holoween

Its not fundamentally broken but the examples do show that there are certain situations where the CM simulation doesnt match up to what you would expect.

I am a tanker.
In general id say tanks are spotted far too easily in hulldown positions and when los is broken up like shooting through trees etc.
They are also far too hard to spot in the open or when moving across the field of view.

Its not fundamentally broken but the examples do show that there are certain situations where the CM simulation doesnt match up to what you would expect.

Its not fundamentally broken but the examples do show that there are certain situations where the CM simulation doesnt match up to what you would expect.

I am a tanker.
In general id say tanks are spotted far too easily in hulldown positions and when los is broken up like shooting through trees etc.
They are also far too hard to spot in the open or when moving across the field of view.

On a range it doesnt make a difference (and the scenario discussed above is basically a range scenario) but even in open country there is no distincton between thermals and primary sight.
The absolute longest you can take is while shooting under emergency conditions using the backup turret drives (which are very slow), the backup sight and manual ranging and then you have a max of 30s. And do note that isnt shooting at full sizd tanks but targets that only represent the internal volume.
And the looking through a soda straw effect really doesnt matter at 2000m. For the primary daysight with the highest magnification it stopps being a noticable hindrance at 3-400m and lower magnification backup sights or the thermal low magnification push that way down. Yes youre never able to see everything at once but scanning is a thing.

On a range it doesnt make a difference (and the scenario discussed above is basically a range scenario) but even in open country there is no distincton between thermals and primary sight.
The absolute longest you can take is while shooting under emergency conditions using the backup turret drives (which are very slow), the backup sight and manual ranging and then you have a max of 30s. And do note that isnt shooting at full sizd tanks but targets that only represent the internal volume.
And the looking through a soda straw effect really doesnt matter at 2000m. For the primary daysight with the highest magnification it stopps being a noticable hindrance at 3-400m and lower magnification backup sights or the thermal low magnification push that way down. Yes youre never able to see everything at once but scanning is a thing.

On a range it doesnt make a difference (and the scenario discussed above is basically a range scenario) but even in open country there is no distincton between thermals and primary sight.
The absolute longest you can take is while shooting under emergency conditions using the backup turret drives (which are very slow), the backup sight and manual ranging and then you have a max of 30s. And do note that isnt shooting at full sizd tanks but targets that only represent the internal volume.
And the looking through a soda straw effect really doesnt matter at 2000m. For the primary daysight with the highest magnification it stopps being a noticable hindrance at 3-400m and lower magnification backup sights or the thermal low magnification push that way down. Yes youre never able to see everything at once but scanning is a thing.

At 2000m in good conditions it shuld never take more than a few seconds to spot a tank. Background clutter and nearby buildings etc shouldnt matter.
To give you a rl reference for how much time it should take: for german gunner qualification you have 15s from targets popping up to hitting them otherwise its counted as a miss.

One point that I think has been missing from this discussion are the broader C4ISR factors.  CM models not only point to point LOS but also factors in overall C4ISR quality via the C2 modelling along with soft factors like leadership and morale.  Here, in CMCW timeframe anyway, the US has the advantage as it had begun to really invest in C4ISR as an offset strategy to the Soviet overmatch in mass.  
So when a group of tanks "see" in game, it takes into account inputs that would be coming via C2 and comms.  
I think the whole "BFC = US/NATO fanbois!" is wholly undeserved.  They certainly do not model this way in the WW2 titles, CMSF2 is asymmetrical by design and CMBS might be a snap shot of the back end of US superiority - this game engine is aching for a Taiwan or Baltics 2040.  For CMCW, well the (louder) critics need to make up their minds, we have seen as much "The Soviets are broken!" as we have seen "WFT happened to the US?!"  No model is perfect but I suspect that in CMCW timeframe both sides are evenly matched at the tactical level and players need to learn the strengths and weaknesses of both sides...kinda why we went with 79-82 in the first place.  

