Bufo

Repeat after me:
- Abrams 
- Bradley 
- Thermals 
This trinity makes God mode in CMCW and in CMBS and everybody who disagrees is heretic.
 

I shouldn't have labeled this a "bug report" but doesn't this seem a little ridiculous?

Buy whatever the cheapest is, if they're the same buy direct from Battlefront. 

Buy it from Battlefront and add it to your steam library via Slitherine/MatrixGames. That way you have both options, steam and non-steam installation.

These issues make me want to drop the games entirely. If this is abstraction, I can make a video game for you in paint. It's abstracted though.

Didn't they fix M113 thermals already? I supposed they did it in the first and only patch for CMCW.
They are really slow at fixing their broken game to the extent that it seems they don't care. 
E.g. they still haven't fix mission 3 of the Soviet campaign that couldn't be completed. I reported this bug back in June, but they admitted it only recently when it was reported for the second time. 
And they still didn't patch it! 
No wonder people hesitate to buy it and Battlefront loses possible revenue. 
 

This one is so tough because ultimately it's more about what mood I am looking for.
That being said, I adore Black Sea.  Modern is just so much different and "better" in my opinion.  I really do fight different too depending on what side I am playing.  As the Americans it's so much fun to play with the tech and you really do fight a precision, high tech, low casualty, surgical type warfare that is noticeable.  However, on the other hand and to me, whenever I play the Russians or the Ukrainians it devolves down into some real bloody destructive warfare.  I guess I am less cautious with both and fight to their doctrines.  I really really enjoy playing both and have a thing for the Russian/Soviet tanks.  I love the modern T-72, as blind as it is, it does a superb job.  T-90s are just as fun and then playing the Ukrainian modern T-64s and 80s just does it for me.
Second, the BMP-3M.  I just LOVE the thing and it's insane firepower.  Too much fun.  I am ANXIOUSLY awaiting new content for Black Sea, can't wait.
I have a saved file of somewhere along in the Russian campaign of a T-90 backing up, under fire, shrugging off 3 incoming rounds with the ARENA system, and killing two and damaging a third UKR tank all in one minute, going backwards with all hell breaking loose in every direction.  Survived the whole thing without a scratch.  Good times.  I can only imagine the crew freaking out at their luck. 
But running closely behind all this is my love for SF2 as well.  All the different armies as well as the USMC is always soo much fun.  And now Cold War has immediately vaulted up very high as well.  I am highly anticipating more additions to come for CW too.  The funny thing is this all goes back to CM1 and playing only WWII.  Now, I hardly ever play WWII stuff. Modern all the way now. 

Knocked out Panthers.

Knocked out Panthers.

CMCW. Hands down. 

Parasite? That is an insult. But just from 1 member of the BFC/insiders group. Someone I have had on ignore mode for the last 6 or 7 years when they wouldn't "allow" me to use their map in a campaign I was making.
Steve phrased it in a nicer manner. I think he basically said that modders take the load off BFC so they don't have to go down certain developmental avenues (back alleys?). This is the classic bird sitting on the Rhino in Africa. A symbiotic relationship. And notice how I slipped the word Afrika in there! 🙂
 
 
 

1. Please, don't distract the discussion by referring to some vague artificial constructs like GNS. 
"- I have some bad news for you.
- What happened, doc?
- I'm sorry to tell you, but you diagnosed with GNS.
- Oh, no!"
2. It's great that you try to downplay my arguments by portraying me as some kind of "ideological warrior" spreading "conspiracy theories" against "pro-US agenda". 
In fact what I'm saying is that CMCW simulation could be improved in certain areas. To fix some flaws of new product is not shameful, and it's sad that you percieve all critical feedback as act of ideological agression. 
It's Battlefront game and of course Battlefront may make it in a way it wants. You mentioned many times how you see the general concept - Soviets use doctrine of mass and they are worse at spotting.
Ok, fine. Let it be this way, this concept. Why not?
But what Battlefront actually did was overkill. Soviet BRDMs with ATGM are blind, tanks are partially blind, Soviet ATGM have very poor hit probability that makes infamous Dragon look like the benchmark of reliability, despite that US sources give them up to 90% hit probability.
You clearly overdid it to the point that Soviets are absurdly weak and clueless. 
Is it a bias? Or is it a model that could be fixed to make a better and more realistic representation?
It seems to me that you chose "gamism" instead of "simulationism".
Anyway it doesn't matter because it extremly unlikely that you can ever doubt your "perfect" and "flawless" model. 
 
