Vanir Ausf B

It's a wirblehole.

No. US 105mm HEAT has only slightly better penetration than US 76mm APCBC.

17 lbr APDS and US 90mm HVAP for sure. US 76mm HVAP should also be able to at short ranges, i.e. under 500 meters.

It's not in the manual, oddly enough given it's importance. I figured it out by testing it. LOS is always checked from the height of the checking unit's eyeballs at the moment of the check. So yes, the if the unit is infantry it's current posture is what is used for the check. If you are checking LOS to an enemy unit it is your unit's current eyeball height to the enemy unit. If checking to terrain it is the unit's present eyeball height to the center point of the targeted action spot at ground level, IIRC. Note that for heavy weapons teams such as machine guns and mortars, and almost certainly towed AT gun teams as well, the LOS is checked specifically from the perspective of the gunner if the weapon is deployed.

I think there already is. The current target tool will tell you if your unit has LOS to the area above the ground even if you do not have LOS to the ground itself. Look for the tooltip to say "reverse slope - no aimpoint". If an enemy vehicle moves into that area you are almost certain to have LOS to it. Only when it says "no line of sight" is there no chance of LOS.

There is a second bridge on Huzzar! that is also messed up on one end. It is the bridge over the dry creek bed. Deleting the road tile does not fix it. Any suggestions?

I was able to fix the Huzzar! bridge by simply deleting the road tile at each end of the bridge. The pathing strangeness on bridges that were not visibly affected appears to be unrelated to this issue since deleting the adjacent road tiles on them made no difference.

This is the western bridge on Huzzar! Also, some quick testing suggests that even bridges that are not visibly impassible may have some pathing issues.

Correct. However, the tank would block line of fire. EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure about that. I am pretty sure the tank would block LOF -- but not LOS -- from another tank, but IIRC the LOF rules are different under some circumstances for vehicles and non-vehicles. I'd have to test it.

And they are. Demonstrably so. Or at least they are treated as units, and vehicles are the type of unit most similar. Bunkers are definitely not a type of building. Ahem. Call me an idiot if you want, but at least I can read.

Maybe you should tell BFC to go learn OOP since you know how their game works better than they do.

Don't talk down to me. Your statements clearly show that you do not understand how the game functions.

I see no evidence at all that bunkers or vehicles are ever treated as a single point on the map. Rather, it appears that they are simply ignored in certain circumstances. The reason LOS and LOF rules are the same for vehicles and bunkers is because they are both units. See below. And why would the method used for vehicles be reused for bunkers? I say it is because bunkers basically are vehicles with regards to how the game engine looks at them. When the game is initiated it creates a LOS map of every action spot on the map to every other action spot. This map is kept in RAM and referenced whenever a unit does an LOS check. Units do not block LOS because units are not part of the LOS map. Buildings do block LOS because they are part of the LOS map. Units and buildings are fundamentally different types of objects. Buildings are terrain. The game engine clearly treats bunkers as a type of unit, not a type of building. This is demonstrably true and I don't know why the idea is controversial.

That is an intersting theory but it isn't just LOS. Bunkers also have the same LOF rules as vehicles, which are different from the LOS rules. Both friendly and enemy units have LOS though bunkers and vehicles but only friendly units have LOF through them. LOF is blocked for enemy units. What CPU issue requires that? And how does a CPU issue explain the tooltip labeling bunkers as vehicles?

My understanding is that vehicles in CMx2 are fully 3D objects rather than the point spots they were in CMx1, so I don't see any reason why bunkers would need to be different. Infantry are 3D as well, and since bunkers can be entered by infantry it seems hard to believe that the bunkers could be anything other than 3D objects. As I showed in my first picture above, when you target a bunker with a point target indirect fire order the tooltip calls it a vehicle. I'm not saying anything is inadequate. I'm just pointing out that bunkers behave like immobile vehicles and that these behaviors are probably not bugs. I suppose as long as the player understands this it doesn't matter how they want to rationalize it to themselves.

But why only do that for bunkers? That is not how LOS through other buildings works. In terms of game functionality bunkers have more in common with vehicles than with other buildings in terms of having weapons mounted on them and being able to acquire ammo from them. Bunkers in the game are really more like immobile vehicles. I think it also may be the real reason AT rockets cannot be fired from bunkers.

I think that may be due to the Germans having the Russian steppe more in mind than Normandy when designing their camo schemes. Many pics I have seen of vehicles in Normandy, especially German ones, show them covered in foliage. It would be cool to see that in the game.

Try plotting a point target indirect fire order onto a bunker. As for LOS, bunkers seem to function as vehicles. Bunkers were also treated as vehicles in the CMx1 games so this is not surprising to me.

I assume the reason BFC keeps the super-saturated bright vanilla colors is because the real world is super-saturated bright and they are trying to make the game look realistic. Whether movie mode is esthetically more pleasing is personal taste but it certainly is not realistic.

I agree. For me QBs are tops for PBEM, but scenarios will usually provide a better single player experience.

I suspect that bunkers are classified as vehicles by the game engine, which if correct would explain the non-blocking of LOS.

... thereby turning them into moral support elements.

How many turns have you played?

Sure. In 2014 The "two releases" Steve mentioned for this year have already happened.

EDIT: Ninja'd