akd

Since FOs are qualified to spot for all support assets, "denied" would only appear if the qualified individual in the FO team was a casualty.

If a unit in a foxhole is spotted, the foxhole is instantly revealed, and even hiding units are occasionally exposed in order to maintain some level of awareness, and thus can be spotted. An occupied foxhole should be easier to spot than and unoccupied one, because there is a chance for the occupying unit to be spotted. The tests on empty foxholes in defilade to the spotter are very interesting. Seems to suggest that foxholes are considered to be a standing man height for spotting purposes.

What was the range?

The Art of the Technical seems to be reaching perfection in this conflict.

Yes, on-map IGs can fire indirect, but their envelope for line of fire is much more narrow than mortars.

You can't purchase units with armor in an infantry-only QB. If there wasn't an already-dismounted unit available to purchase, they would be excluded from those QBs. In the editor, you can switch between mounted/dismounted after purchase.

No. I don't know if there is an abstract bonus (possibly only against blast/fragmentation?), but I am 99% certain positioning inside the foxholes does matter.

This is not correct. Assuming a N-S-E-W orientation, they always choose the linear feature. If they appear to be in a foxhole, it is coincidental.

I meant specifically in this situation (foxhole placed in same tile as bocage).

At 300m this doesn't seem to happen. Foxholes aren't spotted until the unit in the same tile is spotted. Not sure what happens closer.

As far as I can tell, the presence of foxholes in the same tile as bocage has no effect on the positioning of the men in that tile. The linear feature overrides the foxholes for AI positioning purposes. They make no effort to use the foxholes at all. As far as the AI is concerned, they don't exist. If there is a direct benefit to cover (and these tests suggest there is), it likely results either from soldiers' positions incidentally coinciding with foxholes, foxholes directly blocking LoF from certain directions, or some underlying bonus that is provided by the presence of foxholes in the tile. Seems a very handy way to increase the defensive value of hedgerow positions, but I suspect that units hiding/cowering in foxholes away from linear features and overhead obstructions will still have better cover against indirect fire.

No, nor do M8 HMCs.

Very nice!

That is correct.

Were the tanks facing the SPG when you issued the target order?

Makes sense, but you can order vehicle movement in more discreet increments than a full action spot (8m). Not a huge help in turn-based play, of course.

Assuming you mean parachute infantry, given the same experience, motivation, fitness, and leadership, the difference will come down to equipment.

I don't think anything changed, and it is not a bug, per se. Where there are two of the same type of team listed (i.e. Scout Team), one is parachute infantry and the other is glider infantry. Scout team 2 is not bugged, it is glider infantry. The problem is there are a number of specialist teams where only a parachute or glider version is available, not both.

I was right about the name, but wrong about the two additional LMGs being included in CMBN. The source suggests that each platoon had access to two additional LMGs, not just the two currently present in the game.

I think we must have this in CMSF:

Your own tanks report as "destroyed" and enemy tanks report as "knocked out". I believe this is connected to fog of war. This is not correct. AI will sometimes take one or two additional shots at knocked out tanks that haven't burned/exploded. Generally I have to agree. I think crews should be more likely to bail after a penetration, and that penetrations should cause instant disruption and temporary suspension to the crews actions if they don't bail or retreat (or during the short delay before they bail or retreat), especially gunners aiming and firing. This is what Steve means. You have to look at energy in addition to caliber. A "75mm penetration" has a wide range of potential terminal effects.

I was going to say you could just bail the crew and remount who you want, but if you have less than 4 people in the M20, no one will man the gun!

Crack is easy to overuse absolutely best left in the hands of the scenario designers (also known as crack dealers).

Assault command does not divide the weapons based on range, but on a maneuver vs. support basis (and other factors depending on personnel and size of squad). AT weapons and MGs are generally considered support weapons.

Terminal effects are quite complex, but this is certainly exaggeration.