c3k

Well, it took longer than expected to put this together, but better late than never, right?

My basic plan at this stage is to initially make an attack by fire from the berm, driving them up the ramps into positions where they will be hull down and able to engage the enemy static tanks and fortifications. Meanwhile, the breach team will move to the berm opening and begin looking for mines. 1st Platoon of A Company will be first through the breach.

My Fire Support Team calls in the Shadow UAV. Hopefully, this will enable us to ID enemy tanks and strongpoints before my tanks go up the berm. Even against an inferior force, every advantage helps.

Worryingly, one of my tanks bogs down in the sand. Fortunately, it eventually frees itself. The Strykers are not faring any better, the soft sand reducing their speed.

Already my UAV bears fruit, spotting two static tanks and enemy infantry in their trenches.

3rd tank of 1st Platoon makes a daring dash across the berm opening, beelining for the furthermost berm ramp.

The MGS platoon begins moving up. I intend to use them to shoot up the fort through the berm opening as I make my attack.

The UAV spots some destroyed bunker tanks, victims of the aerial campaign.

Shifting its attention to the enemy positions straddling the highway, a few minutes of observation reveals enemy bunkers.

3rd Platoon of A Company arrives, and I order them to join the queue of vehicles forming up behind the breach. It's time for the tanks to go over the top.




The carnage is wonderful to behold. The tanks of 1st Platoon methodically engage and destroy the tanks and bunkers that they spot.

Astoundingly, enemy troops are already fleeing into the desert.

The breach team moves up, sniffing for mines.

My tanks are having trouble spotting the static tanks in their battle positions, so I call in precision fire missions from my artillery to do the job instead.


With the tanks and bunkers that are spotted being destroyed, my tanks now engage the enemy infantry in their trenches, bombarding them with HE and hosing them down with their co-axial machine guns.





What I expected soon transpires: Syrian T-55s (mobile ones) are spotted moving up at the far end of the wadi. However, they fail to make use of the concealment offered by the wadi and are quickly knocked out by the tanks on the berm.


To try and spot the remaining enemy static tanks, I unbutton my tanks. This swiftly draws a hail of machine gun fire from the trenches, and two heavy DShK machine guns also open up from the watchtowers of the fort. I immediately task one tank each to the offending HMGs.

2nd Platoon of A Company arrives, along with the last of my artillery support.


More T-55s trickle along the wadi, meeting the same fate as their comrades. One almost makes it to the trenches.

Almost.


Precision 155mm rounds come in, frustratingly landing in a perfect straddle around the southernmost static tank. Meanwhile, Syrian troops continue to flee in twos and threes into the desert.

I call a harassing fire from the 155s down on the trenches either side of the highway, keeping the pressure on.

My precision rounds are finally able to hit something, achieving a perfect double tap on one of the static tanks.

At long last, the breach team spots a patch of mines and begins clearing.

Yet more T-55s filter in and are wiped out.

An entire tank company now lies in twisted, burning ruins.




While this is going on, Syrians continue to flee their trenches in ones and twos, which unfortunately sends them out of the frying pan and into the fire

The next precision shoot once again performs a perfect straddle of the southernmost static tank. I need to kill this tank, and my tanks are seemingly unable to spot it.

The patch of mines is partially cleared.


Airburst rounds begin to burst over the Syrian trenches, for now coming in at a slow, steady pace. Just enough to keep the infantry that hasn't already fled nice and rattled.

The last of my precision rounds are once again defeated by this blasted (or rather, un-blasted) static tank. I have no choice now but to lead the assault with my tanks, instead of leaving them on the berm as I had previously planned. The tanks will go through the breach first, as I am confident that they will be able to safely engage any static enemy tanks that decide to open fire. The Strykers will follow shortly after and make their assault on the fort.

More intact static tanks lie in wait on the north side of the fort too, their deep fighting positions allowing them to escape the ire of my Abrams.

Moving up to the berm opening, 3rd tank spots one of the dug-in tanks and engages it.

As the tanks line up, the MGS' move into position. Bunching up like this dangerous, but I'm confident that for now, we are safe.



Meanwhile, I am putting my fire plan into action. I will be pounding the fort with two 155mm sections, one section placing its fire across the whole fort complex and the second section targeting the barracks building. Judging from the amount of Syrians that I've seen fleeing into the desert, I am confident that there aren't many men left in the trenches astride the highway. Consequently, those trenches will only receive fire from the remaining 155mm section. When my units can get eyes on, I will be hitting the trenches north of the fort with the 120mm mortars.



