Millien

Fair enough, thanks for the info regardless! Hopefully you'll be able to share more in the near future, but until whenever time that is it'll be wait and see.

Even if there isn't any images or models available to show at this time, would it be possible to share some of the broader strokes of what will be included? Such as the types of formations or vehicles included with the British or Canadians (Territorial or airborne forces with the British, Canadian reserves being present) or any new additions or changes to the existing factions in game (older equipment for the U.S., AT-7 no longer present in BTR MRBs before '79, VDV for the soviets? etc). It doesn't necessarily need to be any of these questions either, but I imagine many folks (me included) are very interested to see a glimpse for things that are going to be coming.

Probably a long shot but worth asking: Is one of the goals of the engine 5 upgrade to attempt to solve the current issues faced with many AMD GPU users such as visual glitches and crashes due to VRAM issues?

Starting to get the feeling we may not get the module this year.

Personally, I still had about 35% of the regiment still standing by the end of the campaign for the ride of the 120th, so I imagine we can get it down even further with the new module! On a more serious note, I have to say that the March or Die campaign is one of my favourites within the entire series, let alone Cold War itself. A lot of CM campaigns are oftentimes quite plodding or relatively forgiving in terms of opposition, losses, and expectations. While the 120th campaign is relatively short, sharp and feels like you are in genuine danger constantly. I could fire a PM into the air and hit NATO aircraft, and almost every mission has some kind of sucker punch to catch an aggressive or unprepared commander off balance, with very deadly results. It's unfair, the U.S. forces are designed and set up to destroy you easily, and you are stuck with T-62s and BTRs while facing off against M2s, TTS, or even worse threats. Every new mission, after the first three, has you taking stock of what is left of your degraded force and making compromises and solutions as to how to handle a new situation that is different from all the previous ones you have come across. And that is why it is excellent, it's under no illusions as to what things would look like for the Soviets in these circumstances, and it puts soviet doctrine and the player's ability to analyze the situation to the test every mission. It is certainly not for everyone, you need to accept losses, at times very large ones, and the ability to roll with the punches. But it's hard to imagine Cold War without such care put toward the design of the campaigns, and it is very exciting to hear similar levels for the BAOR module!

Can you clarify what version you installed for Visual C++? Many people have been running into problems with AMD GPUs and crashing with large scenarios, particularly with Cold War. The most recent problems don't seem to be tied to an AMD driver update, so if a different solution works, it would be great to get the word out on that more.

