Rubalcalva

The old eLicense copy-protected games would require you to 'unlicese' the old installation first in order to preserve the activation (two per license key - an internet connection is necessary for the unlicensing). CMSF, CMA, CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, most of the Strategic Command series and a number of other games used this copy-protection system. Newer games from CMBN and on utilize a newer copy-protection system that does NOT have an unlicense function. Instead each license key has four initial activations and you simply activate the new installation on the new computer (or reinstallation of your OS, etc.), using a second activation, etc.. When you run out of activations you can simply contact the Helpdesk to request more activations (providing the license keys of those products that need new activations).

If your Strategic Command games have an 'unlicense' option, then you will WANT TO DO THAT FIRST. Those games utilize the eLicense copy-protection system and have two activations per license key that you need to maintain by unlicensing anything you're not going to play (such as moving to a new computer and the old one will get decommissioned). Later Strategic Command games utilize the newer copy-protection system that does NOT have an unlicense option. In those cases you can simply uninstall the game since they come with 4 activations per license key and you simply put in a request to the Helpdesk (https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/ , accessed from the main Battlefront webpage under the 'Support' menu) to have them add another activation once you have run out of your 4 activations.

I've been using OvGME for the past few days now.
It's very nice, UI is much better than JSGME (from what I recall), it was easy to set-up & does make swapping around a lot easier.
You can even save profiles & keep your mods zipped if you want.
The only thing to remember is that it's the contents of each particular mod folder which are sent to CM's Z folder.

I think JSGME should work, but if it's in the game's root directory, mods would need to reflect the path down to the Z folder. So it would be in the JSGME mod folder like the following: (modName)/data/z/(mod files)
I'll try it myself when I'm back at my computer today since I was thinking of doing JSGME myself for different effects mods.

Was going thru old CM files and found this which may be helpful to those still learning CM (as we all are actually).  This hasn't been edited so may have spelling errors etc.  Sorry for not crediting the author, but I don't know who wrote it. 
 
REAL WORLD TACTICS THAT WORK IN CM
 
Below you will find some real world tactics that we use in the military that will work in CM games.  Most of these tactics can be used with Infantry and Armor, but some are Infantry or Armor specific.  What you are about to read IS what I was taught when I was in the U.S. Army.
 
MOVEMENT TECHNEQUES
 
 
There are 3 types of movement formations:  Traveling, Traveling Overwatch, and Bounding Overwatch.  These movements are written with a 3 squad platoon or a tank platoon (at least 3 tanks or H/T’s) in mind, but you can adapt them as you see fit for the unit you are moving.
 
     Traveling (CM= Fast Move): This is when contact with the enemy is NOT likely.  Or you’re moving up to the battle area.  Use this when you have no LOS to the enemy from the position YOU are moving to.
 
     Traveling Overwatch (CM= Move or Advance):  This is when one squad or platoon sits in an overwatch position while another moves forward to the next covered or concealed position.  Once you are done setting up the moving unit, you move the unit that was in the overwatch position.  Use this when contact is likely, but you’re not sure.
 
     Bounding Overwatch (CM= Contact or Assault): This is when you use one or two of the 3 squads to lay down a base of fire to pin down the enemy and use the remaining units to flank the position by using all available cover so that the flanking unit can get to a favorable position to assault from.
 
MOVEMENT FORMATIONS
 
 
The movement formations below can be used for tanks and H/T’s.  But generally we use ONLY the first one for Infantry.
 
 
WEDGE –   In this formation you have one unit up, and one on either side, but back some.  It will look like an arrow.  The HQ unit will be behind the center unit in the middle.  If you are attaching units like MG’s or AT weapons, then you make another arrow with the HQ unit as the point.  This is the most common formation for moving cross-country.  It also provides the best all around defense and the MG’s can be brought up quickly. 
 
 
DIAMOND – This is a tank and H/T formation.  It provides the best overall coverage 360o.
 
