Macisle

Any doctrine that views "murdering the enemy" as a objective that occurs within a vacuum is also rubbish.
 
Terrain is more than just cover to defend your troops or block your opponents movement. To treat terrain like a side note is pure fantasy. You are placing a cookie cutter concept  (destroying the enemy force) on a pedestal and ignoring any other possible considerations. Talking about a game of basket ball stating "you only goal is to score points" and ignoring the effect that controlling sections of the court has on that, is crazy.
 
Terrain effects nearly every facet of combat, tactical/operational/strategic. It determines engagement ranges, choke points, avenues of approach, mobility, etc, etc, etc. In many ways it is like having a 3rd army on the battlefield, which opposes both sides. A lot like the weather actually. It is a heck of a lot more than simply defense for your units and places your can block the enemy.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There isn't any reason that a weapon directed at a piece of terrain should be less accurate simply because you cannot see the "target" that is presumably occupying said terrain (but cannot been see by the shooter.)
 
To build upon the church tower example posted by Rinaldi, if I told a MG to fire a object like a church tower than is concealing a target that is either suspected or spotted by a unit other than the shooter, there is no reason what so ever that the shooter should be "less accurate" in his attempts to hit the spot he is directed to shoot. The Machine gun in question should not be made artificially inaccurate just because it cant see the target. The fact that it might not hit anyone in the tower because it cannot see them, but is in fact saturating the tower in hopes of hitting them, is already modeled. Once directed to shoot at a specific area, a unit would not just randomly start shooting something 15 feet to the right of that area. In other words, If someone orders a tank to blast a bell tower, than tank should not be randomly missing right or left of the tower or shooting some place other than the tower outside of ballistic limits of the weapons or skill limits of the shooter.
 
When I was in Afghanistan in 2011, the FOB I was at came under attack from a 3 story building just outside the ECP. The shooters occupied the roof, and were using it to fire over the walls and into the base. A patrol came back during the attack and was directed to shoot the rooftop with its 50 cals. The troops firing could not see the enemy because of the height of the building. So they were guided to shoot the roof by people in higher up locations. The people manning the 50's did not start randomly hitting things other than the roof area. They ONLY shot the roof area. Not the second floor, not some other building. Not seeing the enemy did not suddenly reduce their mental capacity to fire at a directed point.
 
There is no such thing as "abuse" of area fire. There are no rules in war. It is completely possible, and was a historically common occurrence, to saturate areas with fire.

This gets more at the heart of the issue, but your blaming wrong mechanic. 
 
The omniscient presence of the human player, and his ability to micro the battlefield is inherently not realistic. This is something that ALL RTS games have in common to some extent. You are managing a battle on a level that nobody does in actuality. A company commander rarely, if ever, tells a specific tank to face a certain direction. He also does not micro the movements of squad fire teams, or does a litany of other things that the player does in combat mission. The only true way to rectify this in a game would be to have it played like a first person shooter, with players issuing orders to other units and then those human units carrying them out, each unit only seeing what he can see from where he is at. 
 
In combat mission, we already have the most realistic approach you can probably get in a RTS, and it still be a RTS. WEGO. Wego limits specific orders to only occurring every minute, which in my opinion is a decent way to make C2 more realistic, as it makes it less possible for you to instantly micro units. If you want something else, then you wont get that from a strategy game, period. They are by nature exercises in theory, not C2 simulations. 
 
With that said, it is totally unfair to single out the "area fire" mechanic and claim it being abused. If you wanted to alter this in some physically unrealistic way to ostensibly reflect some C2 conundrum, you would still be left with a imperfect solution (as you said). But worse, you would have altered one specific mechanic unevenly when there are loads of other things you do in this game that benefit from the nature of the players abilities. If we tried to alter all mechanics like this, pretty soon there wouldn't be much for the player to do anymore, except watch the battle unfold. 

This is always great...when it happens to the other guy:
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Luckily, I am the other guy in this one (US)!

