RockinHarry

No time for actual playing unfortunately though I investigated in the editor somewhat. I made some flat roof mod to the 8x8 modular building (taking roof1 from CMSF2 Demo) and adding some (concrete) textures fitting to the ones I made for a scenario of mine using modular buildings as pillbox substitute. Could possibly be of use for you. I also needed something like this for a planned Metz, or Brest fortress scenario. Another recent finding was you actually can make large gates through modular buildings by removing (CNTRL Click 3D Editor) the facades at the bottom at both sides and then putting a 16m bridge (rail or stone) on top/through it. With the bridge taking precedence you even can move tanks through it now, which the AI wouldn´t do before. More on that after the holidays. Good work on the Port Cros map btw.
8x8m Level 2 modular building with flat roof and new textures. Infantry and vehicles will use the bridge just like the building isn´t there. Yet the 2nd story above the passageway can be used normally like in any other building.

I got a bit creative on one the forts on your map to see how the mod probably works out. It replaces the Holland independant building and got some flat balcony added at level 3. This enables any attackers to hava a look and shoot to the interior of the forts.

No time for actual playing unfortunately though I investigated in the editor somewhat. I made some flat roof mod to the 8x8 modular building (taking roof1 from CMSF2 Demo) and adding some (concrete) textures fitting to the ones I made for a scenario of mine using modular buildings as pillbox substitute. Could possibly be of use for you. I also needed something like this for a planned Metz, or Brest fortress scenario. Another recent finding was you actually can make large gates through modular buildings by removing (CNTRL Click 3D Editor) the facades at the bottom at both sides and then putting a 16m bridge (rail or stone) on top/through it. With the bridge taking precedence you even can move tanks through it now, which the AI wouldn´t do before. More on that after the holidays. Good work on the Port Cros map btw.
8x8m Level 2 modular building with flat roof and new textures. Infantry and vehicles will use the bridge just like the building isn´t there. Yet the 2nd story above the passageway can be used normally like in any other building.

I got a bit creative on one the forts on your map to see how the mod probably works out. It replaces the Holland independant building and got some flat balcony added at level 3. This enables any attackers to hava a look and shoot to the interior of the forts.

Yeah, I'd go even a step further. What makes a map truly great is the story behind it. Most places on earth, especially places of some strategic value, have a lot of history. From signs of the native population that hastily left their homes, to previous failed offensives done by your precursors, I want my battlefields to have character. Even on emptier maps, it's cool to see pathways that people used to walk in the forests or even trench systems with shelters, storage and improvised out houses. It gives context to the challenges you face and makes them that much more relevant and interesting. For this reason, I am horrible at map design -- making maps that have too many things going on but are a nuisance to the player.
It's why those newfangled Fallout games are so popular... the places tell more compelling stories than the plot.

Building off Bulletpoint, I think the aspect of having to make a less then perfect decision amplifies that satisfaction even more. The terrain of a map plays a huge role in this, because it is the one thing you have no influence over. Real life commanders never had the perfect support by fire position or covered routes into the enemies rear, they had to deal with the hand their were dealt, both on offense and defense. The terrain was as much of an enemy sometimes as the man on the pointy end of your rifle. It's why the first step of almost any military planning process is to analyze the terrain. The great captains of military history are as renowned for their ability to read the ground just as much as their ability to lead men. "Terrain walks" are a staple of any military staff ride. All this to say that when you "bake in" terrain, you are taking away a big chunk of the decision making process. When you bake in these convenient support by fire positions, the decision is no longer "where on this map should I place my support by fire position?", but instead "should I go to Position A, B or C?". On a "natural" map, maybe there is no tenable support by fire position. The player must adapt. Maybe they utilize more of their artillery up front to compensate. Or choose to utilize a smoke screen. Or one of a hundred other ways a player can utilize the terrain and their understanding of tactics to achieve their mission. Offering up a player a series of built in options is no longer a tactical game, but a "choose your own adventure". It's why I'm deeply dissatisfied with games like the new X-Com or Unity of Command - the game offers up to you a series of baked in options, of which only a few actually work.
Another factor of tactical appeal is that the closer a map is to realistic terrain, the more likely you are to utilize realistic tactics. Half the fun of Combat Mission is pretending you're a WW2 commander and understanding why they made the decision they did.
Check out combatintman's excellent play through of one of my scenarios here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120527-no-plan-survives-first-contact-with-the-enemy-planning-tutorial/
He dives deep into an excellent analysis of the terrain I provided and builds a plan that I never even envisioned while designing the scenario. That's exciting! That's what real commanders had to do! Not solving a puzzle the designer offered up to you. Later in that thread I also talk about how I designed the map and more about my philosophy on scenario design.
As for why sometimes *too* realistic is a bad thing, I imagine a faithful re-creation of Ardennes style woods would result in little decision making beyond putting your soldiers in a line and waiting until they step on a mine or take a bullet to the face from 15m away. Realistic terrain yes, but not very fun. Also, a personal pet peeve of mine - zig zag roads. Yes, the "real thing" has a road branching straight off at a 67.76 degree angle from the main junction, but if I try to replicate that in Combat Mission with the draw tool, it will create a mess of zig zaggy road sections. If you now try to put a hedge or forest along that road, it will inevitably create a break in LOS on what is, in real life, an arrow straight road that just happens to branch off at a weird angle. The resulting CM recreation looks odd and often plays odd.

