Lt Bull

Yeah, I wouldn't post these if they weren't. I can in theory do this check by going back to the previous PBEM turn but I'm not sure what you mean by "every point of observation" and not sure how it would help. It's not like this game lets you use the representations of tree trunks, branches/foliage to accurately predict LOS. The level of discontinuity between the 3D representations of what you see (mainly trees/foliage) and how LOS is calculated/determined is too great for such exercises to be of real value I would imagine. I think considering the concept of "potential LOS" and "potential LOF" is a useful phrase here. It describes situations where a LOS could in theory be establish but the target has not actually been spotted. This is like looking for "Wally" before you actually find him on the page amongst the noise. He was always visible waiting for you to pick him out but you just couldn't find him. I would hope the -2 leadership on the TC is not responsible for 40sec of potential LOS not ending in established LOS despite main guns and MGs being fired 80m away.

Ummm....yeah....some amusing comments scattered over several pages...they make me laugh, and many are irrelevant and unwanted distractions...but I'm not here to get a laugh or address puerile antagonistic assertions. Just want to know what the deal is with some odd LOS/LOF mechanics that seems to occur frequently in this game. Back to what I presented... Trying to understand what must be happening with the game LOS/LOF mechanics if the game allows the following to happen: In summary the key points of contention of LOS/LOF mechanics are as follows: 1) A fully crewed regular stationary unbuttoned tank in woods doing nothing else but "spotting" can not hear, spot/establish LOS (let alone LOF) to an enemy tank that is just 80m away in the open firing it's main gun and hull/coaxial MGs at two other targets for a full 40secs, yet the enemy tank, buttoned and with a dead TC, after 40sec seems to have no problem spotting and targeting the silent, in concealed terrain stationary tank. PS: Has the belief thrown around that potential LOS between two stationary units in changing environments can fluctuate between blocked and unblocked (for whatever reason) been conformed/denied by BFC? Barring assuming stupid assertions along the lines that all the tank crew are both deaf and blind, I doubt a similar/equivalent situation would/could ever play out in reality as it did in the game. So what is going on with the game mechanics that prevents a fully crewed regular stationary unbuttoned tank in woods doing nothing else but "spotting" have no situational awareness at all of an enemy tank that is blazing away with all its guns 80m for 40sec in front of it in the open? Do you know how close 80m is? 2) Two opposing tanks have LOS but no LOF to each other at a range of approx 650m. Both tanks do not have LOS to any other enemy units. With neither tank losing LOS of the other, one tank spends 7sec moving to a new location to apparently establish LOF to the other. It comes to a stop at the end of the 7sec and spends another 7sec aiming its gun at the opposing tank. The opposing tank however at no point ever tries to reciprocate by aiming it's gun back at the enemy tank, even after the enemy tank starts firing it's main gun. Why was this the case? The tank had LOS and potential LOF yet it did nothing for at least 7 sec. I believe CM LOF mechanics are meant to be reciprocal and once a LOF exists to a potential target (of course precluded by LOS being established as in this case) and given only one target as in this case, that targeting/aiming/LOF occurs almost automatically. What prevented one tank from engaging the targeting/aiming/LOF routine for at least 7 sec which normally happens almost instantaneously in most cases? It was mentioned that BFC could look at the saved game files for these incidents to find out more about what is happening. I have those files if they are required. Please send me a PM and I will send them on.

