c3k

Antivirus: I use Kaspersky. No issues with BFC. Others will chime in, I'm sure.

I'm not Steve (thankfully! ), and the following is "use at your own risk": The complete version is a clean method of installing. If your previous install was a bit wonky, I'd suggest the complete version. (The upgrade is FAR smaller and faster to download. The complete version is large, but should fix any previous errors endemic to a particular install.) First, (and I'm sure you know this, but I'll add it in for anyone else who's reading along) save your mods to a location outside of your BFC directory. Next, copy your savegames somewhere else, as well. This step with savegames is just being cautious. Then, uninstall. I'd recommend deleting the game folder, as well. This should leave a clean location with no remnants for your complete version. Run the install. Remember, it will automatically point the install to the default location. If this is not where you like your BFC goodness to reside, this is your chance to change it. Next, from INSIDE the newly installed game folder, find the "Activate New Products" link. Clickee. Use the method Steve discussed above (and in the sticky) to activate. (You still need to use the various Engine 3 and Engine 4 keys and whatnot.) Linkee... http://community.battlefront.com/announcement/28-instructions-for-upgrading-cmfi-to-engine-4/ Run the game. Good? Great. Exit. Put your mods back where you like them and copy your savegames back where they belong. It should all be good...

Less vitriol and more facts would be good...if this thread will have any chance of staying unlocked.

I'll try to find the link, but there's a British MoD study about artillery effectiveness which correlates fragment size to incapacitation/wounding/killing of infantry. The amount of fill (and type) has to be balanced with the shell thickness to produce the optimal sized fragments. Too brittle of a shell and too thin, coupled with an overfill of HE results in many tiny fragments. They don't kill well enough. On the other side, too thick of a shell and too small of a filler makes just a few big chunky fragments. They'll kill...but the odds of hitting someone are too low. The British seemed to think their 25lber shells were just right. WRT anti-armor effects, larger fragments seem to be needed for penetration or damage. Breaking out/determining the fragment sizes produced by the shells is important, as is the speed with which they are driven. Average numbers won't help. 10,000 1 gram fragments mixed among 100 1,000 gram fragments means an average weight of about 11 grams. It's pretty easy to shrug off 11 gram fragments. (If we just looked at average weights.) The 1 kg (1,000 gram) fragments would be far more dangerous to the vehicles. There's a Ft. Sill/US Armor magazine pdf which discusses how a battery of 155mm howitzers can destroy a Soviet tank formation. The pictures were impressive, but it was a pro-artillery publication, after all. My point to all this? Real world data of fragmentation would be a necessary first step. Finding that arcane data seems a bit difficult.

Nice.

First, copy (not move) your install to a "safe" location. Then, you can install the upgrade over the original and have two installs: the old (in whatever "safe" location you copied it to) and the new. You can play BOTH versions. As to your game, save a replay. You can use that to start a new turn under v4 to create a command turn. Any execution done under v4 will need to continue in v4. Best rule of thumb is to save a couple turns. That way if there is an issue, you can try the earlier save. (Again, it's a matter of replay vs. command saves.) Both of you need to be on the same version.

In CMBS, the US does NOT have MLRS. It was a design decision not to use MLRS, for either side, due to what the game portrays. If you want to clear a grid or two of a battalion, well, not much would be left to fight a tactical battle. Any MLRS strike should be accounted for BEFORE the CMBS battle starts. E.g., the defenders are at reduced strength as the attackers roll over the hills.

Well, I had a LOT more than just one or two German shots hit their mark. I walked into a kill-zone. No, this is not my first rodeo. If it were obvious, it wouldn't have happened. "Sorry, men." And, I entered this battle with the foreknowledge that there was something tactically difficult and it was going to be hard. Knowledge didn't help. (What DOES help? Savegames. Save early and save often. My tactical genius is directly correlated with the number of restarts I use.)

Because of this thread, I've just started to try this battle. I thought I was doing well. Oops. Had a bad turn there. Very bad. No spoilers... This is deceptively tough. I like it.

Yeah, "Wireless" should make it "TOWl".

Something which Pzrskwfr mentioned in passing which I thought should be expanded upon. The US military is in the unique position of maintaining conventional superiority...at will. Sure, there will be some new technology developed by potential adversaries (meaning, "countries/forces we may end up going to war against") which may negate a US advantage. Then, the US simply turns on the "super tech" spigot and fields or develops the NEXT layer. And has the production capability to equip current forces with it. Sure, there will be setbacks and surprises. That's what keeps life interesting and fun. The biggest issues to US total dominance is the US internecine politics and budget issues. (If a war were in the offing, both of those usually disappear. For a while...) The Russian T-14 looks VERY impressive. On parade and on paper. Okay, now field them. The US is listed as having just under 9,000 Abrams of basically two versions: newest and the one just prior. The Russian Army has just under 16,000 tanks...counting all the various flavors. Based on CMBS, how many older Russian tanks could fight an Abrams? Shrug. It's not like Kursk II will ever happen (hopefully). Does anyone think Russia has the wealth or capability to replace all 16,000 tanks with Armatas??? Does anyone doubt that the US could and will upgrade all 9,000 Abrams to SEP v3 or v4? That's the difference. If the SEP v4 (or whatever comes after v3) proves to be ineffective (or at a disadvantage) to Russian or Chinese MBTs, then there'll be something else...which will get built and fielded to all the forces. Just a thought...

