Thewood1

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.

Spotting has always been at the crux of complaints around the CM games.  Its more the inconsistency in it and the fact that no one seems to really know how it works in detail.  I think the LOS scanning cycle is part of the perception issue.  I used to bump into issues infrequently where I could drive a Sherman right up to a Tiger and the Tiger wouldn't spot for a half a turn.  It doesn't happen often, but it happens.
Not sure anything can get at those infrequent outliers.  Steel Beasts, which I think represents cold war battles better than CM, has its own issues with insta-spotting of infantry and other things.  I do find it more consistent in its spotting, good or bad.  And it does some very good things around combined arms.  There is a wargame mode for it and its still my go to for cold war and near-modern tactical combat.

Spotting has always been at the crux of complaints around the CM games.  Its more the inconsistency in it and the fact that no one seems to really know how it works in detail.  I think the LOS scanning cycle is part of the perception issue.  I used to bump into issues infrequently where I could drive a Sherman right up to a Tiger and the Tiger wouldn't spot for a half a turn.  It doesn't happen often, but it happens.
Not sure anything can get at those infrequent outliers.  Steel Beasts, which I think represents cold war battles better than CM, has its own issues with insta-spotting of infantry and other things.  I do find it more consistent in its spotting, good or bad.  And it does some very good things around combined arms.  There is a wargame mode for it and its still my go to for cold war and near-modern tactical combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A28_Grom

But I bet he had a better chance of seeing that missile and hear the sound of his doom.

A more detailed technical description of the beacon issue is here:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-34/Ch1.htm
"(f) Thermal beacon. Under some battlefield conditions such as heavy smoke, dust, or fog, the xenon beacon, which operates on the lower end of the infrared spectrum, cannot penetrate the obscuration. With the TOW missile and weapon system it is sometimes possible for the gunner to be able to acquire the target, yet the infrared receiver on the daysight tracker cannot acquire the infrared beacon and the system loses the missile. TOW 2-series missiles have a thermal beacon to correct this deficiency. The thermal beacon operates on the upper end of the infrared spectrum and will penetrate any obscurant the nightsight can see through. A postamplifier was added to the AN/TAS-4A nightsight on the TOW 2 weapon system to acquire the thermal beacon and track it in much the same manner as the infrared beacon. The basic AN/TAS-4 is a passive sight, but the AN/TAS-4A is an active sight with the ability to steer the missile to any target that the gunner can see through the sight itself."

I'm not sure why person in particular is in here.

I think the sender was very clear.  He was trying to download and the icon just kept spinning.  He never mentioned zipping or installing.  He said explicitly downloading.  Do you understand that zip, 7z, and rar have nothing to do with downloading?

You are either in the wrong thread or completely missing the OP's point.  He isn't having issues with unzipping.  He can't get the download to start.

I’m not sure what your deal is but enough with the gratuitous insults
 
 

The technology may be old, but PBEM has its place. Many people cannot set aside a long stretch of uninterrupted time to play a direct CM game. The reasons are varied - young families demand a player's time, where it's easy to fit in a PBEM turn here and there. Older people, while not occupied with young children, may have varied interests and demands on their time.
It's cool you have 30 people who CAN do that. That's pretty cool. Personally, I can't, and PBEM for me is the way to go. Calling it garbage, IMO is a bit over the top. 

Dave - battening down the hatches for tomorrow's hurricane/tropical storm. We're about 5 miles east of the projected path they just showed on the 6pm news.
 

Boy, sure is good that everyone tries to welcome a younger generation of players.  Lets not worry about BFC's future just so we can fell good about ourselves by putting down people who play and communicate a different way.

Boy, sure is good that everyone tries to welcome a younger generation of players.  Lets not worry about BFC's future just so we can fell good about ourselves by putting down people who play and communicate a different way.

Boy, sure is good that everyone tries to welcome a younger generation of players.  Lets not worry about BFC's future just so we can fell good about ourselves by putting down people who play and communicate a different way.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/3051734893994833911/?ctp=2#c3056238885199008946
An interesting post about 115mm (T-62) penetration and damage to Iranian Chieftain tanks.  Appears to be mostly from Iranian sources.  There is some info from British post battle investigations of Chieftain performance.   If you look through other posts in that thread there are a few other points of info.  Note the comment about damage to gunner sights.  Thats been the topic of more than a few CM discussions.
Might give some perspective on T-62 performance in CMCW.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/0/00/M1armour.jpg/600px-M1armour.jpg
M1 (105mm)
 
