Erwin

That's the reason why I don't play meeting engagements and prefer clear attack/defend roles. I don't think that meeting engagements make plausible CM scenarios, as they're something for the operational, not the tactical level. 
Yes, there are certainly more and less interesting slices of real terrain when it comes to gameplay. Which brings me back to my question what makes a good map. Like Bulletpoint said, it's about creating meaningfull decisions for the player. Obviously,  the compartialisation (does this word even exist?) of a map, i.e. its break-up into several smaller "theaters" or compartments, plays a major role here as it forces the player to make decisions: Which one of the small theaters will he choose for his advance, how many troops to assign to each of the smaller theaters, Will it be easy to shift troops/reinforcements from one theater to the other once the battle has started, etc.
The obvious way to achieve compartialissation is to separate theaters by using line-of-sight-blocking terrain features.  On the other hand, one could argue that the limits on effective weapon ranges can also create (fluid) theaters. If you position this unit over here, it will not be effective over there. This kind of compartialisation by unit or weapon systems rather than by map is something that players can rarely experience in CM because the maps/compartments are not large enough. It turns the "approach" into a distinct phase of the battle, dominated by MGs, artillery and other long range fires.
Also, compartialisation by terrain does automatically tell us anything about the size of the individual compartments. A single compartment can be 100x200m or 400x800m. And the size of compartments will play a major role on how the engagements play out, especially on their intensity and lethality (also: chance to withdraw) and the usefullness of different weapon systems. Unless we’re speaking about special regions like mountains, cities or extended woods or marshes, the “compartments” of your standard european countryside landscape are of course very variable, but generally speaking relatively large. That's why I've started this map-experiment. To create a map with (neccessarily fewer, as I want to finish the map at some point) but larger compartments, simply because I think that such maps are blatantly underrepresented in CM. I think it might even open up some new decisions for players, or at least put more emphasis on them: At which (of the many) targets to fire? How many units should fire? At what range should they open fire? 
And on a more general note, I also think that larger compartments are a bit easier on the players' minds. Small compartments put a lot of stress on the players (and the pixeltruppen, of course). It's the typical Combat Mission anxiety, claustrophobia or paranoia: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133561-bit-of-a-ramble-on-how-cm-works-on-the-mind/ . At short ranges, any wrong step (or bad luck at spotting) is instantly lethal. If longer ranges are involved, the game is a bit less about ambushing. In more generously scaled compartments in the more typical, gently rolling countryside, the number of keyhole positions that can overwatch at short ranges should is a bit smaller. At least that's my conviction after driving through the Luxemburg countryside for a few hours on google maps streetview, measuring distances.  Obviously for infantry it's easier to create ambush situations - simply because it can hide much better even in otherwise relatively open terrain than vehicles, But here, concealment (low to the ground, not blocking LOS at other parts of the map) is sufficient. 
 

+1 Thank you...

Exactly. 
The only issue is that the 9 man US squads can only be split into 2 teams.  So, if 2 guys are in one team, that leaves an unwieldy 7-man team.  I suppose if this reflects RL, that's ok.  But, it doesn't make much sense. 
In CMBS the 7 man Ukr squads can be split into 3 teams (2+2+3) and that makes them tactically much more useful than the US - which again is counterintuitive.

This would explain what we're observing.  However, this makes things "complex" as one often wants TARGET LIGHT vs buildings that are being assaulted by friendly infantry.  The 25mm will kill em.
 
 

Beyond the short timescale of CM scenarios.   

Hopefully CMSF2 will feature the larger maps that are needed to properly feature modern accurate long range weapons systems.  In WW2 games it's not so bad to have 500m-1000m ranges.  For modern games one needs 2Km+ to do what the weapons are designed to do.  Otherwise there is little point in having RL weapons systems designed to kill at 3Km-4Km ranges.
 

Bloody brilliant, mate!! 

As someone pointed out if it takes hundreds of hours to make a good scenario and even more man-hours for a good campaign, it's really only the professionals and fanatics (bless em all) amongst us who have the time and motivation to get to be really good with the editor.  Some great designers do have that time and motivation.  But, for the average player, no...
Personally, am happy to pay for professionally developed product.  I have spent hundreds of man-hours play-testing designs for other folks.  But, have no desire to design or mod.  It's wonderful that some folks love modding and designing.  I suspect those folks have little time for playing.  One can't expect others to share enthusiasm for all aspects of the hobby.

