Rokossovski

Yes is true but we have to think when he answer to questions that he cannot working on the development of the game on the same time.
Yes i would like also have some pics and...will have probably also some questions...I am also very impatient of the new titles.
...don't takes my last remark in account...

BY all that's holy, THIS. The Russians can make their tinker-toy BTRs amphib, but the all encompassing US military can't do so for the Stryker,, a vehicle whose fundamental purpose is infantry mobility? Seriously? There will always be a bridge? Even in CM, if an oppo mines a bridge over anything larger than, oh a trickle of piss and properly covers it then Strykers are screwed. 
Pretty ridiculous, IMHO. 

Consider Wicky's picture.  Yes light penetrates some distance into the trees, with wide gaps between the physical obstacles of the trunks, and no higher foliage to speak of.
But look across the field at the distant treeline on the next hill over.  Scan along it.  How deep can you really see into that treeline?
It isn't a matter of physically blocking every photon.  It is a matter of the human eye being hopelessly unable to pick up any shape in that solid, high, blocking line, down in the shadow under the canopy.  The eye focuses involuntarily on the lines of high contrast.  We have actual edge detection cells on our retina.  What you actually see is a high contrast line across the top of the canopy, between canopy and sky.  Plus another high contrast line along the base of the trees, where trees meet ground.  Plus, less distinctly, a shadow line on the snow some distance in front of that ground line, wavering with the tree heights and undulations of the ground.
Between the skyline and the ground line you see a block of trees.  Some individual lines of contrast are detectable in the tree shapes and foliage, but each is so like all the others in the mass that you get a texture signal, not really edge signals.  You can detect smudges of interrupted white below the foliage line, from snow on the ground back inside the tree line.  Together those can give you another faint line of the lower edge of the foliage, blurred across the multiple trees that define it and the angle of the ground relative to teh angle of the sightline.
But any distinct object on those interrupted snow patches below the foliage line?  Nearly hopeless.  If the trees weren't present, you would edge-detect such a shape as a hole in the field of uniform white of the snow on the ground.  But within the trees, it is all interrupted by trees anyway, and in shadow.  There is no high contrast to pick out the shape of an object against that field.
This is fundamentally a camouflage effect, not a physical LOS blockage effect.  But it is very real.  And it causes a sighting asymmetry - it is far far easier to see something out in that snow covered field than it is to see something inside the tree line from the field.  Photons are intercepted or not, either way, so you might expect the LOS effect to be reciprocal and equal.  But it isn't, not with the camouflage effect included.
If a tank were sticking out of that far tree line it would certainly be visible.  But 10 or 20 yards back inside of it, not moving, and it would have great camouflage effect compared to the same out in the middle of the snow white field.  The tank inside the treeline would see the one out in the field ages before the reverse happened.
Imagine trying to spot a tank painted bright hunters orange.  That would depend only on physical LOS blockages.  But actual tanks are not painted orange, they are painted in camouflage colors and patterns to make spotting them harder.  Put one back 20 yards in a treeline across a field like that distant ridge, and they'd be effectively invisible until they moved or fired.
What the game seems to be underrating is this camouflage type effect.  Otherwise put, the spotting routines pick up marginally "visible" targets far too rapidly and reliably, in the absence of the movement or fire that actually attracts the eye and enables us to pick out a particular shape at range in such uniform visual environments.  The routine probabilities seem fine for large objects standing out against a skyline or a uniform field background of high contrast to the vehicle itself.  But that situation is an outlier of best spotting chances on real battlefields, not the rule.

Board wargames can design for effect and get this sort of thing right pretty effortlessly.  The spotting rules in Jim Day's Panzer from GMT, for example, work extremely well, well enough that I've been "porting" them to older game systems that didn't include the right effects or give them the right strengths.  And yes board wargames are easier to "patch" - Panzer needs some "area fire" options are previous contacts, for example, that have been lost in the meantime because one side or other went prone, and similar.
As usual, the engineering approach that promises greater realism from bottom up modeling instead, doesn't actually deliver on that promise until it is nearly perfect in its handling of every relevant factor.  Get the photon interception stuff perfect (we aren't there with CM, as several posters above have pointed out, the issue being "transparent" concealment) and you still have to get the camouflage and object detection stuff perfect too, or you get worse not better realism than was available with a simpler "design for effect" approach.
I understand why CM is committed to the bottom up method, and that's fine.  It just carries with it a commitment to fix every issue anyone notices, and not to "plead" the endlessness of those fixes as a reason not to do any of them.  If you don't want endless fixes to get every piece right, you should stick with design for effect.  If you want engineering realism bottom up, then every time someone finds another issue, it has to be improved.  Don't expect to get off that treadmill soon.

Goodness, my apologies if I misunderstood this.  I am very sorry about that and to have sullied you in any way.  I was surprised to see someone call for lefties to be killed here and perhaps over-reacted since I didn't understand it.  Some of us in the US are a bit sensitive these days when, for example, man that can actually start nuclear war tweets about actually starting nuclear war. 
I'll leave it and that and return more to listening to the forum than talking. 

Mord, your CMBN American voices mod is the single best mod for a CM game I've run across -- and I use a lot of mods.  Thanks again for your work on that one!

I would TOTALLY buy Combat Missions: Chaco War.  But I'm a CM slut that buys anything, so my approval doesn't amount to much.

I would TOTALLY buy Combat Missions: Chaco War.  But I'm a CM slut that buys anything, so my approval doesn't amount to much.

Yes John, China does have maybe one of the best tanks in the world. Hard to say without actually being able to test them side to side with the Abram, and some of the other tanks.
 
But from what is know it is surely a threat.
 
But ripping on a tank that is still in the design phase in a sense shows no class. We really know very little about the thing.
 
So yes, there is missing parts and fake covering on the unit. But I am impressed that they even showed it as is. (What, would you prefer they left the canvas covers on and let you guess what was underneath it.)
 
And your Threat Analyst skills might have managed to get you a paying job but you have posted enough garbage here in the years that I question your basic logic. (So your Logic matches most of what we see coming from our Government lately) No basic sound decision making at all and  no policies being past that give direction for the future, just lies and efforts to win the vote for the next election and spending money on companies that hire people like you.   And you were thinking that statement carry some weight behind it, no, not for me. Just put me in the mood to write you this nasty gram.

this is all a new industry standard. sell a popular title in little bite sized (battlefront = spensive bites) pieces in order to 1..you guessed it and 2 to have us get the pre order after death plan. Has anyone figured out strategic commnd yet?. And one more thing. What does bagration have to do with anything without barbarossa first?...is it abuse or do they just want us to wait for the commercial? If these guys dont shape up i bet matirx has a cheap and crappy version of cm karkov 40 something. happy gaming

Cpl S - here's the separatists to be used in the UKR digital slot in the editor for your Blue on Blue scenarios.
 
Others - TBA - if used independently, this mod will replace the digital camo textures for UKR forces where these have been chosen by the scenario designer. There is also some overlap with the standard UKR textures - namely faces, boots and chin straps are shared. The chin strap has been made transparent in this mod as it uses bare headed figures. Best not use this mod with others that that mod UKR faces or the UKR digital camo as you will lose the full effect. Mods for the standard UKR camo uniform shouldn't affect this mod, unless they include faces.
 
Download - http://www57.zippyshare.com/v/PkK66dLO/file.html
 
Credits - Aris' for his faces and Kieme for his dirty camo/boots.