A huge part of the challenge of good map design is to achieve reasonable believability that what one sees could be found in nature, and balance for play. For CMFB I spent many hours coming up with what I thought looked like a very convincing part of the Ardennes, but was utterly miserable for proper play. 
Making a map that is focused solely on mimicking real terrain can be visually satisfying, but unsuitable for play without considerable effort to make it workable and fair. Much depends on whether one wants to make a full fledged scenario, with AI plans, etc, or a map that can be selected for QB. 
My own preference is for smaller battles and smaller maps. I enjoy trying to imbue a sense that when one is playing on my maps that they feel as if someone really lives (or vacated recently) the location. Flavour objects are something that I spend many hours on but that to me become part of an immersive experience. 
I think it’s important, when making a map, to not present the players with obvious things created for play balance. Yes, the map needs to be balanced for its intended use, but if done well, it should not look like anything but a slice of the planet served up on the computer screen, rather than having obvious spotting locations, places of cover, and movement paths. The designer must think of these things, but then make it look to the player like it was never a consideration, or it really does cry out “just a game.” If the player is thinking carefully, they should discover these things through observation and analysis, rather than it being clear from the moment they see the map.

Since this is where the eyeballs are are right now and the topic is relevant to some of the buildings in the CMSF2 demo, I thought I'd post here. I'm working on a map for CMRT that has a number of very large multi-section modular buildings and have a question/suggestion about how the Engine currently handles the remaining sections and their walls after a modular section collapses. As things stand, the Engine will maintain whatever original wall choices were made for the remaining connected sections. Meaning, if you had say, 13 levels of single doors, you will see a column of 13 levels of single doors. Here is an example from the CMSF2 demo (the top two levels had their walls knocked out by post-section collapse arty):

Obviously, this is very unnatural - both visually and tactically.
With large buildings like this, internal connecting section walls are sometimes removed by designers. This has a number of benefits, but in regards to section collapse, it creates a more realistic tactical situation in that remaining modular sections now have an open wall against incoming fire. Thus, for example a defending unit might have full protection from fire coming across intact outer walls, but much less protection from fire coming through sections with removed "internal" walls that were connected to the collapsed modular section. See the example below:

From the front, this building offers full protection, but much less from the rear. Thus, a realistic and juicy tactical situation is created in that the attacker could try to flank the strong point and take it from the rear. I've tested this on my map and it works a treat.
However, the downside is that the visual aspect is still not ideal. Sometimes it looks okay (like in the above pic, IMO). Others, very unnatural, depending on the building design and damage results. Like these magically floating buildings for example:

 
It seems to me that an obvious, low-investment solution would be for the Engine to simply swap out the wall sections on any remaining formerly-connected sections with the graphic and functionality of the current knocked-out wall section, whenever a connected modular section collapses. So, instead of a column of single doors or nothing, you get a column of knocked-out walls. That would both solve the visual issue and provide a realistic tactical situation (less protection and easier spotting, but still more than a removed wall). Here's a quickie graphic summing things up:

 
Anyhoo, would love to see this addressed in an update/patch. Until then, I think case B is best for tall/very large multi-part buildings and I'm favoring that mostly on my map.

Necroed but on topic! (A video worth watching!)
Footage mainly of the Hürtgenwald, filmed by the US signal corps. The commentary is in German, but the footage should be interesting on its own for you grognards! The production was an extra-material to a german documentary on the battle ("You enter Germany").
 

