BletchleyGeek

With the same parameters (1,130 m/s muzzle velocity, 2.5 height of starting location for the projectile), but with an elevation of about 0.37 degrees rather than 0, you get a ballistic trajectory which at about 800m reaches its zenith (at a height of about 5.25m) and hits the ground at about 2,000 meters. At such high speeds, a difference of arc minutes (like 20 arc minutes) is quite significant. But unless we're assuming a height differential of 3 meters between the point of departure of the projectile and the target, what you describe sounds to me like a quite "high and long" shot.
I can totally agree with the statement that it was and is standard procedure to have some "firing solutions" (e.g. gun elevations and ranges) pre-calculated. You don't want to be doing "line search" (which is the procedure I used to figure out the elevation that was the best fit for what you described in your first answer to my post) in combat conditions (tired, scared, under pressure). Definitely not good for clear thinking and problem solving.
Look, from my point of view there is Physics and there are... Unicorns. The former has behaved in the same way since probably a very short time after the Big Bang and hyperinflation ensued, and will probably go on until Boltzmann Brains are a thing. Certainly the relevant part of Physics - Newtonian mechanics - were an approximation of ballistics as good now, as it was in 1944, and as it will be in 2024 (unless the usual caveats apply, that is, the projectiles are really, really tiny, or go really, really fast). Unicorns are a most remarkable phenomenon, known under many names, like phlogiston, aether, mana, etc. It is well known as well that their properties change across time and space depending on the observer. 
I think Physics works, probably because in the Engineering School I got brainwashed or something.
I also think that CMx2 is a reasonable physics simulator for ballistic trajectories and the misnomer that are "external ballistics". 
Judging from your later posts, I think we're in agreement re: Physics. I was wondering after reading the first one.

Just for the benefit of some readers, "point blank range" means "range with a flat trajectory". That is, the maximum range at which the projectile roughly flies along a straight line towards the target before the forces of gravity and friction with the atmosphere overcome linear acceleration and the trajectory becomes curved. Or in other words, the maximum range at which the gunner can set the gun elevation to zero degrees and be quite certain the shot won't be short. The shot can still miss for other reasons, obviously.
 
As an ESL person who wasn't educated in the terminology I need to remind myself of this all the time when I read these discussions.

With this handy trajectory calculator
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/trajectory-projectile-motion
one can make their own mind regarding point-blank ranges for World War 2 guns and projectiles. For the German Panzergranate 40, APCR, I get from Google a muzzle velocity of 1,130 m/s. Making a guesstimate that the gun height would be like 2.5 meters, I would say that "point blank range" (for a target in hull down like Cpt. Millers' Abrams is and a firer aiming straight for the mouth of the gun barrel) is about 200 meters, at that distance the height decay of the projectile is about 30 cms (218 yards and 1 foot for the US friends).

