It really looks like a big "what if" game. What if we run into tanks? What if the infantry are all dead,  what if we are surrounded, what if they have battle mechs, what if they have John Rambo?  There's only so far down the chain you can go before it gets ridiculous.

+1 for Pentagon Wars. It's my favourite "almost too real to be funny" movie alongside Office Space.

Its exactly what it is. We have 0 people here what would make decisions about how our APC/IFV will look like in the future. So basically all this discussion is a huge "what if."  None of you will construct and then build an APC/IFV. So yes I view all descussions about hardware as a huge "what if." Its a game forum where gamers are sharing their thoughts, content, and ideas. Furthermore, there is no such class of a person here who would be considered right or wrong. Everyone thinks how they like to think. So if we would imagine that we will always fighting terrorists with small arms - then yea current way of building APC/IFV will work perfectly fine. Yet, if we will imagine situation of a hybrid conflict or a world war, or a border conflict against some powerful military force then our vehicles (and understanding of them) should be adopted to new variables. What I did was simply suggesting some hardcore scenario - where one vehicle - one gun would not make a difference. Besides from the very beginig I've said that what Im saying is subjective. So let us agree to disagree lol I'm fine with that. 

P.S. Guys I'm thinking about starting my own youtube channel where I will be sharing kinda same thoughts while making some in game footage - you guys going to be my subscribers right?) I mean I can count on your support right?) lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

Too late, he's already "made his point."  He stirs up just enough sh*t to revive a dead topic, then prances off. You might as well leave the popcorn on the counter with logic and reason sitting next to it. 

With all do respect my friend, its not you who decides when this or any other topic is dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, sburke said:

Yeah I am totally confused by the supposition. How the hell did the vehicle survive if all the infantry which is the very reason the vehicle existed are dead? If you wanted a tank why didn’t you start with a tank.  You’d have saved a few lives in infantry.  

I think i am I am starting to slip into a rabbit hole of non logic.  @MOS:96B2P can you share some of that popcorn? I actually hate the stuff but if I keep my pie hole full maybe it will save me from further confusion. 

I simply describe you a situation when you have to fully depend on a firepower provided by your APC/IFV. Basically speaking I've described you a situation where you cant depend on Javelins and infantry. You are so sure that you will always be able to use that - that I've had to describe a situation where you cant depend on that. Why? So that you will think out of the box a little. There is no logic in different pattern however - think about it - when we talk about APC/IFV itself you are putting major AT role on infantry - in my opinion - that has no logic. 

So the purpose of those things I've said is to take you out of your comfort zone in terms of fantasizing (and this is what we do here) about new type of APC/IFV for our wonderful military. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

:D  Sure thing.  I'll also break out the bottle of Jack Daniels.  I tag our friend @Rinaldi to buy the next round ..........:lol:  

I would suggest to go with DEANSTON scotch my friend. And if you are a smoker you will never regret that choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But don't worry guys I've got it - you simply don't like what I'm saying no matter what it is. Well not going to disturb your fine company any longer. I'm sorry for invading this little topic of yours. All of you obviusly and most surely - > definitely know more than me about everything, and thats why you guys feeling nice while grouping up against a person who thinks differently. I understand thats how the world works its ok. 

Again sorry for my input - it was probably highly disturbing for some of you, and it was probably highly illogical and amatur from your standpoint. I mean how dare I right?) lol 

Anyhow enjoy your week gentlemen. 

w24zmfH.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are too personally invested in the suggestion you are making.  You set a situation as one necessary for AFV design but the view of most here is that is not how you design a vehicle. You design it to assume a particular function. Taking it out of that function and creating an unusual situation is not then the basis for designing the vehicle. The assumption is flawed. That is all folks are saying.  There isn’t the same interest to redesign an AFV which does not start from what is its primary function. 

Dont get too wrapped up in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×