Just uploaded some new menu screens to CMMODs. Which gives me the perfect opportunity to open an FB thread for all my modding work.
Hope you like 'em!
 

 

 

 
Mord.

Some of what you want to implement - retreat, for example - goes outside being a map and enters the territory of a scenario. The distinction may seem irrelevant, but it does change what one can expect. A map in QB would allow a player to pick their forces,  but a scenario would not. Similarly, victory conditions beyond losses and terrain objectives become impossible in a pure map. 
Force size is purely dependent on what you would like to create. A small encounter, a recon in force, an assault against prepared defences will give very different force size recommendations. 
Those comments notwithstanding, the idea is intriguing and I’m interested in how this develops.

I´ve bit of an issue with (german) squads and assault order, that too oftenly the supposed support half of the squad (the one with the lMG) makes the first move. This is more of a problem with AI forces and making the assault order at instances less usefull (more hazardous) than it could be. I´d like having sort of a switch/toggle to pre assign a set move order for the individual teams during assault or maybe even every other move order.
A related issue is the position of the squad leader for split teams. With german squad example I´d oftenly wish to have the squad leader and the benefit of the added Binoc assigned to the lMg half of the squad, while having the rifle half hidden and in full cover. Beside adaption to WW2 employment doctrine it would give the lMG portion with added SL some more advantages at middle ranges (spotting and engagement chance at 300-800m), while generally keeping the footprint of the whole squad low (rifle and AT sections hidden and in full cover). For full exploitation a "split off lMG team" from the full squad option would be quite usefull.

I´ve bit of an issue with (german) squads and assault order, that too oftenly the supposed support half of the squad (the one with the lMG) makes the first move. This is more of a problem with AI forces and making the assault order at instances less usefull (more hazardous) than it could be. I´d like having sort of a switch/toggle to pre assign a set move order for the individual teams during assault or maybe even every other move order.
A related issue is the position of the squad leader for split teams. With german squad example I´d oftenly wish to have the squad leader and the benefit of the added Binoc assigned to the lMg half of the squad, while having the rifle half hidden and in full cover. Beside adaption to WW2 employment doctrine it would give the lMG portion with added SL some more advantages at middle ranges (spotting and engagement chance at 300-800m), while generally keeping the footprint of the whole squad low (rifle and AT sections hidden and in full cover). For full exploitation a "split off lMG team" from the full squad option would be quite usefull.

Inspired by this, I set up a near best-case scenario against the AI to play around with panzergrenadiers in detail. Using CMRT, a platoon of halftracks against a Soviet rifle platoon, with a couple of HMG's, on an Open map.

The halftracks, perhaps unsurprisingly, dominated. I did find that they were best used buttoned up, minimising gunner exposure time (I did lose two gunners, but one was due to wandering into SMG range, and the other from some sneaky enfilade fire, so I'd be happy claiming both as my fault). Keeping the halftrack's nose pointing towards the enemy made them pretty much invulnerable. The tighter cone of incoming fire was evident, alongside the immediate reaction times of the enemy, but it didn't make a huge amount of difference.

Mostly the engagement was from 300-500m away, and the three HMG and one sdkfz/17 - the 2cm variant. This has all-around armour protection for the gunner, and was extremely effective.

"Assault" orders from the back of the halftrack are interesting - they'll all jump out, and half of them will take up positions next to the vehicle, whilst the other half sprint forward. That's probably the best way to dismount in general.

Knowing that there were not AT weapons on the other side made bolder moves possible. Charging directly in spraying fire would still have been daft, but this is probably the best I've ever seen halftracks operate.
 