In CM, this is actually not true - a shot fired at 600 m is not a sure hit. Below is a printout of my gun accuracy tests for the Pz IV, with Regular crew, no modifiers, target Pz IVH fully exposed on flat ground. The probability of hitting with the first shot is around 32% (highlighted). Therefore, there is room for the hull down position to make a difference in the chance of hitting. But that's apparently not happening.
MAIN GUN DATA
PzKpfw.IV Panzer IVG (late) - 75mm L/43 KwK40 [CMBN v4.03] Range (m) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Time to first shot (s) 3.3 4.7 5.9 6.4 6.6 7.0 7.1 Time to second shot (s) 8.6 10.4 11.3 12.0 12.2 12.9 13.1 First shot hit chance   77.8% 29.9% 15.0% 8.6% 5.8% 4.3% Second shot hit chance     75.8% 52.1% 36.8% 27.1% 21.4% Panzer IVH (late) - 75mm L/48 KwK40 [CMBN v4.03] Range (m) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Time to first shot (s) 3.4 5.1 6.0 6.8 7.1 7.3 7.2 Time to second shot (s) 8.9 10.5 11.2 11.5 12.3 12.5 13.1 First shot hit chance   81.3% 31.7% 16.0% 9.6% 6.1% 4.1% Second shot hit chance     78.4% 53.6% 39.3% 28.6% 21.7%                 Panzer IVG (late) - 75mm L/43 KwK40 [CMBN v4.03]         First shot trials   10000 13000 11000 11000 11000 11000 First shot hits   7779 3892 1646 951 642 475 First shot hit chance   77.8% 29.9% 15.0% 8.6% 5.8% 4.3% Second shot trials     10797 10144 10560 10709 10831 Second shot hits     7649 4877 3603 2685 2184 Second shots not taken     2203 856 440 291 169 Second shot hit chance     75.8% 52.1% 36.8% 27.1% 21.4% Accuracy rating             96 Panzer IVH (late) - 75mm L/48 KwK40 [CMBN v4.03]         First shot trials   10000 13000 11000 11000 11000 11000 First shot hits   8128 4120 1760 1054 674 454 First shot hit chance   81.3% 31.7% 16.0% 9.6% 6.1% 4.1% Second shot trials     10497 10016 10469 10703 10819 Second shot hits     7684 4916 3793 2853 2211 Second shots not taken     2503 984 531 297 181 Second shot hit chance     78.4% 53.6% 39.3% 28.6% 21.7% Accuracy rating             100  
I agree that it would be interesting, but I decided not to dedicate computer time to this. With fewer hits I would probably need to test for much longer to get good statistics. But at some point I might test the probability of the first shot hitting a hull down tank at different ranges and compare.

Well, for the original poster.
if they come from other games and most games do nothing to try to reflect the aspects he is not use to. So of course it does not feel natural to what he is expecting.
If you never been in combat, again many of the chaos type events in the game do not make sense either.
Does the game have it correct, well not exactly, but as mentioned, its the only game that even tries to simulate it. 
 
Now the sad thing is, as for infantry fire, the game might actually be over accurate compared to real life. So dont complain too much because most test I have seen or done seems a little too accurate compared to RL.
Spotting does have flaws and is not perfect by no means. But in the big picture can be accepted because there should be some fog of war aspects that no game ever hardly reflect.
But What will be interesting is when cm ever gets the next engine released, spotting is likely getting a whole new treatment, and I am sure it will be an improvement from what they have learned doing it in this engine.
 
SO  if you dont try to expect the game to give the results you think it should have, but look into trying to understand what the real environment is more like. You will learn that the game is doing things that can reflect more realistically than most other games do. 
Can there be improvements, sure, but it will not be the borg type aspects that most are use to from other systems.
 

I personally stopped complaining about marksmanship after digging for information about hit probabilities on Napoleonic battlefields, and found figures suggesting that it was common for it to take somewhere between 200 and 500 rounds to inflict 1 casualty. I know it's the wrong time period, but the chances of a round finding it's mark would have actually been significantly higher on a Napoleonic battlefield than on a modern one. The enemy on a Napoleonic battlefield can be clearly seen, and is standing in a dense formation. The enemy on a modern battlefield is in extended formations, and each soldier is taking cover and concealment on their own initiative. Cover was used on Napoleonic battlefields, contrary to popular imagination. But not on the initiative of the individual soldiers. Rather, a battalion commander would have to find a suitable linear terrain feature that could provide decent protection for their whole battalion (a ditch, tree line, wall, etc...), which is a much harder task than an individual finding a terrain feature that could protect just themselves.
The fact that they had muskets and not modern rifles does not account for the low hit probability. Muskets, while inaccurate compared to modern rifles, are far more accurate than people imagine. About 30 arcminutes (+/- 6 arcminutes), or about half a degree is the accuracy of a typical musket, which is abysmal by modern standards. But it is just accurate enough that a perfect marksmen should be guaranteed hit someone in a close order formation at 200 yards with every round. Clearly it was the humans that were inaccurate. Specifically, the humans under battlefield conditions, since they achieved much higher accuracy when shooting at targets on a range. Considering how much more elusive modern targets are, I now find estimates that it takes 2000+ rounds to inflict 1 casualty on a modern battlefield (which I used to find absolutely absurd) to be completely plausible.
I came away from this with two conclusions:
1. The marksmanship in Combat Mission is perfectly fine.
2. Imperial Stormtroopers are actually excellent marksmen and the "stormtroopers can't aim" memes need to die.

