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
Sign in to follow this  
Hubert Cater

New Features

Recommended Posts

Obviously taken in the literal sense of the situation teuton is right, but I've always tried to think in terms of the units representing a command structure, not the whole organization dictated by the size of the unit. Its ridiculous to think an entire mechanized corps(SC tank group) could do an amphibious landing at once. I rationalize it by thinking that only a few echelons, task forces, from that SC tank group "command structure" are actually pulling off the invasion, the rest are awaiting to reinforce, remember the timelines represented by SC turns. Its not outlandish to think an army could eventually be landed in a week, two weeks, a month.

Now for the amphibious limitations. I've always been a proponent of only corps size units being elligible to make amphibious landings. You could add engineers and special forces to that mix and if you think about it the greatest restriction to amphibious operations is the availability of landing craft.

So, I propose that to simulate the building of landing craft, training and amphibious doctrine be correlated to the level of "Amphibious Tech" and the level attained dictates the number of active amphibious units a country may have on the water at any one time.

So if Germany starts out as level one amphib tech, they are only allowed one amphib unit active,"on the water" at any one time. If your amphib tech level is five you get 5 amphib units on the water simultaneously. So now you can restrict certain countries to a realistic amphib doctrine unless they wish to pay the price to develop the capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is masterclaude. As usual, Sir Sea Monkey comes up with the rigth solution for the scope of this game. Many proposals, no matter how justified they could be from an historical or technical point of view, do not fit in SC2 design. Still, I welcome your brainstorming, gentlemen and hope Sir Sea Monkey gets some special retribution from Fury someday for is the best referee in this forum.

See you on september 1 1939 just before Christmas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about an option to share tech, MPPs or possibly "gift" a unit between allied nations?

For example, Germany can give Japan a few duckets to help them build up their fleet, keeping the US in the Pacific longer? (During the war, Germany sent tech and gold via subs to Japan).

Or, say the US wants to give the UK a tank unit prior to the Normandy invasion. It would become property of the UK and count against their total. (US Sherman tanks were given to the UK, which they improved with a larger main gun and gave them the moniker Firefly). Basically, it would be an expansion on the current game mechanic of the adjustable US convoy route to the UK.

Obviously, there would have to be limitations and a cost:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks mc, but I'm only one entity of many that have contributed ideas and doctrinal vision to SC over the 7 years of its existance. I am humbled by the thought of so many interacting to get this game to its present stage, but I appreciate your recognition and I'm glad you share my clarity.

Still, dissenting views are just as valuable as they help define the limits of HC's concepts and are always thought provoking as to catalyze new and refreshing byproducts. No one's opinion is without merit, there is always something positive dwelling in the depths of the human imagination.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about an option to share tech, MPPs or possibly "gift" a unit between allied nations?

For example, Germany can give Japan a few duckets to help them build up their fleet, keeping the US in the Pacific longer? (During the war, Germany sent tech and gold via subs to Japan).

Or, say the US wants to give the UK a tank unit prior to the Normandy invasion. It would become property of the UK and count against their total. (US Sherman tanks were given to the UK, which they improved with a larger main gun and gave them the moniker Firefly). Basically, it would be an expansion on the current game mechanic of the adjustable US convoy route to the UK.

Obviously, there would have to be limitations and a cost:)

That is what convoy lines are made for, because you always give "money", never people to your allies.

It would be nice to have the possibility to send money everywhere, to get a dozen more convoy lines (sea and land).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exact ! l'idée de pouvoir créer des chemins pour donner des ressources à un alliés (par terre ou par mer) est une très bonne chose. L'allemagne pourrais ainsi aider le japon ou l'italie, ce qui n'est pas possible actuellement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J'ai tous la série des stratégiques command et j'avoue que je suis impatient de voir le conflit global. Par contre, il faut une IA très agréssive mais aussi logique. Voir l'URSS déclarer la guerre à l'allemagne très tôt à cause de facteur diplomatique mais avoir aucune armée n'est pas très logique. a cause de cela, j'ai pu gagner avec l'allemagne, la deuxième guerre mondiale en mai 1944 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok :)

Correct! The idea to create "road resources to give allies a United Nations (by land or sea) is a very good thing. Germany could thus rescuer Japan or Italy, which is not currently possible.

I have all the series of strategic orders and I confess that I am impatient to see the world conflict. By cons, it takes a very aggressive AI, but also logical. See the Soviet Union declared war on Germany very soon because of diplomatic factor but have no army is not very logical. Because of this, I could win with Germany, The Second World War in May 1944

it's good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know, does Global Conflict include so called "advanced weapons and warfare" stuff in that release or is it going to be "gimme more money and i'll give couple new sprites and guns for ya"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to know, does Global Conflict include so called "advanced weapons and warfare" stuff in that release or is it going to be "gimme more money and i'll give couple new sprites and guns for ya"

Do yourself a favour and take a look here:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1486&Itemid=362

This is much more than an update.

