General Jack Ripper

Picture from your very own testing.

So. About that 1x1cm square.

Yeah, when they have the time to precisely zero in the gun on an immobile target in the open with a great number of rounds, they reliably start hitting close to center mass on the target. It's to be expected. The rounds still have a decent spread across center of mass, as is also to be expected.

What are you asking for here, the implementation of some kind of RNG where even after the enemy gunner has accurately dialed in the range and found the target, the shells should just occasionally randomly curve to miss your Wunderpanthers anyway?

E: anyway this talk about "I put my tanks in the open to cheese hits by putting the hull armor at center of mass" is not really an issue with the game honestly - yes, a Panther is possibly more survivable in a situation where it sits still in the open because now it can take hits on the strong hull armor and not its glass jaw of a turret, but if you are sitting still and counting on your armor to save you from hits, you have committed major tactical mistakes to begin with

the best defense is not getting seen or hit in the first place (your armor is your last, not your first, line of defense), which is why real militaries fight their tanks in hull-down BP engagements using shoot and scoot tactics

I've said before if you base your tactics on the assumption that the enemy is not going to spot you, is going to be slow to respond, and is going to miss when he shoots at you its not the game's fault if your tactics fail. I'm reminded of those action movies where the hero comes charging in with a pistol in each hand shooting down all bad guys as the bullets wiz past. An alternate (and more likely) scene is the hero comes charging and the first bullet kills him. So maybe he should'a come up with a more viable plan.

Imagination is a powerful thing, but in reality the Target Light command is your friend.
Tactical Tip #1: DO NOT BE AFRAID OF RUNNING OUT OF AMMO, BE AFRAID OF SPENDING IT INEFFECTIVELY.

I use my match against BletchleyGeek as an example. I threw all my remaining forces at him in a very costly and ultimately fruitless counterattack, all with the intention of getting him to agree to a ceasefire under favorable terms for me. Result? Many casualties, but I squeaked by with a minor victory.
Now that probably wouldn't sit well to your average "fight to the last man/bullet!" player. But in this case it worked fine.
Sublime also did the same thing to me in our match. He convinced me I couldn't win by appearing to be strong everywhere, yet after I agreed to a ceasefire, it turned out he only had about half a platoon left, and I could have crushed him without too much trouble.

Tactical Tip #571: Never breach the obvious obstacle.

Fire smoke at building.
Use the smoke to position your supporting weapons unmolested.
After smoke clears suppress the heck out of the building.
Fix bayonets.

Given the current state of AI in games, if you are seeking to replicate how a human may play using the AI and specifically the AI in CM then you are on a road to frustration.
There has been some useful, practical and workable advice regarding how to get the 'best' out of the AI given the current limitations of the AI.
So there are options.
1/ If you think the AI is rubbish and lacks then play against humans (just don't play against me because my playing in CM makes the AI looking positively ninja General like in comparison...). 
2/ Work with the AI tools we have and seek to make the best we can - @MOS:96B2Phas some excellent suggestions how this might work.
3/ Pound sand and bewail how crap the AI is.
Choices, choices, choices...

Rather try Scourge of War: Waterloo
 
 

You had to bring that up again.
😉

>Playing in urban environment.
>Place Tube Team on tall building.
>Oh look, an HMG over there.
>POP! FWISH! BANG!

HMG? What HMG?

>Playing in urban environment.
>Place Tube Team on tall building.
>Oh look, an HMG over there.
>POP! FWISH! BANG!

HMG? What HMG?

