Centurian52

This is something we discussed with @Battlefront.combefore. We have toggleable smoke. We have toggleable trees. We have toggleable artificial brightness for night battles. Toggleable fog/snow etc is no different. It is NOT directional, there is no arc, it changes nothing in the engine in terms of showing what a unit might or might not see. Just like turning off or on smoke changes no spotting information. It makes a heck of a difference in what the PLAYER can see and that is what we proposed for fog, rain, snow etc. It is very difficult to intuitively gauge what the guys on the ground can see when the player can see almost perfectly in dense fog. 

It's not really that the AI finds small holes in the vegetation, but that the graphics of the game don't quite show the real conditions.
Vegetation seems much denser visually than how the game engine calculates it, which means we as players think our units are safe in the forest even though there's a real risk they will get spotted through the leaves.
Conversely, darkness and fog seems a lot less dense graphically than the game engine atually calculates visibility levels. Which means in many scenarios, we will not be able to spot units at distances where it looks graphically like it's not that dark or foggy.
Both issues are not so much a case of the simulation getting things wrong as not showing the conditions clearly to the player. I've seen so many players post questions about these things, and I've posted several, myself, but eventually I just learnt to work my way around the issues.

Ah, I see what you mean. The type of object that the M60 was spotting was different (it was spotting a T64, rather than an M60, while the T64 and T80 were both spotting an M60). I assumed a tank sized target was a tank sized target, and simply playing the test scenario from the other side was the easiest way to keep all other variables identical (with the one caveat that I went back into the editor to change which crew was mounted and which was dismounted to avoid any shooting interfering with the results). But since the M60 is taller than T72oids that might not have been a valid assumption (that a tank sized target is a tank sized target). Perhaps I should try the test again with an M60 as the target for the M60.

Don't agree with this entirely.  Nothing can be taken as definitive but we can see some trends, whether they carry through or are bumps on a much larger curve is an unknown.  Some of these trends appear consistent but we are still well into abductive reasoning here, which is fine we have gone to war in RL with less.
The hardest thing in not the numbers, it is the lack of RL data at this point,  We can say "CM is showing trends along the following behaviors..." but we cannot really tell if they reflect RL outcomes.  We could run 1000 tests sets and still not know how it links to reality.
All that aside, what I am seeing as vague outline trends (taken with significant conditions) make sense to me based on what we can glean from second and third hand anecdotes [Note: John Kettler already posted that CIA doc, and I gave my concerns about it on another thread].  

Below is CIA assessment of comparative performance of Soviet and US tanks capabilities. 
As you see, CIA concluded that Soviet tanks have quality advantage and made a model that showed that in tank duels they will win. It took into consideration data on fire rates and accuracy.
I never saw in any real life documents any mention of Soviet tanks having daylight optics problem. 
The doc is declassified and can be downloaded  from CIA website. 
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0000624298


 

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

And for those still tuning in, ran a couple more tests.  Lone T72 at 1000m vs M60A3 (had to dismount the A3 as it was starting to see a lot better even from the back at 1km)

So interestingly, the arc length the tank has to scan (at 90 degrees for arguments sake) is half that of that at 2000m (1570m, makes sense) and its mean time to full spot drops from 85 secs to 39 secs...slightly better than half.
And then back out to 2000m but I put a full platoon of T72s (4 tanks) on a line about 100m apart...very interesting.

So as we can see, spot times go way down when these tanks are working together, but that is not the interesting part.  The arc length at 90degrees/2000m is 3141 and 785 is about 25% of that per tank if they divide the arc up evenly (again makes sense).  21.5 seconds is 25% of the 86 seconds we saw in the original to-full-spot time for a lone tank at 2000m.  Not definitive but those tricky lads at BFC appear to have linked spot time to scan distance, or at least this is a working theory.  

This is one of my favorites. Such a classic. The 'How to Fight' series is amazing for so many reasons. 
 