Hello This is not the first time I have brought in to question the spotting/LOS/LOF mechanics in this game. Just happens that this one PBEM I have been playing has been full of those "what a load of bs" moments that really make you question whether the spotting/LOS/LOF mechanics in the game are worthy of being considered realistic. I originally posted about this situation which lets a tank hide behind a tree and prevent it from firing at enemy tanks or the enemy tanks from firing at it, though allowing both to have LOS on each other. I can understand the tank being to close to the tree trunk and physically blocking the gun from pointing at the enemy but surely any enemy tank should have no problems targeting the part of the tank exposed either side of the tree trunk. Yet the game seems to have a "LOF/LOS is completely reciprocal" rule which as far as LOF goes, should not always be the case. With that oddity, lets move on to two other oddities that happened on consecutive turns later in that same PBEM. 1. Stationary unbuttoned good order Sherman (Reg) in trees can't spot (let alone get a sound contact of) a PzIV that suddenly appears stationary in open 80m away, firing main gun and coaxial and hull MGs at other targets for 40sec. At the end of the 40sec with it's own TC killed during the 40sec, the PzIV without moving somehow spots the Sherman in the woods, aims, fires, Sherman destroyed without the Sherman having any idea of anything. Here is a video from the Sherman's perspective Here is a video of what actually was happening The other odd thing is how none of the other units which first spotted the tank actually ever saw it move from it's original position to where it ended he turn. A stationary tank just suddenly appeared in the open. 2. An stationary unbuttoned Firefly is facing up a long, straight road, up against the right side of the road. At the start of the turn, it has LOS to a Panther about 650m up the road but no LOF. The turn commences and the Panther advances down the road towards the Sherman presumably to get LOF on the Sherman it had already spotted. The Panther stops after 7 secs, spends another 7 sec aiming it's gun and fires at the Firefly. The Firefly at no point lost LOS of the Panther and it's gunner at no point made any effort to even aim his main gun at the Panther as evidence by the crew state messages on the left. The driver did seem to make an slight pivot adjustment when the first round hit but still, the Firefly seemed unable to get it's gunner to establish LOF and aim at the Panther. The Panther perspective The Firefly perspective Both these situations are indicative of a less than realistic LOS/LOF mechanic that is resulting in less than realistic situations like these, and these are not isolated incidents.

Well my opponent has just submitted the next turn to me. As expected, the PzIV that was veering off to the right moved in to the LOS of the Sherman and got nailed, no surprise there. What was surprising was what happened next: CMBN_LOS3.mp4 1) None of the remaining four PzIVs, (the front three of which were unhatched with their commander spotting from about 150m-170m away) were still APPARENTLY able to spot the Sherman which had just fired two rounds from it's main gun and bursts from it's hull MG. I say apparently because I can not be sure if, from my opponents perspective, whether any of those PzIVs have indeed spotted/have established LOS to the Sherman. I am guessing they don't otherwise I would have expected them to fire at the Sherman (but only if the game does indeed allow tanks to target partially visible portions of tanks in situations unlike the "classic" "only turret showing" hulldown situations). 2) After nailing the PzIV that veered right, the Sherman's radio operator then was then able to aim the hull MG at both commanders of the front three PzIVs, killing the front two. Here is a movie from the perspective of the Sherman radio operator/hull MGer. (I disabled the translucent tree mod and toggled show tree trunks only). CMBN_LOS4.mp4 Looking at the movie, if the tree trunks you see in the game actually do block LOS and LOF, then there is no way that hull MGer could get LOS/LOF with the hull MG to the first and third PzIV it fired at. Here is a movie from the perspective of the second PzIV which seems to have the best possibility of spotting the Sherman. I toggle the trees (alt+t) so you can see the difference. CMBN_LOS5.mp4 With just the tree trunks showing, you can see that visually in game, the hull MG of the Sherman is exposed to the PzIV and not blocked by a tree trunk. It is understandable then that the game (in theory) allows it to fire the hull MG at the TC. However a substantial portion of the Sherman is exposed either side of the tree trunks. However with the foliage showing, you can see the foliage does cover the upper part of the tank including the radio operator/hull MG position. You could argue either way that no LOS from the Sherman should be allowed or that LOS from the radio operator position could still exist between the abstract spacing between the foliage that is represented as a solid. Still, the lower part of the hull seems unobstructed. If anything, this is what the PzIVs should spot and at least fire at, regardless of whether the Sherman has LOS to the PzIV. Here is a movie from the perspective of the first PzIV that has it's TC killed by the hull MG. You can see that the LOF from the hull MG pass through the tree trunk represented in the game. CMBN_LOS6.mp4 So this seems to be the inverse of a hull down position, whereby the turret and upper hull is obscured and the lower hull exposed. Is the game engine handling things realistically? Maybe it does but what is visually represented in the game does not seem to be what determines this ie. there is some abstractness going on with the graphics.