Sgt. Farley of 1st Platoon, TD3, sees something moving in the smoke and opens up with his .50 cal.
 

 
 
 
It's the Panther!
 

 
 
 
Sgt. Hayes in 4th TD lets the Panther have it!
 

 
 
 
As the Panther crew bails, Sgt. Farley keeps the pressure on with his .50 cal.
 

 
 
 
Meanwhile, 2nd Platoon continues to give the what for to the remaining Panthers in the left pincer.
 

 
 
So far, so good! But then, there's still all that infantry on the left flank...
 

A company of Hellcat tank destroyers and a platoon of cavalry have been hastily dispatched to counter a combined arms force of Panthers and Panzergrenadiers. The terrain is a densely wooded high ground descending to a river bank that runs its length. Along the river bank is a road bisected by another road crossing to the open country on the other side of the river. The Germans have crossed the river from that area and are moving into the woods at the foot of the hill from the riverbank road.

The forest hides the Germans completely as the Americans take their positions. Jeep and utility car crews leave their vehicles a few dozen meters behind in the woods and form a complete, but paper-thin infantry screen of 1-3 man listening posts. Their orders are to fall back as soon as the enemy is sighted and only engage if they have to. Armored cars stay crewed and hang back a bit to provide fire support for listening posts needing to fall back. 3rd Platoon, Co. C, tank destroyers set up ambush positions left of center on the main road through the woods, leading up from the river road. 1st Platoon sets up its Hellcats in the rear on the left flank at a road access point, standing ready as a fire brigade. 2nd Platoon takes ambush positions on what looks to be the key center ground: a slight reverse slope just behind the crest of the hill leading up from the river bank. The platoon HQ calls in pre-planned 105mm howitzer harassing fire along the main road approach being covered by 3rd Platoon, scheduled to arrive in 5 minutes. Should the Germans push on his position, he will switch the arty fire over to it.

The Germans begin their opening barrage. 2nd Platoon's position is the target. One of the first rounds kills the Platoon leader and the Hellcats button up and fall back to safer ground. The listening teams hug the earth while an empty  jeep is destroyed by another artillery round. The barrage ends and the Hellcats return to their previous positions. With the loss of 2nd Platoon's HQ, American howitzer fire is now limited to the initial road target, leaving three cavalry 60mm mortar teams, currently serving as infantry flank protection for 3rd Platoon.

What seems like an eternity passes as listening posts pick up tank sounds along the river road. They move about, but their attack points remain unclear. On the left flank, the forward listening team, a 3-man jeep dismount, drop the first two German panzergrenadiers that stumble onto their position. Alas, return fire takes out two team members before the leader manages to get away and fall back to his jeep. Greyhounds pump some fire into the area, but despite being buttoned up, suffer a casualty from MG42 fire. A near miss by a panzerschreck signals that its time for the left flank screen to drop back.

Tank sound contacts seem to indicate that the Panther assault will come up the main road towards 3rd Platoon. Hopefully, the harassing howitzer fire will button them up! Then...things change. Listening post teams report that the tank sounds are shifting from the main road towards 2nd Platoon's left on the key center position.  Soon after, Private Arnold reports from 2nd Platoon's right listening post that tanks sounds are rapidly approaching from the river road up the hill towards his position. It's a pincer movement on 2nd Platoon!

Arnold jumps up and begins to run back to his utility car when out of nowhere, a Panther crests the hill on the other side of the tree he was just using for cover.  His eyes immedialty dart to the tank commander who is, thankfully, looking ahead of the tank. Arnold quickly deduces that the odds are better of his giving the slip to a buttoned up tank and sends a burst from his Thompson towards the TC.
 

 
 
 
The Panther TC isn't hit, but buttons up and Arnold high-tails it towards 2nd Platoon and his utility car. 2nd Platoon's 4th Hellcat, under Sgt. Grace, swings around to meet the new threat on the right while the rest of the platoon prepares to meet the incoming Panthers on the left. 1st Platoon hits the road at top speed to try and intercept the right pincer before it can overcome Grace.
 
