Lt Bull

Jesus Christ...don't bring that sh*t here. There's twitter and tumblr and facebook and a thousand other places for the oppression olympics.
As for the question...THERE'S HUGE diversity, unless of course you think all "white" people are the same. We have Americans, Canadians, British, Germans, Russians, Ukranian, New Zealanders, South Africans,  French, Poles, Dutch, Italians, (along with skins for black and brown citizens of those nations where viable) as well as Brazilian, Syrians, Indians, Sikhs, and plenty of portraits for Maori, Gurkha, Goumiers, Algerians, Japanese Americans, Druze, Assyrian, Palestinian, and Shi'ite. Hope that's enough "diversity" for you.
EDITED: CMBB and CMAK also had Finnish, Romanians, Hungarians, and Australians.
Burn it before it lays eggs...
Mord.
 

Loose chinstraps for the win!

I think that the modern titles really do need maps larger than 16km2 . As you say, they are so mobile, dispersed, and possess so much firepower that many if not most scenarios and QBs were realistically be missions for platoons or companies. I think battalion-sized engagements is where all of the pieces of CM come together, and with the battalion tactical groups in Black Sea or the mechanized battalions in SF2, there's just not enough room.

@ncc1701e ultimately every tactical problem is unique which is why the military places great store in planning.  As a very rough guide to making your map an appropriate size for a company vs company engagement you need to consider what is a viable defensive frontage.  To do that you need an understanding of your key weapon ranges and force structure.
Taking infantry as an example - the standard effective range for modern infantry weapons is in the ballpark of 300m.
If your force size is a company, it will generally have three platoons.
Applying some of the principles of defence:
Mutual support Depth So with mutual support, that means that each element should be able to support each other.  Remembering that the effective weapon range of your weapons is 300m then your individual squads should be no more than 300m away from each other.  That would make the defensive frontage in the ballpark of 1500m to 1800m in open terrain.  For depth, most defensive layouts will have an outpost line and each platoon in the company will generally have two squads up and one squad back.  Likewise the company defence will generally go with two platoons up and one platoon back which would give a depth of about 900m to a kilometre.
Now you have to build enough space on your map for the attacking force to manoeuvre - that would make the minimum map size for a fairly open map something in the region of 2.5km x 2km.

I don't seek out armor duels because they are a bit like tossing a coin, but they come up again and again. So I was interested to learn what I can do to maximize the chances for my tank in a duel if it gets into one.
So I put two identical Pz IVH (late) tanks with regular crews, no modifiers, against each other at 600 m range. I called one "Attacker" and the other "Defender", although it does not mean anything. I put both on a mild slope (partial hull down) and varied different conditions. Crew hatches open/closed, vehicle movement, terrain type, crew experience. I ran each case at least 1000 times and recorded the percentage of wins by each side. A 'win' means that the other vehicle was destroyed or the crew bailed out. If both vehicles were alive after 5 minutes, neither side won - usually one vehicle got hit and retreated back down the slope. If neither vehicle survived, both sides got a win.
The tables show the win rate on each side. The statistics were not perfect even with 1000 duels per case. Results of repeat runs could vary by up to +/- 3%. Notably I did not get a perfectly symmetric results even for reference cases R1 and R4 where the vehicles had identical conditions on both sides. So, don't take the numbers as the absolutely accurate truth. They just show what works.
Pz IVH was a good tank for this purpose because it can easily kill itself - powerful gun and vs weak armor. Therefore, the duels were mainly about who is able to spot first and land the first round accurately on target.
I did not find anything revolutionary - mostly stuff people already know and do - but it was still interesting to see the numbers. Here it is:
1. Keep your crew hatches open when expecting to fight an enemy AFV. If you can, force the enemy to close theirs.
Table 1. Effect of crew hatches open/closed. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
49%
49%
Closed
Open [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Open
Open
76%
21%
Closed
2. Minimize movement when within enemy LOS. Stop as soon as your vehicle can see the place where the enemy is (represented with the "Hull Down" command in the table below, which gives additional advantage of being harder to see and hit due to being hull down; this is not to say that the Hull Down command is always useable, but it worked here well because the Attacker was going up the slope). Movement makes you more visible - and it does not appear to matter what kind of movement command you use - in fact the faster movement commands seem to work a bit better.
Table 2. Effect of vehicle movement. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using different movement commands. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Hunt [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Stationary
Slow
35%
63%
Stationary
Move
39%
59%
Stationary
Quick
42%
56%
Stationary
Fast
41%
57%
Stationary
Hull Down
61%
29%
Stationary
Quick: Minimizes the time interval when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Therefore, Quick works well as it gets the attacker into position quickly, whereas Slow works poorly.
Hull Down: Better cover than the Defender and minimizes time when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Also: Easier to disengage when damaged – probably for both sides. High percentage of duels with no winner.
3. If you have to Hunt, point 1. about crew hatches still applies and can reverse the odds in your favor.
Table 3. Effect of crew hatches open/closed while the Attacker is moving. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using Hunt. The Defender is stationary. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
37%
60%
Closed
Open [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Open
Open
64%
34%
Closed
Closed
14%
82%
Open
4. Target arc can serve various purposes but does not help with seeing or hitting the enemy. TRP helps, likely by increasing the chances of a first hit.
Table 4. Effect of using Target Armor Arc and Target Reference Point (TRP). Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
No arc [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] No arc
Target Armor Arc
50%
49%
No arc
TRP on Defender
72%
28%
No TRP
Note: Target Arc can still help by pointing the gun and the Commander’s attention to the right direction if the vehicle is not moving directly towards the defender. Also, it prevents distraction of the Attacker by other, low-priority targets.
5. Ground type can provide some help by concealment. Tall types of grass (T and TY), Weeds, Brush, Lt Forest (without trees) and Crop 1 give a small advantage over hard or bare surfaces. Very tall types of crops (2-6) and Grass XT give significant advantage. There is no disadvantage in being on road or pavement compared to grass, but sand, mud and cobblestone seem to hurt a little, possibly because they lower the chances of disengaging when retreating in damaged condition.
Trees are complicated and depend on type. Type A trees are somewhat helpful if there are 2 or 3 on the tile. Type B trees are not helpful at all. Type C trees seem to be best, especially if there are 2 or 3. Type D trees are somewhat helpful independently on their number. Type E are like Type A. Bush does not make much of a change.
Stone and brick walls and low bocage give some advantage - can be concealment as well as cover. But bocage is the big one. A tank behind bocage almost always wins against a tank in open ground.
Table 5a. Effect of Defender ground type – bare surfaces, hard surfaces and roads. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass
45%
51%
Dirt
Grass
47%
50%
Dirt Red
Grass
49%
48%
Hard
Grass
50%
48%
Rocky
Grass
49%
49%
Rocky Red
Grass
52%
47%
Sand
Grass
52%
47%
Mud
Grass
50%
49%
Pavement 1
Grass
50%
50%
Pavement 2
Grass
52%
47%
Cobblestone
Grass
47%
51%
Gravel
Grass
46%
49%
Dirt Lot
Grass
49%
48%
Dirt Road
Grass
47%
50%
Gravel Road
Grass
51%
48%
Paved 1
Grass
48%
51%
Paved 2
Grass
47%
49%
Foot Path
Sand, Mud, Cobblestone (?): Can impair movement, possibly making retreat of a damaged vehicle slower and less likely to succeed before the Attacker fires another accurate shot.
Table 5b. Effect of Defender ground type – low vegetation and cultivated fields. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass
Grass
50%
47%
Grass Y
Grass
50%
48%
Clover
Grass
50%
48%
Flowers
Grass
49%
50%
Plow NS
Grass
50%
50%
Plow EW
Grass
43%
57%
Grass T
Grass
43%
55%
Grass TY
Grass
44%
54%
Weeds
Grass
44%
55%
Grass + Brush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
[R3] Lt Forest
Grass
42%
57%
Crop 1
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 2
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 3
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 4
Grass
40%
58%
Crop 5
Grass
39%
59%
Crop 6
Grass
38%
60%
Grass XT
Table 5c. Effect of Defender ground type – foliage. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass, no foliage
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
42%
54%
Grass + 3x Type A Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
46%
Grass + 2x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
47%
Grass + 3x Type B Tree
Grass
43%
52%
Grass + 1x Type C Tree
Grass
33%
62%
Grass + 2x Type C Tree
Grass
32%
62%
Grass + 3x Type C Tree
Grass
44%
52%
Grass + 1x Type D Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type D Tree
Grass
40%
55%
Grass + 3x Type D Tree
Grass
50%
47%
Grass + 1x Type E Tree
Grass
42%
55%
Grass + 2x Type E Tree
Grass
41%
55%
Grass + 3x Type E Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type A Bush
Grass
52%
47%
Grass + 2x Type A Bush
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 3x Type A Bush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
 [R3] Lt Forest, no foliage
Grass
44%
54%
Lt Forest + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
39%
57%
Lt Forest + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
37%
59%
Lt Forest + 3x Type A Tree
1x Tree: Can be detrimental because it does not provide enough concealment and can trigger APHE shells passing high, wounding the exposed Commander.
Table 5d. Effect of Defender ground type – walls and fences. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R4]
48%
51%
[R4] Grass
Grass
46%
54%
Grass + Stone
Grass
47%
52%
Grass + Brick
Grass
 
