Sgt Joch

I was a very militant communist during the late 70s-early 80s when I was young and thought I could change the world, but that is another story.
Most young "communists" back then were actually Marxists who thought of the Soviet Union as being only slightly better than the USA. Most Marxists believed the type of state controlled economy in the USSR set up under Lenin and Stalin had little to do with Marx's original concept and was just a different style of imperialism and capitalism with a governing class made up of top Party bureaucrats. The left-wing political filmmaker Costa Gravas released "The Confession" in the early 70s which was a powerful indictment against the Stalinist show trials in Czechoslovakia in the early 50s which had a big impact on many of us back then.
The point is that it is extremely doubtful any of the Euro communists who were actually more social-democrats than real hardline communists would have seen a Soviet invasion as a "liberation". They would actually be more likely to want to defend western democracy which despite all its flaws is still better than Soviet style "People's Democracy".

I was a very militant communist during the late 70s-early 80s when I was young and thought I could change the world, but that is another story.
Most young "communists" back then were actually Marxists who thought of the Soviet Union as being only slightly better than the USA. Most Marxists believed the type of state controlled economy in the USSR set up under Lenin and Stalin had little to do with Marx's original concept and was just a different style of imperialism and capitalism with a governing class made up of top Party bureaucrats. The left-wing political filmmaker Costa Gravas released "The Confession" in the early 70s which was a powerful indictment against the Stalinist show trials in Czechoslovakia in the early 50s which had a big impact on many of us back then.
The point is that it is extremely doubtful any of the Euro communists who were actually more social-democrats than real hardline communists would have seen a Soviet invasion as a "liberation". They would actually be more likely to want to defend western democracy which despite all its flaws is still better than Soviet style "People's Democracy".

VR is still in the early stages, but yes, it is mind blowing. I have 1st gen Oculus Rift and playing flight simulators like IL-2 or shooters like Half-Life Alex is on another level. You are actually inside the game in a 360 degree 3D environment. Once you get used to it, it is hard going back to playing on a flat 2d monitor.

well no, the U.S. had much better nightscopes than the Soviets at this point, U.S. equipment was state of the art while the Soviets at this time were still using inferior IR sights.
The advantage of the thermal sights, along with improved fire control equipment is much better first hit probability of the A3 TTS and M1 compared to older M60 A1/A3 variants

I am old enough to remember when Nixon was President and the Vietnam war was still going on...
...but I digress. What I remember most vividly about the Cold War was the period in 1981-83 when tensions between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were very high and a lot of people actually thought a nuclear war could break out. Not the good old days by any means.
Back to the game, one thing which a lot of CM players will like is that the Tank vs Tank combat is very balanced. This is not WW2 where U.S. tanks are going up against much better German tanks or CMSF/CMBS where U.S. Abrams dominate the battlefield.
M60/M1 vs T-62/64/80 is pretty well balanced. Each side has strengths and weaknesses and one side does not dominate the other which puts a premium on...wait for it...tactics!
another plus for the red side...no Javelins! 😎

Even the M735 used by some M60 variants struggles to knock out T64s/T80s from the front.  This will be a radical change for players used to UBER U.S. tanks from CMSF/CMBS. I have had to go back and dust off my WW2 U.S. tactics.