@Ithikial_AU You got 2 months to Chicago, 10 maps to make, a dozen history books to read, a full tank of gas and a half a pack of cigarettes...HIT IT!!!
 
 
 

My scenario is ready to be play tested by anyone who is interested.  Due to the amount of tanks to keep track of it's basically tank vs tank with the exception of some Soviet dismounted infantry in the village. I have the battle set for an hour an ten minutes but has run shorter than that. Maybe because I've played it umpteen times checking things out...😀
You don't need the log4 mod as that area isn't in this battle but may be in future scenarios and is nice to look at when looking over the map.
This is my first scenario so it's not too complicated but is a good slug fest with Tigers, King Tigers and T-34/85's.  Germans vs Soviet AI.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jueajatbm41x8w6/Tank Battle of Lisow.btt?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pztxi9tpgcovwrn/log4.brz?dl=0

Interestingly this matches what we are seeing in-game.  Although the balance of capability at the tactical level is far closer than we expected, at least in the timeframe of the game (79-82), it is incredibly hard to attack US forces over prepared ground.  As we build NATO force in I do not see this changing.
I agree that a rational war was not likely to break out, but sometimes war is not rational.  I think there was opportunity for human error, misunderstanding and paranoia that would have led down the dark path.   

Hi there
I purchased CM Cold War on Steam. I was unable to fix a serious graphics issue that made CMCW unplayable for me and refunded the game: The entire screen was jagged, details barely recognizable, pixelated. In short words - it looked like ****.
I know the engine is very antique, but I never experienced this weird problem before with a CM game. I was searching a while in different forums for a solution, but could not find one that worked. I changed settings ingame and in the drivers and nothing worked.
But I still wanna know what the cause is and what the cure is. If anybody had the same problem and found a solution, then please enlighten me. Thanks!
 
My PC: Win 11 64-Bit, 16GB, NVIDIA Geforce RTX 2070 with 8GB RAM, Intel Core i5 10600K, AGOC 3440x1440@120Hz

Is this a laptop or a desktop, I assume it is a desktop (with a high-res monitor) ? With laptops that have both integrated Intel video and a dedicated GPU, you may have to force the game to run on the dedicated GPU. Methods to do this can vary, usually it can be done with the dedicated GPU's control panels by adding a profile for the game. Other times it may require a change in a particular video utility that controls which video chip is running an application.
If this is a desktop (where integrated video will not usually be the culprit), have you already disabled FXAA in the Nvidia Control Panel ('Global' or specific to the application) ? There is also an 'Image Scaling' setting that I have set to 'OFF' (I'm only running 1920 x 1200, though).
Another possible problem may be 'scaling'. I'm using Windows 10, so I'm not absolutely sure how similar Windows 11 settings may be. With Steam you may need to find the actual game executable and create a shortcut link to it on your desktop for convenience. Otherwise it MAY be possible that the Nvidia controls may be using the 'Steam' presets. In Windows 10 you can right-click on the game icon and select 'Properties' from the popup menu. In here go to the 'Compatibility' tab and go to the bottom and click on the 'Change high DPI settings'. In here go to the bottom section 'High DPI scaling override'. Click the check-box for 'Override high DPI scaling behavior. Scaling performed by:' and make sure that 'Application' is selected in the drop-down box.
Another thing to try when it comes to scaling (at least with Windows 10 - it may be located a bit different or have different options in Win 11) is to go to Start Menu > 'Settings' > 'Display' menu option (on left, typically the default selection) > 'Scale and layout' section > here you likely may have the scaling above '100%' with high resolution displays. You can adjust this for your entire desktop (with fonts and icons appearing much smaller, if you do) or you can click on the 'Advanced scaling settings' just below this. In the 'Fix scaling for apps' section you can TURN OFF the slider button for 'Let Windows try to fix apps so they're not blurry'.

