Brille

A T34 platoon is hunting down a Stug that has been a big threat for a soviet column.
 
In the same battle another Stug is taken out by mere luck: A PTRD 41 seems to have hit a vital spot.
 

A T34 platoon is hunting down a Stug that has been a big threat for a soviet column.
 
In the same battle another Stug is taken out by mere luck: A PTRD 41 seems to have hit a vital spot.
 

A T34 platoon is hunting down a Stug that has been a big threat for a soviet column.
 
In the same battle another Stug is taken out by mere luck: A PTRD 41 seems to have hit a vital spot.
 

Or you can create yourself a dedicated shooting range map. 
Just use the blank map that is given to you once you fire up the scenario editor and adapt it to your need. 
Some people I know even place some range markings on it or different sectors to test different things. 
 
I use that mainly to test what weapon can hit/penetrate a certain target at a certain distance. 
 
The editor is fairly simple to understand I would say, so setting something up should not be a big issue. 

I just fired up a quick battle for testing. My US and soviet controllers could place a point and area target with any air support they had available at that time (jets and choppers).
I even checked a scenario with airsupport in it but it was the same.
Which version of the game are you running ?
 
I don´t use CAS very often but wasn´t there even a "line" target at some point ? I could be wrong at that.

The hell I am! I like these kind of narration where you see both sides and their different views.
But the difference in tank loses is really astonishing here. 
It seems like the soviets have won but lost their tactical mobility for the moment.... Well at least until the next batch of T34 arrive to start exploitation.
 

The hell I am! I like these kind of narration where you see both sides and their different views.
But the difference in tank loses is really astonishing here. 
It seems like the soviets have won but lost their tactical mobility for the moment.... Well at least until the next batch of T34 arrive to start exploitation.
 

I have the feeling that this kind of problem occurred on a regular basis recently and it would be understandable if the new pbem ++ system requires this. 
 
Not just here in the forum but on the few good men forum too. Plus I had  2 instances in my direct surroundings where this problem occurred and could be solved as in this case. 
So maybe a little note at the right place could help people to get it solved faster. At least the people at the help desk should add this one to their troubleshooting routine. 
 

I have the feeling that this kind of problem occurred on a regular basis recently and it would be understandable if the new pbem ++ system requires this. 
 
Not just here in the forum but on the few good men forum too. Plus I had  2 instances in my direct surroundings where this problem occurred and could be solved as in this case. 
So maybe a little note at the right place could help people to get it solved faster. At least the people at the help desk should add this one to their troubleshooting routine. 
 

Here are some screenshots of my recent battles:
While receiving heavy casualties, my russians move on.

 
 
An Abrams is creeping up a ridge but is soon discovered and engaged.

 
But the turret cheeks won´t let the round through. The Abrams rereats into safety right after the impact.

 
 
A BMP2 sneaks onto the side of a Bradley.


 
 
But despite all the hits the Bradley also retreats into safety, damage unknown.

 
An immobilized T90 keeping a look out for enemy AFV.

 


 
2 T90 gang up on the side of another Abrams, destroying it.


 
2 BMP2 surprise an Abrams. Though the killing blow comes from a T90 from the Abrams right side.
 
 
Another battle:
Disembarking right into the hot zone.

 
Destruction after auto canon and tank canon fire.

 

Here are some screenshots of my recent battles:
While receiving heavy casualties, my russians move on.

 
 
An Abrams is creeping up a ridge but is soon discovered and engaged.

 
But the turret cheeks won´t let the round through. The Abrams rereats into safety right after the impact.

 
 
A BMP2 sneaks onto the side of a Bradley.


 
 
But despite all the hits the Bradley also retreats into safety, damage unknown.

 
An immobilized T90 keeping a look out for enemy AFV.

 


 
2 T90 gang up on the side of another Abrams, destroying it.


 
2 BMP2 surprise an Abrams. Though the killing blow comes from a T90 from the Abrams right side.
 
 
Another battle:
Disembarking right into the hot zone.

 
Destruction after auto canon and tank canon fire.