 
Grass + Rural Stone
Grass
43%
55%
Grass + Low Bocage
Grass
7%
89%
Grass + Bocage
6. Crew experience - there is a big change from Green to Regular to Veteran, but Crack gives little advantage over Veteran.
Table 6. Effect of crew Experience. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Green
33%
66%
Regular
Regular
36%
61%
Veteran
Veteran
44%
57%
Crack
Green
20%
78%
Veteran
Regular
32%
67%
Crack
Green
18%
82%
Crack

As I've been comparing CM's quickbattle-maps with actual landscape/maps, I couldn't help but notice that the scale of many quickbattle-maps is off (this issue doesn't apply to many scenario-maps which are more often based on real maps). Generally speaking, quickbattle-maps are too crowded and too small. It's a bit like the landscape of a model railroad. It’s extremely compartialized. Often there are tiny patches of trees ("woods") all over the place, the fields are tiny, there are little bumps in the terrain everywhere ("hills"). And even the houses in villages often seem to be placed too close to each other. A map of 2km² often contains several fields, villages and woods in Combat Mission, whereas in reality, you could probably only fit in only a few fields.
I'm not saying that this is bad, mind you. In a weird way, our computer-gamer-eyes are accustomed to the look of it. And also in terms of gameplay, it does certainly make sense as it leads to a lot of close quarter action, forces tanks and vehicles into point blank to each other and into the range of infantry and generally speaking offers more (and more diverse) terrain to play with. So, to some extent, you could say that miniature-terrain guarantees "action packed" engagements and revamps infantry against vehicles (balance-issue). But the geeky wargamer voice in me kept pestering me, asking that seemingly innocent question: "Yeah, Kaunitz, but it is realistic?".   
So here we go. In order to silence that nagging voice in my head, I decided to make my own map. I've been trying that before, mind you (my Gerbini project is on hold until the patch comes out). This time though, the map will not be based on an actual battle and will not even be based on a real location. This simply gives me much more freedom and speeds up things.
Here are some of my guiding principles for map design: 
realistic scale - even though the map is not based on a real location, the map will be based on a plausible scale. After a few short tests, the results are certainly interesting. You can actually set up MGs (without getting them killed the moment they can theoretically be sighted by an enemy unit) and attacking infantry needs to work a bit in order to get within rifle range!  as few "cutoffs" as possible -  A problem I have with many QB-maps is that they're so small that the more reasonable positions for vehicles, support weapons and FOs are simply cut off. Most of the time, I'm asking myself: Why would I place this tank/MG so close to the frontline? Nobody would do that! The weapon is not supposed to be used like that! Surely, there would be some small hill 1km to the rear where it would make much more sense to set up the weapon/vehicle? Also, do I really have to peek over that ridge at point blank range? Is there no hill in the rear area that would allow me to take a look from a safer distance? Admittedly, there can be situations in which there simply is no better position available, but QB maps constantly seem to force a deadly point blank ranges onto me. To prevent that, maps need to have a certain minimum size, and observation and long-range positions need to be taken into account when designing the map. Of course engagements were not static, and if you do take into account that the battle might move on a bit in this or that direction, the required map-size multiplies very quickly (irregular shaped maps would be interesting here…). To tackle this problem, I want to experiment with the “exit” objective (see below).   if possible, I’d like to pay special attention to micro-cover - I do think that infantry is a bit too vulnerable in the open. I will see whether it is possible to add a few more small bumps in the ground and some props to give infantry more cover (if prone). But I'm not sure yet if and how that will work out. I suppose one would need very tiny differences in height which would provide some cover to infantry without blocking their LOS. I don’t think it’s possible in CM, but I see if I can somehow recreate the effect. Small preview of the current status (obviously not much yet, but it is a beginning): 
https://imgur.com/a/imul3HX (the map is 1456x1920m)
https://imgur.com/a/5dX5B5s
https://imgur.com/a/SahWEan
 Further ideas: 
Allow the defender to retreat to prevent implausible blood baths:  As this is a little experiment, I do want to make the battle realistic, even at the cost of game play. Therefore, I want to give the defender the option to retreat to cut down his casualties. I’ve not taken a closer look if and how I can get it to work yet. The problem I see is that all units (tagged to be destroyed) that have not left the battlefield by the end of the battle are counted as destroyed, which is not really what I want. There needs to be a difference between "did not leave the battlefield because the battle was going well and there was no reason to do so" and "did not leave the battlefield because the player decided to make a desperate suicide last stand". I'm not sure if the editor allows me to differentiate between those two. Generally speaking, the option to retreat should also be interesting from a gameplay perspective as the defender will need to move and cover his retreat (with longer ranges, this is much more reasonable as you won't get killed the very moment you stand up and move...). ------------------------------------
Feel free to discuss and contribute! What are your thoughts on map design and particularly map-scale? Also, how many troops would be fighting over the map? I was thinking of at least 2 companies up for the attacker (the width of the front is 1456m). Do you have any comments on the retreat-idea?
Right now, I'm stuck a little bit as I can't make the cornifer-woods look pretty and functional (lack of cornifer-trees that come with a short tree-trunk/low tree crown). I think I will have to go for mixed forests. 
I will also be looking out for volunteers to test the map once it is ready!