Balancing in CM is always going to be subjective. People/communities tend to come up with house rules or tournament restrictions organically. For example, I know there was a CMBS tournament where everyone was restricted to taking wheeled vehicles only, no tracked vehicles. 
In my opinion you are always best off fighting as proper formations while trying to implement a given nations tactical doctrine. Cherry picking forces almost always backfires, and at the least usually robs the player of C2 advantages.
re: Thermals
This topic comes up every now and then, along with all the usual myths. 
All thermal imagers are not equal. Just like all night vision devices are not equal. The thermals on the M1A2 SEPv3 are absurdly good. It has a 1080p monitor with a 50x magnification. This is enough to read the font on belt buckles and other clothing from 2-3km away. I know, I've done it. For comparison, the thermal imager on the original M1 from 1980 was only a 10x magnification and was a 480p monitor.  Thermal imagers are significantly better than regular day sights, regardless of magnification. It is hard to describe just how superior a thermal imager is to a day sight when it comes to spotting vehicles in terrain, but it is literally night and day. Vehicles can be very easily seen using low magnification and then quickly zoomed in on and destroyed. There are not very many good images that show how good the thermals are on something like the Abrams, but this picture can help illustrate the effect: 
This is a low res thermal image as well. But you can see that the tank literally glows. Using proper thermals is like looking for glowsticks in the dark. They tend to stand out rather brilliantly.  Night sights/IR sights do not equal thermal sights. A night sight is basically a night vision device for a tank. It is an optic that uses light amplification to "see" at night. It does not function at all during the day. IR sights are worse in that they require IR illumination to function, which makes you extremely easy to spot at night through any kind of night vision device. The effect is the same as seeing a car a few hundred meters down the road at night with its headlights on. You can easily see it due to the headlights, but the car cannot see you until it is much closer and directly illuminating you. To add insult to injury, most IR illumination sights are only good out to around 700-800 meters.  Yes, reaction times might be a bit fast in CM, but that is not exclusive to spotting. Some weapon pack up and deploy times are rather optimistic. Some infantry response times are a bit delayed. Many of us have seen infantry run right next to enemy infantry and pause for a few seconds after spotting each other before shooting. It is a computer after all, and is not going to be perfect. 
And yes, vehicles do tend to have a spidey sense, where they sometimes turn their turrets towards ATGMs in flight towards them, regardless of having a laser warning receiver, but this behavior is universal. I've seen BMP-2s do this as well as Abrams.
The simple version is, CM gets it right way more than it doesn't. 
By the way, the AN/PAS-13 can identify man sized targets beyond 1km and vehicles out to 4km. Not sure where the 800m figure came from, and small arms mounted thermals are not as powerful as the ones mounted in vehicles, so it isn't exactly a proper comparison. And as I mentioned earlier, a thermal sight will outperform conventional day sights, usually by an order of magnitude under ideal conditions. 

An additional point on thermals. I think there is some confusion as to what an independent thermal sight for the tank commander means. Many think it is just the commander looking through a periscope and seeing exactly what the gunner sees. In many models of tanks, this is the case, including the M1/M1A1. However, it is not the case in the M1A2. This means that if the gunner is looking North, the tank commander can look South, or East, or West, or North as well, or anywhere in between. The sight is on a 360 degree revolving mount. I whipped up this fun little diagram to help illustrate it, because photoshop and tank sprites are fun to play with. 

 
As I've said before, I do not claim that the spotting system is perfect. However, it is not biased for or against a faction, and hopefully the diagram helps to illustrate how it is possible for a tank to see an enemy tank at its flank, or even behind it. And unless the enemy tank is physically out of line of sight, it will very likely be seen in thermals. Even a hulldown tank tends to advertise its position in thermals due to the "glow" effect. 

M1A1SA Abrams is the Abrams in the Shock Force 2 Manual which came with the game. The SA stands for Situational Awareness. In the picture he has a beautiful digital screen. The purpose is that they can see whatever any other tank sees in the unit. That is the purpose of digital technology. 

Battlegroup's Leopard 2's roll across the Highway to Tall Tamir.
 


A hail of infantry rockets, faces a hail of cannon shells.
 

Pioneers clear the bridges from IEDs and mines, behind an air-burst barrage.

Khabour Trail

The Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battlegroup
Tall Tamir & Al Hasakah, 2008
 

The Light Infantry approach the Urban centre of the Al Haskah Governate.
 

Syrian Irregulars are engaged, near a Retirement Home.
 

Ambush! The Jihadists organize a deadly maze. The advance is slowed.

I play all titles, but CMBS is my favorite and the one I play most often in my spare time.
of course, modern is not everyone's cup of tea, but yes, there is a terror and fun factor in modern not present in WW2 titles.
The big reason I enjoy it though is because it seems the title most well suited to MP play. Russian and Ukrainian forces are similar in terms of organization, equipment and capabilities and make excellent opponents in PBEM matches.

