Grey_Fox

Windows 11 is a brand spanking new OS, so hasn't had the bugs ironed out yet. Given another year or so to mature and I'm sure it'll be fine.
That's different to relying on a 14 year old OS which has been abandoned by the people that created it. Windows 10 on the other hand is actively supported.
Also, that guy wanted to play the game today, and not to wait an indefinite period of time for a bugfix to be released.

I'm betting that corporations with IT departments (which isn't all companies bear in mind) would generally be better to weather an IT incident than a lot of consumers. I know individuals who have been ransomwared, and it was just easier to cough the money up than to deal with it. And tbf, the ransomware people were very professional and by all accounts gave excellent customer support when it came to retrieving the data.

Having used it for the last several years, it's pretty darn good.
What does windows 7 do that windows 10 doesn't?

Why do some people perpetually expect some sort of wunderwaffe to change the course of a war?
It's been almost a century since Hitler was raving about them in his bunker. Have people learned *nothing* since then?

Attack helicopters with standoff weapons have proven useful and fairly survivable (in that they're still fighting over a year and a half later) thus far in the Ukraine conflict.

Why do some people perpetually expect some sort of wunderwaffe to change the course of a war?
It's been almost a century since Hitler was raving about them in his bunker. Have people learned *nothing* since then?

None of this means that manned attack helicopters are obsolete.

Why do some people perpetually expect some sort of wunderwaffe to change the course of a war?
It's been almost a century since Hitler was raving about them in his bunker. Have people learned *nothing* since then?

Attack helicopters with standoff weapons have proven useful and fairly survivable (in that they're still fighting over a year and a half later) thus far in the Ukraine conflict.

Attack helicopters with standoff weapons have proven useful and fairly survivable (in that they're still fighting over a year and a half later) thus far in the Ukraine conflict.

As proof that some people do in fact play this game rather than discuss the ongoing conflict, here's a trickshot my boys managed to pull off, where they successfully engaged and destroyed a Bradley that reversed out of sight into defilade:
 

As proof that some people do in fact play this game rather than discuss the ongoing conflict, here's a trickshot my boys managed to pull off, where they successfully engaged and destroyed a Bradley that reversed out of sight into defilade:
 

"IR Optics" does not necessarily mean that a vehicle has thermal imagers. IR Optics also refers to the IR Lamp and sight.
Edit: I'm really sorry, I didn't realise that this was from over a year ago.
@Chibot Mk IX The manual doesn't make any statement about the T-64BV (or the Bulat for that matter) having thermal imagers. It may be worth logging a helpdesk ticket, as these are reviewed by Battlefront staff and they can document it as a bug to be worked on.

"IR Optics" does not necessarily mean that a vehicle has thermal imagers. IR Optics also refers to the IR Lamp and sight.
Edit: I'm really sorry, I didn't realise that this was from over a year ago.
@Chibot Mk IX The manual doesn't make any statement about the T-64BV (or the Bulat for that matter) having thermal imagers. It may be worth logging a helpdesk ticket, as these are reviewed by Battlefront staff and they can document it as a bug to be worked on.

I think they're asking for you to share the save file here.
If you think it's an actual bug, it may be worth creating a helpdesk ticket here: https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/
Remember to share the save file, screenshots, and other info.

Hi all,
Just wanted to say hello and I hope I get to play some PBEM against some of you when I get better.
I'm a huge history fan, and also a fan of Graviteam Tactics: Mius Front, but it never quite did what I wanted. Games like Gates of Hell: Ostfront, looked gorgeous but were tactically shallow experiences that in no way represented the battles I've read about in books. The closest I could get was warg ames like War in the East 2, which still were fairly abstract. 
I found out about these games a few weeks ago and...Well, with the Steam sale I've purchased CM:BS, CM:SF2 and CM:BN, plus all the respective DLCs. I've been wanting games like these for years. Can't wait to start building the hours. I've clocked up 30 hours in two weeks which, for me as a 37 year old with a job and girlfriend, is fairly extreme.
 
Cannot believe I didn't try them sooner. 
 
Nice to meet you all

Steady as she goes gentlemen.

I think @domfluff has given some pertinent advice for dealing with one of the key challenges in this mission. 
Anything I can add at this point risks spoilers, so I'll hang fire for now. But I will add the map is not flat and there is key terrain that allows long line of sight (and correspondingly (line of fire). 
Brille gave some useful tips re using smoke, though keep in mind some of these Panthers are early versions so not all have smoke dischargers. Your attached SPW unit has more reliable smoke dispensing capabilities with the 251/2 and 251/9 tracks. If push comes to shove the grenadiers have smoke grenades. Combine both bits of advice and I'm sure you'll crack this.
Cheery!

