Probus

That's my experience too. They stop when they trigger a mine on hunt, but not when they just see mines. I usually don't have time for slow though. So I use hunt with the aim of limiting casualties, rather than outright preventing casualties. I generally use slow to move troops out of an already detected minefield when I don't have engineers available to mark the mines.

Greg: The "horrible" reality of the game is that the only way to efficiently spot mines is to send "Expendable" units ahead to trigger a mine.  (And even then the first unit could be lucky and run over mines without triggering anything.)
I consider engineers valuable so would send them to a triggered minefield in order to mark them (If it is absolutely necessary to cross that location) which makes the minefield a little safer to cross on SLOW.  But even when traversing a marked minefield moving SLOW a unit can still trigger a mine and get blown up.  
Theoretically you would think that the first unit should be a mine-clearing vehicle.  If one is concerned about AT weapons and has the arty, try blowing up any potential hiding spot within a 100 meters...  or... use SMOKE to hide the vehicle so it can clear the mines with no enemy having LOS.

I tested it in Red Thunder (Soviet Engineers), best results are, move slow with a waypoint on each action square. That the unit gets exhausted doesn't seem to make any difference. It is not fool proof but at least they detected two mines against one casualty. They didn't stop at a mine on hunt. 

Nope.  Engineer squad, then an infantry squad to cover them (that hopefully stops before the mines). Then the flails clear the mines. Then the rest of the column follow the flails. (tanks and mechanized infantry).
Twice now my infantry were following too close behind and blundered into the mines.  I've gotta be more careful.

Either of the above sound good, but neither are quick if you have a distance to travel.  Detecting mines was/is not a quick thing I suppose.
Bring on the flails if you have them but keep them covered (and keep your fingers crossed)...

I move mine into a action square and wait a few turns. Engineers seem to be able to detect them within a few action squares.

I'd go with hunt. It'll wear them out, but I believe their situational awareness is a bit better with hunt, and they'll stop moving if they hit a mine. They'll tend to start running after hitting the first mine if you use move, so you'll be more likely to get mass casualties.

I'll use them as makeshift medics, have them stay back to provide comms for the mortars, move up to be another FO, or (when I'm being very sloppy, and even then only in the most dire of emergencies) use them as an extra assault team.

I had the impression that 2IC's/XO's need to be kept safe in case the CO is KIA.  Of course in the game I often use em exactly as benpark says (altho' I try to discipline myself not to do that).

Thy can be useful doing things like tending to wounded soldiers/ammo scavenging, replacing a wiped-out higher HQ, or any other duties like relaying spotting information from squads/teams and higher HQ (like a "runner"). That last use is helpful for calling in artillery, when the radio unit doesn't have LoS and you don't want to risk them in an exposed position. Security uses also are another slot you can drop them in, and you could do some extra-self-imposed rules, like moving them near prisoners to simulate moving them to rear-areas, etc.
I'm always checking the visibility icons to see what the "range" is in the UI. The benefits of any HQ will be greatly lessened when out of any given C2 contact range.

I reminded you just the other day not to post here, Mum.

Just saw them.  Thanks!
I was kidding around referring to the Battle of Antonov Airport. 😁

Good luck guys!

To many people that matter are convinced that the world can be reset to the day before the Russian full scale invasion. The reluctance to admit that long term trajectories have changed permanently has still not been overcome. Defense spending is going to have to have higher for multiple decades, globalization is going to slowed, and perhaps reversed for decades. The secular cult of share holder value being the ONLY thing that matters is needs to be staked in the heart, permanently. Boeing being exhibit A on that one. Hopefully it won't take Ukraine falling, and Russia invading the Baltics to get the point across. Or maybe Trump wins and civilization takes a multi-century wrong turn into a dystopian nightmare.

But why? Why is the EU and USA doing that? Don't they know how important this conflict is? Do they not want to see Russia collapse (even at the risk it may cause a major power vacuum)? Why did we 'fight' the Cold War? The hard right was all behind defeating the USSR. Now they've flip-flopped. I just don't get it. All we have to do is provide arms to the Ukrainians. That supports our defense industry. No US servicemen (or women) are being asked to risk their lives. This should be a no-brainer. Is it because of the election year?

