hammelman

I just noticed there is a CMBN Windows 3.12 Full Installer Zip - its 4 gb. Is this all i need to get from 1.0?

I went from 1.0 to 1.11 to 3.12. Might be the problem, i'll see what happens.

I can load into scenarios and it seems to work, but the infantry models don't show - its just vehicles and bunch of disembodied rifles running around. I have the latest patch for 3.12. Appreciate any help.

Holy-moly. Battlefront thrives again. It's amazing what WWII does for games.

Stop trying to hijack the thread with the climate change nonsense. I'm not taking sides, but this isn't The Climate Change Conspiracy Thread, its the Stephen Ambrose is a liar thread.

My dad (Eric Hammel) actually wrote a book called "Khe Sanh: Siege In The Clouds" about the battle. I have always found this an interesting topic because it was one of the very few set piece battles of more than decade long involvement in Vietnam.

I think the real problem is there aren't enough people actively playing - especially multiplayer - to support any kind of real audience for something like this. I wouldn't be surprised that even if there were some kind of tool or room of some sort that there would no more than 20 or 30 people in the WHOLE WORLD who would be wanting to play MP at the same time. Unfortunately because this is a niche game, i don't think that is ever going to change. If I'm wrong, great, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one.

I think compared to the initial launch of and subsequent first few patches of CMSF there has been hardly any griping about anything, really. The jewel case for the British Module was bad, Oh Noes! It's cheaper and more space efficient to get the direct download.

thanks for the quick response. that is exactly what i wanted to hear.

Is there any plans to bundle the 2 modules when the British pack comes out? I'm not interested in paying $25 for the marines module, but am willing to pay say $35-$40 for both. Any info regarding this?? Thanks.

You can't!

It comes bundled with Lost Empire Immortals. I assume this is a download version of the game.

Meade you're right i apparently wasn't thinking when i made the above comment. My bad! On the Iran thing, you haven't answered. If there is something that you don't agree with you either say straw man, or don't answer. I might not have the greatest rhetorical flair and might speak before thinking sometimes, but i always at least answer.

I think common sense dictates that you cannot simply just kill them all. Your "simple" solutions have no grounding in reality. There's never going to be a day when they are all just dead, this is not combat mission where when you score a complete victory they all just vanish from the screen. Your arguments kind of remind me of a 15 year old's perspective on the world - "If we just kill them all then they will just go away." A dangerous and childish opinion.

"I don't give a crap who knows who. If you're working to blow people up for any reason other than saving the lives of the innocent, you need a JDAM sandwich. Period. Simple as that. Good day." Thats a really open ended statement Seabee. Really open.