Greetings
I wanted to let everyone know that we at Developer Dialogue had the incredible opportunity to interview the founder & creator of Battlefront.com, Stephen Grammont. During the interview we dove into the history of the Combat Mission franchise, discuss the company’s latest partnership with Slitherine and uncover some bombshells.  We also uncover why Battlefront never released on Steam, until now.
 
Special thank you to Stephen for taking part in this interview, it was an amazing experience.
 
If you guys are interested you can listen to it here:
 
YouTube: 
 
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/developer-dialogue/id1524192396 
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/33DiH9pCrcV9bVw4WeDWmS 
Google Podcasts: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc3ByZWFrZXIuY29tL3Nob3cvNDUwNTYyMi9lcGlzb2Rlcy9mZWVk

The concept of what determines if a particular scenario (or QB) is "balanced" or not can be a very subjective thing to try and grapple with. For the sake of this discussion I will limit this discussion to "head to head" games between two players. 
I'm not sure how others might define what makes a "balanced" scenario/QB, but I think of it in statistical terms:  for instance, if the particular scenario/QB was played "double blind" by multiple pairs of "equally" rated players many times (ideally (though impossibly) an infinite amount of times), you would expect the win/loss distribtion to approach 50:50 ie. an equal number of Allied to Axis "wins".  Any bias away from a 50:50 distrubution of wins would give grounds to indicate the particular scenario/QB is "unbalanced".  The greater the bias/deviation in wis/loss distribution, the greater the "imbalance".  However just considering the resolution of scenarios/QBs as just a pure binary "win" or "loss" outcome for one side may still hide an imbalance that otherwise remains evident.
Outcomes of CM scenarios/QBs however aren't actually just purely binary outcomes. A degree or level of victory/defeat based on actual "victory points" gained by each side, or more specifically, the numeric differential in the victory points gained by each side at the end of every battle determines the actual victory level assigned by CM. ie. either draw, minor victory/defeat, tactical victory/defeat, or total victory/defeat.
But is it that simple? Consider a scenario/QB that has an equal 50:50 win/loss distribution that makes the scenario/QB appear "balanced".  Should it still be considered "balanced" if the average magnitude (or level) of victories being recorded for each side is different for both sides? eg. the Allies might win 50% of the time, with the average victory level being "total victory", yet the Axis win 50% of the time but with the average victory level being "minor victory".   It could be argued here that the scenario/QB actually is not totally "balanced" but rather favouring the Allies.  So perhaps considering the actual victory points differential (or VPD) of each game played may be the better metric or indicator to monitor when studying "balance".
Note that when monitoring VPD (rather than just wins and losses), you would expect the average VPD of all games played to approach zero (0) if the scenario/QB was to be considered "balanced".  For the purposes of this discussion and to set a convention, we can always consider the VPD:
Victory Point  Differntial (VPD) = [ALLIES victory points] minus [AXIS victory points]
That means the VPD could be a positive or negative number, with a positive VPD typically meaning an Allied victory/Axis defeat and a negative VPD meaning an Allied defeat/Axis victory.  Keep in mind that there is a range of positive and negative VPDs centred about zero that CM will nevertheless consider as being a draw.  When considering VPD, the "ideal balanced" scenario/QB could be seen as one where the average VPD of all games played would follow a normal distribution (or bell curve) centred about zero
(SIDE NOTE: For those of you who are more statistacally inclined, it is worth considering that I can not see reason to assume that the actual distribution of VPD for all games played for any CM scenario/QB has any reason to even assume, let alone appraoch, a normal distribution. Unless it can be pointed out otherwise, I don't think the central limit theorm (and any inherint/inevitable tendency that the VPD would tend towards a normal distriution) can be applied here.  The actual distribution of VPD for any scenario/QB in question could follow one of many other types of distributions (eg. skewed or gamma, bimodal etc). Certainly, idealistically a symmetrical distribution centred about zero would probably be considered more balanced than say one that has a population VPD average (expected outcome) of zero but is otherwise asymmetrically skewed about zero.  Let me know if you think otherwise.)
That is all just background to what I really wanted to discuss and present however.....
Having recently considered a prospective QB battle with a PBEM opponent, I got thinking about how two competing players could come to a mutualy achieved agreement on the QB parameters to ensure the QB battle was "fairly balanced".  My inspiration was based on the "I cut, you choose" protocl that ensures fair division and allocation of a divisible resource between two parties.  The typical example is of two brothers who want to "evenly and fairly" share a cake.   The protocol proceeds as follows: one person ("the cutter") cuts the cake into two pieces; the other person ("the chooser") chooses one of the pieces; the cutter receives the remaining piece.
If we consider CM QBs played H2H, I would say the vast majority of them are essentially meeting engagements (MEs) played on maps that have some degree of geographical symmetry, be it in the distribution of terrain, setup zones and/or Objective Locations, mirrored about an imaginary mid-line that would typically evenly divide the map in half between the Allied half of the map and the Axis half of the map.  Of course, these ME QBs would typically be setup so that both sides get the same amount (or near enough to be close enough) of unit purchase points.  I will use the term force points (FP) to mean the same thing as uniy purchase pioints.  Choosing to play on an "unbiased" ME map with equal FPs each side just seems to be the easiest way to ensure the QB is "fair", so it may not be surprising why ME QBs are more likely to be played than the other types of QBs (probes (PR), attack (AT) and assualts (AS).
I should also introduce at this point the concept of force ratio (or FR).  It is defined as:
Force ratio (FR) = [side A FP] / [side B FP]
where side A is typically the "attacker" and side B the "defender" (ie side A FP is either equal to or greater than side B FP). ie. a FR of 1.25 means the "attacker" has  25% more FP to spend than the 'defender".  With FR already defined in terms of the attacker FP to defender FP ratio, it does help to now simply consider the use of the global term force size (FS) as refering to just the "base" defenders FP, from which the attacker FP can be then be readily calculated by multiplying it with the the force ration (FR)
The CM QB generator has pre-programmed FRs associated with each QB type.  They are as follows (without any force modifiers applied):
ME FR = 1
PR FR = between 1.45 and 1.49
AT FR = between 1.59 and 1.65
AS FR = between 1.76 and 1.84
However, messing around with the force modifier parameter, the range of FRs possible extends to:
ME FR = between 1 and 2.48
PR FR = between 1.45 and 3.7
AT FR = between 1.42 and 4.11
AS FR = between 1.29 and 4.57
But what really makes an ME an ME, a PR a PR, an AT and AT and a AS and AS? What CM suggest are really just "guides" and broad categories to describe certain kinds of battles of various FR.
FR is really just only one parameter in a CM QB that influences the "balance" of a QB, or can be adjusted to balance a QB. The parameter against which the FR is typically compared against are what I would call the QB battlefield parameters.  This would comprise of the actual QB map itself (the distribution of terrain/topography/feratures) in relation to any Objective Locations (including their value) and the respective setup zones, and how they all interact together as a whole on the map. Additional to this you would also need to consider the soft factors such as weather/visibility/conditions and battle duration. The "date" and "theatre" a QB is based on may also be an influence as it may determine the availability of some units that might otherwise potentially be influential (if purchased) in the QB.  I might make the assertion here that most players looking to play QBs might first start by searching for a QB map that looks interesting and suitable enough to play (size/layout etc) and typically determine these QB battlefield parameters without much trouble.
With all these QB battlefield parameters predetermined and considered togther, the question can be asked:
What method can players use to help determine what force ratio (FR) to assign to any QB map to make it "balanced"?
I have considered the following procedure that can be used by two prospectiive players who face this question when they have already selected the map and the QB battlefield parameters:
1.  Both players preview the QB map and the QB battlefield parameters and consider playing the QB from both the "attacker" and "defender" perspective in terms of force ratio (FR).  They may at this point secretly record what force size (FS) they think would be suitable to use on the QB map selected (if not already agreed upon).
2.  They secretly record the force ratio (FR) they think that should be applied to the QB in order to make it a fair/"balanced" contest.
3.  Both players then reveal their nominated FR (and FS if required) and the average between the two numbers is calculated.  This average becomes the FR (and FS) that will be used in the QB.
4.  The player who nominated the HIGHEST FR plays as the 'defender".  The player who nominate the LOWEST FR  plays as the "attacker".
5.  Players can now consult the QB Force Ratios Table that I have made available here that fully details every possible QB Force Ratio (FR) and Force Points (FP)/Force Size (FS) combination that can be achieved by the CM QB setup screen: 
 
