landser

Good idea Ian and thanks, I might just try that. But I may also just wait until after the campaign completes and test it then, if I should decide to go through with engine 4. If I knew it worked and was backward compatible I would probably upgrade tonight since I really want to know how many casualties they caused, but it's not the end of the world if I don't and just through the map review I already know it's 'a lot'
I however, want to finish the campaign more than discover the kill tally. Appreciate your help.

So, loading saves from previous games is the goal. BFC does not guarantee they will work but they do their test not to break them. One of the upgrades from 2.xx to 2.02 for CMRT did break saves but that was from a specific version to a specific version.
I think you would be OK doing to from the v3 game (totally forget the version number and I'm just not looking it up now sorry) to 2.02. Here is what you can do - temporarily have both versions installed. For windows you can:
Make a copy of your CMRT install (just open windows explorer at the Battlefront level in the folder tree and copy the "Combat Mission Red Thunder" directory) Rename the copy something other than xxx(1) or whatever Windows picks Download the engine 4 upgrade for CMRT Unpack the engine 4 upgrade installer into its own empty temporary folder Run the installer and at the prompt make sure it is pointing to the directory you want to upgrade from step 2 - by default it probably will not be Since you are upgrading the engine you will need to activate CMRT with your engine 4 upgrade key Make sure you remove any version specific mods you might have in the <user dir>\Documents\Battlefront\Combat Mission\Red Thunder\User Data\Mods folder Now you have two working games one using 1.xx and one using 2.02. You can safely try your save in 2.02 and if it happens to fail you can still play it in 1.xx

Haha no doubt. If you caught the Monty Python reference, that's how I felt like when Arthur asks Bedivere "who leaps out of the rabbit?', my well laid plan had come to naught.
But it reveals one of CMs strengths in that it never plays exactly the same way twice ya know? Not randomness, but maybe variability is the right word?

Trees.  Some T-34s are positioned behind a tree line opposite the left side of the setup zone so it was a combination of obstruction --physical and sight I reckon. Range was around 1150m. But it's certainly an outlier. I could re-run that turn a hundred times without having eight straight misses I would think. The T-34s didn't miss and scored penetrations straight away. Later, those hits became ricochets, so such is war.
The difference is I can restart if unhappy.

Oh man, battle three. Not sure if anyone cares much about what happens in my campaigns, but this is the sort of stuff I enjoy reading so I'll put it out there.
Did the terrain analysis for the third battle, this one the 'right flank force' with Panthers. Big, open map, and when you see it you think well now this will place a premium on gunnery. Got all set up, with the idea to just get eyes on the right flank, and push up the left with the limited starting units. It's only the leading element of the kampfgruppe, with a platoon of Panthers and mostly HQ type units.
Issued the opening orders to get eyes forward leaving the armor hidden in the trees until I could get some spots and see what's where. Got spots on a few T-34/85s and issued orders to the tank platoon to inch forward to the edge of the trees on turn 2. I hope I could keep my tanks from being spotted until at least they could open fire.
Pressed go and the Panthers dutifully moved forward and got spots and opened fire. The platoon conspired to miss their first eight shots, and at the end of the WEGO segment two were knocked out and two were reversing, with casualties, and essentially out of the fight.
I sat back and said aloud "Perhaps if I built a large, wooden badger"
So yeah, I restarted and kept my armor keyholed to await the rest of the KG. This time it went much better, my boys shot well, and 20 minutes in we've lost just one while knocking out a number of T-34s. The Panthers have shrugged off a lot of turret hits, so I'm somewhat fortunate that so many are still in the fight really. But they are, and combined with the generous artillery on call, things are going well so far. I still need to get on the objectives, but those are all soaking up HE at the mo, so no hurry with an hour left. But if it's like most of my campaigns I will dawdle too much on the approach and be forced to rush them at the end.

They were incredibly brave women. I don’t think they were really known. So I made a point of mentioning the wayyyy back when in my “Somebody’s Hero” CAAR Years ago.

