Vanir Ausf B

The 1D26 LLDR also has a thermal sight, but again I don't know if it has been adapted into service. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1D26_laser_designator-range_finder_with_1PN79M-3_thermal_imaging_sight_at_Engineering_Technologies_2012.jpg

"round-the-clock operation (provided by thermal imager)." The next question is if the Malakhit is or is planned to be fielded by the Russian Army. The only information I can find on it is from the manufacturer's website. Most references to Russian LLDRs that I have found are for the 1D22.

Just tested it and darkness does not limit radar spotting but weather does. That is probably a bug and will be reported.

That would be a bug if true, and surprising since in-game it can penetrate multi-spectral smoke.

I like it. I may float that idea when the time comes. On a related note, does anyone know if the Russian 1D22 Laser Target Designator/Rangefinder has a thermal sight or is it just day/night?

I am in favor of the notion, but if playing PBEM you can achieve a close approximation with a gentleman's agreement to spend no more than a certain percentage of your points on armor (25, 30 and 33 percent work nicely). Armor is the only category that matters.

Indirect fire via prep barrage or TRPs. Absent that, I agree with womble that you should bypass if possible.

Yes, i don't notice the FPS until they drop into the teens.

The New Content button is the white star at the top of the page next to the search button.

Unit experience appears to have only a very small effect on use of cover. I tested Light Forest + 2 trees with elite and conscript targets. The elite targets suffered 5% fewer casualties which is on the margin of statistical significance for the sample size.

No

As much as I love the look I'm having a hard time sticking with the Movie Mode. The lack of AA is killing me. It's the tracers. Tracers without AA look horrible at a distance.

I see double and triple tree action spots frequently in Heavy Forest tiles in particular. But from a map-makers perspective I think the take-away from this is that there is a very strong relationship between the number of trees and the quality of the action spot as a fighting position.

And just to follow up on my post on the numbers, I do agree with Slysniper on one point: you don't need to know the exact numbers and no one should construe these tests to be an argument that you do. The numbers are just there to inform your tactical decisions, or to inform map-makers. Do you need to know that a grass AS with a tree in it provides 20% cover while a light forest AS with no tree provides 10%. No, you do not. But knowing the general relationship can make your decision tree more accurate and showing the numbers is simply a means to that end, and I would argue that this is useful to the extent that some of these relationships are not intuitive.

What is terrain in the game? It's a set of numbers. It is always a numbers game. To what extent anyone chooses to care about the numbers is irrelevant to their significance. This is akin to how some people don't care about the armor and gunnery ballistics. To them it doesn't make sense to worry about if your 75mm APCBC can penetrate the Tiger's side hull at 30 degrees angle at 500 meters. They know it's better to engage enemy armor from the side than the front and that's all they need to know, and that is a perfectly fine and legitimate way to look at it. But at some point down the line your pixeltruppen will care even if you don't because these are the rules they live and die by. Ironically, what this testing has shone is that charting the cover values of base terrain tiles in CMx2 really is a waste of time since the differences are too small to be of much tactical significance. Concealment would probably be a different story.

I went ahead and tested it since this is an important point. Grass + 2 trees (Tree A in editor): 68% Grass alone was 95% and Light Forest alone was 90% so this result is slightly less than I was expecting by a few percentage points (65% would have been my prediction), but given that the exact placement of trees in an action spot is random it stands to reason that we would see a little more random variation in results. But the larger picture remains the same. The significant cover is provided by the physical trees themselves. Although I did not do a single tree test my results suggest that even a single tree in a grass action spot will provide at least as much cover as a light forest action spot with no trees*, and two or three trees will have more cover than any terrain type alone in the game. *However, the forest tiles do offer much better concealment so it's not a cut and dried decision.

I may do a test to find out, but it is my suspicion that trees provide the same amount of cover regardless of the terrain type they are in. Some tree types have noticeably thicker trunks than others so it stands to reason that makes some difference.

The only complaint I have about the less distinct terrain is that if an object is on the border of two action spots it can be very difficult to tell which one it is in. You'll notice this mainly with trees you want to take cover behind and casualties you are looking to buddy aid. According to BFC they did in fact take a stab at implementing a toggleable grid but it turned out to be a performance killer.

Finished testing on heavy forest, marsh, rocky and heavy rocks Combining them with my earlier results: Exposure Pavement: 100% Grass: 95% Light Forest: 90% Light Forest with 2 Trees (Tree A in editor): 60% Marsh: 100% Rocky: 100% Heavy Forest (no trees): 80% Heavy Rocks: 75% Some mild surprises there, at least to me. Marshes and rocky terrain provide no more cover than pavement. Heavy rocks turned out to offer less cover than I recall from my old test, but that was a smaller sample size. What does not surprise me is that most terrain types offer little cover unless there is some type of 3D terrain with it such as trees or walls. You see that most clearly with the forest terrain where most of the cover is from the trees themselves rather than the underlying terrain. Given this I don't think I will be testing any more terrain. I may test some buildings at some point.

I found my settings I took RockinHarry's file as a base and then modified the following: /*const*/ float AvgLumR = 0.7 /*const*/ float AvgLumG = 0.7 /*const*/ float AvgLumB = 0.7 (was .5 .5 .5, although changing these didn't make much noticeable difference. fxaa_color = overlay(fxaa_color, vec3(0.0) (was .33) fxaa_color = BrightnessSaturationContrast(fxaa_color, 1.0, 1.2, 1.1) (was 1.0, .1.0, 1.1) Movie mode OFF: ON: OFF: ON:

This is all in the manual. Pg 138: Stinger SAMs are the only anti-air units the US has in the game and units not specifically designated as anti-air are presently not capable of spotting or shooting at any type of aircraft, therefore it is impossible for US units to shoot down a Zala. The Ukrainian army can shoot down Zalas because they have Tunguskas.

If you look at the camera specs for the Zala they top out at 4x zoom. This is Zala video from altitude 250 meters.

Terrain is definitely more saturated in Normandy than in any subsequent games, although I don't think the same is true for unit textures. The lighting in general looks brighter to me as well.

Maximum flight altitude is not the same thing as operational altitude. The Zala is meant to operate in the 100m to 700m range.

Targeted ground is flat, shooters are slightly elevated (3 meters). Range is 250 meters. Everyone is Regular experience. If we assume that pavement offers no cover and call that 100% exposure then everything else is in comparison to that. In other words 60% exposure is the same thing as 40% cover. EDITED to add: The exposure numbers are simply how many casualties are inflicted on targets in that terrain compared to pavement, so troops in grass take 95% the number of casualties as troops on pavement, all else being equal.