Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by niall78

  1. I have a reoccurring problem in both CMRT and CMSF2. In both games I was playing a campaign. Multiple missions into these campaigns in both titles the current save game when loaded crashed to desktop. Save games further back would also crash. Far enough back and a game might load but a save off that game would also crash making further campaign progress impossible.

    When the crashes start occuring I'm already well into the campaigns with dozens of saves marking the way. Both games run perfectly to the point the game starts crashing loading a save game.

    I've unloaded all mods for CMRT but this hasn't helped. I've got a completely vanilla CMSF2. Both games are fully upgraded.

    I haven't played a campaign in CMBN or CMFI in a while to know if I have the same issue in these titles.

    Has anyone else experienced this issue before?

  2. On 9/30/2018 at 2:54 PM, Sublime said:

    I think Cooper woulda $hit a brick at yankee know how - IIRC he was a thru and thru southerner.

    Jokes aside youre right and Stephen Ambrose used to be the worst in books for that. I remember distinctly the Ambrose craze in the late 90s. It also sucked because I was only 13 or 14 but loved history and was pretty aware that Ambrose minimized every other Allies achievements versus the US on Germans; and I felt that he insulted the memory of a lot of men by either exagerrating or deflating the quality and numbers of the Germans facing US troops to whatever suited his narrative better. Of course try telling some grown up thats not into history but just read Citizen Soldiers that you think he.s a moron cuz x y and z lol no one is willing to take you seriously or if they do theyre not gonna allow a teenager to one up them amd will deny it regardless. Sigh. The days before I could argue with someone, challenge them to put money on some obscure bs, and then whip out my phone and google my free 5 bucks :)

    I'd have grave doubts calling Ambrose a historian. I had the misfortune to purchase his book on the development of the North American railways and found it truly atrocious. Even my layman's knowledge knew what I was reading was bad history - which a few quick web searches confirmed. 

    Anyone reading his WW2 books should remember Albert Blithe. This guy would write anything without any fact checking. I don't have time to research if the facts in books I'm reading are actually real or just the authors make-believe facts. Dreadful stuff to waste money on when there is so much quality well written well researched history on the market these days. 

  3. Thread title says it all. CMSF is not available to download from the 'my account' of the website. It's a 2007 order. Does that matter? I thought I read something on the website about orders recorded since 2008.

    Anyone any ideas how I get CMSF available to download from the 'my account' section?


    Thanks in advance for all replies.

  4. 7 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

    On balance I personally regard it as good if a unit close to the enemy and under heavy fire bugs out in the event it breaks evn if the unit is under heavy fire. In such circumstances those guys would probably want to get out  of there o somewhere a bit safer. In a tabletop miniatures game we might have a mechanism for panic. I remember one set of Vietnam rules I played years ago. When a unit panicked you rolled a six sided dice with results someting like this:

    1 - 2 Panic Fire. Unit shoots with a very hefty negative modifier at nearest enemy

    3 - 4 Panic Freeze Unit remains in position and does nothing at all until rallied

    5 - 6 Panic Run. Unit runs away from enemy to nearest alternative cover

    Maybe there is a similar mechanic at work now in 4.0

    In many table-top or board-games broken troops are simply removed from play completely. Broken is the same as a KIA for all intents and purposes.

  5. I'm playing a lot of campaigns against the AI with 4.0 in CMFI, CMBS and CMRT and I'm just not seeing any new extraordinary behaviour over 3.0.

    Badly panicked troops and crews have always had a bad time when they've 'broken' in an engagement under any version. If anything playing the new Russian CMBS campaign last night I was amazed at the staying power of Ukrainian infantry in fixed positions under incredible artillery and direct fire. 

    If anything panic and morale is grossly overstated in CM due to the time compression factors that make the game enjoyable/playable.

    On a side note I've been gaming for thirty plus years at this stage. Any system I've dabbled with - table-top, board-game or computer game - when troops break under fire and panic it is usually game over for that unit. 

    Opinions - of course - are like .........  ;)

  6. On 02/05/2017 at 3:36 PM, Erwin said:

    This should provide access to a comprehensive set of all CMFI scenarios and campaigns to date (along with same from other titles).



    Thanks Erwin. This is a great resource for CM players. I try to grab scenarios and especially campaigns as soon as they get released but even I was missing a good few of both.

    Hopefully this thread is kept updated and attached to all the relevant game family mod forums.

  7. 1 minute ago, Erwin said:

    The two game systems appeal to completely different markets.  CM is ultra realistic almost to the point of being unplayable - or at least it feels like hard work and requires a lot of cerebral thought.  Graviteam market doesn't emphasize realism, but moment to moment wrist twitchers and thrill seekers.

    Graviteam games are more 'realistic' Company of Heroes style RTS  games. CM is a simulation type game.

    Tried Graviteam many times and could never get into it. Controls were nearly incomprehensible, graphics were a bit whiff when zoomed out to actually play the game, ToE seemed limited and battles didn't seem to play out the way I'd have thought - as an above poster said infantry are next to useless. 

    These are personal experiences. I'm delighted if others loved it. I'd much rather play CM or other games to get my tactics fix though. RTS games leave me completely cold.


  8. Not many Sherman variants had a rotating .50cal ring on them. Would the early version Shermans with a rotating .50cal ring even be involved at the Normandy stages of the war?

    Early Italy maybe. Information about what exact variants  the .50cal ring was fitted to is hard to find which is strange.

  9. 6 minutes ago, Mark_McLeod said:

    ya thats a good point, its a tough decision for sure, because what im most looking foward too is new maps and how the cities look but on both of them the cities and towns look similar.