I'd like to follow this up for reference of anybody having issues with CM textures looking blocky or blurry in "very high" resolution displays with DPI scaling.
A few months back I upgraded my system and got a new monitor etc. DPI scaling became set to 150% by default. When reinstalling my CM games, and following the instructions to enter very high resolutions on the "display_size.txt" file, I observed that all the game textures (including the UI ones) were featuring quite ugly anti-aliasing artifacts. The effect was quite weird, similar to what you get activating FXAA antialiasing with Reshade does to the game. Interestingly, the game UI was occupying a more screen pixels than I had expected for the resolution I have (3840x2160). This was no Reshade issue. Obviously, on a fresh system and install, this wasn't a matter of some lingering dll's or config files laying around. I did a bit of research - thanks @Lethaface for running some enquiries - and I gave up as I got distracted with the work busyness characteristic of the pre-xmas period.
After a few weeks off the CM world altogether I decided to look again into this issue and came up with this thread, and this post by @IanL. I overrode the DPI scaling settings as suggested above (the layout of this menu changes a bit if you're using Windows 10 pro with the latest patches btw) and voila, no more graphical artifacts and the UI is now as tiny as I expected it to be.
I find it very curious that the Windows DPI scaling post-processing was messing up the in-game 3D and graphics textures as well. I haven't seen anything like that in any "modern" games, but also none of those games are using legacy the OpenGL rendering pipeline. If @IanL hadn't mentioned the above I would have keep going in circles around this issue for quite a while...

No irrigation ditches or moats seen on the 1931 map...

Here is my theory! This came to me last night and today got firmed up.
This is the dude who started all the supposed true stories...Paul Carell. Raise your hand if you were a kid and read one of his exciting "books" about WW2. Raise the other hand if you still have an old dog eared paperback you lugged around in the 70's.
Real name: former Nazi Paul Karl Schmidt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Carell 
I think he had lots of contacts and could get some juicy anecdotes to put into a book. Wittmann was dead so the entire Point 65.5 thing is just like he did in "Foxes of the Desert" with Point 208. Enough true stuff or true sounding stuff fleshed out with whatever else he needed to make it work. He just grinds it out and gets it published.
The Point 65.5 story seems to be first described in Hitler Moves East: 1941-1943. New York: Little, Brown, 1964 ISBN 0-921991-11-8
Everybody since then just stamped it as true even with the conflict to elevations and dates and locations. Gary Simpson's Tiger Ace book has in the references a book by Carell but also Lehmann's series. Nobody seems to have done any asking why Point 65.5 was called that if the elevations were all higher... 
 

I added a few Pz IV vs Pz IV duels using the same rules as described at the start of this thread. This time in CMRT, to enable tank riders.
 
Table 10. Effect of assisting infantry. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass. The infantry is a 3-man German Scout Team with binoculars. CMRT v2.11
Attacker
Defender
Opened up, no infantry [R7]
50%
49%
[R7] Opened up, no infantry
Opened up, tank riders
56%
43%
Opened up, no infantry
Opened up, infantry nearby
56%
42%
Opened up, no infantry
Buttoned up, no infantry [R8]
47%
49%
[R8] Buttoned up, no infantry
Buttoned up, tank riders
74%
24%
Buttoned up, no infantry
Buttoned up, infantry nearby
74%
24%
Buttoned up, no infantry
Buttoned up, infantry nearby
48%
51%
Opened up, no infantry
The assistance of infantry improves the chance of the attacker. The advantage provided by infantry is greater when both opponents are buttoned up. At this range (600 m), help of infantry makes the chances of a buttoned up vehicle approximately even against a vehicle with hatches open. It makes no difference if the infantry is on the tank as tank riders or on the ground nearby.

I braved the pandemic and broke from hermitage to go see Dune in an IMAX theater after reading rave reviews and recommendations on how the IMAX experience elevates the movie and that it is such a unique experience to view it in IMAX. The visual, aural and mental experience was sublime. I couldn't get the movie out of my mind for days.
Dune is such a topical evergreen with it's themes of consciousness, AI, superdetermism, free will, the concept of randomness and time, resilience etc. list goes on.