155mm shells rain on the fort and trenches.


Syrian conscripts flee the terrifying barrage and are mown down.

The time has come, 1st Platoon of B Company inching their way through the minefield.

Amazingly, no mines are set off and the tanks are safely through.

As the tanks spread out and push towards the trenches, the breach team makes one last effort to spot more mines.

The fort continues to suffer.

There is a nearly catastrophic friendly fire incident, as an MGS spots enemy infantry and in his zeal, shoots an Abrams in the back. Luckily, it only fires a HE shell and the damage to the Abrams is minor.

It is now 1st Platoon of A Company's turn to risk the minefield. Two Strykers manage to squeeze through . . .



While all of this is going on, the 120mm battalion mortars pepper the trenches north of the fort. Chaos ensues as Syrians flee the field and are mown down.

The other half of 1st Platoon traverse the minefield safely.


Their fields of fire now safely clear, the MGS platoon starts firing on the fort HQ.


The two Abrams attacking down the highway continue to hunt for the southern static enemy tank, inching ever closer. The other two Abrams take up position in front of the fort HQ, watching the northern trenches just in case any of the other static tanks try to be heroic.


1st Platoon begins their assault on the fort. I have decided that I do not want to push my luck with the minefield any more. Thus, I will assault the fort with only 1st Platoon. This is risky, but throughout the battle, the enemy troops have been fleeing at the slightest provocation. I judge that the enemy is severely rattled. As long as I handle 1st Platoon carefully, they should be able to take the fort.

At long last, the Abrams spot the dug-in enemy tank, and it is obliterated at virtually point-blank range.

The commander and loader unbutton and mow down more fleeing Syrians.

Fireteams of 1st Platoon hurl themselves forward, as the rest of the platoon lay down suppressive fire on suspected enemy positions. Fire from enemy RPG and machine gun teams within the fort is taken as the fireteams close with the trenches.


The rest of the platoon closes in.


The platoon occupies the trenches, trampling over mangled corpse piles that are all that remains of the previous occupants.



The tanks close in and begin blazing away with their machine guns.

A DShK HMG in the middle of the fort tries to take a crack at one of my tank commanders but is quickly taken out.

A Syrian squad attempts to flee and is swiftly cut to pieces.


3rd Squad of 1st Platoon tries to flank around through a hole blasted in the fortress wall, but are stopped by a squad of Syrians hunkered down in the fort HQ. However, the return fire of my troops is effective and the Syrians either run or surrender.



A fireteam from 2nd Squad dashes through the gate into the fort, making for one of the gatehouses, taking heavy fire all the way. A Syrian team in the gatehouse tries to spring a point-blank ambush but are immediately gunned down by the intrepid team. The team begin to take heavy fire from all angles and are pinned down.

The question of how to save this fireteam is swiftly answered, as the Syrians surrender. I am rewarded with a total victory! Despite some mistakes and missteps, this is probably the best outcome that I could have wished for, with no casualties or vehicle losses whatsoever.
There are actually a surprising amount of Syrian units still left in the field, with several teams in the fort and a few left in the northern trenches. Some of the static tanks have also survived the carnage, their deep fighting positions shielding them from the ire of the Abrams on the berm. However, this cuts both ways as their contribution to the battle was . . . minimal, to say the least. Not a single enemy tank, static or otherwise, did so much as fire a shot throughout the entire battle. But then, I can't say that I didn't expect that. The optics of the T-54/T-55 series aren't fantastic at the best of times, and at night, against the most modern, most powerful main battle tanks in the world? The outcome never really was in doubt.
So, as mentioned this is the absolute best outcome that I could possibly have got. However, some mistakes were made. For starters, I failed to adequately sweep the minefield. Fortuna was kind to me in this instance, and the few vehicles that I risked got through unscathed. But the minefield prevented the ingress of my remaining Stryker platoons. If the enemy in the fort had been less badly shaken, the one platoon that did go through would likely have had a very bad time of it. Unfortunately there was very little I could actually do about this, as my breach team were sitting on the minefield for virtually the entire battle, and still only managed to spot one measly patch of mines.
Secondly, the timing of my fire support left something to be desired. Ideally, my men should have been dismounting from their Strykers just as the last shells were impacting the fort and trenches. However, due to the slow passage through the minefield, the barrage ended long before that. This accounts for the surprisingly stiff resistance that I received from the Syrians still inside the fort.
I failed to keep track of the enemy infantry. What I should have done was keep a tally of the enemy infantry fleeing the trenches and spotted within the fort. This way, I would have known that the trenches astride the highway were unoccupied when the time came to make my assault, and the 155mm battery could have been used elsewhere. I also would have had a decent estimate of enemy troops within the fort itself, as opposed to the big fat question mark that was the answer to that question as I closed in.
Lastly, timing in general. I had one hour with which to complete this mission, and I used up every minute. I spent too long trying to clear the minefield, spent too long sitting on the berm shooting up fleeing Syrians and spent too long waiting for fire support to come in. The end result was that my final assault was made with dangerous haste. I'm not sure what I could have done to improve this, beyond simply more experience with the game and more thorough planning.
I'll try to keep some of these lessons in mind as I go forward. For now though, on to mission two! Stay tuned!