 

I guess many players don´t consider to fire artillery at tanks in the ww2 games. It takes long to arrive, if no trp is available at the location, and vehicles/tanks are usually mobile enough to outrun concentrated fire.
So even if artillery is used against tanks, most players would do the most logical thing and move them out of the way. Arty is known for its area denial ability, not just against infantry but this is rarely used in game.
But if one pushes it´s luck and let the tanks stay in the hot zone and bunched up together, one is asking for trouble.
In my CMx2 career I witnessed maybe a handful of incidents where one of the opponents or my tanks got hit by artillery and destroyed in the same way. But as far as I remember I never intentionally used artillery against tanks ... at least in the WW2 games (open topped vehicles are another story).
One incident that sticked in my memory was against the ai: It was in CMFB in the KG Peiper campaign.
I had a line of Panthers parked in a town, waiting for the infantry to clear some enemy held buildings up front. Suddenly the ai unleashed a concentrated 105mm artillery barrage that landed directly on my Panthers. 2 of them where totally destroyed and burning and 1 got immobilized. I rage quitted that battle for the day hahaha.

The condition "flurries" are just a few snowflakes raining down from the heaven, so it won't bother with your vision that much I would assume. 
I had it in some battles now and it did not make such a noticeable difference. 
In nighttime though it may be different since the sky is overcast. So no chance of moon light to enlighten the battlefield. 
And don't get fooled by the LOS tool. 
It shows you your potential view distance right now but if the enemy is not firing he may stay unnoticed until he is in grenade range. 
That's the spooky thing about night fights. First there is only silence, then there is a spot and a brief trade of shots and then all hell breaks loose.
That's why I often use short cover arcs in the dark to not reveal all of my troops for one single scout team. 

@Brille Thanks for describing the problem much better and much more succinct than I did!
@BFCElvis Thanks Elvis for clearing this up!

Get used to getting beat-up...

It's all an educational adventure. Crap, I've read tons o' books (mil hist generally, unit hist some), but that doesn't necessarily translate 1-1 to what you'll find in the game. Close, but not 100%. But then what is?

Got my arse handed to me in a play-by-email vs an unmentioned person in the New Zealand military. What they practice I tried to play. Professional vs amateur. If you find one, they are the BEST opponents ever... You want real combined-arms instruction.. play a real military person in Play-By-EMail.

It pays to:
- Play "realistic/smart" for the period (WWII vs modern are VERY different), gamey tactics from other games might leave you wondering WTF?)
- Educate yourself about what the period platforms are capable of (AFVs, arty, infantry squads) -- in WWII, a game year can mean a total change of tactics, especially against the Russkies in CMRT  )
- "You aren't as good as you think you are" - some scenario creators are EVIL, and have already thought out all those advance route routes you think are ingenious... prepare to be decimated in the real Roman sense.
All that being said, there is little I have spent as much money on, and have enjoyed less than the entire Battlefront series of games...
CMBO, CMAK, CMBB, etc, etc. Started on the Windows platform way back, then got 'smart' and switched to MacOs. And bought everything I had again, 'cause it's that good. Through (almost) all the current titles (I'm a WWII guy), the most valuable dollars I have ever spent.
 

You can use smoke in more different ways than just to obscure your own front. 
It is a nice way to temporarily shield of the flanks without getting to much of your own forces involved. 
But you need to know when it wears of because otherwise you are caught in the open. 
And if you lay it just in front of your self you have at least a chance to move in closer to get more effective fire on the opponent. 
Though in general you are right. I don't like it myself to run against an unbattered foe. But sometimes you just don't have enough artillery to bomb all suspicious positions.
 
@zasgard
George has already posted some good stuff so nothing left so say here other than: If you have specific questions, just ask them.
Best way for me back then was finding me a good sparring partner who is open for communication and not just after competition. 
This way I learned the most because I could see directly what effects my troops had (or not) with some lecturing by my opponent. 
I guess I don't have to say that I got beaten regularly by him.   

Me and @FlammenwerferX suffer some intense and terrifying minutes in the woods.
A close encounter of the frightening kind...  Luckily support is right behind!  Out of the woods and right into the waiting jaws of the Jagdpanther.  Today we are thankful our enemy has turretless TDs instead of tanks.  And because of it my scout reverses safely out of danger.

The monstrous German TD gets first shots but misses as both he and I are moving!

The fates align, and so do my gunsights.

At this range, with 122mm, the results are as expected.

Scratch on another kill.

More medals will be requested for these heroes of the Soviet Union, if they can survive the next 30 minutes...