True re the hulldown case though I am not 100% on how CMx2 handles hulldown. Does the game apply a discrete "hulldown" status to a target (eg. is target "hulldown", if yes apply -X% to hit) or does the game just consider whatever portion of the target is visible and smoothly scale things accordingly that way, with "hulldown" just being a general term we use to describe cases were a vehicle typically just has it's turret exposed to the enemy. What is more curious to consider are cases similar to the one I have illustrated. Can an in game object that blocks LOS, like a tree trunk, be positioned so that the object only blocks LOS to the middle of the target/vehicle, but leaves the the rest of the vehicle, on either side (left and right) of the blocking object, exposed? In this case to an observer spotting the vehicle, you could say that they could potentially aim at either the left or right portion of the target that is visible. Can this happen in CMx2? Could it be happening in the Sherman vs five PzIV example? You would expect this to happen more if say a tank/vehicle (typically 6m long) was side on to the observer and and next to a tree trunk (maybe 1m wide). The observer could potentially see 2.5m of the front of the tank and 2.5m of the rear of the tank. If CMx2 doesn't handle LOS like that, how does it handle LOS in these cases? It is not easy to set up. What you see with the Sherman vs five PzIVs is pretty much a fluke/extreme situation that would be very difficult to replicate I think, hence why I was so surprised when I saw it happen.

You fail to understand why I said outnumbered 5:1. There are five PzIV tanks that have potential LOS to the Sherman which itself has LOS to each one of the five PzIVs. If the Sherman has LOS to them, then all five PzIVs can also have potential LOS back to the Sherman, if they are able to spot the exposed part of the Sherman from amongst the trees at a range of about 175m, which realistically almost point blank. I can understand that because the Sherman is so close to the cover it is behind (lets say the two trees), it can not rotate/elevate its gun to get actual LOF on any one of the five tanks. However, the PzIVs do not have any obstructions up close in their face obstructing their turret/gun movement. They could all in theory (if they spot ANY PART of the Sherman which in theory they should be able to because the Sherman can see them)) freely train/aim their gun at the part of the Sherman from which the Sherman's LOS extends from. If the game however only considers the "centre of mass" of the tank as the ONLY targetable spot on a tank, then unrealistically the PzIVs will probably not have LOF on the Sherman because the centre of mass is probably out of LOS behind a tree truck. I hope this is not the case. I think I will try to test this theory in this very scenario/situation. I will ask my opponent to partake in an experiment. I will order my Sherman to just area fire some spot where it has LOF, effectively deliberately trying to give away it's concealed position. I will ask my opponent to stop his tanks and see if they are finally able to spot the Sherman and establish LOS. In theory, if they can do that, they should ALL realistically be able to establish LOF to it.