I think that peoples' opinions of tanks as undefeatable monsters which should never die has been skewed by NATO's use of mass armoured formations in one-sided fights against third world armies which had already been shattered or heavily attrited by ground attack aircraft which enjoyed complete air supremacy. 
In peer conflicts, tanks formations were taking 50+% casualties for every week of serious combat in WW2, and the 1967 and Yom Kippur Wars. Recent NATO experience is an aberration.
Sustaining armoured warfare against peer forces revolves around one thing - the ability to get the crews into replacement vehicles and back into the fight. The tank is not obsolete.

I play all titles, but CMBS is my favorite and the one I play most often in my spare time.
of course, modern is not everyone's cup of tea, but yes, there is a terror and fun factor in modern not present in WW2 titles.
The big reason I enjoy it though is because it seems the title most well suited to MP play. Russian and Ukrainian forces are similar in terms of organization, equipment and capabilities and make excellent opponents in PBEM matches.

I would say the simple answer is that NATO forces don't see a need for that type of weapon. For example, U.S. rifle squads already have plenty of 40mm grenade launchers, AT-4s and Javelins which can handle enemy AFV and infantry targets. Plus NATO forces are usually backed up by plenty of direct fire from IFV/AFVs, plus mortars/artillery/air support.
RPGs would not really add anything, but would be one more weapon soldiers have to lug around and that has to be kept supplied by supply services.
 

I play all titles, but CMBS is my favorite and the one I play most often in my spare time.
of course, modern is not everyone's cup of tea, but yes, there is a terror and fun factor in modern not present in WW2 titles.
The big reason I enjoy it though is because it seems the title most well suited to MP play. Russian and Ukrainian forces are similar in terms of organization, equipment and capabilities and make excellent opponents in PBEM matches.

yes, that is true, but that is actually the best way to go. Buy BOS on Steam, the rest on the 1C site so the Devs get more $ and everything will DL and instal on STEAM which is way faster than the 1C servers.
BOS is currently on sale for can $10, 85% off.
I have most of the IL-2 collection, great flight sim and the game I play most often after CM.
p.s. - the price on STEAM and at 1C for Tank Crew should be the same. It is actually a few dollars cheaper on STEAM in canadian dolars.

IF Russia is going to attack, then the next 60 days while the U.S. is in a transition period would present a window of opportunity.
After all, Armenia and Azerbaijan just fought a month long war without the ROW much noticing or caring.
A limited offensive that the Russians could argue was part of the ongoing border clashes could potentially work without much Western reaction.

It can be either poor design, or as often happens, players are way more aggressive than the designer, or playtesters (assuming it was tested) could foresee. Its more prone to happen on small maps. I use a reinforcements slot to warn the player of approaching enemy units, but players often miss this.
As an anecdote. In the very, very early days of CMSF (where there were significant map size limitations) i did a scenario which involved a Stryker ATGM unit holding off an attacking Syrian armoured unit. Now everyone who play tested this, and myself, played cautiously and tended to stick to 'our' side of the map (the briefing gave strong intel to 'hold the line'.
However one player, when the game was released played way more aggressively and basically assaulted the Syrian rear lines with their Stryker platoon. They ended up right at the back of the Syrian side of the map, just about the time the Syrian main body arrived on the map...

Nothing to do with this thread, just wanted to plug “Hyena Road” which I rewatched over the weekend. Very underrated war movie IMHO. The filmmaker, Paul Gross, went to Kandahar and filmed a lot of actual combat footage, like this clip, which were woven into the movie.