Here is a quick and dirty translation:
Note that most of it is phrased in a very fragmented, brief way. Sometimes there are just catchwords, incomplete sentences. 
[title page]--------------
Combat training/instruction for Panzergrenadiers
A set of combat exercises for the armored as well as unarmored squad with 2 light MGs, to be used by the instructor of recruits in combat training
By Helmut von Wehren […]
Including 28 colored sketches
[p.67]------------------
Exercise 6: The armored squad in the attack
Goal of the exercise: Squad (armored) in the attack
Regulations [a list of regulations/field manuals that are refered to in the subsequent text very often; I have left out the citations in the text below]: Mounted combat (H[eeres]D[ienst]v[orschrift] 299/4a, Ziff. 36-47), Dismounted combat (H.Dv. 130/2a, Ziff. 268-285), Combat instruction (H.Dv. 472, Ziff. 57-91) with motor vehicle
 [p.68]--------------
II. Principles of training
a) Mounted combat
1. As much as the enemy’s fire, the terrain and the task allow it, the squad is to stay/fight mounted on the vehicle. 2. The primary purpose of the board-MG (either mounted on the swivel or resting on the shoulder of [another] soldier) is to fire during short fire-stops at ground or air targets. But it’s also possible to fire while the halftrack is moving. (especially if an enemy already deemed defeated comes to life again [“Wiederauflebender Feind”, term used below in one of the tasks]) 3. The riflemen may take part in the fire fight during an assault or against targets of opportunity at short ranges. They shall also contribute to the effect of the automatic fire by throwing smoke-grenades. Running the enemy over [with the halftrack] can also be effective. 4. Proper usage of terrain, quick transition between fast movements and short fire-stops. Coordination with heavy weapons, artillery and fire support from the own unit. 5. Accurate, effective fire is only possible from a halted halftrack. Firing from a moving vehicle (short bursts of fire at short ranges) forces the enemy to seek cover and prevents him from using his own weapons (exploit moments of weakness!). A subsequent fire-stop for aimed/deliberate fire (“Abgabe von Zielfeuer”), raises the morale. 6. Fire position (“Randstellung” – vehicle is masked from the enemy’s view) – frequent change of position – covered advance. If enemy presence is suspected in terrain that is hard to oversee (high grass, short trees, grain fields), a small corridor (e.g. two hand’s widths right of that bush) can be designated and be sprayed/taken under preemptive fire [“abstreuen”]. Enemy MG and rifle fire needs to be passed through/overcome at high speed. Anti tank weapons or minefields may force the squad to dismount or to cover the halftrack in smoke to allow it to retreat into cover.  b) Dismounted combat
1. Clever behavior of the MG and riflemen as part of the squad, especially proper usage of terrain, selection of fire positions, camouflage, recon, assessment of ranges, handling of the sight, point of aim, coordinated maneuvering between the MG and riflemen and adjacent/neighbouring squads. 2. Each individual soldier in the squad acts according to the task at hand, as an individual according to the intention of the squadleader. [p.69]----------------------
3. Constant observation of the battlefield needs to be the basis for leading the squad, directing fire, usage of munitions and resupply. Achieve fire superiority. Effective employment of fire is more important than cover. 4. Commitment of light MGs and riflemen. The latter can be assigned a limited amount of ammunition [“Munitionsaufwand”] if their effect can be predicted. [? I’m not quite sure about this one. Perhaps it is referring to a fire order, e.g. that the riflemen are supposed to fire X rounds each; one would need to look that up in H.Dv.130] 5. Transition from dismounted to mounted combat in coordination with dismounted parts of the squad. Combat training with the halftrack. 6. Always take the easiest and safest path -  the skill level of the driver will increase over time -  when the squad is fighting mounted on the vehicle or dismounted in coordination with the vehicle. 7. Combined efforts of the crew and the vehicle to overcome obstacles. III. Enemy – To set up the enemy, you need:
1. [This just tells the reader that everything should be prepared according to the tasks outlined below…] 2. Take note that it might be hard to hear the blanks fired by the [mock]enemy when the halftrack is moving. Therefore, an umpire may be used to signal the effect of enemy fire by waving a flag.  IV. Situation/Briefing
An enemy in prepared positions is defending along a general line (“allgemeiner Linie”) (point it out in the terrain). The company – its flanks are secure (“beiderseits angelehnt”) - attacks this enemy mounted, breaks through and takes the high ground (show them). Width of the company [misleading, the following information probably tells the participating squad its position within the company/platoon]: 1st platoon right, 1st squad in the center of the platoon  V. Special instructions, given by the instructor
The halftrack is in its starting position. The other halftracks are represented by sidecar-motorcycles or trucks. A sidecar-motorcycle equipped with a flag represents the platoon leader’s halftrack. The squad needs to orientate on it. The training starts with the blow of a whistle.  VI. Sequence of the exercise
The instructor needs to rehearse the tasks/situations with the recruit-private who will be leading the squad so that he will not make the wrong decisions whereby the objective of the training would be compromised. [so the main purpose here is to drill the members of the squad then, not decision making by the squad leader…] The training starts with the blow of the whistle. The squad leader gives the order “March!”. The tank rolls up.  [p.70]------------------
[…]
1st task
“Over there, at 1000m distance, you see smoke and small clouds of dust raise. You can hear projectiles/shells whistling by, hitting the tank.” Execution: Halftrack keeps going, makes a fire-stop, after calling out the target the squad leader orders the gunner to open fire, or, to fasten things up, the squad leader may fire himself [so this would leave out the complicated calling out of the target], followed by a wide leap/advance (200m), keep heads down. The squad leader and the gunner are observing the front. The grenadiers who are to be specially assigned to this task observe the flanks and the rear. The instructor checks whether the squad keeps up good observation of the battlefield. Observation must never be compromised even when in full cover. The halftrack makes fast leaps/advances, a short fire-stop and advances in bounds and mutual covering fire with the neighboring halftrack  2nd task
The first enemy positions taken, all of a sudden anti-tank projectiles are coming in. You can identify the AT gun further back, in the enemy’s rear area (“in der Tiefenzone”). Distance 700m. The company commander gives a signal, thrusting his arm upwards several times and points at a slight depression in the ground to your front. Execution: The squad leader gives the driver two bashes on the back and gives him the order “Quicker, forwards, into that hollow ahead of us” The instructor checks the driver’s shifting of the gears which ensures fast acceleration of the vehicle.  3rd task
