Darryl

Will check video drivers and report any success. Thank you.

I'm also using 64 bit. There are no error messages. The "Battlefront" logo appears and the music plays, then it simply crashes to desktop. Very strange.

I cannot get the demo to run. I've tried the various fixes suggested and still no joy (Running Windows 7). Does this mean that the full game will not work for me? I have not seen a definitive answer to this and it's the only thing stopping me from ordering the game. Any input would be appreciated. Thank you!

Thanks to those of you who've tried to be helpful. The fact is, my physical copy of CMSF went un-opened for over a year because I had the DD version and never had need to look at the physical manual. I was never advised that I would need to keep my DD number to activate my totally separate physical DVD. I naturally presumed that any needed key would be provided inside the box. I have now received two replies from a "forum admin." with a link to the Tech support help desk FAQ. Which has such helpful suggestions as: "update my drivers", "make sure I have the latest patch", "read the game manual", "read the Windows manual". And other gems of similarly helpful advice. WOW! To paraphrase obama: "Tech support I can believe in." Dear forum admin, what part of "I NEED MY E LICENSE NUMBER" are you having trouble understanding? Here's a thought BF......How about sending me my "E license number", so I can use the software I paid for? Well I've just sent off another round of emails to every tech support address I can find. Let us see if anyone actually bothers to read them, or even acknowledge their receipt.

I've been a loyal customer of BF since CMBO's initial release. I've purchased every title in the CM series. When SF was released I opted for DD and physical shipment. Long story short: My HD crashed necessitating the installation of the physical copy onto my new system. I'm asked for an e-license number. I have no e-license number. I've searched for the elusive "sticker" that supposedly has this number, but to no avail. Two weeks ago I sent an email to tech support asking for guidance. To date I have received not even an automated response! Just thought I'd post this for consideration. I'd hate for anyone else to get ripped off. Sincerely, A FORMER loyal customer

Didn't see this specific bug mentioned so here it is: I was just involved in an assault wherein my platoon of M1s aquired a LOS on some dug-in immobile Syrian T-55s. The T-55s were able to engage and hit my M1s. However when trying to target the T-55s with my M1s I recieved a message to the effect of 'Reverse slope unable to hit' (Or similar). I'm sorry, but if any portion of a target is visible to the GPS on an M1, YOU CAN SHOOT AND HIT IT. The SABOT round has a flat trajectory out past 2500 meters. So again...If you can see it, you can hit it. Remember, the GPS on the T-55 is on the front of the turret. So since they were engaging and hitting me that means that a fair portion of the turret front had to be exposed. So I've gotta call this a serious bug.

Thats because 9 times out of 10 they get killed long before they even get to "we had enough" stage. </font>

Agreed, though actually the pathfinding isn't poor. It's absolutely horrible! What the heck were they thinking releasing the game in this state?!?!? I'm not a Battlefront hater by any means. Look at my date of registration. I've loved EVERY CM until now. The Tac AI is bad enough, but the pathfinding bug is a game killer for me.

QUOTE: "I have concluded that the smarts we saw and loved/hated in the TacAI of past CM titles (which for my mind was one of the true achievments of those games) seems to be obviously missing in CMSF. I can say that not even once have I seen any evasive action by any of my vehicular units. No auto popping of smoke, no reverses out of LOS etc. Even the auto target selection/aquisition seems a bit lacking." I have to concur. Though Tanks do SEEM to automatically switch to engage threat tanks whenever they're identified. Short of that, Tac AI seems to be lacking in the self preservation mode. I've yet to see an enemy unit break, or surrender.