High quality sounds 1.3

Lets assume that at least one of the crew in the Sherman has LOS to the five PzIVs out in front but actual LOF is blocked. That nevertheless shouldn't really prevent any one of the five PzIVs from spotting (which I believe they all have) and firing at (having LOF to) the Sherman. That Sherman really should be dead by now if the game LOS/LOF mechanics operated more realistically. OK. If CMx2 actually models and at least attempts to graphically portray individual trees/tree trunks, then I can accept this in theory. Looking carefully at the map, I can now see that there are two tree trunks graphically represented on the map in front of the Sherman which pretty much line up with the oncoming PzIVs. I have never thought the actual graphical location of tree trunks you see on the map actually blocked LOS/LOF as they apparently do here. Can someone please confirm that the actual positions of tree trunks represented on a CMx2 map actually affects LOS/LOF? Even if they do, then it doesn't seem the graphical representation of the tree is an accurate representation of what the LOS/LOF mechanics "sees". At the end of the turn, you can see that one of the PzIVs moves off to one side, in theory increasing the chances these abstract trees supposedly in front of the Sherman won't present themselves as obstructions to LOS/LOF. Here is a short end of turn movie where you can see that the Sherman still has no LOF to this PzIV despite the LOF passing no where near the graphical representations of tree trunks. You can see that PzIV will still need to travel further to the Shermans right before the Sherman would get LOF to the PzIV. CMBN_LOS2.mp4 Either way, based on the graphical representations of terrain alone, it just seems ridiculous that none of the five PzIVs can even target the Sherman at that close range an with what seems just two trees obstructing LOF. Tree trucks aren't that think, tehy certainly don;t graphically look like thick tree trucks. If my opponents PzIVs can in fact see my Sherman I am sure he wouldn't be impressed by what he is faced with. I am sure if the PzIV off to the right continues moving and enters the LOF of the Sherman, the Sherman will get first shot and probably kill the PzIV, despite the Sherman really be out numbered 5:1.

Hi I have long considered CM LOS mechanics to be an aspect of the game that requires the same kind of abstract thinking to reconcile as the abstract representation of infantry squad graphics in CMx1, to a point where LOS seems to be a bit of a lucky dip despite what you see represented graphically in game. What I saw however in the recent turn of a PBEM I am playing (Wittmann the Crossroads) just made me stop playing and post here to get some answers before continuing. Is it just that something about the terrain at this spot on the map of this scenario is bugged? Check out the video here: CMBN_LOS.mp4 (the video should play in browser but it's not doing that for me. Right click to download and watch otherwise) What the heck is going on here? :eek: The stationary Sherman can draw LOS/targeting lines to each of the PzIVs moving towards it in the open under initially around 270m range (and vice versa it appears) at the start of the turn right through to the end of the turn but neither the Sherman or the PzIVs open up and fire the entire turn. I got no idea what to expect next turn. I have not bothered to give orders for the upcoming turn until I get this sorted out as it just seems whacked.

The unit icon markers could in theory be used to convey more quick visual information on the status of the unit to the player than what they do already. As far as unit status goes, the unit icon currently just already tells the player if: a) the unit can be given orders (marker colour is solid) or if it can not be given orders (marker is transparent) and if the unit has taken recent damage/losses (the marker blinks). Much more uselful SA related status information could easily be communicated to the player using simple graphics similar to how Vins animated text mod communicates information. For example, the suppression level of the unit could be represented by perhaps the appearance of a small animated bar graph next to marker, similar in colour/dynamics as the suppression level meter you see when you click on a unit. Other small markers that could appear next to unit icons include small arrows to indicate a unit is moving or crosshairs if it is firing, just like Vin's animated text mod, or one that indicates it's spotted an enemy. Of course with infantry units only some of the individual soldiers in a unit can be firing or moving at any one time. The markers could show if say the marker applied to at least one soldiers in the unit.

+1 to this thread. I have just played through an otherwise awesome scenario/map (Counterattack at Son) where the 'untargetable' issues discussed here really end up being unavoidable and to a degree immersion breaking. Much of the terrain is flat with long grass/wheatfiled and infantry prone in that terrain are virtually invulnerable to area fire.

Running Win7 on a Mac: No personal experience except I have a friend who uses a Mac Pro to run CAD software that only works on Windows platforms. No problems and it works exceptionally for him.

:confused: Can someone please explain this? CW/MG have "their own versions"?? Is this only for people with the base game only?? Can't be right.