6.  Look up the values of FR and FS determined/calculated in the previous steps that best match the "Ratio" and "DEF Points") combo values respectively in the QB Points Combo/Force ratio table.  Note down these values "actual" configurable CM QB paramters. There are only a discrete number of QB combinations possible in the CM QB setup screen, so the goal in this step is to sort through all the possibilities to find the one that best matches the FR and FS parameters determined in step 3.
eg.  If FR = 1.70  and FS = 4750 was determined in step 3, the best match in the table would be achiveable by reading off 4500 (approx 4750) and 1.68 (approx 1.70) and configuring a Large ME with a +70% modifer in the CM QB setup screen (which will result in the Attacker getting 7580 FP and teh defender 4500 FP (FR=1.68):

7.  Depending on what QB parameters get selected in step 6, players may need to use the Sceanrio Editor to open and edit the actual QB Map file to tweek one parameter to allow the QB map to actually be visible and selectable in the QB setup screen. 
eg.  players may have selected to play a particular QB map that had previously been tagged as an "Allied Probe" map.  The"actual' QB parameters determined via step 6 may have however pointed to setting the QB battle up as a Large ME (LME) with + 70% modifier. The player will need to use the Scenario Editor, Load the chosen QB map file, modify the "Battle Type" field from say "Allied Probe" to "Meeting Engagement" as per the example.  Doing so makes the particular QB Map file visible and selectable when the time comes to browse for the human selected QB map.  Save file as new name and exit the Scneario Editor.

8. Load the QB setup screen and and configure all the "actual" QB parameters determined from the table (typically that best matches the values of FR and FS determined/calculated in Step 6, as well as any other QB parameters:
.
Pressing OK will prompt the user to select the QB Map (review Step 7 if the QB does not appear in the file list).
(It is important to note that when considering FR, the actual FS (force size) that is used in the QB is probably best considered a separate individual factor for consideration that just determines the number of units that appear on the map in proportions defined by the FR.  We can assume that the FS are independant to and do not affect QB balance, and just determine the actual size of each of the forces.  This may not actually be the case but I will assume it is fair enough assumption for simplicity unless otherwise convinced).
I don't know if this method has ever been considered or used before, but unless advised otherwise, I think it is quite a simple, fair and robust means of determining how to "balance" a QB.I don't think the system can be "gamed" by either participating player to force a QB parameter outcome that somehow favours them over their opponent.  Players just need to be able to look at a QB map, consider all the relevant battlefield parameters (eg setup zones, terrain, Objective Locations etc) and put a number to what they think the attacker:defender force ratio should be to make the QB "balanced", prior to even knowing whether they will be the atatcker or the defender.  This may take some experience to get the right feel.  It certainly will be interesting how players react to the outcomes of their QBs.  If they claimed that the QB was "unbalanced" not in their favour, then perhaps their own poor misjudgment when they originally 'evaluated" the QB map and nominated their own FR may have something to do with it.  Again, assigning a FR to a QB to achieve balance is not something players typically have exactly been doing.  They HAVE and DO evaluate QB maps for balance however, though without ever really assigning a metric to it.  Now that metric exists.  It just needs tio be calibrated.
I hope the "fairness" of this method is self evident by understanding the dynamics at play behind the method described.  i can see that some folks might not be able to see it that way and would need some kind of explanation to convince them of how this is a "fair" way of determining QB balance.  I could spend some time explaining that if asked.
Happy to hear your comments/crticism/thoughts/experience with it as it really is like an alpha/beta level idea that needs some vigourous testing/scrutiny.
Bull

This is a really good comprehensive summary that I hope Battlefront at least recognise are aspects of the game mechanics which ideally could be improved (not that I am expecting them to actually do anything about it, though even addressing just one of these in a patch would be a huge win).

While I agree with the above comments about tactics and players pushing too hard, here are a couple of very specific reasons why we see such high casualties.
The HUNT command doesn't work as it should - troops don't go prone immediately when fired upon. There is currently no way of really advancing cautiously with infantry, even when you know enemy contact is imminent.
  Real life troops can go "hull down" behind ridges, but in CM, since it's a square-based system, it's either you stay where you are or you advance 8 metres into the field of fire. No middle ground. This makes slopes more difficult to deal with than in reality.
  Troops can't use corners of buildings for cover. Yes, there was a "peek around corners" feature added recently, but it doesn't work reliably, and even when it does, it just places one guy from the team in the street. He's not peeking, and he doesn't seem to be getting any cover bonus from the corner of the building.
  Broken troops can still be ordered to advance, and even though they are less effective than fresh troops, they can still engage. They never reach the point where they refuse to follow orders. In reality, there's a limit to how far you can push people.
  Many buildings offer less cover than they should. Especially the barns in Normandy are shown as being made of stone, but they offer cover values as if they were American barns made out of thin wooden planks. I've seen many opponents place MGs etc. in such barns, not realising they are death traps.
  When placing troops in shellholes, some guys will often simply refuse to take cover in the crater, and instead they will sit on the edge in full view. In CM1, this was abstracted, but in CM2, placement of individual pixeltroops really matters.
  Gunners in most open vehicles are placed way too high compared to where the sight of their weapon is.
  When sending a team to run or hunt along a low wall, individual troops will often decide to cross the wall and walk for a while on the other side before crossing back. This exposes them to fire and makes it more difficult to use the cover.
  Troops don't go to ground when they see artillery starting to land nearby. They only go prone if the enemy shells hit very close to their own location. In real life, if you saw a mortar shell hit 100m to your right, and another 80m to your left, you'd be smart enough to realise that you're in a barrage, and that you should get down. Even if no shell actually landed on top of you yet.