Shooting at a house for a whole day is literally historically accurate. Why do you think the US had to roll in 155mm self propelled guns to blast buildings at point blank range occupied by the enemy? Or the Soviets who had to create giant armored beheamoths to assist them with leveling buildings in urban warfare, fighting against Germans with no fall back orders who would refuse to give up the city block? Because you cannot shoot an enemy off of a position, especially in urban warfare. This is as true today as it was in 1944. I have no idea where the idea came from that all you have to do is fire a handful of rounds at an enemy position and they will just run away, but it is just flat out not true. 
No artificial intelligence is self aware enough to be able to realistically displace itself constantly, seeking new and better cover with all of the considerations that come into play. So the argument that the previous behavior was correct but just not properly implimented is a non starter. BFC is too small a company to develop an AI that would literally change the face of artificial intelligence. A human opponent remains the only true way to get the most accurate experience, but then again that assumes the person you play against knows what the hell they are doing. Many do not. 
Green troops with low motivation should absolutely stay in place. No one, regardless of training, is dumb enough to decide "hey, there are thousands of rounds flying around right above my head. Better run out into the open in the middle of it all cause that is the safer move!" It is completely nonsensical. Further, poorly trained troops are much less likely to be well trained enough to realize that they need to shoot, move and communicate in a firefight, let alone have enough training to actually pull it off.
Realistically, the behavior makes no sense. From a technical standpoint, it is not possible. 

Try low motivation troops? I feel like motivation level would be the primary deciding factor that determines whether they stay and fight vs flee or surrender. Training level in my experience affects how well they perform in combat (spotting, shooting, etc).

I definitely see that argument. I would slightly modify it to say that it’s not necessarily the large maps and objectives that are the problem, it’s that the player isn’t given the proper assets to tackle the scenario. 
 
I think some scenario designers do this to increase the challenge of scenarios, especially in SF2 where the two sides are so inherently unequal. It still bothers me though, when I’m given a battalion objective and told to take it with a company team and some paltry fire support. 

But some animals are more equal than others:

Tactics scale. Think of it like math. First you learn to count, then add/subtract, then multiply, then divide, etc. Eventually you go from 2+2=4 to [insert long equation with numbers/letters/symbols here]. 
The military (well, competent ones at least) teach everything following a crawl, walk, run style. That is, you start small and simple and build up from there. The point of those manuals is not to show you how to overcome every possible tactical situation you are going to find, but to give you the basic template that can be applied to any situation and built upon. So you are correct that a lot of the examples in the manuals are not ones that you will find out in the real world, with a few exceptions. But, when you apply the right tactical principles to situations which the manuals attempt to teach, you will be better off than not. 
Don't think you are alone here. A common anecdote from many wars is that "only newbies actually follow the manuals." That is a famous line I've heard in reference to the Vietnam War more times than I'd like to recall. Doing something "by the book" and stating that in a bad context is the same idea. When people want to learn about military tactics, most turn to manuals covering the fireteam and squad level. This is the wrong thing to do, but this is what pop culture fuels (videogames such as Brothers in Arms, while great, depicts a ludicrously oversimplified depiction of combat at the squad level) people to do. In actual warfare, squad "tactics" are irrelevant. What is more important is squad SOPs, such as "spread out enough not to all get wasted by one shell but not too far that you get lost/unsupported," and "keep track of yourself, your gear, and your team members," and "be aware of your surroundings and your own status, such as ammo and injury." In CM, all of this is taken care of for you by the TacAI. 
Here is a better way to think of tactics in CM; you always want to apply tactics from the highest level you command. What that means is, if you are in command of 1 platoon, then use platoon level tactics. If you are in command of 2 platoons, use company level tactics. If you are in command of multiple companies, then use battalion tactics. Another way to think of this is, if you have multiple elements (lets say 2 companies) what authority would be required for you, the player, to give company commanders orders? The answer would be a battalion commander, and so battalion level tactics is what you want to use. 
Tactics generally scale up, not down. If you are in an environment where you have an entire battalion at your disposal, a single platoon likely will not be able to do much on its own. This is where that scaling comes into play. If a manual depicts two platoons attacking an objective, one as the base of fire and the other as the assault, but you are commanding multiple companies, then you just upscale it all. Instead of using a platoon to fix and a platoon to flank, you swap the platoon for a company. There is a lot of nuance to that, but that is the general principle. 
A final note on manuals: most of them that you will find from a quick google search are going to be somewhat dated. The principles remain, but the nuance changes a lot. Basic infantry tactics are the same now as they were in WWII. However, the weapons of war have changed a lot since then, creating a whole different set of nuance to deal with. 
Manuals are not a bible, and by that I mean a perfect reference. Many of them are more complicated than they need to be, confusing or unintentionally misleading. For example, the manual detailing how to call for artillery is long and dense, but the actual procedure is very simple. In the case of an artillery manual, it also makes general assumptions about its reader, like the ability to already know how to read a military map and derive coordinates from one. So, sometimes manuals are missing a piece of information because it assumes the reader already knows the institutional knowledge. If you don't know what information is missing, this can complicate reading manuals even more. This is one of the many reasons why basic training exists in the first place, to create a common standard of knowledge, and why further instruction is needed to learn a given specialty within the military. 
Hopefully that helps some. 

