Vanir Ausf B

Unfortunatly, no. Not normally. Maybe if it hit the hull machine gun port, but I have not seen any evidence yet that weak point penetrations of that nature exist in CMBN. That's not to say they don't, just that I have never seen one.

Does Dastardly Dan Edmands post here under a different name?

I would rather see some functional anti-aircraft platforms, personally.

Hmm i just yesterday drove a Stuart tank through a marked AP minefield at slow speed. It set off 2 of the mines, which panicked an infantry team calmly walking across it at the same time causing them to start running, resulting in one of them setting off another mine and getting killed. So yeah, marked mines are not safe for vehicles at any speed.

IIRC someone did a test and found that they can also be cleared by direct hits from artillery of 150mm or larger.

They haven't announced it yet. The only thing they have said is that it will be before the Market Garden module.

I suggest artillery. Absent that there probably isn't any good way of doing this, but maybe try advancing your infantry only a single action spot per turn. You will need to have a very significant local advantage in mass (numbers), like 2x-3x. Expect heavy loses.

The difference between our views appears to be that I do not consider either the 1 minute turns or my opponent's potential incompetence to be flaws in the game engine. I agree that it's not likely to work. I disagree with everything alse. Attempting to wrong-foot your opponent by doing something you think he doesn't expect is not gamey. Perhaps, but they are also the most popular environment.

No. ..................

I'm not sure there is any way to play the game that does not exploit these issues to some degree. If your opponent is incompetent or does not understand the game mechanics then that is irrelevant to issues of gameyness. Assuming we are talking about an attack/defend type engagement it's true that this would not work against a competent opponent. And even if it did the objective could not be held against any counter attack. Frankly I don't know how this would ever work, and if it did it would have to be due to gross incompetence on the defender's part rather than exploitation of game mechanics. In a meeting engagement this is a sound strategy.

Not sure I would consider this gamey. Getting to an objective "first with the most" is a fundamental principle of war. This is a legitimate use of light vehicles, IMO.

They were common, yes, but they were never permanent and a 50% reduction in effectiveness is a bit of an exaggeration. They typically cleared in around 2 minutes or less, which would put the reduction at closer to 15%. EDITED to add: Having said that, I'm ok with mg jams not being modeled for the simple reason that machine guns are perpetually under-modeled in CM already. The last thing they need is nerf. The same holds true with AT rockets not being allowed to fire from buildings: regardless of realism arguments, relaxing the rules on them would improve gameplay.

It's not available in QBs. On one of his visits to the forum BFC Steve said that it "should be there", so the fact that it isn't is presumably a bug. So we wait for the next patch.

IIRC, US grenades were more powerful and German grenades could be thrown further.

I have to say I do miss the different leadership rating categories from the CMx1 games. I would often use platoon or company HQs ratings to decide what role each formation would play in my plans. I thought it was cool that leaders weren't necessarily good or bad, they just had different strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, the effect of leadership on the leader's own unit's moral can be dramatic and has been documented previously. What I don't know is if there is any effect other than moral. In CMx1 leaders were rated in several different categories. IIRC, the categories were command radius, stealth (units under his command were harder to spot), combat (more accurate fire), and moral. The only effect we know of in CMx2 is moral. Are there other effects? Then there is the issue of HQs' effect on units under their command. We know that for HQs a higher rating make them pass on spotting information faster to and from units under their command. Is that the only effect? As far as I know it is.

The individual unit leadership ratings have a much greater effect on the behavior of that unit than does the leadership rating of HQs above it, particularly with respect to moral. I'm not sure if HQ leadership has any effect at all on subordinate units.

I've always felt that it is better to be explicit during setup about such rules, even at the risk of looking like a "rules lawyer". Not everyone reads the forum and new players may be clueless about such things.

Being hull down in the game does make you harder to spot and harder to hit. Test it

One small issue is that tanks in CM tend to stop more abruptly than they typically do IRL, especially if you are going from a Fast move to a stop. When real tanks do start and stop abruptly they rock a fair amount since seasickness is preferable to a face-plant. The problem is that because they rock too quickly it gives the impression of having little mass. I rarely pay attention to it myself.

It doesn't seem to me that the DoD is in any hurry to field a replacement. They ordered 600 more last November and they are converting thousands of the existing inventory to the M2A1 standard.

The amount of rocking when starting and stopping is realistic. What could use a tweek is the speed of the rocking, i.e. they rock too fast.

Your pixeltruppen fire around corners? As in: pop out, fire, then pop back in cover? I don't think mine ever do that. Wouldn't that require them to be able to "remember" an enemy out of LOS, which I don't think they can?

You could have said the same about the CMx1 games, and some people did. But the bottom line, literally, is that retrofitting features to previous games costs BFC two things: time that could be spent on improving the current product, and money they will not recoup.

Functional anti-aircraft weapons.