George MC

Yes, I forgot to mention the battle pack is a must have too.

Agreed, and the (cheap) Battle Pack also has some wonderful stuff.

My path to Combat Mission was a direct line from more mainstream arcadey RTSs to incrementally more realistic RTSs. The first RTS I remember playing was Red Alert 2 (I remember being so excited when my parents got me the expansion pack, Yuri's Revenge, sometime while I was in middle school). As you can imagine, my standards for realism could only go up from there.
My next stop from there was Command and Conquer: Generals. Which wasn't much more realistic, but it did feel slightly more realistic at the time (some of the units' attacks appeared to involve actual projectiles). The big step up was that was around the time that I first learned that modding was a thing. I got my hands on some third party tool that allowed me to edit the units' stats, and so began my lifelong immersion into finely nuanced military history as I made every effort to make sure every unit had the most realistic stats allowable by the engine. The fact that most of the weapon systems in-game were complete fantasy didn't stop me from finding real world analogs to base the stats on for most of them. It still wasn't very realistic by my current standards, given the limitations of the engine and the fact that (with my simplistic understanding of warfare at the time) I only accounted for the capabilities of the weapons, and didn't account for the limitations of the humans operating the weapons (my personalized version of C&C Generals become a very lethal environment (in retrospect it was actually pretty Shock Force-like, so maybe I didn't do such a bad job after all (the massively increased ranges did force me to account for the depth of the battlefield in a way that the vanilla version never did))).
The next step up from C&C Generals was World In Conflict. This was the first time I encountered an RTS that didn't involve building bases, and I never touched a base builder again (except Red Alert 2, because nostalgia is pretty powerful). Vanilla WiC was already much more realistic than vanilla C&C Generals (every round is modeled as an actual projectile!). But the more powerful game engine (and my improved understanding of warfare) allowed for much more realistic modding (I actually took human capabilities into account so, while every hit from infantry small arms resulted in a casualty, most rounds missed (my infantry in C&C Generals were mowing each other down at 500 meters)).
I actually got Rome: Total War for the same Christmas that I got World In Conflict. But I exclusively played WiC for a few months before I even really gave Rome: Total War a look. The Total War games were the first games I had ever played which accounted for soft factors such as moral and fatigue (though in retrospect the moral in those games is still way too high (historically, ancient/medieval/Napoleonic soldiers generally weren't willing to endure melee combat long enough for most of them to be killed (ancient and medieval melees were probably series of short clashes that may have only lasted a few seconds each before one side retreated and the forces returned to throwing projectiles and taunts, and Napoleonic bayonet charges usually resulted in one side running away before bayonets actually clashed))). And while WiC's system of paradropping troops onto the map was better than building bases, Total War's system of recruiting troops in cities on the campaign map was the first recruitment system I had seen in an RTS that had a passing resemblance to how things work in reality. There wasn't much modding I could personally do to make Rome or Medieval 2 Total War more realistic, though I did find mods by other people which made those games significantly more historically accurate. But I did mod the hell out of Empire and Napoleon Total War*.
For several years the Total War games, particularly the modded Total War games, were the gold standard of realism for me. And then, shortly after graduating high school (this would have been around 2009) I discovered Combat Mission: Shock Force, and my gaming experience would never be the same. I still play games other than Combat Mission. Nothing beats Combat Mission for representing ground warfare on the tactical level from WW2 to the modern day. But I also have itches to scratch on the operational and strategic levels, in different domains, and in earlier eras. Command Ops 2 has the market cornered for the operational level (I always play with max orders delay). There still isn't really anything that does a good job of modeling the strategic level. I've looked into Strategic Command and Gary Grigsby's War in the East, but their turn based gameplay (alternating turns, not WEGO) lacks any sense of realistic time flow, so for now I'm sticking with a modded Darkest Hour. I like Hearts of Iron 4's production mechanics, population mechanics, and map, but Darkest Hour has better combat mechanics and lots of juicy statistics screens (I love my statistics screens!). For 20th century naval warfare I play Rule the Waves 3 (honestly it figures that one of my favorite games would be 90% spreadsheets), and I've been intending to play Command: Modern Operations (I'll probably finally get around to it once I'm done with my current Rule the Waves campaign since the time period it covers pretty much picks up where Rule the Waves leaves off, with a couple of decades of overlap). For the Napoleonic era Scourge of War has completely replaced Total War for me (it has been years since I've played a Total War game). Like Total War, it still required some modding to get the weapon ranges and accuracy right (conveniently, I was able to recycle the same research I had done to mod Total War). Unlike Total War, it does a much better job of representing the scale of warfare in this time period (in Total War 2,000 troops is a huge battle, while in Scourge of War 20,000 troops is a pretty small battle). Also unlike Total War, and like Combat Mission, it has historically accurate tables of organization and equipment. Unlike both Total War and Combat Mission it has a pretty good orders delay system. With the poor graphics and the sprite ratio I consider Scourge of War to be pretty analogous to CMx1. I've really enjoyed Scourge of War, but from the looks of it General Staff: Black Powder may soon be taking its place in scratching my 19th century warfare itch. Unfortunately I don't have anything covering ancient and medieval warfare anymore. I still don't know of anything better than Total War for those time periods, and it doesn't quite meet my standards of realism anymore. Theatre of War was part of my lineup for early WW2, but the CMx1 games have mostly replaced it in that role (I say mostly because even the CMx1 games don't go as far back as Poland 1939 or France 1940).
 