I understand why you would want to not play a ME QB for the reasons you mention.  However I still need to ask why at all you feel like you need/should play it mirrored?  Is it that both players, having otherwise agreed to just play the QB once (unmirrored), just want to avoid the "well this QB was unbalanced from the start" kind of regret/lamenting that can occur if the battle ends up being a bit of a cakewalk? Is mirroring battles just really some kind of "insurance" and avoidance against that happening?
I would include things like copying your good firing positions as part of mirroring the other players strategy.  Your own effort to survey and find that position is effort you put in (as part of your strategy) that is now used against you. Either way, for reasons I've explained, there is something just too odd and artificial about mirrored games.  Of the times I have played them, I have been very conflicted in what I do in one game as I feel it can potentially affect the other, which is just a crazy unrealistic thing to have to consider.
I agree about finding that interesting, though definitely not worth mirroring games for.  Instead, when I finish H2H battles, I go looking for AARs on the same scenario/QB map to see how others may have handled things.
I think knowing what the average VPD for any scenario or particular QB played across all the games that had ever been played would be an awesome thing to know.  Even though we may never know what that might be, the thing is, such a number actually does exist, albeit unbeknown to us (but no to God LOL!). I would prefer to rate the outcome of a battle (and hence the performance of both players) by comparing the VPD of a scenario/QB just played against that number rather than what might be otherwise indicated as the "victor" in the CM AAR 
Sites like The Blitz do make some attempts at recording W/L rates for various scenarios but I don't think the actual VPD is recorded, just the level of victory, which admittedly does give some insight in to what the actual VPD was (at least an upper/lower limit based on how CM AAR categorises draws, minor, tactical and total victories/defeats.  It is still curious to note that players looking for a suitable "balanced" scenario to play might consult a site like The Blitz and look for a scenario that appears "balanced" ie. equal spread of w/l across both sides.
I am really curious to give some of the alpha/beta concepts I have discussed a go.
As a first off, I want to run a bit of an experiment (actually more of a survey) that touches on a concept I have already spoken about, that needs your participation.
I have randomly plucked out an asymmetric CMBN QB map that I found in my CMBN QB Maps folder as a case in point.  What I will ask you to do is open up this QB map in the Scenario Editor, take note of the respective setup zones, the location of the Terrain Objectives and the terrain and other associated map details with respect to everything else on the map and determine what you think would be a "fair" Force Ratio (FR) to apply to a QB played on this map.  For what its worth, lets just assume the following QB parameters will be used:
Download Link (save to your QB Maps folder, open it in Scenario Editor): What FR for this QB Map.btt
Battle Length: 45 min
Date: July, 1944
Conditions: daylight, clear, dry
Rarity: Normal
Attacker force: US Army, mixed (no house rule restrictions on units)
Defender force: German Army, mixed (no house rule restrictions on units)
Victory points:
>80% destruction of Defender force: 200pts to Attacker
<50% destruction of Defender force: 100pts to Defender
>60% destruction of Attacker force: 200pts to Defender
<30% destruction of Attacker force: 100pts to Attacker
Single terrain objective: 100pts
Only house rule is no arty attacks on Attacker setup zones in first 10min.
While you are at it, you may as well also nominate what you think would be a suitable Force Size (FS) to use on this map. (That basically is the purchase points for the defender, in this case the Germans).
Here is what the deployment zones look like:

The Objective (worth 100 points):

A preview of the map looking NE from the defenders perspective:

Post your results in this thread.

Although my discussion is exclusively about H2H gameplay (and QBs in particular),I  would say interesting and enjoyable games are always going to figure in to whether a player choses to play particular  SP or MP game.  This typically gets evaluated if and when you might read some recommendation/review/AAR about a scenario or QB map somewhere, or when you just look at the map in the scenario editor and reading any text/notes you might find relating to the QB map or scenario in question.
I believe the whole concept behind mirrored battles is to introduce an element of "fairness" between competing players to address issues of potential "imbalance" in the given QB/scenario being played (or in the most petty of cases, compensating for any negative feelings a player may otherwise harbour if they instead only played the battle from one side and perhaps were soundly defeated possibly feeling like they got "the rough end of the stick" when sides were allocated.  If mirrored battles of a given scenario/QB are played (typically simultaneously), then playing one side in one battle is essentially like the perfect spoiler for the same battle you are playing but from the other side.  This perpetual constant spoiler that hangs over mirrored battles is something I just cant reconcile and ultimately spoils for me the challenge of even playing a scenario/QB in the first place.  Any briefings meticulously crafted and designed by the scenario designer that you read from one side that might otherwise be their way of providing a level of unknown/uncertainty in to say the disposition/location/intelligence on the enemy forces is essentially throwing out the window.  Such a waste of what I think is a more worthwhile experience to enjoy.  What also annoys me about double blind battles is that your opponent may also learn and use your own strategies/tactics (that you possibly laboured over to develop) against you in the mirrored game. The argument "well so can you" just doesn't cut it for me and misses the point of playing experience I am after in the first place. The whole experience of playing mirrored games just seems so artificial, contrived and unnecessary.
I am of the view that the most 'realistic", challenging and exciting gaming experiences playing CM are primed by design to occur the one and only time you ever decide to play a chosen scenario/QB double blind with a human opponent (though in theory it is just as valid if you play it SP vs a well designed AI).  There is something very "unique" and special about the first playthrough of a scenario/QB played double blind, where you first experience and discover all and any of the hidden unexpected surprises that may await you and your opponent as you push through each turn, regardless of what side you end up playing.  For that very reason, I typically do not ever play any scenario twice, and only ever experience them from one side.  I would only consider playing the scenario again if I felt there was perhaps a good enough reason to (eg. academically wondering if a different approach to the battle would have achieved a more favourable result, knowing full well that this alternate approach was born from pure hindsight from having already played the battle, or something academic like that). I don't know (or care) how other players consider the concept of mirrored games but that's just my take and reasoning behind my thoughts on it.
It stands to reason that most historical balanced were not 'equal" or "balanced". You just need to consider the implications across the ages of the adage "don't start a fight you can't win".  Not sure what the question you are suggesting an answer to is however.
I am not so concerned about the actual VPD outcome of any given QB as I am in knowing the QB is suitably balanced such that the VPD reported at the end of the battle is a decent measurable representation of the battle outcome, given most players strive to configure QBs as such in the first place.

A nice video describing Bocage types and how many per Kilometre wartime vs peacetime.
 

You might get some solace from the fact that this kind of issue is not restircted to that kind of building or that scenario.  It appears a number of buildings in CM are problematic as you described.
I recently undertook an depth study on a type of "Independant" building that are in the Scenario Designer and would be featured in many of the scenarios out there.  I recently added the detailed test results and easy to run example saved "test files" to a post just like yours to a post I started back in 2015! It really is disappointing that these bugs still exist and have not been corrected
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120716-odd-building-entry-bug/?do=findComment&comment=1821324
PS:  LMAO!  Just looked at WHEN the OP originally posted!

You might get some solace from the fact that this kind of issue is not restircted to that kind of building or that scenario.  It appears a number of buildings in CM are problematic as you described.
I recently undertook an depth study on a type of "Independant" building that are in the Scenario Designer and would be featured in many of the scenarios out there.  I recently added the detailed test results and easy to run example saved "test files" to a post just like yours to a post I started back in 2015! It really is disappointing that these bugs still exist and have not been corrected
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120716-odd-building-entry-bug/?do=findComment&comment=1821324
PS:  LMAO!  Just looked at WHEN the OP originally posted!