Reaaaly sorry if your name wasnt headlined its not a prefential thing.
im generally always poor
Still am but i got a little cash and its legal.
Ironically.. ive never had this much money in my life.  Its a pitiful amnt (less than 10k) to cost of you. I frankly dont kniw what to do with it.  I findbgreat joy in buying my.son and mom.stuff and also buying someone a book and stuff.  But otherwise.. its true its a curse. Maybe if it wqs enough for permanent life of leisure. But all this has done is cause me.to obsess over a balance. Smh.
Nidan bless him.. is gone.  Sburke youve gifted me stuff. What would you like?
I shall be trawling thru my order history (also if someone at bfc is bored and wants to tell.me wat was gifted)
I want to.settle.accounts.
Also im not rich but in honor of nidan I want community input (privately pls) on newcomer most likely to.stick arnd and most into the series. I will gift them a game of their choice.. as long as they choose a cm game

Great to see that vid. Thanks for sharing it.
It's good to see this community getting some professional consideration.
Congrats to BFC and Slitherine.

That was cool and interesting - and beneath all the serious expressions I think they were having fun

The Commonwealth Troops & ModTag Project
Darknight_Canuck’s Magnum Opus

This project is condensed into seven (7) archives:
DKC – CMBN Campaigns (broken into 4 sub-archives) [22 Campaigns]
DKC – CMBN Scenarios wModTags [175 Scenarios]
DKC – CW Uniforms
DKC – CW Vehicles
DKC – Portraits, Ranks & HQ
DKC – US & German Vehicles
DKC – US Formations & German Uniforms
There is A LOT of work here from other community mod-makers (see the included notes) and I will try to credit everyone for all their original work. If I miss someone, it is not intentional.
Includes mods from: Aris, Mord, Wims, Vein, EZ, MJK, NikMond, Jacquinot, BenPark, Damian, Quintus Sertorius, Tashtego, Umlaut, Egger & Saturnin.
This is no longer just a Commonwealth uniforms and vehicles mod (though that is the main focus). I decided that I would make the mod easily accessible by adding extensive ModTags to every scenario in CMBN that I could find (and which had at least semi-historical units), which makes the mod application seemless. This was the theory…though campaigns posed a more difficult problem, since I do not have access to the uncompiled campaigns (where I could simply add ModTags). For campaigns, I have layered the mods based upon the battle being fought and included notes on when to swap the included .BRZ files (thereby, not spoiling the unit composition for the player).
All CW uniform insignia and vehicle markings are based upon my extensive accumulated research, and therefore any mistakes would be my fault alone but it should be noted that there were sometimes various versions of insignia worn by units at different times/places, so there is room for some variation; also, this is a game, and sometimes graphical additions are made based upon best estimates.
Note: This mod will work perfectly fine with the standard interface, but I would suggest using Juju’s Interface mod and Bergman’s vehicle silhouettes (they are what I use) as there are 1 or 2 graphics from those mods that will make an appearance.
Feel free to include the units with any scenario/campaign releases or add ModTags to these scenarios to take advantage of them, just please remember to credit the community members noted above for their work.
Enjoy — Darknight Canuck [DKC]
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cmbn-other/the-commonwealth-troops-modtag-project/