I've only seen three of them so far this go-round and I am loving the sort of combat these maps dish out. A mix of long range gunnery duels and close in urban fighting. But so far the urban isn't too dense for me. A perfect mix.
In order to deflect attention from the fact I thought one of my squads carried 30 panzerfaust... I'll turn this in to a thread about Blunting the Spear. Spoliers to follow.
First though, I actually paid attention and answered my own question. There are both panzerfaust model 30 (designated by the 30) and 30k (designated by the K) in this mission. You all know that already.
I finished the second mission, and because time ran over, I was able to capture all objectives. Scored a minor victory. I saw that the Soviets scored 300 points for two terrain objectives which were not labeled on the map and 400 points for Friendly. What is that, they stayed above their casualty threshold, or something else? No worries, just curious to how it's scored.
The Russian aircraft made a return right as time ran out and went nuts. First it attacked one of the knocked out (and burning) Russian tanks. Then it came back to strike a couple of my Mark IVs, causing a few casualties, several penetrations, and the tanks were abandoned. But because it went to overtime I was able to remount the crews. If I had run out of time, would these tanks (abandoned but with surviving crews) have carried over as part of the core force?
 
That aircraft also attacked my pioneer platoon, heretofore uncommitted in the campaign and mounted in tracks under the cover of trees way at the back of the map. That was a tough one to take
I lost two Mark IVs in this battle (I mean permanently considering the re-mounts), and both were knocked out by this well-positioned T-34/85. Clearly though we got our revenge. I committed the mass of my armor on the right, and you see the result. There are two more penetrations on the left turret from a flanking Mark IV who also got a spot. All hits were during the same WEGO segment and brutal it was.
 

 
And a cool shot which I would caption with "You ain't kidding"
 

I've only seen three of them so far this go-round and I am loving the sort of combat these maps dish out. A mix of long range gunnery duels and close in urban fighting. But so far the urban isn't too dense for me. A perfect mix.
In order to deflect attention from the fact I thought one of my squads carried 30 panzerfaust... I'll turn this in to a thread about Blunting the Spear. Spoliers to follow.
First though, I actually paid attention and answered my own question. There are both panzerfaust model 30 (designated by the 30) and 30k (designated by the K) in this mission. You all know that already.
I finished the second mission, and because time ran over, I was able to capture all objectives. Scored a minor victory. I saw that the Soviets scored 300 points for two terrain objectives which were not labeled on the map and 400 points for Friendly. What is that, they stayed above their casualty threshold, or something else? No worries, just curious to how it's scored.
The Russian aircraft made a return right as time ran out and went nuts. First it attacked one of the knocked out (and burning) Russian tanks. Then it came back to strike a couple of my Mark IVs, causing a few casualties, several penetrations, and the tanks were abandoned. But because it went to overtime I was able to remount the crews. If I had run out of time, would these tanks (abandoned but with surviving crews) have carried over as part of the core force?
 
That aircraft also attacked my pioneer platoon, heretofore uncommitted in the campaign and mounted in tracks under the cover of trees way at the back of the map. That was a tough one to take
I lost two Mark IVs in this battle (I mean permanently considering the re-mounts), and both were knocked out by this well-positioned T-34/85. Clearly though we got our revenge. I committed the mass of my armor on the right, and you see the result. There are two more penetrations on the left turret from a flanking Mark IV who also got a spot. All hits were during the same WEGO segment and brutal it was.
 

 
And a cool shot which I would caption with "You ain't kidding"
 

I've only seen three of them so far this go-round and I am loving the sort of combat these maps dish out. A mix of long range gunnery duels and close in urban fighting. But so far the urban isn't too dense for me. A perfect mix.
In order to deflect attention from the fact I thought one of my squads carried 30 panzerfaust... I'll turn this in to a thread about Blunting the Spear. Spoliers to follow.
First though, I actually paid attention and answered my own question. There are both panzerfaust model 30 (designated by the 30) and 30k (designated by the K) in this mission. You all know that already.
I finished the second mission, and because time ran over, I was able to capture all objectives. Scored a minor victory. I saw that the Soviets scored 300 points for two terrain objectives which were not labeled on the map and 400 points for Friendly. What is that, they stayed above their casualty threshold, or something else? No worries, just curious to how it's scored.
The Russian aircraft made a return right as time ran out and went nuts. First it attacked one of the knocked out (and burning) Russian tanks. Then it came back to strike a couple of my Mark IVs, causing a few casualties, several penetrations, and the tanks were abandoned. But because it went to overtime I was able to remount the crews. If I had run out of time, would these tanks (abandoned but with surviving crews) have carried over as part of the core force?
 
