Holman

I haven't read a word of Asimov since the 1980s, but my good friend (a longtime SF fan) tells me that there's just a basic mismatch between the goals of the books and the aims of a prestige post-GameOfThrones TV series.
(He tells me:) The books reflected an old GALAXY magazine sensibility. They were made up of nearly stand-alone episodes that just happened to be set in the same universe and timeline. Characters were pretty shallow, mostly just mouthpieces for the Big Ideas that Asimov wanted to keep playing with and ruminating upon. FOUNDATION is less of a character-driven story than it is an experiment in alternative/counterfactual sociology and (future) history. None of that works with the way big-budget SF is done now, so old-school Asimov fans will be disappointed with the series' focus on characters and (wholly invented) backstories, etc.
--
Villeneuve's DUNE, on the other hand, is easily one of the most faithful and compelling book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen, inside SF or out.

One of my ongoing side projects (aimed, mostly, at the new influx of Steam Players) is to host an 'All in One' for every CM game here.
This is my initial effort for RT & its primary feature is a large collection of weathered vehicle mods (by @kohlenklau, @umlaut  & @Aristoteles ) renamed & tagged so that they now work with F&R. It also features terrain mods by @SeinfeldRules, UI mods by @rocketman, @Marco Bergman & @Volksgrenadier, Infantry mods by @EZ, @Tashtego & @Ithikial_AU, loading screens by @umlaut, building mods by @Kieme(ITA) & @Tanks a Lot as well as the ME effects package, ME soundscape & (subdued & fixed) superpack voices by @ironsturm plus many more others.
I know a lot of people had issues with their old RT mods & the new Fire & Rubble module so hopefully this modpack will be of some interest to them.
Here's a taster of some of what you can expect...
 
 
Here's the modpack link...
https://www.mediafire.com/file/rwd0d774itq1omg/CMRT_Initial_%27All_in_One%27.7z/file

If it's of Soviet origin, unbutton it.
If it's of Russian origin, unbutton it if it doesn't have a panoramic thermal sight (ie: if it's not a T-90) or radar (Khrizantema).

The best way is to just make a test map and place the units on it with both button and unbutton forces and let them spot enemy units at the range you want to verify which is quicker.
IN cmcw, there is plenty of units that still do better open hatched. American Armor also. 
In CMSF  its mostly russian forces with older equipment
IN CMBS most things do better buttoned up.
there is a little more to it than just what sights are being used. but I will agree its the main factor in many situatuions.
 

BUTTONED SPOTS BETTER:
Here is a possibly incomplete list of vehicles that spot better while buttoned all the time (but only to the front of the vehicle).
M1A2 Abrams
T-90AM
BM Oplot
M2A3 Bradley
M3A3 Bradley
M7A3 B-FIST
Khrizantema
Tunguska
I don't know for certain, but I think it very unlikely that vehicle crews have night vision goggles, so nearly all vehicles should stay buttoned in low light conditions.
 
UNBUTTONED SPOTS BETTER:
WW2 
Recon-specific M1127 Stryker with LRAS3

So it's Russians on both sides, then?

Buddy aid has a random element, and rightly so.
Maybe you want the FT, but the buddy just has no idea how to use it correctly. Maybe that BAR is better than your carbine, but the stock got shattered by the blast that killed the BAR man. Maybe you'd love to pick up that M240, but the former gunner's entrails are currently slathered all over it.

Buddy aid has a random element, and rightly so.
Maybe you want the FT, but the buddy just has no idea how to use it correctly. Maybe that BAR is better than your carbine, but the stock got shattered by the blast that killed the BAR man. Maybe you'd love to pick up that M240, but the former gunner's entrails are currently slathered all over it.

Try it and see. Place a waypoint (which you can of course delete afterwards) on the other side of a forest or even just a building. The LOS line does appear to originate from the unit, but its colors very clearly indicates sight from the waypoint.

Remember that CM allows you to check LOS not just from a unit's current position but from a movement waypoint.
For example, select a unit and place a waypoint somewhere the unit definitely can't see (such as the other side of the map). If you select that waypoint and give a "target" order, the line of sight tool will reflect visibility from that waypoint, not from the unit's current position. (It take a little getting used to because the line still originates from the unit, but its color clearly indicates calculation from the waypoint.)
 
 

To be fair its not great for the period but a lot of stuff crosses over from other titles.  Flavour objects need more work for sure but you can make perfectly acceptable maps of 70s/80s Germany if you know what you're doing.

Remember that CM allows you to check LOS not just from a unit's current position but from a movement waypoint.
For example, select a unit and place a waypoint somewhere the unit definitely can't see (such as the other side of the map). If you select that waypoint and give a "target" order, the line of sight tool will reflect visibility from that waypoint, not from the unit's current position. (It take a little getting used to because the line still originates from the unit, but its color clearly indicates calculation from the waypoint.)
 
 

Remember that CM allows you to check LOS not just from a unit's current position but from a movement waypoint.
For example, select a unit and place a waypoint somewhere the unit definitely can't see (such as the other side of the map). If you select that waypoint and give a "target" order, the line of sight tool will reflect visibility from that waypoint, not from the unit's current position. (It take a little getting used to because the line still originates from the unit, but its color clearly indicates calculation from the waypoint.)
 
 

FWIW, I think it was a reasonable question, and it was reasonably answered.  No need to lock IMHO.

I also thought it was a fair question, and a good answer.

Not to rain on the parade, but it's worth remembering that BTS has indicated that they're not even interested in the WW2 Pacific theater, let alone Mars.
But more seriously...
The CMx2 engine is perfect for ground combat at the scale where mid-20th to early-21st century dispersed mechanized units, leg infantry, and their support assets come into contact in open, broken, and urban environments at plus-or-minus battalion level. Change any of those variables, and the engine probably shows limitations.
Vietnam jungle would be very frustrating in the CMx2 engine, as would WW1 trench raids. The player's control would be much more limited. Terrain and surprise would dictate the result far more than player input would.

Likewise, imagined Sci-Fi conflicts would require a different scale and different design assumptions. If every armored soldier is a tank (Heinlein-style), you'd want a game with more intimate choices (individual troopers' weapons, sensors, and systems), and the tech would probably mean that engagements occur at thousands of meters rather than hundreds or dozens. On the other hand, the most interesting engagements would be inside structures or spaceships, and that's not at all suited to CMx2's squad-level and 10-meter square baseline.

Prolific wargame designer John Tiller has passed away.
I'm sure many of us here have enjoyed and learned from his designs over the decades.
Rest in peace.

That is great loss to the gaming community.

Who don't know this great man, the first one that let us dream with all his series, covering all periods of war.
RIP John

Using Tac Nukes should delete not just your game but your license key and your hard drive.

The Fulda Gap sector really was the responsibility of US V Corps, with just a small number of German units involved.

It would make sense for German units (on both sides) to come with an expansion covering battles farther to the north.  And there's the British Army of the Rhine sector as well.

Using Tac Nukes should delete not just your game but your license key and your hard drive.

CMCW did not steal any resources from F&R.  
 
They were concurrent developments and in fact CMCW did not impinge on any F&R testers/content developers until very late in development.  @BFCElvissaw to that  
Bil

Ordered!

When combining a "three action-square" unit, it's always best to reduce them to the smallest elements and run them together into a single square.
If you combine a one-square element with a two square element, you risk choosing the wrong square, so to speak.
Think of it as the leader getting everyone in close for a pep talk.