Close Combat is a great game because of the metrics that the developers have input into the game which make the experience real with respect to combat stress injury, histrocial accuracy, ballistics, and armor effect. It matters none about the graphics in as far as I still am playing A Brige Too Far and Cross of Iron in 2017.
What I enjoy so much about this game, as opposed to a FPS shooter like Battlefield 1 or visually-intense RTS like Total War, is how Close Combat shows the events as they unfold in a factual maner, and communicates them in a spartan fashion. Only the most important aspects worth reacting to are noted and my mind creates "memories" to fill in the gaps and makes sense of the events.
I am fascinated by the historical accuracy that this game employs. That being said - I am not in favor of adding an armor rating to the vehicles, tanks, and armored fighting vehicles. The game employs metrics as mentioned by the administrator that would be too complicated to convey. And because a noncom would not need to understand the laws of physics and geometry to know how to position a machinegun, nor would a driver of a Panther need be a mechanical engineer, it is then what matters most possessing a fundamental, pragmatic, and practical knowledge.
Rather than an armor rating in the game, an e-book covering the History of WWII relating specically to Close Combat would be more within the scope of this series worth. Since such historical accuracy has been covered in the game with respect to the capabilities of each fighting element, timeline, and the location of battles, an e-book would stand out as not as merely a companion to the series, but also an true WWII Historical Publication.
It could be in the book that the specific details of everything can be learned.
Regarding the 360 degree view vs the current LOS "radar sweeping" as you named it - I am not in favor of a 360 degree viewshed during unit deployment as this seems unrealistic. To know when and where the LOS begins and ends at 50m, 100m, and so forth with respect to depressions in the terrain, environmental obstacles, and structures, is not realistic in this capacity. In the reality, one would indeed have to focus on a specific feature with fieldglasses and make a guess as to where the field of fire is limited. With that, the LOS "radar sweeping" represents this exercise in a more realistic manner.
I understand that it would be nice to just drop a 75mm AT Gun on the map and instantly know every potential target it could possibly reach within that field of fire, but this is just fake and takes away from the game.
ALL THIS BEING SAID -
I have no clue how any of these opinions apply to the new game in 3D so all my opinions are drawn from the past and not very relevant.
The new screen shots - I am not impressed. I am a fan of A Bridge Too Far, Russian Front, and Gateway to Caen.
When I first played CC1 it was by chance at a friends house on his PC with a 1 level Demo he downloaded. Had I just seen the screen shots of that game, I would have not been impressed. That year I was heavy into Golden Eye on the Nintendo 64 and Warcraft II for PC. So I am hoping that when I play this game, I fall in love with a new game. Because for me, this is a new game altogether. The only comforting factor is that it is in the Close Combat family and promises the realism which this series brings (Besides Panthers in the Fog).