That aircraft also attacked my pioneer platoon, heretofore uncommitted in the campaign and mounted in tracks under the cover of trees way at the back of the map. That was a tough one to take
I lost two Mark IVs in this battle (I mean permanently considering the re-mounts), and both were knocked out by this well-positioned T-34/85. Clearly though we got our revenge. I committed the mass of my armor on the right, and you see the result. There are two more penetrations on the left turret from a flanking Mark IV who also got a spot. All hits were during the same WEGO segment and brutal it was.
 

 
And a cool shot which I would caption with "You ain't kidding"
 

Hang on a moment. Where is the "30"?
This squad has 2 times 30k Panzer Fausts. If they had one there would be no number in the lower left corner. Do you really have 30 in the lower left corner and 30 in the lower right?

 

Indeed it was.
Better. After a fairly long break and a new PC i recently got back in to Combat Mission and started with CMBB and CMAK. There's little you could do that would do a better job of driving home the differences in CMx2 than this. It's one thing to remember and recall (tinted by nostalgia), but quite another to play one after the other, unmodded. It's come a long way, but then.....
More or less. Much has changed and then again a lot has not. Still the finest tactical wargame in my view.
Best advice is to get the title which covers the theater you're most interested in. Failing that, get CMBN
Edit: Play a few demos and you'll know which one to get.
 

Indeed it was.
Better. After a fairly long break and a new PC i recently got back in to Combat Mission and started with CMBB and CMAK. There's little you could do that would do a better job of driving home the differences in CMx2 than this. It's one thing to remember and recall (tinted by nostalgia), but quite another to play one after the other, unmodded. It's come a long way, but then.....
More or less. Much has changed and then again a lot has not. Still the finest tactical wargame in my view.
Best advice is to get the title which covers the theater you're most interested in. Failing that, get CMBN
Edit: Play a few demos and you'll know which one to get.
 

Having recently reinstalled CMBN I ran in to the same thing as the OP looking for Juju's UI mod. Was coming here to ask where to find it but decided to run a search first. Got it now and thanks Warts for the help!

Glad to be of help. Happy gaming!

Indeed. Devil's Descent and Kampfgruppe Engle for CMBN are two that come to mind that I really liked. There are plenty more when you consider all of the Combat Mission titles. And frankly, my issue stems more from quantity than quality, which, combined with limited replayability and the fact that not all campaigns appeal to me ( regardless of quality ), leaves me with little to actually play.
Some are simply too big for me, some too urban, some may lack appeal for others reasons, such as weather or night battles, etc etc. These things don't make the campaign bad, but perhaps make it unsuitable for my tastes. As I said, I feel my tastes are fairly broad, but certain things are in my wheelhouse. For example I like what I call reinforced company sized campaigns. A force centered around an infantry company with an appropriate amount of support, perhaps a platoon of tanks, a battery or two of off-map artillery and some heavy weapons teams. I like rural type maps with elevation changes. I like good weather
These aren't requirements per se, but just the sort of stuff that appeals to me the most. If I then filter available campaigns by these type of things, the list grows rather short doesn't it? So instead of playing the sort of things I like, I also play campaigns which are not my style, simply because they exist. I'm thankful for that. I'm grateful that community members take the time to do it, and more than that, make them available for us to play ourselves. But as I plod through another battalion + sized campaign I can only wish for ones that are more suitable or more my style.


