Redwolf

Ah, thanks for the update. I had misunderstood.

Stop messing up this thread.

It's not really that the AI finds small holes in the vegetation, but that the graphics of the game don't quite show the real conditions.
Vegetation seems much denser visually than how the game engine calculates it, which means we as players think our units are safe in the forest even though there's a real risk they will get spotted through the leaves.
Conversely, darkness and fog seems a lot less dense graphically than the game engine atually calculates visibility levels. Which means in many scenarios, we will not be able to spot units at distances where it looks graphically like it's not that dark or foggy.
Both issues are not so much a case of the simulation getting things wrong as not showing the conditions clearly to the player. I've seen so many players post questions about these things, and I've posted several, myself, but eventually I just learnt to work my way around the issues.

Stop messing up this thread.

There was an early 4.x version that made it much worse. That particular one has been fixed and now it is back to the 3.x state. Which never was free from the phenomenon and still isn't.
I agree that with the current code I see way too much auto-ordered movement that is either going in the direction of the enemy, or showing side or rear to the enemy, or both. Simply not issuing those orders if they go toward the enemy would be an improvement.

Leos for everybody!

Leos for everybody!

I ran it 3 times, hotseat on iron and the spotter side won 10-3, 10-7, and 10-4.
Certainly appears to be an advantage to me.

I reported something similar earlier in this thread. The infantry can provide a tentative contact to the tank, which is then more likely to turn that into a firm contact it can shoot at. When the tank has intel before the duel starts, it wins 71% of the time, all else being equal.
I also confirmed that a tentative contact from an infantry units is the same as from scenario early intel.
Table 7. Supplementary tests. Effect of a tree standing directly in front of the Defender. Effect of a contact marker provided to the Defender by giving him 100% intel strength. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass
44%
54%
Grass + 1x Type B Tree as protection
No intel
29%
71%
100% intel

Squeeze bore?

Squeeze bore?

Squeeze bore?

That's a mistake. It is good and as you say, the spotting is complicated. Sometimes the Soviet tanks don't see anything, and then I am in a PBEM where my TTS M-60s are losing badly to T-64Bs at 2000 meters.
At the very least the focus on range for spotting issues is misguided IMHO.

That's a mistake. It is good and as you say, the spotting is complicated. Sometimes the Soviet tanks don't see anything, and then I am in a PBEM where my TTS M-60s are losing badly to T-64Bs at 2000 meters.
At the very least the focus on range for spotting issues is misguided IMHO.

That's a mistake. It is good and as you say, the spotting is complicated. Sometimes the Soviet tanks don't see anything, and then I am in a PBEM where my TTS M-60s are losing badly to T-64Bs at 2000 meters.
At the very least the focus on range for spotting issues is misguided IMHO.

Cheers, this is actually a good time to get bumped.
I have been working on the spotting problem, but I got a bit too ambitious and it is going to take some time before I have a complete piece of work to show.
I have set up a test scenario with one vehicle in the middle and 49 enemy Panzer IVs placed around it at 12 to 6 o'clock positions, 200 to 1400 meters (in 200m intervals). The game runs for up to 7 seconds for me to see what contacts does the vehicle at the center see on the first spotting event, as a solid contact. Repeat 10,000 times and calculate the probability of seeing each of the enemy Panzer IVs.
I can replace the vehicle in the middle and measure the spotting ability of different vehicles. I keep all the data but only take those at 12 and 1 o'clock positions and convert them to a single number, which is easier to interpret. I call this number "spotting rating" and make it relative to Panzer IVH.
So, a Regular Panzer IVH with hatches open has a spotting rating of 100. And a tank that has spotting rating 105 can see, roughly, 5% better than a Panzer IVH. Note that it depends on distance quite a bit, but that would make things too complicated for a quick comparison.
Results so far (opened up / buttoned up):
Pz IVH (late): 100 / 27 Pz VD (late): 104 / 29 Pz VA (mid): 109 / 39 Sherman, no cupola: 109 / 35 Sherman, with cupola: 110 / 39 Sherman VC Firefly: 105 / 28 M10: 220 / 217 T-70M: 89 / 17 T-34-76 (M1942 early): 97 / 21 T-34-76 (M1942 late): 95 / 25 T-34-85: 106 / 36 IS-1, IS-2: 101 / 26 Valentine: 100 / 24 SU-76M: 212 / 211 SU-85, SU-122: 95 / 16 SU-85M, SU-100: 95 / 18 ISU-122, SU-152, ISU-152: 104 / 29 SU-57: 252 / 248 You can see there are two categories: fully enclosed vehicles and open-topped vehicles. The open-topped ones (M10, SU-57, SU-76M) spot more than 2x better than fully enclosed ones and do not suffer their ~3x spotting penalty when buttoned up.
A quick takeaway - if you are trying to get an spotting advantage by forcing the enemy M10 commander to duck inside, don't. It is not much help. The same will probably apply to Marders, Archers and the like.
Even at 10,000 trials there still are statistics involved, for instance I don't think the T-34 M1942 late should have a lower spotting ability than M1942 early when opened up.
Everything is automated, of course, with minimum time and effort required on my part. I just collect the results and set up a new test. Computer time is my bottleneck.