PeterT, The usual life-cycle of the CM games is that after a game like CMBS is released (you've stated CMBN, but this is the CMBS forum and you're clearly discussing modern equipment ("BN"="Beyond Normandy"; "BS"="Black Sea")), then expansion games, which require the original, are released. CMBN is a great example of this release cycle. CMBS should have some sequels. There has been some public discussion about what the next release may have. I'd have to do a search. Suffice to say, there are plans for more forces. Ken

Well, I didn't want to highlight IanL's shortcomings...

Isn't he always?

Someone (sorry), did a GREAT job making a spreadsheet somewhere about this using some of the terrain. Does that help? Ken

Laser spoofing/burnout of IR imagers is the way... For radar guided, well, now you're talking a lot more energy. You'd need to burn it through a vulnerable section. Based on engagement geometries, the only surface presented would be the nose. EW would be more effective. Of course, the F35B (Marine version) has that drive shaft and clutch pack. You could generate a LOT of power if you dropped the fan and stuck a generator in there. There's all sorts of stuff going on in the anti-AAM sphere.

If a simple reinstall didn't work, I think you should contact the help desk and open a ticket. https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/ The advice to uninstall your game, download fresh install files, open them in new, and individual folders, and install them one at a time, should work. If not, well, that's what the help desk is for. Ken

Aerial delivered obscurants: you'd need to have the aircraft ready, loitering, and be able to coordinate precisely where you want it. "Comrade! When we crest THIS hill, the Americanskis will be precisely THERE. I'll need airborne fog delivered at 1034:21, from North to South. Then we'll catch them!" Umm...if you know where the enemy is precisely enough to coordinate such a delivery method, why not just saturate them with artillery-delivered munitions/submunitions? Or, go around them?

^^^ Your symptoms, as Pete Wenman stated, are exactly those of a corrupted install. You can save your savegames folder and any mods you use. Then, do a clean install, paying particular attention to the install location. The installers will sometimes try to go the default location. If you do not use that default location, then you may end up with some files from the game in the wrong location if you don't pay close attention during the patch/update installs. After reinstalling, then you can import your savegames and mods folders. Good luck.

Obviously, the oily smoke coming off the first one at 50m has totally obscured the optics! Gotta get out with some rags and wipe off the glass. Oops, too late.

Great link! Thanks.

HerrTom, It looks like a single tank and a single target. Cool. Of course, to have fun and test the digital targeting links, it'd be great to run that test a LOT more. Then, introduce a platoon of tanks trying to spot the same, single truck, target. You know, because we're curious. Ken

Yes, that's what has been said. Of course, the cognoscenti understand the true purpose. By grabbing a bunch of piston operated M4/M16s (check out the difference between direct impingement and piston operated...gotta find a link...ahh, here's the first one I found: http://info.stagarms.com/blog/bid/297530/The-difference-between-Gas-Piston-and-Direct-Impingement-technology-for-an-AR-15), the USMC can then show how much better the HK416 is when compared to the issued M16s. So, according the secret plan, the USMC will have HK416s in each squad...AND...they'll keep the SAW. Of course, they'll demonstrate/test the HK416 and "discover" how much better it is than the M16. That forces the Navy to budget for new HK416s for every Marine rifleman, and reissue the SAW back into the squads because you need something with more "oomph" than the standard rifle. A cognoscenti told me this.

IMHO, Perhaps I was unclear. My T90A vs Abrams 200 test was meant as 200 individual single tank tests, not a single 200 tank test. (My anecdote used about 200 tanks because that was how many I needed to start with to enable the culling of the crews to produce a handful of usable one-gunner crews. Sorry for the confusion.) As to stats, I'm using the 200 number because that is what is needed for a convincing argument. It eliminates all outliers, has an extraordinary high confidence level, and eliminates any argument about sample sizes. Now, you could argue a smaller number...but that would be a debate and introduce a confidence interval into the results which could be used to undermine your conclusions. Now, an individual test MAY have more than one tank, and still be valid. It would just have to ensure that no two tanks have any form of communication between them, such that they act, for all purposes, as if they are on the battlefield by themselves. Ken