Vergeltungswaffe

Cannot duplicate the results you seem to have had.

There are players that go on and on about wanting realism.  But then anything close to realism smacks them in the face and suddenly its not fun any more.   Recent spotting and bogging discussions are front of mind.

So I think this isn't so much a case of Combat Mission incorrectly modeling reality, as yet another case of people having incorrect expectations of reality. Just like all the spotting complaints.

I think that is correct for the commander's sight. The gunner's daylight sight on the T-64B is the 1g42. It's magnification and field of view are variable from 3.9x/20° to 9x/8.5°. By comparison the TZF 9 gunner's sight on the Tiger is 2.5x/25° and 5x/14°, so the T-64 has stronger magnification at the cost of a narrower field of view. Which of these would be better at spotting a machine gun team 450 meters away is anyone's guess. If we were talking about nighttime spotting or first shot accuracy the T-64 should be much better but I don't know that there would be a dramatic difference in daytime spotting. I agree with other posters that the OPs test is worthless for demonstrating anything at all.

As far as optics go, its plausible that German optics from WW2 might actually be better than 60s era optics from a Soviet or US tank.  If you jump in a T-64 in Steel Beasts, its almost impossible to see infantry 500m to the front if they are prone.  Standing infantry can be seen if the gunner optics happen to be point right at the infantry.  But all infantry is almost unspottable through vision blocks for driver and commander.  And that's on a  flat feature-less map.

And nobody says they are. The Tiger might get to roll a 100 sided die while the T64 gets a 4 sided one. And still the Tiger can roll a success (rolling that 1) while the T64 doesn't. It is unlikely but that is statistics and you can't argue statistics with a sample size of 1.
And there may be 99 incidents where the T64 makes the spot first and 1 where it doesn't. People rarely post "Yep, look, happened just as I think it should." On the other hand, the one where the Tiger got lucky is almost guaranteed to trigger that "Spotting in CM is broken!!!" post.

Even with enhanced optics and IR and and and.. there is still a chance things will not be spotted. It's just human nature to miss stuff or pay attention to one thing and miss something else. More importantly that is modeled in the game. So, I agree there is more testing that needs to happen for sure. Just starting with a statistically significant set of runs. That would be a starting point though. All the other factors would then need to be considered. First one I can think of is what happens if the T64 is on a slightly higher elevation does that change things - especially for the guy in the grass.
Feel free to conduct the tests. I would, personally, not even weigh in until that part gets done. If you try to chase every anecdote down you will get tired of running pretty quick. Having said that we should all pursue the issues we think look interesting / problematic.

This pack includes new textures for the default version of the SU-76 and the various mod tags, ie [snow], [whitewash snow], [germany] and [berlin]. Each set comes with a fair amount of variant textures to avoid clone army syndrome.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/d45395z84gkzgku/ZZZ_S-tank%27s_SU-76M.rar/file

Also it looks like your German tanks have an FO team nearby that may be assisting them in making the spot. Units in CM that are in communication with one another will share spotting information. That FO team looks to be in the same formation as the tanks, and probably has a radio, which means it is probably in communication with the tanks.

That tool does not. But I do have:
https://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/RedThunder/Scenarios/index.html
Which you can sort by Date and it is updated with the latest information. The whole site is getting updated slowly but Red Thunder has been done. I'll make a formal announcement once the whole thing is up to date.

Considering that a Chieftain will struggle to go faster than Usain Bolt on a road, I'm going with yes.

This guy is all over this forum and Steam looking for help.  He needs to read and pay attention a little.

Hello guys, after days of work, is finally here, this is an high fidelity remake of Strike at Karand from BF2 to Shock Force 2, the map consists of an 1520 x 1520 City with Hills, Suburbs and an Factory, the outskirts were modified so it could fit well in Combat Mission Gameplay, there is 9 versions of this map, 1 Base version so you can do your scenario or your own quick battle objectives and setup zones, 3 Meeting Engagement, 3 Blue Assault, and 1 Meeting and Engagement and 1 Assault based on the original Battlefield 2 Flags that were on the conquest version on it, hope you enjoy !
 
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VscLVSszzFhz7K5ZIhjc31blZW-Bo3Dw/view?usp=sharing
 
Gallery: 
 








 


 
Enjoy.
 

Time to hit the "Ignore" button on this one.

I didn't do German at school but I think the label reads. "Don't be a plonker. Always read the manual before using whilst playing Combat Mission." Okeh, so I'm paraphrasing just a tad.
 

Are only as idiotic as the person giving them orders. 

