Thewood1

There are ways to have your own micro-grid which can automatically switch from grid to non-grid.  But you need PUC approval.  There are some big hoops to jump through.  And yes, it is because of line safety.  Thats why when you install your own panels and tie into the grid, you give up control of the panel's access to the grid.  The solution is never connect to the grid and have your own battery or generator.  But then the payback period starts to get VERY long.
Also keep in mind that the install and maintenance costs of personal solar arrays require a seven to ten year payback period to break even in an average US climate.  You don't just install panels and let er rip.  It requires constant clearing of debris and cleaning of film off the panels.  One big expense many don't consider is clearing trees around the house for LOS access to the array.  The panels themselves start to lost their full generation capability after five years of continuous use.  At ten years, there's a good chance you'll have to dispose of some of them.  Landfills in the US are already declining solar panels and batteries because of the toxicity risk.
 

Solar won't be a sustainable energy source in most areas until battery technology has gone through a revolution.  Grid-scale batteries are VERY expensive and inefficient per kW stored.  Plus disposal of batteries is a huge problem.  Wind has the same issue.  Both are intermittent sources and you have to have energy for trough generation.  If you shut down nukes, all that's left is NG powered plants as ancillary and peakers, at best.  But in reality, most grid-scale generation has to have a parallel nuke plant capacity or an NG fueled plant has to be built for no-sun peaks.  Its simple grid physics.  Both California and Texas have shown this.  The rapid switch to wind ans solar isn't the only reason for grid issues in those states, but its a large contributing factor.
Because of harmonics and inverter power issues, private solar going back on the grid is usually a money loser for utilities.  They do it because they are forced to and the equipment and local substation upgrades needed make onboarding private solar very expensive for the utility to market.  PUCs force utilities to buy solar back from private owners at a non-market set rate, regardless of the capex need to upgrade the local equipment and substations.  Its even crazier in the EU.  Even before the pandemic, Germany was increasing its import of coal.  Guess why.  Because they bet too heavily on wind and were having major grid issues and coal was the only source of reliable and consistent fuel to make the needed power growth.  Then they got addicted to Russian NG.
In the end, the best solution for the grid is use less power.  Not many people realize that computers, the internet, and cell phones have contributed to over 50% of the increase in electricity demand over the last 20 years.  I don't listen to anyone complaining about climate change until I see them get rid of their cell phone and PC.

Hope you're not using a fancy new high-energy PC in Germany.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-gas-rationing-looms-industry-begs-exemptions-2022-08-09/
This is what moving too fast towards solar and wind get you.  Exposure to suppliers outside your control.

PLAAF and RoC have had some pretty substantial air battles over the last 70 years.  All types of Migs mixing it up with F-86s, F-104s, etc.  There have been naval clashes, artillery duels, etc.  While not Gulf War scale, RoC has held its own and managed to use that experience to build a better military.  I think any invasion would play out similar to Russia-Ukraine.  China would take big losses just crossing the sea.  China would eventually win if the west doesn't intervene, but it would wreck both economies beyond short-term recovery.
I'll also go back to my standby statement...China needs the West more than we need them.  They can't feed themselves.  And will likely not be self-sufficient in energy in the short-term.  Add to that that Taiwan investment in China is fairly substantial by itself.  Taiwan is connected to a very large portion of the world's semicon production, but not its design.  That is still the US and the EU. 
You can play a lot of this out in Command: Modern Operations.  There are a bunch of scenarios built around it.  

One of the issues around recon is scenario design.  An entire CM scenario should be about recon.  That's at the scale CM plays at.  In larger offensive scenarios, recon should enter the map many turns ahead of a main force with the role of detecting enemy disposition and pushing them back from the entry point of the main force.  In a defensive large scenario, they should be doing the opposite.  The better use of recon units is as the opening scenario in a campaign/operation.
With exceptions, if your recon elements end up in a  heavy firefight, they've done something wrong.  With scripting capabilities beyond me in CM, if recon elements end up heavily engaged, they should be pulling back and asking for reinforcements or support fire.

"The integrated Intel chipsets leave that blurry after-effect on the text.  As far as I know,  its always been like that and there is no fix."
 
It won't work.  This has been an issue for Intel graphics forever with CM2 games.

The integrated Intel chipsets leave that blurry after-effect on the text.  As far as I know,  its always been like that and there is no fix.

I have two laptops.  One is an MSI GT76 with an i9-10900K and a 2080.  Both are desktop processors.  I also have a Asus Z13 Flow with an i9-12900H with a 150W 3080.  Believe it or not, they both run Barkman's Corner, my typical benchmark, about 45-50 fps at max settings for CM.  Thats only a couple fps faster than my old i7 Surface Book.  CM does not benefit a whole lot from modern architectures.

I have two laptops.  One is an MSI GT76 with an i9-10900K and a 2080.  Both are desktop processors.  I also have a Asus Z13 Flow with an i9-12900H with a 150W 3080.  Believe it or not, they both run Barkman's Corner, my typical benchmark, about 45-50 fps at max settings for CM.  Thats only a couple fps faster than my old i7 Surface Book.  CM does not benefit a whole lot from modern architectures.