* I increased ranges and reduced accuracy among other things. Figuring out what the ranges should be was fairly straightforward. I just used what contemporary sources considered to be the effective ranges. The "battle range" (what we might call the area target effective range) of a smoothbore musket was considered to be about 200 yards, assuming that the target is a battalion in close order, while most artillery of the time should be able to fire out to 1-2 kilometers (depending on the size of the gun). Figuring out what the accuracy should be was a pain, especially since the engine didn't include any ways for accuracy to vary depending on circumstances. Single volleys fired by unbroken troops at close range could be quite accurate, while 200-500 rounds expended for every casualty inflicted was typical over the course of an entire battle. But that includes ill-disciplined troops wasting ammo at ineffective ranges, ammo fired blindly through smoke, ammo not recovered from casualties, ammo ruined by bad weather, ammo fired at troops in skirmish line and/or behind cover, etc... But eventually I figured that about 2% hits on a unit in the open in close order at 200 yards was close enough.

Mostly Steel Panthers and then was a tester and map maker on SPWAW. Once a Raider always a Raider! Bill Wider introduced me to CMx1.

Airfix etc 1/72 led to Microarmour led to (with a large break in the middle) PC gaming with Panzer Elite led to CMX1 led to CMX2. Never looked back  though did have a table to game few months back with my brother in laws pals. It was fun and sociable but preferred CMX2 for the realism. 

I built models as a teenager - I played several miniature rules based table top battles. Sadly that had the down sides we are all familiar with, that meant I didn't get a much out of it as possible. I tried a few board games which helped with the resources and time issues but still no really good FOG. I never found computer games satisfying. One day I was talking to some friends at work who were recounting exploits of yore playing a game called Combat Mission via email. What they were excited about was CM Beyond Normandy had been announced. I was shocked because this was exactly what I always wanted but never found.
I immediately bought all the CM1 games and started playing with them and when CMBN came out I started playing that. I play pretty much every day now. My only regret is that I didn't hear about CM1 when it was first released. My other regret is my friends that introduced me to CM no longer play. While I totally embraced the new game they either found it too much work to play or became frustrated with the more realistic spotting in the new game.
I have tried a few times to get them on board but they would rather play other FPS games that I cannot care less about. Sigh. Thankfully there are lots of people on line who are happy to play.

Cool  Also worth checking out @Bil Hardenberger's Battle Drill - has an excellent Tactical Toolbox series of posts all aimed at CM.

Cool  Also worth checking out @Bil Hardenberger's Battle Drill - has an excellent Tactical Toolbox series of posts all aimed at CM.

I’d suggest checking out Usually Hapless’ YouTibe channel https://youtube.com/@usuallyhapless9481?si=6cC9TjI479N_nF5a

This mod from @RockinHarry helps 250 and 251 gunners immensely.
Page 4 and 5 of the thread have a number of comments from him about it as he worked through several iterations.

You can use smoke in more different ways than just to obscure your own front. 
It is a nice way to temporarily shield of the flanks without getting to much of your own forces involved. 
But you need to know when it wears of because otherwise you are caught in the open. 
And if you lay it just in front of your self you have at least a chance to move in closer to get more effective fire on the opponent. 
Though in general you are right. I don't like it myself to run against an unbattered foe. But sometimes you just don't have enough artillery to bomb all suspicious positions.
 
