Lt Bull

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.

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.
 

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.

@Lt Bull - have a like mate for the pdf … which shows off how accurate the map is.  I've done the Peiper trail heaps of times and it was great to be a tester for CMFB.  I still maintain that the campaigns and scenarios that bundled with that title were the best researched and best executed of all of the titles.

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.

Hi Bubba, I am curious to know what happens if you try running the test save file.  How do the infantry respond on your non-version 4 install?

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.

This is part of a five part series on the UC. This illustrates everything from Bren handling to grenade throwing from inside the carrier. Of particular note is the material on the 2" mortar, which has a specially drilled set of mounting holes to firmly attach it to the UC. No standard 2" mortar will work. When so fitted, the UC has twelve rounds for it, and the ammo split's given. The procedure for conducting observed fire by the VC with the mortar in full defilade is shown, as is use of the mortar in DF role. The first video in the series is the get acquainted one, and it shows the dazzling agility of this vehicle. For large radius turns, the track on the turning side is actually pulled in a bit. For short, sharp turns, one track is braked. So nimble is the UC it can reverse course near instantly. Short of having an autocannon or HMG, I'd think it would be a nightmare to hit if evading.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

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:

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 forgot to add and perhaps ask...
While researching the battle of Stoumont I discovered one book that has actually been published specifically about that 19th Dec battle.
I would of definitely bought it already however there is something about it that is making me hesitate:
Duel in the Mist: Kampfgruppe Peiper, Stoumont, December 19th, 1944 v. 1
Would really like to hear from anyione who has viewed the book, let alone own a copy of it.  Really curious to know what kind of new info/photos etc it contains.

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.

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.

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.
 

Bits of toying around with @Lt Bull ´s TEST GAP battle today. Results for me are the same as reported. After bits of experimenting I came to a somewhat unexpected "solution" (or hint for debugging).
By use of Instant Commands button "Pause", I set all forward defending german units to Pause mode (“Pause for further orders”). This in setup phase, before hitting Go. Surprisingly during execution phase this nailed the german units in place (despite heavy suppression). Next command phase showed that various evade commands (incl. those forward through bocage) were plotted by the TacAI, but not executed. This also allowed seeing the TacAI´s intended evade moves (fast into "best" cover and face toward apprehended threat), as otherwise the WP´s would be gone (all PTroopers KIA/WIA = WP deleted).
Now what the manual (p. 62) says on Instant Command "Pause":
“Pause for further orders”
PAUSE - instructs the unit to temporarily halt all active orders and wait. This is the
equivalent of yelling “Halt”. This button is a toggle, and by pressing it again,
the unit is ordered to resume what it was doing.
Interesting that Pause also works for orders not yet given, particularly those from the TacAI (evade). Always assumed it works for user given movement commands only.
So maybe someone likes to test/repeat the procedure? Load TEST GAP.btt, do nothing but clicking "Pause" button for german units and hit GO.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I was somewhat inspired by discussion in another thread about configuring QBs to suit the kind of battles players may want to setup using CM QBs to play out various battles and have updated/enhanced my previously released "Bull's CM QB RATIOS" table to Rev2.  Download links follow:
Bull's CM QB RATIOS Rev2.xlsx (Excel file)
Bull's CM QB RATIOS Rev2.pdf (PDF file)
I have now just gone the final extra few yards and have tabulated every possible combination of QB battle that is possible from CM QBs (260 possibile combinations) in one consolidated , searchable and filterable table (last tab in Excel file, last pages on PDF).
I have added a new tab "ALL QB POINTS COMBOS" that features a consolidated table every QB combo, listing  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 everything you need to know about what is and what is not possible to achieve with the CM QB parameters, and how to achieve them.