FredLW

If RT was to be expanded, I would like to see it go back in time, maybe to June 1942. I would like to see some of the older German panzers try to kill a KV-1 with a Panzer III H or J short 50. Maybe throw some of the early lend lease vehicles into the mix like the Lee, Matilda, Churchill even add the T-60 and other earlier examples of the T-34. I would love to see a scenario for Stalingrad and Kursk where all of the vehicles are from that time period and not taking a Panzer III G from an Ad Hoc group in 1945 and trying to make it work in 1942-43.

All people who love cm will be willing to lose such a gamble

f for french
r for russian
b for british
etc

Lower front is definitely a week spot. In CMRT, 100mm and 122mm can easily penetrate this part <1000m. 
 
A little OT. I know there were some discussion before. People says TacAI is aiming at the center part of the AFV.  I have noticed that in dozen cases a fully exposed KT or Panther received first hit through a penetration on lower front hull.  This cannot be explained by lucky shots. My feeling is TacAI intentionally aiming at the weak point.  
Of course this is just my impression from dozen cases, it needs some more testing to confirm this is true.
 

not in game, Panther has weaker side armour, even regular U.S. 75mm AP can KO a Panther from the sides at 600 meters.

If it was a direct hit, that probably should not have happened.....It's more or less the same as taking a direct hit from a destroyer!
If the shell impacted on the armour the Tiger the crew should be going benny-mental.....There are descriptions from crews of their tanks 'ringing like a bell' and of being able to see daylight through the weld-seams after ISU rounds exploded on their armour. 
Needless to say, the tanks broke and the crew didn't stay in them to find out exactly how long it would take for the welds to crack completely and for the turret roof to fall on their heads!
Here's some of their handiwork on Panthers:

:

It helps to use the right names.
SU-122 (T-34 chassis, very short gun):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-122
The SU-122 was an assault gun akin to the StuH.42, not a tank hunter.....The tank hunters of the T-34 family were the SU-85 and later the SU-100 (& SU-85M).
ISU-122 (IS-2 Chassis, long gun with no muzzle brake, same mantlet as ISU-152):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-122
ISU-122S (IS-2 chassis, long gun with muzzle brake, new ball shaped mantlet):

This is the one to go hunting big cats with! 

The first part is to control the game. If you know programs like AutoClicker that let you specify a sequence of mouse clicks and repeat it... you can program something similar with python, which has tools that allow you to emulate keystrokes and mouse clicks (PyAutoGUI). So, I have a loop that clicks in various places on the screen, pressing the buttons I need in the right sequence and with the right time delays in between, like a human would.
The second part is to process what is happening on the screen. For this I save a screenshot (by having Fraps running in the background and by emulating an F10 press). Again, python has tools (PIL) to load an image file and, for example, look at individual pixel values. I know where to expect the tank unit icons that have been spotted. If there is a bunch of black pixels nearby, it means that there is a solid contact on an enemy unit in that position. No black pixels = it is either a tentative contact or nothing.
The screenshot taking part is quite inefficient - I would prefer reading the pixels right off the screen, without saving anything to the disk. But I haven't found any library that would do that with CM. They just return the main menu screen, same as when you use printscreen in the game.
I have no idea how the magic works inside those libraries I linked to. I just have some basic understanding of how to use them.
I hope some of those words make sense 

@Drifter Man Are you planning to test the Puma's spotting, too? They are rarely used due of rarity, but are sometimes seen in scenarios.
Yesterday had a scenario where my four Pumas had lots of trouble spotting suppressed AA guns just apprx 400m away... so I was wondering how well those things actually spot.

I'd love to know how you did that.....Probably wouldn't understand a word of it if you told me, but all the same! 

Very interesting. 
Not sure how useful it would be in game though.