@zasgard
George has already posted some good stuff so nothing left so say here other than: If you have specific questions, just ask them.
Best way for me back then was finding me a good sparring partner who is open for communication and not just after competition. 
This way I learned the most because I could see directly what effects my troops had (or not) with some lecturing by my opponent. 
I guess I don't have to say that I got beaten regularly by him.   

I’d suggest checking out Usually Hapless’ YouTibe channel https://youtube.com/@usuallyhapless9481?si=6cC9TjI479N_nF5a

Cool  Also worth checking out @Bil Hardenberger's Battle Drill - has an excellent Tactical Toolbox series of posts all aimed at CM.

Cool  Also worth checking out @Bil Hardenberger's Battle Drill - has an excellent Tactical Toolbox series of posts all aimed at CM.

yep, those are the ones I found. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks

I’d suggest checking out Usually Hapless’ YouTibe channel https://youtube.com/@usuallyhapless9481?si=6cC9TjI479N_nF5a

I put 3 pair of Pz IVs 1250m across from 3 isolated IS-2s, let one of each pair of Pz IVs (call them Group 1) fire for two turns (9 shots each) to ensure every subsequent shot was a hit, then let the other Pz IVs (Group 2) start shooting. The number of shots taken by Group 2 tanks to achieve the first hit was 2,4 and 3 respectively.

Oh I get that. Sometime wild claims get made and it's nice to check for sanity so they don't get absorbed into the form lore.
Thanks.

Was going to leave this one but this is rife with risk and we do no service in downplaying them.  First problem will be children born in Crimea since 2014.  A bunch of ten year olds who likely have Russian citizenship who have never lived anywhere else.  I honestly cannot see trainloads of them and their families being forcibly loaded onto truck and trains - being splashed all over the internet by Russian IO - not having a significant risk.  Call it deportation, call it whatever you like but it is going to have blowback.  Yes, it is exactly what the Russian's did, and it will take people about 3 seconds to link the two actions and ask "just who are we supporting here?"
And then there are those who do not want to leave and try to stay by force.  We can hope this is not the case but we cannot wish it away.  The roots of an insurgency are there - a just cause and repression (from their point of view), no political mechanism in which to try and make change in their interests, support and backing from a neighboring nation with a grudge.  How many times do we have to invade a country/region/territory (or be supporting one) and gloss over the fact that some of the population is likely to push back?
I actually support re-taking the Crimea, it will definitely frame this war as a Russian loss. But I also do not recommend waving hands at what could be very serious security issues in that region that could blow up and back.  One Ukrainian solder does one unrighteous shoot, and insurgencies are really good at setting those up, and the whole deal starts to unravel.  Trainloads of deported Russian who have been living in Crimea for ten years with sad music on YouTube is also not really a good thing either.
Like a lot of these liberation theories I am seeing a lot of hope strung together - Hope all the bad Crimeans leave once the RA collapses. Hope those that remain are neutral of supportive of Ukrainian liberation. Hope we don't have to do mass deportations that can start to look like ethnic cleansing, with a sinister far right undertone.  Hope Russia does not arm anyone and everyone who is willing to make trouble for liberation.  Man that is a lot of points of failure.

As I recall, what factors determine off road capability are kept deliberately "fuzzy" by BFC. The "Off Road" rating has more to do with the tank suspension design which is why the Panther has an excellent rating while the Sherman and T-34 only have an average rating even though the last two were more mechanically reliable than the Panther. I had run some tests a few years back, racing all three across a "muddy" map and the chances of bogging did not vary that much.
Overall chances of mechanical breakdown are factored in, but as someone pointed out (maybe Steve), the chances of an AFV breaking down while moving less than 1 km in a 1 hour period (typical CM scenario) are fairly low. Mechanical breakdowns/fuel shortages are best handled by the scenario designer when choosing the number of AFVs available.
That said, the chances of "bogging/immobilising" is a way to keep players aware of the fact that even tracked vehicles cannot go everywhere. In RL, tankers are very careful of where they go since even a small mechanical issue can immobilize the tank.
I am always reminded of Anzio. The Germans had assembled a formidable collection of AFVs to wipe out the beachhead, but conditions were very muddy so the tankers were very reluctant to go off-road and stayed on the roads. Unfortunately, all the roads leading to the beachhead were copiously covered by allied AT assets so the big attack never came off.
 

