Vanir Ausf B

Except I think even non-burning ones do.

I remember reading somewhere that his bad reputation in the US began when he released his memoirs after the war in which he bashed Eisenhower, who was US President at the time.

I don't recognize the term "F-Killed". Neither does Google. Does it really mean to get shot in the barrel? What does the F stand for?

That is true. But a smoking wrecks block LOS for all units, so the question isn't how the round went through the dead tank -- that is expected behavior in the game -- but how it had LOS through the smoke, if that is indeed what happened,

I am psyked! I just wish there wasn't about 4 other games I want to play all coming out at the same time.

Lmao! ..........

The north-south road the US forces advance on along the eastern edge of the large field turns towards the southeast before turning straight east as it goes off the right side of the map. That small section of east-west road is bordered on its southern edge by an east-west running section of bocage. That section is the key piece of terrain you need to start your advance. A squad placed on the southern side of the bocage has a clear line of site down the length of the road until it turns straight north. Any US units lurking there can be quickly routed with enfilade fire as they will have no cover. Once the road is clear to the turn your troops can move up the road. There is a hole in the bocage before you get to the turn that your men can move through into the wheat field on the north side. From there you can move north along the line of bocage pushing the US units northward as you advance. The 234/1 can provide suppression fire on the 60mm mortar and any nearby units. The break in the line of bocage on the western side of the field where the road passes through makes for a nice keyhole position.

Simply put, there is no way to tell for sure. But if the AAMG fired at the enemy tank while the coaxial and hull machine guns did not then IMO the safest bet is to assume the main gun does not have LOF.

The East Front is why they will bother, I predict.

If you really don't think you can push them off the objective you may be able to win right now with a cease fire, even with the objective contested. This scenario awards victory points for destroying a percentage of enemy forces and keeping your own losses below a percentage. You have likely already met the former. I don't know how many men you can lose and still meet the latter but I know 24 is too many.

Why not? I did, and did so after sustaining heavier loses to the 60mm mortar than you have taken. Your 234/1 will be of limited use in that terrain but you don't really need it. Your Grenadiers have a significant firepower edge over the US squads, especially in the close terrain. And now that you are past the stage of the AI plan where the US forces do their Charge of the Light Brigade reenactment they are probably in poorer shape than yours. Don't be a George McClellan.

Shermans will often lose radio contact when the bow machine gun is firing. This is probably true of all tanks in which the radio operator doubles as the bow machine gunner (Panther, ect.)

I suspect that is the case. IIRC 2 action spots -- 16m -- is the distance limit for ammo sharing in CMBN.

It sounds like your game is playing out similar to my own. 16 of my 24 casualties were from that one 60mm mortar firing directly (surprise, surprise). My entire MG42 team was killed by a single round. The enemy troops in the chateau can be easily dealt with by either the 234/1 or a 'schreck team given an area fire order on the top floor.

Good post. I'll give that a try. My problem is that because I've spent more time testing game mechanics that playing the game I have scenarios that I downloaded a year ago that I still have not played. In some cases I don't remember if I downloaded them or they shipped with the game. Speaking of which, is this type of feedback needed for "official" scenarios? And where should feedback be posted? In the Maps and Mods forum, in the comments section on the Repository download page, or on the main forum?

I'm not sure, but judging by where it is mounted it looks like that is the only direction the machine gun can be fired by the commander from his hatch. Firing it in any other direction would require him to climb outside the turret and stand on the deck, which CM doesn't allow commanders to do.

Double redundancy to be on the safe side.

Not to mention redundant when the remark was sourced in the original post.

Sabot rounds also had reduced after-armor effects due to the smaller caliber of the penetrator..

For machine guns and small arms experience changes rate of fire by about +/- 10% per level.

Ha ha. I am in fact playing it, but real world issues have reduced my time commitment for the moment. Some of us have jobs, you know. As for the bridge crossing, I don't see any reason why there should be an unwritten rule that all bridge crossings must be contested. One of the benefits of a huge map is that you can't guess where the enemy is. When you see a map this size you can guess that sections of it will be uninhabited, you just don't know which sections. I like that. Make the player do some real recon.

The AI can't use area fire either. And if AI infantry can pop smoke I have yet to see it. I agree with Jock that if the information is available to the player it should be easily accessible. Unless I am misunderstanding the proposal, the LOS information is already available to the player, it just requires a lot of mouse clicking to get it. If there is a performance issue preventing that from being calculated all at once then so be it, but I like the idea of it being functional only during setup.

Although I have never tested it, I think there is a moral benefit to being in C2. I've seen panicked unites rally back to shaken or broken status the moment C2 is re-established too many times. Soldiers in C2 also seem to cower less frequently. Whether that modifier varies by HQ leadership level I don't know.

I'm fairly sure the distance an HQ can keep subordinate units in C2 is the same for all leadership levels (this is different from CMx1). To the best of my knowledge there are only 2 things the leadership rating effects: the efficiency with which spotting information is passed to and from units, and moral recovery speed. My feeling is that it is better to be in C2 of a -2 HQ than no HQ. IIRC Steve even stated that to be the case at one point. Oh, and to reiterate what Stikkypixie said, as far as anyone can tell the bonuses only apply to the unit itself. That means a squad with a +2 leadership under C2 of a -2 HQ will have stiffer moral than a -2 squad under command of a +2 HQ. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98978&page=2

The numbers next to the moral state correspond to the unit's Motivation rating: -2 Poor -1 Low 0 Normal +1 High +2 Extreme or Fanatic Why fanatic has to share the same number with extreme rather than getting a +3 is a mystery to me.