I don’t think anyone of serious power in the West wants a full Russian collapse.  The overall Western grand strategy since the end of the Cold War has been “stable status quo”.  We have spent the last 33 years pretty much working on all fronts to sustain “the system”.  We toss scarfs and hats on it but at its core is a central unchanging stability.  Why?  Because stability is good business.  The West, with the US at the centre built the scheme that “won” the Cold War and want that party to keep going because we get very rich off it.  The rest of the world makes our stuff for cheap, while also buying our other stuff.  
But pretty much from Day 1 “the others” pushed back.  First was the intra-war years, interventions and then terrorism.  Now this has upscaled to “revisionist states” and “power competition”.  Russia invaded Ukraine for several reasons but one of them definitely was to demonstrate that they are not going to be bound by western rules (Hell, Putin said exactly this in that speech back in Sep ‘22).  This puts the West in a dilemma, they can either do too little and Russia threatens the system, or they crush Russia…and it threatens the system.  So they appear to have chosen the middle path, which of course is getting hijacked by the internal movements who want to…wait for it…change the system.  MAGA, alt-right, nationalists, whatever, all disagree with “the system” even though it has made everyone richer.  The reality is that it did not make everyone equally rich so discontent is natural.  Worse, power spheres exploit this so they can get more powerful (and richer).  So Rust-Belt yokels eat this stuff up and start to dismantle “the system”, which includes democracy apparently.  The reality is Trump is a symptom, not a cause and I am not sure even they realize how dangerous this game they are playing is.
So Ukraine happens and becomes a symbol of a “war for, and against, the system.”  It isn’t about the fact that killing innocent Ukrainians is wrong - hell if morales like human life mattered we wouldn’t have Gaza.  No, Ukraine is all about “the system” and both sides appear to be waging it viewed through that lens.  Russia needs to show that they are going to play by their own rules, but not completely break themselves.  One could ask “why is Russia fighting this war by half measures?”  Do they enjoy a quagmire?  No, Putin understands what he has gotten himself into and is adopting a slow burn strategy, hoping we will get distracted and caught up in our own nonsense…and he might be right.
The rest of the West is trying to step up, but frankly we have grown awfully fat, dumb and happy on the back of the US - who now is having a bipolar fit.  In the end, we can live with a fallen Ukraine.  We can shore up the borders and lock Russia out.  We can live with a partial victory in Ukraine, do we really care about Crimea, LNR and DNR?  No, we did not in ‘14 and we don’t now.  We can’t live with a completely imploded Russia.  Those are where the real risks lie.  Too many unknowns that could really break the system.  So we wind up with a half hearted war designed to punish Russia for challenging the system but not destroy them.  Ukraine is, and I am being brutally honest here, is almost secondary to the entire conversation.  It was simply a very unfortunate country where both sides could try and prove a point.  We love Ukraine all of a sudden because they are an opportunity to show that 1) Russia was wrong to challenge the system, and 2) the system still works.  
I strongly suspect this is why this war is also so muddled in military circles.  We are watching a war to defend the system..that is demonstrating the weaknesses of our own military system at the same time.  So we put blinders on and try to pretend it isn’t happening.  Our military power has to still be relevant…otherwise how can we defend the system?
So to answer your question, “yes, the US and the West know exactly how important Ukraine really is and are fighting this war based on that calculus.”  The answer however is “somewhat important”.  We care and feel bad, but care much more about our own issues.  Putin read the short game about as wrong as one can.  He may have read the long game extremely well.  The way to beat the West is not outright confrontation, it is apathy.  2 years is forever for a culture addicted to clicks and flashing lights.  Putin’s off ramp is being able to draw a victory line somewhere of his choosing and he is shooting for that.  And we might just let him get there.
Now I would not start freaking out and worry about a second attack on Kyiv.  Something that dramatic might actually get our attention again.  No, this needs to become a boring war - I am starting to think Putin’s Tucker Carlson interview was smarter than we thought.  What better way to get Western audiences to yawn and start to change the channel than a history lesson?

But why? Why is the EU and USA doing that? Don't they know how important this conflict is? Do they not want to see Russia collapse (even at the risk it may cause a major power vacuum)? Why did we 'fight' the Cold War? The hard right was all behind defeating the USSR. Now they've flip-flopped. I just don't get it. All we have to do is provide arms to the Ukrainians. That supports our defense industry. No US servicemen (or women) are being asked to risk their lives. This should be a no-brainer. Is it because of the election year?

But why? Why is the EU and USA doing that? Don't they know how important this conflict is? Do they not want to see Russia collapse (even at the risk it may cause a major power vacuum)? Why did we 'fight' the Cold War? The hard right was all behind defeating the USSR. Now they've flip-flopped. I just don't get it. All we have to do is provide arms to the Ukrainians. That supports our defense industry. No US servicemen (or women) are being asked to risk their lives. This should be a no-brainer. Is it because of the election year?

@Grigb is one of the best contributors to this thread. Just sayin'.
****
VERIFICATION REQUEST. Is it true Russia only has one more A50 AWACS?  Or is this yet another Sushko disinfo special?
 

Good luck guys!

Good luck guys!

Good luck guys!

Good luck guys!

It would be useful, but I'm not aware of a way.  Hopefully someone will enlighten us.
Someone said in another thread that the core units have asterisks (*) in their names, but I believe that's usually the convention to indicate historical individuals/units?  The campaign designer could add a C (or sumfink) after core unit names, but I think they already have enough to do.  Perhaps in future 'the code' could do something like this?

I've been playing since approximately 2000.  I had the first 2 games.  Really enjoyed them.  Didn't rediscover the franchise until 2020 when looking for instructions on how to reinstall CMBO.  I went crazy over CM2 and within a couple months had all the games and DLC (except Afghanistan).  Been my #1 goto game ever since.