Let's take a look at Libya vs Iran. Libya has a population of 6,173,579 vs Iran which has a population of 65,875,224. Libya has a 1.83m work force where Iran has a work force of 28.7m. Libya's arable land (land for farming) is 1.03% of its total land mass where Iran's is 9.78%. Libya sits in a barren wasteland in North Africa of strategically no value to the world. Iran sits directly above the Straight of Hormuz where 20% of the worlds oil flows through everyday (40% of shipped oil). Iran has a standing army of at least 500k and several hundred more thousands reserve troops (most likely if we did a full land invasion they would cave quickly, much like Iraq) I'm sure you already knew all these things as this information is attainable through the CIA fact book posted online at (www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/) We have one dictator of a country of 6m people (less than the population of New York City) that we got to change his ways because he no arable land, 95% of his export economy is oil, his *current* unemployment rate is upwards of 30% and his country sits in the middle of a desert. How did we do this? We used international sanctions and then we ignored him. On the other hand we have a country that a population 10 times greater, with 10% of the world's proven petroleum reserves which sits in a strategic location in a strategic part of the world, has a real army with real weapons and real potential. I realize that Iran is run by a bunch of despots claiming to get messages from god. I also realize that fundamentally Iranians have nothing against the people of America or its surrogates - including in my opinion Israel (don't quote Ahmadinejad, he's merely the face of the Ayatollah's and i believe has very little real power, and he is just playing a shell game) This freedom you talk about in the ME is not real freedom, we jammed it down their throat literally at the barrel end of a gun. Real freedom is people taking up arms on their own and installing their own leaders. Sure France helped us with men and weapons in our own revolution, but when the fighting was over their troops left and it was decided amongst the people in this country what would go. Currently in Stan and Iraq they are run by puppets, not people of free will, puppets. Sure they voted for them. I vote every four years and when the power that be doesn't agree with my vote the electoral college or the supreme court installs the next president. Iran is not just going to change anytime soon. I've been hearing for years that Iran is on the brink, that their middle class and educated elite are going to stand up and bring down the Ayatollah's. I doubt it, every time they have a riot at Tehran University the government sends in pro-government supporters to beat down the protesters. This is not going to change anytime soon. Sure the Iranian economy is in the dump and people are protesting new taxes, but that doesn't mean that the country is going to miraculously change anytime soon. If anything the Iranians will turtle up because of the now rightly perceived threats by the countries directly around them, and the world at large. Every time we threaten to bomb them they go Aha! This is why we need the bomb! Because when they have the bomb we lose our bargaining chips. Look at North Korea, the most worthless country in the world, they got the bomb and everything changed in our demeanor towards them. No more threatening, no more harassment, now appeasement. We made a deal with the North Koreans, blow up your nuke plant and we'll feed and heat your people - but besides that there is nothing else we can do, because we know they have the bomb. The same i think will inevitably go for the Iranians, we need to give them incentives to not be pariahs. As i stated before, they will get the bomb, no question. There is nothing we can do to stop them. The question is how are going to deal with it when they do? I think you and the other hawks will be quite surprised how this all turns out. I think this whole notion of bomb first, ask questions later has been dis-proven. Why? We can bomb all we want, and destroy the institutions of a country, but then we have to bring something back much greater than the beast before it. If you look at Stan, sure we're winning the ground war, much like we did in Vietnam - and you know how that went (I'm not saying its going to end up like Saigon at the end of the war, i don't see that as a possibility). Its one thing to have limited strikes in countries that cannot possibly retaliate and mess with our interests, its quite another thing to threaten countries that can actually effect change, and in the most drastic of ways. Think about it, i await your most educated response.

Don't forget that our presidents and their ideas leave every 4 years. Iran will acquire a nuke, i think in the minds of most of the people here its not a matter of if, but when. I dont think bombing Iran will make them anything like Libya, not in any sense whatsoever. Iran has a sense of identity that far transcends years and time. They can literally wait out any administration, or nation they want. With this national identity of theirs, all they have to do is bide their time, it could be 10 years, or 20, or 30 but they will remember what they want, and they will have it. I think Meade perhaps my opinion of your fundamental misunderstanding about these people (not just the Iranians) is they're not going anywhere, they've already arrived. Eventually there will be a draw down of American troops in the region, but these countries and their leaders will still be there. We could bomb a 1,000 buildings and kill 10,000 scientists, but they will still be there, and will still have their blue prints for weaponizing uranium. Currently all we're doing is strengthening the Iranian position, we've given them a mission, and an enemy. As a nation we have to come to an agreement of how we are to deal with these people once we've left them to do their business. We have to decide what kind of terms we want to be on with these people when we pull our troops out. Are we going to wag our fingers at them and tell them no, launch sf raids into their territory when they get out of line, or are we going to trust in diplomacy and see what comes of it? I don't pretend to know the answer, but i know that just sending more and more troops over there or bombing more targets is not a solution. Eventually we won't be able to sustain it. Look at the economy, people are starting to be laid off at my work, do you think this nation will let its treasure bleed away for much longer at a time like this? Nope, not going to happen.