Well If the germans would have had sufficient numbers in tanks and crews that would match or come close to the T34 I'm quite certain that the eastern front would have went in another direction. 
But the thing is that the germans did not had the resources nor the manpower to do it. Most of the German tank force were still designs from prewar. Updated designs sure but they were at their limit and the newer soviet armor was more than a match. 
There is a reason why some heavy Panzerformations were called "Feuerwehr" (Firefighter) as they had to rapidly close gaps in the fronts that had been breached by the soviet armor because of lighter resistance there. 
So your teast might be a bit misleading in that regard. Maybe try a 1:1,5 or 1:2 ratio for the soviets to match the actual numerical superiority. 
Now you are jumping conclusions there. Because of some tests that did not match your expectation it is now wehraboos and German bias? 
I know CM has flaws and all and to some, certain things don't go in the direction they have imagined but I doubt that BFC is in any kind "infected" by this "desease" as lots of my burning Panzers show.
But well the German army was in my opinion one of the best armies back then. And that would concern training and technological tier they had. 
That doesn't make them in any kind unbeatable but otherwise they would not have gotten as far as they did. They had many flaws on the contrary too that all played a role in the endgame, like bad logistics, over engineering and well... Hitler. 
If you just alone look at the battle of Kursk and watch the casualties and compare them there must be something to it. 
Sure T34/85s and JS 2 weren't a thing there but still. Keep in mind that the soviets knew that the germans would be coming and had enough time to prepare themselves: build up ATG positions, entrench themselves put up reserves etc. pp. 
 
The germans lost the battle because they didn't achieved their main goal but the death/kill ratio for an attacker is astonishing. 
As you mention Wittman so much: Maybe you are underestimating green and regular troops to much maybe? 
What makes a regular trooper any different to an elite one? Accuracy? Of course through more firing in battle conditions you should be getting better or fine tune that ability but as a regular you already should have some decent gunnery skills. 
You should know the advantages and disadvantages of your given weapon, how to maintain it and how to solve simple errors if something went wrong... At least if you consider a normal training time. I know these were shortened at some point in the war. 
I'm no tanker but looking back at my conscription time in the German army I could hit a target with my G36 at 600m without much effort considering the scope was zeroed properly. I could disassemble and reassemble my rifle and the MG3 pretty fast and blindfolded. I could build up the MG3 in a tripod position and make it a good covered MG position. That are your traits as a soldier, you learn that. 
Does it make me a veteran fighter? Surely not. 
Now the difference between a trained soldier and a battle hardened (veteran, crack, elite) one is to be on the actual battlefield. Experiencing and overcome battle stress like being under fire or witnessing death all around. Making those fast decisions while under fire. Know when to retreat and when to attack and maybe being a bit reckless from time to time. 
 
So while accuracy surely is a point and is represented in CM it is not the main thing that defines an experienced soldier. It is the battle brain if you can call it that and the endurance to keep on fighting while being fired uppon. 
At least that's my opinion on the matter. 
 
To the subject Panther VS T34 again:
To get a better insight on why these two tanks, which are somewhat similar, perform so differently I would recommend you some videos where people actually have an insight into the tanks. 
People like "The chieftain" that make complete walk-around videos that  sometimes have multiple episodes. 
I remember that he and other mention that the T34/76 and the T34/85 (though it being a good upgrade to the former) are not very pleasant to be in. And that would also reflect on the performance of the crew, be it in spotting or actually shooting. 

German tank gunners training had em firing at targets at around 1200-2000m - guns sighted for up to 1200m which means, all things considered the round when fired will travel a flat trajectory for 1200m. At ranges sub 1200m they were trained not to bother acquisition firing i.e. getting the range but to fire for effect, if the round missed then the target was greater than 1200m then they would adjust accordingly. Training also was done against a target moving across their LOF at same range - to learn and practice leading the target. In each case they around 4-3 rounds - exercise stopped when a/ they hit the target or b/ fire all the rounds.
Combat would be a different thing though, vehicle movement, IDing targets, smoke, dust, barrel wear, damage to optics etc would all impact on this. But all things considered anything below 1200m that is IDed and engaged would most likely be hit. In game various crew soft factors impact on this.
Combat engagement ranges do seem to vary. Even on the Eastern Front its seldom totally flat. Rolling terrain, fields, trees etc would impact on LOS and LOF.
One event that stands out for long range engagements between German armour (Tigers and Panthers) would be Targu Frumos with ranges in excess of the 1200m and up to around 2000m. 
I'm pretty sure that who fires first will win mainly held true for WWII- though obvs that assumes that the target you are firing at can be penetrated. The game would be not engaging from the front but tackling (ambushing) from the flanks. Off course if you are a Tiger I in 1943 you are pretty confident that taking on T-34/76s at around 1200m will see you kill em whilst they won't be able to kill you. That changes once T-34/85s and IS-IIs come along...
In CM the AI has no advantage - it plays with the same game mechanics as the human player. There is no advantage and that's been stated multiple times over the years.