With the 'Classic Shell Start Menu' (4.3.1) installed (and no other options installed for Classic Shell), I was able to install and activate CMFB 2.02 (4.0 Engine) to the 'C:\SIMS\BF\CMFB\Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg' directory. Since this computer has Avast installed, I temporarily disabled it during installation and activation. I activated the 4.0 Upgrade license key first (a mix up - I had intended to license with the Base Game license key first).  I exited from the 'success' dialog box and attempted to run the game again, but it wouldn't. I had to launch the Task Manager (Ctrl-Alt-Del > Task Manager) and in the Processes tab I had to end the 'CM Final Blitzkrieg (32 bit)' application (I think it was listed as a 'Background process' rather than an App). I was then able to launch the game again (using 'Run as administrator' - it didn't seem to want to run otherwise) and the license dialog box came up and I provided the Base Game license key. With a successful activation of that license key I exited from the Success dialog box (rather than clicking 'Play') and made sure that the CM Final Blitzkrieg executable wasn't running in the Task Manager. The next launch the game came up fine. After exiting CMFB I re-enabled the Avast software and the game continued to launch fine and didn't seem to require the 'Run as administrator' option.
This particular PC has a GeForce RTX 2070 Super with the 445.87 driver (nothing setup for CM within the 3D Settings for Nvidia), running Windows 10 Pro v. 1909 with the latest updates. The CMFB installer (a .rar compressed file) was extracted with 7zip. The computer uses an 'Administrator' account that is local (not an MS online account, though that shouldn't be an issue to my knowledge).
So with your setup being 'virgin', I'm not sure what to suggest if you've been able to successfully activate both the 4.0 Upgrade and Base Game license keys (for CMFB) and 'Run as administrator' doesn't seem to help. The 'Activate New Products' shortcut found in your CMFB directory can be used to activate the second license key, rather than running the game executable again (although that is what the 'Activate New Products' shortcut is actually doing). Make sure that 'CM Final Blitzkrieg (32 bit)' isn't running in the background as that will prevent the game from launching (in a visible manner).
It shouldn't be necessary, but if you want to add an exception within Windows Defender it can be done. Again this should only have an effect when Defender does a scan of the system.

'Enema At The Gates' has much to answer for. 

If you Google Earth Street View around rural Normandy you'll find few 'stick construction' buildings (that are little more than siding and wallboard). What you see a lot of is masonry buildings with thick walls incorporating rocks. I have a distant recollection that BFC had purposefully dialed-up the toughness of buildings for Normandy because of the region's building construction method.

@Erwin, I'll extend time as seems necessary as I playtest. "Winning" here is really about not losing too many guys to sniping and mortar stonks.
After 5 more hours, I got the ersatz morning fog smokescreen to work across the full US frontage. It's actually fired by the AI Germans (they have no other use for smoke rounds). Here's how it worked out:
1. As warned by @RockinHarry, no matter how large or irregular you paint an AI Support Target zone, the AI always converts it into a single small radius point target.
2. So to get broad coverage, you need multiple Smoke Support Targets. The AI fires on them promptly, one at a time, in no particular order, using both OBA and onboard guns. LOS is irrelevant.
3. Each Support Target needs its own arty unit, although sometimes 2 units will plaster 1 ST zone and leave the other unfired. Gentle breeze will cover gaps. 81mm mortars with Scarce ammo seem to work best. A Support Target mission keeps firing until tubes are dry, but they only have a few smoke rounds each, so it's over in 1-3 minutes. (Their HE will of course be available to the AI for conventional missions later).
4. For those interested, AI Support Target missions always assign a nominal "green line" spotter, even a sniper, and even if he can't see the zone. If no units are on the map (all reinforcements), the mission won't fire. 

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.
 

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.

4. 

I follow a gamers Youtube channel called Gameranx and they have 5.7 million subscribers. They put up a top 10 most historically accurate games list and it was pretty much the usual suspects, big games and so on. As I was watching it I was cursing to myself why these channels never do wargames in a serious fashion, but guess what? Wait for it ....
... and yeah, 5.7 million people might get exposed to a REAL game series 😃

We´ll see if it is really nope and a bad reason to give:
1st Test Run: BMP-2 is not given any orders. TacAI decides to use ATGM and takes out Bradley
2nd Test Run BMP-2 is given a Light Target Command (which is claimed to be not working). The BMP-2 engages the Bradley (No ERA) with the AC. In contrast to the screenshot situation the Bradley turned away from the BMP is in the utmost worst situation, still the Bradley is not penetrated by the 30mm and manages to turn and takes out the BMP-2. The BMP-2 wether was able to pen the flank nor the front of the Bradley (which is claimed to get shredded) It would be the better option to use the ATGM.
As I said penetration is possible to achieve and sometimes I even prefer the gunner not to use the ATGM for example when trying to "blind" with fire and because the gunner loves to immediately reload under fire but again its a "tough call" and at least the screenshot incident is far from the description "ingame issue". But I guess some ask questions while solely interested in approval of what they assume to be exclusively true, so I leave it to be as it is.