Now in a covered position in the hollow, the company commander gives the signal to dismount and orders an assault. Execution: The squad leader orders the squad to dismount. “We will assault the anti-tank gun” The instructor checks whether the squad dismounts quickly, takes weapons and ammo along, and forms up for the attack immediately. Mingling around the halftrack must be avoided. The co-driver immediately takes over the board-MG, visual contact to the “Kfz.-Staffelführer” [? motor car squadron leader], close the doors! He [the Staffelführer, the instructor?] explains that the platoon-leader-halftracks [note: in the next task, we get the information that these have larger caliber guns] will approach the high ground carefully to suppress the anti-tank gun and provide covering fire for the squad.  4th task
The attack is progressing well, the anti-tank guns of the platoon-leader’s halftracks [!] are engaged in a fierce fire fight with the enemy anti-tank gun. The attack against the anti-tank gun is successful, it is silenced/suppressed/knocked out [“niedergekämpft”]. A few rifle bullets are incoming. The company commander and the platoon leader give out the signal “halftrack, come here/approach”. Execution: The squad stays prone in its cover. Only the squad leader waves the halftrack nearer and gives the order to mount. The mounted squad will keep attacking. [p.72]---------------------
The instructor checks whether the halftrack approaches correctly. The co-driver opens the door (unless blocked by canisters and ammunition). The soldiers must never run backwards to mount the halftrack, instead, the halftrack drives forwards at a slow speed and the soldiers are to catch up to it and mount while it keeps going. The co-driver stays on the board-MG until the crew has fully remounted and is ready for action. Only then will he get back to his seat, and MG-gunner 1 take over the board-MG. Immediate 360° observation.  5th task
The mounted attack has reached more [enemy] positions, drives over/passes through trenches and obstacles. The enemy comes to life again behind the halftrack Execution: The squad leader orders “Fire at will!” and points in the direction. Everyone fires to his side of the vehicle/from his current position. The instructor checks the distribution of fire, the grenadiers are supposed to reload/chamber rounds in the cover [that the halftrack provides], pop up out of cover very fast and fire immediately and then get back down into cover quickly, etc. Enemy positions at close range are to be destroyed with grenades. Be aware of enemy grenades, block them with your hands [!]. If they fall into the halftrack, you will have troubles finding them in time. Casualties. Special attention/observation to the rear of the vehicle. By signals and squeezing the driver’s shoulder, the squad leader informs the driver about the driving direction: Squeezing the left shoulder – drive left; the right – drive right; Push on the head – stop; the neck – slow down. Push/tap on the back – speed up.
 6th task
The attack is stopped by a deep anti-tank ditch. The halftracks stop, you see how the company commander and your platoon leader are dismounting and giving out the signal “March!”. The second platoon is advancing dismounted over there. Execution: The squad leader orders “Jump off! [note: I’m not really sure whether the instruction differentiates “jump off” and “dismount”] We continue the attack! Halftrack get into cover, Co-driver establish contact to the Kfz. Staffelführer [? as above…], side-car (platoon-leader) [! makes no sense to me; remember that the platoon leader is represented by a side-car-motorcycle], Squad, march!” [Instructor-check: Dismounting procedure – same as above]  
7th task
The dismounted attack is progressing well. You see how the halftracks are catching up, the enemy anti-tank gun is no longer firing. By means of digging off and the usage of “Knüppelrollen” [obviously something to fill up the ditch…], the halftracks were able to cross the anti-tank ditch. The company commander is remounting, the platoon leader is waving his halftrack nearer. Execution: The squad stays prone in its cover, the squad leader signals the halftrack to approach and orders “Mount!”, the squad will continue the attack mounted. [Instructor-check: Re-mounting procedure – as above]  8th task
The mounted attack is progressing well. Over there you see your neighboring halftrack rocking over difficult, undulating terrain Execution: The squad leader orders “Halftrack, stop! Covering fire for halftrack on our right, fire at enemy MG over there in the bush!” (time leap) [!]  9th task
The mounted attack is progressing well. Then you encounter another anti-tank ditch. The company has dismounted and overcome the ditch. The Kfz. Staffelführer [? as above] is busy digging off the ditch to bring the halftracks across. “Your squad is close to another enemy position. Heavy enemy rifle fire. You see the halftracks advance, spread-out in line (“in breiter Front”). The co-drivers are firing their board-MGs over your heads. Now the halftracks are passing through your squad. The enemy’s fire fades. Your platoon leader gives you the signal “March!”. Execution: The squad leader orders: “Up – March! March! Huzzah!”. The halftracks and the dismounted squads assault. Mop/roll up the enemy position. The instructor checks whether the assault is quick, and the squad en bloc makes a determined sprint, MG readied at the hip, throwing of grenades, loud cheers. Break through the position, halftracks join in.  10th task
The enemy is defeated, all resistance has faded. Over there, the platoon commander is waving the halftracks nearer. Execution: [re-mounting procedure, as above…] [here, the training ends, short debriefing by the instructor] 
[p.74]---------
Besides the above-mentioned tasks, the following situations may be trained:
 Situation 1: Frontal fire from enemy MG position, distance 300m. / Execution: Suprress/knock out the MG from the stationary halftrack (“fire-stop”). / Check: Has the gunner identified the target and is his aim correct? Situation 2: Halftrack takes fire from the rear by a position of enemy riflemen. / Execution: The rear-MG opens fire immdeitately. / Check: Does the rear-gunner open fire immediately, on his own initiative, without order? Do the riflemen open fire if the MG jams? Is the jam fixed in the cover of the halftrack? Situation 3: Halftrack takes fire from an enemy MG position at 150m. / Execution: Race towards the enemy position, roll it over / Check: Has the gunner identified the target? Does the driver race to the target? Is the enemy position knocked out in close combat? Situation 4: While crossing a trench/ditch, the halftrack takes SMG and rifle fire from both flanks. / Execution: Fight the two enemy position with all weapons available. / Check: Does the crew on the right side of the vehicle target the enemy position on the right flank, the crew on the left the position on the left flank? Are the grenades on target? Is each soldier who is about to throw a grenade covered by a rifleman? It’s also important to check whether the co-driver, manning the board-MG, is adequately covering the jump-off/in and dis/re-mount manouvres of the squad.
 