How am I gonna flush out those Germans now without them charging forward scared out of their minds!? Great patch.

Hello,
I've gone looking for a thread posted maybe a year ago where I was originally made aware of the "evade towards enemy" behaviour (though probably an actual bug) that typically involves infantry behind hedgerows breaking that cover when under fire and running towards the enemy through gaps in the hedgerow (invariably to their deaths) that I can confirm I has been able to reliably replicate when I downloaded and played the saved game that was provided by a user investigating the issue at the time. From what I understand, this issue may only be specific to CMBN and seems to only have appeared after one of the recent patch/engine upgrades. I would have checked the status of the issue and would have posted on that thread there but I have not been able to find the thread curiously enough, hence this new thread.
So I have just started a mirrored CMBN H2H QB on a map that I know several other players have battled over, and I just had a most extraordinary occurence of this "evade towards enemy" behaviour (or whatever you want to call it).  I had three infantry teams lined up along a stretch of hedgerow in a defensive deployment, evenly separated by about 15m.  Behind them is a flat wooded orchard. In front of them is a road, beyond which the terrain gently rises, criss-crossed with some buildings and hedgerows.
On the second turn of making contact with the enemy directly in front of them, returning fire and taking some level of suppression, each team, at some point in the turn, decided to essentially break cover and run sideways along the hedgerow to the nearest infantry-sized gap in the hedgerows and run through the gap in to the open directly towards the enemy where they just get shot up.  When the teams actually break from taking casualties, the surviving pixeltruppen (eg. those that remained in place cowering behind the hedgerow) rout away from the hedgerow/enemy through the orchard behind them.
Units lined up behind hedgerows engaging enemy start of turn:

"Rattled" pixeltruppen running suicide through hedgerow gap to meet their maker:

For the full video experience, you can watch it unfold here:
First and second teams suicide
Third team suicide
I did wonder if I had inadvertently given move orders to my units during the previous orders phase (can happen if you just want to select one unit to issue a move order to but inadvertently double click it whereby also selecting all its subordinates and/or formation level units as well).  However, I can rule that possibility out: other units in the formation were unaffected.
Still not satisfied, I checked the QB map in the Scenario Editor.  All "Friendly Direction" parameters were correct for the battle.  I then created a scenario file using the same map and parameters and purchased the same units on both sides.  I then placed the exact same German teams from the same platoon from the same company etc that I had purchased in the QB in the same spots and attacked them with the same infantry (US paras).  Incredibly (or maybe not so incredibly), the same thing happened!  Suicide through the hedgerow gap.
Even better: I have created a scenario file (TEST GAP.btt) using the same QB map with all units in place.  All you need to do is load the scenario file, play it as a turn-based Hotseat (or SP Germans) and just press Go for both sides, no need to give any orders.  The units will start shooting and exchanging fire immediately.  You should see this behaviour with your own eyes occur within the first minute of battle:
TEST GAP.btt
So what is Battlefront's official stance on what appears to be on this undesirable TacAI induced behaviour?
"What issue?" (no response/acknowledgement) "Nothing to see here, working as designed"(if so please explain) "Yeah, can't fix it, too bad, sucks for you though" "Wow, looking in to it, hopefully find a fix, keep you posted" FWIW, I have forfeited that H2H QB I am playing.  I can't afford to have that kind of thing happen and take those kinds of cheap loses and just continue playing regardless, let alone think it won't happen again.  I think for now I am regretfully going to just avoid playing any CMBN (or at least anything with that hedgerow terrain) until this issue is resolved.

DOH! I somehow posted the link to this thread instead of the damn file!
NEW WORKING LINK TO FILE BELOW!!!
>>>> Bull's Stoumont Before & After & CMFB.pdf  <<<<
While I'm at it may as well make up for it with a few teaser previews:

Its been almost five years since I started this thread and would have thought that the issue(s) originally highlighted would have been fixed long ago via a patch/update etc.  This sadly is not the case.  The issue described is not a "cosmetic" issue with no effect on gameplay. Contrary, it has the potential to turn what players would think is a relatively safe move order for infantry in to a order that may result in the entire enemy unit being decimated, as I had experienced when I first noticed the issue all those years ago.
I am revisiting this thread and the issue that was discussed because I was just curious to see what, if anything, was achieved in first highlighting the issue almost five years ago. I also like to think even trying to address such issues on these forums is not just a complete waste of time and effort. If anyone can point to a thread where Battlefront had at least previously acknowledged this issue, that will be good.
 (I should also add that I did actually stop playing CM around that time out of a frustration that gameplay issues like this weren't being addressed, let alone acknowldged by those in a position to do something about it. After coming back to CM after a many year hiatus, I really was surprised that this issue was never fixed. I have stopped playing CMBN because of a new odd suicidal TacAI behaviour issue (apparently introduced after a recent update/patch) that can result in infantry defending and under fire behind a line of hedgerows deciding to break cover and run laterally along the hedgerow until they reach the infantry-sized gap in the hedgerow and start running through the gap towards the enemy/incoming fire, invariably to their death (read all about it and see for yourself here))
Perhaps this post (unlike Battlefront), will warn both players and probably more importantly/practically, scenario/map designers, that certain buildings from the Scenario Editor if used in scenarios in certain orientations will definitely result in the kind of unexpected infantry building entry/exit behaviour discussed above (and more comprehensively below for your convenience) that really can turn players off.
I cannot confirm (have mnot searched) if there are equivalent issues with certain other buildings or in  other CM titles, but I will qualify that they definitely do exist in the building types I discuss below in CMBN.
I have just reviewed and tested ALL seven types of "Independent>Other" buildings available in the CMBN Scenario Editor.  I have created a scenario file and two game save files to download to see for yourself that features all seven buildings in all four possible facing orientations (north, south, east, west) with all the infantry already setup and given move orders to enter the building from one end and exit it on the opposite side.  The buildings are laid out as follows in the scenario/save file(s):

Typically all of these buildings are assigned a "direction" by the Scenario Editor, and visually/cosmetically all appear to have two doors: one on the "front" and one on the "rear" assigned faces of the building (through which it is expected infantry can/should and be only able to enter/exit from).  The side walls of all seven buildings clearly have fully bricked side walls devoid of visible.
eg. rear view of Independedent>Other building "C".  Note location of door on right of rear face, alongside the left edge of the building.