Didn't knew that. Thanks for the info. 
Though how do you mean "works as designed"? (guess that the abbreviation for that) 
I would find it a bit more logical if some kind of circle or "bubble" would be drawn around the first spot of an enemy unit. And if this unit stays in this bubble it would be easier to spot it again. This would simulate some errors by the scouting unit and by the receiving unit, searching for this target. 
Simply said it would be just a rough description of the units location "Watch out for a tank in this area/around the barn/around that forest" 
But the way it is "designed" as you say (and the way I understood it) hints more to like 
"Just watch out there is a tank on the map somewhere" 
This would make the whole spotting and inormation transmitting process a bit to simple for my taste. 
But it works good enough I guess. 

That is certainly untrue as I´ve never seen my own vehicles as "knocked out" or enemies as "destroyed". It is either one or the other.
But I agree that it makes no real difference in gameplay logic: The tank/vehicles is out of action and will add up to the AAR screen at the finish....end of story.
 
I don´t know the reason though to make such a difference. Maybe BFC wanted to implement another mechanic there that went finally overboard ? Or since CMx2 was always intended to play even Blue vs Blue or Red vs Red it is to distinguish each other (dead) forces ?
 
A similar topic by the way would be abandoned/destroyed heavy weapons. Either way they are lost and no way to reman them but still they make this distinction.

The biggest problem is to actually get them in range. So you have to avoid any tanks or guns along the way or make sure they are eliminated beforehand. Even then there are anti tank rifles and, in the later stages, panzerfaust wielding soviet troopers that makes traversing difficult. 
 
So you should have over watching units close by to react. 
Suppress known or suspicious enemy locations with MG fire from other units before getting in with the flammwagen. Unsuppressed enemies will make short work on your halftrack gunners as soon as they pop out their heads at this range. 
 
In the limited instances that I used these vehicles, I did it in a kind of "drive by" fashion:
I rushed to the target destination (like 25m from the enemy line) and draw multiple "slow" movement way points along the area I want to spray. So let's say a line of forest or a line of buildings,always making sure that one side of the halftrack is facing the enemy. 
On each way point I then gave it a target or target briefly command, so it would shift the fire to another target on each way point,while still slowly on the move. 
I can post a screenshot later on to maybe make it more understandable. 
 
Never the less, once they finished a "spray run" they either disengage to their lines to avoid counter measures or they make a U turn and go for another run. 
After that your own infantry should have no trouble taking the burned ground as the enemy should be either dead or in a very bad mental state. 

That is certainly untrue as I´ve never seen my own vehicles as "knocked out" or enemies as "destroyed". It is either one or the other.
But I agree that it makes no real difference in gameplay logic: The tank/vehicles is out of action and will add up to the AAR screen at the finish....end of story.
 
I don´t know the reason though to make such a difference. Maybe BFC wanted to implement another mechanic there that went finally overboard ? Or since CMx2 was always intended to play even Blue vs Blue or Red vs Red it is to distinguish each other (dead) forces ?
 
A similar topic by the way would be abandoned/destroyed heavy weapons. Either way they are lost and no way to reman them but still they make this distinction.

This topic goes as far back as Cmx1 itself but I stand with my opinion :
It is more for the feels and does nothing significant. 
You see that the driver of the vehicle starts his "unbogging" process right then when it gets stuck by turning the wheels/tracks back and forth. User movement input is blocked for the time being. 
 
It is hard to test this to either approve or disprove this. How often does a unit bog down? And from this instances how often do they free themselves? 
To be 100%sure we would need to have a programmer insight. 
But either way I say that your unit just got lucky in the "unbogging" process-dice roll and it has nothing to do with you putting it in reverse. 

Yeah it does feel like a desperate measure, or someting only useful during unusual situations such as those few scenarios where there are no combined arms at all and you just get a bunch of recon vehicles.