Alternate history is always a really tricky subject, for as long as one changes enough variables one can ALWAYS imagine a way one outcome or another could've been achieved. Could Barbarossa have been won? Yes, absolutely, provided enough variables are changed. However since most of us are probably far more interested in what could realistically have happened, I'll give my thoughts as to how German could have "won" Barbarossa while changing as few variables from history as possible. These are based off my own research as well as an extended campaign in Gary Grigsby's War in the East where victory was indeed achieved.
1.) How do you achieve victory in war? Two ways. You either break your opponents' will to fight, or you destroy their means with which to prosecute war. Germany lost WWII because of the latter reason, whilst Russia lost WWI because of the former. 
For all the damage the purges did to the Soviet military, it seems clear that they did help in that Stalin and his cronies had a very firm grip on their country, and given the German war aims it is unlikely that either the Soviet leadership or the Soviet people would lose their will to fight first. Thus, victory could only be achieved by destroying the means.
2.) In the case of the Soviet Union that is rather hard to do! It is a big country with a much larger population than Germany, and it is arguably the case that no single area in the Soviet Union was invaluable to their war effort. With all this in mind, for Germany to win they would need to appreciate these twin-fold difficulties in triggering any Soviet surrender. The challenge then is to formulate an operational strategy for removing the Soviet means to fight. I believe that for this two happen they would need to try to achieve two core operational aims:
a) Reach the historical AA line (or close to it).
b) Deplete the Soviet population and manpower reserves to the point where they cannot hope to reconquer their lost territories. Lend-lease could make up for a great deal of supply difficulties, but lend-lease cannot replace men! It is also stated in numerous places that Soviet manpower reserves were not inexhaustible, and that they too were taking extraordinary measures in this regard at a relatively early stage. The reason they did not ultimately bleed themselves dry historically is because they were eventually able to lower the casualty exchange ratio to a point in their favour whilst simultaneously regaining new manpower reserves from their reconquered territories (partisans, Poles, Romanians, etc.).
3.) So, from the start, Germany needs to be ready for a 2-4 year campaign. Industrial production would need to be adjusted for this expectation (and this was totally within the means of 1941 Germany to do), and operational aims would need to adjust to it as well. As far as Barbarossa is concerned, I believe just two things need to change for the first year to be considered a success:
a) Take Leningrad (or at least guarantee its fall in early 1942). This firmly secures the north flank, helps alleviate supply difficulties in the north and definitively removes the Soviet Baltic fleet as a threat. I explore what is probably the most feasible way to do this in the following AHF thread. https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=255587
b) As soon as the first stage of Typhoon is completed and the Vyazma-Briansk pockets eliminated, stop. It's my understanding that the German high command debated the relative merits of digging in in late 1941 or trying to take Moscow before year's end, so there's no reason to believe that this option may have ended up being the one taken if more thought was given to the necessity of being in a good defensive position for the winter. If they had dug in at the start of November 1941 instead of later then they would've been in a far better position to deal with the Soviet winter counteroffensive and therefore sustain far fewer losses in men and materiel during the first winter. They thus would hold a line along the rough axis Lake Ladoga-Demyansk-Vyazma-Kharkov-Mius. 
4.) This also sets them up well for 1942. In 1942, the goal should be to feign a threat towards Moscow (something the Soviets tried very hard to preempt historically) whilst achieving everything Blau did historically, with two exceptions:
a) Don't bleed the 6. Armee dry in Stalingrad!
b) Make sure that the extended flanks of Army Group South are well defended. This could probably have been achieved historically if enough equipment was shipped to the Axis allies and enough armour reserves were available to counter Soviet armoured breakthroughs. Again, this seems wholly within the realm of possibility. 
5.) Now it's the spring of 1943. The Germans have suffered no catastrophic defeats, whilst the Soviets have suffered huge losses in territory and manpower through both German victories as well as failed attempts to achieve offensive success of their own (similar to how they did at Rzhev and Yelnya historically). Now the Germans can launch an attack to seize Astrakhan and Makhachkala (on the Caspian Sea) and thereby cut off the rest of the Soviet Union from Baku. It may also well be possible to launch an attack that will finally capture Moscow this year also. 
6.) At that point it's simply a matter of continuing to attrite the Soviets until the Soviet leadership is forced to concede the loss of most of the western Soviet Union. I imagine this would happen no later than the end of 1944, for if the Germans still have a capable land force then they have the ability to both launch opportune encirclements of Soviet forces in either offense or defense. 
This, I think, is the most realistic pathway for Germany to achieve victory in the East as they had originally intended. Fortunately for the rest of us, such a thing never came to pass!

I am running this at "a Few Good Men" site and if you are not a member, there is no cost to join if you are interested.
Below is a general discription of the format (and yes it requires you to mail turns through dropbox to play)
 
This Combat Mission Cold War tournament consist of 5 rounds; one battle for each round, each battle lasting 30 minutes or less.

Players are required to do approx 5 turns a week at a minimum.

Format: Players will be given a selected force. The mission will be to do the best they can with the situation they have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle. In other words, the side given to the player could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and they have won and will be given a point value as to how they have done.