I made a post here last year pledging to put my money where my mouth is. I am willing to pay for it. But a handful of eager players doesn't make it profitable necessarily. Paper Tiger spent, if I recall, around 800 hours making Road to Montebourg. This is a good one. But 800 hours is a massive time investment for just a single campaign. So one issue is that the tools don't exist for streamlining the process. What if in 800 hours 10 campaigns could be made? 20? 40? Time is money.
So while I would support such an idea, it misses the mark slightly in my view. Players are still tethered to the supply chain, getting their playable content from others, relying on their productivity, enthusiasm and skill. On one hand I'll take what I can get. Beggars/choosers. On the other, I still feel the way forward is a way for the players to generate it themselves. And I have two axes of advance on this matter....
I'm not a programmer, and as a result cannot know of the technical requirements of the things I propose. And partly I hesitate to write it at all, as by definition it is critical of the fine work done by Battlefront, or maybe more accurately, what they have not done. But this is a wishlist type thread after all, and I want to see the series evolve. And I want more suitable campaigns to play.
The first one is have something akin to the QMB interface that generates something akin to Operations from CMx1. Since the post I made a few days ago about this matter I decided to go back to operations. I bought both CMBB and CMAK, as I built a new PC without the foresight of knowing an optical drive might come in handy, rendering the disks I've held on to all these years impractical
Imagine we could generate these ourselves, by setting each parameter. Number of battles, force type and troop quality, map details, weather, reinforcement probability, resupply and so on. I envision an endless supply of focused suitable content to play. A huge map, persistent forces, dynamic front line.
The second one is more ambitious, and I think like CMC was supposed to be. At it's core, it would be an operational level map not unlike what we had in several of the Close Combat games. The player has a number of battlegroups (selectable scale) as does the enemy. These units are moved on the map. When two forces enter a sector on the same turn a meeting engagement occurs. If occupied for one previous turn, an attack. And if the enemy had been there longer, an assault.  Tactical battles fought in concert with a larger operational goal.
It should include resupply and logistics, reinforcements, a support pool and so on. Lines of communication can be cut.
These ideas aren't new, but it's two possible ways forward. As I said earlier, it would all require a new AI which is another matter entirely. I know it's easy to throw fairy dust and wishes around, and that it would require hard work and time and money, none of which are mine. But it sure would make me happy
 
 

Indeed. Devil's Descent and Kampfgruppe Engle for CMBN are two that come to mind that I really liked. There are plenty more when you consider all of the Combat Mission titles. And frankly, my issue stems more from quantity than quality, which, combined with limited replayability and the fact that not all campaigns appeal to me ( regardless of quality ), leaves me with little to actually play.
Some are simply too big for me, some too urban, some may lack appeal for others reasons, such as weather or night battles, etc etc. These things don't make the campaign bad, but perhaps make it unsuitable for my tastes. As I said, I feel my tastes are fairly broad, but certain things are in my wheelhouse. For example I like what I call reinforced company sized campaigns. A force centered around an infantry company with an appropriate amount of support, perhaps a platoon of tanks, a battery or two of off-map artillery and some heavy weapons teams. I like rural type maps with elevation changes. I like good weather
These aren't requirements per se, but just the sort of stuff that appeals to me the most. If I then filter available campaigns by these type of things, the list grows rather short doesn't it? So instead of playing the sort of things I like, I also play campaigns which are not my style, simply because they exist. I'm thankful for that. I'm grateful that community members take the time to do it, and more than that, make them available for us to play ourselves. But as I plod through another battalion + sized campaign I can only wish for ones that are more suitable or more my style.


