Vanir Ausf B

Given the fact that the civil rights movement didn't really go mainstream for another 25 years or so, I would say no. When the Founding Fathers wrote "We the People" their definition of "People" was quite different than what we think of today. That doesn't mean we can't admire and use the principles behind the words, but they lived in a different world.

The "vaunted" standards of the time were the Jim Crow laws. By that measure it was par for the course. Most of human history looks fairly horrid when judged by today's standards. I don't see the point in wallowing in it, but to each their own.

Integration. But we know what you meant.

Steve has explicitly said they have no interest in making CM into a command level game, ever.

I just checked this out and was disappointed to discover that the QB version is stripped down to less than half the size with nearly all the trees removed :confused:

When you go to select special teams and vehicles look at the Activated units section and you will see a little golden arrow next to one of the formations you purchased. You can choose which formation by highlighting it and then returning to the Available troop section. When you purchase your special units they are added to this formation. You can see them by clicking on the "+" sign next to the formation. You can then delete them or do whatever you need.

Amazing how much faster bullets move. In my experience with the game so far Jeeps and their occupants seem highly vulnerable to anything that makes a loud noise, even when moving on Fast.

How about this: if it NEVER happened IRL -- and that is itself a big assumption I do not make -- it would clearly be because it wouldn't work very well rather than because it would be impossible. If it similarly isn't particularly effective in the game then I see no compelling need to rules lawyer it away any more than I feel that human wave attacks need to be banned. If it actually does work pretty well, which I seriously doubt except maybe against the AI, then of course it's open to discussion. I'm all for gentleman's agreements and all that. I would have no problem agreeing to not use a tactic that is game breaking or is an exploit.

I wish that were an option but it's not, unfortunately, at least for the Germans. All German HMG teams are 6-man teams with no separate ammo bearers. US 1917 HMG teams can be either 6-man teams with no separate ammo bearers, or 5-man teams with a separate 2-man ammo bearer team. The closest thing to what you are looking for is one of the US 1919 MMG teams that is a 3-man team with a 4-man ammo bearer team. The M1919 has a tripod and shoots the same ammo as the M1917, and as far as anyone can tell they are functionally identical in the game except for a very small difference in setup time.

Ammo bearers are separate units, always, even though they are purchased as part of the HMG "team" in the unit menu.

I wonder how effective this tactic really is. It seems to me that it may be a relic of CMx1. In my experience AT guns in CMx2 can often fire many rounds before they are spotted. With relative spotting, if the firing unit is not in LOS of your overwatch there is a good chance you will never see what kills your brave little Kubelwagon. And that's only a factor if you can draw their fire. When you send your Kubelwagon on its fateful journey you are assuming your opponent is not keeping his guns on short arcs. If he is you run the risk of driving right through the kill zone unmolested until it's killed by a HQ unit or something inconsequential. In that case you then have a false sense of security that could lead you to move your armor into a bad spot. Plus you've just thrown away a unit. If your opponent does not keep his guns on short arcs it is likely they will open up on your infantry first anyway, assuming you screen your armor properly on the advance. If the tactic is really effective, much more so than IRL, then perhaps it can be considered "gamey". If it is not then it is just a stupid waste of a resource.

If it's not done in front of an advance then there is no point.

As I recall there was also some issue with soft-skinned vehicles being unrealistically difficult to destroy with AT guns in the CMx1 games.

He still is the mod guy

^^^ This, for the most part. Although I do find some logic in the contention that in the absence of armor covered arcs that this could be effective. I tend to keep everything on tight covered arcs regardless, so if someone recces me with a Kubelwagon they are unlikely to discover much more than a single squad or machine gun. If they send anything bigger I will just smile and ask if I can have some more. IMO, the most cost effective ways to conduct recon are by fire, and/or by letting your guys with binoculars observe the area undisturbed for 5 minutes. Sacrificing a unit to find a unit is inefficient and is a tactic of last resort.

I think that is exactly the issue. Then we are all gamey bastards, each and every one of us. Well, maybe not Franko.

I assume you are thinking of Fionn's Rules, although I suppose Marco could have had his own

So what units can lead an advance, and how far in front of the main body can they be? What about 2-man scout teams? Or is it only proper to advance en masse?

I used the US 240mm in a recent QB. Or tried to use, I should say. One of the spotting rounds fell well short of the target. and it certainly did kill or wound everyone withing 50m. Oh, did it ever...

So getting back to the Kubelwagen recce, if someone were to do the exact same thing except with a SPW 251/1 halftrack, would that be "gamey"?

I agree. The way it currently works is backwards.

AI pick is terrible. Just pick the AIs forces. I know it removes any surprises, but that's all we can do. They have confirmed that they are tweaking the AI's tendency to pick lots of towed guns in small battles, but I have heard nothing about the tank armys you get in larger battles.

This is a known bug. I sent a gameplay file to one of beta testers at his request. I have no idea if it's been fixed.

Paralysis by analysis.

Renounce one unit.