Apocal

Doesn't seem very insightful to me. The chance probably doubled or even trebled in the last year. From 0.1% to 0.3%.

But Battlefield Academy features a slick, in-house multiplayer server that's linked to an online ranking system. One suspects that's a huge draw.

I find su25 strafing also does a good job of stripping EVERYTHING off my Abrams.

It's always been like this in the CMx2 titles. It's been noted and remarked upon many times on these forums. I don't recall the issue ever being addressed by BFC-core. Maybe it's an engine limitation that turret elements cannot counterrotate against the hull rotation, maybe it's just not reached the top of the "refine this feature" list yet (I'd hazzard it's the latter, since wheels can rotate independently of the hull...), but thanks for reminding of another thing that could do with a look at some point. Lots of people have lost tanks that might otherwise have survived to this weakness in the simulation.

Playing CMBS I've noticed that when tank turns main turrent always stays fixed relative to it's hull, thus losing LOS to target. This looks weird as there is any number of videos with tanks maneuring and their guns staying sticked on target regardless of hull movement. 
 
Something like this: https://youtu.be/jh4F3J9-9sA?t=21
 
But in game tanks seem to lack automatic horizontal stabilization at all.
 
 
P.S. Since I've played only Russian side, I've oberved this behaviour for T-72 and T-90 series. I have no idea how it works for Abrams.

From what I understand, a lot of times you don't even feel or hear it over the sound of the tank operating normally. Or rather, as "normal" as can be expected in combat.

Pardon me, I misspoke. I am agreeing with you that any scenario that leads to taking infantry and making them into overnight tankers is unrealistic, for the reasons you have pointed out. 
 
To tie this into what I am saying, I do not want to see people trying to use an unrealistic scenario like the ones we have described as a forced handicap in order to 'level the playing field.'

And, that said, I am one of those who's tried and then discarded Aris's mods. I frankly find his style of weathering to be way overdone, and I don't want to constantly check the forums to see if he's released something new or to find out why a certain mod doesn't work with another one. And yes, I do find the stock textures to be just fine. 

Kettler = 'Mount Stupid'
 

Set "Huge" battle size and manually buy forces for each side abandoning unused points

<----
 
Homegrown coolness.

The reason that infantry get spotted better than they would in reality is that the AI won't fire at unspotted troops.  Most firefights would probably be conducted using area fire and that would lead to the AI being unable to function properly.  I seem to recall that when the CMBB demo was first released you almost couldn't even get a solid contact if the enemy was beyond 100 meters or something like that.  Almost all infantry combat was area fire, but BFC dialed it back a bit so that the AI would auto engage troops.

CMRT Vorposten! could just be your cup of tea.

Dead of Night?

Thanks to Crueldwarf for translating this and allowing to cross-post it:
 
Part 1:



 
 
Part 2:



 
Part 3:



 
Part 4:



 
Part 5:

Great minds think alike. Suppression 'light'- and the resulting inflation in casualties- has (arguably) characterized all the CM2 titles. It may be a calculated decision on the part of BF in order to make the games more approachable and fun for non-grogs. The sterner system in CM1 (especially Barbarossa to Berlin)  aroused complaints from many buyers. But not everyone. In an older post I alleged that the hardcore guys play with a modified and much more punitive version at a hotel in Vermont. These events are held quarterly and entry requires a secret handshake 
 
You'll need a cattle prod to get those cowering GIs or landsers over the next hill..

I think the accuracy is fine, but suppression is undermodelled and morale overmodelled. Dudes are too willing to stand and bang with each other for extended periods of time.

Would like to see the pahfinding improved when infantry moving quick\fast get behind Inf moving at a slower speed some of the running soldiers if coming towards a slower moving unit from behind can just keep running into the back of them shouting move instead of detouring around said slower unit. Small issue but looks bad when it happens esp coupled with the in my opinion below par running animations, the one animation I'd love to see redone.

I think the accuracy is fine, but suppression is undermodelled and morale overmodelled. Dudes are too willing to stand and bang with each other for extended periods of time.

The problem with the Bulge is that it gets over-focused on the Southern-Shoulder and Bastogne; where the Germans had all their initial scraps of success, and of course where the media ran hog-wild. The Northern-Shoulder is far more interesting, imo. Many German units never got off their start line; like the 79th VolksGren which actually got counterattacked and destroyed after repeated failure. 2nd Panzer also attacked more towards the North and was the closest  to the Meuse, if memory serves, before being blunted and destroyed by the 2nd Armored.
 
Alot of interesting stuff for the community to do between the Bulge and Nordwind, I just hope its not all tired and already-visited areas.

No, C&C is different and its the main attraction for it.  Its much tougher coordinating a WW2 force especially in iron mode.

You're welcome.

Literally nothing in this post is true. I think the one firing that was politically related was McChrystal... but that was for blatant disrespect. We're not the sort of military where you can say the president is a ****ing idiot publicly and get away with it. President Bush had Admiral Fallon fired for less than that.

womble - sure there was overkilling. But there was also plenty of flat out missing. Not everyone in the firing formation is an ace, some have the wrong range estimate, the targets start moving, smoke gets popped or targets brew up and obscure lines of sight, the targets try to take cover, gunners get excited... Combat fire is not firing range fire, basically, and its achieved hit rates reflect it.

You can engage still at long ranges and have a quite good effect, if you just have enough shooters and enough target exposure time. But no, they don't need a TRP and they typically aren't boresighted or anything that elaborate. It is enough that one company gets the drop on the other.

The operational histories are full of cases of companies or even whole battalions of tanks being engaged by enemy AT shooters and really not having much in the way of reply, certainly of effective reply. They get shot up and they pull out and lick their wounds, without having done much of anything back.

As for ranges, sometimes as low as 800 yards, sometimes as long as 2.5 kilometers. At the longer ranges, often the shooters are never even located ; the targeted formation has their attention riveting on what is happening to them, very rapidly, and then on their defensive measures.

In CM terms, "panic" for a tank crew does happen, but they typically continue to spot well and even shoot back effectively, when in real life that often breaks down completely. Seeing 3 friendlies brew up and being under effective heavy AT fire is often enough to make any idea of fighting back effectively the farthest thing from the tanker's mind, just like being under sustained MG fire often leads an infantryman to bury his face in the dirt, not scan the horizon for muzzle flashes and try to duel effectively with his own single shot rifle.

Men are not all heroes. Combat is terrifying, and men get out of it when it is clearly going against them - if they can.

Seriously, you are living on borrowed time here posting junk like that.