rocketman

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.

I did some tests for BN way back (can't find the thread) in which I concluded which terrain features that smooth out the terrain. As you noted, mud does. It can be very useful for easthetic purposes also because diagonal constructions such as a tank ditch or a riverbank can be made to look much better (see my Assault on Merville Battery for an example).

Don't know which problem you referred to, but according to my test, this type of situation always triggers this problem/bug:

Currently reading "The Day of Battle" and that wetted my appetite to learn more about Salerno. The first link, is it for "Salerno to Cassino" - the official Army book? For some reason I can't access "history.army.mil" links any more but downloaded it a couple of years ago. Have it on a HD somewhare. Will look inte "Pen and Sword" books. Haven't read any of their titles but my impression from different forums is that they are generally of good quality.

Did you ever get around to reading any of the suggested books? I'm now on a hunt for a good and detailed account of the Salerno landings for future scenario making ideas and though you might give me some guidance on what to pick.

Very nicely done SLIM, great instruction for both the novice and the experienced commander who needs reminders. What baret/knitted cap mod did you use in the video?

In the exaples above did they by any chance happen with paved diagonal roads with modular buildings right next to them? I did a test in FI / FB 4.0 with diagonal "paved 2" roads with modular buildings as close to them as possible. Even though you are able to plot waypoints the tanks refuse to drive on them. It seems like independent buildings don't cause this. But will need to test that more.

I have come across something that might be related. In "TWC First Contact" some roads in the town Grammichel are narrow, but not so that I get a "no go" icon. I plan moves, but once the turn starts the tank doesn't move, the entire order/waypoints are ignored and deleted. It has now happened several times in different locations. Will have a look at the map in the editor.

Looks like it is down again

Donald Rumsfeld

Looks interesting for sure. Anticipation level rising If you want the German perspective on the battle check out: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Normandiefront-D-Day-Saint-Lo-Through-German-ebook/dp/B0078XH7E4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494685299&sr=8-1&keywords=normandiefront

Check this one out as well: https://www.armydivs.com/

I designed my test specifically with the aim of eliminating "priority fire" and "combat situation" as factors affecting the result. Thus, HT and infantry unit in the open were faced both by 5 riflemen at the same distance and they were given cover arcs so not to fire back and causing stress. The HT and infantry unit each faced a rifle team and the rifle teams had only one target to aim at so not to pick the HT gunner as "priority". By eliminating those two factors my intention was that target size would be the factored singled out. I can get that a vehicle is easier to aim at, but still the gunner is pretty small bit of that target (see pic in my thread). If size of target is the only factor I don't see why the incoming tracer patterns should differ that much. The only explanation to me would then be that riflemen aiming at infantry don't aim at a specific man but more of "area fire with the hope of hitting someone". Which doesn't seem right either. If someone can come up with a better test, I'm all for it. Since conducting it I have payed close attention to all combat situations in scenarios played and it only reinforces my conclusions.

I did quite extensive testing of HT gunners as bullet magnets a while ago: Never got any official feedback on my findings, but three things became clear to me: 1) The pattern of incoming fire on a HT gunner is very different from what a soldier in the open gets (at 300-400 m from rifle fire) which leads to lots of casualties 2) German gun shields are a life saver when hit front on 3) TCs button quite quickly when being fired upon I'm not saying that all this justifies using HTs in an a-historical fashion, but their gunner do seem to have some "magnetism" to them which I would like to see adressed further.

How does it make it look better? I'm currently reviewing all suggested nvidia settings to find what works for me and a buddy I play PBEM with.

I have tried to mod shoulder patches onto uniforms (FB) and noted that they tend to stretch and it seems to be due to the 3D-model that the uniform texture/skin is wrapped around. Maybe the 3D-model in FI are less detailed than in FB, causing stretching to be more pronounced?

I don't know if I imagine things but there seem to be more stretched textures in the uniforms in FI than in FB, no matter if modded or not.

I like campaigns as well for the force preservation factor and that you have to think ahead to the next mission too. That's why an operational layer would be awesome for CM.