I made a post here last year pledging to put my money where my mouth is. I am willing to pay for it. But a handful of eager players doesn't make it profitable necessarily. Paper Tiger spent, if I recall, around 800 hours making Road to Montebourg. This is a good one. But 800 hours is a massive time investment for just a single campaign. So one issue is that the tools don't exist for streamlining the process. What if in 800 hours 10 campaigns could be made? 20? 40? Time is money.
So while I would support such an idea, it misses the mark slightly in my view. Players are still tethered to the supply chain, getting their playable content from others, relying on their productivity, enthusiasm and skill. On one hand I'll take what I can get. Beggars/choosers. On the other, I still feel the way forward is a way for the players to generate it themselves. And I have two axes of advance on this matter....
I'm not a programmer, and as a result cannot know of the technical requirements of the things I propose. And partly I hesitate to write it at all, as by definition it is critical of the fine work done by Battlefront, or maybe more accurately, what they have not done. But this is a wishlist type thread after all, and I want to see the series evolve. And I want more suitable campaigns to play.
The first one is have something akin to the QMB interface that generates something akin to Operations from CMx1. Since the post I made a few days ago about this matter I decided to go back to operations. I bought both CMBB and CMAK, as I built a new PC without the foresight of knowing an optical drive might come in handy, rendering the disks I've held on to all these years impractical
Imagine we could generate these ourselves, by setting each parameter. Number of battles, force type and troop quality, map details, weather, reinforcement probability, resupply and so on. I envision an endless supply of focused suitable content to play. A huge map, persistent forces, dynamic front line.
The second one is more ambitious, and I think like CMC was supposed to be. At it's core, it would be an operational level map not unlike what we had in several of the Close Combat games. The player has a number of battlegroups (selectable scale) as does the enemy. These units are moved on the map. When two forces enter a sector on the same turn a meeting engagement occurs. If occupied for one previous turn, an attack. And if the enemy had been there longer, an assault.  Tactical battles fought in concert with a larger operational goal.
It should include resupply and logistics, reinforcements, a support pool and so on. Lines of communication can be cut.
These ideas aren't new, but it's two possible ways forward. As I said earlier, it would all require a new AI which is another matter entirely. I know it's easy to throw fairy dust and wishes around, and that it would require hard work and time and money, none of which are mine. But it sure would make me happy
 
 

Sheesh, leave for a couple of years and the British are their own race now. That's quite the trick, but congrats, I guess.
Lots of hyperbole in this thread. Comments like the reason BFC won't add staff is because they will suddenly start making COD games, or comparing an increase in staff to Star Citizen, which is the most extreme case you can think of. Like there's no middle ground.
I have no advice for Battlefront. Steve and company can proceed however they see fit,  and I can say with my wallet whether I find their path appealing, and have done by skipping a number of titles, while purchasing others. The rub of it is there really isn't any satisfactory alternative at this level of tactical gaming for me. We all have our pet ideas (campaign system being mine) that we would like to see implemented, and detailing these isn't a complete waste of time I don't think.  But stating some form of doom will befall us or BFC by more ambition strikes me as odd. If they don't want to 'expand' that's their call, and rightfully so, but why automatically assume the worst outcome if they do?
 

Another site to check is the Blowtorch one:
http://www.blowtorchscenarios.com/Newest Scenarios/newest scenarios.htm
Lot of themed scenarios by George McEwan and a colleague plus at least one is an operation - Sunday Dance.
Haven't played these as they seem big? But found the site as Jason from the forums has his Russian Training Scenarios posted there:
http://www.blowtorchscenarios.com/

Well, nothing I did really, and not sure it will work with a 'legacy' version. As mentioned I got the GOG version since I built my new PC without the foresight to include an optical drive, rendering the fact I held on to my disks all the years useless. So I bought CMAK and CMBB on GOG ($12 total). These include a DX utility in the install directory. I installed the game, let it go to default res and ran the game once so it created whatever necessary files or folders it might need to. Exit game, ran the DX utility and chose 1920x1080, and I also set the setting right below,  aspect something or other, to disabled and fired it up to fullscreen widescreen. Works splendidly I must say, and I will also say that if not for that, if stuck with a non-native, non 16:9 ratio, that I would not find it quite as charming as I do
So if you don't have the GOG version I'm not sure if you're able to do the same.  If you go for the GOG version you'll have this included. ANd perhaps it can be imported in to other versions, but not sure of the legalities of this.

Sounds like I need to drop the $6 bucks for the GoG version...will do that in the next few days, thanks.

