A Canadian Cat

Yep that shows it perfectly. I had thought I read about this effect but it could have been your video. Either way that video shows this effect nicely. Thanks. LOL the sticky wicket in determining what happened was the OP said the gun crews took casualties too but that turned out to be a mistake. So, to solve this one we really needed screen shots or to look at the turn.

Thanks for looking at that. I am sure that was intentional then. The above is an important tip to know then. Thank you for finding that.

OK I finally loaded this up and figured out what is happening. TLDR: The gun teams are *not* suffering any casualties. Therefore nothing wrong here regarding HE or ricochet effects. They are abandoning their guns due to the game feature / limitation of casualties suffered in one team of a platoon effecting the morale state of the entire platoon. Even though the effect on other team is not large when you have teams in a very bad morale state, like these guns were, it can be enough to push them over the edge. The full analysis: First things first the guns do not suffer any casualties - they abandon their guns and the gun get a red base when that happens. So if you just quickly look you can mistake that for a casualty for sure. See images 5 and 6: notice the red base on the gun in the game screen but also notice all the members of the team are fine. The ammo bearers reacted the same due to poor morale just like the gun crews. Also there is a 5s time span for the events in question. There is a game feature / limitation whereby the combat stress, especially casualties, that happen to one team have morale effects on all other teams in the platoon. Someone did a nice post that showed this effect but I cold not find the post - I thought it was @MOS:96B2P, or @Bulletpoint or @Josey Wales - if anyone can find it please post the link. Basically casualties effect the morale of a squad but it turns out it also effects the morale of the rest of the platoon too. This happens regardless of if other teams can see the casualties happen of if C2 is maintained. Frequently we do not notice this for two reasons: 1) platoons are often located near each other so if a squad is taking casulties the sister squads can see those casualties too, so we don't really find it surprising that the suffer too. 2) frequently morale effects are not as drastic or cut and dry as abandoning a gun, so we are not surprised if squads in a bad way become shaken. In this case we have teams that are separated by a significant distance and we have a noticeable event, the abandoning of the guns, that is an important and significant change. Here is the condition of the teams and sequence of events: First we have the team that will take the casualties 4 Squad / Team B. They are shaken and will be under fire from a several enemy units during the turn. 01 Team that gets hit: The two guns are in the same platoon as the above team (1 Battery). Both gun crews are broken. 02 One gun: 03 Second gun: At 31:34 the Sherman shell explodes near 4 Squad / Team B and three men become casualties. 04 Team take the hit and three casualties: At 31:31 the gun Squad / A Team are shaken and have had enough. They abandon their gun. 05 One gun abandoned: At 31:29 the other gun (also called Squad / A Team) become shaken and abandon their gun. 06 Second gun abandoned: So, the bottom line is this even is due to the way the game works and is not a problem that needs to be fixed. Although I suppose we could debate if the game should work that we or not. Frankly I am not sure that would be a worth while use of our time though

Good, glad to hear there is a way. Well that *does* sound intentional. I'll be curious what you find in CMFI.

?? OK that's not how I would put it. Thankfully there is an ignore user setting so I don't have to read some of the utter tosh that he finds. And no, the occasional good stuff does not outweigh the tosh. Yeah, *that* I can understand. I'm thankful too.

LOL there is some irony here... Also you can hover over their name / avatar and the second choice along the bottom is to "Ignore User".

Hummm. I'll have to add that to my growing list of stuff to investigate. In case anyone wants to beat me to it here is what I would look at: what happens if I position the vehicles further apart before I set them as dismounted? what happens if I choose multiple platoons and pare each down to a single vehicle? does the above behave the same in other games?

There have been posts from Steve about the plans but he never gives an ETA because he is not time driven he is quality driven. So, nothing new here. The public statements are about what is in the works and possibly what order it will come out but there is *never* a delivery time specified. Heck even once an AAR starts, or the pre orders come out he still does not actually specify a time. Of course some of us try to make predictions about that: ?? I have trouble seeing what practical alternative there would be. Of course they could create a game that depicts Syria in 2018 if they wanted but that would be a whole new back story with new gear and new content. They chose to update the current game to the new engine which is awesome. I am still baffled why people keep saying stuff like the above.

Ahhh that doesn't sound right. You should have one dump per vehicle that you can then place where you like. At least that's what *I* think should happen.

Just a minor correction - for the record. Steve disabled all voting due to our social problems. AKA some of us were mistreating others (not making a judgment that some people didn't *deserve* some negative feedback just pointing out that ganging up and intentionally down-voting everything someone posted = poor behaviour). After a group time out and the last upgrade someone asked if it was possible to turn the reputation back on but only allow up-voting. And here we are.