Arnold seems to have made it past the Panther. He decides to take the speed of the road over the concealment of the woods.
 

 
 
 
It is the wrong decision.
 

 
 
 
The Panther's shot gives its position away to Grace nearby and his Hellcat wins a turret duel to avenge Arnold's death..
 

 
 
 
Meanwhile, the rest of 2nd Platoon engages the left pincer point blank, scoring some kills.
 

 
Continued...

This the one you mean Ken?
 

Perfect! Thanks for linking that.

Ken

Thanks for posting that, Umlaut!
 
I watched the whole thing and quite enjoyed it--though I wish they'd done more myth-busting on the undeserved derision so often thrown at the Sherman.
 
Here's another of the moderator's videos that I came across recently:
 

 
He gives an enjoyable presentation in it, but should have given specifics about what made the Normandy fighting unique, rather than just repeating that it was.
 
His YouTube series, Inside the Chieftain's Hatch, is also quite good. I've watched a number of those.

Hi guys
I stumbled across this video series a few weeks ago and found it extremely enlightening – as well as somewhat mythbusting. So I thought I´d share it with you, even though many of you have probably already seen it.
 
It is basically a bunch of tank experts discussing various acspects of tank warfare, primarily in relation to WWII. They are:
 
Steve Zaloga
Harry Yeide
Hilary Doyle
David Fletcher
Rob Griffin
Kenneth Estes
 
The series is called Operation Think Tank and consists of 12 episodes of approximately 20 minutes each.
 
Here´s episode 1:
 

One interesting point is the fact that much of WW2 doctrine was developped in WW1 and was often developped in reaction to enemy doctrine.

For example, mid WW1, the Germans developped the concept of the "elastic defence", which remained their basic doctrine until 1945. In a nutshell, it was composed of 3 basic elements:

1. the forward line was very lightly manned to reduce casualties from the prep barrage. Its main role was to warn when the main assault was coming and to slow it down;

2. The Main Line of Resistance ("MLR") was placed farther back, usually on a reverse slope so it could not be fired on directly by enemy guns; and

3. a reserve force would be positioned farther back, ready to reinforce the MLR or counterattack if the enemy force broke through.

At first, it worked very well, CW assault troops once they broke through the MLR would often advance outside of friendly artillery range, become disorganised and were often pushed back by the German counterattack, often wiping out all the original gains.

In reaction, the British developped the concept of "Bite and Hold". The idea was that by consolidating early within range of friendly artillery, CW troops would have an organised defence AND artillery support once the German counterattacked.

Fast forward 20+ years, in the western desert in 1941 and 42, British Armour was operating independently, trying to out-german the Germans, usually with disastrous results.

Once Monty took over, the first thing he did was to bring back the concept of "Bite and Hold", bringing the armour under tight control and using it just as infantry support. It worked very well at El Alamein, in a series of limited "Bite and Hold" operations over several days, the British dismantled the German defensive position piece by piece and forced to Rommel to use up his reserves until he was forced to retreat.

The Normandy campaign followed the same pattern. We have to remember that the German defensive position in the British sector was very good. Most of the terrain was wide open and dominated by high ground, so CW tanks could be fired on from far away. The Germans had also massed most of their armour and several SS Panzer divisions in that sector. Yet, in a series of "Bite and Hold" operations, some succesful ("Totalize"), some less so ("Goodwood"), CW troops again dismantled the German defensive position and wrote down German armour to the point where they could no longer prevent the breakout.

"Bite and Hold", not flashy like Blitzkrieg, but it works.

Then write us up an AAR and show us neanderthals how it's done. You sure like to type a lot, but you never really show what your strategy actually looks like in the game. 

The condescending tone is nice, thanks for that.
 
So your plan is to:
"Murder" the enemy Read the briefing for your intel and force estimates Once you "murder" the enemy read the victory conditions Number 1 is not always so simple.. I suppose you never play H2H?
Number 2 -- hey whattaya know; this will use the "idiot" scenario designer's objectives and his scenario briefing, etc..
Number 3 - only after you "murder" the enemy will you check the victory conditions?  
 
