Bulletpoint

You have all the raw texture files directly in the Mods folder, or are they arranged in subfolders? I continue to try to grok this.. Of all the different vehicle mods, only ONE thing gets loaded, and that's the Panther G early turret. But I can't figure out why that file works, and the others don't...

Thanks but I meant the CMFB file path please?

This is getting puzzlier and puzzlier.. What's the exact file path you're using - for that particular vehicle's mod? Also, I'd like to know the file names or the texture files. maybe it's something to do with that.

I think we're on to something here.

I just tested various things, and it turns out I can use Worghern's ground textures just fine, they load as expected. But the vehicle mods and the Kieme ploughed fields don't load. So I know at least I'm putting the files in the right place, but there's something wrong with the Aris textures....

Hmmmm.... I think my mods are just ones made for CMBN back then, so I don't know if they are compatible with CMFB...?

For a moment I thought this was the solution, but it still doesn't work, even after I moved the mods to the final blitzkrieg\userdata\mods folder. The only mod that "takes" is the panther turret. That shows up with the changed texture in game. All the other mods just get ignored for some reason... I must be doing something wrong, but can't figure out what it is...

Thanks, but I believe that's the mod pack I'm trying to use... anyone getting these vehicle texture mods to work in CMFB?

Thanks for providing this, but I can't seem to make it work? I downloaded your files and put them in a subdirectory of the Z folder. But the plowed fields look the same in-game, and have the same distortion...

I downloaded all the Aris texture mods for vehicles etc and put them in my z folder. However, most of the textures don't appear in the game. Some Panthers get the new turret, but their hulls seem to be stock texture. All the German halftracks seem to be stock texture. Etc. The pack I used was the one for CMBN. Maybe it's not compatible with the latest version of CMFB? Or maybe I did some mistake somewhere? I've installed mods before with no problems...

In CM. There are a couple of 150mm+ artillery pieces in the game. US: 'Long Tom' 155mm, naval guns. Germans: Grille, Nebelwerfer, etc.

It can, but you need 150mm shells or bigger.

How many "average players" play Combat Mission? I think they tend to go for other titles.

I'd just like surrendering soldiers to stop shouting "RUN AWAY!"

Yeah I thought it was too good to be true You can't lock in gradual transitions, if that's what you mean. Maybe you already know the following, but just for those keeping score at home: If you input height 10 in one square and then height 20 in a square some distance away, you'll see the editor fill out the squares in between with what looks like whole numbers, but actually the height values of those squares are in decimals. So it says 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 12... but the height will be 10, 10.5, 11, 11.5 ... If you try to "lock in" that slope, you'll set all squares to increments of 1 metre, and lose the decimal values. So you end up with a stair-step-effect instead of a smooth gradient.

I worded my post poorly, sorry for the confusion. What I meant was: Obviously we both agree it's not the case that either the game is perfect or it's useless. And what I saw as a strawman was that I don't think anyone here on this forum is really arguing that "when something happens that one doesn’t have a user-manual explanation for, it's a cause for a crisis of confidence that the game works by and large as intended". Maybe you were only talking about your friend, but I read it as somehow being symptomatic of these forums too. Most people I see posting bug reports and questions about the behaviours of the game seem mature and reasonable. For example, I've seen many people ask why their artillery fire missions go astray. Sometimes, people are pretty frustrated with that. After getting the perfectly reasonable explanation that their spotter needs to actually see the fall of the spotting rounds, they say "oh, ok. Thanks". But I often get the impression that this forum is somehow haunted by the spectre of an imaginary (?) childish and unreasonable customer who will stop at nothing to complain and make ultimate demands about how he wants the game to be like. Maybe there used to be people like that here, I don't know. I've only been having around for about 6 years, so maybe it's the collective memory of some obnoxious people who used to post here that still lingers

Maybe I should have made clear that I was not taking a swing at the beta testers. What I'm talking about is people politely reporting something they believe is a bug, and provide plenty of evidence, yet get dismissed with some fanciful explanation. For example, some years ago it was reported that 81mm mortars went straight into concrete pillboxes as if the roof weren't there. That is an obvious bug, but the first reply in the thread was from a (non-beta-tester) guy saying 81mm ammo could be delay fused and apparently this explains how it can bust through 3 feet of reinforced concrete.

I think this is a bit of a strawman argument. Because it's not a case of either the game is perfect or it's useless. While I don't know your friend, I haven't seen anybody on this forum claiming the game is not working by and large as intended. OK, maybe there was one guy saying the patch made the game "unplayable", which is obviously not true. But most people are quite reasonable, so let's give them some credit. A lot of the "bugs" that get reported are not bugs at all, but people are usually civil about finding out they were wrong, and there's no harm done in a bit of discussion. However, while there are some people who will tend to complain, there are also people here who will go to great lengths to explain away pretty obvious shortcomings of the game engine by any means possible. As if pointing out that there are limits to what the game simulates is a kind of threat to their beloved game system. I think neither group really contributes much to the development and improvement of the game engine.

Yeah I know they were not called that by the Germans. But it was spelled Brummbär by the Allied intelligence Also, I got the chance to post a picture of a drunk bear.

Brummbär. Not Brummbar. If you can't find the ä on your American keyboard, you can copy the name from the Wikipedia article. This is a bar This is a Bär

Wow, I never knew that. If this works as I think it does, that's a huge thing. So basically you mean you can have road going over a gently sloped hill, and then add individual bumps along the road without screwing up the general gentle sloping? Or you can have a sunken road going smoothly over a hill?

Yep, that's what I meant by

In my example, I meant that the casualties were inside the building, but on the far side of the building compared to the impact site. I think buildings always block explosion damage if the troops are in the open and there's a building located between them and the explosion. Just like LOS can never go through a building in this game, no matter if walls on both sides are blown out.

And the Germans were known for sending old men to the front lines.. it cannot be ruled out that some of them spontaneously died from old age while under bombardment.

I personally prefer as little random chance as possible, but it's always a trade off between realism and the burden placed on the computer (and on the programmer). 90 pct of the time, the current HE model produces quite believable results, I find. Buildings definitely provide good protection against artillery - on average. It's just that the effects of individual shells often seem wonky.