I decided to expand on my tests a little bit. I was slightly less scientific in terms of methodology this time around but I think the results are still fairly effective and overall a bit more widely applicable. I decided to take four vehicles with CITV systems from black sea. Besides the M1A2 this includes the M2A3, T-90AM, and T-84 Oplot. For this, I wanted to see whether or not turret down was possible with other vehicles. The vehicles would move up a reverse slope, spot the targets, and then reverse back down till they lost the spots. Assuming that turret down is possible on these vehicles they should still have full contacts or at the very least partial contacts that do not degrade once they are unable to engage the targets with their main weaponry. The target is just a typical BTR-82 platoon in a column about 400-500 meters away. This example below is what things looked like after a ceasefire, so everything is visible. Additionally, If turret down is not possible, what is the determining factor as to when a vehicle is in LOS of a target? Is it following a height map with different predefined heights shared between multiple vehicles, or does each vehicle have its own point of origin for LOS? Now if the LOS system for each vehicle was predetermined on a specific height table, that means each vehicle has a LOS height that is based on that table (Short, Tall, Very Tall Vehicles). This means that following the height map the T-84 and T-90AM should have the same LOS height origin (either short or tall). The Bradley is known to be able to see over objects the M1 was unable to, so we know this has to have a taller LOS point than any of the other vehicles (Very Tall, or possibly Tall if the M1A2 is short). The M1A2, on the other hand, will either be in its own category or follow the same height as the T-90AM and T-84 for drawing LOS to targets (Either Tall or Short if it shares the same height as the T-90 and T-84). If the LOS system is instead linked to a specific point on each vehicle, then that means that there will be a lot more minor fluctuations in terms of being able to draw LOS and spot targets, it may even be possible to discern differences between the T-90AM and T-84. It will also mean that any cut-off point for LOS will likely be linked to a physical feature on the vehicle which should theoretically be identifiable. At least in theory. So what do the results show? Above You see the M1A2 we have used previously. When testing this I drove the vehicles up so they saw the BTR platoon, then I backed them up slowly until they lost the spots. Here the spots for the M1A2 was lost just as the main gun was unable to draw LOS to the vehicles anymore, despite the turret sensors, commander, and 50 cal being able to clearly look over the slope. Now the M2A3, Unsurprisingly as the tallest vehicle the M2A3 is the farthest back on the slope when it lost the spots, placing it within its own category assuming a height map. What is interesting though is that it also lost the spots the moment the 25mm was unable to draw LOS to the vehicles, even though the CITV system, GPS, and TOW are still visible and still capable of engaging the target in real life. Now things are starting to get weird, Now we are looking at the T-84. This lost the spots it had before it was able to even have the gun barrel hidden by the terrain! Despite having partial LOS on the terrain according to the target order, it lost the solid contacts on the BTRs and they never came back. I'll talk in more detail on this in a moment but I'll just finish up the results first. Finally, the 90AM. This was able to back up and lose the spots just after the gun barrel had lost direct LOS to the targets, the CITV, and maybe the GPS, could theoretically see the targets in real life as well. It was noticeably further back than the T-84 but it was still short of the M1A2 and M2A3. So this is also within its own category. So for the most obvious conclusion and most widely applicable. Turret Down does not seem to be an applicable tactic with any of the above vehicles, they will be unable to draw LOS and spot targets unless they are able to engage them at the very least. Possibly even more. While I didn't include any pictures, I tried this with commanders both turned out and buttoned up and the results were virtually identical. My suspicion is that this may ring true for most if not every vehicle in CM, but I'll get to the why of that in a moment. But what about the way that LOS is able to be drawn? is it a predetermined height shared between multiple vehicles, or is it specific to each vehicle? While I am unable to be entirely conclusive, the evidence seems to favour the vehicle LOS points are unique to each vehicle rather than pulled from a height map with three distinct choices.With three out of four vehicles losing LOS the moment the main gun disappears behind the slope and never returning. The only exception was the T-84, which for some reason lost the spots on target prior to being fully out of LOS. Realistically the reason that the T-84 is so different from the T-90AM is within all likelihood a bug. Although it offers interesting implications as to why its happened, it could have happened with either model. If it is the height table, the T-84 may have been given an even shorter height on accident, like kneeling height for instance. Alternatively, the height map for the T-90 and M1A2 is the same and I just didn't notice how close the vehicles were together in the test. If it's following a unique LOS point for each vehicle then that would mean the origin point for LOS on the T-84 is significantly misplaced resulting in the difference. I think I will redo these tests with a bit more care into how far exactly each vehicle backs up till they lose LOS, and add a couple more vehicle types to increase confidence. But from casual observation, it seems more likely to me that the LOS of many vehicles will be tied to the main gun in some fashion, and the main gun alone, rather than a height map or other physical points on the vehicle (sensors and optics, turned out crew, periscopes, etc). This is also an explanation as to why turret down failed to function for any of the above vehicles as well. There are probably exceptions to this if it was the case, vehicles like the BRDM-2 ATGM carriers definitely do not trace LOS from the ATGM tubes, they need to have some of the hull exposed to be able to see and engage targets. Other systems like the Wirbelwind with multiple barrels, and even bow machine guns on ww2 tanks will likely have their own specific quirks as well. That will only be answered through more testing though. I am also curious about Cold War as well, the M60 is quite tall compared to most other tanks in the series, and the M901 and M150 offer some unique opportunities to test as well, which I or someone else can touch on in the future. Additionally, @Brille, if it wouldn't be too much trouble could you let me know what vehicles you used which had turret down work with them that would be great, thank you!