Personally I think knowing the conditions during pre-planning helps some... because it is not always possible to simply destroy the enemy force.  If you can do that in every game, even against the AI I would like to see an AAR from you.

Here is a quick (err--not cinematic) video lark: thirteen minutes of turn-based play threaded together continuously from a single camera angle. It shows Phase I of a town assault (Huge SP QB Probe with a 20% advantage to the Germans). I’ve got a battalion of 43 Soviet infantry (ATRs, ATGs, and some MGs stripped), supported by two companies of T-34/76s, arty and some AA units. The Germans have a Grenadier battalion, supported by two Tigers, a company of 50mm ATGs, plentiful arty and two Stukas. All units are Typical.
 
Before I started saving the replays, the Stukas took out most of a platoon of my infantry in the setup zone. The MG team charging in the advance on my left flank is doing so because its MG was knocked out earlier. And, yes, there are a few friendly fire incidents with my tanks. I misjudged the elevation and they hit the trees near my troops a couple of times.
 
Enjoy!

Sad that anyone would downvote the OP.
 
Since I started playing in 2000, CM has provided more entertainment for less money by such a large margin, that there isn't even a second place.
 
The price per hour is almost negligible.

I just get tired of people complaining about the cost of this type of gaming. In my calculation it is one of the cheapest forms out there. 

The ambush reversed:
 

 
 
 
Right in the noodle!
 

 
 
 
 
Meanwhile, in another town:
 

 
 
 
None shall pass!
 

The ambush reversed:
 

 
 
 
Right in the noodle!
 

 
 
 
 
Meanwhile, in another town:
 

 
 
 
None shall pass!
 

The ambush reversed:
 

 
 
 
Right in the noodle!
 

 
 
 
 
Meanwhile, in another town:
 

 
 
 
None shall pass!
 

Hey, Bud.
 
I want to add my voice to the salvo of compliments and thank you for doing this excellent AAR.
 
I'm thoroughly enjoying it and wish you success on the battlefield!
 
Macisle

I'm still slaving away, here's another one on the horizon.
 

 

 

 

Thought I'd give plaster and wood buildings a break and try a brick building:
 

 

 

The Following statement pertains solely to me.
 
Since 1983 we've had a small business  directed at a very tiny market group in an other wise huge group (Healthcare Professionals).  We recognize our target group and do some print advertising in specific professional publications.  If we widen the net it's a dead cert that more people would become aware of our products.  It just won't convert to revenue.
 
We love what we do (service to humanity!) but not nearly as much as our family, friends, and personal lives.  Growth is not our overriding concern. Happiness is. 
 
As some of you will note I'm a long time player of CM and QB Map Maker for BFC.  I don't pretend to know How BFC makes it's business decision's. But I do know they are fun group of guys who seem to enjoy what they do and how they do it. 

Here is a quick (err--not cinematic) video lark: thirteen minutes of turn-based play threaded together continuously from a single camera angle. It shows Phase I of a town assault (Huge SP QB Probe with a 20% advantage to the Germans). I’ve got a battalion of 43 Soviet infantry (ATRs, ATGs, and some MGs stripped), supported by two companies of T-34/76s, arty and some AA units. The Germans have a Grenadier battalion, supported by two Tigers, a company of 50mm ATGs, plentiful arty and two Stukas. All units are Typical.
 
Before I started saving the replays, the Stukas took out most of a platoon of my infantry in the setup zone. The MG team charging in the advance on my left flank is doing so because its MG was knocked out earlier. And, yes, there are a few friendly fire incidents with my tanks. I misjudged the elevation and they hit the trees near my troops a couple of times.
 
Enjoy!

Okay, I finished up the battle shown in post #80 above. Here's a short, cinematic video of my tanks flanking one of the Tigers. The Germans surrendered a couple of turns later.