Worth mentioning that the scenario designer (GeorgeMC) spends a large amount of time finding the best sites for his AT guns - it's one of the characteristics of his scenarios.

In terms of dealing with this:

This is where your terrain analysis/intelligence preparation of the battlefield needs to come in.
You're completely correct that you can't scout every possible piece of terrain, but good IPB is supposed to mean that you don't have to.

Basic course of action analysis (so the step up from terrain analysis) looks something like this sequence:
What do I need to do? What will enable me to do it? What can the enemy do to stop me? What can I do to prevent that enemy action? A good scenario designer (and GeorgeMC makes some of the very best), will place their assets in strong and logical positions. If the enemy AT guns are their key assets in your initial assessment, then you need to identify their potential positions before you begin.
The above sequence would be followed one section of the battlefield at a time.
 
For example, you might need to cross a bridge with an infantry company.
"What do I need to do?"
I need to get the lead company over the bridge in good order.
"What will enable me to do it?"
I judge that as a baseline, I should be able to do this with the organic assets of the company.
Form a base of fire on the near bank with two of the platoons and the organic weapons. Send the first platoon across First platoon forms a base of fire, and one of the others crosses Final platoon crosses. "What can the enemy do to stop me?"
Overlooking this crossing area is a small bunch of houses nearby, and a treeline further out to the flank, onto which I have no direct observation. The treeline would be the worst-possible position to find AT guns, and the houses could contain infantry, perhaps a forward OP.
"What can I do to prevent that enemy action?"
The basic plan remains intact, but I need to assign additional enablers to avoid this crossing. I determine that whilst there's no direct observation of the dangerous treeline, I can get LOS from the buildings.
The plan then becomes:
Form a base of fire on the near bank with two of the platoons and the organic weapons, as well as a single assault gun, set up to support an assault into the buildings. Send the first platoon across, with attached forward observer, to clear the buildings. First platoon clears the buildings, and the Forward Observer starts to call down harassing fire on the suspicious treeline When the fires start coming in, the other two platoons cross, and establish a base of fire on the opposing bank. It's entirely possible that this means that your artillery is firing on nothing. That's fine - what you've gained is the knowledge that nothing is there to fire at you, and this kind of shaping operation is really the point of artillery to begin with.

Following a round of testing done primarily by @Millien on the unofficial CM discord server (link in signature I believe), it appears that the CITV on an abrams is not drawn from the CROWS viewer:



 
Nor is the Primary Gunner's Sight used to draw line of sight from:

 
Instead, it appears that the line of sight for both the PGS and the CITV is drawn from the main gun barrel.
Additionally, the CITV does not provide a 270 degree field of view - instead it would appear to effectively act as a repeater for the gunner's thermal imager. Unless the turret is facing towards an enemy, the CITV does not appear to be used. Testing instructions are to use non-multispectral smoke between tank and hostiles, hostiles should be at a 90 degree angle, and wait.
As such, this would appear to throw into doubt the perceived wisdom that Abrams should be used turned-in to take advantage of the tank's thermal imagers.
Thanks to @Millien for performing the tests.

Just a nitpick, but this is largely debunked. The main trench-clearing tools used by the British were bayonets and bombs (what we today would call hand grenades) due to the close-quarter nature of the fighting.
The "cult of the offensive" is also a myth. If you look at the RUSI archives, between 1905 and 1914 there is only 1 article about infantry maneuver warfare, written by JFC Fuller, who went on to pollute discourse on WW1 in the English language for the next 50+years.
Why was this? Because military institutions in the west very closely watched the events of the Russo-Japanese War, embedding observers on both sides, and saw what the next European war would look like. They spent the next decade trying to figure out how to fight trench warfare, to which there was no good answer until technology advanced enough and gave us aircraft, tanks, and wireless communications at low levels.
So, military planners were faced with a terrible choice: attack as hard as possible before the enemy can dig in, or eat the casualties to kick them out of their defenses and prevent them from digging in again.
There were no better options as the technology simply didn't exist.

I'd say some of the top things are that:
1. They're going to try to kill people
2. At some point they're going to have to look a subordinate in the eye and give them an order that they and the subordinate know will probably end in their death.
3. How to help their subordinates continue in their duty despite the stresses they'll face.

I'd say some of the top things are that:
1. They're going to try to kill people
2. At some point they're going to have to look a subordinate in the eye and give them an order that they and the subordinate know will probably end in their death.
3. How to help their subordinates continue in their duty despite the stresses they'll face.

They may have come from the Israelis after the 1973 war.

The model used for aircraft doesn't seem to have changed from the WW2 games. They're still essentially P-47s doing gun runs, just with TOW missiles, Mavericks, Hellfires, and CBUs.