Yep, our convoys were built around vehicle packets. Each packet was around 5 vehicles and in the packet we followed each other by 2 to 5 seconds. With drivers responsible for keeping the vehicle in front and behind in view. The packets would have more space between them - sometimes lots but usually 10 to 20 seconds. That was peace time and the separation between packets was so that we didn't clog up the highway too badly. I recon if civilian traffic was not an issue then we would have tightened up the separation between packets. In game I try to keep my vehicles 5s apart (or a bit more). So, when I watch a replay the convoy gets a check each turn to make sure jams are dealt with and what I do is look for cases where a vehicles had to automatically pause as it is driving. When I see that I give it a 5s pause and the same for all following vehicles. If one vehicle starts getting too far ahead (12s or more) I'll give it a pause to let the rest of the convoy catch up. If the convoy is moving well it can handle sharp turns or terrain transitions (shell holes in the road or transitioning from road to field) fairly well with just a little adjustment needed. You want to avoid the situation where an automatic pause turns into a driver's decision to go around. As soon as that happens that vehicle will slow down significantly and likely cause the same behaviour in the following vehicle causing a cascade effect. If I get a jam like that I tend to give vehicles more pause time than I think they will need - the more vehicles get into a jam the worse it will be to untangle.

Yeah, OR they spend their time looking at their boots hiding and don't notice the enemy looking in the windows and they all die. That's how it usually goes down for me. My SOP is to use hide very little. If I were to do as @c3k suggests I would *not* rely on the ambush units to spot anything and instead have someone else further away who was not hiding watch for the enemy to walk into the ambush area. Then unhide everyone on ambush duty (and likely remove any cover arcs too). Remember hide says - stay hidden and don't spend time looking for the enemy and a cover arc says don't fire outside of this area. Both of these commands have a high chance that something will happen unnoticed or outside the arc. So, expect that will happen and plan accordingly. By that I mean, have an answer to the question: what will happen if the enemy shows up unnoticed just outside my men's cover arc and spots my men? Because that *will* happen.

If you cannot see them when you select the unit then they are gone. Yes, the face command will remove them. If you need to have a unit with a full circle cover arc command point out of a building (for example) in a specific direction use a pie shaped arc to set the unit to look a certain way. After they have executed the move the next turn you can give them back a circular arc again. Hide is fine - you can have a cover arc and hide at the same time.

Yes, it should.The only things that would cancel it are if you gave them a specific target order, face command or if they became shaken or paniced. Even a move order will preserve any cover arc.

Like this: ? From the Unicode 9 standard: https://emojipedia.org/unicode-9.0/

Oh that is interesting. Thank you.

Classic oops. We have all done it - and a lot of us have posted about it too.

I am curious can you provide links to where you learned that account of the event? At the time I did not dig for much detail but that does not match my impression of what happened so I would like to dig a little deeper.

Yeah, I get what you are saying @sid_burn but what @IMHO posted was an attempt at analysis to see if a weapon system worked as expected. We have had a log of whining and winging as you describe but actual tests and questions about results are not really in the category. Perhaps @IMHO starting a new thread instead of adding to this politically loaded thread would have garnered a better response.

Yes, but the incident in question here was artillery and possibly air support vs a mechanized force with no AD. So, the relative capabilities of the IFV's guns was not a factor and therefore not relevant to this thread. Assuming of course we are talking here about the attack by Russian forces on a base where US advisors were stationed in Nothern Syria. Let me know if I have that wrong.

Well that didn't work - system says " ChappyCanuck cannot receive messages. " PM me your email unless you already have it - I think we were on the same side of a multi player battle if memory serves.

Never quite like that. I'll PM you my email and you can send me the file or a dropbox link which ever works for you.

Very cool @MOS:96B2P. I have a feeling that reading the briefing and notes for this will be important. Is it more like a manual than a briefing . One thought that popped into my head is perhaps a PDF version of the how to manual might be appropriate given how difficult it can be to read text in game.

Nice pictures. Just FYI if you press <shift>ESC the pause message is suppressed. Makes the pictures just a bit better...

I mean choose to do either A or B not both. So if you have a new v4 directory from running the full install you have CMBN 4.0 ready to go. And if you have an install of 3.xx and a copy of it renamed to CMBN 4 then you actually have three independent installs of CMBN. If I am reading that correctly you do not need the copy of CMBN 3.xx you made and called CMBN 4.