Bulletpoint

I can't tell you exactly how the air targeting works, but I once tested whether infantry benefits from the hide order while under air attack. The result was that it made absolutely no difference - when they are in the open - whether if you hide them or not, and it doesn't help putting them in weeds, shrubs, or similar, compared to golf-lawn grass. I don't know if trees or bushes actually make a difference though. In general, I think it should be extremely rare for a WW2 aircraft to strafe infantry. Just spotting them would be very difficult, and unless we're talking about a whole platoon in column moving down a road, I think aircraft would prefer to engage better targets.

I think it's an issue caused by the little details of real-world tactics not being fully captured by the CM system. In reality, even if a squad would doctrinally split into only two sections, each section could still send out one or two guys to walk point. Or otherwise advance carefully as the situation dictated. In CM, there's no such sub-unit flexibility. You get two groups of stooges that all go running off towards the next movement marker. No matter if you have them run or walk or "hunt" they all stay in one big lump. In the game, this is a big disadvantage. Additionally, a real-world squad would probably often react faster to contact, at least if they were expecting it from a certain location. The German squads were based on bounding overwatch with each maneuver element having one MG. That only works if that MG can react quickly and forcefully. In CM, it often takes long for a unit to finally return fire, and even then, fire is quite anemic and immediately stops when target is no longer visible. Lastly, I believe MGs in general were much more suppressive in reality than in the game, which affects all factions, but especially weakens any doctrine based around them.

It's been tested out very thoroughly by Drifter Man. There are small differences between most tanks, for example a T34 76mm spots a little bit worse than a Panzer IV, but a T34 85 spots better than the German tank. Comparing to the Americans, the best German tanks (Tiger II) spot about as well as a Sherman.

If there was any German superiority in tank optics in WW2, it's not modelled in the game.

I don't even think you use the blast command against bunkers? Just getting the engineers close enough should see them throw the demo charge automatically. But yes, the whole thing about panicked bunker crew or tank crew coming out fighting from a destroyed vehicle is just silly.

Yes, that is what I realised after writing the first reply. Everything looks like it works perfectly as long as you are inside the editor, but the moment you actually play the scenario, the problems appear as you described. The FO cannot call in the mortars as long as he is out of C2. This works as excpected. But the mortar section leader can call in the mortars even when he is out of C2 and far from the mortars. This does not work as expected. All commanders can call in mortars over radio while moving, this also doesn't work as expected. But it's unrelated to the problem you reported. I recommend that you report this as a bug. I don't think any beta tester will realise that this thread is about a bug, since the word "bug" does not appear in the title, so they will probably not see it.

Ok, scratch all that, because it seems all this only works inside the editor as long as you are "deploying" the forces in the preview. The moment you save the test scenario and play it like a regular battle, things start to get weird. 1: Just like you said, the only important thing is that Platoon leader is close to the mortars. I ran the 2. section leader away from everybody, and even without C2, he is still able to call for support. But not from his own mortars, but from 3. section! But only as long as Platoon leader is close to those mortars. So basically, as long as you place the mortar platoon leader among all the mortars of all sections, any section leader can call in fire from any point of the map, even without radio or C2. Definitely seems like a bug. The attached FO cannot call in anything if out of C2. 2: In WW2, moving infantry units lose radio contact while moving. This is by design. But they are still able to call for artillery while moving and while out of C2. I tried this out with the FO. This also seems to be a bug. I could be wrong, but I doubt even modern infantry can call for support while running through terrain.

Also, it would be really interesting if the data for "firepower" (kills per minute) could be plotted with line graphs, just like the accuracy graphs. The data is already included, but only as bar graphs.

Coming back to these test results, I am puzzled about some things I overlooked the first time. Rifles The American Garand rifle has a max range of 475m, while the German Karbine 98K has a max range of only 350m. Is there any historical reason for this? Also when comparing these two rifles, it looks like the German rifle is more accurate than the Garand at range (fewer shots per kill), but if it's more accurate, wouldn't it also be effective at longer ranges? Accuracy falloff Looking at accuracy tables, it seems the number of bullets needed per kill increases linearly at range: Double the range, double the number of shots needed to get a hit. But isn't the accuracy falloff logaritmic in real life? So that as distance increases, accuracy decreases exponentially more?

No, that's what the basic game bases look like ..

Attackers will only lose more than the defenders if everything else is equal. Two armies of the exact same size, technology, doctrine, resources, motivation, leadership, etc... In that case yes, then the attackers will lose considerably more than the defender. But few wars are like that. In case of WW2, Germany lost because they did not have the resources to fight the war they got themselves in. Many people love to obsess over which tank was the best, which MG was the best.. but in the end, wars are largely about resources, logistics, and production.

I think this is caused by the guy carrying too much weight, so he can't loot any grenades/MG/etc

I think the StG should have higher rate of fire at 200m+ range, firing single shots. Not firing bursts, but the time between shots should be much lower. Then at closer range, 100-200 m, it should fire short, aimed bursts in rapid succession. And then full auto when getting closer than 100. But the really cool thing would be if the actual rate of fire and burst mode also depended on troop experience, morale state, and leadership. So if you had rattled green troops left without a squad leader, they would just go full auto on anything at any range, hitting nothing. And crack troops under good leadership would fire rapid and accurate single shots even at medium ranges.

You inspired me to go back and play this scenario again. Then I remembered why I skipped it the first time around, years ago. It's simply poorly designed in my opinion. First try, I split my forces between town and the left flank. Got wiped out. Second try, I stacked the deck with everything I got in the town, and this time, I got a minor win after 16 minutes of intense shooting at close range. Was surprising to win it actually, without taking any of the objectives, but causing about 70 casualties for 50 in return seems to have been enough. I could probably have sent a team forward to seize the intersection objective, which would have likely given me a tactical win. However, it was only thanks to having played the scenario before, and knowing which buildings would be optimal to occupy.

In theory we could do that, but I think that if the biggest and most powerful country in NATO pulled out, the minor countries would soon conclude that the war was lost. EU countries would start talking about the horrible humanitarian impacts of war, and how we must have peace now. Ukraine might keep fighting for some time, but without continued external support, they would eventually be defeated, as they have said so themselves several times. I don't even think it would take that long, since it would be a major hit to morale. So even inside Ukraine, there would be increased political pressure for a negotiated settlement to keep at least part of Ukraine independent. Zelensky would leave the stage one way or the other, and a new Ukrainian leader would emerge to sign the deal Trump would strike with Putin: Peace in return for Russia keeping Crimea and the eastern "republics". And Ukrainian NATO membership not officially cancelled but indefinitely postponed.