Last night I was playing an MG scenario as the Brits (inevitably) defending (I won't name it).
It was the usual thing. Taking on tanks with infantry and running out of ammo against repeated German onslaughts.
But I thought I had it in the bag with about 20 minutes to go. Why haven't the Germans surrendered though? There can't be more reinforcements, can there? Yes, there could.
Massive attack right down the middle and one to the right. As luck would have it I'd called in a long call time arty strike on the right "just in case" and the Germans walked right into it.
But my middle was completely exposed. The previous attacks had drawn my paras to the flanks where they were depleted and low on ammo. The reserve had been committed elsewhere. There was no-one to plug the huge gap.
I scrabbled around looking for anyone who could cover. The gap was largely open until it crossed a road at the foot of the hill the Germans were rushing down. Once they crossed that they were into the woods and there'd be little I could do to get them out. I pulled in mortar teams who'd run out of shells, HQs, AT teams, ATG crews out of HE, dismounted jeep drivers, anyone with bullets who could fire at the German flanks.
Then I looked at my rear. There was the battalion HQ and a nearby Bren carrier.
Major Cousens boarded the carrier with his team and started the journey round the woods to the road at the bottom of the hill. It would take three minutes to get there.
The guys who were firing on the attack were doing a good job but it wasn't quite enough. The lead Germans were reaching the road.
Then the Queen of the Battlefield roared into view at full speed. The gunner spraying the Germans crossing the road. As it continued, the Major and his HQ stood up in the still fast moving carrier, firing their Stens into the wheat field the other side of the road. There were red crosses everywhere.
When I hit the end of turn, the Germans surrendered. We made tea.
Nothing will make the Germans surrender quicker that a British major with a Sten riding the Queen of the Battlefield at high speed.
I felt thoroughly British. 🧐
Wish I took a screenshot.
🤔
 
 
 

well no, it does work as in real life.
CMx2 does not have "Borg" spotting, so every unit has to spot on its own and the game does a separate calculation for each.
Having C2 just means the spotting info will eventually be shared with other units, so it will be easier for them to spot it, but they still have to spot on their own.
As to how it works in RL, I have been in many situations out in the wild where I or someone in our group spots something that the others don't and even when it is pointed out to them, it may take several seconds or minutes before they "see" it. Just because you have a line of sight to something does not mean your brain will automatically recognize and identify it, even more so when the "object" is stationary and trying to hide and the spotting unit is high on adrenaline and gripped by fear because it is in a combat situation.
reminds me of a story..
Gabby Gabreski was a USAAF fighter ace in WW2. On one of his first combat flight, he was wingman. As they entered the combat area, he was warned by radio that bandits were around. Gabby started looking all around to spot the planes but the sky was empty. All of a sudden a call came in: "CHECK YOUR TWO! CHECK YOUR TWO!". He looked as his two o'clock and all of a sudden spotted a Me-109, big as a house, not even 200 yards away going the same direction that he was slowly gaining on....

well no, it does work as in real life.
CMx2 does not have "Borg" spotting, so every unit has to spot on its own and the game does a separate calculation for each.
Having C2 just means the spotting info will eventually be shared with other units, so it will be easier for them to spot it, but they still have to spot on their own.
As to how it works in RL, I have been in many situations out in the wild where I or someone in our group spots something that the others don't and even when it is pointed out to them, it may take several seconds or minutes before they "see" it. Just because you have a line of sight to something does not mean your brain will automatically recognize and identify it, even more so when the "object" is stationary and trying to hide and the spotting unit is high on adrenaline and gripped by fear because it is in a combat situation.
reminds me of a story..
Gabby Gabreski was a USAAF fighter ace in WW2. On one of his first combat flight, he was wingman. As they entered the combat area, he was warned by radio that bandits were around. Gabby started looking all around to spot the planes but the sky was empty. All of a sudden a call came in: "CHECK YOUR TWO! CHECK YOUR TWO!". He looked as his two o'clock and all of a sudden spotted a Me-109, big as a house, not even 200 yards away going the same direction that he was slowly gaining on....

None of those other units have thermal weapon sights.  They all have NVGs.
Read my post above again regarding information sharing.
 
It has a thermal weapon sight for the M249.
Yes, it has a much more powerful thermal imager than the weapon sights carried in the rifle squad.
The squad as a whole will be better because it is observing with 3x thermal sights instead of just one.
I think your conceptual problem here is that the thermal weapon sights are tied to the individual weapons and are not shown in the special equipment panel, whereas NVGs (light intensification, not thermal) are shown.  That's why I said the issue was obscure, because it is not readily apparent and takes careful testing to understand.  Possibly we could address this via a mod by denoting the thermal capability on the weapon icon itself?
 

Thing is no one needs to buy that concept as that's not how it works in CM. But somehow you seem to keep thinking it does even after AKD explained how it does works.
There are some quirks sometimes with sharing and Syrians have some limited capabilities IIRC, but for me too it does work in all CMx2 games.