That is possible, yeah. Although I think it would be pretty difficult to test ourselves. I think a possible alternative would be testing additional vehicles. See if the sight systems for those follow the same criteria as seen here with the M1A2. M2A3, T-90AM, and Oplot-M would be pretty good examples. They all have pretty large CITVs at different heights. If those work while the M1A2 doesn't, then it's specific to the M1A2. If not, then it's a larger-scale problem.

Thank you for posting some of this on the forum, although I want to add a bit more context and information about my own thoughts on this. First, I am not going to make any conclusion on whether it is better to be turned out or not at this point in the M1. None of my tests indicated anything that would appear to indicate one way or another. However, neither the CITV nor CROWs system appear to scan around the vehicle as would likely be expected. Instead they seem to remain fixed forward in line with the turret front like the gunner's main sight. This isn't seen by the tests above though but with some smoke tests I had done prior: These M1A2 SEPs are facing away from the smoke screen, one facing at approximately 90*, the other 180* away. Both vehicles are turned in, where the commander is presumably using the CITV or CROWs system to spot targets. Neither is able to identify any partial contacts on the BMP-2 platoon sitting on the far side of the smoke screen about 400 meters away though. These BMP-2s drove up about two minutes after the smoke screen started and have been sitting here for about a minute with nothing from the M1s, this will continue as well: It isn't until nearly 5 minutes that anything happens when a BMP-2 that was facing towards the smoke screen managed to spot and engage one of the M1A2 in a gap in the smoke after the mission ended. As can be seen here, the vehicle that is being hit still hasn't ID'd any partial contacts even though it's taking fire at this point, and the subsystems and soft factors are not at fault here as far as I can tell. And in case anyone is wondering that for some reason that these tanks are unable to spot targets through a smoke screen this intense, let's run it again and allow me to turn one of the tanks toward the smoke screen and see the results: The M1 spotted the BMP platoon basically instantly as it rolled over the ridge and was engaged and destroyed in less than a minute, the BMP-2s never saw a thing. So in my conclusion, the CITV and CROWs system does not scan around the vehicle, these vehicles can still get spots on targets coming up behind them without a smoke screen so the commander or loader is inherently keeping their head on a swivel but the moment the smoke screen is up they are entirely blind until the turret faces the smoke screen, or the smoke clears enough to see through it with the Mk 1 eyeball. What about the second part with the line of sight though? Well, that's more interesting and it makes me wonder about some of the deeper parts of the game as a result. We saw above the M1 was unable to ID targets over the wall, is that a problem with the wall though? Simply put, no. The stryker here is quite close in terms of height to the M1, the CROWs system is about the same height too, but the stryker can not only ID but engage targets on the other side of the wall while the M1 remains oblivious apart from possible horizontal sharing of contacts. The M2A3 here is quite tall and can look over the wall with the 25mm bushmaster, so it can happily engage the BMP platoon as seen here. So why does this happen? This is more speculation on my part and I can't infer beyond these three vehicles. But what I think is happening is that the LOS checks on the turret are tied to the main gun. The big difference here is that the M2A3 and the Stryker have main weapon systems that are taller than the wall, so they can draw LOS. While the M1 main gun is blocked by the wall, so it is unable to draw any LOS beyond it, even if the sensors, CROWS weapon system, and the commander are able to physically see over the wall. Now it's possible that this is due to the testing conditions, the wall might work differently than other terrain and I didn't test that. It's also possible this is something specific to the M1A2 SEP in black sea. But here's my theory: IF the main weapon system on a turret is unable to draw direct LOS to a target, then it will be unable to see that target regardless of any other factors. Now I hope both of these results are specific to the M1A2. Cause if either is more universal that would actually be somewhat troubling. Especially the second as I have done a lot of turret-down positions with commanders peering above walls or hills but if that actually doesn't do anything that's wasted effort and misleading. Regardless I welcome additional perspectives and tests here, and if anyone is interested you can try the scenarios I created to test this out here: wall test v3.btt smoke test.btt