This is also my long time understanding.  IMO it would be useful if the UI read immobilized/breakdown or something similar in these situstions.    

That's Part 3 up and live.

Page 47 of the manual does say "When issuing Movement commands, keep in mind the ground condition that you want to order a unit to move over. All vehicles are rated for Offroad performance. To some degree better quality crews lessen the chance of bogging. However, if you order a non-tracked personnel carrier to move across a muddy field the best crew in the world won’t likely help you out much." So yes I've always worked on the assumption the vehicle off-road capability has an impact on its bogging probability.

Well If the germans would have had sufficient numbers in tanks and crews that would match or come close to the T34 I'm quite certain that the eastern front would have went in another direction. 
But the thing is that the germans did not had the resources nor the manpower to do it. Most of the German tank force were still designs from prewar. Updated designs sure but they were at their limit and the newer soviet armor was more than a match. 
There is a reason why some heavy Panzerformations were called "Feuerwehr" (Firefighter) as they had to rapidly close gaps in the fronts that had been breached by the soviet armor because of lighter resistance there. 
So your teast might be a bit misleading in that regard. Maybe try a 1:1,5 or 1:2 ratio for the soviets to match the actual numerical superiority. 
Now you are jumping conclusions there. Because of some tests that did not match your expectation it is now wehraboos and German bias? 
I know CM has flaws and all and to some, certain things don't go in the direction they have imagined but I doubt that BFC is in any kind "infected" by this "desease" as lots of my burning Panzers show.
But well the German army was in my opinion one of the best armies back then. And that would concern training and technological tier they had. 
That doesn't make them in any kind unbeatable but otherwise they would not have gotten as far as they did. They had many flaws on the contrary too that all played a role in the endgame, like bad logistics, over engineering and well... Hitler. 
If you just alone look at the battle of Kursk and watch the casualties and compare them there must be something to it. 
Sure T34/85s and JS 2 weren't a thing there but still. Keep in mind that the soviets knew that the germans would be coming and had enough time to prepare themselves: build up ATG positions, entrench themselves put up reserves etc. pp. 
 
The germans lost the battle because they didn't achieved their main goal but the death/kill ratio for an attacker is astonishing. 
As you mention Wittman so much: Maybe you are underestimating green and regular troops to much maybe? 
What makes a regular trooper any different to an elite one? Accuracy? Of course through more firing in battle conditions you should be getting better or fine tune that ability but as a regular you already should have some decent gunnery skills. 
You should know the advantages and disadvantages of your given weapon, how to maintain it and how to solve simple errors if something went wrong... At least if you consider a normal training time. I know these were shortened at some point in the war. 
I'm no tanker but looking back at my conscription time in the German army I could hit a target with my G36 at 600m without much effort considering the scope was zeroed properly. I could disassemble and reassemble my rifle and the MG3 pretty fast and blindfolded. I could build up the MG3 in a tripod position and make it a good covered MG position. That are your traits as a soldier, you learn that. 
Does it make me a veteran fighter? Surely not. 
Now the difference between a trained soldier and a battle hardened (veteran, crack, elite) one is to be on the actual battlefield. Experiencing and overcome battle stress like being under fire or witnessing death all around. Making those fast decisions while under fire. Know when to retreat and when to attack and maybe being a bit reckless from time to time. 
 
So while accuracy surely is a point and is represented in CM it is not the main thing that defines an experienced soldier. It is the battle brain if you can call it that and the endurance to keep on fighting while being fired uppon. 
At least that's my opinion on the matter. 
 
To the subject Panther VS T34 again:
To get a better insight on why these two tanks, which are somewhat similar, perform so differently I would recommend you some videos where people actually have an insight into the tanks. 
People like "The chieftain" that make complete walk-around videos that  sometimes have multiple episodes. 
I remember that he and other mention that the T34/76 and the T34/85 (though it being a good upgrade to the former) are not very pleasant to be in. And that would also reflect on the performance of the crew, be it in spotting or actually shooting. 

Most of my playing time et the moment is PBEM. 
My opponents tanks, infantry and artillery are always way more accurate and effective than mine. Fact