I don't have an M1 Mac, but my understanding is "no" at this time.
If you want to run better on Mac a used Intel mac with ATI graphics chip is the better option at this time.

Do you mean Attack Helicopter or Airmobile infantry?
According to FM 100-2-3 the Attack helicopter regiments at Army & Front level consisted of two Hind squadrons @ 20 helos each, plus a third Hip squadron for 60 total attack helos. 
If you mean Airmobile, they were controlled by the AF and were formed from parachute battalions. You can find the full TO&E on page 4-140 (of my edition). A front level airmobile assault brigade had three para battalions, plus supporting arms. Those would include 6 122mm howitzer, 24 120mm mortars, 9 BRDM-2(ATGM), and 4 regular BRDM-2s. If I read this chart correctly, (note, seems that I didnt.) it seems like the transport helo regiment was NOT organic to the brigade but was rather attached to that brigade from the front reserve. Similarly no attack helicopter support is mentioned. To me this means that both transport and fire support would be theoretically determined on a mission by mission basis by the front commander. I would guess that a unit might establish a more permanent relationship with its transport regiment, but the transport plan as well as any fire support provided by front level attack helicopters would likely be developed by the Front level AF staff as per FM 100-2-1, which discusses how the next highest staff often centrally developed fire support and movement plans and then issued them to their direct subordinate units. Centralized control and all. 
At least thats how I read it. 
Quick edit: Divisions also seem to have had their own squadrons, two flights (3) ea. of Hoplites, Hips, and Hinds for 18 total, plus supporting units. A footnote states that some divisions would have extra Hinds as the mission dictated. Im pretty sure though that these helicopters were again attached to the division out of Army reserve, even if that attachment were de facto permanent. 

For CMCW timline USSR had four types of helicopter units. Until 1990 "army aviation" belonged to Air Forces and after was transferred to Ground Forces, but in real helicopter units subordinated to HQs of Combined or Tank Arnies.
So, during Cold War Soviet there were next helicopter units:
1. Separate helicopter regiment (rus. OVP): 2 squadrons of Mi-6/Mi-26, 1 squadron of Mi-8, 1 squadron of Mi-24 (this structure appeared in 1982 in Afganistan)
2. Separate transport&combat helicopter regiment (rus. OTBVP): 2 squadrons of Mi-8, 2 squadrons of Mi-6/Mi-26. (this type appeared since 1982, before 1982 this regiment type named OVP)
3. Separate helicopter regiment of combat and control (rus. OVPBU): 2 squadrons of Mi-24 (including Mi-24K for artillery spotting and Mi-24R for recon), 1-2 squadron(s) of Mi-8 (including special communication Mi-8VZPU and flying command post Mi-9) 
4. Separate combat helicopter regiment (rus.OBVP): 2 squadrons of Mi-24, 1 squadron of Mi-8
This is typical composition, but could be variations among units. Each squadron of Mi-24 usually had 20 choppers in 5 flights per 4 helicopters. Mi-8 also had 20 choppers, but some sources say combat helicopter regiments had 8-10 Mi-8 in the squadron. Squadrons of Mi-6/Mi-26 had 10 helicopters.
In Germany Soviet armies had two separate helicopter regiments and one separate helicopter sqaudron. 

Look up FM 100-2-3, and should be Chapter 4 pages 139, 140.

The secure computing paradigm. UEFI, TPM, Win11 itself etc.

It's an in-joke.  Back in CMx1 days there was a massive forum debate on whether Bren tripods should be included in the game.

Ah, I see what you mean. The type of object that the M60 was spotting was different (it was spotting a T64, rather than an M60, while the T64 and T80 were both spotting an M60). I assumed a tank sized target was a tank sized target, and simply playing the test scenario from the other side was the easiest way to keep all other variables identical (with the one caveat that I went back into the editor to change which crew was mounted and which was dismounted to avoid any shooting interfering with the results). But since the M60 is taller than T72oids that might not have been a valid assumption (that a tank sized target is a tank sized target). Perhaps I should try the test again with an M60 as the target for the M60.

What is missing from this discussion (in my opinion) is how easy it is to lose sight of something previously spotted. Without the spotter moving, which would be understandable.
When I sit there saying "it is right there, fire on it you ^&#^^@" it usually is something that had been spotted by that unit before.

I feel like a Shturm should be able to see something like this:

I had three and they all got owned by M60A3 and M901, but still, they couldn't see an entire battalion tactical group