I'll start
One point I found particularly interesting (since it never seems to come up) is that during bounding overwatch the squad leader is constantly shifting position to be with the rear team. This makes a stupid amount of sense now that I think about it. He needs to be with the team that can actually maneuver in the event that the lead team is pinned down by enemy fire (it's no good if the squad leader himself is pinned down, since he won't be able to lead his squad). Also, if no enemy fire is encountered, it is the rear team that he'll be wanting to give the next instructions to anyway (the lead team already has its instructions). These sort of command and control considerations never come up in CM because we have perfect borg control over our troops. But I've been giving more thought to them recently since I've been playing a fair amount of Command Ops 2 and Scourge of War with max orders delay set. When every order you give needs to reach your pixeltruppen through some sort of medium (such as a radio net, or a courier) then command and control becomes a lot more important.

While the "exponentially increasing time delay per waypoint" feature of CM1 was frustrating when all one wanted to do is move units down a twisting road, it seemed like an xnt method of depicting the slower decision cycle or inexperienced troops when embarking on a complex combat maneuver (that required several waypoints).  ie:  It simulated the longer time it takes to explain the CO's intent for a complex maneuver to less well-trained troops.  
The CM1 time-delay feature was a compromise with positive and negative aspects.  But then so is playing on Iron, or trying to utllize the sometimes weird CM2 C2 system.

I've been playing a lot of CMx1 recently (CMAK so far, but I'll get to CMBB). Until Battlefront makes CMx2 games that cover the early war I feel that the CMx1 games remain an essential part of the collection for anyone who wants early WW2 content. But I definitely feel that going with no orders delay is better than the orders delay implemented in CMx1. The orders delay in CMx1 feels a little too arbitrary. Rather than being given an arbitrary number of seconds that increases with more complex orders, I imagine the orders making their way from a commander avatar present on the map (sort of like how in SoW there is a commander on the field who is "you") to the intended recipient of that order over the same C2 links that spotting information currently proliferates over. Implementing this properly would require competent subordinate AIs at all echelons which can make decisions without direct orders from the player, either because they need to react to something that the player can't tell them how to react to in time, or because the C2 links are cut and they need to operate independently for a while until the links are reestablished.
I've also been toying with the idea of information delay. Basically the player does not have borg knowledge of everything their subordinates know, or even the positions or activities of each of their subordinates. Information about both friendlies and enemies is updated for the player whenever the commander avatar receives a report from their subordinates (with reports proliferating over the C2 links). The player can directly see the 3d models of the friendly and enemy troops that their commander avatar can see. But otherwise sees icons representing the last reported positions of their subordinates (and clicking on those icons will give their last reported condition and activities (ammunition, casualties, strength, idle, in-contact, retreating, pinned down, etc...)), or last reported positions of enemy forces. The idea is to make the player as blind as an actual commander would be.
The kinds of orders which would be sent would be completely different. You might give each subordinate an objective, a lane, a start line, a start time, and attached support. But since you can't micromanage with a delay and limited information the details will have to be left up to the subordinate AI commanders. At this point it's basically a completely different game, which is why there is no chance of this ever being implemented in Combat Mission. But items don't have to have a realistic chance of being realized to go on a wishlist. Perhaps another developer will take some inspiration from these concepts. Or maybe someday I'll get some game development skills and do it myself.

Battlefront did have some type of command delay in CMx1.  That was before my time here so I don't know much about the details of it.  @Erwin is one of the ancient ones, so he probably knows.  I've been tempted to but SOW just to try out the command delays but I don't really have time for another game.  Maybe an optional type of delay for CMx3?  The command delays are an interesting idea IMO. 

The inconsistency is mainly a function of the high variance. At 2000 meters tanks can spot each other in 5 seconds or 5 minutes. The average may be realistic but when a player rolls snake eyes on the spotting dice they think something is broken, especially if they are testing on a "firing range" which is not the environment the spotting model assumes. The other issue is that because spotting checks are by far the most CPU intensive task in CM they are every 7 seconds rather than continuous.* This means fast moving units can occasionally move over open ground without being seen for several seconds or even longer if first spotting check is snake eyes.
*There are exceptions to this, I think mostly when units are firing.

Trust me, BFC is very aware of all the spotting complaints.  Personally - just speaking for myself - I think there is a combination of factors that skews things a bit.  For one thing I'm not sure that gamers realize how difficult it is (per veteran accounts as well as various 'spotting tests' done in the 19th century - the human eye hasn't changed since then) to spot anything at all on the battlefield - up to and including stuff that's firing directly at you.  I'm also not sure that gamers fully appreciate what a human being looks like at 700 meters (for example).  On the one hand you have to make spotting such that a game can function (the empty battlefield) and on the other hand you have to try and make something that an average gamer can reasonably associate with reality and that's a difficult wire to walk (gamers who may or may not have an appreciation of what something actually looks like 800 meters away).  I think probably the biggest spotting 'hole' in the game (if you will) is probably anything movement related.  Movement draws the eye and assists in spotting something.  Binoculars will bring something a lot closer through magnification, but of course your field of view is way more restricted than it would be with the naked eye.  So typically I would expect that if something was stationary (even sitting in the open) it would be difficult to spot at various ranges (for example, an infantryman standing in the open might not be seen with the naked eye beyond 700 meters if he isn't moving).  However if something is moving you should notice it even with peripheral vision with the naked eye at reasonable ranges (not at 2000 meters for example) and then binoculars could be used to scan the specific area where movement was detected in order to firm up the 'spot'.  Infantrymen could walk through an open field at 2000 meters and it's unlikely that you would even know they were there if you were looking just with the naked eye. 

One thing to keep in mind is that CM is modeling spotting under combat conditions.
I feel like the issue may be that people have an inflated idea of how well humans perform under combat conditions. It's why everyone thinks that Stormtroopers are bad marksmen (when by all accounts they are actually pretty amazing marksmen). It's why my mother is harshly critical of military leaders who made famous historical blunders (and I have to keep pointing out "actually you probably would have made the same mistake or worse", or "based on what they knew at the time, that was actually the right call"). And it's why CM players are constantly complaining about the spotting mechanics.
Your intuition is telling you that you would be able to do better in the same situation. But the truth is that your intuition is a big fat liar. Our threat-response systems evolved to keep us alive as hunter-gatherers. Not to make us effective modern combat soldiers. It assumes we have already identified the threat (which is why we tend to get tunnel vision, making it difficult to spot new threats). It assumes that we are either going to run away, or fight the threat off with either our bare hands or a rudimentary tool like a pointed stick (or a particularly sharp mango). Neither of which requires clear thinking or the ability to shoot accurately. Your body is putting all of its resources into the functions it thinks it needs (the ability to run fast or fight hard), and is pulling resources away from the functions it doesn't think it needs (including but not limited to your situational awareness, your ability to think clearly, and the concentration you need to line up accurate shots).
The spotting mechanics in CM are a bit abstracted, so of course it's possible to find situations where units spot too quickly or too slowly (and of course we are more likely to complain when they spot too slowly). But I feel like they've gotten the spotting mechanics about right on average, and the outlying situations aren't so far off as to bother me to an unacceptable degree. It might be nice to refine the mechanics a bit to get rid of some of the abstractions, but that would almost require a full overhaul of the entire game since it would mean eliminating abstractions from all aspects of the game where spotting could come into play.

Check out the videos of Dr Gordon Cooke here.
Gordon Cooke - YouTube

I got spoiled by CMSF2. Watching infantry move around without body armor gives me the creeps. 😬

I'll start
One point I found particularly interesting (since it never seems to come up) is that during bounding overwatch the squad leader is constantly shifting position to be with the rear team. This makes a stupid amount of sense now that I think about it. He needs to be with the team that can actually maneuver in the event that the lead team is pinned down by enemy fire (it's no good if the squad leader himself is pinned down, since he won't be able to lead his squad). Also, if no enemy fire is encountered, it is the rear team that he'll be wanting to give the next instructions to anyway (the lead team already has its instructions). These sort of command and control considerations never come up in CM because we have perfect borg control over our troops. But I've been giving more thought to them recently since I've been playing a fair amount of Command Ops 2 and Scourge of War with max orders delay set. When every order you give needs to reach your pixeltruppen through some sort of medium (such as a radio net, or a courier) then command and control becomes a lot more important.

They don't it just seems that way.....A couple of years back I had the same arguments with some of the same people, what I didn't get then and you don't get now, is that this is old ground!  Yes the syatem has it's quirks, no it isn't deliberately biased beyond what current technology levels suggest (although they were a bit optimistic about some of the technologies).
 

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.

So, with the accusation that US/NATO tanks spot better than red tanks. My experience so far is that this is only true provided you have an M60A3 or better. And this is, as far as I know, entirely realistic. An M1 Abrams does spot better than a T64A. And an M1A2 SEP Abrams definitely spots better than a T72M. But I don't think the "Blue always spots better than Red" accusation holds up when you look at anything that predates an M60A3. I have not so far noticed a significant spotting advantage for M60A1s over T62s. And M48s definitely don't seem to have a noticeable spotting advantage over T55s. We can't directly test the WW2 equipment since the US/Commonwealth and Soviet WW2 forces are confined to separate titles. But comparing them by proxy with how they perform against German forces, they feel like they are probably about on par with each other.
One thing that could be skewing the results in favor of the US in CMCW is that the Soviets are more likely to be on the attack. And a stationary and partially concealed defender definitely has a huge spotting advantage over an attacker that is only making short stops and frequently has to cross over open ground, even given identical training and equipment.

I saw a document with a funny twist on this concept. In How to Win Outnumbered (1974, pdf warning) Paul Gorman tries to sum up the lessons of the Yom Kippur War. Really hes trying to convince the Army brass to push through objections and buy the MILES system. But first he tries to set up the importance of firing first versus second, as many felt that was a MAJOR advantage the Israelis had. He presents an amazing graph:

This, apparently, was derived from studying WWII era tank engagements in France. He does not specify which period in France, perhaps that didn't make a difference. I will leave it up to you to decide that. Anyway in the following paragraph he makes the stupendous claim that a force outnumbered 2:1 and firing first will have the same chance of winning as a different force outnumbered 8:1 but firing second. Someone should test this in CM, 1v2 but the 1 gets the first round, vs 1v8 and the 8 fire second. Somehow I think at 8:1 odds, that one tank is boned no matter what....
RE the main topic, something I feel strongly about is that CM at some point ought to include a better LOS tool than just using the 'target' button to scan the horizon. I know that fog of war is a real thing, and I cant just beam my consciousness into the brain of my units to get a perfect vision of the battlefield BUT I also think there has got to be a better way of expressing that information. Its frustrating to put down a tank and think you can see a hill or ridge, but the commander decides he cant. Or the other way, you think your good and suddenly a tow sneaks through two counties away and blows your company commander up. I like the system Eugen has developed where you can hit a hot key and see a shaded region for LOS, and I personally would like to see that modeled in CM. Even if that is too much info, or too difficult to render visually, there ought to be a better way of expressing it for the player. The Cold War era is all about maximizing terrain and distance, and to do that it really helps to know who can see what. A commander could walk the field or call up his men and find out, but I cant do that. I like (mostly) the actual spotting mechanics, I just would like the information delivered better to me. Perhaps that could also be a difficulty thing? 
RE the Cold War Era and thermals, IDK if theyre all that unrealistic. I think @IICptMillerII hits the nail on the head, the Gulf War and other actual experience has suggested that even NATO's rudimentary (compared to today) thermals were a major advantage in armored combat, as well as infantry. By the 1980s NATO really did dominate nighttime combat. But I'll also that in CMCW they feel really powerful. I have been fiddling with a small nighttime scenario, a Soviet attack on an American field barracks. But I realized that basically NATO has a decisive advantage at night and can spot Soviet infantry as if it were daylight, while the Soviets struggle to do the same past 50m. It made the scenario pretty unfun for the Soviet player. It also means that the Soviets will be seriously disadvantaged in scenarios involving bad weather, fog, haze, etc against thermal equipped US troops. Its a hard problem to work around and probably means that most maps will be noon, sunny maps rather than use the bad weather options. Im not sure tho how to balance those two issues. On the one hand its historic, on the other its not as exciting. Unless youre the US player. I wonder if perhaps weather, smoke, and haze should impact thermal sights more than they currently do? But I have not seen any documentation about how impactful weather was to that equipment IRL at the time. So thats a tough one. 

Ok. Not sure posting here is worth it/appropriate. Feeding trolls and all that. But for the sake of those who do not know and genuinely would like to know, and future readers, here goes. 
Completely agree. No idea why the armor UI thing is still a thing, or how it is generated. In my opinion it should either be removed or fixed. Leaving it in its current state is just confusing. 
This is not how spotting works in CM. Spotting is not randomized. At this point an entire book could be written about how spotting functions in CM, and multiple tomes could be written of all the anecdotal evidence of it "not working right." But, anecdotal evidence is not evidence. 
Ah yes, the "Steve is a NATO shill!" argument. What I will say is that this discussion has been had many times, and what people fundamentally fail to understand is that good optics makes an exponentially positive difference in spotting and situational awareness. Here is a great video from Hapless that does a great job of demonstrating one of many points when it comes to vehicle optics.
Again, please note that those infantry, who are not even attempting to hide, are less than 50m away and are quite hard to spot. 
Tank optics are even more extreme. Thermal imagers are way, way better than conventional day night sights, especially the Soviet day night sights, which did not have much zoom and were a narrow field of view. 
So, a lot of the results from these Swedish armor tests are pretty suspect. That is a whole other discussion, but what I will point out is that the idea that a tank with conventional day sights can spot just as good as a tank with thermals is hysterically inaccurate. Tanks with decent thermal imagers outperform conventional day sights by a ton. This is well known. for a real world example, check out the Gulf War, where US and NATO tanks equipped with thermal imagers consistently outspot their Iraqi counterparts, regardless of daylight conditions and weather. 
For those who love the "monkey model" and "bad training" arguments, I will simply point out that the rest of the world, including Russia, learned the correct lessons from the Gulf War. Pretty much every main battle tank today that is worth any credibility has some version of thermal, or at least enhanced optics. 
The real world settled this argument decades ago. I find it hilarious that it continues to rear its ugly, dead head here. Then again, this isn't exactly a War College either. 
Tracers are not simulated. As in, units do not "see" tracers, or bullets in CM. Not really sure how else to say it. Imagine tracers don't exist in CM? Its a trivial point anyways. Also, anecdotal evidence is not evidence. I saw a Vulcan fire at a BMP-1, fail to penetrate it, and the BMP-1 (that was just shot) promptly returned fire and killed the Vulcan with its 73mm gun from 600m away. So, there. Anecdote. 

Here is the natural building block for the US player in CMCW, for this is the training film on the combined arms team. It teaches core tactical principles that, if violated, will pretty much ensure defeat. Though the film looks horrible initially, the actual res is tolerable. Something which might bear looking into is the racial mix in the game vs reality. Frankly, though, am having a tough time finding close range imagery of US infantry in game so I can tell whether there even is an issue. Nor is this situation helped by having rocky vision today.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Ok, typical grogs, all standing around arguing.  Ran a short test scenario (see attached).  Setup is best attempt to re-create conditions described by OP.  Ran the test 10 times and got the following results:
Test
1 - 2 shots until a kill
2 - 1 shot kill
3 - 3 misses and the Bradley killed the team
4 - 1 shot kill
5 - 5 misses and Bradley killed the team
6 - 1 shot kill
7 - 1 shot kill (Bradley managed to kill the team at the same time)
8 - 2 misses and Bradley killed the team
9 - 2 shot kill
10 - 3 shot kill
So in 10 engagements we saw a 70% success rate (i.e. Bradley killed) with about 1.5 shots per kill.  So what?  RPGs not too bad at 225-ish ms at least according to these conditions.
RPGTest.btt