I just wanted to say that I am absolutely loving the new German campaign of the DLC (playing on hard). I think it is one of the most difficult campaigns I have ever played.
I had to replay nearly each and every mission several times once I managed to beat them. The Americans are just so much better equipped, trained than the Germans. Not to mention the fact of their sheer numerical superiority. The Germans are inferior to the Americans in every aspect at this stage of the war.
During my CM carreer I always wanted to avoid save scumming and just roll with the punches but this campaign forced me to relad time after time. Losing a critical asset due to the inexperienced crew failing at the spotting lottery or getting an entire squad obliterated by heavy artillery would have meant that I either restart the whole map or reload a previous save. I chose the latter.
All in all, great scnenarios, my only gripe is that they are a biz puzzle-like and you cannot really complete them "blind", as there is just no way that you can afford the luxury of a Pershing popping out from nowhere and decimating your whole force.
Another thing that I have learned was that TDs are practically useless. The Jagdpanther should be a formidable opponent when on the defensive. Not in this game though. On the one hand TDs have spotting issues (see my other topic) and the due to the fact that tanks always shoot at the enemy's center mass, which happens to be gun mantlet/barrel of a TD. This meant that although the JP was able to withstand 1 or 2 rounds from the shermans but I ALWAYS ended up with a broken gun.
I would have much preferred to have simple PZ IVs with veteran crews at my disposal instead of these semi-useless TDs (rotatable turrets and ample MG ammo are a blessing that I have so far failed to recognize) .
But oh well.

Gotta love absolutes.
The only true general statement is that there are no true general statements.

Gotta love absolutes.
The only true general statement is that there are no true general statements.

Sorry, my personal Mediafire page is no longer working properly. The photos are no longer displayed and I can't connect to my Mediafire account. I'm trying to resolve the issue.

It's a reasonably accurate article.
The later in the war, the worse the metallurgy got.
Just as long as people realize that a pretty high percentage of the Panthers and KT's manufactured in 44 had excellent armor quality.
45 was a whole 'nuther ballgame.

I just don't by that. 
Like what? Weekly statements "we have 8 scenarios started for the new module and 5 new models" and later "we still have 8 scenarios started and no no models". Or monthly the same. And again and again. I think it would start a whole new area of complaint "why aren't they working on <insert favourite project> nothing is changing what are they doing. They are just wasting time. 
LOL
LOL every damn day man. I have several photo and video editing tools I use and have zero visibility into what they are actually working on until they release something new. I hit the odd bug. Some are annoying some bloody inconvenient. I never have any clue if or when they are going to be fixed. Hell only some of the time can I tell they have been confirmed.
I follow this advice - sound familiar?
Exactly and I do and I use them to edit my photos and videos and get work done as best I can.
 
Hell yes I would rather have working product when it's ready.

For an example of the "other way of doing things" look at "Star Citizen".  Raised $104 million in 2023, total of $644 million in crowdfunding, and still it isn't complete... and has changed its focus away from what early adopters wanted.  "The launch of the game was originally anticipated for 2014, but has been repeatedly delayed."

100% or the endless bitch session that would result here if the decision was made to delay and issue a new date was made. 
There are really only three choices with regard to this: 
Pick a date and ship whatever you've got - obvious downside is bugs and issues with content Pick a date and delay to a new date if things are not as you want them - obvious downside here is complaints and erosion of "trust" Don't pick a date (or I should say don't say one publicly because all projects have dates) and just repeat the mantra "it will be done when it is ready" - is there a downside here - I don't know one. Marketing people will say they cannot build the sales collateral - BS just have it ready and book the interviews and reviews in the final weeks or after release but what do I know? I only have 30 years of software development experience and no marketing experience - other than watching them do it and not make sweet **** all of a difference if the campaign starts before release or after. Customers say they cannot plan or rely on you - BS: buy the products that are available that fits your needs. If non are available you have to wait. Wouldn't you rather have a working product in some future time than crap now? If you say you want working product now that's just stupid because that doesn't exist does it? Hence this question. You can end up in a combo of 1 and 2 that either turns into a death spiral: the product is not ready so we will delay it but that means you need to add feature X because the competition has changed which leads to more delays and feature Y needs to be added etc.; or you delay one or two times but piss off everyone and eventually you are forced to end up releasing early even though you tired to do the right thing and fix your problems.
I have worked in through all of these scenarios. The choices that BFC make are absolutely the best framework for managing projects I have lived with. I have worked for other places that get it right too BFC are not unique but doing this right is not the norm - sadly.

Love that!