Thanks Vanir Ausf B....there is no doubt now. CAs work no different to the Face command when it comes to spotting. Could just argue that CAs are a more "resilient" way of maintaining facing. Before this thread ends and while we are talking about facing, it is annoying that "panicked" infantry that have retreat and then recover never seem to have the TacAI intelligence to at least auto-face in the general diction of the enemy. They seem happy to typically remain facing the opposite direction from the enemy or in the same direction they retreated after they finish retreating and recover composure. It would be good by default if recovering routed/retreating/panicked infantry at least turned to face the general direction of the enemy.

Ah, I did mean to say that but for extra clarity I probably should have said: Again, this is all just speculation on how I would expect the spotting mechanics to work, given the facts about the game that seem universally accepted: eg. units are more likely to spot enemy in front of then, than on the flanks, and more liekly to spot enemy on the flanks than to the rear, that more troops in a unit are more likely to spot enemy than a unit with less troops. However, it seems that akd has come out and quite confidently stated that: This definitely blows away all that was speculation about CAs and spotting that I was addressing which was contained within posts #9 through to #15. It is apparent there is not a unified understanding of how spotting/covered arcs work/don't work. As you can tell from this thread, some people have already been kind of thinking/expecting that to be the case. Have no problems with that statement as it is clearly stated and defined (ie. no use of terms like "stare harder"). Would be good to have BFC comment on it once and for all.

Here is an example of why this conversation gets confusing/mis-interpreted really quickly. It doesn't matter what they call it (formally or informally) but each unit (or individual soldiers) will have a certain "spotting power", or spotting ability, whatever you want to call it/not call it. Collectively all the individual soldiers in a unit will ultimately contribute to the overall "spotting power" of the unit. If that weren't the case, all units ability to spot, regardless of the number of individual soldiers in it, would be the same. Maybe dynamically the overall unit spotting power (sum of all individual soldiers) changes depending on the state of each soldier. eg. Start of turn, a unit (with 4 soldiers in it) may have all soldiers spotting. You can assume the unit spotting power is the sum of the individual soldiers spotting power, we can assume it adds up to some value "x". Halfway through the turn, 2 soldiers get cower or panic etc. The overall spotting power of the unit is some value less than x for that time that they are cowering or paniced. Maybe the game actually tracks and takes in to account the actual direction each individual solider is facing relative to the overall direction the unit is considered to be facing. More complex but not unreasonable to assume and consider. This generic comment really communicates nothing except ambiguous confusion. What do you mean by "always looking in the direction they are facing"? You mean the direction each soldier is graphically represented in the game to be facing at any given point in time? So what are they doing in the direction they are "not looking"? How can you say they also have 360° awareness if they are considered to be looking in the direction they are facing? Are you suggesting they literally can see things outside of the direction they are not looking at without even looking? I think we know units can spot units outside the cone of vision based on the graphical representation of the direction the individual soldiers within each unit are facing. I think the use of the term "stare hard"/"stare harder"" in this discussion is both inappropriate and misleading when trying to understand how the mechanics of spotting may work. Staring typically implies looking in one direction, head and eyes not scanning. This does not happen, both in game or in reality. It's better to instead consider the time they spend scanning the different sectors around them, or applying different "scanning frequencies" dependent on facing and or if covered arcs are included. And don't expect to see the graphical in-game representations of where each soldier to appears to be looking to relate exactly to the sectors being scanned by that soldier at that moment in time. It would be abstracted to represent the "facing" of the unit, with it's spotting ability distributed proportionally around it something like how I have described. For what it's worth, it appears the facing and covered arc has the same affect as far as controlling a units overall facing. All soldiers within the unit end up facing the same direction, with units given a covered arc facing the middle of the arc. Regardless of whether a unit is given a covered arc or not, I would assume the net amount of time a unit spends "scanning"/"spotting" in all directions remains the same. ie. Each soldier has only so much time (could interchange it with the term "spotting power") to look around in any given turn. A covered arc would typically just make them spend more time scanning within the defined covered arc at the expenses of time spent scanning in other directions. Overall, they aren't looking/"staring" any harder. They are just spending more time scanning certain arcs than others.