I actually wanted making some more tests with foxholes and trenches, combined with the ditch locked AS, but just remembered why I had stopped playing the game since early 2017. The "AI proactively avoid incoming HE fire" feature introduced with V4. The worst **** introduced ever. So after the patch then.
Btw.. has the odd terrain shading with reversed lighting/shadowing in dawn and dusk hours mentioned already? More likely a needed bug fix than improvement suggestion I think.
With regard to trenches I came to the conclusion that the current ones are rather sort of a generic combat position, both combining more or less covered movements (from AS to AS) and fighting. Beeing that wide (and vulnerable) as they currently are is obviously a requirement for proper path finding and/or the pixeltroopers avoiding getting into each others way. Something like GT:OS/Mius would be preferable for sure, but what is the terrain mesh scale and how is FOW modeled?

I actually wanted making some more tests with foxholes and trenches, combined with the ditch locked AS, but just remembered why I had stopped playing the game since early 2017. The "AI proactively avoid incoming HE fire" feature introduced with V4. The worst **** introduced ever. So after the patch then.
Btw.. has the odd terrain shading with reversed lighting/shadowing in dawn and dusk hours mentioned already? More likely a needed bug fix than improvement suggestion I think.
With regard to trenches I came to the conclusion that the current ones are rather sort of a generic combat position, both combining more or less covered movements (from AS to AS) and fighting. Beeing that wide (and vulnerable) as they currently are is obviously a requirement for proper path finding and/or the pixeltroopers avoiding getting into each others way. Something like GT:OS/Mius would be preferable for sure, but what is the terrain mesh scale and how is FOW modeled?