It is expected that if an infantry unit is located just outside the front or the rear face of the building and given a move order waypoint located inside the building, then the infantry unit will take the shortest route to the waypoint and move towards and through what is nearest respective door, located on that front or rear building face. Similarly, if a unit is already within the building and given a waypoint directly out the front or rear of the building, the infantry unit will exit the building using the respective doors in that direction.
If you run the save game files provided, they are already setup with movement waypoint orders assigned to infantry squads located at the front and rear of the buildings: the first waypoint is in the building, the second is on the opposite side of the building. File 001 has units positioned north and west of the buildings.  File 002 has units positioned south and east of the buildings. Links to test files and the scenario test file itself:
Scenario file: CMBN Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test.btt
Save file: Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test 001.bts
Save file: Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test 002.bts
A few key points:
All the buildings tested definitely have one or two entry/exit points, though not necessarily where they are otherwise graphically indicated on the front and rear of the building.  It depends on the building and it's facing. When some buildings are placed on the map in certain orinetations/facings (at the map designing phase stage via the Scenario Editor) it will determine if one or both of the graphically represented doors on the front and/or rear of the building will cease to operate as entry/exit points during the game.  In these instances, an apparent "invisible" side door (or entry/exit point) instead will apparently appear to function along one of the non-front/rear faces of the building, located close to one edge/corner of the building face.  The location and existence of these "invisible" side doors is predetermined by the building orientation/facing. The test files feature 10 man squads.  Using smaller squads may show more consistency in whether ALL pixeltruppen enter/exit a building via one entry/exit point, or whether the pixeltruppen will enter/exit the building using both entry/exit points during the same move order. Random localised positioning of each pixeltruppen seems to be a factor in some cases determining whether all, most or some of the pixeltruppen belonging to a squad entering/exiting a building during a move will use one or two of the existing building entry/exit points. Unless a player uses the Scenario Editor (or the save files provided in this thread) to learn to recognise/identify the 7 types of Independent>Other discussed in this post, they will invariably be unable to recognise them in any CMBN scenario they choose to play that features them. The comprehensive table of results of testing is available as a PDF and Excel file at links below: Excel: Bull's CMBN Independent Houses.xlsx
PDF: Bull's CMBN Independent Houses.pdf
Preview of table:

The table text and cells are colour coded for each situation to aid in interpretation as follows:
RED text indicates (and warns players) that it has been demonstrated that it is possible (though not  guaranteed) that at least some pixeltruppen MAY avoid the nearest door and instead, if entering a buildings, route around the sides of the building to instead enter the building via the indicated door on the OPPOSITE side of the building from where the unit started it's movement from, or i exiting a building, use the door on the opposite side of the building to where the waypoint was placed.  Planning/expecting to enter/exit a building via a door on the near side but finding pixeltruppen entering via a door on the direct opposite side of the building is probably more likely to be of a tactical concern/disaster than say if it entered/exited the building via one of the "invisible" side doors, that's why I have highlighted the text in red alerting players to that possibility for that situation.
Backgrounds of shades of GREEN indicate that all the doors indicated on the front and rear of the building do actually work as advertised and no "invisible" doors exist.  It is a darker GREEN if in the limited trials conducted, no instances of the "wrong" door being used by any pixeltruppen in that situation was observed.  This would be updated  if more testing at least reveals one case of a "wrong" door being used. Note that for larger sized infantry squads, it is no guarantee that all pixeltruppen will use the right (nearest) door for each situation listed (see notes on RED text).  Note that this possibility is probably reduced (possibly to zero), the less pixeltruppen in the infantry team. My guess is when six or less pixeltruppen exist in a team.  Further testing can confirm..
Although some cases of entering/exiting the buildings are listed with darker GREEN backgrounds and as "All enter OK" or "All exit OK" (meaning it was observed in the limited trials that all pixeltruppen enter or exit through the nearest graphically represented door as expected, the ideal case), as alluded to above, it has been noted that repeated testing can turn up cases where at least some of the pixeltruppen involved in the move order will use the second entry/exit point of the building, be it the one on the opposite side of the building, or one of the apparently "invisible" side doors that apparently exist for some buildings when facing a certain way.
Backgrounds of shades of ORANGE indicate the existence of at least one "invisible" side door through which infantry can/and will apparently use to enter the building depending on the circumstances.  The darker ORANGE background indicates that either NONE of the graphically indicated doors on the building are functional in that situation, and instead the building features one or two "invisible" side doors, one on each flank (or side) of the building, or only one "invisible" serves as the only entry/exit point to the building.
In summary, a review of test results:
Regardless of which of the seven types of Independent>Other building feature in a sceanrio (regardless of their orientation), players can expect to be "surprised" by the path and subsequent entry/exit point chosen by each pixeltruppen to enter/exit the building during a single move order if the infantry team has greater than typically six pixeltruppen, if they expect a) infantry to ALWAYS use the nearest entry/exit point and b) expect the only functional and possible entry/exit points of buildings to be where they are graphically indicated.
The only  Independent>Other building that feature front/rear doors/entry/exit points functioning as advertised regardless of orientation is building "G". Of the remaining six buildings, all will feature front/rear doors/entry/exit points functioning as advertised if in the following orientations/facings:

 
I can only suggest regular players of CMBN scenarios to be at least aware of these buggy Independent>Other buildings, especially on maps that are likely to involved and rely on very precise "house-to house" fighting and manoeuvring.  They can really unexpectedly wreck you plans especially if they are embedded somewhere near critical terrain/victory locations.
To the scenario designers/map makers, I would hope they see the sense in completely avoiding the use of all building type/orientation combos that are not listed in the green column of the table above. Note that even using those buildings/orientations featured in the green column, it has been shown that at least some pixeltruppen will nevertheless choose to enter/exit from the opposite side door from which one might otherwise expect them to use when the unit size is greater than 6.  Perhaps some scenario/map designers might even feel inspired to revisit previously released sceanrios/maps that feature the problem buildings and modify the maps accordingly.  Of course vigilant capable players could do this themsleves.  A scenario comes to mind already...the one that I was playing when I first encountered this issue almost 5 years ago...Lonsdales Block. I clearly remember where that damn building was that led to the decimation of a complete para squad trying to enter it.
 

I originally played the excellent Kampfgruppe Peiper campaign that I believes comes with CMFB several years ago and forgot about it enough for me to warrant playing it again. One thing I really appreciate is playing on battlefields that are based directly on replicating the actual historical battlefieds itself.  I believe all the maps in this campaign are like that.
One battle in particular caught my attention (again) which is the "Storm on Stoumont" battle and it's map. After play as the German attacker I wondered how much more challenging the German attack could be if a human player played as the US.  I was inspired enough to extract and create a H2H scenario battle version of the "Storm on Stoumont" battle and let's just say it is quite interesting to see how that battle plays out when a human calls the shots for the US defenders.
Anyway, having extensively surveyed the CMFB map in preparation to play the battle, I really got a good feel for the battlefield itself and started researching the actual battle that did occur there on the 19 Dec 1944 between KG Peiper and the US garrison defending. I started looking at the amazing historical combat action photos and videos taken by the Germans during the actual assualt on the 19 Dec 1944 and it occurred to me that my familairization with the battlefield just from playing CMFB was essentially enough for me to have a good enough idea where virtually every photo/scene was taken/filmed. While searching for more photos and information from the battle, I did stumble across a Youtube video of Before & After photo comparisons of the battle of Stoumont that basically confirmed some of my guesses.
I then decided it might just be worthwhile trying to recreate as many of the photos/scenes from the historical photos and film as possible, just for fun, and to see how CMFB compares. Using the before and after comparison screenshots from the Youtube video, I conveniently added my own CMFB versions to complete the trifecta of comparisons, in cases where the "after" photos (current day photos) had been compared to the historical footage/photos. I recreated in CMFB a number of other photos/scenes for which no "after" photo comparison were suggested/offered. PDF link below:
Youtube Video: Battle of the Bulge Then & Now - Stoumont Then & Now!
CMFB Comparisons: Bull's Stoumont Before & After & CMFB.pdf
And a big shout out and tip of the hat to @Pete Wenman for researching and designing the map you see featured! It's amazing what can be achieved by some within the CM Scenario Designer. Much appreciated.