I enjoyed playing it and won every mission in the campaign.  But be aware that there are different branching missions if one loses missions - and those extra missions are a lot of fun as well.  I recommend that you try and lose missions and get to the "Final Stand" mission (which if you lose ends the campaign). 
Fighting back to victory from that Final Stand mission is like playing a new campaign. 
 

I spend more time trying to avoid signing up to receive ads from some of the sites you link to than viewing the site. 

Hope I am back up and running for your new scenario or campaign or whatever you are doing...

Just makes me ache for a North Africa mod or game.   Coupled with the CMSF2 desert terrain, most everything one needs already exists.

Just makes me ache for a North Africa mod or game.   Coupled with the CMSF2 desert terrain, most everything one needs already exists.

Beyond the short timescale of CM scenarios.   

Replace "Tiger" with most modern weapons systems and one sees much the same doctrine still in place.  

A great example of how useful a new "Shoot & Scoot" command would be for AT (and sniper) teams.  ie:  Hide in ambush until you shoot, then run and hide.

Below is my current IED drill: 
1. Click on IED combat order Target to activate IED1.
2. Click on ground to Target first OpFor to pass or click on specific OpFor unit2.
3. Check that triggerman is in range3.
Notes: 1)Radio triggerman needs LOS to IED to activate during game but not during setup. 2)For small & medium IEDs OpFor must enter the A/S to detonate for large & huge OpFor must enter adjacent A/S. 3)Triggermen needs to spot OpFor by IED to detonate.   
And some general notes on IEDs:
There are four sizes of IED: small, medium, large & huge. There are three types of IED: Wire 100m, 10% failure / Radio 300m, requires LOS to activate, 20% failure / Cell phone 600m, 10% failure. IED teams consist of the bomb and the triggerman.  To work the IED must be activated and the triggerman in range (if radio LOS also) and not panicked with an undamaged trigger device.  If this criteria is met when the triggerman observes OpFor enter the Action Spot (adjacent AS for huge or large device) the device will detonate.  (The triggerman will not detonate the IED unless he can spot OpFor next to it.)  An IED can be activated and detonated by any triggerman.  Example: A Wire triggerman can activate and/or detonate a cell or radio IED.  Any IED triggerman needs to be within 300 meters and LOS to activate a radio IED during the game and during setup.  Any IED triggerman needs to be within 100 meters to activate a wire IED during the game and during setup.  Any IED triggerman needs to be within 600 meters to activate a radio IED during the game and during setup.   
Have a BLAST!! 

Would rather have a CM_Afrika Korps than Fulda Gap...  But, regardless of what you wish for, remember that it was only a few years ago that some of us were asking for CMSF2 and the "common wisdom" was "no way".   
So, have hope and keep plugging away...

There are certainly some weird pathing issues.  However, many issues can be mitigated by using minimum/very short length waypoints when in restricted terrain.  That seems to help the pathing AI routine.

Have long said that the current version of the game is pretty dam good as is.  Focus should turn to making the UI more intuitive and easier to use so that more complex orders can be given with less mouse clicks.   But, may have to wait for CM3.   Another reason we should start chanting for that.

Would rather have a CM_Afrika Korps than Fulda Gap...  But, regardless of what you wish for, remember that it was only a few years ago that some of us were asking for CMSF2 and the "common wisdom" was "no way".   
So, have hope and keep plugging away...

Not trying to be mean or insulting, but even your moniker "Thief2125" gives one pause. 
You could just as well call yourself "Download my virus on your machine so I can steal your codes".

Would rather have a CM_Afrika Korps than Fulda Gap...  But, regardless of what you wish for, remember that it was only a few years ago that some of us were asking for CMSF2 and the "common wisdom" was "no way".   
So, have hope and keep plugging away...

Would rather have a CM_Afrika Korps than Fulda Gap...  But, regardless of what you wish for, remember that it was only a few years ago that some of us were asking for CMSF2 and the "common wisdom" was "no way".   
So, have hope and keep plugging away...

http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/
by WACLAW.
The only problem is that currently the links say: "too many requests".