Thought I´d throw that in here. It´s from a german Panzergrenadier training manual as of January 1944. The given chapter (6) deals with Panzergrenadier mounted attack situations, figured worth to be trained in the training schools. Unfortunately I lack time to make the translations, but maybe someone else can extract the more interesting and revealing info?

What IanL said above. However... trenches can be modded to some extent and with bits of terrain alteration (ditch locking) these at least can be somewhat improved to look more like the real thing. The sandbags (on the trench edges) can be masked away and if put in -1m ditches it then looks something like that:

FOW issue remains, but personally I either don´t care (the AI does neither) or one can add a number of fake positions so at least a human player will have to guess whether that ditch is just a ditch or additionally holds a trench + anybody inside.

my best guess would be the TacAI can´t handle the particular situation and  figure out pathing out off that newly created gap in the fence, right after disembarkment. Was that a forced disembarkment (vehicle damaged & passengers highly suppressed)?

I meant shellholes & cover t errain generally at the leapfroggin range (if distance between 2 zones is larger than mentioned 60-80m) or within the destination zones. It´s the zones the Pixeltroopers stop anyway, either for beeing in wait mode to let the leapfroggers catch up and overtake, or final zone as said. Other factors left aside (getting pinned from fire ect.) Doesn´t work always off course, but I found this gives me a much more reliable and "safer" AI movement scheme. So when in doubt, I do not necessarily adapt AI order types and zones, I also give adapting the map some heavy consideration.
As you mention the AI move orders otherwise also look pretty random to me, but to some extend I could overcome parts of that by using specially shaped zones at intervals, as described on page one of the thread (intermediate T-Zone scheme).
 

I meant shellholes & cover t errain generally at the leapfroggin range (if distance between 2 zones is larger than mentioned 60-80m) or within the destination zones. It´s the zones the Pixeltroopers stop anyway, either for beeing in wait mode to let the leapfroggers catch up and overtake, or final zone as said. Other factors left aside (getting pinned from fire ect.) Doesn´t work always off course, but I found this gives me a much more reliable and "safer" AI movement scheme. So when in doubt, I do not necessarily adapt AI order types and zones, I also give adapting the map some heavy consideration.
As you mention the AI move orders otherwise also look pretty random to me, but to some extend I could overcome parts of that by using specially shaped zones at intervals, as described on page one of the thread (intermediate T-Zone scheme).
 

Thanks @George MC and @RockinHarry for the informative answers.
The HQ that who was running ahead was an Inf. Pltn. HQ of an American Inf. Coy. The  whole Pltn. shared the same AI group. I solved the problem by first manually splitting the squads, secondly increasing the time to execute the order and finally painting a more triangular shaped order.
When painting orders, do you paint 'broad' strokes and let the AI decide on the best placement or paint small exact action spots?
And will the AI ever split and reform squads itself?
 
 