This is a great summary. As well as stationary pose, in action the Leader of a unit is often in the front, in-game. The first man in the entry stack is the leader. If there's an enemy inside waiting, the leader dies. Etc.
 

This is a great summary. As well as stationary pose, in action the Leader of a unit is often in the front, in-game. The first man in the entry stack is the leader. If there's an enemy inside waiting, the leader dies. Etc.
 

Gents and Danes (see? I read all the previous posts  ),
The basis of SPOTTING is that it is a time-based check. The seed for the initial spot-check and the interval for subsequent spot-checks is somewhat difficult to determine. In most cases, a 15 second interval will ensure at least ONE spot-check. Now, that spot-check is based on the many factors Steve et alia posted: experience; fatigue; LOS; target location; etc.
Let's say you have an audible contact on a tank. There's dense vegetation, some trees, and some smoke. As well, due to incoming fire, your men may be suppressed. To hope that one spot-check cycle will roll a good contact is...optimistic. Instead, skew the odds to favor your men: give them a PAUSE!
I would suggest replaying that turn (if it's still available) and keep the Sikhs at bay for 1 minute. Yeah, baby, a sitting Sikh kill stack. THEN give them a HUNT command with an ARMOR ARC, moving just one or two action spots, then PAUSE for 15 to 30 seconds. Yeah, baby, a skulking Sikh kill stack. Keep plotting that style of HUNT/PAUSE until you're on the rear of the enemy. Yeah, baby, a satisfied Sikh kill stack.
The key, again, is to allow your troops to accumulate more spot-checks. The only way to do that is to expend TIME.
How do I know this? Let's just say that many men have achieved GLOOOOORY to let me learn this. 
 
Ken

Gents and Danes (see? I read all the previous posts  ),
The basis of SPOTTING is that it is a time-based check. The seed for the initial spot-check and the interval for subsequent spot-checks is somewhat difficult to determine. In most cases, a 15 second interval will ensure at least ONE spot-check. Now, that spot-check is based on the many factors Steve et alia posted: experience; fatigue; LOS; target location; etc.
Let's say you have an audible contact on a tank. There's dense vegetation, some trees, and some smoke. As well, due to incoming fire, your men may be suppressed. To hope that one spot-check cycle will roll a good contact is...optimistic. Instead, skew the odds to favor your men: give them a PAUSE!
I would suggest replaying that turn (if it's still available) and keep the Sikhs at bay for 1 minute. Yeah, baby, a sitting Sikh kill stack. THEN give them a HUNT command with an ARMOR ARC, moving just one or two action spots, then PAUSE for 15 to 30 seconds. Yeah, baby, a skulking Sikh kill stack. Keep plotting that style of HUNT/PAUSE until you're on the rear of the enemy. Yeah, baby, a satisfied Sikh kill stack.
The key, again, is to allow your troops to accumulate more spot-checks. The only way to do that is to expend TIME.
How do I know this? Let's just say that many men have achieved GLOOOOORY to let me learn this. 
 
Ken

I went out drinking with a Sikh once. But it was me who ended up sick. And she was only half my size.

As I said:
If I had the team selected during the entire sequence, you wouldnt have been able to see the tank that is the centre of the discussion. Excactly because they dont see it!
I select the team in the end of the video to show that they still havent spotted the tank.

It is a PIAT team I sent out to engage the tank, so they could have done plenty - if they had only seen it.

M1 Abrams vs Osa Naval Patrol Vessel:
That ship is rough work but it works. I will upload the complete blender project folder and mdr to the dropbox.
You can basically turn every texture in CM invisible by adding a blank texture. For example the jeeps were designed with 3 randomized spare wheels by using -optiona -optionb -optionc in the editor wich means only ONE will get be displayed. However the third spare got a blank texture so there is a chance that the jeep simply has no spare. As real objects and flavour objects do not collide its possible to combine them to get obstacle characteristics, there are alot of options which just require some creativity. 

