rocketman

Yeah, that's exactly what my surgeon told me...

All these will be day one purchases - Steve, will CMSF2 be released all at the same time with a HUGE bundle option, or will the modules be released gradually over time?

Thanks for the explanation. Granted that units IRL bunch up, but in the game they more or less fuse together and overlap each other. Big immersion killer unfortunately. Maybe it will be fixed down the road as it is a known issue.

A bit of feedback for @Imperial Grunt who I think made this battle. SPOILERS******************************************************************** I had three instances of the AI bunching up vehicles in weird ways. First three T-90s almost merged, they were so close, and was immobilized by precision arty. Then all three taken out by one (!) shot from an Abrams. At another location three BMPs bunched up very close together (also merging) and was all taken out by a few bursts of Bradley autocannon. Finally, in a third spot two BMPs bunched up (so close that the UAV I had spotting only saw one) and was both taken out by one round of precision arty. I have screenshots I can send (can't upload due to Photobucket's recent "business practice"). I have seen this kind of behaviour before, a long time ago in RT, but not sure what causes it. Perhaps too small zone for the AI to go to? I also have saves if that would be of any help.

I'm sad to hear that as I suspected that might be the case when he dropped off the radar. I've been in that situation myself and know how tough it is. Both being in the midst of it, but also getting back on your feet in time. If you ever do fully. Give my best regards to Chris and that he will have a full recovery in time.

This has been discussed elsewhere, but I post here since it applies to RT. I and my PBEM buddy has on several occasions seen tanks pop smoke and retreat at times when danger doesn't seem to warrant it. In our current game a Panther (shaken, buttoned) advanced on a HMG team pinned behind a hedge. No other threats and the HMG didn't fire at the time. When the Panther area fire struck the hedge some 75 m away the tank popped smoke and retreated. As if the crew got scared by their own HE explosion. Infantry reaction to HE attacks was tweaked (too much?) in 4.0 but does it even include tank crews and friendly fire? Seems too extreme IMHO. Something to keep an eye out for.

You mean they are not? My world view is falling apart

Well, it was important in the case when I discovered it. I had a tank sitting in a tight spot and I knew my oppo was coming up behind me. No time to turn the entire tank around so I figured just swing the turret around and I'll nail him when he appears. Only I set the target arc too wide to the rear and the turret didn't move at all so my a** got shot up. I agree not the most important thing to correct, but still, I like to feel I can rely on target arcs, especially for tanks as it orients their turret. Perhaps this is a problem in some other cases? Maybe it is even easy to correct. Anyhow, now it is a known issue and people should plan accordingly.

Good catch @MikeyD which prompted some more testing and it seems like if the arc is really narrow directly 180 degrees to the rear, then it can be close like 30m. But if it is wide, like covering a 45 degree arc to the rear, then it has to be like 120 m for the turret to turn. Is this really intended beahaviour?

I just came across this oddity and checked the manual but couldn't find anything - but it seems like some T34 models can't have their turret facing 180 degrees to the rear. If you give them a armor target arc that in any way includes facing to the rear, the turret won't move. If the arc is just to the sides or to the front no problem. Did some T34 models have a restriction? Did a quick test in the editor and so far this seems to be the case for the T34 M1942 Late, and T34-85 M1944 Early. Maybe more? Maybe in other CM games? Maybe a bug?

Just remembered, there was a scenario called "Bloody Omaha" that I playtested years ago, but not sure if it was ever released. IIRC the map was pretty good. Might serve as insporation. I can PM the scenario file if you want @carcer.

@carcer: please enlighten me on what "polygon elevation method" is and how to use it in the editor.

I learned two things from @slysniper and that is that "hide" command works in so that the don't reveal their position (but I guess the gunner still stand up) and that you can enter other units into the bunker even though there is one there already. Have to try that next time.

Yes, that is what is mentioned in the clip I posted and adding to that, the reason why most modern MBTs don't have muzzle brakes is that there is a lot of fancy munitions with "fins" and stuff that get tangled in the muzzle brake.

I did some testing in the "Titanium Bunker" thread in the FI forum and my conclusion was that MG fire with tanks from a distance is effective vs MG concrete bunkers. The main reason being that the bunker crew, no matter how suppressed, will never cower (engine limitation as bunker is considered a vehicle) and will fire back at infantry despite full suppression meter. Incoming MG fire has a tendency to hit the MG crew man much faster than any HE/AP and as soon as he goes down another crewman takes his place. In a few turns you can whittle away at the crew until broken/destroyed. One danger with close assault on a bunker is that once the crew breaks, the doors open and they intend to flee, a lot of times they are in such a brittle state that they cower inside the bunker, which they now can when it is "destroyed". From inside the bunker they are relatively protected and will cause a lot of casualties because firing into the bunker is much harder. In fact, I would like to see an overhaul on how bunkers are treated in the game. Another reason is the tell-tale mark in the terrain which reveals the bunker long before being spotted.

IIRC bmp-file should be saved as 24 bit and not 32 bit (which hasn't worked for me). Check for that.

I read this article a while ago and at one stage thought of making a scenario for the Ranger's effort at Vierville Draw: http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/cracking-the-vierville-draw-at-omaha-beach/ I was particularly interested in the action on the westernmost part where they scaled rough cliffs to assault a set of trenches and pillboxes. The article contains some nice photos and map that migh help you in some way shape or form.

I thought the reason why everything happens was Murphy's Law

Well, the only way to reduce the large recoil is to divert shock from the blast anyway but forward, thus to the sides (and down?). That shock effect is significant when it comes to the concussive effect. In the clip he retells the story of a StuG (?) gunner on the east front who was surrendered by Soviet troops. He went in reverse and fired forward, not because there were any targets there but to knock out infantry with the shock of the blast from the gun/muzzle brake. Apperently very effective though the story doesn't tell how close the infantry was.

But according to the clip one reason behind muzzle brakes is to spread the smoke so that the firing location is harder to spot. I guess there are several considerations for a design. In wet conditions or in urban areas, kicking up dirt would be less of a concern.

As I understood it the muzzle brake channels not only smoke to the side, but the shock wave as well - so if infantry close to the barrel will be effectively knocked out.

I would like to know if the concussive effect on nearby infantry from shots with muzzle brake guns is modelled or not. I found it interesting that tanks designed mainly for infantry support usually didn't have muzzle brakes.

Recently saw this youtube clip about the pros and cons of having muzzle brakes on big guns: Are muzzle brakes modelled in CM games?

One test that would be relevant to the case (I'm the oppo in the example above) is to take the scenario we play, save under different name and strip away all units apart from the FO and the arty that seems to misfire. Place the FO unit where it was during play when it first called in the mission. Then a test can be run over and over again calling in the same kind of arty mission. If possible use on of the old saves from our game to make screenshots of the FO position and initial arty mission area.

AFAIK the txt file with modtags is only used by the scenario creator to import the tags into the scenario editor. Then, the player of the scenario only needs to put the tagged mods in the mod folder for it all to work.