If IRC the New Jersey class will move sideways about six feet as a result of a full broadside. Further, someone asked the range of her main battery. When using rocket assisted sub-munitions she has a range of approximately 50 miles. I don't recall the CEP off hand though. One of the main problems with the New Jerseys is that they're just too darned labor intensive. Remember they were designed when manpower was not a limiting factor. As a consequence there's virtually no automation of her powerplant and other subsystems. I do believe there is a place in the fleet for heavy fire support ships. I also believe with modern automation and fire control accuracy we can design and build a few ships with large caliber guns that could simply overwhelm an enemy at a per round cost that would be less expensive, and far more demoralizing than using cruise missles. Just my humble rambling. Cheers, Darryl

Two things caused me to purchase CMBO. Reading an AAR with pics, and playing the demo. Of the two the demo was really what sealed the deal for me. However since I've already pre-ordered, a demo is really moot for me at this point. Cheers, Darryl

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, however... Can anyone confirm there'll be T-55s, and/or T-62s in the game? Thanks, Darryl

I'm not familiar enough with the shielding qualities of boron vs the gamma radiation from an E.R.W. But I do know that you can only shield so much without incurring a prohibitive weight penalty, as I alluded to in an earlier post. As for WWIII being essentially decided by airpower..I really don't think this is so. Witness the emergence during the time period in question of effective MANPADS. These alone could've caused prohibitive losses against soviet forward air forces (ie low level strike aircraft). Along with Chapparal, vulcan, and hawk air defense units I doubt the soviet air assets would've had things their own way for long. BTW anybody remember the aborted "Sgt. York"? One wonders why the soviets could field effective multi barrel anti air units (ie ZSU-23) while the west could not. Too many bells and whistles perhaps? Great discussion though! And I still want A CM WWW III game! LOL Sincerely, Darryl

> I believe you have confused your radiation types and effects... E.R.W.s give off GAMMA radiation not beta. And gamma radiation will penetrate an AFV quite nicely fuel notwithstanding I suppose they could've built AFV's with a very thick shielding of dense material such as lead. But good lord how heavy do you want your AFV's to be? While it is true that an immediately incapacitating dose of radiation might not be recieved most research reveals that the majority of personnel inside an AFV will be dead within 24 hours or so. Depending on proximity to ground zero of course. This knowledge alone would certainly not have produced the highest morale among any soviets who would've been exposed. I believe you could've made a more interesting and relevant objection by making the supposition that the soviets, expecting us to use an E.R.W. against their forward elements would utilize their category B and/or C formations as a spearhead. Then once the west had shot it's bolt, so to speak. Sent in their category A formations without fear of losing them to mass destruction type weaponry. Also do not forget that the soviets fully expected to use non-persistant chemical weapons against us. One shudders at the thought of the havoc that would've caused among NATO units back in the late 70's/early 80's. Anyway it's good to hear opposite viewpoints. And of course thankfully we will never know EXACTLY what would've happened. But it's stimulating to speculate. Have a great day Flamingknives. Sincerely, Darryl

Correct, Remember the enhanced radiation weapon (The so-called Neutron bomb)? Remember the soviet backed outcry over American plans to develop and deploy it to western Europe? We knew even then in the late 1970's that if the soviets came pouring through the Fulda gap, we were NOT going to be able to stop them with conventional weapons alone. The E.H.R. would've been our ace in the hole. That's why the soviets worked so hard to turn world opinion against it's deployment. It was a perfect example BTW of what Lenin called the "useful fools" of the west ie: the peace movement. Well the milquetoast Carter administration caved in, hence the west was once again at a major dis-advantage. The soviets, and their useful fools tried again when Reagan (along with another great leader, Mrs. Thatcher)deployed medium range tactical nukes to western Europe. But all their wailing, and moaning did them little good as the Reagan-Thatcher team was made of sterner stuff. The missles stayed. The soviets realized that they could now not mass their forces without risking losing them. And the only alternative would be smaller thrusts which would give our ATGMs, and M1 battle tanks (I hope my NATO brothers will forgive my Amero-centric viewpoint)a chance to defeat them in detail. This was (IMHO) the begining of the end for the evil empire. Have a wonderful time Darryl