ME's are the best-balanced of the game type choices. The advantages given to the attacker in the other types of game are IMO too great (though what I really mean is that the bonus should depend on how hard the terrain is to attack, which would be hard to program). The trouble with MEs is that there isn't much incentive to get adventurous. The MEs I have fought fit one of two patterns:
1) Both sides sneak forward cautiously, and a game of cat and mouse develops, where unless one side gets lucky and destroys all the other side's armour, a draw results
2) One player gets adventurous, which, after 10 turns means he has either stolen a big march on the opponent or had a nasty accident as his opponent had that area well covered and decimated his troops as they advanced. This is too haphazard an approach for most. I do it a lot cos it's more fun and I don't mind getting myself kippered from time to time.
I hate to criticise a truly superb game without being constructive, so how about this:
For ME's, have more flags, all over the map. Have about 10 x 100 pointers in the middle third of the battlefield, and 6 x 300 pointers, 3 in each players home third. This will reward aggressive play (for aggressive read exciting), and make sure that it doesn't turn into a creep-fest aroung a couple of flags in the centre of the map.
It may be that the value of each flag should be dropped so that losses still have the same effect on the victory points, but I'm not sure about this, as I think the high VP cost of losing your troops is one of the reasons people get so cautious. At this point, the simulation guys will point out that losing your men IS one of the worst things you can do in a real battle, so I'm not closed on this point. I don't want CM to become 'not a sim' either.
What does everyone think of that lot?