Hello,
I've gone looking for a thread posted maybe a year ago where I was originally made aware of the "evade towards enemy" behaviour (though probably an actual bug) that typically involves infantry behind hedgerows breaking that cover when under fire and running towards the enemy through gaps in the hedgerow (invariably to their deaths) that I can confirm I has been able to reliably replicate when I downloaded and played the saved game that was provided by a user investigating the issue at the time. From what I understand, this issue may only be specific to CMBN and seems to only have appeared after one of the recent patch/engine upgrades. I would have checked the status of the issue and would have posted on that thread there but I have not been able to find the thread curiously enough, hence this new thread.
So I have just started a mirrored CMBN H2H QB on a map that I know several other players have battled over, and I just had a most extraordinary occurence of this "evade towards enemy" behaviour (or whatever you want to call it).  I had three infantry teams lined up along a stretch of hedgerow in a defensive deployment, evenly separated by about 15m.  Behind them is a flat wooded orchard. In front of them is a road, beyond which the terrain gently rises, criss-crossed with some buildings and hedgerows.
On the second turn of making contact with the enemy directly in front of them, returning fire and taking some level of suppression, each team, at some point in the turn, decided to essentially break cover and run sideways along the hedgerow to the nearest infantry-sized gap in the hedgerows and run through the gap in to the open directly towards the enemy where they just get shot up.  When the teams actually break from taking casualties, the surviving pixeltruppen (eg. those that remained in place cowering behind the hedgerow) rout away from the hedgerow/enemy through the orchard behind them.
Units lined up behind hedgerows engaging enemy start of turn:

"Rattled" pixeltruppen running suicide through hedgerow gap to meet their maker:

For the full video experience, you can watch it unfold here:
First and second teams suicide
Third team suicide
I did wonder if I had inadvertently given move orders to my units during the previous orders phase (can happen if you just want to select one unit to issue a move order to but inadvertently double click it whereby also selecting all its subordinates and/or formation level units as well).  However, I can rule that possibility out: other units in the formation were unaffected.
Still not satisfied, I checked the QB map in the Scenario Editor.  All "Friendly Direction" parameters were correct for the battle.  I then created a scenario file using the same map and parameters and purchased the same units on both sides.  I then placed the exact same German teams from the same platoon from the same company etc that I had purchased in the QB in the same spots and attacked them with the same infantry (US paras).  Incredibly (or maybe not so incredibly), the same thing happened!  Suicide through the hedgerow gap.
Even better: I have created a scenario file (TEST GAP.btt) using the same QB map with all units in place.  All you need to do is load the scenario file, play it as a turn-based Hotseat (or SP Germans) and just press Go for both sides, no need to give any orders.  The units will start shooting and exchanging fire immediately.  You should see this behaviour with your own eyes occur within the first minute of battle:
TEST GAP.btt
So what is Battlefront's official stance on what appears to be on this undesirable TacAI induced behaviour?
"What issue?" (no response/acknowledgement) "Nothing to see here, working as designed"(if so please explain) "Yeah, can't fix it, too bad, sucks for you though" "Wow, looking in to it, hopefully find a fix, keep you posted" FWIW, I have forfeited that H2H QB I am playing.  I can't afford to have that kind of thing happen and take those kinds of cheap loses and just continue playing regardless, let alone think it won't happen again.  I think for now I am regretfully going to just avoid playing any CMBN (or at least anything with that hedgerow terrain) until this issue is resolved.

I believe placing a limit on the number of QB points is a way of ensuring the game won't crash and be overloaded by the additional processing/RAM power required (CPU and GPU). However, I  can not think of a sensible reason for why the game does not allow players the complete freedom to just manually determine the precise number of points each side should have in a QB.
Anyway, I was somewhat inspired by your telling of how you try to use the QB battles to configure battles to play out various battles in a user run H2H campaign, and have updated/enhanced my previously released "Bull's CM QB RATIOS" table (discussed in the thread QB Battle Force Points tables/charts) to Rev2.
I have now gone the final extra few yards and have now tabulated every possible combination of QB battle that is possible from CM QBs in one consolidated table, listing the QB force points allocated to both sides, the total of those points, the resultant force ratios, and of course all the QB parameter setup information required to achieve the battle of choice (battle type, size, force modifer).  Of course you need to be able to open the file in Excel (or equivalent) to filter and sort the table as you seem fit to find the battle setup you want.  Column values are colour formatted from smallest possible (green) to largest possible (red).
eg.  Preview of top of table sorted by force ratio (note: although only the five ME battles at the top of that list precisely give both players "even points" to spend ie. force ration of 1).  However, you can see that there are other battle setups which differ in points allocation by only a few percentage (ie. ratios between 1 and 1.1 (or between 0% and 10% points differential) which players may agree to consider irrelevant in setting up an otherwise "balanced points ME", if that is what they want.

This table alone should provide anyone everything they need to know about what is and what is not possible to achieve with the CM QB parameters, and how to achieve them.

DOH! I somehow posted the link to this thread instead of the damn file!
NEW WORKING LINK TO FILE BELOW!!!
>>>> Bull's Stoumont Before & After & CMFB.pdf  <<<<
While I'm at it may as well make up for it with a few teaser previews:

I originally played the excellent Kampfgruppe Peiper campaign that I believes comes with CMFB several years ago and forgot about it enough for me to warrant playing it again. One thing I really appreciate is playing on battlefields that are based directly on replicating the actual historical battlefieds itself.  I believe all the maps in this campaign are like that.
One battle in particular caught my attention (again) which is the "Storm on Stoumont" battle and it's map. After play as the German attacker I wondered how much more challenging the German attack could be if a human player played as the US.  I was inspired enough to extract and create a H2H scenario battle version of the "Storm on Stoumont" battle and let's just say it is quite interesting to see how that battle plays out when a human calls the shots for the US defenders.
Anyway, having extensively surveyed the CMFB map in preparation to play the battle, I really got a good feel for the battlefield itself and started researching the actual battle that did occur there on the 19 Dec 1944 between KG Peiper and the US garrison defending. I started looking at the amazing historical combat action photos and videos taken by the Germans during the actual assualt on the 19 Dec 1944 and it occurred to me that my familairization with the battlefield just from playing CMFB was essentially enough for me to have a good enough idea where virtually every photo/scene was taken/filmed. While searching for more photos and information from the battle, I did stumble across a Youtube video of Before & After photo comparisons of the battle of Stoumont that basically confirmed some of my guesses.
I then decided it might just be worthwhile trying to recreate as many of the photos/scenes from the historical photos and film as possible, just for fun, and to see how CMFB compares. Using the before and after comparison screenshots from the Youtube video, I conveniently added my own CMFB versions to complete the trifecta of comparisons, in cases where the "after" photos (current day photos) had been compared to the historical footage/photos. I recreated in CMFB a number of other photos/scenes for which no "after" photo comparison were suggested/offered. PDF link below:
Youtube Video: Battle of the Bulge Then & Now - Stoumont Then & Now!
CMFB Comparisons: Bull's Stoumont Before & After & CMFB.pdf
And a big shout out and tip of the hat to @Pete Wenman for researching and designing the map you see featured! It's amazing what can be achieved by some within the CM Scenario Designer. Much appreciated.