In the course of dozen playthroughs and experiments with Blender/CM2 Tools (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118928-combat-mission-modding-tools/) several assets were created which I want to share with the community:
Big Cargo Ship

 
BF109

 
Radar Station

 
Downed Blackhawk

 
Fire Truck

 
Ambulance

 
Barricade + optional Smoke/Burn Stash (Wreck, an invisible alternative is created by 37MM)

 
Barricade (three sizes)

 
Humvee V3 Woodland (Randomized Gear)

 
Humvee V3 Desert (Randomized Gear)

 
Humvee V2 Geardo Desert (Permanent Full Gear) 

 
AFRICAN UNCON (now also including conventional African Forces conversion by 37MM, original work by MikeyD) 

 
Falklands War Scorpion, Scimitar, and Argentinian LVTP-7 conversion

 
Makeshift VBIED

 
Humvee Wreck

 
Uncaged M2 Stryker

 
Marines to Army Special Forces or Navy SEALS conversion skins (including work of mjkerner, Combatinfman, Blimey)

 
BMP1/2 to BMD1/2 conversion (with corrected hatches)

 
Desert KAMAZ Skin

 
Marines frankensteined Armored MTVR Skin

 
New Syrian Special Forces and Woodland vehicles (based on the work of various modders)

 
Syrian Winter Mod (just terrain and partial "winterization" of vehicles, created for a Hasrabit Campaign playthrough)

 
PK Pickup to PK UAZ conversion

 
Russian Forces (original work Euroscape + various modders)

 
US Army & Marines Woodland Forces (original work Euroscape + various modders)

 
All these mods and many more can be found in this Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1tviryry89g6py7/AAAJpSvGH6u1iEx4WzwVLSnJa?dl=0
Credits to modders, 3D-Artists, and Battlefront.
For better quality footage and more information about 3D custom models check out the recent videos & descpriptions here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeK7fSyoEE8aorVLlVfNcAQ
The custom flavor objects have a "crate1" box placed into their center. Click it to interact with its placing. Zoom into the model if difficult. There are some FOV issues with bigger flavor objects can perhaps fixed by making the original "crate1" box bigger in Blender/CM2tools. Combine flavor objects with "visible/invisible" wreck objects to give them obstacle characteristics.
Good free library of 3D models you could use for importing. .max does not work with Blender. There are others.
http://www.cadnav.com/
Tutorials on Blender and CM2Tools can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkbTOSIrNV0&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXVAMaELSao&feature=youtu.be
The main intent was to explore the possibilities of this method. As I see this as accomplished I´ll step back now and hope it will motivate others to get into it. Prior getting into custom CM models I had absolute zero experience in 3D modelling, Blender or whatever but found my way into it in a short period of time and once you figure out the specifics it is not that difficult. Give it a try.  Anyone interested in custom CM models can reach out on Discord.
Happy wargaming.

I don't usually take the time to do something like this, but I just finished the battle "Chaos at Ferme Diedenhove" and I have to say it was the most enjoyable scenario that I have ever played in this series - and I like this series a lot. I don't know who the scenario creator was, but you captured more than just history in this scenario, you seemed to truly get the feeling of the "Battle of the Bulge" - the U.S. Army's largest battle (speaking as someone who as has spent a lot of time reading about the battle and touring the Ardennes battlefield). Naturally, all of the scenario creator's efforts would have not been possible without the developers, who stuck with this series to create an extraordinarily great tactical game of World War II. Outstanding job all around!

In July 2017 I did some experiments to determine the effects of closed vs. open vehicle hatches when horizontally sharing information. Tested in CMFI v2.0 Engine 4.  There is a topic on it buried somewhere in the forum.  Below were my observations at the time (I think this is still accurate). 
Infantry may horizontally share information with a buttoned tank when within 32 meters.
Two armor vehicles that are both unbuttoned may horizontally share info. when within 32 meters.
When the reporting armored vehicle is buttoned it must be within 8 meters of both armor and infantry to horizontally share (report) information.    
The reporting unit needs to be unbuttoned to horizontally share (report) information at 32 meters.
A buttoned unit will not share information unless it is within approximately 8 meters.
Information sharing is one-way if the units are approximately 9 to 32 meters apart and one is buttoned. The unbuttoned will share the buttoned will not.     
 
Before a mission check the chain of command.  If there are attached units that are not in the C2 chain handle this matter through liaisons and/or the grouping of appropriate HQ teams in the same TOC.   
For the most reliable horizontal information sharing place units adjacent to each other with all vehicles Opened.