I'm finding much of what is being stated as having been said/not been said by BFC as far as spotting and covered arcs go somewhat confusing and potentially misleading. I can see potential for misinterpreting both questions and answers related to this topic. Despite what has been said here, I still can't work out how the spotting mechanic combined with covered arcs does/doesn't work. Here is how I think spotting (I would expect) to work in CMx2 (will mainly refer to infantry): a) Every unit has a base "spotting power" it can use that gets distributed about the 360deg LOS arc about a unit. For infantry units, the number of troops in the unit affects this base "spotting power" (not sure of the relationship, not sure if a 10 man infantry unit has double the "spotting power" of a 5 man infantry unit, but I am sure it has more). c) By default (ie. no covered arcs) the "spotting power" of a unit is distributed about the 360deg LOS arc about the unit according to some standard fixed relationship. ie. perhaps the game breaks up the 360deg LOS arc in to say four standard arc sectors, a frontal arc (perhaps the forward 120deg arc of the unit), two flank arcs (perhaps 60deg each) and a rear arc (the rear 120deg of the unit), and assigns different proportions of the "spotting power"to each arc. eg. 50% to frontal arc, 20% to flank arcs, 10% to rear arc. d) When using a covered arc command, perhaps it forces a unit to assign x% (lets assume it's 40%) of it's available "spotting power" to the covered arc, while the remainder is distributed about the default front, side and rear sectors as it would normally. ie. Assume a unit has a base "spotting power" of 100. By default 50 "spotting power" will be assigned to the frontal arc, 20 to each of the flank arcs and 10 to the rear arc. That means: 50 spotting power (SP) will be assigned to forward arc sector (ie. net detection per 50 SP/120deg = 0.417 SP/deg) 20 SP to each of the flank arc sectors (ie. 20 SP/60deg = 0.333 SP/deg) 10 SP to the rear arc sector (ie.10 SP/120deg = 0.083 SP/deg) ie. the chances of detecting an enemy unit in any of the sectors is proportionally based directly on the SP/deg value. Now assume that the player assigns a 180deg covered arc to the same unit. Using my assumption above, if 40% of the available SP gets assigned to the covered arc, then the distribution of SP across all sectors can be broken down like this (note: depending on where the enemy unit is, the chance to spot it will be the sum of the SP/deg applicable to the sector the unit is in + the SP/deg 'bonus' of the covered arc if it is within the covered arc): 60% (not 100%) of base SP distributed as per normal across the front, flank and rear arc sectors: ie. 60% of 50 SP will be assigned to forward arc sector (ie. net detection per 0.6 x 50 SP/120deg = 0.25 SP/deg) 60% of 20 SP to each of the flank arc sectors (ie 0.6 x 20 SP/60deg = 0.2 SP/deg) 60% of 10 SP to the rear arc sector (ie. 0.6 x 10 SP/120deg = 0.05 SP/deg) If the enemy unit is within the covered arc, add the following 'bonus': 40% of 100 SP/size of covered arc = 0.4 x 100/180deg = +0.222 SP/deg In this way, the overall actual "spotting power" of the unit does not increase (ie. the same amount of "eyes" are scanning at the same rate they would be by default). It just effectively redistributes the same amount of time a unit would spend spotting about the 360deg around the unit. NOTE: In the way I suggested spotting may be calculated, assigned a 360deg covered arc (or close enough to that) would make the chances a unit have of spotting an enemy unit equal, no matter where that unit is located positioned relative to the unit facing. It also ensures that regardless of whether a covered arc is used or not, a unit will always have at least some eyes spotting the full 360deg around the unit. I don't think you are. I don't think any of you are saying that using covered arcs increases the overall spotting ability (or power) of a unit. I think both of you are saying that the covered arc just redistributes/intensifies the spotting ability of a unit based on the covered arc in a similar way to how I have proposed.