    I wouldn't get too hung up on the 'quality' of the scenarios or campaigns. The maps and AI are better in the newer releases but the quality is still good for the older stuff. The engine is near identical in both. In my opinion the early campaigns and scenarios supplied with the original CMBN are better for 'learning' the basics of the game system than the newer titles.

  10. Just replying to the war-gaming part of your post KlKitchens.

    As a tactical battle 'simulator' the CM series has no competitor. It is simply light years ahead of anything else on the market. It is the dream of us old hex and chit gamers when we first realised the potential of computers for our hobby decades ago. It's ASL brought to life. It's simply a war-gaming grogs dream game system.

    It is simply amazing what this system can offer. Platoon through to multi-battalion sized fights with a historically accurate ToE covering a multitude of nations and combat formations. Every man, bullet and shell tracked in-game. Morale, leadership and communication all tracked in-game. It doesn't get better than this for the war-gamer.


  11. If I was buying the series in stages I'd go with the CMBN big bundle. The amount of content is staggering. You would be getting series bang for you money. 

    The game engine is the same in all titles - baring CMFI for the moment. So it really comes down to what WW2 battles you have an interest in the most.


  12. On 02/02/2017 at 3:26 AM, John Kettler said:


    When I was living out in Burke, VA (a suburb, effectively, of Washington, DC), I got to go to a wonderful used bookstore--wonderful because there were so many military people in the area who read books of interest to me, during which I got a look at Dupuy's casualty estimates for what became GW 1. They made grim reading and were  on work using the  iconic (used for all sorts of military studies and analyses over a considerable number of years) QJM (Quantified Judgment Model. Yet Dupuy didn't merely wind up with egg on his face but more like the entire egg production of a sprawling chicken farm. Why?

    The model failed to take into account such things as Day One massive destruction of key command facilities, the commandeering of fiber optic trunks to inject false military data, the surgical piercing and subsequent destruction of centralized control for air defenses, astronomic levels of bombing during Desert Shield which, while the bombing didn't kill all that many tanks, effectively destroyed the logistics and morale of troops who were generally hungry, thirsty for considerable periods and long abandoned by their officers well before the ground war began. It failed to account for the destruction of much of the Iraqi Air force in its previously practically impervious hardened shelters. It failed, as well, to account for wide scale employment of PSYOPS tech of the most revolutionary and highly classified sort.  There was no real appreciation for what the Tomahawk could do, either, still less when used in great numbers, or the soon to be dreaded "steel rain" from the MLRS. Nor did he know about the F-117 Stealth Fighter. This is by no means a complete list. Saddam had lots of veterans, but they were veterans of years of war profoundly and utterly unlike what they found themselves in. They got stomped as a result. The US and Coalition members brought their Cold War front bench, the real pros who would've faced the Russians in Germany, to the game, together with all their best toys and tactics, to include massed air power wielded with decisive force, speed and violence unprecedented in the history of air combat. The effect was shattering and simply not factored into the QJM's parameter set.

    Custer was grossly outnumbered (9:1) and, we now know, completely outgunned. We know this thanks to comprehensive tracking of the movements of specific individuals via their cartridge brass uniquely identifiable by firing pin and extractor markings, recovered bullets and more. The Sioux moved freely about the field, crushing position after position, while Custer's men largely stayed put. We also know where those who fled died. Custer also left the withering firepower of Gatling guns behind. Imagine he missed them keenly when it was too late. The below is deemed the top analysis of the matter. It began as an article and became a very limited edition book. The author is C. Lee Noyes, frequent contributor to periodicals on the Wild West and the ACW, as well as the author of several other books.



    John Kettler

    I found Red Sabbath : The battle of Little Bighorn by Robert Kershaw to be an excellent read John. He tracks the battle though every stage using the bullet cartridge evidence. It wasn't so much a battle as a rout. As a poster above said it was a strategic loss. Once the attack order by Custer was given the tactical battle was lost - it was just a matter of how badly Custer's force would suffer.


  13. 5 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

    Not to mention the vast bulk of us probably have no connection to the IT industry and don't know a thing about what our ideas equal in terms of programming/resourcing implications. :P

    I admit (as one of those forum guys who's posted ideas here before) I've felt sorry for the BF team in the past reading through some of the threads since most don't have any thoughts on how there idea would be implemented. I get the same thing in my job when managing our economic research projects or even from ad-hoc requests with the questioner having no grasp on what is actually possible. "We want this and this and this and this, oh and is it possible to cross reference by that." (And my team gets complaints when we say no - funny that!)

    All projects have to start somewhere and the 'ideas phase' can be a lot of fun, but those that leave the 'ideas phase' open too long are destined to never get there project completed on time/budget.

    I'm sure BF aren't feeling much pressure from the talk on this forum. Meanwhile it is vital for small niche companies to be 'in touch' with their fans in this day and age. To have no forum of ideas from fans or no interaction with those fans would be disastrous. Before the internet companies spent a fortune trying to engage their customer bases in all industries - now they can get engagement for free with a little effort.

    Companies that don't engage actually cede that advantage and give it to third parties. Their customer base's major contact point with them is now through a nearly uncontrollable and unaccountable third party.

    I don't think we see too many crazy ideas in general on this forum anyway. This is more a fun dream thread - I'm not really expecting BF to release a CM:Battletech. ;)

    Other things like fire, better defensive works implementation and other tweaks that are frequently mentioned or new time periods or settings are much more achievable aims in the mid to long term. BF hearing this is no bad thing. It's up to them to then prioritize these customer ideas with their own ideas and the resources they have available. 




  • Create New...