+1.  Leave no Pixeltroopen behind. 

That's all correct.  However, if one likes playing "realistically" it just seems like the "right thing to do" and what comrades would do for each other.

This thread reminded me of one morning in about 1967, in Irvine California.  I heard the sound of distant aircraft.  As the volume increased, it got loud enough---really loud--- to draw me outside to see what was what.  Several waves of Japanese Zeros were passing almost directly overhead. 
Surprise! 
My memory wants to say there were hundreds, but I bet it was a lot fewer than that.
I later learned they were T-6 Texans painted to look like Zeros.  They were eventually shipped to Hawaii for the movie Tora! Tora! Tora!

Re-posting this as I know he was a well known figure among the early Combat Mission titles.  I remember his scenarios well from those early days of CM.  RIP "Wild" Bill Wilder.
"It is with a sad heart that I need to report the passing of Bill Wilder. For those of you that know my history, Bill Wilder was one of the first gamers to join me when I founded Matrix Games. Our first project together was the Steel Panthers World At War game. I had just recently chatted with him and it was just like old times. I will greatly miss him.
Bill's obituary can be found here and you may leave a message to his family. Leaf Cremation - Here
Bill Wilder services will be held on September 6, 2020, at 3:00 pm EST at The Church at Green Acres Baptist Church, Smyrna, GA. The service will also be online at - Here" ~ David Heath

What about 'don't play the game based on pre-conceived concepts of superiority'?
First go at Gog and Magog in CMRT my King Tiger crews certainly didn't thank me for doing so.  Even on the second attempt the loss of optics was something to behold (pun intended).

read the briefing, it's your intel report take you time looking at map, especially from ground level, moving along a path you are considering for your advance Then read the briefing again

See title.
Anyone else got simple advice for new players?
Here's a short list of mine:
Do not get shot at. Shooting makes you easier to see. Cover arcs are not magic. Maybe allow your troops to wait a minute before flogging them onto their objectives. Don't call in that airstrike. No seriously, don't. It'll hit your own guys. It doesn't matter how thick your armor is. You don't assault a position by running straight into it. Use more ammo, you don't get bonus points for frugality. Limit your leaders exposure. Split your squads. Three guys in one action spot are not as vulnerable as six. Maybe we can make a community contributed list Murphy's Laws of Combat Mission.
At the very least, let's have a fun thread for once.

I'll down a whole glass. Cheers.

See title.
Anyone else got simple advice for new players?
Here's a short list of mine:
Do not get shot at. Shooting makes you easier to see. Cover arcs are not magic. Maybe allow your troops to wait a minute before flogging them onto their objectives. Don't call in that airstrike. No seriously, don't. It'll hit your own guys. It doesn't matter how thick your armor is. You don't assault a position by running straight into it. Use more ammo, you don't get bonus points for frugality. Limit your leaders exposure. Split your squads. Three guys in one action spot are not as vulnerable as six. Maybe we can make a community contributed list Murphy's Laws of Combat Mission.
At the very least, let's have a fun thread for once.