FILE – Use this one when moving down a road when you have to get somewhere fast. Basically one behind the other.  Place the HQ unit as the 2nd unit so it can direct the 2 or 3 units behind it to the left of right as the situation dictates if or when contact is made.  This formation is generally used when traveling to the Line of Departure (LD) or Main Line of Resistance (MLR).  It has the least amount of firepower forward, but the most on the sides.
 
ECHELON LEFT or RIGHT – This is a tank formation.  Place the HQ unit, then the rest of the unit to the left or right of it.  A variation of it is placing the units on an 45o angle to the HQ unit instead of on line with it.  Usually you use this formation on the flanks when moving.
 
 
REACTION TO ARTILLARY STRIKES
 
General rule of thumb is that Art’y will fall AWAY from the direction it is traveling.  So, if your FO is looking South, then the rounds will fall in a North to South pattern (I’ve noticed this in the game, but the game does not take into account of WHERE the guns really are).
 
What you can do is once the first rounds start to land, is on your next orders turn, take what good order units are left and RUN them TOWARDS THE ENEMY!!  Yes, I know this doesn’t sound right, but it does work for some reason in the game.  The real doctrine I was taught was to pick a clock direction AWAY from the falling rounds and AWAY from the original direction of movement.
 
COUNTER MEASURES FOR THIS
 
The counter for this is to have another FO or a unit’s organic mortars have a LOS to a spot the would be 1 or 2 turns of movement from the falling rounds.  You can then start dropping those rounds as the running unit enters the new area.  Thus bracketing that unit and causing even more casualties.
 
 MACHINE GUNS
 
Rule of thumb here is basically for defense only.  When setting up a defense we used an acronym called O.C.O.K.A. this will be explained later.  In short you set up the MG’s first and build your defense around them.   This applies to ALL MG’s that are separate units not organic to a squad.  MG’s are the majority of your infantry’s firepower, so they need to be strategically placed.  They are also  just about the only weapon in the infantryman’s hands that can get out to 1000 meters or more, so placing them where they can only see only up to 300m would be wasting a lot of firepower, unless that is what the terrain dictates.  I’m not going to give any hints here due to the too many variations of terrain.
 
In the offense, keep the MG’s close to a leader, so they can get to use some of his pluses if he has any.  Move them behind the squads so they can be brought up to the firing line where you need them.  Do not bring them any further forward than necessary.  As soon as they have a LOS stop them.  Get them firing first, and then start your maneuver to take out the enemy.
 
50mm & 60mm MORTARS
 
These are the organic mortars of most standard Inf. Company’s.  Use these to cover dead zones.  Dead zones are places that the regular infantryman cannot fire into with his rifle, like behind buildings, creek beds, ravines, behind hills.  In today’s military we use Grenade launchers to accomplish this task.
 
 
AT GUNS
 
In the defense the same rules for MG’s apply here as well.  But my thoughts on their use are this:  They are for use against tanks and H/T’s.  I do my best to not waste them on Infantry targets, unless they need to defend themselves.  To solve this problem you may want to provide a security force of a MG or a squad to take care of any Infantry threat that may present itself.
 
 
 
ENGINEERS & FLAMETHROWERS
 
 
Do not waste these valuable troops fighting Infantry in foxholes.  That’s not what you got them for.  These units are for taking out hard targets like heavy tanks and bunkers.  If you waste them on the foxholes, then they will not have anymore demo charges to use when you do stumble on a bunker, and you’ll be forced to waste valuable time maneuvering around it.
SMOKE
 
Smoke is used for concealing yourself while moving.  And it can be used to block the observation of a bunker or other targets while you’re maneuvering around them to take them out.  Use it wisely, as you only have a limited amount of it.  If you know what type of terrain your going to traverse, especially in a QB, then you may want to buy an extra FO just for this.
 