Seems a similar kind of bug has occurred again in that same PBEM. This time it happened at the "Bailey's bridge" and has prevented my halftrack from crossing the other side to seize the final objective. Video here. I know this PBEM can't be fixed but still interesting to see how bugged it was.

OK. I agree the head/insignia combo look really good. It would be great if scenarios could automatically load the right graphic like BF have recently done with the "muddy" files for vehicles and I believe some other graphics depending on what's going on in the scenario.

It seems to be just a hiccup, but all vehicles trying to cross that bridge have done the same kind of thing. From a gameplay point of view, it at least takes them much longer to cross than before the patch (this PBEM was upgraded to 2.11). I have an Nvida card so no ATI left click-compatibility. Yes I can. I can send it and the password privately via PM. Who should I send it to? Bull

Nice work Mord. Can someone please explain how this mod works/doesn't work? Even though we got lots of awesome portrait and unit insignia combos to choose from, it is still up to the player to manually activate/deactivate the appropriate portrait/insignia combo depending on the scenario and the units depicted in it? What do people normally end up doing?

OK, I just saw enough oddity to post again, this time with video. A Panther tries to cross the bridge, it jerks and stutters as described above, but this time also sinks/dives in to the bridge as per screen shot. Video of it here. (using a new host, let me know if this link works) Seems the vehicle pathfinding across this bridge is worse since the patch on this map, but I though the patch was meant to improve the pathfinding for vehicles crossing bridges. This is why I think maybe the map needs to be edited/fixed.

Hello Was good that I have been able to resume my PBEM of this scenario now that the patch has fixed the reload on the Sdkfz 251/21. However I have noticed that there is something odd about the way vehicles now cross the Dommel River bridge. They kind of top, stutter, disappear then reappear/warp in a slightly different position as they enter and exit the bridge. Not sure who made the map but maybe it (the terrain around the bridge mainly) may need updating. Bull

I personally can not recall ever witnessing that before. In fact, I even think tank crew should be able to surrender from within the tank, or at least exit the tank already surrendering ie. not armed, not panicked, not trying to run away. Given the same situation shown in the video, roughly what % of times would you think the green tank crew would/should be expected to at least ATTEMPT to surrender like that? 10% of the time? 20% 40% 75%? Do you think it should at least be more frequent than the heroic shoot outs you see in the video?

Following on from the well read discussion Uber tank crews? that featured this video.... A number of people questioned whether the video in the initial thread was representative/typical of what to expect from tank crews bailing out in close proximity to enemy infantry: ie. yeah but don't expect it to happen too often, yeah but that tank crew may have been Elite, yeah but the infantry were outnumbered, yeah but the infantry were green and pinned from the start, yeah but [some other dismissive excuse unbacked by any evidence]. It just happens that a similar, just as telling incident under similar circumstances just happened again during a turn I last played in a second PBEM game I am playing against the same player I was playing against in the first video. He is aware of my original post and may yet add his own perspective on things to both situations. Here now is CMBN 2.1: Green uber tank crews Regardless, the incidents I have posted are not "the outliner exceptions" that have occurred during our games when infantry have bailed from tanks close to infantry. Having tanks engaged at such close range by infantry and having them bail out so close to infantry is the exception anyway. We just happened to have had it happen twice in the two concurrent PBEM games we are playing and the uber tank crew behavior seems evident. These are not the exceptions from dozens of other similar situations I chose not to show. This is all we have seen when crew have bailed so close to infantry. I may ask my opponent to perhaps have the game reprocess those turns a few times and see what happens. I am sure we can replicate the tanks being attacked and hit by the shape charged AT weapons again quite easily. Comments? PS: Has anyone ever seen a tank crew immediately surrender in similar circumstances? As has been suggested, I think this should be what happens in the majority of these circumstances.