I actually can't believe that you really truly hold that opinion Lee. This whole thing about Iran killing our troops in Iraq covertly and overtly with arms supplied in theater. What do you think happens when you launch a land invasion into a foreign country surrounded by enemies? Do think they just sit on their hands, and say "OMG we can't mess with them" You threaten them, you try to convince the world that they are evil and then expect that they will be silenced? How about a little perspective about sending arms into a conflict you're not associated with. WWII, Britain is under siege on all sides. Britain is holding out, but can't for much longer, they need help. Enter FDR and Lend Lease. We send destroyers, figther planes, jeeps, bullets, etc. Why? because its in FDR and the West's best interests to make sure Britain does not fall. Are we are war with Germany? No. Has Germany attacked us? No. Somehow we as Americans can justify sending weapons to Britain during WWII when we're officially involved, but if those crazy mullahs do it for their neighbors, who do they think they are! Let's take another example. 1973. Israel is screwed. Multiple foreign armies invade. Israel is running out of weapons and needs help. Who sends weapons? Us, again. From what i have read without permission we go and empty out NATO weapons stocks of TOW missles and send them over to Israel for them for their war. Once again a war we're not involved in. I agree that what we did was right, and just. Don't feed us this line of crap that somehow when our interests have problems we can do as we please and the rest of the world can go screw themselves. The Iranians are playing a game, and its a game their really good at. Don't forget we put our troops in Iraq needlessly, and now they are dying because our government feels justified.

Meade, You won't do to well here criticizing peoples intelligence. This is a group of people whose intelligence far exceeds the standard curve. Making a point and having an intellectual conversation is not a bad thing. Calling people biased because their opinion differs from yours is hypocritical. If I've learned anything in life its the guy who says that everybody else is crazy that is generally the crazy person. Thats not to say that adage is 100% true all the time, but in this case i think it stands true. There is NO question Steve is one smart cookie. Please don't use your bullying antics here, they will not work, nor impress anyone.

You may certainly be right, but on an enclosed space where every bullet is being tracked from battalion + troops per side firing automatic weapons and other various things is a little different than your typical flight sim. I have to agree with Moon that these are vastly different types of games and cannot be compared. Also when your in a flight sim you only see so much of the "board" when playing CMSF everything on the board is moving at the same time, as you look around in your cockpit or around your plane your going only see graphically what is happening around you - the player, but in CMSF you will see vastly more things going on at the same time. If that makes any sense.

If you're looking for a book on the battle for Hue my dad happened to have written one called, Fire in The Streets - Eric Hammel. I'm pretty sure there are copies of it floating around.

I don't ever foresee a Vietnam title. I don't think you will ever see many major titles based on it as there were so few set piece battles. Sure I could name a few, Ia Drang, Hue, Khe Sahn, Ambush Valley. For the most part the war was fought in small unit ambushes within major sweeps/operations that accomplished very little. I think it would be hard to model a game down to a war which was essentially fought at the platoon level - especially for this crowd which is accustomed to fighting on the company/battalion + scale of things. For one thing the maps couldn't be that big because of the nature of jungle warfare - i mean sure you could maneuver a company around a field until you found some fixed positions, but it was generally the case that an ambush would happen and then the enemy would disappear without the rest of the unit having time to become involved. Also the nightmare of putting helicopters into the battle from BFC's pespective, and then how would you effectively handle those choppers? would you use the gun ships as you would modern aircraft in standoff, or would you move them around as you would a vehicle on the ground so that you could use them effectively? As i stated i just don't see it. Also, America lost the war which i think is another reason you don't see games on this subject much. Who wants to make a game where you have all the superior arms and formations, and yet no matter how hard you try you know that that the war was lost? Just my .25 Cents.

TOW for me was a great let down, i don't have faith that they can fix the issues that i had/have with the game. Although a beautiful looking game with some very great features i will not be going down this road again. I think TOW could be the wave of the future in regards to graphics and hit animations and the like, but i think the game a lot of us are waiting for is either not truly realized, or that technology hasn't caught up yet. CMSF i think would have been a more appropriate first step to next gen tactical combat simulation instead of building TOW before its time was due. But thats just my opinion. Fighting inside of buildings is a high point though, good job on that aspect.

perfect, thanks.

whats up with the pictures getting cut off?