akd

EP and EPS were HE shells converted to hollow-charge shells (the former base-fuzed, the latter nose fuzed), were they not? But yes, the Italians have HEAT.

Quick search revealed many "action" and "field" photos from Africa to Afghanistan. Of course, very few action photos are actual combat. This however, does appear to be a combat photo:

Most likely it is to help the AI.

And they would have won the war if they had not routinely launched local counterattacks?

In QBs, they do not carry ammo. All the ammo is with the gun/mortar team.

On paper, armored rifle squads had rifles only throughout the war. I'm sure some BARs were scrounged here and there.

No plans for a Logistics Module and mule skinning mini-game at this time, AFAIK.

I guess BFC could solve this horrible problem by producing fewer products and not keeping those products up-to-date with the latest features so that users will abandon older products in favor of smaller number of new ones, i.e. the way it was done before. I currently have 4 separate Combat Mission games installed on my system, but I am only playing 1 at the moment. Although I am interested in the content/subject matter of all 4 games, I am not interested in playing the other 3 because they lack a number of features in the latest game that have vastly improved my enjoyment of the game. That in the future I might have multiple Combat Mission products on my system all of which I want to play equally and can base my choice purely on my subject matter interest of the moment I really don't see as a problem.

The first release covers US forces and their German/Italian opposition on Sicily. There is no connection between the Infantry Regiment AT company and the Tank Destroyers. The tank destroyer battalions did not participate in the Sicily campaign, beyond sending some men to supplement other units and to perform rear-area duties.

No, but there is nothing preventing you (other than space) from keeping a not upgraded copy of CMBN on your computer.

I found Steve's post on this:

That is my understanding. However, in the case of vehicles, target arcs allow you to affect facing (and thus spotting) in certain circumstances where the "FACE" order does not have an affect (i.e. during movement), so it is incorrect to say it has no affect on spotting. They are meant primarily as a targeting restriction tool. Personally I use them that way and have never bought into the gaming the game idea of using targeting arcs to boost spotting (again, my understanding is that they don't, but I would feel the same regardless). Spotting is already boosted in the forward arc based on the units facing, and a 90° arc (guessing on that) of enhanced focus is plenty. The idea of a "spotting" bonus because the arc of focus is less than 90° is to me absurd for most units I use targeting arcs mostly to control engagement range while at the same time affecting facing. To a lesser degree I use them to set up ambush zones (only engage a target when it reaches this point) and to prevent collateral damage incidents when HE chuckers are supporting friendly dismounts. None of those are circumstances in which I want to trade normal observation of the battlefield for enhanced spotting of the area within the arc. Think about it. If Ambushing units missed the approach of an enemy because their attention was focused solely on the ambush location, that would be incredibly annoying behavior.

No. Tanks didn't typically run back and forth from the rear to front during the course of a battle. Once committed, they stayed committed until pulled off the line, typically overnight. If a tank unit ran low on ammo to the point of not being able to fight, they'd more likely be replaced by another unit rather than going back to rearm piecemeal. And it would be an unusual circumstance where using a full load of ammo in the course of a few hours did not coincide with an acute need for rest and repair.

If you have or make a contour map it does.

Those are not decals. 82nd Airborne was the only airborne division in the Sicily campaign, so use of their patch on the airborne skin is not a problem.

One of the "sections" in the squad has two Breda LMGs, and the squad leader has a chance for an SMG, so an Italian squad is not just 20 rifles. But of course those LMGs were total crap...

These guys are HG panzergrenadiers:

No, if by FJ uniform you mean jump smocks and para helmets. They (generally) wore Luftwaffe tropical uniform. Pretty sure there are already screenshots released.

Why not take your joyfully bemused self to the new forum? http://www.battlefront.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=137

Welcome to Italy!

I don't believe you were told that. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=101285 I guess you think that means dispersion of casualties. It does not. (edit: oops, cross posted with burke and YD.)

Target arcs DO NOT tell a unit to only observe within the arc. They tell a unit to only engage targets within the arc. They affect spotting only in so much as they affect facing.

How is the AI supposed to know (aside from cheating) that 1 or 2 men are truly isolated and alone, and not 1 or 2 men visible at that moment that are part of a group of 10? This is asking for a very complex understanding of context on behalf of the AI.

That is not true. In fact, that is really silly.

Yes, I mean the cumulative effect is the dominant factor in immobilization.