The problem I see with three-tank platoons, is that you do not have the ability to separate into two-tank sections.  This is important and has important ramifications for bounding Overwatch, Fire and maneuver, etc.  I think the four-tank platoon hits the sweet spot... five is right out!
So to recap... "Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out! Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
 
 

What a thread, not the first time the curtain's been pulled back, and thanks to Steve for engaging.
Not much I've read here surprises me, and Combat Mission is what it is as a result of this mindset. There's good in that and bad in that. Each player/customer can judge what that is on his own criteria. I'll continue to vote with my wallet as all of us can, and should, do.
Ultimately the buck stops with Battlefront, it's their skin in the game, and rightfully they should call the shots as they see it. Any other thing is just noise. I'll be critical of Combat Mission, but not of Battlefront. I could just make my own damn game if I don't like it. Well, no I can't, but you get the point.

CMx3..next year in the holy land?

If you have a link to the pseudocode feel free to share it. Peeps here will appreciate it.

And for those still tuning in, ran a couple more tests.  Lone T72 at 1000m vs M60A3 (had to dismount the A3 as it was starting to see a lot better even from the back at 1km)

So interestingly, the arc length the tank has to scan (at 90 degrees for arguments sake) is half that of that at 2000m (1570m, makes sense) and its mean time to full spot drops from 85 secs to 39 secs...slightly better than half.
And then back out to 2000m but I put a full platoon of T72s (4 tanks) on a line about 100m apart...very interesting.

So as we can see, spot times go way down when these tanks are working together, but that is not the interesting part.  The arc length at 90degrees/2000m is 3141 and 785 is about 25% of that per tank if they divide the arc up evenly (again makes sense).  21.5 seconds is 25% of the 86 seconds we saw in the original to-full-spot time for a lone tank at 2000m.  Not definitive but those tricky lads at BFC appear to have linked spot time to scan distance, or at least this is a working theory.  

Thanks for the kind words guys, I’m having a lot of fun making this!

Para ser claros, ¿tiene un problema con CMCW (que se lanzó recientemente este año)? Cuando ingresa la clave de licencia, ¿le está diciendo que no es válida o recibe un error diferente durante el proceso de activación? Si está 'sin activaciones', puede abrir un ticket con el servicio de asistencia técnica (haga clic en el botón azul, '+ nuevo ticket' en la parte superior derecha) y proporcione su clave de licencia y ellos pueden agregar una activación por usted. ¿Se trata de una clave de licencia impresa en una pegatina que viene con las compras de 'solo envío por correo'? Si su clave de licencia está en línea (listada en su cuenta de la tienda), y la está copiando y pegando, tenga cuidado con exactamente lo que está copiando (sin espacios en blanco adicionales, etcétera).
El último parche para CMCW es 1.01. Aplicarlo no debería afectar la validez de su clave de licencia. No sé si la descarga completa está en 1.01 todavía.

MoD's diversity request was super-easy. it was already 80% done before they even asked. The problem was their request for female faces. I had my doubts about being able to properly texture the generic soldier model. I was VERY surprised when it actually worked! Here's a couple women soldier heads being tested in CMSF2.
 

SPOILER!

Just finished A war without mercy against @BletchleyGeek and we had a blast!
Severe house2house fighting, PaK fronts, Hetzer lines, tank breakthroughs with actual tank companies, flank turning, getting counter attacked by a dozen Panthers with ample infantry support, it's all in there.
I think it was the most complete battle I've ever played. It did cost quite some energy though lol.
Thanks @ASL Veteran (IIRC it is one of yours).
Trivia: Over 1000 casualties, ~50 tanks KO'ed (and several more combat ineffective), one year playtime.
Who knows if I ever make an AAR out of this. It would surely be worthy of it, but playing the game took a year already (PBEM) and I guess making a proper AAR would take a similar time.
Duel with a Panther (it is barely visible).

The battle around the Church was very very bloody.


German counter attack was barely held off:

 
Post view breakthrough area across the rail line: