Any tips on maximizing the chance of tank v. tank spotting?

[SDG]

I am currently replaying the "Broken Shield" campaign of CMRT but noticed this phenomenon in other titles as well.

Tank v. tank spotting is extremely random and borderline infuriating.

There is of course the who gets the first spot thing, which is of obviously very important. I however would like to focus on the aspect of (not) getting spots when a tank duel is already underway.

I know that spotting is a % chance thing and dependent on many factors, e.g. visibility, experience level, is the target moving etc., but I think there should be certain conditions where a vehicle is guaranteed (or extremely likely) to spot the enemy regardless of the above factors.

I have run into the scenario on multiple ocasions when I lose "who gets the first spot contest" and my panthers get fired upon by enemy tanks. OK fair enough. What needs to be changed however is what happens after this, i.e. my tanks (with a veteran or higher experience level and commanders out in the open) being unable to identify the shooter for many turns regardless of getting hit half a dozen times.

Its even worse for King Tigers who should be classified as being "legally blind" and thus recieve the corresponding monthly benefits from the state. Again, not once did it happen to me that a T34 spots my KT, starts firing at it from below 1000 m ranges, and my tank is just sitting there taking it like a champ and not being able to find the perpetrator. 

Funny thing is that in many ocassions, the infantry riding the tank can see the enemy but unable to relay said information to the tank or the tank commander they are sitting next to.

As a summation, my observation is that tank on tank spotting in ridiculously random and in some instances flat out broken.

I do try to scout ahead with infantry, get spots, and share the information but sometimes this is also in vain.

And we are not talking about rookie crews. The tanks are commanded by veteran or crack crew members and German tanks supposedly should have superior optics.

Dont know if the above is a bug or WAD, and also would love to hear some tips and tricks to maximize my chances to succesfully spot tanks in tank duels.

I would also gladly take advice on whether hiding tanks in bushes or trees is a thing or not, and for example does the crown of the tree blocking line of sight of the TC if its literary in his face when I park my tank next to a tree.

Thanks for your insight in advance,

[Brille]

I cannot confirm this by any means. Yeah sometimes my crew seems braindead and not getting a solid spot for ages but that goes for both nations.

 

My hints would be scouting ahead with infantry, as you did. But verify that the tank crews really got the info.

Some people even let individual infantrytroopers ride a tank for the sole purpose of better spotting.

Sometimes on rare instances I disembark my tankcrews and let them be their own spotters, if the map and situation allows it.

Are your tank commanders always observing out of their cupola ? (open up)

In my experience tanks will spot targets very quickly this way, especially for experienced troops.

 

Rule number 1 however should be: Never let a tank be on his own.

Let them work in small teams (2 to 3), so if one of yours is taken out,  another one may see the shooter and take him out in turn. Don´t go for tank duels, if you can avoid it.

By the way: The most underestimated soft factor would be the "leadership" factor I guess.

I cannot confirm it yet but I often read that this factor has an influence on the target acquisition and the time to engage a target.

 

Trees and bushes are a thing but they are  not represented 1 to 1. So if a treebranch seemingly blocks your field of view it can still be that you can target or be targeted right through it.

Treetrunks are more reliable to conceal a tank in these games...and they are the best armor you can get.

[George MC]

One thing to note German “Superior optics” don’t often = marvellous at spotting. The gunners optics whilst excellent do not have a wide field of view. Think looking down a straw. 
once the tank commander buttons up spotting in both Panther and KT becomes more problematic. Once they do ID a target they have a high chance of hitting the target. That’s where their optics come in. 

Field of view is key in spotting. Hence why turned out tank commanders using binos have a higher probability of spotting than a buttoned up tank. 
this article gives a good summation of German optics. 
https://panzerworld.com/german-armor-optics

For example Panther optics field of view was 28 degrees decreasing to 14degrees at max mag. 
 

Spotting is and can be problematic and as has been pointed out there are ways you can increase the chance of spotting enemy units - key thing is taking advantage of C2 and ensuring tanks in a unit share spotting info. This is where tactics comes in. 
 

This video gives a good idea of the T-34/85 optics and vision viewfinders etc. 

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by George MC

[Vanir Ausf B]

6 hours ago, SDG said:

Tank v. tank spotting is extremely random

Dont know if the above is a bug or WAD

The CM spotting model has a high degree of variability. It's just the way it is, and it's definitely WAD. That's not to say that tactics don't matter. They can weigh the dice heavily one way or the other but you can do everything right and still lose on bad dice rolls. That's X-COM Combat Mission, baby.

Units share spotting information with other friendly units within about 32 meters (4 action spots). This doesn't happen instantly and it doesn't guarantee the enemy will be spotted by the unit receiving spotting information. Rather, it gives a 50% bonus to future spotting checks against that enemy unit. So again, bad dice rolls can still kill you and sometimes will. Also, this info sharing only matters if the receiving unit has not previously spotted that enemy unit or had C2 information on that unit shared with it, because after one of those things happens the friendly unit will have the spotting bonus for the rest of the scenario even if the relevant enemy unit moves to a different location.

[chuckdyke]

Tank riders increases the odds. For the Germans too they had their cannon fodder on the engine decks.

[MikeyD]

For WWII vehicles I advise unbuttoned, unmoving, on cluttered terrain (light forest, etc), and you just sit there blending into the background. It doesn't hurt, either, to have all your chain-of-command links green and additional eyes spotting the area. An optional tool might be to employ a decoy of some sort. drive an expendable jeep back and forth in the hope the enemy tank will open up and give their position away.

[kevinkin]

I would check off this behavior as a part of FOW. Your pixel troops are not perfect and there are "background things" that might "distract them" from expected behavior. It can be frustrating, but so is war. Generally, these behaviors equal out. Are you using covered arcs? That really helps response time. 

[Brille]

9 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Also, this info sharing only matters if the receiving unit has not previously spotted that enemy unit or had C2 information on that unit shared with it, because after one of those things happens the friendly unit will have the spotting bonus for the rest of the scenario even if the relevant enemy unit moves to a different location.

Do you have a source on that or testing results? 

I would have thought that these "spotting beacons" were somewhat bound to their location and their properties would fade over time. Just like they do it visually: slowly fading away with each turn until they can hardly be seen. 

 

2 hours ago, kevinkin said:

Are you using covered arcs? That really helps response time. 

It highly depends on which way you mean it. 

Cover arcs in general don't give a spotting bonus, like that the unit will be more concentrated to watch a certain area. 

But you will orientate the turret crew to a possible enemy position, so that all eyes are oppon it. This may help in spotting because more eyes can see more and units will always spot better to their front. 

 

Never the less it works like the "face" command in this way, only that the turret/facing of the unit will return automatically to it's set parameters once no enemies are around. 

 

Covered arcs however are tricky to use,so better not set them too narrow. 

If an enemy unit pops up on an unsuspected angle, slightly out of the arc, the unit tends to ignore it. 

Even if they are under fire by them AND see the enemy firing at them they will not shoot back most of the time. 

Only if they reached a certain mental state (shaken, panicked), they will drop the cover arc on their own. But getting a tank crew this far often means that either their tank got penetrated already or they lost a crew member. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Brille

[Vanir Ausf B]

10 hours ago, Brille said:

Do you have a source on that or testing results? 

I would have thought that these "spotting beacons" were somewhat bound to their location and their properties would fade over time. Just like they do it visually: slowly fading away with each turn until they can hardly be seen.

Contrary to speculation in that thread that this is a bug it is in fact WAD. My source for that is BFC

Edited August 6, 2023 by Vanir Ausf B

[Bulletpoint]

As I see it, there's only a problem when the tank that is getting fired on already had a spot on the enemy tank before, or at least has a contact marker for it. In those cases, I think they would quite easily pinpoint the source of the enemy fire. They'd already be looking at the right general location.

But for WW2 tanks that have no idea where the enemy might be in the vast landscape in front of them - I think it's very realistic that they could get hit multiple times and have no idea where it is coming from.

[chuckdyke]

Make sure you involve all of your formation so the chances of somebody in the formation spots if someone in the formation is fired upon. 

[Brille]

On 8/6/2023 at 8:14 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

Contrary to speculation in that thread that this is a bug it is in fact WAD. My source for that is BFC

Didn't knew that. Thanks for the info. 

Though how do you mean "works as designed"? (guess that the abbreviation for that) 

I would find it a bit more logical if some kind of circle or "bubble" would be drawn around the first spot of an enemy unit. And if this unit stays in this bubble it would be easier to spot it again. This would simulate some errors by the scouting unit and by the receiving unit, searching for this target. 

Simply said it would be just a rough description of the units location "Watch out for a tank in this area/around the barn/around that forest" 

But the way it is "designed" as you say (and the way I understood it) hints more to like 

"Just watch out there is a tank on the map somewhere" 

This would make the whole spotting and inormation transmitting process a bit to simple for my taste. 

But it works good enough I guess. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

9 hours ago, Brille said:

Though how do you mean "works as designed"? (guess that the abbreviation for that)

The way it works is abstract and not intuitive, but there are sound reasons for it to be the way it is. I think the biggest problem is the official documentation is sorely lacking on details about how the C2 system works in-game, leaving players to make assumptions that are often not correct.

[PEB14]

On 8/7/2023 at 11:47 AM, Bulletpoint said:

As I see it, there's only a problem when the tank that is getting fired on already had a spot on the enemy tank before, or at least has a contact marker for it. In those cases, I think they would quite easily pinpoint the source of the enemy fire. They'd already be looking at the right general location.

But for WW2 tanks that have no idea where the enemy might be in the vast landscape in front of them - I think it's very realistic that they could get hit multiple times and have no idea where it is coming from.

I basically agree; but the problem is, 95% of WW2 CM battles occur at engagement ranges where any hit is fatal for AFVs (except for German tanks which are able to withstand several hits without significant damages: Tigers, Panthers, and even Pz IV against Shermans).

Additionally, I find the accuracy of the shooters incredibly high . I didn't perform systematical tests, but I would say that at least 80% of the shots directed at a static or slowly moving vehicles hit their targets. Which means that, basically, the first to spot is the first to kill.

I seems to me that, in WW2 CM games, gunnery accuracy is much to high, and spotting chances much too random. I have the feeling that it should be EASIER to spot than to hit (at least for opened up vehicles), while in CM WW2 games there is really no doubt that the opposite is true.

As for the randomness of spotting, it really leads to ridiculous results. In my last game against @FogForever, I managed only once to outmanoeuver him: I was able to advance an armored car on the flank of one of his light tanks, unnoticed. My armored car advanced in open ground towards his tank; the AC stopped about 100 meters away; the tank was right in front of the armored car, which was opened up. For about 20-30 seconds, both vehicles stayed in this position. Then the light tank turned his turret, fired and destroyed the armored car. At NO TIME the armored car spotted the enemy tank, for which it had a tentative contact. Yes the armored car crew was green; but the light tank's crew was only regular, so only one rank better. This was really ridiculous, just like facing an elephant in a corridor and not seing it. I would have been much less frustrated if the green crew spotted, missed because of its "greeniness", and then got dispatched by the light tank. Fair enough. But no spotting at this distance? No way.

 

On 8/5/2023 at 5:39 PM, SDG said:

Tank v. tank spotting is extremely random and borderline infuriating.

As a conclusion I 100% agree with @SDG ; after 8 months of CM experience, I got so frustrated by the tank vs. tank and AT gun vs. tank game dynamics that I now play a lot more CMBN and CMFI than CMRT. Infantry rules!

[PEB14]

I just came across an interesting discussion regarding tank gunnery accuracy in WW2, that I would like to share with you.

https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/21223-actual-tank-and-at-gun-accuracy-and-performance-in-ww2/

Just compare the ammo expenditures (get the range, get a hit, get a penetrating hit) with the dynamics of CM AFV combat…

 

[Brille]

@PEB14

I sometimes find that the T34/85 and even Sherman can withstand shots even from Panthers if they got hit from 2oclock/11 o clock. 

I would never count on it but it happens and in my experience much more than to a Panzer IV because of the non sloped armor. 

 

What are your usual combat ranges in CM? CMRT has the widest maps of all the titles but still engagement ranges on my battles rarely exceed 800m. 

That would be pretty close in tank fighting terms. So I guess it won't take that long to get actual hits in. 

In one of my running games I have multiple Pak40 against T34/85 on mostly open ground. They usually took 3 rounds to range in while the 4th one was a killing blow. After that they took maybe just 1 to 2 rounds for following T34 because they were now zeroed in at that range. 

Your posted discussion link only helps little in the matter because as it seems they focus more on the Africa campaign than anything else. 

This battlefield however is in its own league I would say: The engagement distances were usually wider, so much more room for misses and the guns used there weren't as evolved as in the later stages of war (with the exception of a few). So the kill power on an initial hit was far lower if it even penetrated at all. So more ammo consumption there is plausible. 

In the Cmx1 titles in the early stages of war you often could pummel one tank and even penetrate him multiple times but he would still move. 

That shifts at the time more and more (longer) 75mm and bigger guns are introduced and more widespread. Then it is more like:

1 penetration =1 kill

 

I won't say much to the spotting subject. I agree that it can lead to very weird situations at times. But it works more often than not at least for me. 

I had countless keyboard biting moments myself (those things don't taste that fun)... 

But as you mention the experience of the crew I guess we like to undermine the other factors to much (yeah myself too), like morale, leadership and motivation. 

I don't know exactly if all of these are taken into account in the matter and how deep they do but at least leadship is important to get the eyes and gun on target. At least that's what I'm strongly assume by my own experience and due to reading different posts to different subjects. 

 

And it would make sense. A good leader can "walk" the gunner in on his spotted target and maybe takes a few seconds to do so accurately. A bad leader however maybe makes bad call outs for the gunner to understand. 

"There is an AT gun at the house! No not that one, the other one!No, more to the right! I mean my right!" 

"It's a village. It is full of houses you dummy! Which one? " 

Just for notice. 

 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Brille

[PEB14]

@Brille

I certainly won't go into criticizing the projectile efficiency system of CM; I find the resulting variability very interesting (here again it is a matter of point of view). Once again, my doubts only focus on spotting (weird results) but more importantly in accuracy (to few misses). And once again it is based on my own experience which is much shorter than most people on this forum.

To answer your questions, in my CMBN/CMFI engagement ranges are nearly always below 500 meters, and generally even less.

Regarding your miss/hit experience: interestingly, I never experienced anything like you did. Maybe I didn't play enough? At all ranges, even in CMRT, a miss is the exception. In the 50 games of so I played since the beginning of this year, I've NEVER seen a gun (AT or tank's) missing two times its target. Never. To be fair, if one of the opponents misses once, generally he's dead before its next shot...

Also I don't subscribe to you point of view that engagement ranges were much longer in Africa than in Russia. Even the desert is not completely flat, so I would say engagement ranges were quite similar on both theaters. I would be anyway much interested by any historical studies regarding direct fire accuracy in WW2. I think results would be much surprising for CM players.

On the other hand I strongly subscribe to the fact that morale, leadership and motivation shall influence both spotting and gunnery accuracy. Maybe it does, but based on my experience accuracy is so good that the influence is minimal...

I just had one more experience in my current CMRT game. One regular, hull-down T-34 tank was hit by an enemy (non hull-down) Pz IV at 300 meters. The opened up T-34 never spotted the German tank. There was no ranging fire by the German tank, only one shot. So once again, the equation stands: First spot = first hit = kill.

Edited August 21, 2023 by PEB14

[Brille]

2 hours ago, PEB14 said:

To answer your questions, in my CMBN/CMFI engagement ranges are nearly always below 500 meters, and generally even less.

Maybe there is the "problem". Those combat ranges are very short even for ww2 standards. So there may be an occasional miss by a tank gunner from time to time but usually even a regular should home in at the first or second shot, especially with the more advanced AFVs in the final years of the war.

 

2 hours ago, PEB14 said:

Also I don't subscribe to you point of view that engagement ranges were much longer in Africa than in Russia.

As you are right that both battlegrounds are diverse in their shape it is often stated that the north africa one is best suited for large tank formations due to the open ground. Of course you don´t have it all the way through but more often than not.

In the soviet union you had the seemingly infinite steppes which offer wide lines of fire too. But you also had huge areas covered in woods or hills.

 

But I didn´t meant to compare these two fronts against each other. My point was more that in the forum you linked the people discussed the ammo consumption per kill more on the african front and your implication (at least I interpreted it this way) that it should translate to combat mission accordingly.

I don´t play that many scenarios but the ones that I did often didn´t had such ranges like 1km+. And if they had my opponents (I play mainly PvP) often gave me no opportunity to fire long enough on their tanks that I would score many hits beyond. Plus CMRT projects a later stage of war were the potential killing power of the weaponry is higher in general and has a greater range.

So maybe test your theory on more longer ranges and see if real life observations meets combat mission.

2 hours ago, PEB14 said:

On the other hand I strongly subscribe to the fact that morale, leadership and motivation shall influence both spotting and gunnery accuracy. Maybe it does, but based on my experience accuracy is so good that the influence is minimal...

Well as I´ve read leadership seems to add up to the spotting ability too or at least speeds up the transition from a vague spot to a solid one.

If it wouldn´t be so cumbersome and if I had more time I would test it to prove or disprove it but oh well...

 

2 hours ago, PEB14 said:

I just had one more experience in my current CMRT game. One regular, hull-down T-34 tank was hit by an enemy (non hull-down) Pz IV at 300 meters. The opened up T-34 never spotted the German tank. There was no ranging fire by the German tank, only one shot. So once again, the equation stands: First spot = first hit = kill.

I had a very similar occasion yet with a totally different outcome: My T34/85 (open up) moved into a hull down position in a forest.

500m away in another forest is a Panzer IV (buttoned up), looking almost directly in the direction of the T34.

The T34 spotted him first (partially due to good infantry-tank communication ) and hit him with his second shot. The first one was a bit to high and got stuck into a tree behind him.

The Panzer IV never saw it coming....at least he didn´t react after the missed shot.

But yeah spotting a target first is a big step to victory. That goes for combat mission as it goes for actual (tank)combat. Never heard of the "tank onion" ?  (see attachement)

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Brille

[PEB14]

Thanks for taking the time to answer!

I didn't know the tank onion. Thanks! It perfectly illustratesmy feeling: I am under the impression that the "acquired" layer is non-existent in CM. Once detection is ensured hit probality is so high that it translates into an overly thin "acquired" layer. On the other hand, the three other layers are very well depicted. The wide range of the partial penetrations, spalling, boucing is impressive. There must be loads of gun vs. armors datasheet behind this model.

Your own T-34 vs. Pz.IV experience reminds me of the few occasions where fires didn't translate into hits in my CM games: the several occasions where rounds hit trees on their way to the target. Which is not a matter of accuracy anyway, just of bare luck. (And it is good as it is..).

 

12 minutes ago, Brille said:

Maybe there is the "problem". Those combat ranges are very short even for ww2 standards. So there may be an occasional miss by a tank gunner from time to time but usually even a regular should home in at the first or second shot, especially with the more advanced AFVs in the final years of the war.

Well, in fact it's the exact opposite: I play mainly CMFI and CMBN because, as you rightfully point out, ranges are so short that the "overaccuracy" of CM firing system is realistically no issue. My frustration comes more from the few CMRT games I played, which always yielded similar hit rates than in CMBN/CMFI depsite the longer ranges. Accordingly I've never played very big scenarios with 2 km+ LOS, so my concern is more with the intermediate ranges (500 m and more).

Anyway it's just my own feeling, based on the limited feedback available to me, and maybe just luck is the main reason for the "over-accuracy frustration". But I nevertheless came across one 10 years old topic on this forum where the gunnery accuracy "issue" is discussed, no it's neither just me... nor a brand new discussion!

 

[Brille]

4 hours ago, PEB14 said:

 

I didn't know the tank onion. Thanks! It perfectly illustratesmy feeling: I am under the impression that the "acquired" layer is non-existent in CM. Once detection is ensured hit probality is so high that it translates into an overly thin "acquired" layer.

I would say the acquire layer includes everything after a solid contact was made till the the "open fire" command. So turning the turret, traversing the gun and aiming.

To avoid the acquire state of an enemy tank it could mean to stay mobile. Only go out of cover for a short time, then retreat back into cover and so on. It is a good tactic especially for the modern era combat where atgm are seemingly behind every corner.

 

4 hours ago, PEB14 said:

Your own T-34 vs. Pz.IV experience reminds me of the few occasions where fires didn't translate into hits in my CM games: the several occasions where rounds hit trees on their way to the target. Which is not a matter of accuracy anyway, just of bare luck. (And it is good as it is..).

Yeah tree armor is still the best armor in CM.

But in this case it was a tree behind the Panzer so he was not in the path of the projectile.

 

4 hours ago, PEB14 said:

Anyway it's just my own feeling, based on the limited feedback available to me, and maybe just luck is the main reason for the "over-accuracy frustration". But I nevertheless came across one 10 years old topic on this forum where the gunnery accuracy "issue" is discussed, no it's neither just me... nor a brand new discussion!

Do you play against AI only ? I don´t know for the ai in CMx2 but in CMx1 the ai was known for cheating to a degree. It had an omniscient view on the battlefield and knew when you were about to get into it´s line of sight. Plus it had some minor boost in hit possibility which made (for example) T34/76 sometimes better at hitting at long range than specialized german long range tank hunters.

Maybe they have something like that in the newer engine too ? That´s one of the reasons I don´t like to play against ai since back in the day.

[PEB14]

18 minutes ago, Brille said:

Do you play against AI only ? I don´t know for the ai in CMx2 but in CMx1 the ai was known for cheating to a degree. It had an omniscient view on the battlefield and knew when you were about to get into it´s line of sight. Plus it had some minor boost in hit possibility which made (for example) T34/76 sometimes better at hitting at long range than specialized german long range tank hunters.

Maybe they have something like that in the newer engine too ? That´s one of the reasons I don´t like to play against ai since back in the day.

I play both, but I am currently playing my first PBEM tank vs. tank battle and ranges are so ridiculously short that it doesn't mean a thing.

 

Tired of "feelings", I just make a quick test. A line of 10 Panther A tanks against a line of 10 T-34/85, 1300 meters away. No obstacle in between except the dust caused by gunnerey. Both lines are static. All crews are regular with normal motivation and 0 leadership. Quoting the manual: "extensive training, but lack combat experience (...) [or] mediocre training and fair amount of combat experience".

The results of the first minute:

- The T-34/85 fired 18 shells, and scored 4 hits.

- The Panther fired 21 shells, and scored 12 hits.

After only one minute of gunnery, no Panther were disabled while there were only 4 T-34 battleworthy. I know that the German have better optics and that the Panther gun is more accurate than the T-34/85, but the discrepancy is much too high IMHO and I really think that, at this range, crews training shall make more difference that what these results show.

Another quick test led to very similar results. Raising 4 Panther tanks to veteran status yields to 12 hits out of 17 shots.

So I stick to my initial impression: gunnery accuracy is really much too good in Combat Mission.

[George MC]

German tank gunners training had em firing at targets at around 1200-2000m - guns sighted for up to 1200m which means, all things considered the round when fired will travel a flat trajectory for 1200m. At ranges sub 1200m they were trained not to bother acquisition firing i.e. getting the range but to fire for effect, if the round missed then the target was greater than 1200m then they would adjust accordingly. Training also was done against a target moving across their LOF at same range - to learn and practice leading the target. In each case they around 4-3 rounds - exercise stopped when a/ they hit the target or b/ fire all the rounds.

Combat would be a different thing though, vehicle movement, IDing targets, smoke, dust, barrel wear, damage to optics etc would all impact on this. But all things considered anything below 1200m that is IDed and engaged would most likely be hit. In game various crew soft factors impact on this.

Combat engagement ranges do seem to vary. Even on the Eastern Front its seldom totally flat. Rolling terrain, fields, trees etc would impact on LOS and LOF.

One event that stands out for long range engagements between German armour (Tigers and Panthers) would be Targu Frumos with ranges in excess of the 1200m and up to around 2000m. 

I'm pretty sure that who fires first will win mainly held true for WWII- though obvs that assumes that the target you are firing at can be penetrated. The game would be not engaging from the front but tackling (ambushing) from the flanks. Off course if you are a Tiger I in 1943 you are pretty confident that taking on T-34/76s at around 1200m will see you kill em whilst they won't be able to kill you. That changes once T-34/85s and IS-IIs come along...

In CM the AI has no advantage - it plays with the same game mechanics as the human player. There is no advantage and that's been stated multiple times over the years.

[Brille]

@PEB14

While I like these kind of tests to try out armor protection or penetration verification on various distances,

I do not like these for spotting or accuracy tests. 

While it gives you at least a rough direction on what you can expect on the virtual battlefield, it often turns out otherwise in the end. 

Never the less to get a better picture of it you should perform these tests more than 3/4/5(...) times to form an actual middle ground. 

But considering your tests I cannot say that much more other than that it is somewhat plausible to me. The heavy soviet losses do come from somewhere. Surely not only by the big cats but still.

9 hours ago, George MC said:

In CM the AI has no advantage - it plays with the same game mechanics as the human player. There is no advantage and that's been stated multiple times over the years.

Thank you for the clarification. 

Never the less I always had a bitter taste in these scenarios as the ai always seems to hit better. 

 

But maybe that's just my Cmx1 ptsd.

 

[chuckdyke]

7 minutes ago, Brille said:

Never the less I always had a bitter taste in these scenarios as the ai always seems to hit better. 

A human player plots LOFs more manually. I found let my TacAI fight the Computer's AI and it makes an enjoyable game. I never tested or manual plotting is more effective but on full contact I don't find the need to do so. Even on Hotseat we have some commonsense house rules in this regard.

[PEB14]

12 hours ago, George MC said:

I'm pretty sure that who fires first will win mainly held true for WWII- though obvs that assumes that the target you are firing at can be penetrated. The game would be not engaging from the front but tackling (ambushing) from the flanks. Off course if you are a Tiger I in 1943 you are pretty confident that taking on T-34/76s at around 1200m will see you kill em whilst they won't be able to kill you. That changes once T-34/85s and IS-IIs come along...

Which lead us back to original poster's legitimate concern about the erratic spotting system of CM...