Read it and wait with the rest of us all together in agony to learn about the release date. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rain Dog,

Yes it handles pretty much any resolution equal to and above 1024x768 and I can confirm that these two specifically are supported as I use them both in my testing.

The game achieves this without stretching and as expected you will see much more of the map with any of the higher widescreen resolutions.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Rain Dog,

Yes it handles pretty much any resolution equal to and above 1024x768 and I can confirm that these two specifically are supported as I use them both in my testing.

The game achieves this without stretching and as expected you will see much more of the map with any of the higher widescreen resolutions.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

Great! Much thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a couple more.Are we allowed to make it that when the Frenchie ships go crazy and start charging into the Italian ports which causes the Italians to take un-necessary losses we can tell the Italian ships not to fire?

Will we be allowed to place our embarking troop trans. in any adjacent tile thats allowed and not let the computer choose?Sometimes this can matter.

When engineers start to fortify a tile and they move for whatever reason will the computer keep track of what the engineers have done and allow them to continue where they left off?The work that they had started would still be there provided no enemy unit had attacked the tile in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do the players feel about port and city upgrades as now defined by the city AA upgrade that costs 10 MPPs?

Here's where I'm going, since anti-air and artillery will not be in the Global campaigns I believe there should be an upgrade availabe for ports, cities, capitals, and towns/villages. For ports, all the defensive bonuses(DBs) should start at 1, that's naval(N), submarine(U), air(A), carrier©, and bombers(B), same for the capitals and cities, but towns/villages start at 0.

Now you have the choice of upgrading each location to three levels, depending on the tech advancements, of either or both "Urban" and "Harbor" enhancements. Each level of "Urban" upgrades costs 30 MPPs and is effective in bringing your NDB, CDB, BDB, and ADB to the next level, a max of 4 for all applied defensive bonuses(3 levels, 90MPPs). For "Harbor" developments, the same with the addition of UBD, but harbors are a little more problematic so 50 MPPs for each level(150 total).

Reasoning for the upgrades is we're not concerned with just guns, but sub nets, mines, patrol craft, etc for harbors and radar, a fighter contingent, command and control, etc enhancements for the urban locations.

Do you want to couple these with the garrison question with a greater MPP cost for SD and TD upgrades so enemy units must make a successful attack on the installations before they can occupy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with you all the way.

Simple upgrades would enhance the game quite a lot.

Upgrade a tile with garrison, with AA, with AT, with Arty, or even with supply.

Upgrade a unit just as well.

More movement points needed? Upgrade your unit.

Your HQ should be able to attack? Buy AT, Artillery or Garrison upgrades for it,

Even better would be if Hubert would introduce and widen out the idea he had / the concept of the carriers in Pacific Theater (strength points for hull and planes divided).

Let your Army lose or gain AT points, Tank points, infantry points, or even TAC AIR points. This would be possible if each one would have a separate strength point scala.

Maybe this could be an idea for SC3.

Research would allow you to buy more AT strength points, the higher the AT level, the more strength points you can buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't exactly regarding new features, but here goes: What are system requirements? I run a pretty old machine with 2.8 GHz processor, 2 GB of RAM and 128MB graphics card. Big scenarios from existing SC versions can take a while to resolve, so before pre-ordering I'd like to know if I'm going to be okay running Global Conflict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chodan,

The minimum specs would be the same as they were for the Pacific Theater release and are as follows:

CPU: 1 GHz Processor

RAM: 512 MB

OS: Windows XP/Vista

DirectX: 7

Video Card: 128 MB with 32-Bit Color supporting at least 1024 pixels in height and 768 pixels in width

Sound Card: 16-Bit DirectSound compatible

CD-ROM: 8x or better

HD: 800MB free Hard Disk space

Your system would of course have no issues with the game and in fact I run a very similar system for development. Added to that we've introduced a new 'Quick Animation' feature that cuts the AI animation time in half as well as several AI optimizations that have dramatically improved the speed of the AI. For example the early Global map turns, run with Quick Animation run at about 2 to 3 minutes on my end.

That being said we will have a Demo released, ready for when the game is shipping, and you can always re-evaluate then if needed.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the new Global Conflict Manual, exciting to read only.

OK, the new manual says under the script for 1939 World at War that a change of the Norwegian convoy routes is possible.

But under the condition, that Sweden belongs to Axis. Seems to be a bit strange, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Amadeus

I'm glad you like the Manual! :)

With regard to changing the convoy routes, the scripts only require Sweden to be friendly to the Axis (i.e. Axis aligned), rather than actually having joined the Axis.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minus of that decision is that Lulea harbour got no acess to the Baltic Sea during Winter which results in loosing MPP´s. On the other hand you can avoid a Allied sea blockade. I realized the frozen harbour during my offensive operations.

Then i needed the Mpps arrrg :)

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
Sign in to follow this  

×