Over the weekend I dove in head first and played through three or four CMBB Operations. Good stuff. Running CMBB in 1920x1080 seems like witchcraft. But it all plays great, runs great.
It brings back so many good memories, starting a battle or operation and seeing the map and reacting like "I remember this one!".
It plays differently than CMx2 of course, and some things are missed as CMx2 spoiled me in some ways. Spotting, as mentioned, is the biggest difference for me. What I wouldn't give to transpose relative spotting in to CMx1!
Command delay is a great feature I think, especially on the East Front, where it has a telling effect. I miss the more robust artillery mechanics from the newer games too.
On the other hand, I like how you can plot indirect fire on areas of the map with no LOS. It was one of my first complaints when playing my first CMx2 game. In CMx1 you can drop rounds for instance anywhere, regardless of LOS. See a crossroads on the map that you want to shell? Have at it. Accuracy is affected as the fall of shot is unobserved perhaps. But it can be done. In CMx2 it's tied too strictly to LOS.
A perfect example is an AT gun poking through a hedgerow on the other side of a field. You place a mortar in a hedge with LOS to the opposite one and call for fire. Round after round drops 5 feet short. You cannot place the fire just behind the hedge since you cannot see it. 
Mortar fire for example should be allowed anywhere within the weapon's range, with of course accuracy penalties for unobserved fall of shot. As it is I can't shell that crossroads on my map because I can't see it through the copse of woods. But it's right there on my map! Can't I transmit co-ordinates or something, like over the radio?  Any object should be considered an aiming stake for indirect fire. Even if I know that place is full of enemy, I can't get mortar rounds in there unless I can see the spot. I can't lob rounds over that barn to hit troops behind it if the mortar squad or a spotter cannot see that ground. In CMx1 you can, with varying degrees of accuracy, and that's good in my view.
Can anyone point me with a link to the best places to grab Operations for CMx1 games?

Sheesh, leave for a couple of years and the British are their own race now. That's quite the trick, but congrats, I guess.
Lots of hyperbole in this thread. Comments like the reason BFC won't add staff is because they will suddenly start making COD games, or comparing an increase in staff to Star Citizen, which is the most extreme case you can think of. Like there's no middle ground.
I have no advice for Battlefront. Steve and company can proceed however they see fit,  and I can say with my wallet whether I find their path appealing, and have done by skipping a number of titles, while purchasing others. The rub of it is there really isn't any satisfactory alternative at this level of tactical gaming for me. We all have our pet ideas (campaign system being mine) that we would like to see implemented, and detailing these isn't a complete waste of time I don't think.  But stating some form of doom will befall us or BFC by more ambition strikes me as odd. If they don't want to 'expand' that's their call, and rightfully so, but why automatically assume the worst outcome if they do?
 

Sheesh, leave for a couple of years and the British are their own race now. That's quite the trick, but congrats, I guess.
Lots of hyperbole in this thread. Comments like the reason BFC won't add staff is because they will suddenly start making COD games, or comparing an increase in staff to Star Citizen, which is the most extreme case you can think of. Like there's no middle ground.
I have no advice for Battlefront. Steve and company can proceed however they see fit,  and I can say with my wallet whether I find their path appealing, and have done by skipping a number of titles, while purchasing others. The rub of it is there really isn't any satisfactory alternative at this level of tactical gaming for me. We all have our pet ideas (campaign system being mine) that we would like to see implemented, and detailing these isn't a complete waste of time I don't think.  But stating some form of doom will befall us or BFC by more ambition strikes me as odd. If they don't want to 'expand' that's their call, and rightfully so, but why automatically assume the worst outcome if they do?
 

Sheesh, leave for a couple of years and the British are their own race now. That's quite the trick, but congrats, I guess.
Lots of hyperbole in this thread. Comments like the reason BFC won't add staff is because they will suddenly start making COD games, or comparing an increase in staff to Star Citizen, which is the most extreme case you can think of. Like there's no middle ground.
I have no advice for Battlefront. Steve and company can proceed however they see fit,  and I can say with my wallet whether I find their path appealing, and have done by skipping a number of titles, while purchasing others. The rub of it is there really isn't any satisfactory alternative at this level of tactical gaming for me. We all have our pet ideas (campaign system being mine) that we would like to see implemented, and detailing these isn't a complete waste of time I don't think.  But stating some form of doom will befall us or BFC by more ambition strikes me as odd. If they don't want to 'expand' that's their call, and rightfully so, but why automatically assume the worst outcome if they do?
 

And even more nationalistic.
Michael