The single number "overall spotting rating" is basically the average of the spotting rating over all distances - e.g. of the curves that I am showing in the subsequent plots.
I can't tell if/how the game factors in binoculars, but what I can read from the last plot is that the commander being outside of the vehicle makes a smaller contribution to the overall spotting as the distance increases, with the exception of very close range (200 m). At 400 meters, about 80% of the spotting comes from him. At 1400 meters it may be 60-70%. He still matters a great deal, even at long ranges.
As a consequence of this, at close ranges there isn't much difference among the tanks when opened up because the tank commander does most of the successful spotting, and all tank commanders spot equally well (experience etc. being equal). As the range increases, the differences between the vehicles in the vision ports/optics available to the crew start affecting the spotting ability of the vehicle (I'm talking about the vehicles with all around protection here).

An update on the spotting tests. First, overall spotting rating (remember - it is a measure of spotting ability in the forward direction at 200-1400 meters, relative to the Pz IVH). It confirms the previous find that open topped vehicles spot far better than fully protected ones and are nearly unaffected by being buttoned up.

Second, I also plotted the spotting rating as a function of distance for selected fully protected vehicles (the trends tend to be the same for all) when opened up. At close range (200 m), there is little difference in the spotting ability among the different vehicles. As the range extends, some gain an increasing advantage of up to 15-20% over the reference Pz IV. If you have a vehicle that can spot well, it is advantageous to engage at a longer range. If you have one that doesn't, you may be able to reduce this handicap by getting closer.
I have included an outlier - the SU-85/SU-100/SU-122. It spots poorly at close ranges. I have only seen this behavior with this one and with the T-70. The heavy assault guns (ISU) do not have this problem.

The same plot including a representative of the open-top gang, for perspective.

The same plot with hatches closed. At 200 m the spotting improves and being buttoned up is less of a disadvantage than at 400 m. From 400 m up, the disadvantage of being buttoned up gradually decreases with range. Unless you have a SU-85/SU-100/SU-122, which again does its own thing.

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.

Despite all these years and tests of all kinds, we still discover or confirm things, that says a lot about the depth and complexity of this game.
I love reading this kind of test
  thank you Drifter Man

The right answer would be "I don't know" because I would have to test every tank against every tank to be sure.
But I assume that qualitatively the system works the same for any AFV. Some will benefit more from having crew hatches open and some will benefit less, or maybe the effect of concealment will be less important for a big tank than for a small one. But it is always better to be in tall grass than on bare ground. It is always better to be stationary than to be moving when the enemy is watching. As I said, the tests did not reveal anything revolutionary, but they confirmed some common pieces of CM wisdom about using tanks.