 

Yeah, you literally said:
"Spotting is also a percentage game. Doctrinally and in practice in CM, the Soviet method was to get as much mass on target as possible. The first tank to spot their opponent will usually win the engagement, but if you can get enough tanks on target at the same time, it doesn't matter which one spots first, as long as one of them does.

To model that with arbitrary values - we could give the US tank a 50% chance of getting the first spot in a given engagement. We'll arbitrarily make the Soviet tanks half as good as that - a 25% chance of getting the first spot.

One vs One, clearly the US tank will have a major advantage, but if there were three Soviet tanks, then the chances of *one* of them getting the first spot is 58%. Understanding this is absolutely fundamental to understanding how to play Soviet and Soviet-derived forces, and it's something the Tutorial scenarios do a really good job of teaching"
But in fact it meant something absolutely different. Ok!
 

Definitely, anyone who thinks the game is WYSIWYG is out of their mind, spotting is just RNG with a boatload of different factors that can increase or decrease your chances of spotting someone. Not inherently bad, in general I think it works well, but I think it could work so much better if the engine was modernized (or a new engine was developed) to take advantage of modern CPUs with better performance so we can have more frequent spotting cycles and more frequent "rolls of the dice" to prevent things like two tanks literally bumping into each other without one noticing the other.

One grenade from an RPG destroying 2 Bradleys:
 
 

 
 

Uh yeah. I make scenarios with simple AI plans for myself. Sometimes I just make scenarios and and play them PBEM without that.
I don't have to make an AI plan for attack/defense scenarios since AI planning would be too long for my personal enjoyment. Most of the scenarios I make are using the various master maps on the games. I have made well over 100 scenarios and I used to have my files public on these forums until I took them down after consideration for Battlefront. I have made plenty of scenarios with multiple AI plans as well. I never said I made any maps though.
 
I've created multiple master TOE's, from WW1 all the way to Black Sea. I typically use these when making my scenarios, to have a realistic basis to work from.
How can you take offense to this? I never said anything about your scenarios.
Futhermore I would have been done until the distasteful dev posted in reference to me.
Was that necessary?

One grenade from an RPG destroying 2 Bradleys:
 
 

 
 

One grenade from an RPG destroying 2 Bradleys:
 
 

 
 

They selected a proper name for the mission - it should be played in a way similar to chess puzzle. 
The map is bottlenecked, so the key is to transport the troops to the other side of the river, kick off enemy infantry at the heights and eliminate tanks and AFV. Only then it is possible to send in the tanks and cross the river (and even then casualties at the bridge were quite high).
I was happy I killed 2 Bradleys with artillery fire and 1 with ATGM. If Soviet 2500m range ATGMs were little more effective it would be much easier. I fired all ATGMs I had (I guess more than 10) and only 1 hit the target. 

I believed the same but then I found a post from Steve:
"there is a bonus for spotting things within an Arc"
Also:
"The spotting bonus is only within the colored area of the arc. Outside of that there's no bonus."
Links:
 

And people call me conspiracy theorist!😆

It was a faction of the Sicilian Mafia whose leader was a Combat Mission fan who put up the cash for Fortress Italy as he wanted to play a game set in his homeland. He was a really good player, proving "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line" !
 
 

If it is agreed that we are lacking any RL data on actual performance than it immediately raises the question... what data is CMCW based upon? 

Windows-Alt-PrintSc by pressing Windows-G you get the Windows App which opens in any Editing program.