Thats not what he is asking.  Did you read and understand it?  He wants to know what the differences are between all the game engines.  You can't get that from the demos because not all of them are up to date.  Plus the differences might not even show up in the couple of scenarios.  Much of those differences don't even show up in the manual.
 
So three times with the same not very useful suggestion to someone trying to work their way into the game. 

Hopefully someone can net it out with my question.
Is the hulldown tank a smaller target than a fully exposed tank?  Wouldn't that make a significant difference in the hit rate on the hulldown tank?

CM is great because it’s the closest you can get to seeing what actual combat looks like from the battalion on down. You could play Arma but then you have to deal with other people wait forever to get things organized. 
 
Combat Mission is kind of like a Van Gogh painting. If you look closely it’s just a bunch of dots that don’t make sense, and they don’t look very aesthetically pleasing but once you zoom out you start to see a cohesive picture. Once you accept the jank, it only gets better.

Maybe better, a step by step process.
https://www.techadvisor.com/how-to/pc-components/how-set-default-graphics-card-3612668/
 
 

As mentioned Osprey has a few books.  I own these.  They are short but fairly detailed to their subject and give a good history of the combat application and development of mechanized/armored infantry tactics:
https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war-ii-german-motorized-infantry-panzergrenadiers
https://ospreypublishing.com/vietnam-infantry-tactics
https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war-ii-us-armored-infantry-tactics
https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war-ii-combat-reconnaissance-tactics-pb
There are also books on specific battles and APC/IFV units that shed some light on more modern developments.

As mentioned Osprey has a few books.  I own these.  They are short but fairly detailed to their subject and give a good history of the combat application and development of mechanized/armored infantry tactics:
https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war-ii-german-motorized-infantry-panzergrenadiers
https://ospreypublishing.com/vietnam-infantry-tactics
https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war-ii-us-armored-infantry-tactics
https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war-ii-combat-reconnaissance-tactics-pb
There are also books on specific battles and APC/IFV units that shed some light on more modern developments.

I still want to come back to these alleged "soft factors" you claim that the Graviteam games don't have.  Can you actually list the CM factors you don't see Graiteam using?
Also, I didn't start this thread.  I'm not promoting it.  I gave my review in a thread where I saw people who don't play the game not understanding it.  It would have stopped there without your false assertions.  As I have said a couple times.  Some people like games, some people don't.  I can find youtube reviews on either side for both Graviteam and CM.  But for someone that doesn't own the game to come in talking like an expert and making false claims, I'll present my experience.
So, again, layout your claim that these soft factors aren't in Graviteam games.

I like the Graviteam games a lot.  They bring in a lot of tactical combat from WW2 east front.  The armor model is every bit as accurate as CM2.  And they provide a lot of the background behind the armor model in-game.  The battles are generally on larger maps so there is more room to maneuver.  The battles can last long enough that resupply and minor repairs are relevant.  It also has the operational layer if you want make battles more relevant to a broader campaign-like environment.  They also provide the option of very detailed orders or having the AI take general orders and handle the details.  The AI is pretty good at it.  There is also an event viewer so you can maintain situational awareness.  You can have the event take you to the unit or pause the game as an option.  Something that keeps me from playing CM more.
The downside...its too realistic sometimes.  Forgetting to string comms wire or cutting of comms wire means your units are sometimes on their own.  This can be set up in the options, but only before the battle.  Its also focused on very narrow battles and the scenario builder is not very flexible.  The do cover battles that CM will never cover, but its still feels limiting.  The ability to give very detailed orders makes the interface seem overly complex for micromanagers.  But if you are more hands off and like to give general orders, its actually simpler than CM.  There is no wego, but there is an active pause that be set to pause every X seconds.  And there is no replay.  To me, thats why I still come back to CM now and then.  But the AAR is very detailed in showing shots, hits, damage, and destruction.
Overall, I play it and Steel Beasts much more that CM because of the tools you have available to manage the overall battlefield.  CM's inability to take advantage of advancement in technology also plays a role.

I like the Graviteam games a lot.  They bring in a lot of tactical combat from WW2 east front.  The armor model is every bit as accurate as CM2.  And they provide a lot of the background behind the armor model in-game.  The battles are generally on larger maps so there is more room to maneuver.  The battles can last long enough that resupply and minor repairs are relevant.  It also has the operational layer if you want make battles more relevant to a broader campaign-like environment.  They also provide the option of very detailed orders or having the AI take general orders and handle the details.  The AI is pretty good at it.  There is also an event viewer so you can maintain situational awareness.  You can have the event take you to the unit or pause the game as an option.  Something that keeps me from playing CM more.
The downside...its too realistic sometimes.  Forgetting to string comms wire or cutting of comms wire means your units are sometimes on their own.  This can be set up in the options, but only before the battle.  Its also focused on very narrow battles and the scenario builder is not very flexible.  The do cover battles that CM will never cover, but its still feels limiting.  The ability to give very detailed orders makes the interface seem overly complex for micromanagers.  But if you are more hands off and like to give general orders, its actually simpler than CM.  There is no wego, but there is an active pause that be set to pause every X seconds.  And there is no replay.  To me, thats why I still come back to CM now and then.  But the AAR is very detailed in showing shots, hits, damage, and destruction.
Overall, I play it and Steel Beasts much more that CM because of the tools you have available to manage the overall battlefield.  CM's inability to take advantage of advancement in technology also plays a role.