I don't seek out armor duels because they are a bit like tossing a coin, but they come up again and again. So I was interested to learn what I can do to maximize the chances for my tank in a duel if it gets into one.
So I put two identical Pz IVH (late) tanks with regular crews, no modifiers, against each other at 600 m range. I called one "Attacker" and the other "Defender", although it does not mean anything. I put both on a mild slope (partial hull down) and varied different conditions. Crew hatches open/closed, vehicle movement, terrain type, crew experience. I ran each case at least 1000 times and recorded the percentage of wins by each side. A 'win' means that the other vehicle was destroyed or the crew bailed out. If both vehicles were alive after 5 minutes, neither side won - usually one vehicle got hit and retreated back down the slope. If neither vehicle survived, both sides got a win.
The tables show the win rate on each side. The statistics were not perfect even with 1000 duels per case. Results of repeat runs could vary by up to +/- 3%. Notably I did not get a perfectly symmetric results even for reference cases R1 and R4 where the vehicles had identical conditions on both sides. So, don't take the numbers as the absolutely accurate truth. They just show what works.
Pz IVH was a good tank for this purpose because it can easily kill itself - powerful gun and vs weak armor. Therefore, the duels were mainly about who is able to spot first and land the first round accurately on target.
I did not find anything revolutionary - mostly stuff people already know and do - but it was still interesting to see the numbers. Here it is:
1. Keep your crew hatches open when expecting to fight an enemy AFV. If you can, force the enemy to close theirs.
Table 1. Effect of crew hatches open/closed. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
49%
49%
Closed
Open [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Open
Open
76%
21%
Closed
2. Minimize movement when within enemy LOS. Stop as soon as your vehicle can see the place where the enemy is (represented with the "Hull Down" command in the table below, which gives additional advantage of being harder to see and hit due to being hull down; this is not to say that the Hull Down command is always useable, but it worked here well because the Attacker was going up the slope). Movement makes you more visible - and it does not appear to matter what kind of movement command you use - in fact the faster movement commands seem to work a bit better.
Table 2. Effect of vehicle movement. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using different movement commands. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Hunt [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Stationary
Slow
35%
63%
Stationary
Move
39%
59%
Stationary
Quick
42%
56%
Stationary
Fast
41%
57%
Stationary
Hull Down
61%
29%
Stationary
Quick: Minimizes the time interval when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Therefore, Quick works well as it gets the attacker into position quickly, whereas Slow works poorly.
Hull Down: Better cover than the Defender and minimizes time when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Also: Easier to disengage when damaged – probably for both sides. High percentage of duels with no winner.
3. If you have to Hunt, point 1. about crew hatches still applies and can reverse the odds in your favor.
Table 3. Effect of crew hatches open/closed while the Attacker is moving. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using Hunt. The Defender is stationary. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
37%
60%
Closed
Open [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Open
Open
64%
34%
Closed
Closed
14%
82%
Open
4. Target arc can serve various purposes but does not help with seeing or hitting the enemy. TRP helps, likely by increasing the chances of a first hit.
Table 4. Effect of using Target Armor Arc and Target Reference Point (TRP). Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
No arc [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] No arc
Target Armor Arc
50%
49%
No arc
TRP on Defender
72%
28%
No TRP
Note: Target Arc can still help by pointing the gun and the Commander’s attention to the right direction if the vehicle is not moving directly towards the defender. Also, it prevents distraction of the Attacker by other, low-priority targets.
5. Ground type can provide some help by concealment. Tall types of grass (T and TY), Weeds, Brush, Lt Forest (without trees) and Crop 1 give a small advantage over hard or bare surfaces. Very tall types of crops (2-6) and Grass XT give significant advantage. There is no disadvantage in being on road or pavement compared to grass, but sand, mud and cobblestone seem to hurt a little, possibly because they lower the chances of disengaging when retreating in damaged condition.
Trees are complicated and depend on type. Type A trees are somewhat helpful if there are 2 or 3 on the tile. Type B trees are not helpful at all. Type C trees seem to be best, especially if there are 2 or 3. Type D trees are somewhat helpful independently on their number. Type E are like Type A. Bush does not make much of a change.
Stone and brick walls and low bocage give some advantage - can be concealment as well as cover. But bocage is the big one. A tank behind bocage almost always wins against a tank in open ground.
Table 5a. Effect of Defender ground type – bare surfaces, hard surfaces and roads. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass
45%
51%
Dirt
Grass
47%
50%
Dirt Red
Grass
49%
48%
Hard
Grass
50%
48%
Rocky
Grass
49%
49%
Rocky Red
Grass
52%
47%
Sand
Grass
52%
47%
Mud
Grass
50%
49%
Pavement 1
Grass
50%
50%
Pavement 2
Grass
52%
47%
Cobblestone
Grass
47%
51%
Gravel
Grass
46%
49%
Dirt Lot
Grass
49%
48%
Dirt Road
Grass
47%
50%
Gravel Road
Grass
51%
48%
Paved 1
Grass
48%
51%
Paved 2
Grass
47%
49%
Foot Path
Sand, Mud, Cobblestone (?): Can impair movement, possibly making retreat of a damaged vehicle slower and less likely to succeed before the Attacker fires another accurate shot.
Table 5b. Effect of Defender ground type – low vegetation and cultivated fields. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass
Grass
50%
47%
Grass Y
Grass
50%
48%
Clover
Grass
50%
48%
Flowers
Grass
49%
50%
Plow NS
Grass
50%
50%
Plow EW
Grass
43%
57%
Grass T
Grass
43%
55%
Grass TY
Grass
44%
54%
Weeds
Grass
44%
55%
Grass + Brush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
[R3] Lt Forest
Grass
42%
57%
Crop 1
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 2
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 3
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 4
Grass
40%
58%
Crop 5
Grass
39%
59%
Crop 6
Grass
38%
60%
Grass XT
Table 5c. Effect of Defender ground type – foliage. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass, no foliage
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
42%
54%
Grass + 3x Type A Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
46%
Grass + 2x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
47%
Grass + 3x Type B Tree
Grass
43%
52%
Grass + 1x Type C Tree
Grass
33%
62%
Grass + 2x Type C Tree
Grass
32%
62%
Grass + 3x Type C Tree
Grass
44%
52%
Grass + 1x Type D Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type D Tree
Grass
40%
55%
Grass + 3x Type D Tree
Grass
50%
47%
Grass + 1x Type E Tree
Grass
42%
55%
Grass + 2x Type E Tree
Grass
41%
55%
Grass + 3x Type E Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type A Bush
Grass
52%
47%
Grass + 2x Type A Bush
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 3x Type A Bush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
 [R3] Lt Forest, no foliage
Grass
44%
54%
Lt Forest + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
39%
57%
Lt Forest + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
37%
59%
Lt Forest + 3x Type A Tree
1x Tree: Can be detrimental because it does not provide enough concealment and can trigger APHE shells passing high, wounding the exposed Commander.
Table 5d. Effect of Defender ground type – walls and fences. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R4]
48%
51%
[R4] Grass
Grass
46%
54%
Grass + Stone
Grass
47%
52%
Grass + Brick
Grass
 