what GeorgeMC said above.
It´s been some time since I meddled with AI plans, but generally I do not really see a rule of thumb for when using terrain or unit triggered orders. IIRC I mainly used terrain triggers to deal with enemy unit movements/actions (reaction to) and kept unit order triggers mainly for coordination within larger formations that are to move sooner or later. IE. to make sure that support units (triggered) don´t move forward (to new supporting positions), before the to be supported units ALL have reached a particular position and start (trigger) their next movements. Really depends on particular situation and intent.
Can´t remember that I noticed Plt HQ units (infantry or tank btw.?) leading in front of the actual Plt during advance in V4. Can you elaborate? Is the Plt. HQ and Plt units in their own/seperate AI orders group, or part of a larger Coy AI group?
With regard to AI recon techniques I usually set these up the same as human players normally do. Have small units (Bn, Coy and certain Plt.HQ or FO) with binoculars (having more than 1 Binoc prefered) overwatch from strategic locations (hills, high buildings with very good field of view) and keep them in the communications net. Counts for a an attacking and defending AI alike. Make sure they don´t shoot & fight unless in an emergency, so they only watch and report. For this to work well, I usually put them in their own orders group und move them only, when necessary. That could either be when threatened by the enemy coming too close (terrain trigger), or when during an attack a more forward overwatch position is secured by friendlies (unit order trigger). For more active recon techniques there´s use for the new area fire AI order (hoping a nearby yet non discovered enemy starts shooting) and everything that you would do as human player. If terrain allows, have small moving recon detachments (2-4 men) overwatched by both Binoc equipped and support units (MG, Mortars, FO), so they can help if the recon guys are engaged by newly discovered enemies. How to set all this up in an AI plan is a matter of repeated testing and very time consuming. Though keeping it simple isn´t much of an option here anymore and it all works best if you´re not having too large a force and have enough orders groups left, to deal with more detailed coordination stuff.

what GeorgeMC said above.
It´s been some time since I meddled with AI plans, but generally I do not really see a rule of thumb for when using terrain or unit triggered orders. IIRC I mainly used terrain triggers to deal with enemy unit movements/actions (reaction to) and kept unit order triggers mainly for coordination within larger formations that are to move sooner or later. IE. to make sure that support units (triggered) don´t move forward (to new supporting positions), before the to be supported units ALL have reached a particular position and start (trigger) their next movements. Really depends on particular situation and intent.
Can´t remember that I noticed Plt HQ units (infantry or tank btw.?) leading in front of the actual Plt during advance in V4. Can you elaborate? Is the Plt. HQ and Plt units in their own/seperate AI orders group, or part of a larger Coy AI group?
With regard to AI recon techniques I usually set these up the same as human players normally do. Have small units (Bn, Coy and certain Plt.HQ or FO) with binoculars (having more than 1 Binoc prefered) overwatch from strategic locations (hills, high buildings with very good field of view) and keep them in the communications net. Counts for a an attacking and defending AI alike. Make sure they don´t shoot & fight unless in an emergency, so they only watch and report. For this to work well, I usually put them in their own orders group und move them only, when necessary. That could either be when threatened by the enemy coming too close (terrain trigger), or when during an attack a more forward overwatch position is secured by friendlies (unit order trigger). For more active recon techniques there´s use for the new area fire AI order (hoping a nearby yet non discovered enemy starts shooting) and everything that you would do as human player. If terrain allows, have small moving recon detachments (2-4 men) overwatched by both Binoc equipped and support units (MG, Mortars, FO), so they can help if the recon guys are engaged by newly discovered enemies. How to set all this up in an AI plan is a matter of repeated testing and very time consuming. Though keeping it simple isn´t much of an option here anymore and it all works best if you´re not having too large a force and have enough orders groups left, to deal with more detailed coordination stuff.

Simple answer is terrain triggers are reliable in that the enemy triggers a response whilst unit order triggers are more prone to upset due to enemy action i.e. unit A gets KOd and therefore does not move. Depending on how you set-up the trigger your responding unit may or may not ever move subsequently.
In RL you can mix and match but if you defo want an event to occur and it is within combat range then terrain triggers are generally a safer bet. That being said it does depend on the size of the AI unit e.g. a AI group consisting of five tanks is more robust than an AI unit consisting of one tank. In that case order triggers, even within enemy contact still have a good chance of working, even of the AI unit takes casualties (although then if they take too many casualties then the unit may lose morale and stall). There is a good section in the manual which discusses the relative pros and cons.
It will all eventually come down to play testing as well which approach is appropriate for any given situation. Oh whatever you do, for your AI plan - keep it simple, like really simple. test it in scenario author mode then slowly start to develop its complexity.

This is not a pixeltruppen planning problem. It is, instead, the implementation of the pixeltruppen peeing procedure.
See, after a long ride in a halftrack, with bullets pinging off the armor, and poor Hans getting nailed while manning the machinegun, every pixeltruppen was imbued with the need to urgently urinate. So, they hopped out and peed. Of course, with your gridded terrain mod, you've blocked the "yellow snow" terrain change. (This is somewhat related to the "browning of the shorts" mod when your troops' morale plummets.)
As soon as their bladders are emptied, they'll charge forth. Give 'em a moment.