I think both CM and SB generally handle spotting about the same.  Each have different areas where its more detailed and more abstracted.  CM has its spotting cycles and action squares.  SB has lack of experience/morale.   And they both suffer numerous similar issues like spotting missile teams, as well as AI seeing through pinholes in cover.
esims has added a number of capabilities to support playing it as a wargame in the last 4-5 years.  My real point here is it is absolutely not comparing apples and oranges.  Both are 3D representations of tactical combat with relatively real life tactics and tools.  Both have relatively sophisticated FoW capabilities.  Both can run in real-time.  An AFV and an infantry team/squad are the lowest levels of combat unit you will see.  They both have other capabilities that add to their game experience, but they have the exact same level of granularity and expected outcome.  I can take a scenario in SB and pretty quickly convert it to CM, depending on maps.  I  did it once before with an SB scenario, almost unit for unit.
The main difference between SB and CM is that CM is a micromanager's dream.  In SB you can script and plan out an entire engagement with almost no direct intervention, unless you want it.  With CM you can only plan a few turns ahead, especially on attack.  SB also skews towards the platoon as the main unit to direct orders to.  The order system is built around that.  But working with individual units is possible and it happens quite frequently.
The biggest issue with SB is its development is majority funded by DoD/MoD projects.  Players are left to hope and wish for changes that impact the game aspect of it.

Well, I guess you got me.  I didn't realize you I couldn't force you to do something.  I'll have to change my entire internet comms strategy.
You can comment on anything you want.  It is the internet, after all.  My comment was just advice to help you stop looking like a CM homer and reinforcing the BFC beta tester stereotype.  But fell free to not follow my commands.
I like CM and I like SB.  But I haven't played CM modern in almost three years, other than playing a bit of CMCW to see if anything was changed.  I still play some WW2 CM, but even that's getting a little old.  Anything close to modern though, I play SB.

You really need to back off from commenting on a game you know nothing about.  As I already said, you can play SB just like a wargame.  You don't need a human in the loop other than high-level decisions.  The AI is fully capable of picking targets and firing.  In fact, a fourth way to play is from the map only. 
SB is not perfect.  There are things that CM does very well that I would love to have in CM.  Mainly the experience and morale settings.  But for any combat after 1960, I'll take SB every time.

Well, I guess you got me.  I didn't realize you I couldn't force you to do something.  I'll have to change my entire internet comms strategy.
You can comment on anything you want.  It is the internet, after all.  My comment was just advice to help you stop looking like a CM homer and reinforcing the BFC beta tester stereotype.  But fell free to not follow my commands.
I like CM and I like SB.  But I haven't played CM modern in almost three years, other than playing a bit of CMCW to see if anything was changed.  I still play some WW2 CM, but even that's getting a little old.  Anything close to modern though, I play SB.

I think both CM and SB generally handle spotting about the same.  Each have different areas where its more detailed and more abstracted.  CM has its spotting cycles and action squares.  SB has lack of experience/morale.   And they both suffer numerous similar issues like spotting missile teams, as well as AI seeing through pinholes in cover.
esims has added a number of capabilities to support playing it as a wargame in the last 4-5 years.  My real point here is it is absolutely not comparing apples and oranges.  Both are 3D representations of tactical combat with relatively real life tactics and tools.  Both have relatively sophisticated FoW capabilities.  Both can run in real-time.  An AFV and an infantry team/squad are the lowest levels of combat unit you will see.  They both have other capabilities that add to their game experience, but they have the exact same level of granularity and expected outcome.  I can take a scenario in SB and pretty quickly convert it to CM, depending on maps.  I  did it once before with an SB scenario, almost unit for unit.
The main difference between SB and CM is that CM is a micromanager's dream.  In SB you can script and plan out an entire engagement with almost no direct intervention, unless you want it.  With CM you can only plan a few turns ahead, especially on attack.  SB also skews towards the platoon as the main unit to direct orders to.  The order system is built around that.  But working with individual units is possible and it happens quite frequently.
The biggest issue with SB is its development is majority funded by DoD/MoD projects.  Players are left to hope and wish for changes that impact the game aspect of it.

You really need to back off from commenting on a game you know nothing about.  As I already said, you can play SB just like a wargame.  You don't need a human in the loop other than high-level decisions.  The AI is fully capable of picking targets and firing.  In fact, a fourth way to play is from the map only. 
SB is not perfect.  There are things that CM does very well that I would love to have in CM.  Mainly the experience and morale settings.  But for any combat after 1960, I'll take SB every time.

Steel beasts can be played and is played by a number of people in "wargame" mode.  The player plays in third person and the AI runs all functions just like in CM games.  That's the best part of the game.  You can play first person as a crewman in a tank, as a unit commander of a large until while sitting in an AFV, or as a wargamer.  Its your choice.
Before making assumptions about a game, might want to take it for a spin.