PRIORITIZE YOUR TARGETS
 
Believe it or not, this does work, so listen up!!  Prioritizing your targets means using the least amount of firepower over the least amount of time to achieve the maximum results.  There are usually 2 ways to win a game, capture the objectives and destroying most of your opponent’s combat power.  The game gives you a choice, unless the scenario designer set it up that you have to do one or the other.   In the real world Patton’s ideas of closing with the enemy to destroy him so he can not fight another day is NOT the way to do it.  You waste a lot of ammo and will incur a lot of unnecessary casualties.
 
What you do is use your enemy’s morale against him.  You want to eliminate the following targets basically in this order:
 
HQ platoons = makes the unit break and rout faster.
Co. HQ = Same result once you get rid of the Plt HQ’s
MG’s = less firepower he can throw at you.
FO’s = Same as MG’s
All other tanks = Again, take out the heaviest firepower
H/T’s = Means he has to walk more, wasting a lot of time.
 
You will notice I’m leaning towards the Infantry side of things here.  That is because no other units have the ability to hold ground gained like an infantry unit can.  This was learned the hard way, and so is pounded into our heads over at Ft. Benning, and at every service academy that trains leaders for the combat arms.
 
Basically in a nut shell, it really doesn’t matter if you get a total vic or a minimum vic.  A win is still a win and a loss is still a loss.  And I believe the game does take into account for routed and captured units at the last turn.
 
Ok, so now I gave you some good information.  So, how do you employ it?  There are 2 formulas that we use one for attack and one for defense.
  
METT-T (OFFENSE)
 
Mission – What is your mission?
 
Equipment – What do you have to accomplish the mission with?  You need to        know its capabilities and limitations
 
Terrain – What types of terrain are you going to have to traverse to get to your objectives?
 
Troops - What type of troops are you going to come up against?
 
Time – How much time do you have to accomplish the mission?  General rule of thumb is to divide the number of turns by 3.  If you can’t divide it evenly add extra turns to the 3rd set.
 
1st set – maneuver to the location you want to launch your attack on the objectives.
 
2nd set – Attacking the objective.
 
3rd set – Finishing the attack and defending the objective against any counter-attack.
 
Another variation to this is the 5 W’s (Who, What, When, Where & Why)
 
We all know that a plan never survives the first shots fired, but a good commander can think on his feet and will find a way to Charley Mike (Continue Mission)
 
OCOKA (DEFENSE)
 
 
Observation – pick good LOS for ALL your units.
 
Cover & Concealment – Don’t put anyone out in the open if you don’t have to.
 
Obstacles – Barb wire, mines, and road blocks.
 
Key Terrain – What is the most dominant piece of terrain on the map?  This would be the largest hill or that one town.  Most scenarios are built around this, as that was what the battle was for.
 
Avenues of Approach – Terrain the enemy will use to move his forces without you seeing them.  In other words, ravines, woods, and other terrain that will mask his approach.
 
 
 

I don't know the answer but is it really needed? With the CM tagging system you can tag mods and then control which scenario uses which look. That way you don't need to remember to copy mods in or out things just look right.

Smarter brains then me will be along shortly with hopefully more advice. I would suggest seeing if removing your mods for a while makes the problem go away. It is possible one of them is messing something up. The other suggestion I have would be to save your game the next time it happens and make a link available. I could try to load your file and see if the same thing happens on my machine. 

Indeed. Are your graphics drivers up to date? Is the 7 key stuck / sticky on your key board?