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/f/f0/M60frontarmour.jpg/600px-M60frontarmour.jpg
M-60A3 TTS
This is from Steel Beasts.  M1 plain vs M60A3.  Most of the guys doing this are non-US tankers who actually measured the physical armor for older tanks.  Even without the TIS, the M1 was a significant armor upgrade over the M60A3.
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/d/d8/T62armour.jpg/700px-T62armour.jpg
T-62
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/9/9c/T72frontLOS.jpg/700px-T72frontLOS.jpg
T-72A
T-62 and T-72A for comparison.
The Steel Beast guys aren't perfect, but they know their armor and how its used.  For a tank to be playable, they have to have access to the specs and usually the tank itself.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/0/00/M1armour.jpg/600px-M1armour.jpg
M1 (105mm)
 
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/f/f0/M60frontarmour.jpg/600px-M60frontarmour.jpg
M-60A3 TTS
This is from Steel Beasts.  M1 plain vs M60A3.  Most of the guys doing this are non-US tankers who actually measured the physical armor for older tanks.  Even without the TIS, the M1 was a significant armor upgrade over the M60A3.
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/d/d8/T62armour.jpg/700px-T62armour.jpg
T-62
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/9/9c/T72frontLOS.jpg/700px-T72frontLOS.jpg
T-72A
T-62 and T-72A for comparison.
The Steel Beast guys aren't perfect, but they know their armor and how its used.  For a tank to be playable, they have to have access to the specs and usually the tank itself.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/3051734893994833911/?ctp=2#c3056238885199008946
An interesting post about 115mm (T-62) penetration and damage to Iranian Chieftain tanks.  Appears to be mostly from Iranian sources.  There is some info from British post battle investigations of Chieftain performance.   If you look through other posts in that thread there are a few other points of info.  Note the comment about damage to gunner sights.  Thats been the topic of more than a few CM discussions.
Might give some perspective on T-62 performance in CMCW.

I still play both CMAK and CMBB...more than CM2.  For games spanning the North Africa theater and early east front, they are are the only game in town.

Steel Beasts, basically since it more modern versions, has had formation movement.  That includes column, echelon, wedge, line, etc.  You can set spacing of the formation, speed, use cover, use road, reaction to enemy, etc.  One of my biggest frustrations with CM, and the reason I only play company-level scenarios, is the number of commands needed just for some simple movements.  Its not impossible to do.  Steel Beasts figured out how to do this a decade ago and at the same formation level as CM.
And they also have a relatively simple cut and paste function for routes, as well as a simple to use "follow roads" setting for a formation.  If you don't pay attention, you can still get units all bunged up on a road.  But I can set a battalion's worth of simple road movement orders in about two minutes in Steel Beasts.  Its that capability that has continued to limit my CM play time in a modern combat setting.
The short of it is, I would love to see CM have the capability.  But its been a twenty year forlorn hope.

There is a sweet spot for CM-sized battles.  And its much less than 1200 soldiers and 300+ vehicles.  Kind of surprised to see that as a scenario included in the game.

Dragons should kill BMPs pretty easily, and BMPs killing BMPs is an unfortunate side-effect of being a BMP

I think the biggest issue with tank crews is that experience and training levels really should only apply in vehicle.  Once out of vehicle, they should become at least green.

In Steel Beasts, and these guys are current and former tankers, the default is a 90 deg constant scan with 45 deg to each side of the point that the TC sets.  It can be widened and narrowed by order and SOP.  In fact, there are have been arguments from noobs about not having the constant scan.  But the experts all insisted that is an absolute part of maintaining situational awareness.
It should also be noted that more and more tech is being added to tanks to keep the TC buttoned...field phones, RWS, ITIS, etc.

I just went through Janes AFV 2004-2005 and 2008-2009.  Both show several pictures of the 1A5 with the box on the front.  Does that make it absolutely definitive?  No.  But its close.  Its the exact time period of CMSF (2008).  There were a total of four pics of the 1A5 and all had the box.  None of the 1A3s had them.  I have a couple more references I'll check.
btw, I have no issues with it.  Its so minor I'm surprised it even got a mention.
edit:  Just confirmed that Tankograd's 2007 book on the Marder also shows at least a dozen pics with the glacis-mounted stowage box.  In fact, in the description of the 1A5, they use that box and one on the back hull as the main recognizable external differences between the A3 and A5.  btw, it always kinda shocks me only about 4% of the Marders were ever upgraded to 1A5.