Lethaface

298 for BMP-2 vs 287 for a Bradley seems a bit out of order imo (with Bradley having FLIR optics and better armour).

Having a bad hairday? or wigday in your case lol

Never heard that and would be weird design imo. It's just a bug afaik

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.", Albert Einstein (or so they say).

Well they are different things ;-). Maintaining c2 links is perhaps one of the most important things in CM, imo. That can be done in various ways. If you have different formations it always helps to have the big bosses (for exmaple Tank Company HQ and Inf Battalion HQ) in close proximity so they can share the info's between formations. I usually don't have much issues with getting spots, although they aren't instantaneous and sometimes someone just won't see something.

Outside the test: continue spotting and pass other/new/updated contact markers.

The only thing we can be jealous about with regards to Semmes is that he already has this CM:Z in his imagination. The rest of his imagination seems on the disorderly social side to me. But some of you have A LOT of patience

Good news! For anyone having the same question as I had: the PBEM3 system requires your Slitherine account info.

Don't beat the dead horse

I did have a somewhat similar thing recently (although no issues with regular pausing): I ordered a unit to pause for 30sec followed by a hunt order. But it seemed to use the hunt behavior already during the pause: an enemy vehicle which was KO'ed but not yet registered as KO'ed was still showing it's icon in the first few seconds of the turn and caused the unit to ditch all it's orders.

M1? I think the argument was about the M4 Sherman. Although I guess that's a typo.

This is my opinion as well. Although I feel that even the JPz IV 70, being the same price as the Panther, wouldn't hurt from being a bit cheaper. But that's just details; the main point is that in QBs it seems turrets aren't accounted for any capability. Imo it's not about historical accuracy; the issue is that the capability of turreted vs turretless vehicles isn't being accounted for which leads to certain vehicles like Panthers to simply be the optimal choice; which from there leads to QBs almost always featuring panthers. I also wouldn't mind if the cheapest Shermans would become a bit more expensive (the M4A3(W)75 etc are priced fine imo).

I played the German campaign after release of CMSF2 and enjoyed it. The size of the battles increase over the campaign IIRC and are quite varied. From CMSF1 days IIRC the UK campaign was my favourite.

AFAIK Opening means that a round flew through the open cupola, I guess he had the tank unbuttoned?

If I may use this thread to also ask attention for the (IIRC) already reported and acknowledged issues with Syrian forces: * Special Forces & Airborne squads still only have 100rnds of 7.62x54r ammo. (other formations got a fix last patch). * All Syrian formations in QBs have very limited RPG ammo (like 1 or 2 rounds). * Syrian Mech Airborne formation in the editor has limited RPG ammo (like 1 or 2 rounds) * C2 issues like above. I have quite some examples, but I think the issue has already been reported by @akd previously. Unfortunately those were not in the previous patch, hopefully they will get priority in the next patch. For any PBEM/H2H with Syrian forces those are significant, as well as for Red vs Red or Red vs Blue scenario's and campaigns.

Although I sometimes frown on diversity budget spending here, like our national railways spending a couple of millions changing all the 'speaker' voices to edit out 'dear ladies and gentleman, we have arrived at...' into 'Hello, we have arrived at...'. But I don't see what's not to like about more voices and accurate depiction of ethnicities in the game. Also it's not like the UK MoD hired an expensive movie actress or whatever to do the voice recording, but a real soldier. Would be nice if the MoD shared that mod!

So from the tests it seems perhaps RPGs are too accurate? Anyway nice to see that the wind seems to have a say in the accuracy of RPGs as well!

If that's any indication, I'd say that the margin for aiming errors is rather low even at 200m Yeah I could have phrased that clearer probably. What doesn't help is that my statistics lecture was all in Dutch. Anyway I'm not sure whether the game deals with subsequent RPG shots at the same target as independent events or not. Also, the chance of the rocket actually hitting what the crosshair is aimed at IS an independent event for each rocket fired. Given the inaccuracy of RPG rockets, that's a significant part of the chance of hitting. And finally, human error / variance will offset part of the information he gets from ranging the shot. If you fire a glock at 25yards you'll notice how pressing the trigger and our natural body movement can already influence a 'grouping'. Let alone when firing a RPG. Anyway I guess I've made my point

Well tanks have a stabilizer, ballistic computer and computerized barrel adjustments pairing with optics, etc. So, the tank will be able to know exactly where the crosshair was when he fired the last round. A person is not (AFAIK).

Even if he'd zero'ed the range accurately, he still has to put the crosshairs at exact the same spot. I don't know how big the target picture would be on the standard RPG-7 optic. Than there is wind to factor in, etc.

But in between shots he will have to reload and thus 'lose' the aim. Depending how much zoom the RPG optic has, determines whether there is any improvement after one or two ranging shots. Also, depending on the accuracy at a given distance there might be more offset from the rocket inaccuracy than the ranging increment will make. Anyway, for in game I don't know if it's modelled that after each shot it will get more accurate. No worries. Frustrating: I understand I don't think that is what anybody is saying. However, chance can be a frustrating thing. Especially when the chance is close to 50%. You expect to have 'it' happen once in every two events. But if your unlucky it might not happen in 20 events, or heck 1000 events. Now the chance for the latter is quite low, but there is a chance. So, if you have frustrating bad luck once that doesn't mean it happens often. Also, it is not per se unrealistic. Let's say if that document is correct and after one ranging shot the chance is 70% to hit. Let's also assume the chance stays 70% after that. I forgot the formula but it's quite a small chance that you won't hit with 10 shots at 70%, but still a chance. So if it happens a lot it is a problem and unrealistic. If it happens only once it's just a small chance. What did you expect? Is any occurrence of a rare event per definition unrealistic and therefore a problem? If I'm honest it seems you are reacting from frustration and not from ratio.

I didn't provide any document I guess you mistake me for someone else. But your point is that RPG are not accurate enough?

Not necessarily. Are you talking about RL or ingame? Do you realize that if a chance for something is 50% than it doesn't matter how many times you run it, it will remain 50%? For example in roulette the chance for red isn't higher if you just had a black number. Although in RL the operator might learn to aim a bit lower or higher. But between reloading and the rocket standard inaccuracy not sure how much that would mean. In game I don't know if chance gets bigger. But what's your point anyway? you haven't made one.

Not hitting 10 times at 50% or even 70% chance is fine within the world of statistics / probabilities. A bit of an outlier perhaps. Anyway in game the RPG is more accurate under 200m.