I appreciate your points, but we have to agree to disagree.  I have spend literally thousands of man-hours actually playing the CM2 games including hundreds of hours playtesting for designers, and know how the CM1 and CM2 games work as well as anyone.  That is what I enjoy and this is how I choose to spend my leisure time.  That's why I am often asked to playtest new designs.  Along the way I have discovered many bugs and phenomena that may require improvement - items that the average player may not even notice. 
On the other hand, one gets the impression that designers and modders do not spend nearly that amount of time actually playing.  They enjoy designing and modding as a part of their leisure activities.  I have attempted to design and I hate the process, and do not have talent or the hundreds of hours it takes to become proficient at design.  Am happy to pay BF for professionally produced content.
Just because a person loves doing one thing, it's incredibly self-centered to expect others to love the same thing.  It would be arrogant to expect everyone to play thousands of hours of CM2 like I do before they are allowed to make comments.  No one here should be told to keep their mouths shut about suggestions or improvements, just cos someone else doesn't like what is being said.  If anyone does not like my suggestions or comments then they are perfectly free to ignore them or simply put me on their IGNORE list.  No offence taken.  What should stop are personal attacks on people just cos you don't like what they say.
New members on these forums may not know that only a few months ago it was possible to mark people DOWN for the comments (as opposed to LIKE).  At that time, a gang of bullies (who AFAIK still infest these forums) marked down another member to something like MINUS 200!! in an effort to embarrass and humiliate that member and shut him up. 
These cowardly bullies never owned up to who they were.  However, the "mark down" feature was removed, and those childish schoolyard asswipes slunk back to whatever dank hole in the ground they slimed out of.  Meanwhile the rest of us marked up the bullied member with "Likes" so he is now back in positive territory and continues to be a contributing member. 
In summary, it's disappointing that we still have this lingering need for some to shut others up cos they don't like being what is being said.  One would have hoped that we could have confidence that the mature folks on these forums are able to make their own minds up re whether they agree or not with posted comments and not feel the need to make personal attacks on a members credibility in order to discredit what is being said. 
 
 
 

We buy this game to PLAY not spend countless hours WORKING on it. 
I tried creating a huge campaign in CM1.  After about 3 months I gave myself a minor breakdown and vowed never to try that again.  And the CM2 editor is waaaay more complex for regular folks imo.
When a designer creates a scenario or campaign am fine with spending hundreds of hours playtesting it and pointing out its problems and how it could be improved.  MOS's Tactical Ops Centre is an example of a truly brilliant design that has advanced the state of the art in scenario design.  If you haven't yet played TOC then shame on you.
However, some designers don't want to hear anything negative.  Al they want is reinforcement ie: "Wow, your design is so brilliant."  And then when you state otherwise, we hear the same old tired refrain "Why doncha do it yourself?"
Like why doncha repair your own car, and why doncha do all your own decorating or house building, or why doncha build your own computer, or why doncha grow your own food..?   If there is someone here who does do everything themselves and don't rely on specialized folks who can do the job better and faster, then my hat is off to you.  But, hopefully you (finally) get the point and we don't have to go over and over and over this same old tired issue.
 

You might want to give "Gog and Magog" or "Carius at Malinova" a try if you want to play with some Heavies. You could even makes us some videos to enjoy.

In all fairness, by Bagration the Soviets had narrowed production down to a few types and had pretty uniform organization of units as well.
It's a far cry from the bizarre array of equipment and formations of 1941, but it also worked much better. There were not many tactical missions that would require anything other than a tank or infantry formation with typical equipment.

The thing is why have BF work on such a large variety of vehicles for every title when only the same few vehicles selected from a "pool" of maybe only a dozen vehicles seem to make it into all scenarios and campaigns?  I can only recall maybe one scenario that featured a Brummbar... or a JagtTiger... and am pretty certain that there are many CM2 vehicles that have NEVER been featured... ever...

Erwin (and others) did neither attack somebody nor did they ask for something unreasonable. I also agree with him. He just pointed out that they would love to see more of the assets in scenarios and campaigns and even mentioned that he admires everyone spending his time to design scenarios.
And still you have to explode. There was no reason for it really.
I do not see anybody here attacking scenario designers nor do I see a comment here that should leave a negative effect on any individual designing scenarios. I just see paper-thin skin and one that can´t take different opinions.