 
Grass + Rural Stone
Grass
43%
55%
Grass + Low Bocage
Grass
7%
89%
Grass + Bocage
6. Crew experience - there is a big change from Green to Regular to Veteran, but Crack gives little advantage over Veteran.
Table 6. Effect of crew Experience. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Green
33%
66%
Regular
Regular
36%
61%
Veteran
Veteran
44%
57%
Crack
Green
20%
78%
Veteran
Regular
32%
67%
Crack
Green
18%
82%
Crack

Hopefully, what Steve said will address this:

I really appreciate CMFR content. One of the best - if not the best - campaigns among all CM games I played.
But I absolutely agree with @Monty's Mighty Moustache that the amount of Lendlease equipment  looks  absolutely inappropriate and  artificial. What even worse practically the majority of CMFR single missions are also made for Lendlease fans. So basically there is no way to play Soviets playing Soviets. 

Haven't played Rome to Victory but Fire & Rubble is really, really good. Night at the Opera has an absolutely epic feeling to it and To Berlin is just perfection. I wish every campaign played like To Berlin does.

FR has 5 new campaigns.
FR BROKEN SHIELDS, MEDIUM
FR NIGHT AT THE OPERA SOVIETS, LARGE
FR NIGHT AT THE OPERA AXIS, LARGE
FR BATTLE OF TUKUMS, HUGE
FR TO BERLIN, MEDIUM
~~~~
AND A NEW COMMUNITY RELEASED CAMPAIGN
FR BREAKTHROUGH TO KOVEL
~~~~~~~~~~
AND I AM WORKING ON SOME SMALL/TINY CAMPAIGNS FOR CMRT
 

Using Steam is optional, you can continue using the battlefront installation

Once the WWII games get transferred to Steam, (being the only ones i own), what does this actually mean? You just sign up to Steam and play as "normal"? What are the benefits of this? Will Steam be the only platform the games are accessible in the future? Also, what could be the downside of this?
Soz for all the questions, would like to know the pro,s n con,s before signing up to anything.

If you are still unsure of what to focus on for the CMFI battle pack may I make a suggestion? I would like to see it focused on some of the Allied nations who aren't very well represented. Most of the game's stock scenarios are either the US or British armies. The Brazilians, French, Canadians, and Indians only have 2 each I believe. The New Zealanders only have one (very small) scenario. I would love for the focus to be on these guys. Other than that, thanks for making a great product and providing me with hours of entertainment.

Great!