Winners will get a score of somewhere between 80 to 100 points per match depending on how they have performed to each other. so best player will receive 100 points, lowest winner will receive 80 points, and everyone else is somewhere in between.
Scoring in scenarios will be one's score minus the opponents score (as to how they will be selected for the top 50%).
Each player will be in charge of a different Nations forces throughout the 5 battles, so skill with all forces will be a factor. as well as both offensive and defensive skills.
Battles are designed generally to be short and intense ( I have been keeping all battles at 30 minutes or less.).
A dropbox folder is to be maintained with a invite to the Tournament master (Slysniper), This will provide me access to the game files if for any reason we need to replace a player or verify slow play issues. Please name the dropbox files in a method that I can tell who is vs who (exam: Jtimo vs grunt match1).
Game files shall stay in the dropbox folder and not be deleted until the Gamemaster (@SlySniper) has copied and removed them.
No surrender at any time is allowed. if you want to end a game early, then use cease fire with both players agreeing to those terms, if one player wants to play on instead, allow him to do so until he is satisfied. It is in your own best interest to put up the best fight you can no matter what. (No one wants to be that guy that has the best score posted against him)

If for any reason a player needs to drop out of game play, just contact me and let me know of your intentions and I will make sure any non-completed game will be finished for the remaining opponent.
 
 
This format has been received very well and this is going to be the third Tornament under this format.

It was. Snorkeling a tank was never meant to be done anywhere near a battlefield, so it is well outside the scope of CM. 

As an aside the ranges are a large reason why Cold War is such a strong title, assuming you're playing on a sufficiently large map. 1km for squad-level ATGMs means that on a map that has at least 3km in one direction, there's suddenly a ton of room for manoeuvre. You don't have the CMSF problem of your Abrams platoon rolling out from the deployment zone to a decent hill and just sitting there until the match is over. The 4km maps that CM can manage are arguably a little too small for Black Sea and Shock Force (and most of their maps in game, especially Quick Battle maps, are far too small - 6km might be fine), but they suit Cold War perfectly, and give you plenty of room for a battalion-sized Soviet force to do it's thing.

While i cant compare the Leopard2 to other afvs noise levels are unlikely to be the reason for the modern caps. In practice almost no tanker actually uses them. They all take the ear pieces and convert them to a headset.

Interesting article.
I think its better put as ineffective against armies that are capable of dealing with it via equipment and training.
Everything else stated is somewhat questionable.

When I do an internet search on the title, this comes up:
https://pro.matrixgames.com/game/combat-mission-professional-edition

I would not assume a gun was out of action unless I could see a whole hit decal on it. Often a non penetrating hit will disable it too but not always. Frankly I subscribe to the real life SOP - it it's not currently burning put a round into it.

While the stugs tend to get destroyed less quickly they lose combat ability just as quickly. 6 pz4 gives more tactical flexibility. 6pz4 will also sit at higher veterancy.
So overall the stugs are better if fighting oponents up to basic shermans at ranges above 600m. Otherwise more pz4 or fewer panthers are better.

Looking at the CMFB qb points for german afvs it seems to me that they really arent priced based on actual performance.
It goes from 241points for a pz4j early to 418points for a king tiger. Unless the battle is on tiny there will rarely be a reason outside of rarity to not go for the heaviest german tanks possible.

You didn't offend anyone or do anything wrong - it was a good question. There's just another participant in this discussion that doesn't like being corrected. 

Where do i even start
Your previous post contained 1 true but unrelated statement and one that is arguable aside from that every single thing you said was wrong yet you feel the need to tell someone elst to read. Especially since i do take the time to actually test what im talking about ingame.
they are using 500 yards to give a size for the beaten zone. They have to because the size and shape of the beaten zone changes with range and the ground youre shooting at. That doesnt mean all their shown positions are at 500yards.
i assume with indirect fire youre talking about fire from what the video calls Position Defilade. Youre only able to do that at longer ranges. Note how its demonstraded once and never actually used throughout the rest of the video except where they talk about supporting advancing infantry with overhead fire and specifically note the long range required on flat ground makes it "unsatisfactory"
 

I didnt adress it because 1 it isnt particularly relevant to general troop survivability as it can only be used at fairly long range and at those ranges it doesnt make a big difference and 2 because it isnt particularly relevant to the issue of supressing.
The game depicts historical oob. The mortars are there because they historically were.
I ight have different standards to you but at best that mg fire covers 10m of that wall barely more than a single action square. Thats not shifting fire for me.
While true its irrelevant to the discussion on the capabilities a specific weapons system should have.
1 Depends on the situation and your fire doctrine.
2 2500rounds
3 3:20-2:40min for 4k rounds
4 It shoots at 125rpm exactly the same as the us hmg at 300m. And 190rpm vs 160rpm at 100m.

That i cant effectively use a hmg for supression because the game will only let me target one action square per turn even though this is the only role hmgs have on the offense is the core issue here.
That i could use other assets doesnt change the fact that the hmg cant perform as it should
I almost entirely play against other humans. It does however only make the issue more aparent as against the ai it really doesnt matter.